‍ 

Dialogue on Regenerational Baptism

 

A discussion of the biblical and historical evidence

for regenerative baptism

 

Gary Hoge

 

Okay, I’ll have to break out the good stuff now

 

That will be a pleasant change. :-)

 

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

Notice Peter is quite clear in making sure that it isn’t the “washing with water” (i.e. removing of dirt) that saves, but rather it is “pledge of a good conscience toward God”. Turning to God in faith saves, not the water.

 

I don’t understand why you use the second half of this verse to deny the first half. Peter says, “Baptism saves you,” and somehow to you this is a clear affirmation that baptism does not save. I disagree. Peter clearly says that baptism saves, but then he rightly emphasizes that the physical act itself of washing, the removal of dirt from the body, is not what saves. It is the power of God communicated to the believer through baptism that saves. 

 

Perhaps it will help to recall the case of the man born blind. As you recall, Jesus spit on the ground and made some mud, wiped it on the man’s eyes, and told him to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. The man later says, “So I went and washed, and then I could see.” Now I’m sure we’d both agree that the water in the pool of Siloam wasn’t magic, and yet, the man wasn’t healed until he washed in it. Why?

 

The flood symbolizes baptism.

 

How? In what way does the flood symbolize baptism, when the ones who were saved (Noah and his family) are the only ones who didn’t get wet? I’ve never seen a non-sacramental explanation of how the flood symbolizes baptism, so perhaps you can explain it to me. The sacramental explanation, as taught by such ancient Christians as Augustine, is this: It isn’t that Noah got wet and so was cleansed of sin, for the Scriptures tell us that Noah was already a righteous man. Rather, Noah himself represents righteousness, and the people who were destroyed represent sins, which are washed away in the flood (i.e., baptism). The flood cleansed the earth of sin just as baptism cleanses the individual believer of sin. 

 

The Bible presents the crossing of the Red Sea as another type of baptism.¹ According to Augustine, “[B]y the sacrament as it were of the Red Sea, that is by Baptism consecrated with the Blood of Christ, the pursuing Egyptians, the sins, are washed away.”²

 

Elsewhere, Augustine explains again how both the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of baptism:

 

Thus, then, just as the earth through the agency of the flood was cleansed by the waters from the wickedness of the sinners, who in those times were destroyed in their inundation, while the righteous escaped by means of the wood; so the people of God, when they went forth from Egypt, found a way through the waters by which their enemies were devoured. Nor was the sacrament of the wood wanting there. For Moses smote with his rod, in order that that miracle might be effected. Both these are signs of holy baptism, by which the faithful pass into the new life, while their sins are done away with like enemies, and perish.³

 

This has been the faith of Christianity since its inception. Your non-sacramental, symbolic-only baptismal theology is of extremely recent origin. In fact, I’ll bet you can’t trace it back any farther than Ulrich Zwingli and the so-called “Radical” Reformers of the sixteenth century. I can trace mine all the way back to the first century. Even a staunch anti-Catholic like William Webster admits this. He says,

 

The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers. . . From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.⁴

 

Actually, I can trace [my baptismal theology] all the way back to the authors of the Scriptures... which is why I’m referring you to so many events and passages in the Scriptures.

 

Anybody can say that, and everybody does. What I’m asking you is, if your interpretation is right, where is the continuity? Paul told Timothy to take what he’d been taught and entrust it to reliable men who would also be able to teach others. So if your belief is the one Paul taught, where are these people who preserved it? How is it possible that the entire generation that followed the apostles, including their hand-picked successors, all screwed up something as fundamental as how we are regenerated and have our sins remitted? And doesn’t it make you suspicious that they all “screwed it up” in exactly the same way everywhere? To me, that is evidence of continuity with apostolic teaching, not of error. If your belief were the one taught by the apostles, I would expect at least someone, somewhere to have preserved it. So who between the time of the apostles and the sixteenth century believed as you do? If no one did (and, as I said, even Protestants admit that no one did), does this not suggest that this interpretation was a late corruption, and not apostolic? Otherwise, why can’t I come up with something entirely new right now and claim that this is really what the apostles taught, even though no one in the ancient Church believed it, and even though everyone in the ancient Church believed something else?

 

Baptism (washing with water) symbolizes the more important (saving) aspect of turning back to God in faith. Nowhere does it say one must be baptized to turn to God in faith.

 

Well, I should hope not. Peter said, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). I don’t know how you repent without believing. Obviously, you have to believe, then repent, then be baptized.

 

We are cleansed physically through baptism, which comes after we turn to God in faith. We are cleansed spiritually through faith. Hence all the 20+ references I showed you to Christ and many others in the Scriptures only saying “believe” when teaching how to be saved.

 

Do you think repentance is also required for salvation? If so, how do you account for the fact that some of these verses that don’t mention baptism, also don’t mention repentance? If their failure to mention baptism means that baptism is not required, then I guess by the same logic, repentance is not required either.

 

See, the point you’re missing here is that faith is the most important thing. That’s why sometimes it’s the only thing that’s mentioned. Everything else, whether repentance or baptism (both of which are elsewhere explicitly linked to salvation) flow from faith. We need to look at all of what Scripture says, not just a few verses. And one of the things Scripture says is, “Be baptized and wash your sins away” (Acts 22:16). I believe that.

 

“I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.” You believe Christ is saying, “No one can avoid hell unless he is baptized with water and with the Holy Spirit.”

 

It’s always amusing when someone tries to read my mind and tell me what I believe, because they’re almost always wrong. I do not believe that all unbaptized people are necessarily going to hell, as the example of the “good thief” illustrates. You’re trying to force an artificial choice on me, apparently because you fail to appreciate the distinction between an absolute requirement and a normative requirement. A normative requirement allows for exceptions, and baptism is a normative requirement. Put another way, God has linked salvation to baptism, and we are bound by that, but he is not. We recognize, and rejoice, that he can and does save people who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the necessity of baptism.

 

However, you also accept the fact that the thief on the cross avoided hell, and yet was not baptized. That is a clear contradiction of what you believe Christ said. Either Christ was lying when he said “No one can enter...”, Christ’s words have been miscopied or mistranslated and originally said, “Only a few can enter...”, or born of water isn’t referring to baptism.

 

I’m afraid I just don’t see this as a contradiction. But if you do, I would also point out that Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). But you say we don’t need to be baptized, and believing alone suffices. Was Jesus lying, or just wrong? And why should I believe you over him?

 

Those are really the only options if we take Christ at his word when he says, “No one may enter unless.” If I can’t be sure Christ means “no one” when he says it, then I can’t be sure of anything in the entire Bible. No one means just that. Not a one. If when Christ said, “No one”, he really meant, “One”, or, “someone”, then perhaps when He said, “I am the way, the truth and the life”, he really meant, “I might be the way, am sometimes wrong on things, and I think I might have the key to eternal life.” See what I’m saying? Sorry if it sounds sarcastic.

 

No, it sounds forceful and clear, which I appreciate. However, I don’t think you want to take the phrase “no one” quite as absolutely as you do, because if you do, you’ll create quite a few problems for your own beliefs. For example, Matthew 12:19 quotes this prophecy about the Messiah: “He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets.” Lots of people heard Jesus’s voice in the streets, therefore he cannot be the Messiah. In Mark 10:18, Jesus says, “No one is good except God alone.” But in Acts 11:24, the Bible says that Barnabas was “a good man.” Obviously, this is a clear contradiction. In Luke 10:22, Jesus says, “No one knows who the Son is except the Father,” but in numerous places in the Gospels, the demons know exactly who he is. Another clear contradiction. In John 1:18, it says, “No one has ever seen God,” but in Genesis 32:30, Jacob says, “I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” Wow, yet another clear contradiction. And of course, just yesterday on this board, we had someone trying to tell us that because Jesus said, “No one has ever gone into heaven,” obviously Enoch and Elijah cannot have gone into heaven, even though the Bible says they did. Shall I go on, or is it clear yet that the phrase “no one” isn’t always as absolute in the Bible as you wish to make it?

 

I could sit here and argue the finer points of Scriptural exegesis, I suppose. It seems rather pointless though, if your asking me to believe Christ said, “No one”, but didn’t mean it. My beliefs in the absolute truth of the Scriptures won’t allow me.

 

Well, then, based on what I said above, I guess your beliefs in the absolute truth of the Scriptures won’t allow you to believe that Jesus was the Messiah, and they must compel you to believe that Jesus was either mistaken or lying when he said that no one has ever seen God, and no one has ever gone into heaven. You’ve painted yourself into a corner, [friend], unless you’re willing to back off from this tin-eared hyperliteralism.

 

Like I said, in early Christianity, one who believed was immediately baptized (see example of Philip and the man reading from Isaiah in Acts, among many other examples in Acts). I could see a Baptist saying, “What must you do to be saved?” Believe on Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and we will baptize you. That is essentially the same thing.

 

I sure can’t imagine a Baptist saying, “Be baptized and wash your sins away.” I think the Baptist version would be, “Be baptized because your sins have been washed away.” I also can’t imagine a Baptist saying, “Repent and be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Again, I think the Baptist version would be, “Repent and believe for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Then we’ll baptize you.”

 

Also, early on in the church baptism and remission of sins (through belief) were seen as one event, even though the Scriptures teach that the belief is the part of that event which actually saved.

 

Yes, baptism, the remission of sins, and regeneration, were seen as one event. Because they were one event. And no one would be so foolish as to say that the efficacy of baptism derives from the fact that water is poured. Faith is the key, baptism is merely the instrument.

 

In Acts, even Gentiles were baptized right when they believed and were saved. I see that changed as the centuries passed. I wonder what else did. I believe that the Scriptures alone contain absolute truth, and trust from Israel’s history that many leaders can be mislead. I’m not saying the Fathers were definitely mislead on this or any other issue, but I will say if I ever come to a point where I have to choose between denying the words of Christ in the Scriptures (i.e. “no one may enter”) or the words of church Fathers I will deny every Father that has ever existed. Again, I haven’t come to that point, but I wouldn’t be ashamed if I had to.

 

The problem you have here, [friend], is that there was absolutely no disagreement in the ancient Church about the role of baptism. There were all kinds of controversies about grace, the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc., but always unanimous agreement about what baptism is for, and what it does. If this is an error, you must provide a plausible explanation for it. And you must remember that the Gospel spread from Israel like ripples on a pond, and the churches that were established by the apostles and their followers were often isolated from each other. Yet they all believed that baptism confers regeneration and the remission of sins. If this is an error, you must explain how it is possible that each and every one of these isolated communities fell into exactly the same error, and without so much as a whimper of protest. To me, the much simpler and more likely explanation is that they all had the same faith because that’s what the apostles taught them.

 

Here’s another reason why you’ll need to work harder then I. In first century Christianity believers were baptized immediately after they were saved (this, btw, had changed by the 2nd and 3rd centuries... hmmm).

 

Documentation, please.

 

It is no surprise then, that baptism was linked with being saved (i.e. believing) and that there are a few scattered verses which mention belief and baptism in the context of salvation.

 

Well, it doesn’t surprise me.

 

Belief and baptism was practically one event (seen by Acts 8:12)⁵, but other Scriptures (and by far more numerous) bring to light which of these events actually saved, and which symbolized the purification. Not the least verse is that which shows the thief on the cross was saved even though he had only believed and been born of the Spirit.

 

What this passage shows is that it is possible to be saved without being baptized, especially in cases such as this, where baptism would have been impossible. It does not show that baptism wasn’t the normal instrument of regeneration, however. You can’t make a rule out of the exceptions.

 

Actually, above I listed 20-30 earlier Christian sources that confirm my beliefs.

 

No, what you listed was 20-30 Bible verses upon which you base your beliefs. What I showed was that the ancient Christians, who were in a much better position to know the true interpretation than you are, interpreted these things differently than you do.

 

Not only that, but I have shown that major Christian practices were already changing by the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

 

No, you have alleged it. You have offered not a shred of evidence for the allegation, however. And if what you say is true, where is the outcry against such innovation? The ancient Christians were an extremely conservative group, and they were willing to die rather than compromise the faith. So how is it that on an issue as central as regeneration and the remission of sins, they all cheerfully discarded the true apostolic teaching without so much as a whisper of protest? And how is it that these communities, often isolated from each other, managed to pervert the faith in exactly the same way?

 

It is no secret that as the persecution of the Church grew to greater and greater extents (2nd - 4th centuries), baptism began to be an event that only took place after the new believer had been through extensive biblical and Christian training (sometimes more then a year). A study of debates between early Christians shows that a big reason for this was that Christians wanted to make sure converts wouldn’t fall away at a time of persecution, and then come back afterward sparking debate as to whether or not they should be allowed in the Church again. Converts, it was believed, should “know what they are getting into before they are saved.”

 

I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were alleging that the people of the second century had a different idea of what baptism is, and what it does, than was believed in the first century. Apparently, you were just commenting on when baptism was administered, not on what it was believed to accomplish.

 

The Fathers were perfectly content to change the manner and timing in which baptism was practiced. What came along with that? It is quite plausible that there are Scriptures linking baptism and salvation because believing and baptism were pretty much one event in the first century, and that as that practice changed the Fathers still thought of salvation and baptism as being inseparably linked.

 

There is a huge difference between changing the timing of something, and changing the teaching about what that thing is. It’s one thing to say, “Let’s wait awhile before we baptize people,” and another thing entirely to say, “Let’s no longer teach that baptism is merely a symbol. Let’s say it actually conveys regeneration and the remission of sins.” I’m sure you can easily see the distinction between these two things.

 

Despite the changes brought about by the beginning of the third century, the Scriptures still provide ample enough examples of salvations that I know that if I want to practice baptism as the early early church did, then I baptize people as soon as possible after they are saved. I also can gain from the Scriptures (even if I can’t gain it from third century authors... though I’m not sure about that yet), that belief saves, apart from baptism.

 

You can also show from Scripture that faith heals. Many times Jesus said, “Your faith has healed you.” Would you then try to make a doctrine that “faith heals apart from touching Jesus,” or “faith heals apart from washing in the pool of Siloam”? That’s what your argument sounds like to me. 

 

The Bible clearly links baptism with salvation (“be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16)), just as it clearly links washing in the pool of Siloam with healing (“I went and washed, and then I could see” (John 9:11)). In both cases, the water is just an instrument, a visible sign of an invisible grace. I don’t understand why you accept the one, but reject the other.

 

In the NT two types of baptisms exist. Baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit. The two aren’t necessarily the same, as is shown by Acts 1:5⁶ and Acts 10:47⁷. The latter passage is a great example, because when Peter said, “everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness”, the Holy Spirit filled all of them. They had believed and been baptized with the Holy Spirit! Then Peter asked that they be baptized with water.

 

Somehow, I knew you’d mention Cornelius eventually. This, again, is an example of trying to make a rule out of the exceptions to the rule. Cornelius was filled with the Holy Spirit without baptism expressly for the purpose of showing Peter that the Gentiles could be Christians, too. This was a shocking thought. Had God not done this, there is no way Peter would have baptized Cornelius. This was very obviously an extraordinary situation, and it is not valid to infer from this situation a general rule that being filled with the Holy Spirit precedes baptism.

 

I think you’ll agree with me that washing with water is the same thing as removing dirt from the body. In 1 Peter 3:21⁸ Peter is saying that the washing with water isn’t what saves, but the pledge of a good conscience toward God (turning to God in faith) is what saves. So I agree that baptism saves, that is, baptism by the Holy Spirit which is through faith. I disagree that baptism with water saves.

 

Would you also agree that Naaman the Syrian was cleansed of his leprosy by the power of God? Would you agree that washing with water is not normally an effective cure for leprosy? And yet, he was told to wash in the Jordan, and he was healed when he did.⁹ The application of the power of God coincided with the application of the water. The tangible washing with water symbolized the miraculous cleansing that God brought about at the same time. 

 

This is a theme we see over and over again in Scripture. Sick people were not healed the instant they had faith that Jesus could heal them, they were healed when they touched him. The man born blind wasn’t healed the instant he had faith that Jesus could heal him, he was healed when he washed in the pool of Siloam. Handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched the Apostle Paul were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.¹⁰ The use of physical things to convey spiritual power is a recurring theme in both Testaments. I don’t understand why you object to it in the case of baptism.

 

Noah’s salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of Christians through baptism, which isn’t necessarily washing with water (in Acts 10 they received the holy Spirit without water) but is the pledge to God of a good conscience.

 

Peter says that in the ark, the people were “saved through water. And this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also.” I don’t see how you can deny that this has anything to do with water. But I agree that it isn’t the mere application of water that saves. It is the power of God that saves, just as it was the power of God that healed Naaman the Syrian and the man born blind. But God wanted to give us a visible sign to help us understand what he was doing. When you consider that the vast majority of Christians throughout the ages have been simple, uneducated, illiterate people, it makes sense that he would do that. It’s a great help.

 

[F]rom looking at all the Scriptures and not just one, I understand that one can wash his sins away without being baptized, or one can even be baptized without washing his sins away.

 

I also understand that this can be the case, but I’m not talking about exceptions, I’m talking about the rule. Normally, according to Scripture, God washes away sins through baptism. That’s what Scripture says, and that’s what the apostles taught, which is proved by the fact that that’s what all of their students learned.

 

The washing sins away is done by the pledge of a good conscience toward God, not by the washing of water.

 

The healing of blindness is done by the power of God, not by washing in water. And yet, “I went and washed, and then I could see” (John 9:11). Why do you insist on tearing asunder what God has joined together?

 

There is a high and steep mountain in North Carolina with a random bench on top of it to relax on. If I said, “Whoever climbs to the top and sits on the bench will have a terrific feeling of accomplishment,” it doesn’t logically imply that anyone who only climbs and doesn’t sit on the bench won’t feel a sense of accomplishment.

 

Somehow, when Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16), I think it was a little bit more significant than if he had said, “Whoever believes and eats a bologna sandwich will be saved.” You seem to understand him to be saying, “Whoever believes and does any other thing will be saved.” Baptism’s just one of those “other things” we can do that has nothing to do with being saved. But that makes very little sense to me. If Jesus lists two things you’ve got to do to be saved, by what right do you suggest that one of them is not really important?

 

However, when Jesus says, “No one may enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:3”), and you believe “born of water” means “baptized with water” there is only one meaning to that, if we take Christ at his word. If Christ wanted to be normative, he very well had that ability. Just John 14:6 (“No man comes unto the Father but by me”) is clearly an absolute, so I take Christ at his word in the case of John 3:5.

 

So do I. I take him to mean, “No one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again” (John 3:3). Jesus equates being “born again” with being “born of water and the Spirit.”¹¹ Christians have always understood the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” to refer to the regenerative action of the Holy Spirit through water baptism. Baptism is the ordinary instrument by which God regenerates. However, I do not take this to mean that there are no other, extraordinary ways by which God might do this. As I’ve said, we are bound by the normal procedures God establishes for us, but he is not. 

 

Those are really the only options if we take Christ at his word when he says, “No one may enter unless.” If I can’t be sure Christ means “no one” when he says it, then I can’t be sure of anything in the entire Bible. No one means just that. Not a one.

 

When Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, he said, “The one who comes from heaven is above all. He testifies to what he has seen and heard, but no one accepts his testimony” (John 3:32). But some did accept his testimony. It seems to me that this is clearly a bit of hyperbole, and that in this case, “no one” means “very few.”

 

I understand that there are times when “no one” doesn’t mean absolutely no one. However, I also understand that when “no one” is used in this way, the context shows it.

 

Exactly. And in the verse in question, (John 3:5)¹², the context shows that “born of water and the Spirit” is a synonym for “born again.” What Jesus is saying is that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again. That is certainly true. The question is whether water baptism is the only way by which one can be born again. I don’t think this passage indicates that, especially when understood in light of the example of the “good thief.” It sounds to me like you’re working very hard to manufacture a contradiction that 2,000 years of Christian scholarship just doesn’t see.