The Biblical Case for Baptismal Regeneration

The Biblical Case for Baptismal Regeneration

Luis Dizon offers a Biblical and historical case for the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration.




DON'T FORGET TO SUBSCRIBE AND LIKE!

[MarilynBoussaid-ydvk]

Thank you SO MUCH for this thorough examination of baptism. This video is unbelievably timely for me. Just the other day, the subject of baptism came up with a Protestant neighbor, who was telling us about her family, and mentioned that one of them wasn’t baptized, then she added, “but of course baptism doesn’t save you.” My response was, ”I’m Catholic, and I believe it does.” Predictably, she asked, “Where is that in the Bible? Do you even read the Bible?” I gave her the verse from 1 Peter 3:21. She looked it up, then responded by saying, “You have to read it in context. You always have to read verses in context. A few verses earlier it says we’re saved by Christ.” Fortunately someone interrupted us, which stopped me from bursting out laughing.

However, afterwards I was concerned about my apologetics skills, and started looking for further information. That’s when I found this video. So, you can understand how much I appreciate it! 🙏

[Tylerbngjk]

In the name of the Father And the son and the Holy spirit, heavenly father evangelize this whole comment section in the name of the Father And the son and the Holy spirit amen

[mitchjensen]

The biblical case for Baptism actually doing something? Literally every New Testament verse about Baptism.

[killianmiller]

One thing to note about Cornelius beyond that he can be saved extra-sacramentally, he was also the first gentile to be baptized, involving visions and everything to show us that gentiles can be part of the church too (meaning this is an extraordinary case that doesn’t seem to happen again), also nowhere in Acts 10 does it say Cornelius was “saved.” At best it says he had the Holy Spirit. But that can be analogous to how nobody comes to the grace of baptism without first being moved by the Holy Spirit; like a thirsty man in a desert, he must be guided to water, and only after he has received water is he truly saved from his thirst. Perhaps you could be said to be saved when you’re found in the desert, but until you find water, you will die of thirst.

[susand]

58:56 So, in Acts 2:38, the only reason to interpret the Greek preposition "eis" as "on account of the forgiveness of sin" (as Julius R. Montey tries to do), instead of "into the forgiveness of sin" is if one has a prior "theological rationale for doing so", as Baptists do, attempting to avoid Baptismal regeneration -- the ultimate in "eis"-egesis!!

[paulnavarro]

The Greek word "BAPTIZMA" is not translated into English in our Bibles. The Greek word "BAPTIZO" is also not translated into English. They are what's called "transliterated", that is, the equivalent English letter is used to FORM an English word. So, what do these two Greek words, used in the originals and copied Greek texts mean?


The word Baptism, according to Greek Scholars since the 18th Century, means "to come under the complete influence of an overwhelming power". It is NEVER used as meaning, "a religious ritual using water". When the Greek word "BAPTIZO" is used it generally means "to wash with water".

Now, the words used by Jesus with respect to "baptizing" have to do with BOTH. A "Baptism" required that the Person come under the influence of the Teachings of Jesus thus causing a COMPLETE CONVERSION of the heart. If a Person heard and believed the Preaching of the Apostles they were "baptized", i.e., a symbolic physical washing of the body.

The "Baptism" is what the Preacher did; he had a message to proclaim which the hearer had to acknowledge and believe in his heart in order to be saved. If the hearer did not acknowledge and believe what was being preached he COULD NOT BE SAVED. Obviously, all those who rejected the "baptism" or the "message" would not be symbolically washed with literal water.

Jesus said he had a "baptism" to go through. Was it a "water ritual" which he was anticipating? No. He was anticipating with great sorrow the time when he would come "under the complete influence and power of Satan and taste of sin on the cross", which he HATED and died because of. "Baptisms" come in all kinds of experiences of life.

So, if we make a distinction between "baptisms" (overwhelming influences) and a "BAPTIZO" (a washing for religious or non religious purposes), then we can see how it is IMPOSSIBLE for an infant or an immature mind to go through a "Baptism", which requires hearing and understanding in order to become a CONVERTED to the message.

Peter and the Eleven "baptized" thousands when they PREACHED the Gospel message and they believed and were CONVERTED to the message. Yes, thousands can be "baptized" through a message. The "baptizo" or Jewish water ritual was applied AFTER the Conversion (Baptism), by anyone assigned to the task by the head Preacher.

The coming under the "water ritual" was a sign of the CONVERT's recognition of the AUTHORITY of the Preacher. Example: Jesus was acknowledging John's AUTHORITY given to him by God to PREACH and thus to CONVERT others.

[darewan]

Thanks for presenting on this imp topic. However, your case for baptismal regeneration (BR) did not defend the Roman view rather you seem to be saying that Rome is consistent with Lutheranism/ Anglicanism on this issue.

I was hoping to hear a defense of the "ex opera operato" view of BR in opposition to the "faith alone as instrument" view of BR. There is a vast difference between Rome and even Prots who believe in BR- not the same theology.

A historical approach should demonstrate that Justin believed in 'ex opera operato' for example, not merely BR. Same with the apostles if it is the Roman view you wish to defend.
I hope I am not being unfair to you, maybe it was not your intent to address the diff views on BR in this video. It just seems among some people when this topic is mentioned there's little appreciation for the very important distinctions. Respect.