THE WETTER THE BETTER
THE "WASH" ON BAPTISMAL REGENERATION
by Edgar L. Havaich

Few areas of church doctrine are as controversial as the role
of water baptism in the life of the believer. Almost every
aspect of it has been disputed by someone.

Even the very condition of the water into which a person is
baptized has been debated. Should the water be running, such as
in a stream or river, or is it permissible to baptize in standing
water? Is the significance of water baptism increased or
diminished by either performing it indoors or out? At what age is
it appropriate? What should be said during the ceremony?

Some view baptism as an option, not a requirement. For some, it
has become but a quaint ceremony.

But no baptismal controversy can match that over its role in
salvation. The term that is usually applied to those who hold
that baptism is essential for salvation is "baptismal
regeneration." They believe that a person is regenerated, made
alive, born again, as a result of being baptized in water.
However, there are those who will point out that even though
water baptism is essential to salvation, the water itself saves
no one. It is obedience to God's command.

Discussion of water baptism usually results in the baptismal
salvationist accusing his opponent of minimizing the act of
baptism. Adherents challenge others to find scripture that says
any one was saved by faith alone. Carl Brumback in his book,
"God in Three Persons," writes:

"We believe that baptism is not so much as some would make it,
nor so little as others would make it. Instituted by the Lord,
commanded to be administered and to be experienced, baptism is a
sacred act which speaks of our identification in His death,
burial and resurrection. It should never be entered into lightly,
nor ever esteemed as less than the Word presents it. Jesus
Himself defined its purpose, not only for Himself but for us as
well -- "to fulfill all righteousness." It is a Christian's duty
to be baptized. However, it is more; it is his joyous privilege
to testify publicly by baptism that Jesus Christ is Savior and
Lord. Nevertheless, we cannot attach the same importance to
water baptism that some legalists, such as the Oneness advocates,
do. We do not attempt to exclude from the Kingdom all those who
have not been baptized in the precise manner which we deem
scriptural. The pages of Church history are filled with the names
of men whose baptism in water we may regard as incorrect, but
whose lives and ministries testify to an unquestionable
experience with God" (pg. 165).

The importance of baptism is also emphasized by late evangelist
and pastor, John R. Rice:

"There have been two great errors in regard to baptism. Some
people teach that one cannot be saved without baptism. That is a
great mistake as we will show. But another very great error is
to teach that baptism is a matter of no importance and that we
should not insist upon any particular manner or teaching about
baptism" ("Bible Baptism," pp. 4-5).

Water baptism is a command of God. "Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (Matthew 28:19, KJV). Taken as a
presupposition that because baptism was commanded by the Lord it
makes it a requirement for salvation, then consistency would
demand that every command of God must be kept, in order to be
saved. Foot washing, communion and other practices could not be
ignored.

There is no statement in the Bible which says explicitly that
Christians must be baptized to be saved or that people who are
not baptized will go to hell. However, there are a number of
passages baptismal salvationists use to make their case.

Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;
but he that believeth not shall be damned."

There is an inordinate emphasis on just half of this verse,
which refers to two types of people: those that believe and are
baptized and those who don't believe. It first must be pointed
out that the verse does not say or suggest that if a person is
not baptized he is not saved. It is correct to say that the
anyone who believes and is baptized is saved. It also is correct
to say that anyone who believes without any reference to baptism
is also declared by scripture to be saved.

In John 6:37, Jesus says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He
that believeth on me hath everlasting life." This verse and
others like it show that faith in Jesus Christ is the condition
for salvation that must be met. This is borne out by additional
passages in which salvation is declared to those who believe
without mention of baptism (John 3:15,16,18,36; 5:24; 6:47;
11:25; 12:46; 20:31; Acts 16:31; Romans 10:9-10; Ephesians
2:8,9.). Please note that the passage in Mark is speaking about
one who believes and is baptized, and one who believes not. The
fate of the unbeliever is mentioned, he is damned, but no mention
of the fate of an unbaptized person. This is because
condemnation falls on the unbeliever.

John 3:5: "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be
born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God."

Some have presumed that the use of the word "water" here refers
to water baptism. It does not. Equally erroneous is the
interpretation that suggests that the water referred to in John
3:5 is that of the natural birth, because at birth "the water
breaks." Thus, it is argued, Jesus is making a contrast between
a natural birth and a spiritual birth. This latter
understanding, however, is placing a 20th-century colloquialism
upon a first-century book.

What "water" then was Jesus speaking of? What "water" is in
the historical setting of Jesus' words? The "water" and "spirit"
Jesus would be addressing was that of the new covenant spoken of
in Ezekiel 36:25-26: "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you,
and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all
your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give
you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away
the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart
of flesh" (KJV).

Akin to the Ezekiel passage are Paul's words found in Titus
3:5: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but
according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of
regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost."

Further, whenever the word water is used in doesn't always mean
literal water. For example in Ephesians 5:26 it says: "That he
might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word." Here the Word of God is equated to water. Other verses
that show it is the Word of God that is the agent of cleansing
are James 1:18-21, I Peter 1:22,23.

To say that John 3:5 is saying that one must be baptized to be
saved would contradict John 20:31, which says "might believe that
Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing ye might
have life through his name." It would appear that John is
placing the emphasis on believing, not on water baptism.

It is curious why a baptismal salvationist would choose John
3:5. When pressed about the thief on the cross, they reply that
he was saved under a different dispensation. If so, then John
3:5 has nothing to do with water baptism, because it was made
during the same dispensation the thief was saved under. If "born
of water" means water baptism, what purpose would it be to tell
someone that they must be born of water if the birth wouldn't
take effect until after the death of Christ?

Acts 2:38: This is probably the most commanding verse baptismal
salvationists use: "Then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be
baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy
Ghost.'"

Baptismal salvationists frequently single out this verse as
though it were the only one which deals with salvation. It is
easy to embrace Peter's message while denying it teaches
baptismal regeneration. The following grammatical diagram from
the book "Campbellism -- Its History and Heresies," should be
helpful:

"FIRST CLAUSE:
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'repent' -- verb, second person plural number, aorist imperative
active voice.

SECOND CLAUSE:
'every one of you' -- subject, third person singular number.
'be baptized' -- verb, third person singular number, aorist
passive imperative voice.
'unto the remission of sins' -- modifying phrase.

THIRD CLAUSE:
'ye' -- subject, second person plural number.
'shall receive' -- verb, second person plural number, future,
indicative voice.
'the gift of the Holy Spirit' -- direct object of verb" (pg. 92).

For this verse to teach what baptismal salvationist advocates
say it teaches "...the first and second clauses would have to be
connected so as to allow 'for the remission of sins' to modify
both 'repent' and 'be baptized.' However, this presents the
following grammatical problem: In the first clause, the person
and number of the verb 'repent' do not agree with the verb 'be
baptized' in the second clause. 'Repent' is second person plural
number; 'be baptized' is third person singular number" ("Acts and
Baptismal Remission," by Bob L. Ross, pg. 47).

Acts 2:38 states that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" follows the
remission of sins. It should be noted that in Acts 10:45
Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Ghost before he was water
baptized. Yet, according to Acts 2:38, one can't receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost unless his sins are forgiven. This would
show that Acts 10 exemplifies that the remission of sins in Acts
2:38 is referring to repentance.

Baptismal salvationists also argue that the word "for" in Acts
2:38 must mean "in order to obtain." This is not always the
case. For example Luke 5:13-14 says, "And he charged him to tell
no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy
cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto
them. And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, 'I
will: be thou clean.' And immediately the leprosy departed from
him."

The leper was immediately healed when Jesus touched him and
spoke. Note that Jesus instructed him, "... go, and shew thyself
to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them." The leper already had his
cleansing. He was told by Jesus to go to the priest and bring an
offering "for thy cleansing." Replacing "in order to obtain" in
place of the word, "for" would not fit.

Another modern example of this is the commonly used phrase,
"take two aspirins for a headache. No one would take two
aspirins "in order to obtain" a headache. You take two aspirin
because you already have a headache. Therefore Christians aren't
baptized to be saved but because they already are.

Acts 22:16: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be
baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord." In this verse, the washing away of thy sins is integrated
with "calling on the name of the Lord." This verse says that the
individual who calls on the name of the Lord is the one whose
sins will be washed away. Paul's conversion is an excellent
example. Paul was saved the moment he submitted to the Lord's
command: "Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?" Baptismal
salvationists will not accept this because they say that Saul was
told he would be instructed what to do: "Arise, and go into the
city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

The context does not allow for the interpretation that Paul was
going to be given instructions regarding water baptism for
salvation. Rather the Lord was going to show him the things he
must suffer: "For I will show him how great things he must suffer
for my name's sake." Paul was already saved at this point. How
do we know? Look at Ananias' first words to Saul, "And Ananias
went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands
on him said, 'Brother Saul.'" If Saul had to be baptized in
order to be saved, then he was not yet Brother Saul. He was
still a heathen. Even baptismal salvationists don't call pre-
baptized individuals "brother." That is a term reserved for
those who have been baptized.

Chapters 9, 22 and 26 of the Book of Acts gives the details of
what happened with Saul and Ananias. Acts 9:17 tells why Ananias
was sent to Saul. Ananias said, "...Brother Saul, the Lord, even
Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath
sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with
the Holy Ghost." The reason Ananias was sent was so Paul would
receive his eyesight, being filled with the Holy Ghost. There is
no reference that suggests that Ananias was sent to get him
saved. Jesus never even mentioned Saul's salvation when he sent
him Ananias.