I used to connect John 3:3-5 with Acts 2:38 as evidence that being born again of water and spirit is baptism in Jesus Name and the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues.
However, there are a few issues with this.
1) Authorial intent is ignored. John is writing his gospel and using water in a particular context, it is wrong to try to impose a context found elsewhere into John’s writings. The better option is to find out how John himself uses water.
2) John repeatedly connects water with the Spirit, not baptism. John 4:13-14 Jesus says “Whoever drinks of the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.”
In John 7:37-39, Jesus again connects water to his Spirit. “On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.” By this, he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.”
E.W. Bullinger, in Figures of Speech Used in the Bible. p. 664, says that in this context (John 3:5) we are dealing with a figure of speech called hendiadys, which literally indicates “one by means of two.” In a hendiadys, two words - in this case, ‘water’ and ‘spirit’ - are employed to get the point across, but only one idea is intended. One of the words, ‘Spirit,’ expresses the point, but the other word, ‘water,’ intensifies ‘Spirit’ to the superlative degree.
3) The phrase ‘Born Again’ is surprisingly absent in the book of Acts. The phrase is only found in John even though most people associate Acts 2:38 with the New Birth. Born again is also not the best translation for this phrase, it is better understood as “born from above” indicating a spiritual birth. This is consistent with the teaching of John about the Spirit being a life-giving source.
4) Jesus connects this new birth with Old Testament texts that Nicodemus, a Pharisee, would have understood.
Isaiah 44:3 “For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour out my Spirit on your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.”
Ezekiel 36:25-27 “I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.”
Also, see Ezekiel 47:1-12.
5) Acts 2:38 is never referenced in any epistle, including when the writer is combating false teachings on salvation. The argument is usually that this didn’t need to be repeated since these letters were written to churches that had already experienced Acts 2:38. Paul had never visited the church in Rome, he addresses issues with their theology and spends a great amount of time combating faith and law. He had plenty of opportunities to connect justification by faith to the actions proclaimed in Acts 2:38 and he doesn’t do that.
Plus some of the epistles like Romans and Galatians were written before there was a book of Acts. You don’t think Paul would have confirmed this was the plan of salvation at all?
6) Acts 2:38 cannot be used in isolation to teach the plan of salvation because you need the context of the whole to help understand what baptism FOR the remission of sins means.
‘For’ could mean, in order to obtain, or it could mean because of. The context has to dictate which is correct. If I said I am going to the store for milk you know I’m going in order to obtain milk. But if I said I’m going to the store for my wife, you know I am going to the store because of my wife, not to obtain her.
Are we baptized in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins? Or are we baptized because of the forgiveness of sins?
There are a lot of opinions about the Greek word "eis" which is translated as for, most insist that this word is always looking toward something. In other words, they say for means to look forward (to obtain) and that it never looks back (because of).
Again, it's not that simple. Here's a great example of this.
Romans 6:3 "Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death?”
The Greek word "eis" is translated here as "into" both times.
Were we baptized into Christ in order to obtain His death? Or were we baptized into Christ because of His death? It's obvious "eis" is looking back at what Christ's death accomplished.
Matthew 26:28 “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.”
"Eis" here is looking forward, His blood is poured out in order to obtain the forgiveness of sins.
Mark 1:4 “John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”
Again, if "eis" is always looking toward, as in obtaining, do we suggest that John's baptism was to obtain the forgiveness of sins? No.
We know that John was baptizing for repentance and the forgiveness of sins, but we understand that forgiveness of sins wasn't accomplished until the cross.
Romans 3:21-26 “But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but it is the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in God’s merciful restraint He let the sins previously committed go unpunished; for the demonstration, that is, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”
So we see that those who repented or asked for forgiveness were forgiven by looking toward what Christ accomplished on the cross, today we are forgiven by looking back at what he already accomplished.
Finally, in order to really make sure we aren't wrong to say that baptism doesn't remit sins, we need to wrestle with one more passage that appears to contradict this idea.
1 Peter 3:20-21 “who once were disobedient when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
instead of giving you my breakdown of this passage, I want to share a quote from someone who says this better than I could.
"This is probably the most abused water baptism Scriptures used today. The simple side of this is that Peter is pointing to the affirmation of our faith in the death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. This is why he said that water baptism represents our faith in Jesus, that is serves as an open appeal to God for a good conscience.
Let's now look a what Peter clearly defines as salvation. Its not fair to seclude one Scripture from the body of Scriptures to try and create a doctrine. This is what all eisegesis based, restrictive religions do. Listen carefully: (Eisegesis means ‘reading into’)
At the council of the church in Acts 15, it was called to determine how to handle all the Gentiles who were being saved. Not one time is water baptism ever mentioned. But what Peter has to say places salvation where it needs to be. Here are excerpts of statements made by Peter:
“And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, HAVING CLEANSED THEIR HEARTS BY FAITH.” Acts 15:8-9
Peter then says in verse 11, “But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”
Peter is pointing to the fact that Cornelius and his household were saved before they were baptized in water. The command of water baptism came after they were saved. And this is where the confusion comes in on what Peter is talking about in his statement, “baptism now saves us.”
The apostle is dealing with types and symbols that are found in the Old Testament. Notice carefully how Peter begins his statement concerning ‘baptism now saves us.’ He says, ‘Corresponding to that.’ That is a single Greek term that speaks of an antitype that takes the place of the type.
In dealing with types and symbols, Peter is saying that water baptism alone is not the saving element. Water baptism is equal to a type in that it serves to confirm or reaffirm our faith in Jesus Christ. Thus water baptism is an appeal to God for a good conscience, in saying that we truly believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Water baptism is a follow through of our faith. It is here that we fully and openly express our faith in Jesus Christ.
If this seems difficult to grasp, let me add something that many believers are unacquainted with. For the Jewish people, water baptism was a covenant rite. It expressed that the believer had entered into a covenant relationship with the God of Israel. In this sense no believer should feel that water baptism is not a necessary part of our walk with the Lord. It should never be downplayed. Water baptism is actually the first commandment of faith that follows our having received the blood atonement.
This is why Paul speaks of the mystical side of water baptism in that the old man (or, the old master) is cut off in water baptism, and we now come fully under our new Master, the Lord Jesus Christ.
All the Jewish apostles placed a high premium on water baptism, but not in the sense that the blood is applied in water baptism. The blood is to be applied before baptism. Water baptism had to do with the covenant authority, with the obedience of faith, with fellowship and communion. It has to do with community. No person was accepted into the community of faith without water baptism.
One of the best examples we have with regards to types and shadows of the former testament involves Israel coming out of Egypt. The blood had been applied to their homes. This disallowed any judgment from God. They were saved in the sight of God. They actually belonged to Him. But there was a problem. They needed to identify more fully with Moses and not with Pharaoh. It could be said that they were still in Pharaoh’s territory.
Something had to happen before Pharaoh would completely release his hold on the people of God. What happened to produce this effect? Israel passed through the Red Sea. In the passing through the sea, the old life, the old master, and the old way of living were cut off. It was through the waters that they came fully under the authority of Moses.
Yet the point must be made. They were God’s people before they came through the sea. Water baptism is an act of faith and any acting on our faith will have spiritual ramifications. (Every step of obedience does.) Peter is making a similar statement with regard to ‘baptism now saves you."
- Bernie Gillespie
Just an interesting point to Bernie's example of the children of Israel needing to identify fully with Moses than with Pharoah, Paul alludes to this in 1 Corinthians 10.
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 “For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and they all passed through the sea; and they all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;”
I like the way Bernie phrases this,
"In the passing through the sea, the old life, the old master, and the old way of living were cut off. It was through the waters that they came fully under the authority of Moses."
this is why Paul says this in Romans 6,
Romans 6:1-7 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? Far from it! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for the one who has died is freed from sin.”
Baptism is the reflection of what Christ has done in our lives. It's a visible representation of the gospel. Going into the waters a dead man, identifying with Christ's death, but coming out in newness of life. It's the death, burial, and resurrection that gives us new life.
1 Corinthians 15:1-5 “Now I make known to you, brothers and sisters, the gospel which I preached to you, which you also received, in which you also stand, by which you also are saved, if you hold firmly to the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I handed down to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,”
This is the gospel. Christ died and was buried for our sins, he was resurrected and now offers us eternal life.
But does this offer require us to reenact his death, burial, and resurrection? By using the death, burial, and resurrection as a reason why we should obey Acts 2:38 is to make the work of Christ a typology for something else.
In other words, if we have to obey Acts 2:38 to identify with the gospel, then Christ's death, burial, and resurrection are NOT what saves us, it simply points toward the real plan of salvation.
This is what makes the theology of Oneness Pentecostals who hold to Acts 2:38 as the plan of salvation so problematic.
Typology and Oneness Pentecostal Theology
A type is a symbol appointed by God to adumbrate or represent something higher in the future, which is called the antitype. There is a graduation from type to antitype; of the lesser to the greater; from the material to the spiritual; the earthly to the heavenly.
For example, the story of Jonah is considered typology, representing what Jesus was going to do. Jonah offered himself to appease the wrath of God and save the other men in the boat from the storm. In doing this he spent three days in the belly of a fish, representing Jesus spending 3 days in the grave.
Paul in Romans 5:14 points to Adam as a type of Christ. Christ is always the antitype, he is the one everything points to. But in Oneness Pentecostal theology, Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection are actually a type for something else. It’s subtle but it's dangerous.
In this theology the cross isn’t actually what saves us, it's the type that we look to in order to be saved. The reality of the type, the antitype in this theology is Acts 2:38. This means that Jesus' death is a type for repentance, Jesus' burial is a type for baptism, and Jesus' resurrection is a type for the Holy Spirit infilling.
This is bad theology. As I stated there is a natural graduation from type to antitype, Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment of every type and shadow in Scripture. He doesn’t point to something greater because nothing is greater than Him.
The whole of Oneness Pentecostal theology rests on Acts 2:38. It becomes the antitype, the reality of everything else. They see Jesus' baptism as a typology of Acts 2:38. John 3:3-5 is said to be pointing to Acts 2:38. The truth is that it is a flawed hermeneutic that has resulted in a flawed theology.
Bad Method ALWAYS leads to Bad Theology.
Comments