Opposing Baptismal Regeneration
Introduction
Over the past few months, I have received correspondence regarding my views of baptism and baptismal regeneration. I’ve received so much correspondence regarding baptismal regeneration that I thought it worthwhile to write a blog defining what it means and explaining why I reject it. This post seeks to define baptismal regeneration fairly and to explain my rejection of baptismal regeneration effectively.
Defining Baptismal Regeneration
Baptismal regeneration at its core is the belief that baptism is an instrumental means by which God grants regeneration/remission of sins, rather than merely the claim that baptism is ordinarily required—i.e., unless one is baptized, that individual isn’t regenerated. Of course, there are variations of beliefs concerning this doctrine and it is worth considering those variations as part of our definition:
Roman Catholic (RC) / Eastern Orthodox (EO) – the RC and EO churches believe that baptism is the cleansing of original sin and thus is necessary for the individual seeking salvation. In fact, the RC church argues that baptism is the means through which the Word of God produces life; and thus, if a person is to experience regeneration, the person needs to be baptized.[1] This belief causes the RC Catechism to argue that those who die without baptism “can only [be entrusted] to the mercy of God” and those who remain (i.e., who still live) can only ask God for “hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.”[2] The EO church also believes that baptism is necessary for salvation, but they also emphasize that baptism is ineffective apart from genuine faith and that baptism is more than a mere symbol—i.e., baptism is very much the literal ontological basis of someone’s union with Christ.[3] Both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy regard baptism as ordinarily necessary for salvation, although both traditions recognize qualifications concerning cases in which sacramental baptism is absent.
The Restoration Movement (e.g., Churches of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), etc.) – the churches within the Restoration Movement (also known as the Stone-Campbell Movement) are often firm in their belief that baptism is necessary for salvation (mode of baptism is sometimes flexible).[4] Anecdotally, I have learned from pastors within the Restoration Movement, that their firm belief that baptism is necessary for salvation leads them to reconsider very practical issues—e.g., in many baptistic churches, baptistries are only full when someone determines to be baptized; however, in many Restoration Movement churches, the baptistries are always full so that whenever someone professes belief, they can baptize them immediately.
Others – in some cases, the belief concerning baptism treads between necessity and non-necessity. For example, the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod states that “the LCMS does not believe that baptism is ABSOLUTELY [sic] necessary for salvation . . . still, baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected . . . it is not a mere ‘ritual’ or ‘symbol,’ but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins.”[5] Thus, the LCMS occupies a mediating position between baptismal necessity and non-necessity—i.e., baptism is a genuine means of grace through which God grants faith and forgiveness, yet baptism is not absolutely necessary for salvation.
Of course, as previously stated, there are plenty of differing positions within Christianity concerning baptismal regeneration—and a short blog post cannot comprehensively interact with them all.
Defending Paedobaptism as a Reformed Baptist
Before dealing with expositional misunderstandings concerning baptism, I do want to take a moment to defend my paedobaptist (i.e., those who affirm infant baptism) brothers and sisters. It is common for credobaptists (i.e., those who affirm believer’s baptism) to assume that paedobaptists necessarily believe in a form of baptismal regeneration. This misconception is often due to the assumption that paedobaptists retained their belief of baptism from the RC Church—i.e., all paedobaptists must believe in the same position posited by the RC church (see above). This critique is misinformed at best and a straw man at worst—paedobaptism does not equal RC sacramentalism and a good critique of paedobaptism needs to consider the difference.
It is unfair to treat all paedobaptists as if they all believe in baptismal regeneration—rather, paedobaptists often affirm their beliefs for other reasons entirely. For example, Westminsterian paedobaptists believe that the moment of baptism doesn’t necessarily equate with its efficacy (i.e., infants can be baptized and that baptism not be made efficacious until later in life). This distinction allows Westminsterian paedobaptists to affirm the efficacy of baptism without identifying the administration of baptism with the moment of regeneration. In fact, in this circle of believers, the idea of baptism is tied to covenantal familes; and, as such, isn’t practiced for the same reason as credobaptists or those affirming baptismal regeneration.
While I disagree with paedobaptism, it is unwise to assume that all paedobaptists affirm baptismal regeneration. In fact, paedobaptism should not be equated with baptismal regeneration whatsoever.
Expositional Considerations
Of course, those who affirm baptismal regeneration use Scripture to validate their perspective. As such, it’s worth considering the texts that are often used to consider whether there is validity in their interpretation of these passages. The passages often used are:
Mark 16:16, “The one who has believed and has been baptized will be saved; but the one who has not believed will be condemned.”[6]
John 3:5, “Jesus answered, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’”
Acts 2:38, “Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’”
Acts 22:16, “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name.”
1 Peter 3:21, “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.”
A cursory reading of these texts seems to state that baptism is a necessary requirement for salvation, but when considered contextually, it isn’t as simple. For instance:
Within Mark 16:16, the second clause identifies unbelief (not lack of baptism) as the ground of condemnation. Additionally, it is worth noting that Mark 16:16 occurs within the longer ending of Mark, which is often considered not original to the text—so someone using Mark 16:16 to validate baptismal regeneration also needs to prove the authenticity of the longer ending of Mark.[7]
In John 3:5, Jesus’ response to Nicodemus isn’t actually about baptism. In context, Nicodemus is asking about entrance into God’s Kingdom and Jesus uses water to contrast the difference between fleshly birth and spiritual birth. The immediate conceptual background is spiritual regeneration, not baptism—to import baptism into the conversation is eisegetical.
Acts 2:38 and 22:16 both need to be understood within their own contexts. For example, in Acts 2:38, Peter is addressing Jews who had just been confronted with the fact that they not only rejected Messiah, but they also crucified their Messiah. When Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, he isn’t presenting baptism as an autonomous sacramental mechanism, but rather, he’s calling them to repent of their rejection of Christ and publicly identify themselves with Jesus as the Messiah. Although the verse closely connects repentance, baptism, and forgiveness, the broader canonical context prevents us from concluding that baptism is the instrumental cause of regeneration or forgiveness; rather, baptism is the divinely commanded outward expression accompanying repentance and faith. This same principle explains Acts 22:16, where Ananias tells Paul to “be baptized, and wash away your sins,” but immediately qualifies the statement with “by calling on His name.” The washing away of sins is therefore associated not with the physical act of baptism, but with calling upon Christ, with baptism functioning as the outward act accompanying his appeal to Christ.
In 1 Peter 3:21, it isn’t the physical act of baptism itself that saves, but rather the appeal to God for a good conscience that is then physically signified in the act of baptism which saves—the appeal saves, not the physical act of baptism.
The Biblical Relationship Between Baptism and Salvation
Of course, it’s worth considering the various passages of Scripture that explicitly identify the means by which sinners receive salvation. For instance:
John 3:16-18, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believed in Him will not perish, but have eternal life . . . the one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” – note that salvation is based on belief, not belief and baptism.
John 5:24, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.” – note again, that the passing from death into life and the attaining of eternal life is based on the one who hears God’s Word and believes (not belief and baptism).
Acts 16:31, “They said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’” It’s worth noting in this text that baptism is mentioned shortly after the initial command to believe, but it’s important to note the sequence of events—belief in Jesus is professed by the whole household, which is then followed by baptism.
Romans 10:9-13, “That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, ‘whoever believes in Him will not be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for ‘everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’” – note that in this text, baptism isn’t mentioned whatsoever—salvation is the result of genuine and professed belief.
Ephesians 2:8-9, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not a result of works, so that no one may boast.” While the use of this passage could be questionable (depending on one’s view of what constitutes a work and whether baptism is considered a work), it is worth noting that the text focuses on faith for salvation, not faith and baptism. The same issue is worth considering with Titus 3:5-7, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we did in righteousness, but in accordance with His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He richly poured out upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
If baptism is necessary for salvation, why do these passages consistently identify faith, repentance, and calling upon Jesus Christ as the saving response without mentioning baptism?
Scripture regularly associates salvation with not just faith, but with the Lord’s regenerative work in us and the justification that He provides us, which are both received through faith, rather than the administration of baptism.
Conclusion: The Reformed Baptist Position
While rejecting baptismal regeneration, the confessional Reformed Baptist affirms that baptism is indeed important—it’s rather clearly expressed in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Concerning salvation, “The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts, and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word.”[8] i.e., salvation is not the result of baptism, but rather the result of belief enabled by the Holy Spirit. In fact, the confession continues with, “the principle acts of saving faith have immediate relation to Christ, accepting, receiving, and resting upon him alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.”[9] i.e., it is through faith in Christ’s work that one is saved.
When speaking of baptism itself, the confession plainly states that baptism is an ordinance appointed by Jesus to be administered by those qualified and called and is “a sign of [the individual’s] fellowship with [Christ], in [Christ’s] death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of remission of sins; and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.”[10] And it is then explained that only those who actually profess repentance and faith are the only proper subjects of baptism—i.e., the person already believes and is saved prior to their baptism.[11]
Or, in other words, someone who affirms the 1689 believes that baptism is for those who already have been saved by Jesus Christ and, while important as an ordinance to be perpetually observed, is not necessary for salvation. Thus, while baptism should not be ignored or postponed needlessly, it is not required for salvation itself as the physical act of baptism cannot regenerate.
[1] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2.1.2.1228.
[2] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2.1.4.1261.
[3] The Orthodox Faith, Vol. 2 – Worship, The Sacraments, Baptism.
[4] Core Beliefs of the Church of Christ, Baptism, https://thechurchofchrist.info/about/doctrine/; The Disciples of Christ often allow for baptism by sprinkling and infant baptism without requiring the individual to be re-baptized—see Summary of Our Beliefs, First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Rogers, Arkansas, https://www.fccrogers.org/summary-beliefs.
[5] FAQs about Doctrine, Baptism FAQs, The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, https://www.lcms.org/about/beliefs/faqs/doctrine.
[6] Unless otherwise specified, all Bible references in this post are to the New American Standard Bible (NASB) (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020).
[7] See Maruice Robinson, Darrell L. Bock, Keith Elliott, and Daniel Wallace, Perspectives on the Ending of Mark: Four Views, edited by David Alan Black (Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Academic, 2008) for arguments concerning the authenticity of Mark’s longer ending.
[8] 1689, 14.1.
[9] 1689, 14.1.
[10] 1689, 28; 29.1.
[11] 1689, 29.2.
