Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

In the following video, Douglas Wilson, a leading Reformed Presbyterian scholar, discusses water baptism and whether it is necessary for salvation:

Ask Doug: Is Baptism necessary for salvation?

Let us examine the texts raised:

1 Cor 1:17

For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. (1 Cor 1:17)

Wilson appeals to this singular verse in this video to support the claim that water baptism is not salvific.

Perhaps it would be enough to note that, in the context of 1 Corinthians, the community there were split, with many attempting to set themselves above others due to the individual who baptised them, as well as other issues, which produced great fractures within the church there (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; this is perhaps why John 4:2 states that Jesus did not baptise; perhaps to preclude individuals pointing to their being baptised by Jesus as “proof” that they were superior to others within the faith).

Furthermore, the Apostles generally had different callings than to perform baptisms (see Acts 8:5-25). The function of officers within the organisation of Christ’s Church has nothing to do with the necessity of baptism. Paul, in fact, did perform baptisms (e.g., Acts 19:1-6), and Jesus commanded His Apostles to baptise all nations (Matt 28:19), and His disciples baptised more new converts than John (John 4:1). Further, baptism and the gospel are not being contrasted with one another. What is being contrasted in this phrase is baptising and preaching, two separate ministries within the gospel. Paul’s assignment required him to do the latter and leave the former for other Church officers. In fact, when the grammar is correctly analysed, the clear implication is that baptism was part of the gospel Paul was sent to preach

Tertullian wrote an entire book in favour of baptism being salvific, On Baptism. In chapter 14 he responds to similar charges:

Chapter XIV.—Of Paul’s Assertion, that He Had Not Been Sent to Baptize.

But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, “For Christ sent me not to baptize;” (1 Cor 1:17) as if by this argument baptism were done away!  For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas?(1 Cor 1;14, 16) However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos.(1 Cor 1:11, 12; 3:3, 4) For which reason the “peace-making”(Matt 5:9) apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent “not to baptize, but to preach.” For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior.  Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was.

A helpful text indicating that Paul did stress the importance of baptism is 1 Cor 3:6-10:

I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labour of each. For we are God's servants, working together; you are God's field, God's building. According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building on it. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. (NRSV)

In this pericope, Paul explains his words in 1:17 as well as the nature of his ministry: Paul was the messenger spreading the Gospel; Apollos (and others) were the instructors, guiding the recipients of the Gospel; and God watched over all of them.

Joseph Fitzmyer, commenting on 1:17 and 3:6-10, writes:

17. For Christ did not send me to baptize. This startling statement is not meant to undermine the value of baptism or liturgical actions. It reveals only how Paul understands his own authorized mission: cultic or liturgical ministry was not as important to him as that of preaching the gospel. Others can baptize, but he must preach, because he was called by God to preach his son “among the Gentiles” (Gal 1:16); now he ascribes his call and sending to Christ himself (Christos without an article, hence Jesus’ second name).

But to preach the gospel. i.e., to proclaim the good news (euangelizesthai) of salvation that comes through Jesus Christ . . .

9. For we are God’s fellow-workers . . . In the first clause, Paul regards both Apollos and himself as synergoi theou, a title that he used also of Timothy in 1 Thess 3:2. The phrase synergoi theou has been understood in two ways: (1) “God’s fellow-workers,” i.e., those who work together with God and are engaged in a common endeavor with God himself, who is the principal worker . . . (2) “Fellow workers in God’s service,” or “God’s servants, working together” (NRSV), or “fellow workers who belong to God,” i.e., Paul and his colleagues are those who work together and thus serve God by such shared labor . . .[v.10] Paul’s preaching has laid what he calls themelion, “a foundation,” for what he achieved thereby was fundamental for the Corinthian church, but he does not call himself the foundation. It is, however, the basis of the authority that he now exercises over the community, and to it he will return in 9:1-2. Paul calls himself architekton, “builder,” a title found only here in the NT. For the idea of a “foundation of the community,” see 1QS 7:17. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians [AB 32; Garden City, Doubleday, 2008], 147, 195-96, 197.)

Anthony C. Thiselton, a Protestant biblical scholar, commented on 1 Cor 1:17 thusly:

Since baptism and the Lord’s Supper also, for Paul, proclaim the gospel of Christ’s death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-11; 1 Cor 11:24-27), the contextual meaning of βαπτιζειν has been conveyed by translating it to perform baptisms, with its emphasis on ministerial agency. (Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians [NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000], 143 [emphasis in original].)

Lars Hartman, Professor in Uppsala University, Sweden, offered this comment on 1 Cor 1:17 in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary: (emphasis added):

In 1 Cor 1:12–17 Paul says that he is thankful that he baptized only a few of the Corinthians, “for Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (v 17). This remark is generally understood as showing no contempt on Paul’s part for baptism. Rather he let his coworkers baptize, and it is probable that baptizing meant not only performing the rite but also taking an active part in preparation for it. This can explain how people came to rally around a teacher like Apollos (1 Cor 1:12). Hartman, L. (1992). Baptism. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 1, p. 587). New York: Doubleday.

Finally, when one examines the Greek of 1 Cor 1:17, we see that it presents further evidence against the popular misreading advocated by Wilson and others. The Greek reads (emphasis added):

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλέν με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλ᾽ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

The Greek uses an elliptical statement ("ου . . . αλλα"), a form of Greek syntax that is used occasionally in Scripture to stress a significant point. This structure does not denote "not/never x but [only] y" in the way many misread the verse to be teaching. Indeed, in this light (discussed below), Paul was simply underscoring his primary role, that of preaching the Gospel. Such would not prevent Paul from baptising, let alone teaching baptismal regeneration, which he clearly did teach (e.g., see the exegesis of Rom 6:1-4 in my response to Michael Flournoy, Christ’s baptism is NOT imputed to the believer)

Consider the following instances in the Greek New Testament where “ου [alt.: μη] . . .αλλα” clearly does not mean "not/never x but [only] y":

Do not (μη) work for the food that perishes, but (αλλα) for the food that endures for eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you. For it is on him that God the Father has set his deal. (John 6:27) (By suggesting that one should not labour for food that perishes, Jesus was not suggesting that working for physical food is irrelevant, but was simply stressing the importance of labouring for spiritual food.)

While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, were not the proceeds at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You did not (ου) lie to us but(αλλα) to God! (Acts 5:4) (When Ananias and Sapphira lied to Peter, it was not the case that they had not lied to men but only God; instead, this verse means that, while they did lie to men, they also had lied to God which was a greater sin)

Little children, let us not (μη) love, not in word or speech, but (αλλα) in truth and action. (1 John 3:18) (John is hardly teaching that one should not love each other "in word or speech"; instead, he was urging a greater form of love beyond word/speech--our love being expressed in deed. He had no intention, however, of devaluing the verbal expression of love)

So we see, a careful exegesis of 1 Cor 1:17 does not allow the purely symbolic understanding of water baptism forwarded by Wilson et al.

Nicea's "We Confess One Baptism for the Remission of Sins" and Acts 2:38

Wilson makes reference to how he was rather uneasy about the clause in the Nicene Creed which states, "We believe in one baptism for the remission of sins" until he understood it was based on Acts 2:38.

The underlying Greek of the clause in Nicea reads thusly:

ὁμολογοῦμεν ἓν βάπτισμα εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν

We confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

Acts 2:38 reads in the Greek and KJV thusly:

Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· μετανοήσατε, [φησίν,] καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος  

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Wilson correctly notes that, in the New Testament, there is a tradition of speaking of baptism and salvation together; however, he greatly errs in concluding that this means that water baptism is a symbol and does not affect salvation; instead, it is akin to a wedding ring--it is an outward sign merely, as important as it is (Wilson, as a Presbyterian, would have a higher view of water baptism than many modern Evangelicals, especially those within the various "non-denominational" camps).

What the early Christians, including those at Nicea, held to baptismal regeneration goes without question, and that is what informs the theology of the clause in the creed. Indeed, the patristic evidence from the second century onwards for the doctrine of baptismal regeneration force even critics of the doctrine to admit that the patristics were "unanimous" in teaching its salvific efficacy. For instance, William Webster, a Reformed Baptist, admitted that, "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers . . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit." (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History [Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995], 95-96).

However, as Wilson holds to Sola Scriptura, and so privileges the Bible over the patristic literature, let us focus on Peter's theology of baptism in Acts 2:38 and 1 Pet 3:19-21, where the apostle himself writes about the topic.

Proponents of the symbolic view of baptism have made much about the preposition εις (“for” in Acts 2:38), which reveals much about the deceptive use of Greek many critics of the Restored Gospel engage in.

Some have argued, following the lead of J.R. Mantey, that εις in this verse as a “causal” or “resultant” meaning; namely, one is baptised because they had a remission of sins before baptism. An example from everyday English would be, “I took a tablet for my migraine”—one did not take the tablet to bring about a migraine, but because of one having a migraine, then they took a tablet.

However, this “causal” meaning of the Greek preposition εις can be refuted on many counts:

Firstly, both baptism and repentance are tied together, through the use of the coordinating conjunction και ("and"). If one wishes to suggest we are baptised because of our remission of sins, then the passage would also suggest that we must repent because of our remission of sins precedes repentance (in other words, our sins are forgiven, so as a result, we repent). I am unaware of any theological system that teaches such a view, and for good reason--it is a grossly unnatural, eisegetical reading of the construction.

Secondly, modern Greek grammarians (even those who hold the symbolic view of baptism) have refuted Mantey’s comments about εις. For instance, Daniel Wallace, in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, pp. 370-71, we read the following:

On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evi­dent in such passages as Acts 2:38.³⁹

On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation):

It is quite possible that εἰς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpre­tation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non-linguistic.⁴⁰

Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἰς fell short of proof. . . .In sum . . . his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction

Notes for the above:

³⁹ See J. R. Mantey, “The Causal Use of Eis in the New Testament,” JBL 70 (1952) 45-58 and “On Causal Eis Again,” JBL 70 (1952) 309-311.

⁴⁰ Ralph Marcus, “The Elusive Causal Eis,” JBL 71 (1953) 44. Cf. also Marcus’ first article, “On Causal Eis,” JBL 70 (1952) 129-130.

Another refutation of this argument comes from Matt 26:28. Speaking of the then-future shedding of his blood and its relationship to the Eucharistic cup, Christ says:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

The Greek phrase, “for the remission of sins” is εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν; in Acts 2:38, it is exactly the same, except in Acts 2:38 there is a definite article (των) before “sins,” not causing any change in the meaning. Here, we see that those who hold to a “causal” meaning of εις in Acts 2:38 have to engage in a gross inconsistency (or, if they are consistent, adopt a very novel soteriology)—holding such an interpretation of εις, one will have to conclude (if one is consistent) that the remission of sins comes first, which then gives cause for the shedding of Christ's blood. The atonement, then, is no longer an action of Jesus in this sense. Of course, as with the "causal" interpretation of εις in Acts 2:38 is based on eisegesis, this interpretation of Matt 26:28, too, wrenches the underlying Greek out of context. Of course, only Latter-day Saints and others who hold to baptism being salvific can be consistent in their approach to both Matt 26:28 (on the relationship between remission of sins and the shedding of Christ’s blood) and Acts 2:38 (on the remission of sins and baptism).

Another crack in the symbolic understanding of Acts 2:38 can be seen when we examine other texts of the New Testament where Peter further reveals his theology of baptism.

In 1 Pet 3:19-21, we read the following (emphasis added):

By which [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

In verse 20, we read of how the “water” from the flood “saved” (σωζω) Noah and his family, and how baptism, said to be the fulfilment of this Old Testament type (antitype [αντιτυπος]) “now save us” (νῦν σῴζει [“now saves you”]). Antitypes are always greater than their Old Testament types. Consider the brazen serpent in Num 21:8-9—those who looked at the serpent were healed, but only temporarily, and only members of the nation of Israel. Christ is likened to this serpent, but one brings about salvation, and not to Israel only, but all the nations (John 3:14-17).

This fits with the definition of αντιτυπος provided by Lexicons such as Johannes E. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, Greek-English Lexicon: Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed.:

ἀντίτυπος, ον: pertaining to that which corresponds in form and structure to something else, either as an anticipation of a later reality or as a fulfillment of a prior type - 'correspondence, antitype, representation, fulfillment.' ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα 'which corresponds to baptism which now saves you' 1 Pe 3.21; χειροποίητα ... ἅγια ... ἀντίτυπα τῶν ἀληθινῶν 'a sanctuary ... made with hands ... corresponding to the true sanctuary' He 9.24.

Therefore, just as Noah et al. were (temporarily) saved “by water” (δι᾽ ὕδατος), we are saved by means of baptism, with baptism saving us in a greater manner, that is, salvifically (thus it being an antitype).

Some try to explain this away, arguing that it was the ark, not the water from the flood, that saved Noah. However, this ignores the fact that Peter is offering a typological interpretation of the flood water. Furthermore, Peter is rather explicit in linking baptism to the instrumental means of being saved.

This still begs the question as to why one would link the flood water with the water of baptism? The answer is that, just as the water from the flood destroyed all evil, the water of baptism brings about a forgiveness of our personal evils (sins), fitting this typological approach to the flood narrative in Genesis.

Note the following comments about 1 Pet 3:21 from scholarly commentaries:

■ 21* This verse is joined to its predecessor by the relative pronoun ὅ, which, together with ἀντίτυπον (“antitype”) and βάπτισμα (“baptism”) serve as a compound subject of the verb σῴζει. It is the interrelationship of the pronoun and the two nouns that constitutes the syntactic problem of the first phrase of the verse. If, as seems likely, the relative pronoun is the subject of the verb, then the two remaining nouns stand in apposition to it There have been attempts to resolve the phrase differently: to take ἀντίτυπον as adjectival (“antitypical baptism saves you”); to take it as appositional to ὑμᾶς; to understand βάπτισμα as a proleptic antecedent to the ὅ; to include the first phrase with the end of the preceding verse, that is, “ … saved through water which even in reference to you (is) a pattern. Baptism now saves, not …”; to substitute the dative (ᾧ) for the nominative relative pronoun, accepting the reading of a few minor texts. The complexity of the sentence is, however, in all likelihood the result of the complex attempt to relate Noah and the flood as a means of deliverance to Christian baptism as a means of salvation, and ought thus to be allowed to stand. ⁽Achtemeier, P. J., & Epp, E. J. (1996). 1 Peter : a commentary on First Peter (p. 266). Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press; emphasis added)

I would construe the pronoun ὃ, referring to water, with “antitype,” understood as a noun, and refer both to baptism. To give a more literal rendering than the above, “[W]ater, which antitype [the antitype of which], is baptism, now saves also you,” or “[W]ater, which in its antitype, baptism, now saves also you.” The former makes clearer that baptism saves, the latter puts more emphasis on the water in baptism as saving, but both renderings convey the idea that grammatically baptism, not the water of the flood, “saves you.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the first five centuries [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009], 190-91)

That a type/antitype argument can be made in favour of baptismal regeneration is indeed biblical. Note the following from following from an essay on Alexander Campbell, a leading 19th-century advocate of baptismal regeneration, and his arguments in favour of the doctrine following this line of reasoning:

Campbell states what the order of the “ancient gospel” is: first a belief in Jesus; next immersion; then forgiveness; then peace with God; then, joy in the Holy Spirit.” This is Campbell’s conclusion after three articles of argumentation.

He begins the explanation of the design of baptism by noting its relationship in typology, particularly basing his reasoning upon Hebrews 10:22. He asserts, as a thesis, that “Christian immersion stands in the same place in the Christian temple, or worship, that the laver, or both [bath] of purification stood in the Jewish; viz. BETWEEN THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST AND ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP.” Just as the High Priest had to wash on the day of atonement before entering the Holiest of Holies, so the believer, before he can worship acceptably, must also have his body washed in the rite of baptism. Calling upon John 3:5, Titus 3:5; and Ephesians 5:26, Campbell concludes that Christian immersion is the antitype of the bath of purification for priests in the Old Testament. This is signaled by the use of the term “washing” itself.

Since baptism corresponds to an Old Testament “ablution,” Campbell demonstrates the New Testament “plainly” affirms that “God forgives men’s sins in the act of immersion.” He argues that disciples were conscious of a particular moment when their sins were remitted, and “a certain act by, or in which their sins were forgiven.” That act was the washing which they could remember or forget. Campbell introduces Acts 2:38 to verify this connection between remitted sins and baptism. There Peter “made repentance, or reformation, and immersion, equally necessary to forgiveness,” and if no other word were written on the subject, Peter’s command there would be “quite sufficient.” In consequence of what Peter says here Campbell believers that “in the very instant in which” a person is “put under the water,” he receives “the forgiveness of his sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Consequently, “Christian immersion is the gospel in water.” (John Mark Hicks, “The Recovery of the Ancient Gospel: Alexander Campbell and the Design of Baptism,” in David W. Fletcher, ed. Baptism and the Remission of Sins: An Historical Perspective [Joplin, Miss.: College Press Publishing Company, 1992], 111-70, here, pp.149-50).

If the type/antitype relationship exists between the priestly ablutions and water baptism, we can see their external relationship—the priest is cleansed from ritual impurity by immersion, and a Christian is immersed ritually. However, only by understanding baptism to be salvific can baptism be a true antitype of the priestly ablutions. If one were to hold to a purely symbolic view of baptism, a la Zwingli, Calvin, and much of modern Evangelical Protestantism, baptism was just as (non-)salvific as the priestly ablutions, which would make the Old Testament type as being just as great, vis-à-vis salvation, as its New Testament fulfillment. Latter-day Saint soteriology, however, allows for one to have baptism as the antitype of the priestly ablutions, and, unlike the mere symbolic view of our Evangelical critics, allows the antitype to substantially excel the type thereof.

Another discussion on typology comes from an article by a Catholic apologist, Jacob Michaels, who used to be associated with Robert Sungenis who authored Not by Faith Alone (Queenship, 1997), a wonderful book refuting sola fide. The article is entitled, "Baptism: the Laver of Regeneration" (the article is no longer available online, but I have a copy saved on my files, so if anyone wants a copy, will happily email it to them as an attachment); the relevant section reads as follows:

Jesus Himself gave us the example of what baptism does, a living lesson in action:

"And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. And behold a voice from heaven saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mt. 3:16-17)

In this passage, we see again those three connected elements of receiving baptism: there is water, there is the Holy Ghost, and there is sonship with God. Jesus passes through this rite both to sanctify the waters of baptism with His presence, as well as to show us what is truly happening at every baptism. As we come up out of the waters of baptism, we receive the Holy Ghost, and are declared to be "children of God." No better living picture-lesson could be expected than this one.

In fact, this event is foreshadowed twice in Genesis, once in the initial creation story, and once in Noah's flood (which St. Peter alluded to in the passage cited at the beginning of this essay). The parallels between the Genesis narratives and baptism are clear: a "new creation" rises up out of the water, and the Holy Ghost hovers over the whole event, present at the moment of regeneration. The Spirit of God hovered over the waters at creation. Noah sent out a dove (the symbol of the Holy Spirit) to fly over the waters after the flood. All shadows of the real thing.

It is here that we begin to get into the more allegorical passages. Baptism in the New Covenant was prophesied by the prophets, who spoke of the coming day when God would wash His people and cleanse them from their sin. Ezekiel is one of the those prophets:

"And I will pour upon you clean water, and you shall be cleansed from all your filthiness, and I will cleanse you from all your idols. And I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit in the midst of you: and I will cause you to walk in my commandments, and to keep my judgments, and do them." (Ezek. 36:25-27)

Although it is a prophecy, the meaning can hardly be misunderstood. The imagery of water and cleansing is prominent, and it comes hand-in-hand with a new heart and a new spirit. This corresponds perfectly to all that the apostles claimed about baptism, that in that pouring out of water, the sinner received a new heart, and a new spirit, the Spirit of God, came upon him. This type of imagery is also used in Isaiah:

"Behold my servant shall understand, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and shall be exceeding high. As many have been astonished at thee, so shall his visage be inglorious among men, and his form among the sons of men. He shall sprinklemany nations, kings shall shut their mouth at him: for they to whom it was not told of him, have seen: and they that heard not, have beheld." (Is. 52:13-15)

What would be the meaning of "he shall sprinkle many nations," if it is not a reference to the New Covenant baptism instituted by "my servant," Our Lord Himself?

We see another foreshadowing by way of typology in the story of Naaman, the man stricken with leprosy who went to Elisha for a cure. The prophet told him to dip in the Jordan river seven times, and Naaman stormed off, angry and feeling like the object of a joke. We read:

"His servants came to him, and said to him: Father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, surely thou shouldst have done it: how much rather what he now hath said to thee: Wash, and thou shalt be clean? Then he went down, and washed in the Jordan seven times, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored, like the flesh of a little child: and he was made clean." (2 Kings 5:13-14)

There are several things to be drawn out of this story, things which can illuminate our understanding of baptism which has already been established by the plain words of the apostles and Our Lord. The fact that Naaman dips seven times is significant, for "seven" is a Hebrew word that also means "to swear an oath," or "to make a covenant." Seven is used as a symbol of covenant many times in Scripture (Gen. 2:2-3, Gen. 21:28-33, Gen. 29:18, etc.), and baptism is the doorway into the New Covenant, just as circumcision was for the Old (that is why St. Paul makes the comparison, among other reasons). Also, it should be noted that Naaman's skin after washing is described as being "like the flesh of a little child," which would correspond to the idea of being "born again," or "born anew" through baptism. There are also a few other similarities that could be further developed, such as Elijah as a type of John the Baptist (2 Kg. 1:8, Mal. 4:5, Mt. 11:14), whose successor (Elisha) would correspond to John the Baptist's successor (Jesus). Elijah is last seen at the Jordan river (2 Kg. 2:7-14), whereas John the Baptist first appears at the Jordan river, doing - what else? - baptizing repentant sinners. However, John's baptism cannot effect what only Jesus' baptism can, and so it is appropriate that it is Jesus' anti-type, Elisha, be the one to instruct Naaman to perform this typological action at the Jordan river.

Sound exegesis shows that 1 Pet 3:21 proves baptismal regeneration. 


Back to Acts 2:38:

Some critics of this view of baptism point to Matt 12:41:

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at (εις) the preaching of Jonas [OT Jonah]; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.

The argument is that εις here clearly has a “causal” meaning, as one cannot repent “into” one’s preaching or teaching. However, for those who make this argument (e.g. Eric Johnson), it reveals a poor grasp of how language works. In English, it is nonsensical to say, as the Greek of this verse reads, “into the proclamation of Jonas”; therefore, to make sense to English readers, most translations render εις as “at.” However, for a Greek reader and speaker, it is perfectly natural to think/read of one converting “into” the preaching of another. Think of the French way to ask for directions—in French, it is “pour aller” followed by “to” (á) and the destination. “Pour aller” literally means “for to go.” However, this would not be rendered into English as “for to go,” but “how do you get to”; however, for a French speaker, it is proper to speak of “how to go” to a certain place. Comments about Matt 12:41 that justify εις having a “causal” meaning only shows ignorance of both the Greek language and how language works, as there if often an inability to render perfectly one language into another without a translator having to take liberties to ensure readers will understand it in English.

In his book defending baptismal regeneration, Orpheus J. Heyward offered the following insightful note on Matt 12:41:

Eis and Matthew 12:41

This passage also contains a prepositional phrase that A.T. Robertson uses to argue for the translation of “because of.” The particular phrase under discussion is “at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.” It is argued that this means that Ninevah repented “because of” the preaching of Jonah. While this seems plausible, it again attempts to change the force of the preposition “eis” from a preposition that looks forward to the intended end, to one that looks backward to a previous source. Spiros Zodhiates provides an explanation of the usage of “eis” in this passage. He states: In Matt 12.41; Luke 11:32, “they repented at [eis] the preaching of Jonath,” where eis, into, means conformable to at or at the preaching of Jonah (Zodhiates S. The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament [Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers, 2000]).

Notice that Zodhiates does not water down the force of “eis,” allowing it to maintain its forward-pointing design. He understands “eis” in this passage to carry the idea that the Ninevites conformed “into” the preaching of Jonah. This suggests that the Ninevites experienced a behavior change that was consistent with the preaching they heard. The prepositional phrase in this passage indicates not the basis of the repentance, but the goal of the repentance. They did not repent “because of,” but they repented “into” behavioral conformity. (Orpheus J. Heyward, Dead, Dipped, Delivered: A grammatical and contextual analysis of baptism passages [2017], 56-57, emphasis in original)

As another example of a faulty linguistic argument to get around the plain meaning of Acts 2:38, Evangelical apologist, Gary F. Zeolla of "Darkness to Light Ministries," wrote an article entitled, "Questions about Baptism." In an attempt to downplay the salvific role of baptism in Acts 2:38, he wrote that:

"[R]epent" and "be baptized" in Acts 2:28 [sic; he means v.38] have different grammatical forms so they are not both linked with "the remission of sins." On the other hand, in Acts 3:19, the verbs "repent" and "be converted" do have the same grammatical forms. But baptism is not mentioned. So baptism is to be submitted to AFTER repentance and conversion.

This is a rather silly argument, but it does show that the old adage, "a little Greek is a dangerous thing" is alive and well.

The term translated as "repent" in Acts 2:38 is μετανοήσατε which is the imperative aorist active of the verb μετανοεω. The term translated as "be baptised" is βαπτισθήτω, the imperative aorist passive of the verb βαπτιζω. The difference (which the apologist does not tell us) is simply between an active and passive voice. Of course, as repentance is something one does, while baptism is something that is done to the person, that is the reason for the difference in voices. There is no hint whatsoever that Acts 2:38 separates baptism from the remission of one's sins, notwithstanding this rather weak argument.

In Acts 3:19, the term translated as "be converted" is ἐπιστρέψατε, again, the imperative aorist active, this time of the verb επιστρεφω, "to turn/return." However, it is simply question-begging to claim that, just as baptism is not mentioned in this verse, ipso facto, baptism is not salvific, in spite of texts explicitly tying it into salvation (e.g., Rom 6:1-4). Furthermore, it is akin to advocates of "no-Lordship" theologies citing Acts 16:31 ("Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved") as precluding repentance from salvation, in spite of other verses which are explicit in repentance being tied into the salvation formula (e.g., Rom 10:9, 13). Evangelicals, like Zeolla, are guilty of implicitly denying the practice of "tota scriptura" (taking into account the entirety of the Bible's message on a topic) an important element of the Protestant doctrine and practice of Sola Scriptura (for a full refutation of this doctrine, see Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura)

Wilson, when listing some texts that shows an intimate relationship between water baptism and salvation includes another text from Acts, that is, Ananias' commanding Paul to be baptised, showing that the Acts of the Apostles does not allow for a purely symbolic understanding of water baptism:

And now why do you delay? Get up, and be baptised, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name. (Acts 22:16 NRSV).

This text is a commonly-cited passage in favour of baptismal regeneration; in this text, Paul, while recalling the words of Ananias to him, couples baptism with his sins being washed away (απολουω), showing that water baptism functions as the instrumental means thereof.

Commenting on this passage and its theology of baptism, the Lutheran scholar, RCH Lenski, wrote:

16)       The question: καὶ νῦν τὶ μέλλεις; as in the classics (Liddell and Scott), means: “And now why delayest thou?” Ananias is now encouraging Paul on his own account. He tells him what to do. The two aorist imperatives are causative middles: “get thyself baptized and get thyself washed as to thy sins” (B.-D. 317; R. 808). The action expressed by the aorist participle, “calling on his name,” is either simultaneous with that of the aorist imperatives or immediately precedes it, the difference being merely formal. “The name” is Jesus in his revelation; and to call on this name involves faith (Rom. 10:13, 14). This is one of the cardinal passages on the saving power of baptism; see the others, 2:38 discussed at length; Luke 3:3; John 3:3, 5; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:26. What makes the present passage unmistakably clear is the second imperative. Why was it not enough to say, “Having arisen, let thyself be baptized, calling on his name”? Why was “and let thyself be washed as to thy sins” inserted if baptism and its water did not do this washing to remove the sins? The answer has yet to be given.

Was Paul to submit to a mere symbolic ceremony? What lay heavy on his conscience was the guilt of his enormous sin of persecuting the Messiah himself (v. 7). With its water that was sanctified by the Word baptism was to wash away all this guilt, all these sins. This washing away is the ἄφεσις of 2:38, and Luke 3:3, the “remission,” the “removal” of sins. To be sure, this washing away is “picturesque language” (R., W. P.); it is figurative, to speak more exactly, and is appropriate in that baptism has water in connection with the Word, Eph. 5:26. But with “picturesque language” R. means that “here baptism pictures the change that had already taken place,” i. e., that is all that baptism does. R. does not seem to see that he contradicts Ananias. Whereas Ananias says, “Let thyself actually be baptized” (aorist), “let thyself actually be washed of thy sins” (again aorist), R. changes the latter and substitutes, “Let a picture be made of the washing away of thy sins.” It may be interesting to enact a picture, but that is about all. As βάπτισαι = a real baptism and not the mere picture of one, so ὑπόλουσαι = a real washing and not the mere picture of one. (Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 909–910). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House)

As we have seen, the doctrine held by Wilson et al. lacks any sound exegetical support, and the doctrine that teaches water baptism affects salvation is supported by sound, historical-grammatical exegesis of the Bible.

Finally, with respect to Wilson admitting that there is a strong relationship between baptism and eschatological salvation, it should be noted that it is not unusual for those who oppose baptismal regeneration to often slip into language and concepts that are utterly inconsistent with their purely symbolic understanding of baptism; John Calvin and other figures who opposed the doctrine displayed such an inconsistency, as do many modern Reformed authors. Notice the following, which is classical “speaking from both sides of one’s (theological) mouth” as Wilson did in the video:

The benefits communicated to us in baptism, as [the Belgic and Heidelberg catechisms] describe them, come to us only because of Christ, but they do not come from a Christ “who remains outside of us,” as Calvin argued. Both the new status and the new birth signified and sealed in baptism belong to the Reformed emphasis on the “double grace” of justification and sanctification enjoyed in union with Christ . . . At the same time, the Reformed tradition has emphasised the clear role that baptism plays as a sacrament of initiation into the Abrahamic covenant of grace under its new covenant administration (the church, inclusive of Gentiles as well as Jews). In baptism the many are incorporated into one body (Eph 4:4) and begin to participate in the life of the age to come as those who have put on the resurrected and glorified Jesus and are being conformed to the same image (Rom 4:11; 1 Cor 12:12-13). Entrance into new life in Christ the head of his body is entrance into the life of the members that receive life from and in their head (Eph 1:22-23; 2:21; Col 1:18). Though experiencing baptism does not of itself save--and though the Spirit’s effective working through the sacrament is not limited to the time of its administration (so Westminster Confession of Faith 28.6)--Christian baptism if never something merely nominal nor is it legitimately administered beyond the manifest realm of Christ’s saving work and kingly rule. (Brannon Ellis, “Union with Christ as the Covenant of Grace,” in Sanctification: Explorations in Theology and Practice, ed. Kelly M. Kapic [Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2014], 79-102, here, pp. 84. 85; comment in square bracket my own)

I hope this article will cause those who reject the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration will rethink their position on this salvific issue.


Further Reading:

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament, Part 4: John 3:1-7

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Not by Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

For a book-length treatment of baptism in the Bible and early Christianity, one should read:

Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2009)