Is Baptismal Regeneration Simple?

[anglicanaesthetics]

Thats fair. As an Anglican who does believe in Baptismal regeneration, I don't think it's simple. Most of us believe that one can be saved prior to Baptism *and* we believe Baptism saves. So we have to nuance our view of salvation, or of Baptism, or both!

[stcmattb]

Yes!! This is so helpful, and your viewpoint is refreshing to hear :)

As a Baptist, it's frustrating when I feel like I'm forced to choose between texts that speak of water cleansing and washing away sins, and those that speak of faith and forgiveness, when baptism itself is a "calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts 22:16).

I also find it hard to understand why we are so quick to ascribe saving efficacy to a prayer we once prayed in a living room somewhere, but not to the waters of baptism!

[presbygoose]

When many people debate "baptismal regeneration", I think there's a profound lack of attention toward exploring how "regeneration" is defined throughout church history, and how different traditions define it today. From a Presbyterian/Reformed perspective, I have no issue with ascribing saving efficacy and real grace to baptism, as long as it's properly understood that it is not the water itself that saves, but rather the promises contained within when received by faith. However, I do object to the claim that Baptism creates faith in every instance of it's administration. If we adopt a Calvinist understanding of "regeneration" (a sort of spiritual awakening and creation of faith), I would clearly have to reject baptismal regeneration as understood resultantly. On the other hand, if we use a patristic definition of "regeneration", a very different understanding of "baptismal regeneration" might result that I and others could get on board with. I'd really appreciate it if more people looked into this and shared their findings.

[paulmcpheeters]

I’m now a reformed Baptist, but I grew up Presbyterian. The classic Westminster response to a Roman Catholic or Orthodox on this is “every argument you’re making can be applied to circumcision”.

“OT is the OG” ~ Keith Foske, probably

[rocketmanshawn]

This is the best way I've heard it. But I still think a person can be saved without having been baptized. Basically 1 Pet 3:21

[IvanAlvarezCPACMA]

Very articulate and precise. Well said.

[Abraham-yqwz]

Incarnation = the Uncreated God conveys grace through the Created order

Question for anyone that opposes baptismal regeneration or even the idea that grace can be conveyed through matter notwithstanding the intellectual capacity of an individual to believe, repent, or grasp the realities of salvation : why did Christ physically lay hands on infants and children?

[tuomassalo]

Babtismal regeneration is clearly biblical teaching. Christians should be alarmed if the way they talk about babtism and the way the bible talks about it differ so much. Bible says about the babtism that it: saves, forgives sins, clothes in Christ, in it we die with Christ and are resurrected with Christ. Babtists never take verses on babtism at their face value and insert their theology and undo what the scripture actually says about it. Lutherans for example are much more alligned with the verses on babtism and can say amen to those verses and dont have to explain away the natural explanation. And can use same phrasing. Its weird if you cant say similar things about babtism that the bible says. Like babtism saves and be babtized for the forgiveness of sins

[Th-hkxz]

The early church believed in Baptism regeneration. Why did Jesus Christ our Lord, say go there for and make disciples of all nations and Baptize them ? Was Jesus speaking symbolically again? Just like the Eucharist again wow.

[ericcollins]

I would say, it’s not the Bible that makes it complicated.
It’s our western eyes, through which we read the Bible, that makes it complicated.

When salvation is understood as a legal ledger change. Then the language of saving waters, or Paul and Peter saying baptism saves you, becomes complicated.
How can this be sufficient to make a legal change in my standing?

However if salvation is theosis, it is the process of growing into the likeness of God by his grace and mercy, then all of sudden these languages make sense.
Rather it’s my choosing to use my tongue to make a confession(I.e Roman’s 9:10) my mind for a prayer(I.e. sinners prayer), or my body in the water(I.e. Romans 6:3/1 Peter 3:21) - as one submit their being and participate in the graces of God, In Christ, they are saved.

[tpoy]

If baptism, being a metonym, is representative of the whole of salvation, as opposed to being a real physical instrumental cause of sanctifying grace, then why not say that ‘justification by faith’ too is a metonym?

It stands for the whole of our response to the Gospel: trust and obedience.

‘Justification by faith alone’ would then be an exegetical error analogous to baptismal regeneration.

[willcunningham]

Hi Gavin! I agree with you on this but what if someone asked if a couple is married before the wedding ceremony or if the ceremony is what makes them married? Hope your meetings are going well!

[wc]

Honest Question: If the Apostles did intend to communicate that baptism has saving efficacy, how would they have said that? In other words, given your view on metonymy, would it be possible?

[TheClements-DL]

The reality is that Baptism is something all Christians must participate in if they are able to to live a Christian life. Debate all we want about the mechanism of salvation but if we love God and we want a relationship with Christ we must at the very least aim to be Baptized.

[frankbilotto]

I like you, I respect you, I love you as myself. Two most important words you said, "I think". I'd rather trust what the early Fathers think, and the Church (which is the pillar of truth) has always taught and practiced. Baptism was settled 1900 years ago, and codified 1700 years ago. Everything else was settled at least 1300 years ago, or longer.
Please keep in mind at the New Testament scriptures only became the New Testament scriptures because they were consistent with the Liturgy and the Theology of the church. As such, I'll continue to trust the Orthodox Church, and it's head, Jesus christ, until someone can show me that my theology has changed from the teachings of the Apostles.
May the Holy Spirit continue to guide you.

[biblest]

So it is my understanding that there is a baptism of the spirit which John said would come, then we see the progression of it in the book of Acts and we have many verses concerning it. I would like to hear your view on those verses and how it relates to water baptism. Your right, It is pretty complicated, but I have found many verses concerning all of it. It is a fascinating study.

[Daniel_Miller]

That's a brilliant example - the coronation of a monarch. Yes.

[TheForbiddenLean]

The problem is thinking it is just a ceremony. It is more close to the appointment. Gavin also believes in double predestination, which shows forth clearly in all of his exegesis.

[ProtestantismLeftBehind]

Baptismal regeneration is simple. It’s simple if you accept the Scriptures in light of the ancient one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, also mentioned as being Orthodox. All the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers bear witness that mention this topic. St. Dionysius (disciple of Paul) implicitly mentions it. It was the preserved faith and understanding that baptism saves because grace was conveyed through baptism as it connected to Christ and His work. But those who ripped the Scripture from the arms of the Church that produced her will innovate some other ideas.

[fredtrevino]

I don’t think we are that far apart….. The Catholic view is that any Sacrament must be met with faith to be effective. Infant Baptism is met with the faith of the Church until the child is old enough to be accountable. Adult Baptism is met with individual faith and a very beautiful and pronounced profession of faith that would leave most Protestants breathless…..