Why I believe in Regenerational

Baptism

A letter to my brother, in which I explain why I 

think regenerational baptism is true

Gary Hoge

Dear Brother,

I was very glad to read in your last letter that you’re going to re-read the New Testament in order to see whether it presents regeneration as being ordinarily conferred by baptism. I honestly applaud your desire to seek the truth, whatever the truth may be. In fact, I would not be writing these letters in the first place if I were not convinced that you value the truth more than any denominational loyalty.

With that in mind I’d like to briefly explain the thought-process that convinced me that regenerational baptism is the true Christian doctrine. One thing that was very important for me was the realization that there could be a distinction between the instrument of salvation and the cause of salvation. I used to think that those who believe in regenerational baptism believe we are saved by baptism alone, and I considered that incompatible with the biblical teaching that we are saved by faith. However, I came to realize that the fact that faith is the cause of salvation does not preclude God from using baptism as the instrument of salvation. This is an important distinction, and it’s important to bear it in mind as you read the New Testament, because the New Testament was written to people who were already baptized, so baptism isn’t mentioned very much.

For that reason, I think you’ll have better luck with your search if you concentrate on those verses that discuss the role of baptism, rather than those that discuss the cause of salvation (which we both agree is faith). If you do, I think you’ll see that baptism is always linked to salvation and regeneration. For example, Paul says that God “saved us through the washing of regeneration” (Tit 3:5). He also says, “Be baptized and wash your sins away” (Acts 22:16); and he says that Christ cleanses His Church “through the washing with water” (Eph 5:26). Paul further says that “we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13) and that “all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ” (Gal 3:26). Compare that with his statement that “if anyone is in Christ [having been baptized into Christ], he is a new creation” (2 Cor 5:17), and the link between baptism and regeneration becomes rather obvious. Jesus himself says that “no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), and that “whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). Peter says, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38); and he also says that “baptism doth now save you”(1 Pet 3:21).

To me, these verses are crystal clear, and I think that an unbiased reader would be bound to conclude that the Bible supports regenerational baptism. Of course, I realize that none of us reads the Bible in a completely unbiased manner (including me). We all approach the Bible with certain biases and presuppositions, and we interpret the text in a manner consistent with those biases and presuppositions. Thus, when you read the Bible, you presume that baptism is merely symbolic, and you try to interpret the text so that it fits that presumption. That’s perfectly natural, we all do it. We all filter the Bible through the lens of our respective traditions, and we don’t understand why the other guy can’t see what we see.

Another problem we all face when we try to understand the Bible’s message is that the Bible is not always as clear and definitive as we might like. Its authors presume that their readers have a basic knowledge of Christianity, and so they don’t always explain things in great detail. Thus, it is often possible to interpret the Bible in more than one way. For example, I can look at the above verses and say that the Bible clearly supports regenerational baptism. You might even agree with me that the Bible could be interpreted that way. But you might look at those same verses and conclude that they could also be interpreted to support a merely symbolic baptism (though I honestly don’t see how). In that case, the question in your mind might not be whether the Bible can be interpreted as teaching regenerational baptism, but whether the Bible should be interpreted as teaching regenerational baptism.

In that case, what can we do? Must we throw up our hands and despair of ever knowing for sure what the true function of baptism is? I don’t think so, and that brings me to what I consider the most persuasive evidence of all: the explicit, emphatic, and unanimous testimony of the very first Christians. These were people who learned the faith directly from the apostles, and who were prepared to lay down their lives rather than compromise that faith in the slightest (as indeed many thousands of them did). These people literally preferred to be burned alive, rather than offer a pinch of incense to Caesar. It was simply inconceivable to me that they could have all gotten such a fundamental doctrine as baptism wrong, and that they not only got it wrong, but they all got it wrong in exactly the same way. I found it much more likely that it was those who came along fifteen-hundred years later, who were heavily influenced by minimalistic, dualistic, and anti-supernatural biases, that got it wrong.

Let’s take a brief look at some of this evidence. In the first century, while the apostles were still alive, a letter was written called The Epistle of Barnabas. It is one of the earliest Christian writings, probably even predating some of the New Testament. According to Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), the author was the same Barnabas who was Paul’s traveling-companion (Acts 13:2). This is what Barnabas wrote about baptism:

Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead. … Here He is saying that after we have stepped down into the water burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it in full fruitage, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (Letter of Barnabas 11:1 [A.D. 74]).

Another very early Christian writing is called The Shepherd. It is commonly believed to have been written no later than the first half of the second century, and probably near the end of the first century. This book was very highly regarded in the early Church. According to Athanasius, it was used as a textbook for catechumens (those undergoing instruction before receiving baptism). Many of the early Christians considered it to be inspired Scripture, and they quoted it as such, alongside the other apostolic books. In fact, The Shepherd was one of the last books to be excluded when the Church composed the official list of New Testament books at the end of the fourth century. Regarding baptism, Hermas, the author of The Shepherd, wrote,

“I have heard, sir,” said I [to the Shepherd], “from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “You have heard rightly, for so it is.” (Hermas, The Shepherd 4:3:1-2 [A.D. 80]).

One of the most valuable of the early Christian writings is a letter from Justin Martyr to the Roman emperor Antonius Pius. This letter is especially enlightening because, unlike the New Testament and most of the other ancient Christian writings, it was written to a non-Christian. Because Justin was attempting to explain the faith to an outsider, he did not presume a basic knowledge of Christianity (as the New Testament authors did), and so he explained everything in detail. He wrote this letter in about A.D. 151, which was within living memory of the apostles. This is what he wrote to the emperor about how one becomes a Christian:

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, [and] 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.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

A few paragraphs later, when Justin was discussing the Eucharist (which, by the way, he said “is both the flesh and blood of that incarnated Jesus”) he wrote,

“We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

That kind of speaks for itself, doesn’t it? This was the true faith in the immediate post-apostolic period. This is what the earliest Christians unanimously understood baptism to be all about. We know that Justin was a reliable witness because he sealed his testimony with his own blood four years later.

Other ancient writings confirm that this was the universal Christian understanding of baptism. For example, about thirty years after Justin wrote his letter to the emperor, Theophilus of Antioch wrote,

Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration, all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God. (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 12:16 [A.D. 181]).

About ten years later, Clement of Alexandria wrote,

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. 81:6]. 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. (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).

Does all this mean that no one was teaching a merely symbolic baptism in the early days of the Church? Well, not quite. There was one group that did deny regenerational baptism. They were called the Gnostics. You’ve probably heard of them; Gnosticism was one of the most dangerous heresies the early Church had to contend with. John wrote his first epistle in order to refute them, but Gnosticism survived for several decades after John died, and so his disciples carried on the fight to defeat it. One of John’s disciples was a young man named Polycarp, and he was so well known for his dedication to Christ and to the true faith, that John appointed him Bishop of Smyrna. Polycarp was eventually martyred at the age of 86. Eusebius, the fourth-century historian who wrote the very first history of the Christian Church, had this to say about Polycarp:

Polycarp was not only instructed by apostles and conversant with many who had seen the Lord, but was appointed by apostles to serve in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna. … [He] was very old indeed when he laid down his life by a glorious and most splendid martyrdom. At all times he taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, which the Church transmits, which alone are true. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 4, 14 [A.D. 312]).

In other words, Polycarp was a pillar of orthodoxy, faithfully handing on the teachings he learned first-hand from John and the others “who had seen the Lord.” One of Polycarp’s own disciples was a young man named Irenaeus, who eventually became Bishop of Lyons, in what is now France. [Eusebius was actually quoting from Irenaeus in the previous quotation]. This is how Irenaeus recalled his days with John’s disciple Polycarp:

I have a clearer recollection of events at that time than of recent happenings—what we learn in childhood develops along with the mind and becomes a part of it—so that I can describe the place where blessed Polycarp sat and talked, his goings out and comings in, the character of his life, his personal appearance, his addresses to crowded congregations. I remember how he spoke of his conversations with John and with the others who had seen the Lord; how he repeated their words from memory; and how the things that he had heard them say about the Lord, His miracles and His teaching, things that he had heard direct from the eyewitnesses of the Word of Life, were proclaimed by Polycarp in complete harmony with Scripture. To these things I listened eagerly at that time, by the mercy of God shown to me, not committing them to writing but learning them by heart. By God’s grace, I constantly and conscientiously ruminate on them. (Quoted in Eusebius, History of the Church, 5, 20, 5-7 [A.D. 312]).

Like the other early Christians, Irenaeus firmly believed in regenerational baptism. He wrote,

“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 new-born 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” [John 3:5]. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

Irenaeus interpreted John 3:5 as a reference to baptism, and he obviously believed that we are born again through baptism. He got his interpretation of John from Polycarp, who got it from John himself. That’s an extremely short chain!

Like John and Polycarp before him, Irenaeus went after the Gnostics with a vengeance. He wrote a whole book against them, called Against Heresies. It is a classic example of early Christian apologetics, and it teaches us much about both the Gnostics, and the early Christian faith. Listen carefully to one of Irenaeus’s chief complaints against the Gnostics:

Thus there are as many schemes of “redemption” as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1, 21, 1 [A.D. 189]).

I found that stunning, and absolutely compelling, especially in light of the other ancient Christian testimony I’d seen. It was obvious that regenerational baptism was a foundational doctrine of the true apostolic faith. Only Gnostic heretics denied it, and that denial was called an invention of Satan and a renunciation of the whole Christian faith!

Now fast-forward more than a thousand years, to the time of the Protestant Reformation. The original Protestant, Martin Luther, was a firm believer in regenerational baptism (as are modern Lutherans), but once he opened the floodgates of private interpretation of Scripture (interpretation that was completely divorced from history and from the teaching of the apostles), people began to come up with all kinds of new and bizarre doctrines. Luther himself wrote,

There are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads; this one will not admit baptism; that one rejects the Sacrament of the altar; another places another world between the present one and the day of judgment; some teach that Jesus Christ is not God. There is not an individual, however clownish he may be, who does not claim to be inspired by the Holy Ghost, and who does not put forth as prophecies his ravings and dreams.¹

He also wrote,

If the world lasts a long time, it will again be necessary, on account of the many interpretations which are now given to the Scriptures, to receive the decrees of the councils, and take refuge in them, in order to preserve the unity of the faith.²

Among those many strange new interpretations was that of the Anabaptists of Zurich, who began to teach a merely symbolic baptism and to reject infant baptism, among other things. Martin Luther wrote, “The Anabaptists hold tenets relating to infant baptism, original sin, and inspiration, which have no connection with the Word of God, and are indeed opposed to it.”³ He recommended that they be put to death!

John Calvin also taught a merely symbolic baptism, but for a different reason than the Anabaptists. Calvin believed in a rigid and absolute predestination. He believed that people were either predestined to heaven, or to hell, and you had better hope you were in the former group, because if you were in the latter, there was nothing you could do about it. He taught that God secretly infused faith into His elect and regenerated them:

By these words [1 Pet 1:2] he reminds us, that if the shedding of his sacred blood is not to be in vain, our souls must be washed in it by the secret cleansing of the Holy Spirit.⁴

In Calvin’s scheme, it’s quite obvious that when the believer is eventually baptized it must be merely a symbol. It cannot impart regeneration, because faith and regeneration are what started the whole process in the first place. I’m pretty sure that the Presbyterian Church (and you) inherited its belief in symbolic baptism from John Calvin. I inherited mine from the Anabaptists, which is why I also rejected infant baptism, as they did.

If you really want to go in-depth on this subject, I highly recommend that you read Stephen Ray’s book Crossing the Tiber. (I’ll lend it to you, if you like). Ray spends 92 pages exploring all of the Scripture passages in both testaments that are relevant to baptism. He then traces the teaching of the Church from the apostolic era right through to the present day, and he shows that the Church has always taught exactly the same thing about baptism, namely, that it is God’s instrument to confer on us regeneration and the forgiveness of sins. Ray concludes with this challenge:

We have ample evidence in the preceding pages to dispel any doubts or ambiguities concerning the customs and instructions of the apostles and the ancient Church regarding baptism. One has to be quite bold to turn his back on the clear evidence of the Scriptures and sixteen hundred years of unswerving consistency to follow reactionary innovations--new theological recipes. Those who say the Protestant views are not new inventions: I challenge you to produce your evidence! The Catholic Church has biblical exegesis and history on her side. Those who say the Catholic Church teaches a different baptism: Produce your evidence! Who understands better the fullness of the apostolic preaching of Peter and Paul: those of us two thousand years removed, or those who still had the apostles’ teaching ringing in their ears and their practices fresh before their eyes?⁵

Ultimately, each of us has to make a choice; we have to decide who we will believe. Either Calvin and the Anabaptists were right, and the early Christians (including those who knew the apostles personally) were wrong, or the early Christians were right, and Calvin and the Anabaptists were wrong. For me that’s no contest. As Stephen Ray pointed out, the early Christians had the apostles’ teaching “ringing in their ears”; Calvin and the Anabaptists did not. The early Christians spoke the apostles’ language and lived in their culture; Calvin and the Anabaptists did not. The early Christians were in a position to know for sure what the apostolic teaching was; Calvin and the Anabaptists were not. Calvin and the Anabaptists had only their own interpretation of the Bible to guide them, and the fact that they interpreted it differently than Christians had interpreted it before didn’t seem to bother them. On the other hand, the early Christians had the earliest and best copies of the New Testament books (which were written in their own native language), and they got their interpretation of Scripture from the men who wrote it. Given that choice, I cast my lot with the early Christians. I believe as they believed.

That’s easy for me to say now, but at first, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, it was still hard for me to relinquish my belief in symbolic baptism. After all, I’d believed it for my whole Christian life, and that kind of spiritual inertia is hard to overcome. Also, all of my friends believed in it, my favorite TV preachers and Christian authors believed in it, and every church I ever attended believed in it. Symbolic baptism was a “given” for me, and I was so used to it that it felt very “right.” Anything else seemed bizarre, even unchristian. But at some point I realized that the familiar, no matter how comfortable it might be, is not necessarily right, and that comfort is not a reliable indicator of objective Christian truth. It occurred to me that Mormons have their own familiar and comfortable doctrines, too. For example, they believe that God was once a man. No doubt that feels very “right” to them. All of their friends believe it, their favorite preachers and authors believe it, and their churches all teach it. The orthodox, Trinitarian concept of God probably seems very bizarre to them. But the Biblical and historical evidence is squarely against the Mormon concept of God. Unfortunately, it was also squarely against my concept of baptism.

Another reason I had difficulty with doctrines like regenerational baptism was because of the quasi-dualistic world-view that generally prevails in the western hemisphere today. Unlike our eastern Christian brothers, we westerners tend to compartmentalize the world and divide it into “secular” and “religious” spheres. We define the “secular” as anything we can see with our eyes, touch with our hands, and measure with our instruments. We acknowledge that God created these things, but we generally don’t think of them as His “territory.” Instead, we tend to limit him to the “religious” sphere, which we perceive as being limited to the invisible, “spiritual” world. This is God’s territory, and this is where we expect him to confine His activities. We would never come right out and say that, because we don’t want to limit God’s sovereignty, but I believe we really do tend to think that way. In effect, we deny God the use of His own creation, and we expect him to only deal with us invisibly. But this is a manifestly unbiblical world-view. As I pointed out in my last letter, the Bible is full of examples of God using material things (water, oil, the laying-on of hands, handkerchiefs, bones, etc.) to convey spiritual benefits to man. He is not at all reluctant to deal with us visibly, as well as invisibly. Once again, the biblical and historical evidence was squarely against me.

At some point I realized that my rationale for rejecting regenerational baptism was no better than a Jehovah’s Witness’s rationale for rejecting the deity of Christ. I rejected it mainly because my peers did; just as the average Jehovah’s Witness rejects the deity of Christ because his peers do. Sure, I claimed to base my doctrine on the Bible, but so do the Jehovah’s Witnesses.⁶ I ridiculed the Jehovah’s Witnesses for their strange teachings about Christ, and I thought they were blind to continue to believe them in spite of the fact that the Bible strongly supports Christ’s deity, and in spite of the fact that in the early Church only the Arian heretics denied it. Yet here I was, rejecting regenerational baptism in spite of the fact that the Bible strongly supports it, and in spite of the fact that in the early Church only the Gnostic heretics denied it. Was I really so different?

Everyone believes that theirs is the true doctrine, yet obviously they can’t all be. In the Christian world today, there are about five different theologies about baptism. They are mutually exclusive. Therefore, at most one is true; the others are false teachings. I had to ask myself, “How do I know I’m not the one who’s embraced a false teaching”? In the end, the evidence from Scripture and history was so strong, and so consistent, that I simply had no choice but to conclude that I had. Indeed, if in spite of all the evidence against it, symbolic baptism was not a false teaching, how I would ever be able to identify one? I couldn’t think of any criteria that would rule out other false teachings, but wouldn’t also rule out symbolic baptism.

I must say that once I accepted the historic doctrine of regenerational baptism, it felt very satisfying. One reason is that it’s such an easy doctrine to defend, given the evidence. Another, is that it makes the Bible so much less problematic. I have found this to be true with all of the “distinctively Catholic” doctrines. Now, when I read the Bible, I can simply let it mean what it says. I don’t have to try to get around the surface meaning with some sort of secondary, figurative, “this-is-what-it-really-means” interpretation. Passages that used to give me fits (like 1 Pet 3:21, Tit 3:5, Acts 22:16, Rom 2:5-10, Rom 11:22, 1 Cor 10:16, John 5:28-29, John 6:53-58, John 20:23; James 2:24, James 5:14-16, and a host of others) are now straight-forward and simple. I used to call these “difficult passages,” but that’s only because I was trying to pound a square Protestant peg into the round biblical hole. I’ve since found that the round Catholic peg fits right in, and those passages are now as clear as day.

These are some of the things that led me to accept the doctrine of regenerational baptism. I hope this discussion has helped, because I know that you want to be a true disciple of Christ, and to believe only the truth. May God help us both to know the fullness of that truth.

Love,

Gary