B a p t i s m a l
R e g e n e r a t i o n ?
by Dave Hunt
Christ commanded His original disciples to go into all the
world and preach the gospel (Mk 16:15). Those of every nation
who believed in Christ as their Savior were to be baptized "in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Mt 28:19).
These new disciples were to preach the gospel everywhere and to baptize
those who believed (v 20) through their testimony as Christianity
spread worldwide.
Baptism in the early church was by immersion: "they went
down both into the water .... [W]hen they were come up out of the
water" (Acts 8:38-39), etc. Why? Because baptism symbolizes
the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial and
resurrection: "we are buried with him by baptism into death: that
like as Christ was raised up from the dead ... we also should walk in newness
of life" (Rom 6:4).
Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually
introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved;
indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to
infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal
regeneration. Most Protestants holding these beliefs today are
not aware that they originated with the Roman Catholic Church in the
Middle Ages.
The Council of Trent (1545-63) stated that while Christ
"merited for us justification by His most holy passion...the instrumental
cause [of justification/regeneration] is the sacrament of baptism .... If
anyone says that baptism is ... not necessary for salvation, let him be
anathema."' Vatican II (1962-65) reconfirms all of Trent2 and reiterates
the necessity of baptism for salvation,3 as does the universal Catechism
of the Catholic Church released by the Vatican in 1993: "Baptism is necessary
for salvation ... the Church does not know of any [other] means
... that assures entry into eternal beatitude .... "4
Trent anathematizes all who deny that "the merit of Jesus
Christ is applied ... to infants by the sacrament of baptism" or who
deny that by baptism "the guilt of original sin is remitted ..."5
Today's Code of Canon Law (Canon 849) declares that those baptized
are thereby "freed from their sins, are reborn as children of God
and ... incorporated in the Church." Canon 204 states: "The Christian
faithful are those who ... have been incorporated in Christ through
baptism" and are thereby members of the one, true Catholic Church.6
For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration
was rejected by Bible-believing Christians, whom the Roman Catholic
Church therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions.
Non-Catholics taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those
who had believed the gospel: "teach all nations baptizing them [who
have believed]" (Mt 28:19); "Then they that gladly received his word
were baptized"(Acts 2:41); "[W]hat doth hinder me to be baptized? ... If
thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts
8:35-37). Infants can't believe in Christ.
Consider Cornelius's household: they heard the gospel, believed
it and were baptized. That there were no infants
baptized is also clear, for they had all gathered "to hear all things
that are commanded thee of God" (Acts 10:33). "(T]he Holy
Ghost fell on all them which heard [and, obviously, understood and
believed] the word" (v 44); and they spoke with tongues (v 46). That
they had "received the Holy Ghost" (v47) convinced Peter that they
were saved. Therefore, he baptized them (v 48).
Nor can infant baptism be supported from the case of the
Philippian jailor who " was baptized, he and all his" (Acts 16:33).
Again there were no infants present because Paul and Silas preached the
gospel "to all that were in his house," (v 32) and "all his house"
believed (v 34) and were then baptized.
The early Reformers such as Martin Luther were Catholics
who, importunately, retained some Catholic dogmas, among them baptismal
regeneration and infant baptism. These heresies are still held by
some Protestant denominations today. The issue is a serious one.
If baptism is essential for salvation, then to reject that gospel
is to be damned. But if salvation is through faith in Christ alone,
then to add baptism as a condition for salvation is to reject the
true gospel and thus to be eternally lost. The Bible declares
that it is wrong to teach salvation by faith in Christ plus anything else,
such as keeping the Jewish law (Acts 15:24). Paul cursed (anathematized)
those who taught this false gospel that damns the soul (Gal 1:8.9).
A gospel of salvation through Christ plus baptism is equally false.
When Paul reminded the Corinthians of the essential ingredients
of the gospel which he preached and by which they had been saved,
he made no mention of baptism (I Cor 15:14). In fact, he distinguished
between the gospel and baptism: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach
the gospel..." (I Cor 1:17). He hadn't baptized most of the
Corinthians, couldn't remember whom he had baptized, and was thankful
that it had been very few (I Cor 1:14-16) - - - a strange attitude if baptism
is essential to salvation! Yet without baptizing them, Paul declared
that he was their father in the faith: "in Christ Jesus I have begotten
you through the gospel" (I Cor 4:15).
Then what about Mark 16-16: "He that believeth and is baptized
shall be saved"? All who believe the gospel are saved, so of
course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say
that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of
verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by
believing the gospel: "[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to
save them that believe" (I Cor l:21; see also Jn 3:16,18,36,5:24; Acts 10:43,13:38-39,
16:31; Rom 1:16,3:28, 4:24, 5: I; 1 Cor 15:1-4; Eph 2:8, etc.).
Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.
Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe
is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized
is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ
without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet
it never says so! Instead, we have examples of those who believed
and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and
the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.)
to whom Christian baptism was unknown.
It is essential to realize that some baptismal texts do
not refer to Christian water baptism, but to one of the seven other
baptisms in Scripture. 'Mere was the baptism of the Israelites "unto
Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (I Cor 10:2); the "baptism of John"
(Mt 21:25; N& 11:30; Acts 19:3, etc.), which was a baptism "of
repentance" Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Acts 19:4, etc.); the baptism attributed to Christ
before the cross "Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his
disciples" did the baptizing (Jn 4:1-2; 3:22); the baptism Christ had
to endure of suffering and death- - - " I have a baptism to be baptized with"
(Lk 12:50; Mt 20:22; Mk 10:38,etc.); the baptism Christ now performs on
His own "with the Holy Ghost and with fire!' (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk
3:16; Jn 1:33; Acts 1:5,1 1: 16); the baptism by the Holy Spirit "into
Jesus Christ" (Rm 6:3; Gal 3:27) and thereby "into his death"
(Rom 6:4; Col 2:12); and the baptism by the Holy Spirit into
the church, the one body of Christ (I Cor 12:13).
Then why does the Bible say, "There is ... one baptism"
(Eph 4:4-5)? The explanation is simple but carries profound consequences:
Baptism of any kind occurs only once and is never repeated. In that
sense, then, there is only one baptism. Whether one believes that
baptism itself saves, or that it symbolizes salvation
through identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, the fact
that it cannot recur proves that one's salvation can never be lost.
For if one must get saved again as a result of losing one's salvation,
then baptism must be repeated each time - - - but there is only
one baptism.
This dogma of "failing away," like baptismal regeneration,
also comes from Roman Catholicism. No Catholic can be certain he
is saved; for salvation, which is by works in Catholicism, could be forfeited
at any time by failure to continue to perform the works prescribed.
Trent declares: "If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission
of sins it is necessary ... to believe with certainty ... that his sins
are forgiven him, let him be anathema .... If anyone says that he
will for certain ... have that great gift of perseverance [in the faith]
even to the end ... let him be anathema."7 While rebaptism is not practiced
in Catholicism, the sacraments of penance and the Mass are said to
restore saving grace and are thus repeated endlessly.
Yes, but Romans 6:4 states, "[W]e are buried with [Christ]
by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the
dead ... even so we also should walk in newness of life." That Paul is not
speaking of water baptism, however, but of the spiritual reality it symbolizes,
is clear, for he says that through baptism "our old man [sinful nature]
is crucified with him [Christ], that the body of sin might be destroyed."
As a consequence, he urges believers to reckon" themselves " to be dead
indeed unto sin.... [L]et not sin therefore reign in your mortal body"
(vv 6-13).
Paul uses similar language concerning himself when he says,
"I am crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20). He is obviously speaking
of that same spiritual "baptism" by which we have been placed in Christ
and have thus passed with Him through death into resurrection life.
If we were literally dead to sin, then we wouldn't need to
"reckon" it true or live the new life by faith; we would automatically never
sin again. That a Christian may sin shows that water baptism doesn't
effect a literal crucifixion with Christ. It portrays a spiritual
baptism into Christ which the believer must live by faith.
In that context, then, we can understand Peter's declaration,
"The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Pt 3:21). He is no more saying
that the physical act of baptism literally saves us than Paul is saying
that it literally makes us dead to sin. 'Me few difficult, isolated
verses such as these cannot contradict the overwhelming number of other Scriptures
which are crystal clear. Water baptism, says Peter, is a "figure"
or symbolization of a spiritual baptism into Christ effected
by the Holy Spirit and which is settled forever in heaven. It must
be lived out by faith while we are here upon earth.
Significantly, though Paul baptized a few, Christ never
baptized anyone (Jn 4:2)- - - very odd if baptism saves.
The Savior of the world must have deliberately avoided baptizing to
make it clear that baptism has no part in salvation. Yes, Christ
said we must be "born [again] of water and of the Spirit" to be saved
(Jn 3:5), but it is unwarranted to assume that "water" here means baptism.
To do so would contradict the wealth of Scripture we have seen which
proves salvation is not by baptism.
Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a rabbi to whom "water",
would not mean baptism (which was unknown in Jewish law) but the ceremonial
cleansing of someone who had been defiled (Ex 30,40; Lv 13, 15, etc.).
And that is what Christ meant. His death would make it possible to
"sanctify and cleanse [His church] with the washing of water by the
word [of the gospel]" (Eph 5:25-27). Christ said, "Now ye are
clean through the word which I have spoken" (Jn 15:3). Like Christ,
Paul put water and the Spirit together, referring to the "washing of
regeneration" and linking it with the ...renewing of the Holy Ghost"
(Ti 3:5). We are born again by the Holy Spirit and by the Word
of God, which is sometimes called "water" because of its cleansing
power. As Peter said, we are "born again ... by the word
of God" (I Pt 1:23).
It was obviously this figure of Old Testament ceremonial
cleansing which Peter communicated to his Jewish audience in his Pentecost
sermon: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). It is clear from the
many other Scriptures we've given that Peter wasn't saying that
baptism saves, but that it offered a ceremonial cleansing uniquely applicable
to his Jewish hearers. To be baptized was to be identified before
the fanatical Jews of Jerusalem with this hated Jesus Christ as one's
personal Savior. Baptism cost family and friends and endangered one's
life, as it still does in Israel and Muslim countries. Those
who are afraid to take this public stand in such cultures are
even today not considered to be true believers. Thus for a Jew to be
publicly baptized at that time in that culture was, in a sense, to
"wash away [his] sins" (Acts 22:16), as Ananias told Saul.
"The gospel
of Christ ... is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth
it" Rom 1: 1 6.
That gospel, as Paul preached it, required
faith in Christ's blood poured out in death on the cross
for the
sins of the world and said nothing about baptism. To preach baptismal
regeneration
is to preach a false gospel that cannot save, which
is why Paul cursed those who did so.
The difference between faith
in Christ alone and
faith in Christ plus baptism has eternal consequences.
Let us stand firmly for, and
faithfully preach, the true gospel that saves.
1 H.J. Schroeder, trans., The Canons and Decrees of the Council of
Trent (Tan Books, 1978), pp. 33, 53. 2 Vatican Council II, The Conciliar
and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin Flannery, O.P., General Editor (Costello
Publishing Company, 1988 rev. ed..), p. 412. 3 Ibid., p.365. 4 Catechism
of the Catholic Church (The Wanderer Press, 1994), pp. 224, 320. 5 Trent,
op. cit., pp. 22, 23, 54. 6 Code of canon Law (Paulist Press, 1985), pp.
122, 614. 7 Schroeder, Trent, op. cit., p. 44.
Reprinted and used with the express permission of
The Berean Call
P.O. Box 7019, Bend, OR 97708

-MENORAH MINISTRIES-
P.O. Box 460024
Glendale, CO 80246-0024
Voice: 303-355-2009 Fax: 303-355-6901
To return to Truth vsError Page
To return to False and 'Near Christian' Religions
To return to MENORAH'S HOME
PAGE