That’s obviously because his circumstances wouldn’t allow him to get baptized. But one would be a fool to live a whole lifetime, actively deciding not to get baptized and even actively shunning instructions to do so, and think that they could be saved.
That’s obviously because his circumstances wouldn’t allow him to get baptized. But one would be a fool to live a whole lifetime, actively deciding not to get baptized and even actively shunning instructions to do so, and think that they could be saved.
You need to read carefully brother. This is a classic example of implicit affirmation while issuing an explicit denial, or self contradiction by implication.
So, with respect, calling my statement a straw man does not hold, because I did not misrepresent your position nor did I argue that baptism is meaningless or to be discarded, I made a specific, text governed claim that Scripture explicitly ties regeneration and becoming a child of God to believing, and that claim must be answered exegetically from the passages themselves rather than displaced by a broader sacramental synthesis.
John states plainly, “But as many as received Him, to them He gave authority to become children of God, to those believing in His name, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” ~John 1:12–13 Berean Literal Bible, where πιστεύουσιν is the defining response and ἐγεννήθησαν is a divine passive locating the new birth wholly in God’s act, and baptism is neither mentioned nor implied in the context, therefore observing that sonship and regeneration are here tied to believing is not a polemic but a direct reading of the text.
Appealing to John 3:5 does not overturn this, because the phrase ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ Πνεύματος is governed by a single preposition, describing one birth characterized by cleansing and Spirit action, and Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding this as a teacher of Israel ~John 3:10, which only makes sense if the imagery comes from the Hebrew Scriptures, most clearly “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean, and I will put My Spirit within you” ~Ezekiel 36:25–27, where both water and Spirit are God’s actions, not rites administered by men, and nothing in the dialogue introduces or explains Christian baptism.
John’s Gospel consistently locates life and regeneration in believing, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone believing in Him should not perish, but have eternal life” ~John 3:16, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one hearing My word and believing Him who sent Me has eternal life” ~John 5:24, “But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” ~John 20:31, and nowhere in these explanatory salvation texts is baptism introduced as the instrumental cause of regeneration.
You saying that Scripture explicitly locates regeneration in the water of baptism goes beyond what the grammar actually states, because when regeneration is defined, agency is assigned to God and instrumentality to His mercy and Spirit, “He saved us, not by works of righteousness that we had done, but according to His mercy, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” ~Titus 3:5, where the aorist active ἔσωσεν grounds salvation in God’s act, and the renewing work is attributed to the Spirit, not to the application of water.
Regarding Paul, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel” ~1 Corinthians 1:17 Berean Literal Bible, this does not deny baptism’s importance, but it does deny that baptism is constitutive of the gospel itself, because Paul consistently grounds salvation in the proclaimed word of the cross received by faith, “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those perishing, but to us being saved it is the power of God” ~1 Corinthians 1:18, and “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone believing” ~Romans 1:16.
The issue here is not separating faith and baptism as acts of obedience, but confusing accompaniment with causation, Scripture regularly presents believing people being baptized, but where regeneration and sonship are explicitly explained, the texts assign the new birth to God’s action through the Spirit, received by faith, because of Christ crucified, and pointing that out is not pitting Scripture against Scripture, it is letting each passage speak within its own context and grammar.
So again, this is not a straw man, it is a direct engagement with the words of the text, and any claim that regeneration is explicitly located in baptism must be demonstrated from the syntax and immediate context of those passages, not asserted by theological necessity, because nowhere does Scripture say that water baptism itself effects the new birth, while it repeatedly and unambiguously says that God gives life, forgiveness, and sonship to the one who believes in His crucified and risen Son.
No need to respond. Also, learn the meaning of hendiadys.
@Danthemailman
J.
1 Like
GOD SAVED US BY
“WASHING US CLEAN”
Washing of regeneration - is another way of describing the new birth. See comments on the New Birth in John 3:3
J Vernon McGee explains that "This washing of regeneration is what the Lord was speaking about in the third chapter of John: “… Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). The water represents the Word of God—the Bible will wash you. It has a sanctifying power, a cleansing power. We are cleansed by the Word of God. The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God—“born of water and of the Spirit.” That is the way we are born again. (McGee, J V: Thru the Bible Commentary:
of water, &c. = of water and spirit. No Art. Figure of speech Hendiadys . Not two things, but one, by which the latter Noun becomes a superlative and emphatic Adjective, determining the meaning and nature of the former Noun, showing that one to be spiritual water: i.e. not water but spirit. It is to be rendered “of water-yea, spiritual water”. Compare Eph_5:26, and See Joh_7:38, Joh_7:39 and Eze_36:25-27 for the “earthly things” of Joh_3:12.
Hiebert comments that "Most commentators take the washing as a reference to water baptism. But if water baptism is the means that produces the spiritual rebirth, we then have the questionable teaching of a material agency as the indispensable means for producing a spiritual result (but cf. Mt 15:1-20; Ro 2:25, 26, 27, 28, 29-note; Gal 5:6).
Wiersbe - I do not think that washing here refers to baptism because, in New Testament times, people were baptized after they were saved, and not in order to be saved (see Acts 10:43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48). (Wiersbe, W: Bible Exposition Commentary. 1989. Victor)
Washing (3067) (loutron from louo = bathe whole person as in John 13:10) in the Greek writings refers (from Homer down) to a bath, a bathing place or performance of a complete ablution (act of washing the body).
In John 13 John used the root word louo explaining to Peter that…
He who has bathed (louo in the perfect tense = past completed action with ongoing effect) needs only to wash (nipto) his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you. 11 For He knew the one who was betraying Him; for this reason He said, "Not all of you are clean. (John 13:10, 11)
Comment: The imagery is oriental, where the Roman citizen would louo his entire body at the public baths and nipto his feet when he arrived home. Jesus used louo to refer to the cleansing of the sinner in “the Fountain filled with Blood drawn from Immanuel’s veins” at the moment of salvation when he is completely and eternally justified or declared righteous by faith in Christ. “Wash his feet” refers to a daily cleansing of the saint in his walk and his feet become “dirty” from sin and thus has to do with progressive or practical sanctification or daily being set aside more and more to God and from this world which is passing away. The partial washing indicated by the verb nipto is a picture of the daily need for confession and cleansing as in 1John 1:7,9. But see comment on this verse in the Net Bible regarding this interpretation.
A T Robertson notes that loutron is a "Late and common word with the Stoics (Dibelius) and in the Mystery-religions (Angus), also in the papyri and Philo… The usual meaning from Homer to the papyri is the bath or bathing-place, though some examples seem to mean bathing or washing… here (Titus 3:5 [note]) as there (Ep 5:26 [note]) (loutron refers to) the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Romans 6:3, 4, 5, 6 (see notes Ro 6:3; 6:4; 6:5; 6:6), the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it.
Metaphorically in the NT loutron is used of the Word of God as the instrument of spiritual cleansing (Ep 5:26-note). Here in Titus 3:5 loutron brings to mind the close connection between cleansing from sin and regeneration. “Mikveh” the Jewish ritual bath, renders the Greek word loutron.
Vincent adds that loutron "does not mean the act of bathing, but the bath, the laver. "
Milligan writes loutron denotes “the water for washing,” or “the washing” itself, as in the Mysteries’ inscriptions from Andania."
There are two uses of this word in Scripture…
Ephesians 5:26 (note) that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing (Some find a reference to the bride’s bath before marriage) of water with the word,
Titus 3:5 (note) He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit
Jesus used the root verb louo in John 13:10 declaring that
“He who has bathed (louo - perfect tense) needs only to wash his feet, but is completely clean; and you are clean, but not all of you.”
In Romans 6:3-6 (see notes Ro 6:3; 6:4; 6:5; 6:6), the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it. The washing mentioned can easily be understood metaphorically and contextually there is no WATER anywhere near this verse! Regeneration itself is an operation portrayed in Scripture as effecting a spiritual cleansing (Ezekiel 36:25, 26; John 3:5; 1Cor 6:11). In addition, since the expression “washing of regeneration” stands parallel to “renewing by the Holy Spirit”, it is more natural to assume the force of the gen. is also parallel. The gen. of latter phrase is certainly subjective. Hence, the words “washing of regeneration” refer to the washing produced by regeneration.
Titus 3:5 Commentary | Precept Austin.
J.
1 Like
Hey, @daconnr, I don’t think it was “technicalities” but instead a language barrier that has developed because he hasn’t grown up using English.
No, for all recorded instances of water baptism in the bible was after they had confessed saving faith in Jesus as their Savior and Lord
I’ve always viewed baptism as symbolic.
1 Like
I’ve always viewed baptism as symbolic.
That was how I was raised.
But when you go and look at Scripture when it talks about what baptism does, is, and means. Do you think the “baptism as symbolic” fits what the Bible is explicitly saying?
Here’s an example:
”Don’t you know that all of you who were baptized into Christ have put on Christ?” - Galatians 3:27
I assure you that I don’t want to be combative. I just want to invite people to contemplate what the Bible says. Because I genuinely believe that if we look at what Scripture is saying, it presents baptism as a way God comes down and graciously meets us in our lives. In Baptism we aren’t ascending to meet God; God is descending to meet us. Baptism isn’t something we do, but something God does.
Nicely said.
Physical baptism (immersion in water) was suggested as a person’s normal initial response to having recognized the seal of God on their life. It almost always followed immediately upon this revelation; the instant one recognized their salvation, or the moment of accepting the gospel, new Christians were urged to be immediately baptized. Water baptism so closely followed salvation chronologically that referring to a person’s baptism linguistically equated to the day or time they were “born from above”(Jn 3:3). In English, it’s a literary device called a Synecdoche, which is a form of metonym (Gk: μετωνυμία – metōnumía, meta-name), often found in writing, especially in The Bible, where the name of one part of a thing stands for the whole (i.e. “I’m going to hit the road”) . For another example, I might say, “I went to your graduation”, when actually your “graduation” is a concept of achievement denoting personal advancement, not a place or an event. I actually went to your commencement ceremony, the place where your graduation was proclaimed, but everyone knew what I was talking about when I said “I went to your graduation”. Same thing with Baptism in the verse you quoted (IMHO).
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27)
This verse means each one of you who have received salvation through Jesus, have also fully adopted His way of life, His eternal values, and his Godly deportment.
The writer is saying that being saved (Baptized into Christ) goes with “putting on Christ” (living in His fullness). Baptism (in this verse) is a synecdoche referring to the full eternal cleansing, and immutable immersion into the life of Jesus, not specifically the isolated, observable event of submersion in water. The metonym is understood by his hearers to imply fully adopting, and completely devoted to the teachings and truths expressed by Jesus by faith in Him, i.e. to be transformed by the renewing of your mind. The meaning is reinforced here;
But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts. (Rom. 13:14)
We don’t literally “put on” Jesus, as if he were a coat, but we figuratively do by our transformation. We express outwardly what is new-and-true inwardly.
This metonymical understanding of the passage is often reinforced throughout the New Testament (IMHO)
Blessing
KP
1 Like
Do we have any example of where “baptized into Christ” is explicitly used this way? Which is another way to ask, what reason is there that we should mean that “baptized into Christ” doesn’t refer to baptism? What’s the exegetical reason?
I appreciate the response, and the question.
Regarding your question and request for an “exegetical reason”, all I can say in response is exegesis IS the reason that we can know when the author is speaking of physical water-baptism, and when the writer is speaking metaphorically using the word baptism as a metonym. Hermeneutics requires that we combine the precise original words as they were placed within the local context of the whole writing. Adding to that what we know of the period, the people, the culture, the language, with how the author uses the same phrase in other writings, while relying on divine Grace and the promise of The Holy Spirit to teach, and as we intentionally yield ourselves in prayer, we find the passage is illuminated and the interpretation made clear to our hearts and minds, so we can testify of them to the world, and bear fruit to the glory of God. (that run-on sentence needs some wordsmithing. Sorry)
“For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:26-27)”
The point is unity. In this case, a literal interpretation would distort his purpose by suggesting something foreign to the authors topic, which is the unity of the body, only by faith in the finished work of Jesus, apart from keeping the law of the past covenant. Reading the whole letter as a single treatise, all the individual parts of the letter must make sense within the grand-purpose of the letter. Paul’s not jumping out of context by saying: “Oh, by-the-way, by your body being dunked under water, you literally have Jesus hanging around your shoulders. I believe Paul is saying, “by being joined into the family of faith you have been imputed with the whole righteousness of Christ, and are no longer subject to the defunct requiremnts of law for acceptance.”
How is this metonym (“baptism in Jesus”, and “putting on Jesus”) used in other places?
What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. (Romans 6:1-7)
No one literally dies physically when dunked under physical water. But we do die to selves spiritually with Christ when we are fully immersed in Him.
For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body–whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free–and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. (1 Corinthians 12:13)
Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)
But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus: that you put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts, and be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and that you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness. (Ephesians 4:20-24)
None of these examples make sense within the context and within the topic of the writing when taken in a literal way. To be understood, they must be understood metaphorically for the light to turn on in our heads.(IMHO)
This is my personal process of exegesis. I am fully aware other people arrive at different conclusions, and I am always open to try to understand other points of view. I appreciate your input.
KP
I concur…
Warren Wiersbe notes that…
When you read about “baptism” in the New Testament, you must exercise discernment to determine whether the word is to be interpreted literally or symbolically. For example, in Romans 6:3, 4 and Galatians 3:27, 28, the reference is symbolic (Ed: and figurative) since water baptism cannot put a sinner into Jesus Christ. Only the Holy Spirit can do that (Ro 8:9; 1Co 12:13; see Ac 10:44, 45, 46, 47, 48). Water baptism is a public witness of the person’s identification with Jesus Christ, while Spirit baptism is the personal and private experience that identifies the person with Christ.
Baptizo - 77 times in 64v in the NT in the NASB- Mt 3:6 (water baptism prior to coming of the Spirit), Mt 3:11 (Note 2 or 3 types of baptism in this verse = [1] With water for repentance - not Christian baptism but similar to OT washings that symbolized a cleansing of personal repentance, cp Lk 7:29, 30 and associated with genuine belief in Jesus -Acts 19:4 - but still under the OT economy and so prior to the coming of the Spirit in Acts 2 [2] With the Holy Spirit, something that happens to all believers - 12.13" class=“scriptRef”>1Cor 12:13, Ro 8:9 [3] With fire - could speak of judgment or could refer to baptism at Pentecost where fire symbolized the coming of the Spirit in which case there would be only 2 types of baptism described in this passage - note: this is a difficult verse), Mt 3:13, 14, 16" class=“scriptRef”>16" class=“scriptRef”>16; 28.19" class=“scriptRef”>28:19; Mk. 1:4 (John the Baptist or Baptizer), Mk 1:5, Mk 1:8 (distinguishes baptism with water for repentance -Mt 3:11, and that with the Holy Spirit), Mk 1:9; 6:14, 24; 7:4; 38-Mark.10.39" class=“scriptRef”>10:38, 39; 16:16; Lk. 3:7, 12, 16, 21; 7:29, 30; 11:38; 12:50; 26" class=“scriptRef”>Jn. 1:25, 26, 28, 31, 33" class=“scriptRef”>33; 3:22, 23, 26; 4:1, 2; 10:40; Acts 1:5; 2:38, 41; 8:12, 13, 16, 36, 38; 9:18; 10:47, 48; 11:16; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:3, 4, 5; 22:16; Ro 6:3; 1Co. 1:13, 14, 15; 10:2; 12:13; 15:29; Gal. 3:27 and is rendered in the NAS as Baptist (3), baptize(9), baptized(51), baptizes(1), ceremonially washed(1),undergo(1).
There are only 2 uses of baptizo in the Septuagint (LXX), one in Isaiah 21:4 and the other in
2Kings 5:14 So he went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan, according to the word of the man of God; and his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
Note that baptízo is not “translated” but is transliterated in our English Bibles. To transliterate is simply to transcribe (a word in one alphabet) into corresponding letters of another alphabet. For example, the Greek word λογοσ can be transliterated as “logos”.
Paul was not saying that the Israelites underwent literal water baptism in the name of Moses. What he meant was that the children of Israel identified with Moses, that they were entering into close union with him, coming to belong to him, so as to be in a sense identified with him acknowledging that he was the Lord’s appointed leader over them. There was solidarity between the people and Moses. As Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt toward the Promised Land, all the nation of Israel pledged allegiance to Moses at first and recognized him as the divinely appointed “savior”. Moses was the channel through which God spoke to the children of Israel. He was their anchor to God. In a deeper and more profound sense, believers are baptized into Jesus Christ.
Thus…
βαπτισθέντες (baptisthentes) is a aorist passive participle, showing a completed act done to the believer, with εἰς Χριστόν (into Christ) indicating union or incorporation, not method. The verb itself means “to immerse, to place into, to identify with” in a relational or spiritual sense; the Greek grammar does not attach an instrument or medium.
There is dative or instrumental marker indicating water or any physical agent in either Galatians 3:27 or Romans 6:3‑4; the passive voice only shows that the believer is acted upon by Christ/God.
Romans 6:3‑4 explicitly ties the baptism to death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, emphasizing participation in Christ’s work. The syntax links the participle βαπτισθέντες with the union in Christ’s death, showing a spiritual reality rather than describing a physical ritual.
In both passages, the focus is covenantal and relational: believers are “in Christ,” clothed with Christ, dead to sin, alive to God. The Greek expresses identity and position, not a ceremony.
So from a Greek and syntactical standpoint, water is not required by the text itself; the grammar emphasizes union, participation, and identification with Christ, which is the theological reality Paul is arguing.
J.
Acts 2:38 is not a suggestion offered to curious listeners; it is a command issued to people who had just been pierced in their spiritual heart. Peter’s answer flows directly from Acts 2:37. They were not asking a theological question, they were responding to conviction. “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” That question only comes when the heart has been struck by truth and cannot remain neutral. Peter does not separate repentance from baptism, and Scripture does not give us permission to separate what the Spirit joined together.
The conjunction “and” in Acts 2:38 is doing heavy theological work, whether people want to admit it or not. “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…” That word does not mean “optional,” “symbolic,” or “later if you feel led.” It links two actions into one obedient response. Remove the “and,” and you rewrite the verse. Redefine the “and,” and you weaken the command. Scripture does neither. Repentance addresses the heart’s rebellion; baptism addresses the sinner’s standing. One is inward turning, the other is covenant action. Together, they form a single response to conviction.
This matters because Acts 2 is not a calm altar call. These people were spiritually assaulted by truth. The word “pricked” means pierced, stabbed, struck through. When God cuts the heart, He does not ask for partial obedience. Peter does not say, “Believe in your heart and you’re fine,” nor does he say, “Repent now and baptism can wait.” He gives a clear, authoritative command to people who are already under judgment and mercy at the same time. Delay is not presented as faith. Obedience is.
To argue that baptism is unnecessary for salvation in this context is to argue that Peter over-commanded the convicted. That is not a small claim. If baptism were merely symbolic, Peter could have said so. Instead, he ties it directly to the remission of sins. Not as a work earning salvation, but as an obedient response to grace already confronting the heart. Grace calls; obedience answers.
Acts does not present salvation as a negotiated minimum. It presents it as a commanded response to divine conviction. When the heart is struck by the Spirit, God does not ask what we are willing to do—He tells us what must be done. Repentance and baptism are not competing ideas; they are inseparable responses to the same piercing truth. Remove one, and you no longer have Acts 2 salvation. You have a theology built after the fact, not the gospel preached on the day the Church was born.
1 Like
This is to answer the topic title
It’s faith that is the key
So if Jesus said take up thy bed and walk
And they believed Jesus they would be saved/ delivered from not walking.
The woman believed if she could touch the hem of his garment she would be delivered from her illment.
This shows that God can use anything to deliver.
He told the people to walk around the wall of Jericho.
They showed faith by the use of doing what God said. And God use that parameter to deliver them.
So if God said be baptized in water, one would have faith that God can use the water to save.
And possibly in that sense if this was practiced as such in their time it also would shine light on what God would teach through this.
If those people came out of the water forgiven its because they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.
They acted in faith that God could use the water and they were delivered.
So if we were to go back to this in making disciples, those who came out of the water because they acted in faith would be forgiven and therefore entered the kingdom in Jesus name…Amen!
Just to clarify, are you saying water saves, @Corlove13? I don’t want to misrepresent your point.
J.
I was wondering the same thing @Johann just asked you.
Peter
But I believe the whole concept has been 
distorted
I think that…when you see it the way I understood it…and you Hear the passage: through baptism you have died -it is ones commitment outwardly- that can express and inward conviction or conversion of the heart. The coming out the water is to enter into the kingdom of His dear son.
But let us not forget, if people have in this day, misconstrued water baptism God could use any means of actions of faith.
Without faith it’s impossible to please God.
I believe the outer action of faith is to affirms or maybe seals your conscience before God.
I am saying God can use the water to save
True. He is God. He could just bring someone to heaven alive without even that person facing death here. However, you must be careful.
Without faith in? Jesus. Without faith in Jesus, Yeshua, the Man God, coming and dying for us to pay the price, water will just get you wet. You cannot get to God if you leave God out of the equation.
Peter
2 Likes
Thank you brother @PeterC -I’m beginning to really, really appreciate you.
J.
1 Like