Catholics and Orthodox have a few prooftext for baptismal regeneration. They don’t believe the Bible and punt for the authority of the Church to decide everything for them. These aren’t all of them, but I’ll add on this from time to time.

Titus 3:5

⁵ 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,

πνεύματος ἁγίου indicates the one who accomplishes that initial renewal (cf. 2 Thes. 2:13: “salvation through sanctification by the Spirit”): The “Holy Spirit” is the one who directly effects the renewal. This initial “renewal” and the “washing of regeneration” mentioned just before are the twin aspects of inner transformation that were seen in Ezk. 36:26–27; Jn. 3:5–8; 1 Cor. 6:11: water/washing/cleansing and rebirth by the Spirit/renewal by the Spirit/initial sanctification. Here πνεύματος ἁγίου does not have the syntactical relationship with παλιγγενεσίας that it has with ἀνακαινώσεως, though it may be said on other grounds that the Holy Spirit does also accomplish the παλιγγενεσία. The combination πνεῦμα ἅγιον occurs only here and in 2 Tim. 1:14 in the PE* (17x in Paul); πνεῦμα by itself is used 2x in the PE of the third person of the Trinity (1 Tim. 3:16; 4:1).

Knight, G. W. (1992). The Pastoral Epistles: a commentary on the Greek text (p. 344). Grand Rapids, MI; Carlisle, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press.

There are two possible ways of construing this second half of the verse. The rebirth and the renewal may be regarded as distinct operations, or both may be dependent on washing and therefore would describe different aspects of one operation. But since regeneration must always precede the process of renewal and since renewal is never described elsewhere as a washing, the former interpretation is to be preferred. It should be noted that ‘washing’ in this context is a symbol but not the means of the washing away of sin.

Guthrie, D. (1990). Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary (Vol. 14, p. 227). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Paul states emphatically that God saved us, “not because of righteous things that we had done, but according to his mercy” (ἔλεος; cf. Eph 2: 4; see also 1 Tim 1: 13, 16). 810 This salvation was accomplished “through the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” whom God poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior (note the trinitarian thrust). The desired result of God’s gracious regeneration and justification is that believers might become heirs (κληρονόμοι; cf. Rom 4: 13– 14; 8: 17; Gal 3: 29; 4: 1, 7) with the hope of eternal life (cf. 1: 2). “Rebirth” (παλιγγενεσία; CSB, NASB, “regeneration”) and “renewal” (ἀνακαίνωσις) are both tied to the metaphor of “washing” by the Holy Spirit (λουτρόν, see Eph 5: 26; cf. 1 Cor 6: 11; Heb 10: 22). Παλιγγενεσία (“ rebirth”) is found elsewhere in the NT only in Matt 19: 28 (cf. John 3: 3, 5; Rom 6: 4; 1 Pet 1: 3, 23); ἀνακαίνωσις (“ renewal”) is a likely Pauline coinage first used in Rom 12: 2 (cf. 2 Cor 4: 16; Col 3: 10). 811 The expressions are roughly synonymous, though the emphasis may be slightly different, with “rebirth” referring to spiritual regeneration and “renewal” to inner transformation. The primary OT passage referring to inner cleansing and renewal is Ezek 36: 25– 27. NT teaching on the new birth is found in various writers (John 3: 3– 8; 1 John 3: 9; 4: 7; 5: 1, 4, 18; Jas 1: 18; 1 Pet 1: 3, 23; cf. 2: 2). The notion of rebirth or regeneration is also present in Hellenistic literature (e.g., Plutarch, Is. Os. 35). 812 The generous “pouring out” (ἐκχέω) of the Spirit evokes the language used by the OT prophets (Zech 12: 10; Joel 3: 1– 2 LXX; cf. Acts 2: 17– 18, 33; Rom 5: 5). The term “abundantly” (πλουσίως) is found in the LTT also in 1 Tim 6: 17– 18 (cf. Col 3: 16; 2 Pet 1: 11). The addition of the phrase “through Jesus Christ our Savior” in v. 6 completes the passage’s trinitarian scope, following references to God [the Father] in vv. 4– 5 and the Spirit in v. 5.

Köstenberger, Andreas J. . Commentary on 1-2 Timothy and Titus (Kindle Locations 6664-6684). Holman Reference. Kindle Edition.

Romans 6:3-4

³ Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? ⁴ Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.

 

1. 1 – Baptism is a specific concrete process:
   • Baptism is a physical act involving water, carried out within a Christian community. As a concrete process, it is a tangible, observable event that symbolizes deeper spiritual realities. This concreteness reinforces the argument that baptism, as a sign, is intended to indicate something specific, such as the regenerate state of the baptized individual.
2. 2 – Baptism is a part that stands in for the whole:
   • Baptism serves as a representative part of a larger spiritual reality. It is a covenantal sign that points beyond itself to the whole experience of salvation, regeneration, and incorporation into the body of Christ. This understanding supports the idea that baptism is more than just a symbolic act; it is deeply connected to the totality of the Christian experience, which includes regeneration. However, it must be emphasized that this connection is symbolic and not causal, thereby rejecting the notion that baptism itself effects regeneration (i.e., rejecting baptismal regeneration).
3. 3 – Baptism is an example of a principle:
   • Baptism exemplifies the principle of sacramental theology, where outward signs correspond to inward grace. As a principle, baptism illustrates the broader theological truth that God’s grace is conveyed through material means. This principle further underlines the significance of baptism as a sign that should logically indicate the regenerate state, as it exemplifies the connection between the sign and the reality it represents. Yet, this is done without asserting that baptism itself confers regeneration, thus affirming that baptismal regeneration is false.

Enhanced Argument:

1. P1: If x is a sign of y, x is normally intended to indicate y.
   • Insight 1: Given that baptism is a specific concrete process, it is reasonable to expect that this concrete act should signify something specific, such as regeneration.
2. P2: If baptism is a sign of the baptized individual’s regenerate state, baptism is normally intended to indicate the individual’s regenerate state. (from P1)
   • Insight 2: Since baptism is a part that stands in for the whole experience of salvation and incorporation into the body of Christ, it should naturally be understood as indicating the regenerate state of the individual, as part of the totality of their Christian life. This does not imply that baptism itself causes regeneration, but rather that it symbolizes a state that must already be present or anticipated.
3. P3: If WFC, baptism is not normally intended to indicate the baptized individual’s regenerate state.
   • Insight 3: If baptism, as an example of a principle where outward signs correspond to inward grace, is not intended to indicate regeneration under WFC, this creates a theological tension. The principle behind baptism suggests a closer connection between the sign (baptism) and the reality (regeneration) than what the WFC may allow.
4. P4: If WFC, baptism is not a sign of the baptized individual’s regenerate state. (P2 + P3)
   • The logical conclusion from the premises suggests that under WFC, baptism cannot consistently be a sign of regeneration, which contrasts with the principle that outward signs should signify inward realities.
5. P5: Baptism is a sign of the baptized individual’s regenerate state. (Rom 6)
   • Insight 2: Romans 6, which discusses baptism in terms of dying and rising with Christ, supports the view that baptism symbolizes and thus signifies the regenerate state, in line with baptism being a part that represents the whole of the Christian life. Importantly, this symbolism is not to be confused with baptismal regeneration, as the actual regenerative work is the result of the Holy Spirit and not the baptism itself.
6. C: Not WFC
   • The conclusion holds that if baptism, as a specific, concrete process, a part that stands in for the whole, and an example of a principle, is indeed intended to signify regeneration, then the WFC’s position may be insufficient or require revision. This conclusion is drawn while maintaining that baptismal regeneration is false, thus preserving the distinction between the sign (baptism) and the thing signified (regeneration) without conflating the two.

Whereas all people are born in solidarity with Adam, solidarity with Christ (hence his death and resurrection) begins through baptism into him (6:3–4). Elsewhere Paul uses analogous language for baptism into Moses (1 Cor 10:2), but baptism into Christ (Gal 3:27) or his body (1 Cor 12:13) seems a more organic metaphor involving transfer of not only allegiance but identity. Gentile converts to Judaism were immersed to wash away their former Gentile impurities;2 they were being initiated into a new solidarity with the descendants of Abraham. Christians in such a context would understand baptism as an act of conversion—not that the water itself was holy or efficacious, but the act of obedience, demonstrating committed faith, offered an open demarcation of conversion. The divine side of conversion, however, initiates a new identity in the righteousness and life initiated by Christ (Rom 5:18–19), a solidarity with Christ and his body that includes sharing his death and burial to Adam as well as new life.3

Craig S. Keener. Romans: A New Covenant Commentary (New Covenant Commentary Series) (Kindle Locations 2368-2376). Lutterworth Press. Kindle Edition.

The reference to baptism has been understood sacramentally in an ex opere operato sense, meaning that baptism itself communicates the power to overcome sin (Schweitzer 1951: 225– 26; Schneider, TDNT 5: 195). Verse 3 links dying with Christ and baptism, while burial with Christ is said to occur “through baptism” (διὰ βαπτίσματος) in Rom. 6: 4. A sacramental understanding is flawed because it emphasizes baptism rather than the historic and definitive death and resurrection of Christ (cf. D. Moo 1991: 380– 81). Paul’s main concern in this text is not baptism; it is never mentioned again in Romans after 6: 4. What animates the discussion is the significance of Christ’s death and resurrection for believers. But does not Paul say that Christ’s death becomes effective for believers διὰ τοῦ βαπτίσματος? The issue here is how strictly one should interpret the prepositional phrase. I suggest that later theological formulations have led many to read this phrase in a sacramental fashion. Paul’s intention in introducing baptism is not to emphasize “how we were buried with Christ, but to demonstrate that we were buried with Christ” (D. Moo 1991: 381). The emphasis is not on baptism as the means of God’s activity, although this is not excluded, but on the occasion of his work. Paul probably refers to baptism because it symbolizes dying and rising with Christ. Yet to separate baptism from other dimensions of the conversion experience is mistaken. For Paul the events of baptism, faith, reception of the Spirit, repentance, and confession of Christ are one complex, and all occur at conversion. 20 Paul refers to believers as baptized because unbaptized Christians would be an anomaly. What I have said so far provides a platform by which we can understand what Paul intends when he says that we have died to sin by dying with Christ in baptism. We died with Christ in baptism in that we are united with him in his once-for-all death. Because we are incorporated into Christ, his death becomes ours. At baptism (i.e., conversion) the death of Christ becomes ours because we share the benefits of his death by virtue of our incorporation into him. Paul’s argument, then, is that grace cannot possibly lead believers to sin more because by dying with Christ the power of sin has been definitively broken.

Schreiner, Thomas R.. Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Kindle Locations 10974-10993). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

1 Peter 3:20-21

²⁰ 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.²¹ 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,

It is unlikely that the present passage [1 Peter 3:21] intends to say something so banal as that baptism’s purpose is not to wash dirt off the body. What early Christian would have thought that it was? More probably Peter, like James, has moral defilement in view, i.e., the ‘impulses’ that governed the lives of his readers before they believed in Christ…The ‘removal of the filth of the flesh’ is not a physical but a spiritual cleansing, and Peter’s point is not that such cleansing is an unimportant or unnecessary thing, only that baptism is not it. The analogy of the passage in Josephus (18.117) suggests that Peter may simply be insisting that the inward moral cleansing to which he refers is presupposed by the act of water baptism. This interpretation is confirmed by the positive definition of baptism with which the argument now continues.” (Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 49, 1 Peter [Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1988], p. 216)

Unless baptisma is a technical term for the Christian sacrament of initiation, there’s no presumption that that’s what it means here. To translate the word as “baptism” is prejudicial. In what respect is baptism comparable to Noah’s flood? Noah’s family weren’t saved by water, but from water. They were saved in spite of water. But those who espouse baptismal regeneration or baptismal justification hardly think we are saved despite the rite of baptism. Moreover, Noah’s family never got wet. If that’s analogous to baptism, then it’s dry baptism. Surely, though, the sacramentalist considers contact with water to be a basic element of baptism. Admittedly, analogies have disanalogies.
But where’s the parallel? What if, instead of “baptism,” we render v21 as: Washing (dipping, plunging), which corresponds to this, now saves you. Because the generic usage doesn’t specify baptism, it invites a figurative interpretation. Resurrection is the antithetical parallel to death. So baptisma may symbolize Christ rescuing us from spiritual death (by drowning) via our participation in the Resurrection.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/10/baptism-saves-you.html

Ephesians 5:25-26

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, ²⁶ so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

This cleansing was effected ‘by the washing of water through the word’ (cf. Tit. 3:5). Many commentators assume that ‘the washing’ refers to baptism. But references to washing or water do not necessarily point to baptism, and the only specific mention of this motif in the entire letter is at 4:5, where it is listed in a sevenfold confession but is not specially emphasized. Instead, when Paul speaks of ‘washing’, his focus, as in 1 Corinthians 6:11, is on the spiritual cleansing accomplished by Christ rather than on baptism. Nowhere else in the New Testament is the church baptized!

Further, v. 26 is more likely to have been influenced by the marital imagery in Ezekiel 16:8-14 and the prenuptial bath in the Jewish marital customs than by baptismal considerations. Accordingly, the language of ‘the washing with water’ may well have a secondary reference to the bridal bath.1603 When Yahweh entered his marriage covenant with Jerusalem, he bathed her with water, washed off the blood from her (v. 9), anointed her with oil, and clothed her with magnificent garments, making her so beautiful that she was fit to be a queen. Christ’s death on behalf of the church was to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water, and this is analogous to the bridal bath. The final phrase ‘through the word’ is closely linked by most commentators to the immediately preceding expression, ‘the washing of water’, and understood as accompanying the baptism. It is thus rendered ‘with the word’, and interpreted either as the baptismal confession of faith or as the baptismal formula pronounced over the candidate. The latter, it is claimed, would have included a reference to the name of Christ (cf. Acts 2:38), and so to what he had achieved on behalf of believers. But we have already raised serious doubts about any reference to baptism in v. 26, while the term ‘word’ is used nowhere else in the New Testament in connection with baptism. A better interpretation is to join the phrase ‘through the word’ with the ‘cleansing’, and to understand it as signifying ‘through the word of the gospel’. This is precisely how this particular term ‘word’ is employed elsewhere in Ephesians, namely, as the preached word of the gospel which the Spirit uses as his sword (6:17; cf. Rom. 10:8, 17; Heb. 6:5; 1 Pet. 1:25).
Moreover, it is consistent with every instance of the term in Paul (except 2 Cor. 13:1), where it denotes words that come from God or Christ. In the present context, the apostle asserts that the church is made pure by a spiritual cleansing (‘by the washing of water’), and this is accomplished through the purifying word of the gospel — a notion that is akin to our Lord’s words about his disciples being cleansed and sanctified through the word which he had spoken (John 15:3; 17:7).1604 This word is not something additional to the spiritual cleansing effected ‘by the washing of water’, but as the gracious word of the gospel it is the means by which it is accomplished. In the present context this is a word of love by which ‘the Bridegroom binds himself to his “bride”, and brings the church to himself in love’.1605 Christ gave himself to the church to make her holy by cleansing her. This cleansing was effected by a spiritual washing brought about through Christ’s gracious word in the gospel. His love for the church is the model for husbands in its purpose and goal, as well as in its self-sacrifice (v. 25). In the light of Christ’s complete giving of himself to make the church holy and cleanse her, husbands should be utterly committed to the total well-being, especially the spiritual welfare, of their wives.

O’Brien, Peter T.. The Letter to the Ephesians (Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Kindle Locations 7674-7728). Eerdmans Publishing Co – A. Kindle Edition.

The idea of sacrificial purity comes across through the priestly actions of Christ’s sacrifice (v. 25), who, as himself the sinless Son without blemish, had no need for the purifying offerings and sacrifices along with the bath required of the Aaronic priests (e.g., Exod 29:1–21; Lev 21:17–24; 22:6; Num 19:1–9; Matt 3:13–15; Heb 7:26–28). Through his sacrifice he “sanctifies” his people for his own possession (1:14; Titus 2:14; cf. Exod 29:21; Josh 7:13; Ezek 46:20; BDAG, 9–10). This act denotes a purification event rooted in Christ’s death (“blood”; cf. 1:7; 2:13) to rid the church of impurity and guilt (e.g., 1 Cor 6:10–11; Heb 9:14–15; 13:12; Phil 2:15) rather than to a process of moral renovation to which the doctrine of sanctification refers.1142 This act of purification is then elaborated on in v. 26b with a participle expressing the means used for the purification (καθαρίσας, katharisas, “by cleansing her”; cf. Acts 15:9; Heb 10:2; Ignatius, Eph. 18.2; BDAG, 488–89).1143 Paul then elaborates on this cleansing as accomplished through a water bath “with the word.” Bathing or washing with water was a common form of OT purification for priests and people (e.g., Exod 19:19–21; Lev 5:5–11; Heb 9:10), practiced and expanded on by the Pharisees in their daily lives (e.g., Matt 15:1–20; Luke 11:37–41).1144 The connection with baptism seems obvious (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor 6:11; Heb 10:22), but the key thing to observe is that the baptism of individuals connects them with an underlying, purifying reality of the cross (e.g., Rom 6:2–6; Gal 3:27) through the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; cf. 1 Cor 10:1–4; and esp. Barth, 687–99). This is probably the best explanation for why Paul adds that this water purification for the church was “with the word” (ἐν ῥήματι, en rhēmati), which refers to the powerful, divine creative force to bring the inauguration of the new creation (and its attendant sanctification) to pass (John 15:3; 17:17; Heb 6:4–5; Jas 1:18) through the Spirit (see Eph 6:17; cf. 1 Tim 4:5).1145

Steven M. Baugh. Ephesians: Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Kindle Locations 15947-15968). Lexham Press. Kindle Edition.

Through the centuries the vast majority of interpreters have thought that this phrase refers to baptism. Many simply assume this without argument. Those who do offer reasons for this reading explain that the article preceding λουτρῷ (loutrō) points to a specific event (the bath) and that this event is most likely baptism (Lincoln 1990: 375; Best 1998: 543); that much the same language appears in 1 Cor. 6:11, where Paul probably also refers to baptism (Lincoln 1990: 375; cf. Best 1998: 542); that the mention of water refers to a literal water rite, not to a metaphorical washing (Lincoln 1990: 375; Schnackenburg 1991: 249); and that the text finds a parallel in 1 Cor. 12:13, where the unity of the church originates with the common baptism of its members, a theme that the author of Epheisans has already picked up in 4:2–5 and that he will articulate again in 5:30 (Pokorný 1992: 224n45). None of these arguments, however, is particularly compelling. The article may point to a particular water bath, but if the reference is metaphorical, it need not refer to the literal water bath of Christian baptism. There were many occasions for ceremonial washing with water in antiquity, and it was a common custom across a number of cultures for the bride to wash in water or touch water either in preparation for the wedding or as part of the ceremony.31 To refer to “the bath of water,” then, would not necessarily have recalled the specific water rite of baptism. The reference to washing and sanctifying in 1 Cor. 6:11, moreover, is as ambiguous as this reference. There too the washing could easily refer to a spiritual rather than a physical washing, just as the expressions that follow it (“You were sanctified, . . . you were justified”) refer to spiritual realities. The parallel with 1 Cor. 12:13 actually highlights the most difficult problem for those who think that Eph. 5:26 refers to baptism. In 1 Cor. 12:13 Paul uses the verb βαπτίζω (baptizō), the common word for “baptizing” people in the NT, and the word whose noun form (βάπτισμα, baptisma) Paul does not hesitate to use in Eph. 4:5. Here, however, the word is λουτρόν (loutron), the term commonly used for ceremonial baths in antiquity and frequently occurring in connection with bridal baths (LSJ 1061; Spicq, TLNT 2:413n19).32 In light of all this, the minority of interpreters who argue that the phrase “with the water bath” is a metaphorical reference to the cleansing power of the gospel are probably correct (e.g., O’Brien 1999: 422–24; Hoehner 2002: 752–54).

Thielman, Frank Ephesians (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Page 384-385). Baker Publishing Group.

Galatians 3:27
²⁷ For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Christ (). The “for” () supports and grounds the truth that all believers are God’s sons if they are united with Christ by baptism.7 Paul emphasizes here incorporation into Christ or participation with Christ. Believers are clothed with Christ since their baptism. Elsewhere Paul speaks of believers being “clothed” () with the “new self” (cf. Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). Before being united with Christ human beings are “clothed,” so to speak, with the old Adam. But at baptism they have been plunged into or immersed with Christ.8 Most scholars agree that baptism was by immersion in NT times, and hence it functions as a vivid picture of being incorporated into Christ.9 Those baptized into Christ have been baptized into his death and resurrection (Rom 6:3–6; Col 2:12). Therefore, the old self has been crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6). Here Paul emphasizes that those who were plunged into Christ at their conversion are now clothed with him (cf. also Rom 13:14; Eph 4:24; Col 3:10). Hence, they are clearly God’s sons since they belong to Christ and have a new identity. Sonship does not depend on circumcision, for the old era has now passed. It all hangs on whether one is united with Christ as the only true offspring of Abraham (3:16).

Arnold, Clinton E.; Schreiner, Thomas R.. Galatians (Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament) (Kindle Locations 7076-7088). Kindle Edition.

Paul appeals to baptism in these texts for two reasons. First, water baptism, which Paul almost certainly has in view here (contra Dunn 1993a: 203; Witherington 1998: 276–77), was the normal culminating event in a person’s coming to Christ. It was not, in and of itself, a means of salvation or incorporation into Christ (contra, e.g., Schlier 1989: 172; cf. Betz 1979: 187–88). Faith, which Paul repeatedly highlights in this passage and in his other letters, is the only means of coming into relationship with Jesus Christ. However, baptism is more than simply a symbol of that new relationship; it is the capstone of the process by which one is converted and initiated into the church. As such, Paul can appeal to baptism as “shorthand” for the entire conversion experience.[4] A second reason to bring water baptism into the argument is the connection between baptism and incorporation into Christ. The phrase εἰς Χριστόν is sometimes interpreted as shorthand for “in the name of Christ” (e.g., Burton 1921: 203; Beasley-Murray 1962: 147),[5] a formula that occurs several times in the NT (Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:16; 19:5; 1 Cor. 1:13, 15). But it is better to give εἰς a local sense and to view the phrase as indicating the (metaphorical) movement of the believer into union with Christ (Fung 1988: 172; Dunn 1993a: 203). Informing this phrase is Paul’s theology of Christ as the “last Adam,” a corporate figure with whom believers are joined by faith and whose acts and benefits can be transferred to them. “By their being baptized into Christ, and thus belonging to Christ, that which once took place in him is also valid for his own” (Ridderbos 1975: 207). In this case, as Paul will make more explicit in 4:5–7, believers enjoy “sonship” (v. 26) because, in baptism, they are incorporated into the Son.
Paul’s claim that believers who have been baptized into Christ “have put on” (ἐνεδύσασθε, enedysasthe) Christ is probably part of the traditional complex of ideas that Paul is working with in our passage.[6] Colossians 3:10–11, quoted above in the introduction to this section, is the most important. Here Paul claims that believers have “put on the new man” (KJV), which is Christ (see also Eph. 4:24). What is a matter of fact in these texts becomes an exhortation in Rom. 13:14: “Clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ.” In this latter text, the context makes clear that “putting on” Christ has ethical implications, and some interpreters find similar ideas here in Gal. 3:27 (e.g., Witherington 1998: 278; cf. R. Longenecker 1990: 156). But the context in Galatians suggests, rather, that simple identification is intended. At a relatively early date in church history those being baptized would be clothed with a new, white robe, to symbolize their new life in Christ; and it is possible that the word may reflect this literal act of “putting on” clothes. But the word was so widely used metaphorically that this connection is unclear. A more likely connection is with the use of this language in the OT to refer to being “clothed with” salvation (see esp. Isa. 61:10: “I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed [ἐνέδυσεν, enedysen] me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness”; see, e.g., Bruce 1982b: 186; Garlington 2003: 167). But this connection also is uncertain.

Douglas J. Moo. Galatians (Baker Exegetical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 6641-6666). Baker Academic. Kindle Edition.

The parallelism of πάντες in v 26 and ὄσοι in v 27 sets up a parallelism of what is said in each sentence as well. So “through your faith in Christ Jesus” is paralleled by “you have been baptized into Christ.” The close association of faith and baptism in Paul (and throughout the NT), however, must never blind us to the fact that these are two distinct features of the one complex of Christian initiation. Each has its particular function in becoming a Christian, without ever being amalgamated or confused, as though, for example, baptism serves the same function as faith and so makes faith unnecessary, or conversely faith serves the same function as baptism and so makes baptism unnecessary. The two in Paul’s mind are always related, though never thought of as identical or as supplements to one another. Faith in Christ is that which results in acceptance before God and the gift of God’s Spirit (cf. 3: 1– 5); baptism is the outward sign and heavenly seal of that new relationship established by faith. In quoting an early Christian confession (as we believe), Paul is not simply replacing one external rite (circumcision) by another external rite (baptism).

Longenecker, Richard N.. Galatians, Volume 41 (Word Biblical Commentary) (Kindle Locations 10137-10145). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Colossians 2:12-13

¹² having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. ¹³ When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,

Sacramentalists (e.g. the real presence, baptismal regeneration, baptismal justification) have a simple argument. The NT attributes certain properties or effects to baptism and communion. Therefore, the sacraments are the source or cause of these effects. There are three basic problems with this argument: To begin with, whether some of their prooftexts (e.g. Jn 3:5; Jn 6; Tit 3:5) really refer to the sacraments is highly contestable. However, it’s undoubtedly true that some verses of Scripture link baptism with the remission of sin. What about that? One problem is that Scripture often promises the remission of sin by faith alone. It doesn’t make forgiveness contingent on baptism. Moreover, that would be at odds with promising remission of sin by faith alone. But here’s another problem: sacramentalists never get the nature of symbolism. Because a symbol stands for something else, whatever is really true of the thing it stands for can be said of the symbol. At that emblematic level, the symbol takes the place of what it stands for. Consider the passage from Colossians. Paul makes the physical details of crucifixion a graphic metaphor for the remission of sin. The iron nails and the wooden cross stand for the redemptive work of Christ. That, however, doesn’t mean we are actually forgiven by driving nails into wood. Paul figuratively ascribes to the physical details of crucifixion what is literally true of Christ’s redemptive death. He doesn’t think hammering nails into the cross remits our sin. That’s a picture of redemption. Baptism and communion are enacted parables which illustrate certain spiritual truths. Don’t confuse the concrete metaphor with the reality it signifies. The connection is symbolic, just like Paul’s vivid imagery in Col 2:24.

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/06/nailing-our-sins-to-cross.html

Acts 2:38-39

³⁸ Peter answered them, “Every one of you must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. ³⁹ For this promise belongs to you and your children, as well as to all those who are distant, whom the Lord our God may call to himself.”

Peter said to them, “Repent, and be immersed, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah, on the basis of the forgiveness of sins…” (Acts 2:38).

The preposition “for” (eis) in the expression “for the forgiveness of sins” raises the question of the relationship between immersion in water (baptism) and the forgiveness of sins. Some interpret the preposition as expressing purpose (the purpose of baptism is the forgiveness of sins), some as expressing result (baptism results in forgiveness).

A contextually more plausible interpretation assumes a causal meaning (forgiveness of sins is the cause of baptism); the Jews who had heard Peter explain that Jesus was the crucified, risen, and exalted Messiah and Lord who saves Israel in the “last days” had repented of their sins and come to faith in Jesus. Otherwise, they would not have been willing to be immersed in water for purification “in the name of Jesus the Messiah”; they were immersed in water for purification “on the basis of the forgiveness of sins,” which they had received from Jesus.

Schnabel, Acts (Zondervan 2012), 164-65.

In dealing with the various elements in this passage, some interpreters have stressed the command to be baptized so as to link the forgiveness of sins exclusively with baptism. But it runs contrary to all biblical religion to assume that outward rites have any value apart from true repentance and an inward change. The Jewish mind could not divorce inward spirituality from its outward expression. And wherever the Christian gospel was proclaimed in a Jewish milieu, the rite of baptism was taken for granted as being inevitably involved (cf. 2: 41; 8: 12, 36– 38; 9: 18; 10: 47– 48; 18: 8; 19: 5; see Heb 10: 22; 1Pe 3: 18– 21). But Peter’s sermon in Solomon’s Colonnade (3: 12– 26) stresses only repentance and turning to God “so that your sins may be wiped out” (v. 19) and makes no mention of baptism. This shows that for Luke, and probably also for Peter, while baptism with water was the expected symbol for conversion, it was not the indispensable criterion for salvation.

Longenecker, Richard N.. Acts (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary) (Kindle Locations 3828-3834). Zondervan. Kindle Edition.

Dr. Edward Dalcour states:

In proper biblical interpretation: Context governs word meanings. This is a vital point in exegesis. In other words, whatever Acts 2:38 is saying, it cannot oppose the NT as a whole in which the constant theme is justification (salvation) is through faith (as the sole instrument), apart from works—any works, such as the work of water baptism (cf. John 5:24; Rom. 4:4-8; 5:1; 1 Cor. 1:17, 30-31; Eph. 2:8-10; 1 John 5:1 et al.).

Note, that there at least four acceptable interpretations of the passage especially regarding the preposition eis (“for [eis] the remission of your sins”). However, of the interpretations offered by competent Christian theologians, none provide for baptismal regeneration or Baptismal justification. Thus, Paul says: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. . . .” (1 Cor. 1:17).

For example, noted Greek grammarian J. R. Mantey offers one such acceptable interpretation. He argued that the preposition eis (“for”) has a causal force, as with the thought of, “be baptized because of, in view of, unto, for, the remission of your sins.” In other words, the preposition eis should be translated “because of,” or “in view of” not “in order to” or “for the purpose of” forgiveness of sins. But keep in mind there is at least four different interpretations of Acts 2:38. Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eis were not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38. This way of handling the text is also concurred by one of the world’s premium and most quoted NT Greek grammarians A. T. Robertson:

IT [eis] is seen again in  Matthew 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the NT taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (Word Pictures, 3:35-36).

There is also another grammatical aspect to be considered. There is a shift from second person plural to third person singular and back to second person plural. Notice below:

2. The verb “repent” (metanoēsate) is second person plural and is in the active voice.
3. And “be baptized” (baptisthētw) is third person singular and is in the passive voice.
4. The Greek pronoun translated “your” (humwn) is in a second person plural.

 Therefore, the grammatical connection is: “repent” (active plural) with “your” (active plural) as in “for the remission of your [humwn] sins” and not “be baptized” (passive singular) with “for the remission of your sins.” Moreover, the same wording “for the remission of your sins” is used in reference to John’s baptism (cf. Luke 3:3; Mark 1:4) and that baptism did not save, it was a preparatory baptism and of the coming Messiah and a call to repentance, as we will deal with below. An additional view, however, is that baptism represents both the spiritual reality and the ritual which is an acceptable view that works well in the scope of the context.

Notwithstanding the different shades of interpretation, which in fact do not contradict, but only enhance—they are all in accord with good exegesis. Contrary to the UPCI position, which violates not only the theology in Acts (e.g., 10:43) but also the entire theology of the NT (e.g., John 6:47; Rom. 4:4ff.; Gal. 2:16).

Lastly, in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, foremost Greek scholar Daniel Wallace provides insightful comments regarding the four main interpretations of Acts 2:38:

“1. Causal εἰς [eis, “for”] in Acts 2:38? An interesting discussion over the force of εἰς took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38. The text reads as follows:

Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς Μετανοήσατε, φησίν καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν. . . . (“And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized—each one of you—at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins…”). On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that εἰς could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal εἰς was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38. On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal εἰς so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation): It is quite possible that εἷς is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal εἰς cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non- linguistic. Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal εἷς fell short of proof. If a causal εἷς is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38?

There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38. 1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and εἰς has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).

2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41).

3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. . . .” If this is the correct understanding, then εἰς is subordinate to Μετανοήσατε alone, rather than to βαπτισθήτω. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling εἰς, but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.

4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized. In sum, although Mantey’s instincts were surely correct that in Luke’s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking “Why?” has no more basis than the notion that εἰς ever meant mere representation.”

Final thoughts: the fundamental problem with the groups who embrace baptismal regeneration is that their view challenges Paul’s main thesis that “God credits righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6) and justification is through faith (sole instrument) alone (not by works). Although the “work” of water baptism is a biblical commandment, it is a work that man does. It does not contribute in any way, shape, or form to the atoning work of God the Son (gospel), which is the very ground (cause) of justification. So Paul says to the Corinthian church: “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel. . . .” (1 Cor. 1:17).

The Oneness Pentecostals & Acts 2:38 (Baptismal Regeneration/Justification)

Recommended:

Triablogue:

“Baptism saves you”

Annotated prooftexts

Parsing “baptism”

Jesus Taught Justification Through Foot Washing In John 3:5

Justification Through Foot Washing

Seeds Of The Reformation

Baptism In The Bible And Church History

You Ought To Believe In A Real Absence