|
"For you know that it was not with perishable things such
as silver or gold that you were redeemed...but with the precious
blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." So wrote
the Apostle Peter to the early Christians (1 Peter 1:18-19). He,
as all the other Apostles, believed that we are redeemed,
cleansed, forgiven, in the blood of Jesus Christ. Yet, there are
many today who would replace the blood of Christ with the water
of a baptistery. They teach that we are regenerated, made alive,
cleansed, by water baptism. Some insist that it must be baptism
by immersion; others say that sprinkling accomplishes the same
thing. In either case, the work of Jesus Christ on the cross
cannot be said to be finished and efficacious until man does
something--in this case, adds his work of baptism to the work of
God in Christ. Baptism is said to be the means of
salvation, the method by which Christ's work at Calvary is taken
from the merely theoretical to the actual.
It is not our intention to engage in a lengthy discussion of
the topic of baptismal regeneration in this article. Such would
require far more space than we have available at this time!
Instead, we wish to point out a basic, foundational error of the
position taken by such groups as the Church of Christ and the
Mormon Church--both have some doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Then, we will briefly respond to a couple of the more often used
proof-texts provided by proponents of baptismal regeneration. We
realize that there is a whole area of discussion that we are
leaving to the side by taking this approach, that being the
sacramental concept of regeneration in infant baptism. This view
is found in Roman Catholicism (indeed, baptism is the original
means of justification in Roman theology) and in various of the sacramentally-oriented Protestant churches.
Underlying the idea that man, by an action such as baptism,
can bring about his own regeneration, is the rejection of the
Biblical teaching of sin, and most especially, the truth that sin
enslaves man, debilitates man, brings spiritual death to man. The
Lord Jesus spoke clearly of this truth:
To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you
hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you
will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants and
have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we
shall be set free?" Jesus replied, "I tell you the
truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (John
8:31-34).
Man in sin must be freed from slavery to sin. He cannot free
Himself, but must be freed by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This
is an offensive truth to the unregenerate man, as the response
from these would-be self-made disciples indicates (8:41, 48). Men
do not like to hear that they are, in fact, totally dependent
upon God's grace for salvation--they do not want to know that
they are incapable of saving themselves, or even of
coming unto Christ for salvation, outside of God's gracious
drawing (John 6:44). But as the Lord Himself said, we are slaves
to sin. Slaves must be freed.
Paul describes the lost man's condition with the graphic
language of death. "As for you, you were dead in your
transgressions and sins" he tells the Ephesians (2:1). How
can a dead man be made alive? Only by the work of God, just as he
told the Colossians, "When you were dead in your sins and in
the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with
Christ" (Colossians 2:13). This deadness has tremendous
results according to the inspired Apostle. First, it means that
there is no man who, in and of himself, seeks after God:
"There is no one who understands, no one who seeks God"
(Romans 3:11). Likewise, there is no man who understands the
things of God unless he is first changed from being
"natural" or "carnal" to
"spiritual": "The man without the Spirit does not
accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are
foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they
are spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). Paul says
that when men are alienated from God, they are His enemies in
their minds (Colossians 1:21). These are strong words, and they
well describe the hatred and enmity that exists in the heart of
the man who continues to live in his rebellion against God. What
is even more striking is Paul's absolute belief that this
condition cannot be changed by man--not only is it not the
natural man's desire to be at peace with the Holy One, but it is
beyond his capacity to do so, even if he were so inclined. Note
Paul's words in Romans 8:5-8:
For those who are according to the flesh set their minds
on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to
the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind set on the
flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and
peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward
God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it
is not even able to do so; and those who are in the flesh
cannot please God.
Those who hold to baptismal regeneration would have us to
believe that one passes from being a "natural man" to a
"spiritual man" through baptism; yet, from whence does
this desire to be baptized come? Is God not pleased when we are
baptized? Of course. Yet, Paul said that the one who is still
fleshly cannot please God. If such a person is the enemy
of God, enslaved to sin, how is it that he is able to do such a
spiritual and pleasing thing as to desire to be baptized?
Obviously, this is impossible. Baptism signifies our death to the
old way of life and our resurrection to new life in Christ, as
Paul uses it in Romans 6:1-4. Unless we have died to sin, and
been raised with Christ in reality prior to our baptism,
the symbol becomes meaningless. So we see that the position that
posits baptism as the means of regeneration and forgiveness
ignores the most basic teachings of Scripture regarding man's inability.
In taking the position they do, the baptismal regenerationists
not only make man capable of things he is not, but they reduce
God's grace to a mere aid, and make the death of Christ a theory
that is dependent upon man's act of obedience, rather than the
finished and effective work that the Bible teaches it to be
(Hebrews 10:10-14).
When we keep in mind the foundational truth that man is unable
to save himself, but that salvation is the work of God, we are
able to understand why it is said that we are justified by God's
grace (Titus 3:7), justified by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9),
and justified by faith. Grace, and the blood of Christ, are both
things that are beyond man's ability to manipulate; and faith, if
it is true, saving faith, is the gift of God as well. Hence, we
are justified by God's action, not by any action of our own. Never
is it said that we are justified by baptism.
In light of the fact that any review of the central passages
of the New Testament that directly deal with how a man is made
right with God will lead us to recognize our own inability and
the great ability of our God to save, what is to be said
concerning those passages, drawn from one context or another,
that seem to indicate that we are saved or forgiven by baptism?
First, we must point out that it is common for some to confuse
the *importance* of baptism with the idea of the *necessity* of
baptism. Indeed, often the fact that the New Testament takes for
granted that all believers will be baptized as a profession of
their faith is taken to mean that baptism is *how* they became
believers in the first place! We confess baptism to be vitally
important--the Scriptures are clear in this. That Paul can use
baptism is a sign and symbol of our spiritual union with Christ
(Romans 6:1-4) shows that it is his assumption that all believers
will be obedient in baptism. We do not, by asserting the proper
understanding of baptism, in any way denigrate it as an ordinance
given by Christ to His Church. But just as the holy Law of God
was misused by the Pharisees in Jerusalem, and the Judaizers in Galatia, so baptism has been misused by modern proponents of the
works-oriented system of baptismal regeneration. Therefore, just
as Paul often asserted his great respect for and love of the law
of God while asserting its true nature and purpose, so
we, too, assert our great respect for Christian baptism while
asserting its proper place in God's work of salvation and
sanctification. We shall center our attention on three passages
of Scripture that are often placed before us as "clear
testimony" to the concept of baptismal regeneration. These
passages are Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21.
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of
you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise
is for you and your children and for all who are far off--for
all whom the Lord our God will call" (Acts 2:38-39, NIV).
This is probably the most oft-quoted passage in the great
baptism debate. Yet, when we read verse 39, we hear again the
same concept that we saw above, which Peter himself will assert
at a later date (1 Peter 1:2), and that will reappear in the Acts
narrative, too (Acts 13:48)--salvation comes through the work of
God's elective choice, not the actions or plans of men. Baptism
does nothing for those who are not called of God. But, one might
say, what if one is called of God? Does this passage then not say
that baptism is for the remission of sins?
A tremendously large number of interpretations have been set
forth on this passage over the years. We believe the simplest and
most consistent manner of approach is to ask a question that is
frequently not asked at all: we here have a short snippet of what
was obviously a longer sermon by Peter. Does Peter elsewhere tell
us, in plain language, how our sins are remitted, how we are
cleansed from our burden of guilt? Certainly! We began our
article with the quotation of 1 Peter 1:18-19, where Peter
directly teaches that we are cleansed by the blood of the
spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Do we then have sufficient
basis to identify the waters of baptism with the blood of Christ?
Surely not. Sins are remitted through our participation in the
death of Jesus Christ--it is by the "one time offering"
of Jesus Christ that we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14). What
of baptism then? It is the symbol, the outward representation
before men of what the Spirit of God has done in our hearts
(Titus 3:5-7). Unless we have first had our sins remitted in the
blood of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. But
doesn't this passage say that baptism is for the
remission of sins? Yes, but what does "for" mean? We
feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson's comments from earlier this
century are very meaningful:
This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men
look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of
evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim
or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as
good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose.
It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou,
diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be
purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis
of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one
is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching
of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of
Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p.
592). One will decide the use here according as he believes
that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My
view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any
one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the
remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So
I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who
had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the
name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins
which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word
Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).
The point being that one can (and we believe should, if one
believes in the consistency of Scripture as a whole) understand
Peter to be speaking of baptism on the grounds of the
remission of sins that comes through belief in the name of Jesus
Christ (Acts 10:43). But, someone will surely object, Peter
himself said that "baptism saves us" in 1 Peter 3:21.
Let's look at the passage in context:
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for
the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in
the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he
went and preached to the spirits in prison who were disobeyed
long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while
the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in
all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes
baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from
the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It
saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone
into heaven and is at God's right hand--with angels,
authorities and powers in submission to him.
This is one of the more difficult passages in Scripture, due
to the reference to Christ's preaching to the "spirits in
prison." It is not our purpose to enter into the controversy
over this particular aspect of this passage at this time (one
might find Dr. Kenneth Wuest's comments enlightening; see Wuest, Word
Studies in the Greek New Testament II:92-109). Instead, we
point out that foremost in Peter's mind, again, is the death of
Christ as the sacrifice for sin. Men are brought to God, not by
what they do, but what God has done in Christ Jesus (v. 18). Upon
the heels of this he mentions God's act of judgment in the days
of Noah. At that time eight souls were saved through water.
Peter then says that this water "symbolizes" baptism
(as the NIV translates the Greek term antitupon, literally,
"antitype"). Baptism now saves us, Peter says--just as
the water "saved" Noah and his family. But, of course,
we know that Peter was not asserting that there was some salvific
aspect to the flood waters themselves--God shut up the ark, and
God saved Noah and his family. But the water is a symbol, Peter
says, a symbol seen now in baptism. But is Peter dropping the
symbolization so as to make baptism the means of
salvation? Certainly not. Dr. Wuest has commented so well that we
give his words at length:
Water baptism is clearly in the apostle's mind, not the
baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of
the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this
verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves
them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the
counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a
counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were
counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not
actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued
here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water
baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration
of the use of the word "counterpart." So water
baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament
Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering
was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in
the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water
baptism is the outward testimony of the believer's inward
faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in
the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his
faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith.
Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not
teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who
submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says,
"not the putting away of the filth of the flesh."
Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the
flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor
in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No
ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what
he means by salvation, in the words "the answer of a
good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is
accomplished, namely, "by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ," in that he believing sinner is identified with
Him in that resurrection.
What, then, of Acts 22:16? Here,
Ananias, having confronted
the blinded Saul, says, in context:
Then he said: "The God of our fathers has chosen you
to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear
words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of
what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting
for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on
his name."
We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty
of God in the context of this passage as well ("God...has
chosen you"). Verse 16 presents us with a significant
construction in the original language. The terms
"arise" and "call" (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; "be baptized"
and "be cleansed" (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist
imperatives. These terms form two sets--the first, "arise
and be baptized," the second, "wash away your sins,
calling upon the name of the Lord," or more literally,
"wash away your sins, having called upon the name
of the Lord." The remission of sins is effected by calling
upon the name of the Lord in this passage--it is represented, as
elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we
have seen previously of Paul's own theology of justification, he
certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of
baptismal regeneration!
In conclusion, we must again insist that the Scriptures must
be taken as a whole--when we find in the direct, clear statements
of Scripture truths that are contradictory to assumptions
based upon passing comments, we must take the clear statements
over the assumptions. In the issue of salvation, we must take the
clear statements of Scripture regarding the work of the Spirit of
God in regenerating lost sinners seriously. By teaching baptismal
regeneration, people do despite not only to the sovereignty of
God and the finished work of Christ, but to the real purpose and
meaning of baptism as well. While some like to refer to the
evangelical doctrine of baptism as a "mere symbol," we
respond by pointing out that an ordinance, given by Christ to His
Church, in which the great and marvelous work of God in salvation
is pictured for all to see is not properly described by the term
"mere." Instead, Christian baptism must be understood
as representing a true and inner reality--one that is brought
about by the grace of God in a person's life. When we properly
present baptism as it is presented in Scripture, we glorify God's
grace and magnify His work of salvation in Jesus Christ.
|
