Home » Posts tagged 'baptismal regeneration'
Tag Archives: baptismal regeneration
The Church Fathers Are NotThe Church Fathers (Part Two)
Proper Evaluation of History
God promised the preservation of scripture, but not the preservation of history. Since God promised the preservation of scripture, He insures that with a high level of divine intervention. The Bible says much about this. Since God doesn’t promise to preserve history, we must judge history in a different way. We must weigh it.
The history of the people and events of history differs in nature than the history of Christian doctrine. Believers can open the Bible, which God preserved, and compare the history of Christian doctrine with what the Bible says. Especially the doctrine found in what people call “the church fathers” diverges from biblical doctrine and practice. Biblical doctrine and practice and the church fathers have many dissimilarities.
An important part of good historical evaluation is observing historical influences on beliefs, practices, and methods. The Bible itself helps with this ability in a sufficient way. Already in the first century, external factors affected what the church believed. This is all over the New Testament. Keeping false doctrine out of the church required and requires tremendous vigilance.
The Trajectory of External Influences on the Church
New Testament Times
If one just looked at an epistle like 1 Corinthians, chapter after chapter chronicle both external and internal influences on the church at Corinth. People over emphasized the effect of baptism in chapter one. They also devalued preaching as a method for what Paul calls “signs” and “wisdom.” In chapter two, people were placing higher value on naturalism over supernaturalism. Greek philosophy that denigrated the place of the physical body led to acceptance of sexual sin in chapters five and six. The same kind of false teaching on the body led to mass denial of bodily resurrection in chapter fifteen.
One could keep moving through the entire New Testament and do something very similar to the samples of the previous paragraph. God wants us to see how false doctrine and practice enters the church and then takes hold. Revelation two and three chronicle seven churches and varied degrees of departure from the truth, even to the extent that the Laodicean church in Revelation three had already apostatized. Jesus and John tell history as a warning with the seven churches about both the internal and external attacks.
The Roman Empire and Greek Philosophy
The persecution of the Roman Empire affected churches in the first century. This parallels with anything and any place where persecution occurs. People accommodate the pressure and change from biblical belief and practice. The pressure of Sodom affected Lot and his family. The world itself corrupted Demas (2 Timothy 4:10).
Many other external factors changed and change thinking. This is why Paul warns against philosophies and traditions of men (Colossians 2:8). Theologians like Origen invented their own subjective approach to interpretation of scripture. Many others accepted then Origen’s way. Some read so much Greek philosophy, available during the period of the church fathers, that they took on the thinking of the Greek philosophers. Include Augustine among those. Greek philosophy doesn’t mix with the Bible and improve it. It corrupts it.
When Paul says “wisdom” in 1 Corinthians 1-2, he, like James in James 3:15, meant human wisdom, which could be intellectualism, naturalism, rationalism, or human reasoning. The false teachers that Peter battled as seen in his second epistle judged according to their own reasoning, attempting to conform their theology to that.
Syncretism
An important term to understand is “syncretism.” Wikipedia gets it right when it says in its entry on syncretism:
Syncretism is the practice of combining different beliefs and various schools of thought. Syncretism involves the merging or assimilation of several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, thus asserting an underlying unity and allowing for an inclusive approach to other faiths.
People mix two different philosophies, ideas, concepts, or beliefs and out of the two becomes something brand new, a hybrid, which contrasts with the ones from which it came. The false worship of Israel arose from syncretism, mixing Israel’s divine, scriptural worship with pagan or idolatrous worship practices.
Comparison with the True Church
The church doctrine and practice of the church fathers does not look like the church in the New Testament. The church fathers represent a path that diverts from the true path of the New Testament churches. As I wrote in part one, almost entirely they read as proto-Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism came from somewhere and this is easy to see. It’s no wonder that for centuries Roman Catholicism did not want people to read the Bible on their own. When they read it, they would see the differences.
It is easy to see in history what happened when people were reading the Bible and comparing it with Roman Catholicism. People left Roman Catholicism. They knew that wasn’t the truth. Based on reading scripture, they separated from Roman Catholicism. As well, true churches never joined that path in the first place. True churches always existed and people joined with them who left Roman Catholicism based on reading or hearing scripture. They also needed courage because Roman Catholicism through the years would kill them for disagreeing.
Roman Catholicism and the Church Fathers
Roman Catholicism preserved the church fathers. They served Roman Catholic mission and goals. Roman Catholicism uses the church fathers as their evidence of a historical trail. Roman Catholic apologists point to the church fathers as evidence of the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
The authority and military of the Roman Empire served Roman Catholicism. The denomination itself took on qualities of an Empire and enforced the doctrine and practice. Ultimately, it would not allow for challenge. This produced an inauthentic history of a church. It never was the church. The Roman Catholic Church always was a pseudo-church, posing as one. It keeps people fooled and strapped into false religion. The church fathers offer a major contribution to the deceit and destruction.
Today evangelicals embrace the church fathers. They point to them as a part of their own history. This supposes that God used Roman Catholicism to keep the truth. It isn’t true and it doesn’t even make sense. This doesn’t just provide a cover for the error. It sends people down the wrong path.
The Example of Baptismal Regeneration
A good example of the deceit and danger of the church fathers relates to the teaching of baptismal regeneration. The church fathers taught baptismal regeneration. The Bible doesn’t teach that. It teaches against it. Roman Catholicism among other kinds of deeds and rituals requires baptism as a condition for salvation. Protestants did not make a full turn from Roman Catholic doctrine with their acceptance of infant sprinkling. This dovetailed with the Roman Catholic view that the church was the worldwide kingdom of God on earth.
In Matthew 16, Jesus told Peter that He was building His church on the gospel. His church has a true gospel. The church fathers undermined the gospel and the church that arose from that teaching was a false one. It was Roman Catholicism and its state church.
More to Come
Calvinism, Unconditional Election and Baptismal Regeneration
Did you know that there is a connection between the heresy of the baptismal regeneration of infants and unconditional election and reprobation in Calvinism? In the chapter “Calvinism is Augstinianism,” by Kenneth Wilson, in the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), Wilson notes:
The major influence on Augustine’s AD 412 reversion to his prior deterministic Manichaean interpretations of Scripture was the arrival of Pelagius and Caelestius near his North African home in late AD 411. Augustine previously admitted (AD 405) he did not know why infant baptism was practiced (Quant.80). But the conflict with Caelestius and Pelagius forced him to rethink the church’s infant baptismal tradition and precipitated his reversion to his pagan DUPED [Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Eternal Destinies, that is, unconditional election].26 Caelestius had argued that infants did not receive baptism for salvation from sin but only for inheritance of the kingdom. Augustine’s polemical response to Caelestius in AD 412 was logical: (1) Infants are baptized by church tradition; (2) water baptism is for forgiveness of sin and reception of the Holy Spirit; (3) some dying infants are rushed by their Christian parents to the bishop for baptism but die before baptism occurs, while other infants born of prostitutes are found abandoned on the streets by a church virgin who rushes them to the baptismal font where the bishop baptizes them; (4) these infants have no “will” and no control over whether or not they are baptized to receive the Holy Spirit to become Christians. Therefore, God must unilaterally and unconditionally predetermine which infants are saved by baptism and which are eternally damned without baptism (unconditional election).27 God’s election must be unconditional since infants have no personal sin, no merit, no good works, no functioning free will (incognizant due to the inability to understand at their age), and therefore, no choice.
In his next work that same year, Augustine concluded if this is true for infants, then unbaptized adults also have no choice or free will (Sp. et litt.54–56). The Holy Spirit was received in water baptism, transforming the person into a Christian with a free will. Since humans have no free will before baptism, God must unilaterally choose who will be saved and infuse faith into those persons. Augustine taught even when “ministers prepared for giving baptism to the infants, it still is not given, because God does not choose [those infants for salvation]” (persev.31). Infant baptism became the impetus for Augustine’s novel theology when he reinterpreted that church tradition and reached a logical conclusion. By doing this he abandoned over three hundred years of church teaching on free will. According to the famous scholar Jaroslav Pelikan, Augustine departed from traditional Christian theology by incorporating his prior pagan teachings and thereby developed inconsistencies in his new anthropology and theology of grace, especially his “idiosyncratic theory of predestination.”28[1]
So the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation is connected to Augustine’s doctrine of baptismal regeneration of infants and the damnation of all infants who are not regenerated in baptism. Since the infants cannot choose whether or not they will be baptized and receive forgiveness through baptism, their eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s will alone; they have no free will to receive Christ or reject Him, as in the large majority of modern Calvinists who follow Jonathan Edwards in his work against the freedom of the will. The infants that are tormented forever because they never were baptized are unconditionally reprobated, and the infants in paradise because they were baptized are the unconditionally elect. Since this is (allegedly) true for infants, it must be true for everyone else as well—eternal salvation and damnation is by God’s unconditional choice alone—an Augustinian innovation in Christendom which was reproduced by John Calvin and the Reformed tradition. (Of course, John Calvin also believed in baptismal regeneration.)
Let me add that the book Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke is valuable for mature Christians and church leaders, and it contains many valuable and Biblically sound criticisms of Calvinism. However, there are a diversity of viewpoints represented in the book, including not just non-Calvinist Baptists who still believe in eternal security, for example, but full-blown actual Arminians such as Wesleyans who affirm the terrible false teaching that true believers can be eternally lost. Because some chapters in the book are written by actual Arminians, I would not recommend the book for new Christians who might over-react against Calvinism and adopt Arminian heresies. Pastors or other mature Christians who are simply not going to become Arminian can gain a good deal of profit from the book.
–TDR
26 Wilson, 285. See also Chadwick, Early Christian Thought, 110–11.
27 Augustine, Pecc.mer.1.29–30. In contrast, ca. AD 200, Tertullian had rejected infant baptism, stating one should wait until personal faith was possible (De bapt.18).
28 Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100–600) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 278–327, quotation at 325.
[1] Kenneth Wilson, “Calvinism Is Augustinianism,” in Calvinism: A Biblical and Theological Critique, ed. David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2022), 222–223.
Links to Amazon.com are affiliate links.
John the Baptist’s Diminishment of His Own Water Baptism in Matthew 3
Matthew 3 provides the New Testament introduction of the forerunner of Jesus Christ, John the Baptist. While John preached in the wilderness of Judea, the Pharisees and Sadducees came out to him for the purpose of baptism in the Jordan River. Matthew 3:7-12 read:
7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.
The Desire of the Pharisees and Sadducees for John’s Baptism
“To his baptism” in verse 11 may sound like a dative of direction or destination. It isn’t. It is the Greek preposition, epi, with the accusative noun, baptisma. The BDAG lexicon says the following about this usage of epi:
11. marker of purpose, goal, result, to, for, w. acc. . . . . baptism=to have themselves baptized Mt 3:7
John’s reaction to the Pharisees and Sadducees shows that he knew they were coming out for baptism by him. How he uses the Greek word, echidna, translated “vipers,” indicates that he referred to the vipera ammodytes, the sand viper. Because of very dry conditions, brush fires will begin and spread in the Jordan River Valley, pushing these poisonous reptiles toward the water. This is the picture John paints of the Pharisees and Sadducees. This elucidates their purpose.
Sand vipers slither to the Jordan River to escape brush fires. The Pharisees and Sadducees came for the purpose of John’s baptism. They thought it might provide another possible escape from future judgment of God. These religious leaders were quite willing to try one more religious ritual as another fire insurance policy. John wouldn’t baptize them. His baptism would not deliver them.
The Preaching of Repentance
John preached repentance. He immersed only the repentant. The Pharisees and Sadducees were not repentant. Their lives did not show the fruit of repentance. Repentance was a change of heart, conversion of the soul. It was more than token ritual so favored by false religion.
Later in verse 11, John says to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance.” “Into” translates the Greek preposition, eis, which indicates identification, such as when Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 10:2, “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” “Unto” is again the preposition eis. The children of Israel were not placed in Moses. Through their baptism in the Red Sea, they identified with Moses. John’s immersion in water identified the repentance of the recipients.
John the Baptist is saying, my baptism doesn’t save you. Baptism would not result in the salvation of the Pharisees and Sadducees. It would just be another ritual for them. If they repented, God would save them, and then John would immerse them. He baptized only previously truly repentant people.
The Natural Quality of John’s Baptism
If someone thinks that baptism will deliver him from hell fire, like the sand vipers slithered to the Jordan River to deliver them from brush fires, he was wrong. John makes that clear in the following verses. Using other metaphors, John says that God would cast them into the fire without repentance. John baptized, but he diminishes it before his listeners as a means of salvation. This should give strong pause to those adding baptism as a salvation requirement. John the Baptist himself didn’t do that.
Further, John contrasts what he does with water baptism and what Jesus does with Spirit and fire baptism. John represents his baptism as solely natural. It’s water. Water doesn’t make any kind of supernatural or spiritual change. He characterizes baptism with water as inferior to baptism with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Those are greater than the baptism John performed. Jesus Himself would baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
The Supernatural Quality of Jesus’ Baptisms
Compared to John’s
The Holy Spirit and the eternal fire of Hell are both supernatural. The two media with which Jesus baptizes are superior in quality and character to the one medium of John’s baptism. John was just a man. He could water baptize, but he couldn’t baptize with the third person of the Trinity like Jesus could and did.
In Jesus’ day, slaves would carry the sandals or shoes of their Master or Lord. John was so low compared to Jesus, he says, that he was not worthy even to do that kind of slave work for Jesus. Sure, he could baptize with water. That was a baptism suitable for his doing. Only Jesus could do such supernatural baptisms as the Holy Spirit and fire.
Holy Spirit baptism corresponds in John’s preaching to gathering the wheat in his garner. The garner was heaven in John’s figure and the fire was Hell. Anyone in John the Baptist’s audience that day he invited to repent, so that Jesus would gather them into His granary. If they did not repent, therefore not being a good tree that could bring forth fruit, Jesus would axe them down and toss them into unquenchable fire.
Later in Matthew 3, Jesus then shows up in the wilderness, bringing an entirely different situation for John the Baptist. When the Pharisees and Sadducees showed up, he didn’t want to baptize them. They needed to repent and they hadn’t. When Jesus showed up, John the Baptist didn’t want to baptize him either. Why? He only baptized repentant people and Jesus had nothing for which to repent. Instead then, John asked Jesus to baptize him.
The Characterization of Jesus
If anyone should repent, next to Jesus, John was the one who needed repentance. Jesus should baptize him and not John baptize Jesus. John’s desire not to baptize Jesus diminished his baptism in comparison to the work of Jesus. Through Jesus, you could receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. John’s baptism just identified its recipients with what mattered most, their repentance. Mere identification is lesser than the much greater transformation of a life through Christ’s redemption and indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus could and would also judge in the end with fire. The fan, the winnowing shovel, was in His hand. In the end judgment, He would divide the truly saved from those who are not. That is way above John the Baptist’s pay grade. John’s baptism was not salvific. It was not supernatural. John was just a man. He wasn’t God like Jesus was.
John was baptizing. When he compared himself with Jesus in John 3 to persuade his followers to follow Jesus instead, John argued (verse 36):
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
If you believed in Jesus Christ, you received everlasting life. If you didn’t, you received the wrath of God. Nothing John could do would provide everlasting life or the wrath of God. Belief brought everlasting life, not baptism.
Thought Experiment
The Pharisees and Sadducees came to John for baptism. They saw it as a fire escape, another ritual that would put more weight on the side of their own righteousness. It might ameliorate themselves against future judgment as an impressive deed.
As a thought experiment, let’s say John welcomed their desire for baptism, praised them for it. Their trek out to the Jordan River manifested their expression of need. They were admitting trouble for themselves, perhaps some need for cleansing. So John instead said, “Well done. In light of your recognition of deprivation, let me baptize you!”
Baptizing the Pharisees and Sadducees would play right into their hands. It would give them the wrong impression and false sense of security that baptism would save. John sent the message that baptism did not save. It was a symbol. It didn’t do anything like repentance and then Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit.
John’s unwillingness to baptize the Pharisees and Sadducees because they did not show fruit unto repentance teaches against any saving effect of baptism. It is not a washing of regeneration. It is mere outward identification. Jesus later says it is also a righteous act of obedience. It wouldn’t save anyone, including the Pharisees and Sadducees. John was clear on this.
Baptismal Regeneration: Acts 22:16
Requiring Baptism for Salvation
Definition and Denominations
“Baptismal Regeneration” in its definition at Wikipedia says:
Baptismal regeneration is the name given to doctrines held by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican churches, and other Protestant denominations which maintain that salvation is intimately linked to the act of baptism, without necessarily holding that salvation is impossible apart from it. Etymologically, the term means “being born again” (regeneration, or rebirth) “through baptism” (baptismal).
It’s more than that. You will find the Church of Christ, the Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, LDS, and Charismatics such as Apostolics who also require water baptism for salvation. Where I live, the biggest denomination is the “Christian Church,” which believe this.
Hermeneutic
A certain wrong hermeneutic undergirds or produces baptismal regeneration, using a few proof texts. Instead of looking at all of the New Testament and understanding each verse within the whole, it conforms the whole to a few select verses. I will examine those verses. Those few verses don’t overturn what the New Testament teaches about salvation. They don’t include baptism as a requirement for justification. I will analyze what they do say, since men use them to buttress their false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
Versus Belief Alone by Grace Alone
Many times the Bible says something like John the Baptist said in John 3:36.
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
You don’t read any baptism in there. Forty times the Bible says, “believeth/believed in/on him/Jesus/the Son/me/thee,” as the sole condition for salvation.
Scripture expresses many other faith alone statements. The Ethiopian in Acts 8:37 said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” Mark 1:15 says, “believe the gospel.” John 20:31 says, “Believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and believing ye might have life through His name.” John 13:19 says, “ye may believe that I am he.” This is what the Bible teaches for salvation. Those verses mirror Ephesians 2:8-9:
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
As much as verses teach faith alone for salvation, there are also many many that teach salvation not by works.
Adding a Work or Works
Baptism is not an incidental, non-affecting addition to grace or faith. It is akin to the addition of the one work or ritual of circumcision, which Paul addresses in Galatians 5. By adding this single work or ritual, “Christ shall profit you nothing” (v. 2). You become “a debtor to do the whole law” (v. 3). And, “Christ is become of no effect unto you” (v. 4). Those adding baptism almost always add other works and then depend on their works to stay saved. This is perverting the gospel.
Proof Texts
What I’m saying again here is that baptismal regeneration does not depend on what the New Testament teaches about salvation, but on proof texts that adherents use to force this doctrine on the Bible. I will deal with five verses, not necessarily in any order: Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38,1 Peter 3:21, and John 3:5. In the end, I will give more evidence against baptismal regeneration [Read the book by Thomas Ross against baptismal regeneration, see his debate on the subject at these links]. My prime goal here was to examine these proof texts.
Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Post Conversion Baptism
At face value alone, it seems possible that Acts 22:16 says baptism washes away sins or at least precedes the washing away of sins. The verse itself rests within the conversion testimony of Paul to a hostile audience in Jerusalem, many years after his salvation. In the first telling of Paul’s salvation, his conversion and then reception of the Holy Spirit far preceded the command and occurrence of baptism (Acts 9:1-17). Every time he recounts his conversion, Paul places his baptism as a later result of his conversion, not a cause (Acts 9, 22, 26).
Grammar and Syntax of Acts 22:16
The grammar and syntax of Acts 22:16 does not teach baptism preceding salvation or washing away sins. Luther B. McIntyre, Jr. explains well in his article, “Baptism and Forgiveness” (Bib Sac, Jan-March, 1996, pp. 61-62):
The Greek sentence has two participles and two imperatives: “Arising, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling upon his name.” Many English translations include two conjunctive “ands,” but the Greek text has only one kai (“and”). The construction is participle-verb-kai-verb-participle.
William MacDonald in his Bible Believer’s Commentary (NT, p. 469) suggests that best approach to this verse is to associate each participle with its nearest verb. This is entirely consistent with what A. T. Robertson (Greek Grammar, p. 1109) calls the adverbial use of the participle.
Based on the Greek construction, the washing away of sins is connected with ‘calling upon his name,’ not with being baptized. That agrees with Peter’s own appeal to the prophet Joel in Acts 2:21 that “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” As Polhill says in his Acts commentary (p. 461), “The overarching term, however, is “calling upon the name of the Lord,” the profession of faith in Christ that is the basis for the act of baptism.
Some might not like the use of grammar and syntax getting in the way of their proof text. However, the grammar and syntax also agree with the vast and overall scriptural teaching of faith alone for salvation.
Context
In Acts 9:13, Ananias referred to Paul (then Saul) as “this man,” yet later, he calls Paul his “brother.” Paul was already converted before his baptism in verse 18. Brother was a term adopted by the early disciples. They used the term to express their familial love for each other in Christ. The shift from man to brother in the words of Ananias indicate Paul’s conversion preceded baptism.
[I suggest everyone to read, again, Thomas Ross’s book, Heaven Only For the Baptized? This book does a far more thorough job than above in debunking Acts 22:16 as a baptismal regeneration proof text.]
More to Come
Recent Comments