One movement that holds to baptismal regeneration is the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma clearly represents the RCC: “Baptism is that Sacrament in which man being washed with water in the name of the Three Divine Persons is spiritually reborn…. Faith, as it is not the effective cause of justification . . . need not be present. The faith which infants lack is . . . replaced by the faith of the Church. The formula ‘ex opere operato’ asserts, negatively that the sacramental grace is not conferred by reason of the subjective activity of the recipient, and positively, that the sacramental grace is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, pages 971-972). The Latin phrase “ex opera operato” means “by work performed” which means to the RCC grace is conferred by the sacrament of baptism.
Mark 16:16 cannot be used to teach baptismal regeneration: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The second part of the verse negates baptismal regeneration being taught in the first part because of the omission of baptism as a basis for condemnation. “The verse is simply talking about general cases without making a pedantic qualification for the unusual case of someone who believers and is not baptized” (Grudem, page 981).
Neither can Acts 2:38 be used to teach water baptism saves. The Greek preposition eis “for” is not purposive or causative as baptismal regenerationalists would teach. “It is equally true that it may say that baptism is not for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins but because of forgiveness (that had already taken place at repentance). Eis is clearly used with this meaning in Matthew 12:41—they repented at (on the basis of, or because of) the preaching of Jonah. It certainly cannot mean in that verse that they repented with a view to the preaching of Jonah” (Ryrie, page 337).
When Peter preached his second sermon in Acts 3, he told his unsaved audience to “Repent you therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted.” He did not mention baptism. If baptism were necessary for salvation then Peter would not have omitted it. Water baptism cannot be necessary for salvation because that would contradict the rest of Scripture which teaches that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works (Ephesians 2:8-9).
I am a little more calvinist in my understanding of Acts 2:38, in that I believe that both repentance and baptism are consequences of regeneration rather than causes. I understand from Romans 10 that it is belief and submission, not repentance, that brings salvation. I also see from Ephesians 2:8 that even the faith necessary to activate God’s grace is a gift of God, not a product of works. Baptism is the immediate sign of the new life, and repentance is the continuation of the new walk. As for Mark 16, it is my PRIVATE view that the “and be baptized” is a spurious addition to the text, but that even if it is genuine, Dr. Grudem’s presented argument is sufficient.
I understand where you are coming from, a Calvinist perspective, I was one for awhile (a whole week, ha). But Romans 10 does not teach simply belief and submission as you suggest. It says confess Jesus Christ and believe in His Resurrection. I think its a little different than submission and belief. So what do you do about the places that when one (like Peter, see above) says to be saved one needs to repent?
Ludwig Otts argument in favor of baptismal regeneration seems to be totally void of scriptural support. Whereas scripture plainly says the exact opposite, notice Matthew 16:16. If it does not come from scripture then where does it come from? The arrogance to make such claims in regards to salvation borders on satanic insanity. We are left to assume that the Catholic church is above the Word of God.
Eph. 2:8-9 says it all!!! It is all about faith and nothing else. How can one say that by being baptized it will make you “right” in God’s eyes? We must get to a place of humility and submission in order to become one of God’s children. If it was all about the water during the baptism then that takes what Jesus did out of the equation because we are saying that the church represents us and I do not have to be accountable for who I am (a sinner).
I had never heard that viewpoint of Acts 2:38, and I found it very helpful as I do have friends who believe baptism is a necessary part of salvation. I have understood this verse basically to imply that after salvation, baptism should be the next step, not necessarily a part of salvation, however this is a weak argument when discussing the verse with someone who holds to a position that baptism is necessary for salvation.
I have explained this to some of my baptismal regeneration friends in this way: the act of baptism cannot save you anymore than wearing a wedding ring makes you married (although Baptism IS a command/ordinance and a wedding ring is optional!). The ring is a symbol of love and committment…a reminder of the vow you made. It also identifies you as being married to that person, but you cannot buy a ring, put it on and call yourself “married”.
For some reason this has always been a no-brainer to me. I remember watching “Little House on the Prairie” as a child and hearing the Rev. baptize an infant and say, “…baptized into God’s family…” or something similar, and I would yell at the television. How many times does the Bible have to remind us that salvation depends NOTHING on our works? If the act of baptism saved us, then our salvation is futile because it wouldn’t depend entirely on the work of Christ. If the act of baptism saved us, then Jesus (the one Who saves) was “saved” when He was baptized by John…even thought the Savior hadn’t yet died…and it was Him. See, it just becomes ridiculous…
I think that real Baptismal regeneration is far more egregious than infant baptism. It is true that some denominations teach that infant baptism is a guarantee of salvation, but they are not denominations that teach a true Gospel either. It is far more deceptive toward the baptized party to promise regeneration on the basis of baptism than it is to promise a place in the family of God to a parent for their child. Ultimately that parent has no say in whether or not the child is part of God’s family (just as the priest has no say)! But, a Church of Christ minister may mislead the very soul who is searching for salvation.
I agree that infant baptism and baptismal regeneration are both misleading, but I am not sure that I agree that baptismal regeneration is worse. I will have to think on that more. Here is how I am thinking now. It seems worse to be baptized and think that you are saved without believing Christ than to believe and think that you also need to be baptized.
Wayne, I understand your train of thought. Unfortunately, I have found many more people that have been actually mislead by teachers of baptismal regeneration. Most people I have met (the ones who were baptized as babies) understand that their baptism doesn’t really do much, especially as they are exposed to concepts of grace (vs. works). I used to live in an area permeated by baptismal regeneration. Those who had been saved (I truly believe many were) had also been taught that their baptism was part of that salvation. Their experience trumped Scripture. It was far harder to persuade someone of that persuasion of their error than it is to persuade a catholic of the invalid notion of their paedo-baptism. That is why I believe the lie of baptismal regeneration is more dangerous. Inevitably, both are false doctrine and should be opposed.
There is a church who meets only about a mile from where our church meets who believes in baptismal regeneration. In fact, they insist that those who make professions of faith be baptized right away so that their salvation can be sealed before anything happens to them. It sounds like works salvation to me. This is another case where correct Bible study corrects.
I would like to know then what happens to someone who is saved on his or her death bed and has no way of being baptized. What happens to their salvation since it never got sealed in this churches mindset?
Baptismal Regeneration = Damnation, if someone truly believes they have been born again of the water of their baptism. It is sad to think that people can believe in baptism which is found in the Bible, but not of salvation which is continually a prerequisite to baptism and by faith alone in Christ alone. To misunderstand the gospels message of Christ clearly shows the misunderstanding of the Word as a whole. For if baptism is the means of salvation what is the need for the Savior?
I really liked the last part of this blog. The fact that Peter preached his second sermon in Acts 3 and never mentioned baptism is huge in my option. If baptism was so important and necessary for salvation I do not see why or how someone like Peter would leave this out of a message to an unsaved audience.
Wow. It is amazing to me that one can believe that man is spiritually reborn apart from salvation AND apart from faith! You made a good point in regards to Peter not mentioning baptism in regards to his preaching to repent and be converted. One wonders how this view can be taken seriously in relation to the Bible.
Jesus never took the thief off the cross and baptized him before he was in paradise? There was believing and confessing, nothing about being baptized.
This was a great post short and to the point. With this belief being so rampant it amazes me how little it takes to refute such a heracy. I have personally debated this topic with one who believes in infant baptism and I think that the verses here in this post are very helpful in such a debate.
John Piper is absolutely right! preachers are constantly teaching that we are saved through baptism and that is wrong! baptism does not complete salvation. They are two completely different things! salvation and baptism that is. Baptism is just an ordinance that we follow, belief in our Lord is salvation
I firmly agree and appreciate this post. Baptism is in no way a sacrament. It is not something that is done to obtain salvation. If it were, wouldn’t it just fit into the category of “righteous acts” Isaiah refers to as filthy rags? There is nothing that could be done by man to obtain salvation, it’s by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.