 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 (Mark 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 (Matthew 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 .... when 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". Romans 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 Trent 2 and
reiterates the necessity of baptism for salvation 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]" (Matthew 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 are
also clear, for they had all gathered "to hear all things that
are commanded thee of God" (Acts 10:33). "(The 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" (v 47) convinced Peter
that they were saved. Therefore, he baptized them (v 48).
Nor can infant baptism be supported from the case of the Philippians 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 (Galatians
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 Corinthians 15:14). In fact,
he distinguished between the gospel and baptism: "Christ sent me
not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (I Corinthians
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
Corinthians 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 Corinthians 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 Corinthians 1:21; see also John 3:16, 18, 36,
5:24; Acts 10:43, 13:38-39, 16:31; Romans 1:16,3:28, 4:24, 5: 1; 1
Corinthians 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
Corinthians 10:2); the "baptism of John" (Matthew 21:25; N&
11:30; Acts 19:3, etc.), which was a baptism "of repentance"
Mk 1:4; Luke 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 (John 4:1-2; 3:22); the baptism Christ had to endure
of suffering and death- - - " I have a baptism to be baptized
with" (Luke 12:50; Mt 20:22; Mark 10:38, etc.); the baptism Christ
now performs on His own "with the Holy Ghost and with fire!'
(Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 1:5,1
1: 16); the baptism by the Holy Spirit "into Jesus Christ"
(Romans 6:3; Galatians 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 Corinthians 12:13).
Then why
does the Bible say, "There is ... one baptism"
(Ephesians 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, "We
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.... Let 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" (Galatians 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 Peter 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 (John
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 (John 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 (Exodus 30, 40; Leviticus
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]" (Ephesians 5:25-27). Christ
said, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken"
(John 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" (Titus 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 Peter 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.
For I am not ashamed of the Good News, since it is God's
powerful means of bringing salvation to everyone who keeps on trusting, to
the Jew especially, but equally to the Gentile. 17 For in it is revealed how God makes people righteous in his sight;
and from beginning to end it is through trust - as the Tanakh puts it,
"But the person who is righteous will live his life by trust. Romans
1: 16-17
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
www.thebereancall.org
To return to Truth
vs Error Page
To return to False
and 'Near Christian' Religions
To return to MENORAH'S
HOME PAGE
|