If something is "required" in order to achieve peace with God, eternal life, and not be sent to Hell, than it must be an essential requirement given the eternal weight of its significance. Therefore, if Baptism is required to be saved, that's a big deal.
Baptismal regeneration is the belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, or, more precisely, that regeneration does not occur until a person is water baptized by a recognized Church body. Baptismal regeneration is a tenet of numerous Christian denominations, but is most strenuously promoted by churches in the Restoration Movement, specifically the Church of Christ and the International Church of Christ.
Advocates of baptismal regeneration point to Scripture verses such as Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, and 1 Peter 3:21 for biblical support. So, we will analyze these passages in their proper true context and exegeses the truest meaning of these passages. But, since Holy Scripture does NOT contradict itself, we must reconcile what the totality of the Bible teaches to keep in total orthodox of the faith. A fundamental and extremely important verse to aid in our proper understanding of those verses, we must incorporate this:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them." - Eph 2:8-10
Also we must keep in mind and reconcile these verses as well: John 3:16; John 3:36; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5
Now, with THIS statement of truth from God in Holy Scripture, we can better understand the other verses.
But, before we look into this verse, there are some historical issues with WHERE this passage originated from. THIS issue needs to be settled before we apply it as though it was breathed from the mouth of God. A monk named Ephraim who lived in the 900s, wrote these words in a manuscript of the Gospels between Mark 16:8 and 16:9: “In some of the copies, the evangelist finishes here, up to which (point) also Eusebius of Pamphilus made canon sections. But in many the following is also contained.” Ephraim wasn’t the original author of these particular words. He regularly copied marginal notes that were already in the manuscripts he was using, and this note was one of them. And Ephraim’s manuscript isn’t the only copy of Mark that has this note between 16:8 and 16:9. There are at least 11 others in Greek. The note probably predates 10th-century Ephraim by a few hundred years. Ephraim’s approach to the ending of Mark was the same as that of modern translations and editions. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament even prints Ephraim’s note as a word of caution that Mark 16:9–20 might not be original to Mark’s Gospel.
There are effectively just two Greek manuscripts that lack Mark 16:9–20. These are codices Sinaiticus (ℵ01) and Vaticanus (B03), two important manuscripts from the fourth century. It’s almost unimaginable that the copyists who made them were unaware of Mark 16:9–20, but at the end of the day, they left it out of their Bibles. When we consider the other 1,600-plus Greek manuscripts of Mark, the picture becomes more complicated. At least 23 Greek manuscripts that include Mark 16:9–20 also have anomalies like extra endings or notes that express doubts concerning the authenticity of these verses. One important fourth-century Old Latin manuscript has a short addition after verse 8 and then ends without verses 9 to 20. A valuable Old Syriac manuscript from the fourth century also ends Mark at 16:8. A Sahidic Coptic manuscript (probably from the fifth century) ends Mark’s Gospel at 16:8 as well. In 1937, E. C. Colwell identified 99 Armenian manuscripts of Mark (of 220 surveyed) ending at 16:8, and a further 33 containing 16:9–20 but with notes expressing doubt about the verses’ authenticity.
though more than 99 percent of manuscripts available to us now contain Mark 16:9–20, it may not always have been this way. A Christian named Marinus wrote to Eusebius (c. AD 265–339) to ask for help resolving a perceived contradiction between Matthew and Mark. Marinus asked why Matthew (28:1) says Jesus appeared “late on the Sabbath,” but Mark (16:9) says Jesus appeared “early on the first day of the week.” Eusebius responded that one possible solution to this problem was simply to reject Mark 16:9 as not part of Mark’s Gospel. “[T]he accurate ones of the copies define the end of the history according to Mark [at 16:8] . . . in this way the ending of the Gospel according to Mark is defined in nearly all the copies.” Independent of Eusebius, fifth-century father Hesychius of Jerusalem affirmed that “the more accurate copies” of Mark ended at 16:8 as well.
Therefore, given the risk and complications of assuming this passage is of God, through Mark, we will just move on to the other verses and won't use this one at this time.
It is important to note that nowhere in the context of the passage is baptism even mentioned. While baptism is mentioned later in this chapter (John 3:22-30), that is in a totally different setting (Judea instead of Jerusalem) and at a different time from the discussion with Nicodemus. Simply reading these verses in context would give one no reason to assume Jesus was speaking of baptism, unless one was looking to read into the passage a preconceived idea or theology (eisegesis). To automatically read baptism into this verse simply because it mentions “water” is unwarranted.
First of all, Jesus LEFT OUT the concept of literal baptism in his discussion with Nicodemus. Probably because that wasn't part of the context of what he and Nicodemus were talking about. If Jesus had wanted to say that one must be baptized to be saved, He clearly could have simply stated, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is baptized and born of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” But that leads us to another problem, if Jesus had made such a statement, He would have contradicted numerous other Bible passages that make it clear that salvation is by faith (see 'verses shed light on proper understanding' above). Since that would be a blatant contradiction, then it is the interpretation that is false, not Jesus or the other verses of God's word.
Secondly, when Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, the ordinance of Christian baptism was not yet in effect. So answering Nicodemus' question with some future unknown concept is irrational. Same argument they use when people bring up the fact that the thief on the cross wasn't baptized. Proponents of Baptismal Regeneration actually contradict themselves by dodging the thief on the cross issue by saying he, the thief on the cross, was under the Old Testament Covenant. Well, so was Nicodemus. So if Jesus is requiring Nicodemus to be baptized to be saved, under the New Covenant, this must then also apply to the thief on the cross... who didn't get baptized and still was accepted into heaven. See, the more people use mental gymnastics to justify their own beliefs, the more contradictions become apparent.
Thirdly, the context of Nicodemus' response shows WHAT Jesus was talking about. Being “born of water” is being used by Jesus to refer to natural birth (with water referring to the amniotic fluid that surrounds the baby in the womb) like how we say "her water broke" and that's how you know a baby is on the way; and that being born of the “Spirit” indicates spiritual birth. Which explains Nicodemus' response.
There is still yet another possible understanding of this verse which also does not teach baptismal regeneration either. The Barclay Daily Study Bible describes it like this: "Water is the symbol of cleansing. When Jesus takes possession of our lives, when we love Him with all our heart, the sins of the past are forgiven and forgotten. The Spirit is the symbol of power. When Jesus takes possession of our lives it is not only that the past is forgotten and forgiven; if that were all, we might well proceed to make the same mess of life all over again; but into life there enters a new power which enables us to be what by ourselves we could never be and to do what by ourselves we could never do. Water and the Spirit stand for the cleansing and the strengthening power of Christ, which wipes out the past and gives victory in the future.” Therefore, the “water” mentioned in this verse is not literal physical water but rather the “living water” Jesus promised the woman at the well in John 4:10 and the people in Jerusalem in John 7:37-39. It is the inward purification and renewal produced by the Holy Spirit that brings forth spiritual life to a dead sinner (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Titus 3:5). Jesus reinforces this truth in John 3:7 when He restates that one must be born again and that this newness of life can only be produced by the Holy Spirit (John 3:8).
All the supported and possible understandings of this do not include the notion of the physical act and work of water baptism. Thus, if this verse is interpreted as to attempt to justify baptismal regeneration, that is highly questionable.
The justification used for this verse hinges on the word "for." Those who hold to the belief that baptism is required for salvation are quick to point to this verse and the fact that it says “be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins,” assuming that the word translated “for” in this verse means “in order to get.” However, in both Greek and English, there are many possible usages of the word “for.” There are three possible meanings of the word “for” that might fit the context of Acts 2:38: 1--“in order to be, become, get, have, keep, etc.,” 2—“because of, as the result of,” or 3—“with regard to.” Since any one of the three meanings could fit the context of this passage, additional study is required in order to determine which one is correct. This is a common Greek word (it is used 1774 times in the New Testament) that is translated many different ways. Like the English word “for” it can have several different meanings. So, again, we see at least two or three possible meanings of the passage, one that would seem to support that baptism is required for salvation and others that would not. While both the meanings of the Greek word eis are seen in different passages of Scripture, such noted Greek scholars as A.T. Robertson and J.R. Mantey have maintained that the Greek preposition eis in Acts 2:38 should be translated “because of” or “in view of,” and not “in order to,” or “for the purpose of.”
One example of how this preposition is used in other Scriptures is seen in Matthew 12:41 where the word eis communicates the “result” of an action. In this case it is said that the people of Nineveh “repented at the preaching of Jonah” (the word translated “at” is the same Greek word eis). Clearly, the meaning of this passage is that they repented “because of’” or “as the result of” Jonah’s preaching. In the same way, it would be possible that Acts 2:38 is indeed communicating the fact that they were to be baptized “as the result of” or “because” they already had believed and in doing so had already received forgiveness of their sins (John 1:12; John 3:14-18; John 5:24; John 11:25-26; Acts 10:43; Acts 13:39; Acts 16:31; Acts 26:18; Romans 10:9; Ephesians 1:12-14). This interpretation of the passage is also consistent with the message recorded in Peter’s next two sermons to unbelievers where he associates the forgiveness of sins with the act of repentance and faith in Christ without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:17-26; Acts 4:8-12).
In addition to Acts 2:38, there are three other verses where the Greek word eis is used in conjunction with the word “baptize” or “baptism.” The first of these is Matthew 3:11, “baptize you with water for repentance.” Clearly the Greek word eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage. They were not baptized “in order to get repentance,” but were “baptized because they had repented.” The second passage is Romans 6:3 where we have the phrase “baptized into (eis) His death.” This again fits with the meaning “because of” or in "regard to." The third and final passage is 1 Corinthians 10:2 and the phrase “baptized into (eis) Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Again, eis cannot mean “in order to get” in this passage because the Israelites were not baptized in order to get Moses to be their leader, but because he was their leader and had led them out of Egypt. If one is consistent with the way the preposition eis is used in conjunction with baptism, we must conclude that Acts 2:38 is indeed referring to their being baptized “because” they had received forgiveness of their sins. Some other verses where the Greek preposition eis does not mean “in order to obtain” are Matthew 28:19; 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 19:3; 1 Corinthians 1:15; and 12:13.
In light of this, the totality of Holy Scripture, and the explicit truth of the 'verses shed light on proper understanding' above we can confidently conclude that Acts 2:38 does not include the notion of "in order to get" but "because of" or in "regard to." Therefore, the "for" in the verse is properly interpreted and understood to mean "because of" or in "regard to." And that eliminates the possibility the verse is illuding to any requirement to be saved.
By using Holy Scripture to interpret itself, we can determine the actual and proper understanding of what Holy Scripture is telling us; which also avoids us imputing and injecting a foreign meaning into the text.
Important details are missed when this verse us taken out of context and assumed to mean that it is being baptized that saves. Here, Ananias, instructs Paul to be baptized and says "why wait?" BUT, Paul was already saved. Paul tells that he did not receive or hear the Gospel from Ananias, but rather he heard it directly from Christ. Galatians 1:11-12 says, "For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." So, Paul heard and believed in Christ on the road to Damascus. Paul had already believed in Christ when Ananias came to pray for him to receive his sight (Acts 9:17).
Also, at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, Paul also received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)—this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Acts presents a transition period where God’s focus turns from Israel to the Church. The events recorded in Acts are not always normative. With regard to receiving the Holy Spirit, the norm is that a person receives and is permanently indwelt by the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation.
The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events.
Concerning the words, "be baptized, and wash away your sins," because Paul was already cleansed spiritually at the time Christ appeared to him, these words must refer to the symbolism of baptism. Baptism is a picture of God’s inner work of washing away sin (1 Corinthians 6:11; 1 Peter 3:21).
Concerning the words, "why do you wait?" This is what every Christian should be asked. If you are saved, born-again, and desire to obey Christ, you should also desire to be baptized to make your profession of faith in Jesus Christ absolutely unquestionably made known, so, why wait?
Paul's life alone disproves this verse as a baptismal regenerative verse.
The overall context of Galatians is centered on Paul’s rebuke that some of the Galatians were turning from the one true gospel to another false gospel that could not save them (Galatians 1:6-10). The false gospel they were embracing was one that mixed God’s grace with works of the law, including circumcision, as a requirement for being saved, much like those who add baptism as a requirement for salvation. Paul’s message in Galatians is very, very clear—we are justified not “by the works of the law but by faith in Christ” (Galatians 2:16). The context of this verse is already very problematic for the idea of Baptismal Regeneration.
Just read the very verse right before 27. Gal. 3:26 reads: "for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." Is there any reason from the context of this passage to assume that this is speaking of water baptism? The obvious answer is no. There is no contextual evidence on which to draw that conclusion. We know from Scripture that there is more than one type of baptism taught in the New Testament (Hebrews 6:2), so why should it be assumed this is speaking of only water baptism? The assumption is because of humanistic confirmation bias and injection of an idea that is not part of this passage.
The work, rite, and act of water Baptism; and the work of God the Spirit baptizing new believers with His Spirit causing their spiritual birth are two different things all together. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit is what baptizes us into the body of Christ, as seen clearly in 1 Corinthians 12:12-13. John the Baptist prophesied that, while he was sent to “baptize with water,” Jesus was the One who would “baptize with the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33-34). It is that baptism, the point that we receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, that “baptizes” us into the body of Christ. Galatians 3:27 is not referring to water baptism at all.
Using this verse as a justification for baptismal regeneration is committing 2 errors: 1) It blurs and blends two different scriptural teachings and lumps it together as though it is one thing, when God has made known they are two different things. 2) It usurps the authority and power of the Holy Spirit and assumes humans can do the same thing the Holy Spirit does, except with earthly elements like water to achieve the same result: salvation. Thus it teaches that we can do a work and save ourselves through the work of being baptized with water.
This is another "go-to" verse for Baptismal Regeneration proponents. It states “baptism now saves you.” Was Peter really saying that the act of being baptized is what saves us? If he were, he would be contradicting many other passages of Scripture that clearly show people being saved (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit) prior to being baptized or without being baptized at all. Since Holy Scripture doesn't contradict itself, it is the interpretation that is in error.
Peter clarifies for us with the phrase “not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience.” While Peter is connecting baptism with salvation, it is not the act of being baptized that he is referring to (not the removal of dirt from the flesh). Being immersed in water does nothing but wash away dirt. What Peter is referring to is what baptism represents, which is what saves us (an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ). In other words, Peter is simply connecting baptism with belief. It is not the getting wet part that saves but the “appeal to God for a clean conscience” which is signified by baptism, that saves us. The appeal to God always comes first. First belief and repentance, then we are baptized to publicly identify ourselves with Christ.
Thankfully Peter directs us how to properly understand what he is saying, if we read his words in their proper context.
Dr. Kenneth Wuest, author of Word Studies in the Greek New Testament: “Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word 'counterpart.' <...> So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, 'not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.' Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words 'the answer of a good conscience toward God," and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, 'by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,' in that the believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.”
Those who contend for baptismal regeneration and/or a four-part formula of "to-dos" for receiving salvation do not view these actions as meritorious works that earn salvation. Repenting, confessing, etc., do not make a person worthy of salvation. Rather, the official view of those who hold to Baptismal Regeneration is that faith, repentance, confession, and baptism are “works of obedience,” things a person must do before God grants salvation (conditional election). While the orthodox understanding is that faith is the one thing God requires before salvation is granted, those of the baptismal regeneration persuasion believe that baptism—and, for some, repentance and confession—are additional things God requires before He grants salvation.
The problem is, to repent, you must already believe that you need to and that there is good reason of to whom to repent to... Same with confessing. What is a unsaved person going to confess to if they don't believe that they have anything to confess for? How can an unsaved person seek to obey God's 4 part formula to be saved? Romans 3 states that "no one seeks God." All these WORKS, regardless of being done out of some blind obedience to something they don't believe in, are just that, still works of the flesh, in the flesh, by an unregenerated wicked heart. In light of the totality of Scripture, this just isn't possible. Regeneration must occur before anyone can even SEE the Kingdom of God to even desire to obey God out of faith.
After considering what Holy Scripture is explicit on and analyzing the verses used to justify Baptismal Regeneration, we can conclude that it is NOT supported by Holy Scripture and fails when the context is more accurately applied along with the totality of what is said throughout Holy Scripture.
Baptism by water does not save the soul, but is a rite that is sought only by those who are already saved and who in faith desire to please God and make his glory public in their life and in their community.
Baptism by the Holy Spirit occurs at the moment of salvation which makes the individual spiritually alive and born-again; making them able to see the kingdom of God and desire and know the things of God.