Refutation of David Cloud's "Baptismal Regeneration"
MARK 16:15-16 -- "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
By comparing Scripture with Scripture, we know that it is faith that saves, and baptism is the symbol and evidence of one's faith. A careful reading of Mark 16:16 confirms this. It does not say that those who are not baptized shall be damned; it says those who do not believe will be damned.
"You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24
Faith alone doesn't save; for a more in depth analysis on salvation, check out my page on salvation.
Well, of course Jesus doesn't say that those who aren't baptized won't be saved. If you don't believe, you won't be baptized; the two go hand-in-hand. Saying that those who don't believe won't be saved is enough. The point, however, is that Jesus clearly said that we must believe AND be baptized to be saved.
When the Philippian jailer asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" Paul did not reply that he needed to believe and be baptized. He replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Acts 16:30-31). After the jailer believed on Christ, he was baptized that same night, but it was only the product of his salvation.
Paul told the jailer that to be saved, he had to believe; I agree. However, if Paul had said, "You must believe (Romans 5:1), be baptized (1 Peter 2:20-21), do good works (James 2:24), and endure till the end (Matthew 24:13)," he would've sounded a bit strange (to say the least).* Just saying that he had to believe summed it up nicely; everything else should follow quite naturally from belief. Actually, this story supports baptismal regeneration; a few verses later we read:
"They spoke the word of the Lord to him and all who were in his house. At the same hour of the night he took them and washed their wounds; then he and his entire family were baptized without delay." - Acts 16:32-33
Here we see that Paul and Silas wasted no time in baptizing the jailer and his family. If baptism is merely a symbol, a public testimony of your belief, why did they rush the baptism?
Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were baptized (Acts 10:43-48), and the Holy Spirit is the mark and seal of sonship and salvation (Gal. 4:6; Eph. 1:11-12).
Ok, this was a unique one-time event that will never be repeated again; the first Gentile converts received the Holy Spirit before being baptized. As we can see in Acts 10:9-16, Peter still held on to the Jewish dietary laws, so he and all the other Christians (all of whom were Jews) probably still thought that obeying the Jewish laws (AKA becoming Jewish) was necessary. Verse 45 even says, "The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles." To show the Jewish Christians that becoming Jewish wasn't necessary for salvation, God poured out His Spirit on the first Gentile converts before baptism in a one-time event.
Plus, this passage doesn't say that Cornelius and his family were reborn when they received the Holy Spirit. While being reborn is one way in which the Holy Spirit affects people, it's not the only way nor is it the way He always affects people. All Acts 10:43-48 says is that they spoke in tongues; nowhere does it mention being reborn.
If baptism were a part of salvation, the Apostle Paul would not have said, "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:17). Baptism is not part of the Gospel that Paul preached. See 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. In this passage Paul declared the Gospel "in a nutshell," and there is no mention of baptism. Paul's Gospel message was also summarized in Acts 20:21--"repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." Again, there is no word about baptism. Baptism is important, but it follows salvation and is not a part of the Gospel.
If we read 1 Corinthians 1:17 in context, we see that Paul is thankful that he only baptized a few people, so the Corinthians couldn't say they were baptized in his name (v. 15). While Paul didn't baptize, other people did. If Paul had baptized the people but said that Christ didn't send him to baptize, then David might have a point, but he doesn't. Plus, if David's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 1:17 is correct, then Paul was ignoring Jesus' command in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples of all nations and baptize them.
Let's take a look at 1 Corinthians 15:1-4:
"Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you-unless you have come to believe in vain. For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures."
Paul doesn't mention faith, so I guess that's not part of the Gospel either. What he DOES mention, however, is holding firm to the Gospel, and there's no reason (based on this passage alone) to believe that it doesn't include baptism.
In Acts 20:21, Paul tells the Ephesian elders how he preached repentance and faith to the Ephesians, so let's take a look at what Paul did in Ephesus:
"While Barnabas was in Corinth, Paul passed through the interior regions and came to Ephesus, where he found some disciples. He said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?' They replied, 'No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.'" - Acts 19:1-2
Here we see that the Ephesians didn't receive the Holy Spirit right when they believed. So, what does Paul do next?
"Then he said, 'Into what then were you baptized?' They answered, 'Into John's baptism.' Paul said, 'John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.' On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." - Acts 19:3-6
When they said they hadn't received the Holy Spirit, Paul asks them about their baptism! Why? Because we receive the Holy Spirit in BAPTISM! They are then immediately baptized and confirmed (when Paul laid his hands on them), and only AFTER this do they receive the Holy Spirit. So, when Paul said he preached repentance and faith, he does NOT exclude baptism from salvation. The same is true for the Philippian jailer; when Paul said he had to believe to be saved, he wasn't excluding baptism.
When Paul explained how to be saved in Romans chapter 10, he again said nothing about baptism:
"That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Rom. 10:9-13).
To understand Paul's words in Romans 10:9-13, we must take them in the context of the whole epistle. In Romans 2:6-16, Paul says that God judges us by our works, not mentioning faith. In Romans 10:9-13, Paul says that we're saved by faith, not mentioning works. Does he contradict himself? No. So, right away, we see that Paul does not exclude everything OTHER than faith from salvation in Romans 10:9-13. Plus, if we read the passage in context (Romans 9:30-10:4, 12), we see that all he means is that both Jews AND Gentiles will be saved by faith rather than by our own merits through following the law (but he is not excluding all works from salvation). Now that we can see that Paul didn't exclude everything besides faith from salvation in Romans 10:9-13, let's see if Paul DOES mention baptism in Romans.
"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:3-4
Does this sound like baptism is just a public testimony to our salvation? Hardly. Paul clearly says, "We have been buried with him BY BAPTISM into death, so that�we too MIGHT WALK IN THE NEWNESS OF LIFE." He was teaching that baptism is necessary for salvation!
ACTS 2:38 -- "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
Acts 2:38, standing alone, could mean either that baptism RESULTS IN the remission of sins, or it could mean that baptism is BECAUSE OF the remission of sins already obtained through faith.
No it can't. Peter clearly says that we must repent AND be baptized to be saved; he says, "be baptized FOR the remission of sins," clearly meaning that baptism results in the remission of sins. Plus, Peter also connects baptism with receiving the Holy Spirit.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we know that the true meaning is the latter. Those who repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life and the Holy Spirit, and baptism signifies this spiritual reality. Ephesians 1:13 plainly states that the Holy Spirit is received by trusting the Lord Jesus Christ. "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."
Paul doesn't say HOW the Ephesians received the Holy Spirit; all he says is THAT they received Him. Especially when we consider Acts 19:1-6, it's quite plausible that Paul was referring to baptism as the time after they believed that they were sealed with the Holy Spirit.
The Lord Jesus Christ also taught that the Holy Spirit is given to those who believe in Him. "He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, WHICH THEY THAT BELIEVE ON HIM SHOULD RECEIVE: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified)" (John 7:38,39).
All of my bibles except for the NKJV (NAB, TEV, NRSV, Douay-Rheims), the RSV (which I looked up online), and a French translation which my friend looked up all have a translation more like this:
"He said this, however, of the Spirit whom they who believed in him were to receive�" (Douay Rheims)
I'm inclined to believe all of my bibles over the KJV and NKJV, so David doesn't have a case anymore. John was saying that those who believed in Jesus back then would receive the Holy Spirit (probably referring to Pentecost), not all believers of all times, and he doesn't specify HOW they will receive the Spirit. He very well could've been referring to baptism, although I think he was probably referring to Pentecost.
ACTS 22:16 -- "And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Acts 22:16, standing alone, could mean either that baptism washes away sins, or it could mean that calling on the name of the Lord washes away sins.
No it can't. First of all, the connection between WASHING away your sins and WATER baptism is evident; the water of baptism washes away our sins. Plus, if we interpret it to mean that calling on God's name washes away our sins, we would get this:
"Arise, and wash away thy sins�calling on the name of the Lord."
Now, is it me, or does that just sound weird? If Ananias meant that calling on God's name alone washed away sins, he would've said something more like, "Arise, and be baptized, and call on the name of the Lord to wash away your sins." We can see that Ananias clearly meant that baptism washes away our sins.
Comparing Scripture with Scripture, we know that the true meaning is the latter. Romans 10:13 says whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. There is absolutely no mention of baptism in Romans 10. Those who repent and trust the Lord Jesus Christ receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life, and baptism signifies this spiritual reality.
I already dealt with this passage.
1 PETER 3:21 -- "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
This verse shows the error of baptismal regeneration. Baptism is a figure, a symbol, a picture. Baptism is not a part of salvation; it is symbolic of salvation. We are saved, not by water going over our bodies, but by faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Wow. Talk about taking a passage out of context. Here is the whole passage:
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." - 1 Peter 3:20-21 (KJV )
First of all, even in verse 21 (the verse David quoted), it says, "BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US." How can he use this verse to disprove baptismal regeneration? Secondly, when Peter says that baptism is a figure, he means it is a figure of the flood in Noah's time! The flood was a type+ of baptism! Honestly, I'm completely amazed that David would use this passage to try and disprove baptismal regeneration; how can he not know that this passage is used to prove it!?
* - While I don't expect David to believe that we must do good works to be saved, I am just showing how the Catholic view of salvation can be reconciled with this passage.
+ - Most people don't know what a type is, so I will explain it. Typology is the study of how things in the Old Testament foreshadow things in the New Testament, and a type is the thing in the Old Testament that prefigures something in the New Testament.
