Is Regeneration Always Tied to Baptism?

In this video, I address the relationship between Baptism and regeneration. Specifically, I ask whether it is possible for someone to be regenerate apart from the work of Baptism.

[andygolla]

Rev'd Cooper, I am a young Anglican seminarian who enjoys watching your videos and learning more about Lutheran history and doctrine. I have watched a few of your previous videos on baptism, but I had a question about your description of baptism in this video that I was hoping you may be able to clarify for me, either by response or by pointing me to another video you have done that I might have missed--I know you're very busy, so I don't want to waste too much of your time. In the middle of the video, you make the statement that "when we have the case of an adult who believes in Christ, we don't say they are not justified if they haven't been baptized. This doesn't make baptism a purely symbolic action afterward." As I understand the thrust of your argument up to this point, you are saying that regeneration, according to Luther, is effected in the sacrament of baptism through the efficacy of the Word working in the sacramental act, not necessarily through some efficacious quality of the water or the ritual itself--which is to say, the washing with water is wedded to the words in a manner that more resembles a tangible incarnation of that word than as an extra ingredient in the regeneration recipe. It seems, then, that when you go on to make the claim that an adult may be justified without having been baptized, that this claim rests on the efficacy of the Word working through other means of grace, such as through scripture, preaching, etc., to produce regeneration in the adult without needing to take the particular form it takes in the sacrament of baptism. Nevertheless, baptism is not an empty ritual afterwards because it in a way truly works to remind them or or refresh the fact of the regeneration worked in them by the Word already, similar to the way that repeated petitions for the forgiveness of sins truly lead to forgiveness insofar as they restore to us/represents to us the reality that, in Christ, our sins have been forgiven. If I have understood the logic of your claims correctly--which I very well might not have--then does this not then still make baptism unnecessary to salvation? I believed that Lutherans taught that baptism was necessary to salvation.

To clarify, when I read the scriptures and the Fathers, it seems to me that baptism is described as a kind of ontological ground or linchpin of the mediation/application of God's forgiveness of our sins in Christ on the cross throughout our lives--in baptism we are indelibly marked and united to Christ in a way that sets us apart as members of a new body, a new covenant, and a new reality, participating in his death and resurrection. When we sin and the repent of this sin, we move from resisting and departing from the reality that was worked in us in baptism to being realigned with and dwelling in the truth of our baptismal identity. Repentance/penance then in a way reapplies or mediates to us in a sanctifying manner the essential justifying grace we are sealed in, through faith, in baptism. For this reason, though God's mercy is so great that he would justify those who cannot receive baptism because of martyrdom or premature death, nonetheless baptism remains the ordinary means through which one enters the body of Christ and is justified, since a person who believes in the truth of Christ and feels him/herself stirred by this truth, and yet, having the opportunity to be baptized, chooses not to be baptized, essentially chooses not to submit to Christ and be united to him in full allegiance--chooses never to take the marriage vows, despite professing true love.

And while I wouldn't, in the above description, disagree that it is the Spirit and the Word that works change in the sacrament, it seems, in contrast, that in the Lutheran understanding of baptism the activity of the word alone is the ontological ground or linchpin, which happens to find an apt and efficacious expression in baptism (though other expressions make work just as well) moreso as a kind of mediation, alongside repentance/penance, etc., of an independent reality of justification and regeneration. This would seem to suggest that baptism is only necessary to salvation if, in Lutheranism, a) regeneration is conceived of as pertaining to the process of sanctification, not justification, and thus baptism is an essential and fundamental catalyst that transforms the truth of justification into a powerful source of sanctification in the life of an individual; b) regeneration is thought of us a kind of diffused process or event that, while located in baptism, in a way sends out its feelers/effects in time before and after the actual moment of baptism, thus preemptively producing a kind of justification in the individual in a way resembling the theory of Christ's holy and purifying indwelling of Mary rippling out and causing her immaculate conception; or c) baptism is necessary to salvation because the kind of faith worked in the individual through the word necessarily moves the individual to be incorporated into the visible church, of which baptism is the right of initiation--in this case, absence of baptism in the life of a supposedly regenerate individual would cause the same kinds of concerns as the absence of good works in the life of one who supposedly has faith, since true faith by nature yields good works as fruits. In all of the above cases, it still seems that there is an kind of distance between the reality that is signified and effected in the sacrament of baptism and the act that signifies that suggests the signifier might not be required to communicate. This seems odd to me, because such a distance or diffusion between signifier and signified does not seem to obtain in the Lutheran teaching of the other sacrament of the Gospel, the Eucharist. Here, it would seem that you do not truly receive the Body and Blood of Christ--though you do receive his presence in other ways--except "in, with, and under" the bread and the wine in the event of Holy Communion, unlike theory b above. Nor does theory a or c really fit the Eucharist, either, though I could see a being far closer than c.

I fear that I have written too many words without really articulating my questions clearly, but do know that I write this comment in the spirit of more fully understanding Lutheran teaching, not in a spirit of contention, and out of respect for you as a minister, teacher, and internet interlocutor. God's peace!

[koonhanong]

Dr. Cooper, could you do a longer more in depth discussion of your position on Justification?
I have never heard of Justification being broken down into different temporal periods before 😮

[GaryJ]

According to my understanding, an adult believer receives eternal life, passes from death to life, the moment they believe (John 5:24). They are now justified before God and thus, forgiven by God due to believing the Gospel.

Question: Would you say that the adult believer (who has yet to be baptized) has also been buried with Christ and clothed with Christ even without their baptism? From an honest reading of the Scriptures, I have found that God gives the same gifts of forgiveness, deliverance, etc, in BOTH faith and God's work of baptism, even if they're separated.

What do you think? Thanks for your comments in the video. They've really helped me on this issue.

[dustincombs]

Anyone else confused besides me and possibly Dr Cooper? If baptism does effectively regenerate an infant why are not all infants regenerate as adults? Why in Acts do 0 believers recieve the Holy Spirit after baptism? Acts 2 Spirit given before baptism. Acts 8 u have baptism no Spirit until Peter and John came to pray. Acts 10 Spirit feel on the gentiles before baptism. Acts 19 baptism then laying on of hands to recieve the Spirit. It's the proper pattern for us but it's not presented biblically as the means of regeneration

[philiphughes]

How were God's people made regenerate before the rite of water baptism?

[BelieveOnlyJesus]

Ultimately, only God Himself knows that heart of the child who is baptized or the adult who is baptized. As God He is outside of time and space but intervenes in our time and space as He sees fit. Our limited minds cannot grasp this. The “Ordu Salutis” whether Reformed, Arminian, Lutheran, or Catholic is an attempt of carnal reasoning to understand God’s Grace working on the heart of an individual. The scriptures clearly show examples where God caused a person to believe in Him and created a regenerate heart both PRECEDING baptism and AFTER baptism. And what about the thief on the cross who recognized Jesus as the Messiah? (And of course was never baptized as a believer?) The bottom line is that God alone knows the heart of the man. Jesus alone knows our heart more than we know our own hearts!

[ConciseCabbage]

When you talk about the ordo salutis being ongoing, are you hinting that Trent is ultimately correct in that you can have “increases” in justification like Abraham did when he offered up Isaac?

[TheDroc]

So God can give to me on a street corner through a preacher of the Word.

Then when I'm Baptized God gives to me again - more saving grace. Then some more through the Supper. This is something I was wanting to nail down in Lutheran theology and find out how this works because it is different in Reformed Theology. The word and the word alone and not as so to be annexed or restricted solely upon the sign of Baptism and its exact moment of administration. God may or may not regenerate during that Baptism since the Word is in and out of the water in such a broad capacity. I think I'm understanding the differences more and more and I'm not really struggling with Lutheran Baptism. I believe Baptism is FOR the remission of sins. Im a Calvinist. Where I still...trip if you will in this discussion is how non Elect people can be "regenerated" and be lost and how true saving grace can be resisted (yet never for the Elect...which then we say yea amen). As I've stated before is I believe regeneration has to have a different emphasis or treatment in Lutheran theology compared to Reformed because of the belief that babies are regenerated in Baptism. Which we teach they might be. We live as they are yet raising them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and drive them towards the church and the means of Grace yet cannot 100% say our kids are regenerated in BAPTISM because we believe regenerated to only be towards the Elect, irresistible, and permanently efficacious. Shalom.

[bjw]

Hmm I think to take note that both biblical and in the early church, baptism and spiritual regeneration always accompanied each other. For the early church there was no separation. You had to have made some type of profession prior to baptism. For them to reject baptism is to reject Christ’s direct command which would mean you are not saved. I think in modern times we separate the understanding. The word and spirit is the power behind regeneration. Whether you apply it as means with water or a verbal profession and change of heart, doesn’t matter. However Baptism must occur. So we have two extremes. Those who think the water is some type of holy water ... and those who believe baptism is unnecessary. If both baptismal regenerationist and spiritual regenerationist believe that 1) a confession / profession occurs with a change of heart 2) the word and spirit holds the power to do it 3) baptism is a must we are all saying the same thing. It’s like adding up to number 4. Early church saw only 4. We however do. 1plus 3 or 2 plus 2 or 3 plus 1. As long as we get to 4.

[Edward-ngoo]

Where I differ from confessional Lutherans is that they hold that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in baptism so that all infants who are baptized are thereby regenerated - at least that's my understanding since I'm not aware that they believe that infants are capable of resisting the Holy Spirit.

I believe with Lutherans that the Holy Spirit only works through the means of grace, and that it's not possible to be regenerated unless it's through baptism and the Word, but I don't accept that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in baptism and the Word. From my reading of Luther this was also his position. In his large catechism he says with respect to infant baptism:

"That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from his own work. God has sanctified many who have been thus baptized and has given them the Holy Spirit. ….. We bring the child with the purpose and hope that he may believe, and we pray God to grant him faith. But we do not baptize him on that account, but solely on the command of God." (Tappert)

From what Luther states here it's apparent that he didn't believe that the Holy Spirit is always efficacious in baptism otherwise all infants would be regenerated, whereas Luther says only some are. He says we bring the child to be baptized in the hope that he will be given faith by God, but he makes no mention of any resistance on the part of the infant to explain why some aren't regenerated. From what Luther says it's apparent that he believed that God only grants faith to those infants He wills to grant faith to, and that God doesn't will to grant faith to all infants who are baptized.

Could a Lutheran please clarify what they believe on infant baptism. Are all infants regenerated and given faith in baptism according to Lutherans?

[shopson]

Well, that is false. 👉
“While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:44-48‬ ‭ESV‬‬
☝️
No water but regeneration with the Holy Spirit. They are saved here. Then they get baptized. Again👉
“As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?””
‭‭Acts‬ ‭11:15-17‬ ‭ESV‬‬
☝️
Regeneration with no water. Why? He explains that Baptism is now with the Holy Spirit.
Because again they received the Holy Spirit without water. They are saved. They will never be lost.

Water baptism is not needed to be saved. Baptism is an appeal to good conscience.

Ezekiel 36 is something God does not man. The I will’s there is all God doing something not man. It is a work of God. Dead men don’t save themselves. God has to make them alive. Ephesians 2. God grants that by regeneration with the Holy Spirit.

[SNB]

Explain more what you mean by “dividing the sigh and the thing”?

Isn’t a sign pointing towards something? How can we say that the sign and the action/thing the same. Or put them in the same pot or tie them together as if if one element is absent the whole thing falls. What you are saying is that without baptism there is no salvation?

[philiphughes]

Baptism does NOT regenerate. Abraham was regenerated before any external rite. We too are regenerated prior to any rite. To say that baptism has replaced circumcision is to misunderstand the covenants. No one has ever been saved but by the new covenant. Paul used Abraham has the great example, the one who has righteousness credited to him before even circumcision.

[stevenl]

Baptismal regeneration is heretical. Baptism is an ordinance given by the Lord Jesus Christ to symbolize the death and burial of our old man and resurrection into newness of life and a showing of your being in Christ.

I’d love to see the scriptural support you can give to show that the scriptures say that the Spirit is “working through the water” of baptism. Justification comes before baptism, you are already perfectly justified before baptism, but if you are truly justified you will want to be baptized in obedience to the Lord. Which means no infant baptism either, infants can’t profess Christ, they have no knowledge of good and evil yet.

[EdgeOfEntropy]

I have just one question: How does the waters of baptism differ from a simple bath? I don't mean this to sound rude or like I am claiming you are wrong. That is not the attitude that I want these words to convey. I sincerely would like to know what is so special about the waters of baptism. God bless.

[arcticfox]

Baptism nor the Word of God saves an individual. Only the blood of Jesus saves through the power of the Holy Spirit (Romans is very clear on this). Is this a soteriological issue? Uncertain. The Church of Christ denomination believes immersion saves a person who can understand "salvation."
They also believe in progressive justification. Don't know Lutheran belief on this.

[jacobticer]

The reformed understanding is better than this, I’m sorry.