There are two major Christian groups, churches, or denominations I know of that believe it is necessary to be water baptized in order to receive remission of sins or in order to be born again or be saved.
One of the main texts of Scripture they point to in support of this view is John 3:5,
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
In context, Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews, did not understand what Jesus meant by “born again.”
A little farther in the narrative Jesus indicates his surprise that Nicodemus did not know these things:
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?
If Jesus expected Nicodemus to know and understand these things, it stands to reason that these things were already taught in the Bible and Nicodemus should have known them.
Since Jesus expected Nicodemus as a “master in Israel” to know these things, clearly they must be taught in the Old Testament, and in fact they are. Being “born of water” is taught in Eze 36:25, “sprinkle clean water,” and being “born of the spirit” is taught in Eze 36:26, 27, “a new spirit will I put within you,” both expressions in Ezekiel pertaining to the spiritual awakening required for Israel to be restored to God’s favor in order to receive the promised theocratic kingdom in the land of Israel (Eze 36:28). Since the three elements “water,” “spirit,” and promised “kingdom of God” appear together in both passages in precisely the same connection, it is unnecessary to look elsewhere for the proper explanation of Jesus’ words.
Therefore, the reference to being “born of water and the Spirit” can have no reference to the Christian rite of ritual water baptism for there is no way that Jesus could properly expect Nicodemus to have knowledge of that. Water baptism is not at all in view in Ezekiel 36:26, 27, 28.
In the first part of this series about “Is water baptism required for salvation” which I began with yesterday’s post, I established from Scripture itself that there are at least two baptisms spoken of in the New Testament (Hebrews 6:1, 2, note baptisms is plural). I gave several New Testament passages which spoke of two baptisms (Matthew 3:11)–water baptism as practiced by John the Baptist and baptism of the Holy Ghost as practiced by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Baptism with water is ritual water baptism and requires someone to administer the water to the subject.
Real baptism is accomplished by the Holy Spirit without a human administrator and without the use of physical water.
Notice very carefully that John 3:5 is a reference to real baptism by the Holy Spirit which results in the new birth for in context no water is mentioned in connection with any human administrator of the rite:
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
But reading the verse you might say, but Jesus explicitly mentions being “born of water.” What is involved here is a Figure of Speech called Hendiadys, where two words are used (water, Spirit) but only one thing is meant (Spirit). Thus what is meant is “born of water, even the Spirit.” Water is here used as a symbol of the Holy Spirit. Taken this way, what Jesus said to Nicodemus should have been understood by Nicodemus in the light of Ezekiel 36:25, 26, 27, a passage he surely should have known.
This conclusively demonstrates that two Christian churches or denominations I know of have misinterpreted John 3:5 when they have used this text to assert their mistaken doctrine of baptismal regeneration when they teach that ritual water baptism is a requirement for salvation.
“There are two major Christian groups, churches, or denominations I know of that believe it is necessary to be water baptized in order to receive remission of sins or in order to be born again or be saved.”
Presumably the Catholic Church is one of these, and Orthodoxy is the second. But that’s not all there is. Lutheranism believes in baptismal regeneration, as do Churches of Christ and Disciples of Christ. Traditional Anglicanism also does, as do at least some Methodists (who came from Anglicanism).
That’s seven by my count, and indeed it is a vast majority of Christians throughout history (since Protestants didn’t exist for fifteen Christian centuries) and the majority today as well.
Dear Dave,
You are correct about the number of Christian groups that believe in baptismal regeneration, groups that believe that it is necessary to be water baptized to be saved.
My reference to “two groups that I know of” is to the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Christ, two groups that I have personally directly encountered myself.
Truth is not determined by a majority vote. Usually, or at least often, the majority is wrong. Truth in spiritual matters must be determined by correspondence with what the Bible itself teaches.
Yes; ad populum is a fallacy. I note that many times in my apologetics.
But I also believe that if God is God, and is omnipotent and good for His promises, that He can preserve truth in institutional, historical Christian groups and in His Church.
That’s why I think that the fact that most Christians throughout history and at the present time have believed in baptismal regeneration: because it’s true.
The factor of God’s guidance introduces a major new causal factor that transcends toe ad populum fallacy.
There is a good reason, therefore, that anti-trinitarian so-called Christians are in a small minority. It’s because God has preserved this crucial truth.
You wouldn’t say, “Truth is not determined by a majority vote” when it comes to the Trinity. You only say it when it has to do with a doctrine that you personally reject.
“Truth in spiritual matters must be determined by correspondence with what the Bible itself teaches.”
But of course people disagree as to what it teaches, and there is the rub, and the fundamental Protestant difficulty that has never been overcome and never will be.
The fathers and teachers in the Church up until the 16th century did not believe that only Scripture is an infallible authority, for this very reason. They knew that it was also supremely important to trace any true Christian doctrine back through history: ultimately back to the apostles. What was true WOULD be believed by most Christians, because of God’s supernatural guidance and protection. And to consult ecumenical councils of the Church . . .
I always use baptism to illustrate the essential Protestant problem. There are five major views: all held by folks who think the Bible is crystal clear (perspicuous) and supports their position.
Now, as an old debate team participant, you know full well that if there are five views that contradict each other, massive falsehood and error MUST necessarily be present. And that’s not good. Falsehood and lies are of the devil.
By institutionalizing contradictory disagreements and unbiblical denominationalism. Protestantism directly causes and espouses what must be error in the thousands of instances of contradictory viewpoints within its domain.
You position on baptism might be construed as a sixth position within Protestantism. But I want to learn more about where it came from and who believes it. Or is it brand-new with you? Maybe now we have to add “Smithism” to the myriad of interminably contradicting Protestant viewpoints? 🙂 We already have Lutheranism, Calvinism, Wesleyanism, Campbellites, etc. Why not add another name-group?