No amount of verbal gymnastics can get around these statements which plainly teach Baptism is the point at which forgiveness or remission of sins takes place. David Bernard wants to avoid the notion that what he and the UPCI teaches is Baptismal regeneration. He seems aware that idea of Baptismal regeneration leads to classic Catholic position (the act of Baptism itself regenerates). But, it still does not keep him or the UPCI from avoiding the doctrine. The statements he makes about the nature of Baptism are consistent with Baptismal regeneration:

They were saved through the water, which symbolizes the role of Baptism today. Baptism has become a means of salvation for us, not because it washes dirt from our physical bodies but because it provides us with a good conscience before God. Since God washes away sins at Baptism, it is a request or an appeal to Him to give us a conscience free from condemnation. [David K Bernard, The New Birth, (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1984) p. 133.]

This statement comes under the heading "Part of Salvation," where Bernard says that 1 Pet. 3:21 teaches that Baptism is part of salvation. But he also says that the water is only a means of salvation. These are two different things. The Bible is a means of grace because it mediates through the Spirit the message of salvation to us so that we may believe it. This is traditionally what many Reformation Christians have believed about Baptism -- it is a means in that it tells the Gospel visually and tangibly. When we see the Christian go into the water, hear the name of Jesus invoked over them and watch them come up out of the water, it presents to us a picture of the Gospel. It acts as a means of salvation in that it conveys the truth of salvation in Jesus alone to hearts through our eyes. But to say that Baptism is a part of salvation is to say that along with the Cross, Resurrection and Ascension Baptism is a something which produces our salvation. Being a part of salvation makes it nearly equal with the Cross in importance; unless you are baptized, the work of the Cross cannot "get to you." This is far different from being a means of grace, which only conveys the message of the finished work of Jesus for our salvation and not the forgiveness itself.

Bernard confuses these two verses by calling Baptism a means of salvation. For Bernard, this appears to be an attempt to retain Baptism as a part of the "new birth" as he defines it, and to steer away from Baptismal regeneration. He basically does this because he views water Baptism as only half or one third of the "new birth." Spirit Baptism is the other "half" of the new birth.

. . . the United Pentecostal Church International holds that repentance, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are all part of the one experience of regeneration. [David K. Bernard A History of Christian Doctrine, Volume 2, (Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1996), p. 278.]

Therefore, logically, regeneration could not come through Baptism alone in Bernard’s view. This fact is impossible to reconcile with the statement by the UPCI writer above: "A person cannot be partially born again." Nevertheless that is where the UPCI teaching leads. This is another crucial problem in the salvation doctrine of the UPCI. They theoretically have a person’s sins washed away in Baptism, but he is still not saved. Unless that person goes on to pray for and receive the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in an unknown language (to the person speaking it), they are not saved.

What If One is Baptized, But Not Spirit Baptized?

Can one be "half born again"? In the UPCI it happens all the time. One of the perennial questions, in UPCI Bible schools, among UPCI constituents and among their critics is this: "What is the status of the one who is baptized in Jesus’ name but has not spoken in tongues?" I have never heard a really satisfying answer to this question yet - one consistent with the UPCI, Reformation theology, or, most importantly, the Bible. People in the UPCI will say, "We have to leave that to God and preach the truth that we know." I have always believed this to be a cop out. Ideally, UPCI desire for converts to "get the Holy Ghost in the water." That is, to speak in tongues when the come up out of the water of baptism. Then this question is practically resolved. However, this is the exception while many need to seek the Baptism of the Spirit after they are baptized in Jesus' Name.

I firmly believe it is less than theologically honest to neglect a clear teaching on the status of someone who has been baptized in Jesus’ name but have not spoken with tongues. These people should know biblically where they stand with God. When you teach this person their sins are forgiven in baptism you cannot duck the problem of how they can still be unsaved without speaking in tongues. How is it possible that God will forgive your sins but not accept you as right with Him? They must answer the question: "What is the status of the one baptized yet without tongues speaking as evidence of the Baptism of the Spirit?" The Bible does not duck or equivocate on this subject. The apostles give a clear answer to the above question.

Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’ So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." (Gal. 3:6-9).

The epistles clearly teach that one is justified or right with God by faith. Therefore the one who does not speak with tongues but has truly trusted in the Person of Christ alone as their Savior, is saved and is not condemned. Since one has received forgiveness, they have also with that forgiveness received the Spirit’s work in their hearts. There is no way to have forgiveness affected with the Spirit doing it. This is such a plain teaching in Scripture.

Not only do the epistles teach this but the Book of Acts clearly illustrates this in the case of the household of Cornelius. In Acts chapter eight we read of Cornelius, a military officer in the Roman army, who was also a convert to Judaism. God sent Peter to preach to him the Gospel. After being welcomed by Cornelius, Peter spoke to the whole household about Jesus. There was no mention of Baptism in Peter’s Gospel message, and there was no directive for them to pray until they "got" the Holy Ghost. Peter preached only Jesus. The final words of his sermon were, "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." This is a tremendously insightful statement that can help us enormously in our understanding of the relationship between Baptism, repentance and faith.

Peter says that "forgiveness of sins through his name" [Jesus] comes to "everyone who believes in him." This is where the UPCI is confused about Baptism and Acts 2:38 {cp. Remission of Sins and Acts 2:38}. They see the work of salvation coming through the application of the name of Jesus through immersion in the water of Baptism. But Peter clearly does not preach that. He says that the forgiveness or remission [these two English word are used for the same Greek word (aphesis)] of sins in his name comes to those who believe on Jesus. The forgiveness of sins is "applied" upon faith in Christ. To believe in or on the name means simply to believe in the Person. This is consistently expressed throughout Scripture. Otherwise, how could there be more power in the name of a person than in the very Person themselves? Why would trusting in the saying or speaking of Christ’s name be more meaningful or efficacious to salvation than trusting in the very Person of Jesus Himself?

Acts 2:38 And Baptism

The central text of Scripture for the UPCI teaching about salvation is Acts 2:38. In summary, it is taught that in order for one to be saved, he or she must first believe. The word "believe" is not found in Acts 2:38, but it is assumed as being there because all the passages that say "believe" cannot be ignored. They do not ignore the importance of faith. However, for all intents, they make it the first "step" or first in a priority list of things necessary to receive salvation. In all my years in UPCI circles I have never heard faith preached proportionately less with respect to salvation than repentance, baptism or receiving the Holy Ghost. Rather than faith being the only means to salvation, the UPCI makes it one of several means. Next one must repent, then be baptized in Jesus’ name so that their sins would be remitted, and finally one must receive the Baptism of the Holy Ghost with the evidence/sign of speaking with tongues.

In fact, this is not all that is essential to salvation. Many if not most within the UPCI would say that one must persistently follow the holiness standards of the Bible as interpreted by the UPCI. The person who "obeys" Acts 2:38 may fail to keep their salvation if they do not adhere to the UPCI understanding of holiness. Be that as it may, the key text for the UPCI relative to Baptism is Acts 2:38:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38 KJV)

It is believed that Baptism is essential for salvation because sins are only remitted when one is baptized. This is based on the UPCI interpretation of the phrase "for the remission of sins." Most of the UPCI teachers are not familiar enough with the Greek New Testament to do much more than word studies (I don’t mean this as demeaning but just as my experience). Most UPCI tracts and articles support or validate the UPCI "exegesis" of "for the remission of sins" by selectively citing word definitions from Greek lexicons or citing scholars who are already in favor of Baptismal regeneration. On the other hand, the vast majority of Biblical scholarship says that the Greek word behind the word "for" (eis) can mean both "for the purpose of" and "on the basis of." One must translate this word in harmony with its context and usage, as well as consistent with what is the general teaching of Peter, the Apostles and the rest of the New Testament.

This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of "eis" does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of "eis" for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples "eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou" where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that Baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament 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 [A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36].

The UPCI would have everyone believe its view of Acts 2:38 is unassailable, and no other meaning is possible except "for the purpose of." That is, when Peter says "for the remission of sins" he means that those on the Day of Pentecost had to be baptized in order for (for the purpose of) their sins to be forgiven. As Robertson states, it is more consistent with the teaching of the New Testament to translate the word eis (for) as, "on the basis of." This means that when the hearers of Peter’s Pentecost sermon were convicted by the Holy Spirit and asked what they needed to do, Peter told them to repent and be baptized on the basis that their sins were forgiven in Jesus Christ. This does not take away from repentance or Baptism. It does point our faith to Jesus Christ alone rather than the ceremony of Baptism. It also means that Baptism is not the means of salvation; faith in Jesus Christ is the means of salvation. That is why the climax of Peter’s Pentecost sermon is the statement: Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36) Baptism is the outward sign of faith placed in the saving work of Messiah who is the Lord God of Israel. It is the seal of God’s promises in Jesus Christ to all who trust in Him. [cp. Verses on the Need for Baptism]

I would make this case to the UPCI concerning their view of Baptism. Because there is the good possibility that "for the remission" should be translated "because of the remission," it is imperative that they look to the rest of the teaching of the New Testament to see which of the two possibilities is most consistent with the faith of the Apostles. Did the apostles stress over and over the absolute necessity of being baptized in order to be freed from sin? Or, did they repeatedly stress the importance of faith in Jesus Christ as the essential element for the forgiveness of sins? The great voices of the Church throughout history has trumpeted the later. Overwhelmingly, Peter announces the importance of faith as the instrumental means to forgiveness:

Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. KJV 1 Peter 1:5

Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls. NIV 1 Peter 1:8, 9

Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God. NIV 1 Peter 1:21

NIV 1 Peter 2:7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone;"

Hearts Purified By Faith

That Peter preached salvation by faith alone can be seen most clearly in Acts 10:43. The very height of Peter’s sermon was achieved with this truth, "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." No matter what translation one reads, the forgiveness of sins comes through believing. (Some in the UPCI would challenge that the believing is in the Name of Jesus which is only achieved in Baptism. I would say, as would most N.T. scholars, that believing in the Name of Jesus and believing in Jesus is the same thing and is not achieved by Baptism or any other rite or ceremony.) This is what Peter believed and taught. He did not say that we are saved by the waters of Baptism, "but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect." (1 Pet. 1:18-19) How did Peter believe one was cleansed by this precious blood? Let us return to Acts 10:44 to find out.

Notice that the Holy Spirit came on all who "heard the Word." Here the means of grace was the Word. The Word of God is Spirit. Jesus said in John 6:63, "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life." It is when the Word of the Gospel enters the heart that faith is born and this is the work of the Spirit. The response of those who trusted in Jesus was to praise Jesus Christ. It was the preaching that inspired faith in their hearts and their faith in the Gospel of which God approved by blessing them with His Spirit.

Carefully notice that none of these were yet water baptized. Peter gave the call to be baptized after they believed and received the Spirit. Under the UPCI teaching you have a very odd and most difficult problem here. The household of Cornelius was not saved. Why? Because they were not baptized yet. In addition, they were filled with the Spirit, but their sins were not yet remitted. They had joy and praised Christ before they were even redeemed. Since they had not been baptized they were not free from their sins. How could they have joy? How could the Spirit fall on them? How could they miraculously or otherwise speak in tongues if they were still in their sins? These are crucial questions to the UPCI doctrine and they are very troublesome to their teaching.

Following this line of difficulty through, we read the later account of what happened at the household of Cornelius by Peter to the Council in Jerusalem:

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." (Acts 15:5-11 NIV)

Peter explains that the household of Cornelius was shown to be accepted by God through pouring out His Spirit on them. How could God do this if their sins had not yet been remitted through Baptism? Peter says that God "purified their hearts by faith." Peter’s theology was that remission of sins came through faith in Jesus Christ. Baptism was the expression of the faith of one who had their sins forgiven by faith. Indeed a very crucial expression to the declaring of the Gospel. That is why he commanded them to be baptized in Jesus’ name. It was a testimony that it was Christ in whom they believed. Why is it by faith? Peter explains that it is ‘by faith" because he and the other apostolic Christian believe it is "through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are." He believes the truth of forgiveness of sins through faith in Christ is rooted in the truth of God’s sovereign grace. Forgiveness is a gift - the grace of God. Therefore, one can only receive a gift by faith. Otherwise if we receive grace other than by faith it is not longer by grace. "Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace . . ." (Romans 4:16)

I want point out a very vital truth. Peter says that God purified their hearts by faith. First, this means that faith itself is not a work or act by which the sinner appropriates salvation. It is the work of God in the heart. It is a gift by which God through His Spirit enables one to receive the Gospel, embrace it and be justified. In other words, God gets the credit for even our faith. If faith is not our work then certainly such a thing as Baptism cannot be a considered our doing to obtain the remission of sins.

Second, their hearts were not purified by receiving the Holy Ghost. The Spirit Baptism was to show that God had accepted them. God made no distinction between them as Jews or Gentiles. They received the promise of the Spirit made to Abraham by faith, just as Paul told the Galatians,

Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Gal. 3:13,14 NIV)

Thus they were right with God - accepted by God by faith. I know that the King James version says, "bear them witness." The word Luke uses here is emarturasan which is used in Romans 10:2 as bear witness or confirm, as a good report in Luke 4:22, to be known as approved or acceptable in Acts 6:3. The most plain sense of the use of this word in Acts 15:8 is that only God knows the human heart - whether one believes in Him or not. Thus, God shows that he knows these Gentiles are believers in Jesus and demonstrates that by giving them the Holy Spirit. The giving of the Spirit does not come days, hours, minutes or even seconds after believing. The Spirit is given simultaneously with faith in Jesus. It literally "fell" on them.

Third, the Gentiles at Cornelius house are not purified by submitting to Baptism. This came after the outpouring of the Spirit. Therefore you have people who are purified before they receive the Baptism of the Spirit and water Baptism. How is this possible if one must have Spirit and water Baptism in order to be born again? How can this be, if, according to the UPCI, Spirit Baptism and water Baptism are essential for salvation? The only answer that is possible is that the UPCI is not correct in its teaching. Nevertheless, all are saved through grace by faith in Jesus Christ alone. This is the only answer that makes sense with the situation at Cornelius’ house.

The UPCI makes a great deal about the situation on the Day of Pentecost recorded in Acts chapter two. But, it glosses over the situation in Acts 10 and other significant passages in Acts. I can only conclude that the reason for this is that they find in difficult to reconcile the whole teaching of Scripture with their particular proof texts which seem to best "fit" with their doctrines.

An further troubling situation is that the UPCI does not even hold to the faith of those it considers its pioneers in the faith. The UPCI sees the Azusa Street Mission Pentecostals as their forbears, and exalt them as the first Pentecostals and champions of the Pentecostal faith which they hold. In many ways they were the prototypes of God-fearing and Spirit baptized believers. Ironically, those as Azusa Street did not believe that the Baptism of the Spirit, let alone water baptism was for salvation. They believed that sin was remitted and one was saved through justification. That justification came at the moment of truth faith. Notice careful the statements of the Azusa Street faith taken from the first issue of The Apostolic Faith:

THE SPIRIT FOLLOWS THE BLOOD. Jesus said, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you." The cleansing took place before the Pentecostal baptism. Jesus said on that night before he was betrayed, "Now are ye clean, but not all." (He knew that Judas had the devil in him). The disciples had been sanctified before Pentecost, for the word of God is true. We know they had been justified a long time before, for he said, "Rejoice not that the devils are subject unto you but rejoice because your names are written in heaven." And we know they were sanctified when Jesus prayed for them, for Jesus prayers did not have to be answered in the future but were answered right there. He said, "They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world." They were not only sanctified but had received the Holy Spirit in a certain measure, because He breathed on them in the upper room and said, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost." Some have put it off that they were not sanctified until Pentecost. But we know the Spirit only follows the blood. The heart must be clean before the Holy Ghost can endue with power from on high. It is not the work of the Holy Ghost to burn up inherited sin and carnality, he is not our Savior. It is the blood that cleanseth us from all sin. The disciples were cleansed and sanctified and were sitting and waiting when the Holy Ghost fell upon them. [The Apostolic Faith, Vol. 1, No. 1, Los Angeles, CA, September, 1906. This was the official newsletter of the Azusa Street Mission, the home of the Azusa Street Revival from 1906-08]

The Pentecostals of Azusa Street believed that the Holy Spirit could not take away sin. Only through justification could a sinner be made right with God. They taught that the baptism of the Spirit was the empowering of the Spirit in the life of one who was already saved. I know the response this taught in the UPCI. They would say they were faithful to all the truth "revealed to them." But, now we have the "revelation" of Acts 2:38 and we can only be saved according to that truth. Now, here is real the question: Were the Apostolics as Azusa Street saved? If yes, why is the message of salvation any different today? They had the same Bible. They had the same Christ. There was now new biblical covenant or dispensation (except in the minds of the UPCI) revealed since that is supported by the Bible. However, if you say "No, they were not saved," then you are in the unenviable position of calling "unclean" that which God has cleansed. And that goes for the rest of the Christians today who trust in Christ alone by Grace alone through faith alone.

We know also that Cornelius was clean, for when the Lord let down the sheet before Peter, he said, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common," or unclean. The Holy Ghost fell on them as at the beginning and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. But, if water does not effect the remission of sins, what does? Is it the name of Jesus spoken over the person? If this is so then all we need to do is push everyone we can into a swimming pool and say, "Jesus" when they go under. I know that neither David Bernard, nor all the UPCI believes that. It is obviously silly. But then what does effect the remission of sins? Is it the act of the person going into the water and submitting to Baptism? If so then you have the person’s doing something to save themselves. Is it the person’s decision to be baptized in Jesus’ name? Then you have a person born of God contrary to John 1:12, 13 which says,

Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God– children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. (My bold)

All the arguments - whether Baptism saves as an act; or whether it is a means of grace that remits sin; what mode or formula is used - are all moot in relation to the greater truth. That greater truth is the answer to the question: What saves the sinner? The Gospel truth is that God in Christ wrought our salvation in dying on the Cross and rising from the dead to be our Mediator before God in Heaven. The saving of the world was when Jesus died, rose again, and ascended in glory. This is what works the work of our salvation. This is where our sins are forgiven and our relationship with God is forever changed. When asked when he was converted H. F. Kohlbrügge said: ‘On Golgotha’. [Bernhard Citron, New Birth, Edinburgh: R. & R. Clark Ltd., 1951) p. 8.] This is truly the spirit of faith in Christ alone. The glory is in what Christ did and not on the words of Peter in Acts 2:38. The focus of all Christians should solely be on the doing, dying and rising of our precious Lord Jesus Christ. It should not be a preponderance of articles and books on defending the UPCI teaching on Acts 2:38.

Salvation Is By Grace

The over-arching truth is that salvation is by grace, and grace alone. It is by God’s wonderful, infinite and sublime grace. Properly understood, grace eliminates all trust in the things we can do and what others can do for us. All that remains is what God has done for us in Christ. What He did is enough! I must urge that those who do not understand that salvation is through faith alone do not understand that salvation is by grace alone. I agree with James White who wrote:

When we keep in mind the foundation truth that man is unable to save himself, but that salvation is the work of God, we are able to understand why it is said that we are justified by God’s grace (Titus 3:7), justified by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9), and justified by faith. Grace, and the blood of Christ, are both things that are beyond man’s ability to manipulate; and faith, if it is true, saving faith, is the faith of God as well. Hence, we are justified by God’s action, not by any action of our own. Never is it said that we are justified by Baptism. [I would encourage you to read his excellent article A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration]

God worked the work of salvation in history nearly two thousand years ago. The Cross, the Resurrection and the Ascension are all acts of God which worked out our salvation. We do not "do" salvation. No one can "do" salvation for us today. God "did" salvation in the life and death of Jesus. Since it is done and we have not contributed to it we can only recognize that it is true and trust in what God did in Christ as for us. This is all we can and must do - trust in what God has done. It is not our faith that saves us, but it is what God did in Jesus which saves us. Our faith, inspired and enabled by God’s Spirit, is our realization of this great salvation.