Bradley Leathers

Professor Sipin
ENG 211C
April 3, 2015
Then Ill Choose Hell
God chose slow revelation as his means of communication with his creation. With as
much confusion as there was in the early church it is no wonder he chose this mode of
communication because when he chose to visit the world in the flesh in order to complete his
covenant through the poignant life of Jesus Christ, the early church was left in complete disarray
while trying to make sense of it all. We find accounts of even the earliest church establishments
disagreeing on doctrine or ordinances in Pauls letters and even these left Christians with more
questions. In an attempt to finally reconcile all of Christendom the church held a series of
councils in the fourth and fifth centuries. In the last of the councils, the Council of Chalcedon in
451 CE, the basis of Christian doctrine was settled. Christianity came to the conclusion that the
basis of Christianity is this: God is three persons, one substance (Trinitarian), Jesus was both full
human and fully divine (Christology), and all Christians are saved in some way by something
(Salvation). Ironically enough, as Calvin stated, the council was to end debate in the church but
left the last of the three essentials extremely ambiguous because while all of Christianity agreed
that we are to be delivered from sin, they still disagreed on how; is salvation attained through
baptismal regeneration or by grace through faith alone? (351-354) This research paper aims to
answer this question by revealing to the reader the major complications with baptismal
regeneration by delving into the dangers behind proof texting doctrines, understanding the
framework of New Testament books and their messages and thoroughly exploring the foundation
of the grace though faith alone stance, showing clearly its validity through the letters of Paul and
breaking down the historical, chronological timeline of the books preceding them to show more

Leathers, 2
clearly why baptismal regeneration finds itself in the wake of Gods grace and our understanding
of faith.
Baptismal regenerationists are very familiar with the use of proof texts. This notion is
that if the claim that the scriptures are god-inspired is true, and the English translations are very
accurate in conveying the original Greek message, then it is only but a very small task to prove
baptism is necessary for the remission of sin and ultimately our salvation. This allows them to
hinge on a few ambiguous, stand-alone verses to support their erroneous beliefs such as Acts
2:38. Moreover, in these proof texts, often times the word baptism and various uses of water
are taken out of context. A small fragment of examples will be examined. Other evidence for the
necessity of baptism would be that Jesus himself was baptized so it must have some kind of
significance and surely he commanded us to go out and baptize new disciples in his Great
Commission found in Matthew. Isnt that enough?
Paul asks the Galatians a simple question. In Galatians 3:2, he says, Let me ask you only
this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? In the very first
verse of chapter 3, he asks them how they could possibly succumb to anything other than what
they witnessed when Christ was portrayed as crucified. What more could they need to do other
than believe, just as Paul asked them in verse 2. The perfect tense of the word crucified indicates
not just the historical context but also the present, saving power for all of those who believe. So,
when Paul asks by which they received the Spirit, it was evident that it was a rhetorical question
with only one correct answer. (Slick) All too often, baptism is not referred to as a work because
it is something you do after you believe much like the notion baptismal regenerationists bring
with Acts 2:38. (An argument for another time) Verse 2 gives us a clear distinction between the
two routes one can believe they will receive the spirit. It is either by works or by hearing with

Leathers, 3
faith. There is no third option. The Galatians never observed the law and the Spirit was working
in them and an account of an example is seen in verse 5 where a comparison is made to Abraham
stating just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. Moreover,
to clarify more indignantly, we can see exactly when it was that Abraham was counted as
righteous. Of the many examples, old and new testament, Romans 4:11 states, He received the
sign of circumcision as a seal of righteousness that he had faith while he was still
uncircumcised. Just as we dont show our outward expression of our inner faith in baptism until
after we have already accepted the Lord as our savior, Abraham also was not circumcised until
after he believed, and the circumcision being a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith.
Another of many proof texting examples stems from the book of Acts, a transitional book
that makes its way from Peter and the Holy Ghost to Paul and the Word of God. The problem
with proofing out of Acts is that it isnt much of a theological book. The book is more of a
historical account of the transition of the church. Most baptismal regenerationalists tend to focus
on chapter two of Acts and fail to remember there are a couple more chapters after that. In
reading beyond a legalistic comfort zone one can see in Acts 10 that people are saved by
believing, not the laying on of hands. Instead we see them believing and in turn receiving the
Holy Ghost, allowing them to speak in different tongues all without being baptized. Read Acts
15:1, 5, 8-11. In Acts 15:1 some people believed you were saved by circumcision. In Acts 15:5,
another heresy is taught by the Pharisees claiming that not only do you have to be circumcised
but you have to keep the old Mosaic Law because circumcision represented a commitment to
observe the law. In Acts 15:8-11 (ESV), Peter says, 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. Now, therefore, why are you putting

Leathers, 4
God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have
been about to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus,
just as they will. You might be asking who Peter was talking about. Lets look at Acts 15:7
which says, And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, Brothers,
you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles
should hear the word of the gospel and believe. He is referring to his witness at the house of
Cornelius (Acts 10: 34-43) in which Cornelius and his relatives (who were gentiles) were saved
by faith in their hearts, not by circumcision and then were baptized as an outward expression of
an inward faith. This also contradicts the order in which those who believe in baptismal
regeneration claim you receive the Holy Ghost. If taking Acts 2:38 out of context, which it is,
one would believe you must repent then be baptized at which point you would receive the Holy
Spirit. In this case, we see the Holy Spirit was received after faith and then they proceeded to be
baptized. In any case, the doctrine crumbles when every attestation of a baptism account is
contradictory. What is for certain is the notion that baptism is important and in connection to
salvation, as we see on many occasions people being baptized upon believing, but never is
salvation explicitly centered around the physical act of the baptism. In context, Acts 2:38 is in
reference to a completely Jewish crowd. If one believes Acts 2:38 is their way to salvation, we
have a problem because the very man who spoke in that verse later says something completely
different in Acts 15:7-11 that cannot be reconciled with Acts 2:38 and certainly cannot be
justified out of chronologic order. Lets go to 1 Peter 3:20-21.
These two verses are solely focused on in this chapter and taken out of context in support
of water baptism so verily does this need addressing. If it is read closely from 1 Peter 3:18-22
completely, one can find that there is a comparison between Noah with the ark and water

Leathers, 5
baptism. Is Peter saying that water baptism saves you? If he is, he would be in literal
contradiction with himself in scripture as well as instances when people were saved without a
water baptism like the thief on the cross in Luke 23:39-43 or Cornelius as mentioned prior. Peter
clears this whole mess up when he says in verse 21, Baptism, which corresponds to this, now
saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience,
through resurrection of Jesus Christ The baptism is in comparison to the ark. Noah put his
faith in God and did as he commanded him to do. Because of his faith, he was delivered safely
through the water along with the seven others. If it was in correspondence with the water in
which the ark was on, and the people below the water perished, then what would that be telling
us about water baptism in this verse? Not only is it just an appeal to God for the good conscience
but is doubly symbolic with the fact that Noah was saved by faith and then delivered through the
water just as our inward faith saves us with the water, symbolizing just that. Is the baptism
symbolizing the water or the ark? You might say the water but the water under the ark destroyed
all but eight. There was salvation in the ark. God told them to come into the ark that led them to
safety. God did not tell them to come into the water. Applying a little bit of logic and keeping this
verse within its immediate context of surrounding information clearly refutes the claim that
water baptism is required for salvation. Moreover, it doesnt solidify Acts 2:38 in saying the
Holy Spirit is obtained after the water baptism. It simply doesnt mention it so it does not help
argue for that verse. The two cannot be used to solidify one anothers claim if there really is truth
in the claim at all. While the overall theme of 1 Peter is Christians suffering persecution, it is the
people that persevere in faith during these times of persecution that should enjoy knowing that
Gods promises would be fulfilled. In regard to a passage that comes out of the book, the books
context needs to be taken into account as well.

Leathers, 6
In light of textual context, 1 Corinthians 1:28 argues against the necessity of water
baptism. Remember, in Acts it was Peter who baptized the Jews and it was then later Paul who
ministered to the uncircumcised, also known as the gentiles. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and in
1 Corinthians 1:28 he said, For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and
not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. Not only
looking at this from a timelines point-of-view and who the letter was addressed to, but in direct
context with what was happening in the verses surrounding his response, we can see that people
were too busy worrying about who baptized them and Paul let them know that they werent
baptized in the name of different people but in Christ alone. Tersur brings up this point in saying
that as people are distracted by the baptism then, they still are today. (162) He even said in verse
14 he was happy he didnt baptize any others other than the ones that he had already baptized
because he didnt want them claiming they were baptized in his name! He reminds them all that
he wasnt brought here to baptize but the Lord called on him to preach the gospel. Now, if
baptism was included in your salvation and not just faith in the gospel, which saves people, then
why would he separate water baptism and the gospel and make it very clear they do not define
one another in this verse? He says he is here to preach the gospel. He says he is not here to
baptize. Believing that salvation comes through what Acts 2:38 says out of its context would
mean you would absolutely have to reject 1 Corinthians 1:17. If you keep Acts 2:38 in context,
remembering who it was addressed to and why, 1 Corinthians 1:17 makes perfect sense, knowing
it was addressed to gentiles. Acts 2:38 pertains to Peter with the Holy Spirit to the Jews. 1
Corinthians 1:17 pertains to Paul and the Word of God to the Gentiles.
One can remind themselves of Acts 10 in relation to Cornelius. In verse 43, Paul says,
To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of

Leathers, 7
sins through his name. In verse 47, it is written, Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these
people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have? It could not be any clearer as to
when they received the Holy Spirit, making one question why anyone would be so caught up on
Acts 2:38. It is obvious that baptism is important to the apostles and those who have faith
because upon receiving the Holy Spirit, immediately following the justification, they are
baptized.
Paul wrote thirteen books in the New Testament (fourteen if you include Hebrews, which
there is much debate on). It is important to note that Pauls letters to the churches were written
before the Gospel accounts and Acts. This is huge in light of theology because the first historical
notion, in regard to canonical sources, is that we are saved by grace through faith alone. It is later
that the Gospels are produced in a much different light and that is where the confusion starts. Let
us rightly divide the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15). Do you know when the New Testament
begins? Do you believe it begins right after the page that says New Testament in bold letters
with Matthew 1:1 written thereafter on the very next page? If Jesus established the covenant the
night before he was crucified then certainly it could not have been in Matthew 1:1. We see
reference to the Lords Supper in Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians
11:25. When Jesus died and finished his work, it wasnt to be taken lightly. Finished means so
much more than his suffering being ended when he died. He announced the fact that he had
perfectly fulfilled Gods requirement for sin and his body was the offering which the law
required in order to satisfy the penalty against sin. (Fesko) Finished work means it is done.
Nothing more needs to be done. Nothing more we can do to satisfy the penalty for sin. Nothing.
Most of the complications behind baptismal regeneration revolve around proof texting.
Of the many examples cited above we can see that word order in English translated from a Greek

Leathers, 8
lexicon can become extremely confusing. The assumption that the Greek words are used in the
same assumed context as the baptismal regenerationists use them poses problems as well. More
importantly, understanding the historical context is a big issue as well. Aside from proof texting,
the order in which the New Testament is written is chronological in the sense of correctly
ordering the books in regard to a timeline. However, they were written chronologically in a much
different order. To see Pauls theology after the book of Acts, when in reality the letters were
written before Acts, is very confusing and it is no wonder why this issue is still a large, debatable
topic in Christianity today. All in all, grace through faith alone never disappoints whereas
baptismal regeneration continuously seems to complicate things. Our God does not make it that
hard to love Him and give all of our trust to Him. If this were the case, I would much rather
choose Hell.

Works Cited

Leathers, 9
Aben, Tersur. "'Bones to Philosophy, but Milke to Faith' -- Celebrating the Trinity." Evangelical
Review of Theology 38.2 (2014): 160-168. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Mar.
2015.
Tersur argues in favor of baptismal regeneration in saying that the lay work of the
baptism of Jesus Christ by John before he started his ministry is the clearest
indoctrination of the necessity of baptism. His article also notes various Jesus sayings in
which he finds evidence to support his view point. His article will help me articulate my
rebuttal by showing that books written after Mark are clearly redacted documents and are
not valid
This particular article is in favor of baptism being necessary for salvation. It gives
a brief summary of the history of the revelation of the trinity and a few subjective views
on how the trinity can clearly be seen in Jesus baptism by John as well in a few sayings
directly from Jesus himself. Much of is what I believe to be speculative and found by
reading in a prior knowledge of an idea. That idea being that there is a trinity, then backtracking and looking into scripture for things that can fit this concept that baptism links
us in a unique way to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The article assumes that if
the baptism displays all three aspects of the trinity, it can clearly be seen as a necessary
part of salvation, connecting the believer to the triune God. I will be using this article for
its ideas about salvation and its connection to baptism.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers Marketing,
LLC, 2008. Print.
Calvins book on his reformed ideologies in regard to the faith a practice of the
Christian religion thoroughly examines the notion that the Catholic Church has exploited

Leathers, 10
the illiteracy of the church in order to impose their own agenda within their
congregations. He shows, as more and more people were literate and the Bible was
written in languages they could understand, the true meaning behind the baptism and how
it is related to but not necessary for salvation. His work will be the foundation of my
claim and also bear witness to it in rebuttal to opposing claims.
Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry. Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, 2015.
Web. 14 Mar. 2015.
Matt Slicks website offers more critical examinations of proof texts on both sides
of the debate using the Greek codices to help better understand the appropriate meaning
and layouts of the verses to help clearly convey their topics true identity and place in time
in regard to their historical context. Often, verses are found to be taken out of context or
supersede others when their timeline doesnt agree with it.
Schreiner, Thomas R., and Shawn D. Wright. Believers Baptism. Nashville: B&H Publishing
Group, 2006. Print.
Schreiners work simply helps the reader to understand the history behind the
meaning of the baptism and how it became salvational dogma to some sects and
ordinance to others. I will use this text mostly in the beginning of the paper when giving a
brief history on the baptism in the bible and how it found its place in an ongoing dispute.

The English Standard Version Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
The Bible is a compilation of various books, poems, and letters. Moreover, the
New Testament provides us with documents from the first century with insight into Jesus
ministry and the work of the apostles after his ascension into heaven and the spread of the

Leathers, 11
church. It lays a foundation for accurate history of the religious movement and ultimately
the mold for correct practice within the church. Among the various rules and regulations,
salvation is found. I will use the Bible to demonstrate why baptism is very important but
not necessary for salvation. Moreover, to prove that salvation can only be attained
through grace by faith alone.
Valero Fesko, John. "Arminius on Justification." Church History & Religious Culture 94.1
(2014): 1-21. Academic Search Complete. Web. 17 Mar. 2015.
This article is geared toward understanding what justification by faith alone
means and some of the various views attached to it. Arminius argued that faith is
foundation in regard to justification. Most reformed theologians would agree in regard to
faith being in relation to justification (i.e. justification on account of faith). This concept
and this belief for attaining salvation is what separates Protestants from Catholics, or
furthermore faith plus works believers vice faith-alone believers. The argument isnt for
Protestantism or Catholicism, however, because even some of the Protestant cults, and a
few sects, firmly believe first-century Christians practiced justification by baptismal
regeneration. The argument is more widely scoped in terms of all of Christendom. It is
either one or the other. Arminius not only emphasizes the importance of faith but also
calls faith an act. As the reformation drew closer, the lines were slowly going from
blurred together, to separate. I chose this article because it gives some historical insight as
to where the ideas for justification by faith alone came from. Arminius was one of the
earlier figures that played a role in distinguishing between the two.