Refutation of Dave Hunt's "Baptismal Regeneration?"
Dave's words are in blue; mine are in black.
Baptism in the early church was by immersion: "they went down both into the water....[W]hen they were come up out of the water" (Acts 8:38-39), etc.
By saying "when THEY were come up out of the water," Luke is not trying to show that baptism was by immersion. If he was, then they were both baptized (because they both came up out of the water). All this passage means is that Philip and the Ethiopian physically stepped into and out of the body of water.
Why? Because baptism symbolizes the believer's identification with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection: "we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead...we also should walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4).
And how does one get a symbolic baptism out of Romans 6:4? The plain meaning of the verse is that in baptism we are born again. The context is about being dead to sin and alive to Christ, and Paul uses baptism as the reason for this. Now, why would Paul use a mere symbol to prove a point this important?
Unfortunately, various innovations and heresies were gradually introduced regarding baptism: that one must be baptized to be saved; indeed, that baptism itself saves the soul even when administered to infants. These heresies became known as the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Most Protestants holding these beliefs today are not aware that they originated with the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages.
Baptismal regeneration originated in the Middle Ages? Really? Let's take a look at what some of the Church Fathers said:
Justin Martyr
"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: 'In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,' they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, 'Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven'" (First Apology 61:14-17 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria
"When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . 'and sons of the Most High' [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation" (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism-which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes-by taking them away from the water!" (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
For centuries before the Reformation, baptismal regeneration was rejected by Bible-believing Christians, whom the Roman Catholic Church therefore persecuted, tortured and slaughtered by the millions.
Oh really? Prove it.
Non-Catholics taught from Scripture that baptism was only for those who had believed the gospel: "teach all nations...baptizing them [who have believed]" (Mt 28:19);
Jesus was speaking in general about the nations that believe, not specific people.
"Then they that gladly received his word were baptized" (Acts 2:41);
This verse is referring to a group of adults who had heard Peter preach. It doesn't say that infants CAN'T be baptized (which, if you read the next objection, you will find was Dave's point).
[W]hat doth hinder me to be baptized?...If thou believest [in Christ] with all thine heart, thou mayest" (Acts 8:35-37). Infants can't believe in Christ.
Dave misses the point of this passage. Baptism, like circumcision for the Jews, is the sign of the Covenant (Colossians 2:11-12), so adults who don't believe (and therefore reject it) can't be baptized. However, like Jewish infants who couldn't believe, Christian infants are to be initiated into the New Covenant (Acts 2:39). The point here is that adults who don't believe can't be baptized because they reject Jesus; it has no bearing on whether or not infants can be baptized.
Consider Cornelius's household: they heard the gospel, believed it and were baptized. That there were no infants baptized is also clear, for they had all gathered "to hear all things that are commanded thee of God" (Acts 10:33).
If I say, "My whole family went to listen to the sermon," does that mean there are no babies in my family? Of course not! Just because babies can't listen to a sermon doesn't mean that I must exclude them when I say my whole family went. It's common usage to say that a whole family does something, even if infants are incapable of doing it.
"[T]he Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard [and, obviously, understood and believed] the word" (v 44); and they spoke with tongues (v 46). That they had "received the Holy Ghost" (v 47) convinced Peter that they were saved. Therefore, he baptized them (v 48).
No, they did not convince Peter that they were saved; they convinced him that they were true believers, worthy of the saving waters of baptism. As we can see in Acts 10:9-16, Peter had to receive a vision from God (a very persistent one) to be convinced that following the Jewish Law was not necessary for salvation, so he would've naturally been apprehensive about letting Gentiles into the Church. 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," indicating that the Jews were wary of admitting Gentiles into the Church. God poured out His Holy Spirit onto Cornelius's family just to show that He accepted them; however, the gifts of the Spirit they received did NOT include regeneration. They still needed to be baptized for that (why do you think Peter had them baptized immediately? Couldn't they have waited if baptism is merely a symbol?). The Holy Spirit gives out different gifts, regeneration being only one of them.
Nor can infant baptism be supported from the case of the Philippian jailor who "was baptized, he and all his" (Acts 16:33). Again there were no infants present because Paul and Silas preached the gospel "to all that were in his house" (v 32), and "all his house" believed (v 34) and were then baptized.
If I say that my whole family believes in God, does that automatically mean that there are no infants in my family? Of course not! The same principle that applied to Cornelius's family hearing Peter preach applies to the Philippian jailor's family believing.
Actually, infant baptism cannot be directly supported by this case because we don't know for sure if he had infants in his family. What it does show, however, is that infant baptism is a POSSIBILITY; there are other proofs that support it more directly.
But if salvation is through faith in Christ alone, then to add baptism as a condition for salvation is to reject the true gospel and thus to be eternally lost. The Bible declares that it is wrong to teach salvation by faith in Christ plus anything else, such as keeping the Jewish law (Acts 15:24). Paul cursed (anathematized) those who taught this false gospel that damns the soul (Gal 1:8-9). A gospel of salvation through Christ plus baptism is equally false.
1) Salvation is not through faith alone.
2) Even if salvation were through faith alone, baptismal regeneration would not violate it. Baptismal regeneration is not Christ plus baptism; it's Christ through
baptism.
When Paul reminded the Corinthians of the essential ingredients of the gospel which he preached and by which they had been saved, he made no mention of baptism (1 Cor 15:1-4).
1) Who says Paul was reminding the Corinthians of all the essential ingredients of the gospel?
2) He doesn't mention loving your neighbor, so I guess that's not an essential part of the gospel either (it's essential in Protestant theology because it proves your
faith)?
3) He does mention baptism as an essential ingredient of the gospel in Hebrews 6:1-2.
In fact, he distinguished between the gospel and baptism: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel..." (1 Cor 1:17). He hadn't baptized most of the Corinthians, couldn't remember whom he had baptized, and was thankful that it had been very few (1 Cor 1:14-16)-a strange attitude if baptism is essential to salvation! Yet without baptizing them, Paul declared that he was their father in the faith: "in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" (1 Cor 4:15).
Paul himself didn't baptize, but other people did. Otherwise, he would be violating Jesus' command to baptize all nations (Matthew 28:19). He was thankful that he didn't baptize many so they couldn't have a faction of those who had been baptized by him (1 Corinthians 1:11-13). He was their father in the faith because he converted them and first taught them the gospel.
Then what about Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"? All who believe the gospel are saved, so of course all who believe and are baptized are saved; but that does not say that baptism saves or that it is essential for salvation. Scores of verses declare, with no mention of baptism, that salvation comes by believing the gospel: "[I]t pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe" (1 Cor 1:21; see also Jn 3:16,18,36; 5:24; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; 16:31; Rom 1:16; 3:28; 4:24; 5:1; 1 Cor 15:1-4; Eph 2:8, etc.).
But the point is that you have to be baptized to be saved. If it were merely a symbol, why would Jesus include it as a condition for salvation?
Many verses do say that salvation comes through belief, but none of them say through belief alone. There are also many passages that say salvation comes through works (Psalm 106:30-31; Matthew 16:27, 25:31-46; Romans 2:6-8; 1 Peter 1:17; Revelation 20:12), but they don't say works alone. James reconciles all these passages quite nicely when he says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (James 2:24). Just because many verses say that salvation comes through faith (but they don't say faith alone) doesn't mean that baptism (or anything else) is necessarily excluded.
Not one verse, however, says that baptism saves.
"And baptism�now saves you" - 1 Peter 3:21
Numerous verses declare that whosoever does not believe is lost, but not one verse declares that whosoever is not baptized is lost. Surely the Bible would make it clear that believing in Christ without being baptized cannot save if that were the case, yet it never says so!
"Jesus answered, 'Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.'" - John 3:5
Catholics interpret being "born of water" as a reference to baptism, so we have Jesus saying that you can't enter heaven unless you're baptized. However, this is a controversial verse, and its meaning is not clear without looking elsewhere. Dave deals with this verse later on in his essay, so I will too.
Instead, we have examples of those who believed and were saved without being baptized, such as the thief on the cross and the Old Testament saints (Enoch, Abraham, Joseph, Daniel, et al.), to whom Christian baptism was unknown.
The command to baptize was not instituted until Matthew 28:19, so all those examples are irrelevant. Plus, using this logic, we wouldn't have to believe that Jesus died for us, either, because the Old Testament saints didn't.
It is essential to realize that some baptismal texts do not refer to Christian water baptism, but to one of the seven other baptisms in Scripture. There was the baptism of the Israelites "unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor 10:2); the "baptism of John" (Mt 21:25; Mk 11:30; Acts 19:3, etc.), which was a baptism "of repentance" (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Acts 19:4, etc.); the baptism attributed to Christ before the Cross-"Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples" did the baptizing (Jn 4:1-2; 3:22); the baptism Christ had to endure of suffering and death_"I have a baptism to be baptized with" (Lk 12:50; Mt 20:22; Mk 10:38, etc.); the baptism Christ now performs on His own "with the Holy Ghost and with fire" (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16; Jn 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16);
Okay, I agree.
the baptism by the Holy Spirit "into Jesus Christ" (Rom 6:3; Gal 3:27) and thereby "into his death" (Rom 6:4; Col 2:12); and the baptism by the Holy Spirit into the church, the one body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).
"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
"For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-Jews or Greeks, slaves or free-and we were all made to drink of one Spirit." - 1 Corinthians 12:13
"As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." - Galatians 3:27
"In him also you were circumcised with a spiritual circumcision, by putting off the body of the flesh in the circumcision of Christ; when you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead." - Colossians 2:11-12
All of these passages indicate that baptism actually gives us grace, so Dave has to find a way to explain them away. He does this by saying that they refer not to actual water baptism, but to a different type of baptism. However, this is an example of eisegesis, reading one's own interpretation into the text. Nowhere does Paul indicate that he is referring to a non-water baptism.
Then why does the Bible say, "There is ...one baptism" (Eph 4:4-5)? The explanation is simple but carries profound consequences: baptism of any kind occurs only once and is never repeated. In that sense, then, there is only one baptism.
I half agree with Dave. While you can only be baptized once, Paul is referring to water baptism, the only type of baptism that can initiate you into the New Covenant and free you from original sin.
Whether one believes that baptism itself saves, or that it symbolizes salvation through identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, the fact that it cannot recur proves that one's salvation can never be lost. For if one must get saved again as a result of losing one's salvation, then baptism must be repeated each time-but there is only one baptism.
Why, just because baptism is performed only once, can we not lose our justification? Baptism is our initiation into the New Covenant, and we stay in it forever (regardless of whether or not we keep our end of the deal). Scripture clearly teaches that we can fall away and lose our justification.
"But the one who endures to the end will be saved." - Matthew 24:13
"Note then the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness toward you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off." - Romans 11:22
"You who want to be justified by the law have cut yourselves off from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." - Galatians 5:4
"He has now reconciled in his fleshly body through his death, so as to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him - provided that you continue securely established and steadfast in the faith, without shifting from the hope promised by the gospel that you heard" - Colossians 1:22-23
"Christ, however, was faithful over God's house as a son, and we are his house if we hold firm the confidence and pride that belong to hope." - Hebrews 3:6
"For we have become partners of Christ, if only we hold our first confidence firm to the end." - Hebrews 3:14
"For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than, after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment that was passed on to them." - 2 Peter 2:20-21
This dogma of "falling away," like baptismal regeneration, also comes from Roman Catholicism. No Catholic can be certain he is saved; for salvation, which is by works in Catholicism, could be forfeited at any time by failure to continue to perform the works prescribed. Trent declares, "If anyone says that in order to obtain the remission of sins it is necessary... to believe with certainty...that his sins are forgiven him, let him be anathema....If anyone says that he will for certain...have that great gift of perseverance [in the faith] even to the end...let him be anathema." While rebaptism is not practiced in Catholicism, the sacraments of penance and the Mass are said to restore saving grace and are thus repeated endlessly.
If Roman Catholicism is understood to be true Christianity as handed down from the Apostles, then yes, "falling away" does come from it. But if not, then Dave still has to deal with the Scripture passages that warn against it.
The mass does not restore saving grace; only the sacrament of reconciliation (penance) can.
Yes, but Romans 6:4 states, "[W]e are buried with [Christ] by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead...even so we also should walk in newness of life." That Paul is not speaking of water baptism, however, but of the spiritual reality it symbolizes, is clear, for he says that through baptism "our old man [sinful nature] is crucified with him [Christ], that the body of sin might be destroyed." As a consequence, he urges believers to "reckon" themselves "to be dead indeed unto sin....[L]et not sin therefore reign in your mortal body" (vv 6-13).
Paul uses similar language concerning himself when he says, "I am crucified with Christ" (Gal 2:20). He is obviously speaking of that same spiritual "baptism" by which we have been placed in Christ and have thus passed with Him through death into resurrection life. If we were literally dead to sin, then we wouldn't need to "reckon" it true or live the new life by faith; we would automatically never sin again. That a Christian may sin shows that water baptism doesn't effect a literal crucifixion with Christ. It portrays a spiritual baptism into Christ which the believer must live by faith.
Dave misses the point here. While we are to reckon ourselves as dead to sin (because if we literally were, we wouldn't sin anymore), this is merely a peripheral point. We are to reckon ourselves as dead to sin because we have been born again in baptism and are therefore required to live our life for Jesus (which means avoiding sin as much as possible). Paul says that we are under grace rather than law (v. 14), and the reason for this is our baptism. Nowhere does he indicate that baptism is merely a symbol of this reality.
In that context, then, we can understand Peter's declaration, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (1 Pt 3:21). He is no more saying that the physical act of baptism literally saves us than Paul is saying that it literally makes us dead to sin. The few difficult, isolated verses such as these cannot contradict the overwhelming number of other scriptures which are crystal clear. Water baptism, says Peter, is a "figure" or symbolization of a spiritual baptism into Christ effected by the Holy Spirit and which is settled forever in heaven but which must be lived out by faith while we are here upon earth.
"�God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight people, were saved through water. And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you-not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" - 1 Peter 3:20-21"
Since Dave quoted verse 21 from the KJV, I would've liked to quote verses 20-21 from the KJV also, but I think its wording is really confusing.
But, as we can see, Peter is not saying that baptism is merely a figure or a symbol; rather' he's saying that Noah's ark prefigured it! He really IS saying that baptism saves us!
Dave says that a few isolated passages cannot contradict the "overwhelming number of other scriptures which are crystal clear." About what are they crystal clear? Do they teach that baptism DOESN'T save you? Or maybe he's referring to the passages that teach salvation is through faith, which, as I already explained, do not exclude baptism. Whatever they are, it would've been nice for him to cite at least one of these passages here.
Significantly, though Paul baptized a few, Christ never baptized anyone (Jn 4:2)-very odd if baptism saves. The Savior of the world must have deliberately avoided baptizing to make it clear that baptism has no part in salvation.
No, Jesus did not deliberately avoid baptism to show that it doesn't save. Why didn't He baptize people? Probably because He was busy preaching while His disciples baptized.
Yes, Christ said we must be "born [again] of water and of the Spirit" to be saved (Jn 3:5), but it is unwarranted to assume that "water" here means baptism. To do so would contradict the wealth of Scripture we have seen which proves salvation is not by baptism.
"The wealth of Scripture�which proves salvation is not by baptism." Again, Dave refers to a bunch of passages that supposedly disprove baptismal regeneration, but he has yet to give one. The passages that say we are saved by faith don't work (as I showed before), the passages that say Paul didn't baptize don't work (as I showed before), and John 4:2 doesn't work, either (as I showed before).
Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a rabbi to whom "water" would not mean baptism (which was unknown in Jewish law) but the ceremonial cleansing of someone who had been defiled (Ex 30, 40; Lv 13, 15, etc.).
1) How do you know that Nicodemus would've interpreted Jesus' words as a cleansing? Just because the Jews used water to cleanse themselves doesn't mean that
water ALWAYS meant a ceremonial cleansing.
2) Even if Nicodemus did interpret Jesus' words that way, he would've understood being born of water as a cleansing with literal water.
3) So what if Nicodemus wouldn't have interpreted Jesus' words as referring to baptism? Jesus said a lot of things that His followers understood only AFTER the
resurrection (such as Matthew 10:38).
And that is what Christ meant. His death would make it possible to "sanctify and cleanse [His church] with the washing of water by the word [of the gospel]" (Eph 5:25-27). Christ said, "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken" (Jn 15:3). Like Christ, Paul put water and the Spirit together, referring to the "washing of regeneration" and linking it with the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" (Ti 3:5). We are born again by the Holy Spirit and by the Word or gospel of God, which is sometimes called "water" because of its cleansing power. As Peter said, we are "born again...by the word of God" (1 Pt 1:23).
The problem with Dave's use of Ephesians 5:25-27 and Titus 3:5 is that they could also be interpreted as referring to baptism, so they don't give his interpretation any more support than they give mine. Actually, given that Nicodemus would've understood "water" to mean a cleansing with real water (if he understood it to mean a cleansing in the first place), baptism is the more plausible interpretation.
While the use of John 15:3 may look convincing at first, it falls apart under close scrutiny. Jesus is giving the talk about the vine and the branches, and He says in verses 2-3, "Every branch that bears fruit he [the Father] prunes to make it bear more fruit. You have already been cleansed by the word that I have spoken to you." The same Greek root refers to both cleansing and pruning, which is why the NAB renders verse 3 as "You are already pruned because of the word that I spoke to you." Consequently, Jesus is not saying that they have been cleansed not in the sense that they have been born again, but in the sense that they have been prepared to do more good works.
So, how are we born again through the word of God? "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19). God, the Trinity, was part of what the apostles preached (or, it was ALL they preached, everything else being stuff ABOUT the Trinity in some way).
A good way to interpret John 3:5 is to see how Christians before us interpreted it. Let's take a look at some of the Church Fathers.
Justin Martyr
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, 'Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven' [John 3:3]" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
"'And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: 'Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven'" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Tertullian
"[N]o one can attain salvation without baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, 'Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life'" (Baptism 12:1 [A.D. 203]).
For even more quotes, check out Catholic Answers's "Born Again in Baptism"
Until Dave (or anyone else) can come up with a plausible interpretation OTHER than actual water, baptism will remain the most plausible interpretation.
It was obviously this figure of Old Testament ceremonial cleansing which Peter communicated to his Jewish audience in his Pentecost sermon: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:38). It is clear from the many other scriptures we've given that Peter wasn't saying that baptism saves, but that it offered a ceremonial cleansing uniquely applicable to his Jewish hearers.
Oh, so now when Peter said "baptism" he didn't really mean the baptism that we know, but a ceremonial cleansing that could cleanse the Jews (and only the Jews) of their sins (he did say, "for the remission of sins")? Hmmmm. A ceremonial cleansing sure sounds a lot like baptism.
To be baptized was to be identified before the fanatical Jews of Jerusalem with this hated Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior. Baptism cost family and friends and endangered one's life, as it still does in Israel and Muslim countries. Those who are afraid to take this public stand in such cultures are even today not considered to be true believers. Thus for a Jew to be publicly baptized at that time in that culture was, in a sense, to "wash away [his] sins" (Acts 22:16), as Ananias told Saul.
And what's the connection between baptism being dangerous and figuratively washing away your sins?
"And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name." - Acts 22:16
Annanias is CLEARLY telling Saul that baptism washes away your sins; there is no room here for any figurative meaning.
"[T]he gospel of Christ...is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth [it]" (Rom 1:16). That gospel, as Paul preached it, required faith in Christ's blood poured out in death on the Cross for the sins of the world and said nothing about baptism.
Romans 6:3-4 talks about baptism.
The difference between faith in Christ alone and faith in Christ plus baptism has eternal consequences.
As I said before, it's not Christ plus baptism, but Christ through baptism.
