Question: Jesus Christ, St. Peter, St. Luke, and St. Paul all
agree that we are saved and born again in the waters of baptism with the
Holy Spirit! (John 3:5; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21; Acts 22:16;
Romans 6:3, 4; Colossians 2:12).
Answer: I hope that by studying these scriptures, you will become
convinced that none of them actually proves “baptismal regeneration.”
But first, let us define the official Catholic position and what is
required to prove this doctrine.
What is baptismal regeneration?
The Catholic Church teaches that:
-
Baptism is necessary for salvation (Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 1277).
-
Baptism causes regeneration. (In theological jargon,
baptism is said to be the instrumental cause of
regeneration). Baptism is not only a sign; it actually brings
about the new birth. “Through baptism we are freed from sin
and reborn as sons of God” (Catechism of the Catholic Church,
1213).
As the other sacraments, baptism acts “ex opere operato” -
literally, by the very fact of the action being performed. The right
application of the outward sign is always followed by the gift of
internal grace if the sacrament is received with the right dispositions.
In the case of infants, baptism removes original sin and regenerates
even though the infant does not personally believe in Christ. “It may
not be doubted that in Baptism infants receive the mysterious gift of
faith. Not that they believe with the assent of the mind, but they are
established in the faith of their parents” (Catechism of Trent).
In the case of adults, faith is necessary, but it is not sufficient
for forgiveness or eternal life. Faith is considered as one of the
factors constituting the “right disposition” for baptism. “Besides
a wish to be baptized, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament,
faith is also necessary” (Catechism of Trent). Yet the believer does
not receive grace (forgiveness or regeneration) until and unless he is
baptized with water.
What is required to prove baptismal regeneration?
To prove that “baptismal regeneration” is a true biblical
doctrine, it is not enough to quote some scriptures that somehow link
baptism to forgiveness or the new birth. Baptism must be shown to be the
instrumental cause of regeneration.
Faith, repentance, baptism, confessing Christ, holiness and good
works are all aspects of the human response to God's grace; all are
somehow related to salvation. That does not mean that faith, repentance,
confession, works, baptism, etc, are all related to salvation in the same manner. The distinction between the different roles
of faith and good works is clearly seen
in Ephesians 2:8-10 - "For by grace you have been saved through
faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works,
lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ
Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk
in them."
Salvation is "through faith" and "not of works."
The apostle Paul is adamant that good works are not the means of
salvation. Yet, in the same breath, the apostle is equally insistent
that works are the fruit of salvation - "for good works". So
then, whoever "believes" and tries to do good works to merit
salvation does not understand the Gospel. Nor does the man who
"believes" and continues to live in sin, devoid of good works.
Only he who believes in Christ, and forfeits any reliance on the merits
of personal works, and whose life is overflowing with good works, can be
confident that he is truly saved by grace.
So, while it is true that both faith and works are related to salvation,
yet it is fatal to attribute to works the role which the Word of God
attributes to faith. Faith is the instrumental cause; works are the
necessary fruit.
We should also ask about the specific relationships of faith and baptism to
salvation. Is faith insufficient to save? Is baptism the actual cause of
salvation? Or is faith sufficient and baptism the sign of
salvation? Think of Paul's argument in Romans 3 and 4. He uses Abraham
as an example of justification by faith. At least for Abraham, faith was
sufficient to justify him (Abraham was never baptized, and he was
justified by faith before he received the sign of circumcision).
Moreover, since Paul uses Abraham as a model for all of us (in New
Testament times), it is impossible to deny the saving efficacy of faith
even before it is accompanied by good works and rituals. Not, of course, that we
disregard the commandments and ordinances of our Lord; for every believer seeks to fulfill
them (as
Paul argues later on in his letter); nor that circumcision was
meaningless, or that baptism is optional (for he later reminds the
believers about their baptism and the implications to the Christian
life).
Therefore it is not enough to
show from Scripture that “faith and baptism” or “repentance and
baptism” saves. Evangelical Christians also believe that “faith and
baptism” saves, without accepting the idea of baptismal regeneration.
Evangelicals say that a person is saved by faith (instrumental cause)
and baptism (as the sign of salvation). Whereas Catholics say that faith
is a predisposition (which is not sufficient to save by itself);
cleansing is actually brought about by baptism (instrumental cause).
So to prove baptismal regeneration, it must be shown that:
-
Baptism without personal faith saves (as in the case of
infant baptism).
-
Without baptism, faith does not save (as in the case of
catechumens who are not yet saved because they are not yet baptized,
even though they have repented and believed in Christ).
Let us look at the most important “proof texts” to see whether
they actually prove baptismal regeneration or not.
“Proof texts” examined
John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless
one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
There is evidence that “water” is not primarily referring
to baptism (see “Baptism: Born of Water”), but let’s say, for the
sake of argument, that it is. “Water” and “Spirit” refer to
different aspects of the work of regeneration. In Catholicism, the
Spirit is the agent; water baptism is the instrument. In biblical
Christianity, the Spirit is the agent; baptism is the sign of salvation.
Why can’t we understand water as the reality signified by the external
rite (namely spiritual cleansing and new life) that is brought about by
the Spirit? Is there any compelling reason why “water” must
be understood as the instrumental cause?
Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he
who does not believe will be condemned.
Catholics and Evangelicals agree that faith and baptism saves. We
disagree on their separate roles. Can we understand baptism as the sign
rather than the instrument of salvation? Certainly! Why do we have to
see personal faith as a mere “predisposition” or indeed as
unnecessary in the case of infants? Jesus emphasizes the primacy and
necessity of faith by warning that “he who does not believe will be
condemned.” We know, at least, that one can be baptized and still be
lost if he does not believe. Matthew 16:16 says nothing about the
unusual case of someone who believes and is not yet baptized. Therefore,
this verse cannot be used to prove something ("faith is
insufficient") that it is not talking
about.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of
you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins;
and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter powerfully
persuaded the Jews that the man they had crucified as a blasphemer is
the Lord and Messiah. They were pierced to the heart and asked what they
should do. Peter replied that they must repent, i.e. change their
mind about Jesus - they who previously disbelieved Jesus must now
believe in Him. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ served as a
courageous public testimony of their repentance and faith in Him,
knowing full well that it meant persecution from the Jewish leaders and
the rest of the Jews.
There is nothing in the text that compels us to see baptism as the
instrumental cause. Why not take repentance as the means of receiving
forgiveness, and baptism as the sign of true repentance and forgiveness?
Indeed, a short time later the apostle Peter promised forgiveness on the
basis of repentance without even mentioning baptism (Acts 3:19 –
Repent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out).
Faith in the Messiah (implied in genuine repentance), rather than
baptism, receives God's gracious pardon.
Acts 22:16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and
wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
The outward act, “arise and be baptized,” is linked to the heart
appeal to Christ, “calling on the name of the Lord.” The result is
spiritual cleansing - “wash away your sins.” We see immediately that
this verse says nothing about forgiveness apart from personal faith. Nor
does it necessarily prove that “calling upon the Lord” is
insufficient for cleansing. For baptism can be considered as an external
sign (washing the body) of the inner reality (washing the heart from
sin) brought about by faith (calling on the Lord). Grammatically, “wash
away your sins” is linked to “calling on the name of the Lord” and
not to “be baptized.” Elsewhere Scripture is clear that the
instrument of salvation is calling upon the name of the Lord by faith.
God “is rich to all who call upon Him. For whoever calls upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on Him whom they
have not believed?” (Romans 10:12-14). In other words, their faith
(manifest in their call for mercy) results in salvation. Baptism does
not repeat what is already achieved through faith (salvation,
cleansing); baptism signifies this great truth.
Romans 6:3, 4 Or do you not know that as many of us as were
baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we
were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was
raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should
walk in newness of life.
This passage, especially the phrase “buried
with Him through baptism,” seems to support the idea that baptism
is the instrumental cause of justification. However, even here
baptism could be understood as the sign of justification. It is not
unusual in Scripture to call the reality by the name of its sign.
Thus, for example, Paul says that all Christians are circumcised
(even though one may not be physically circumcised!) - meaning that
they possess what circumcision signifies (Philippians 3:3). Using
this kind of language, Paul can speak of the great reality of the
believers’ spiritual union with Christ, and the benefits which
flow from that union, in terms of baptism, its sign.
We are forced to give this interpretation by the
context. Before mentioning baptism in chapter 6, Paul had repeatedly
emphasized that faith alone is the instrumental cause of
justification (Romans 1:16, 17; 3:22, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5, 13; 5:1,
2). Righteousness is “imputed to us who believe in Him who
raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up because
of our offenses, and was raised up because of our justification”
(Romans 4:24,25). Since they received the benefits of Christ’s
death and resurrection (justification), and that through faith,
believers must be spiritually united to Him
(delivered and raised up with Him). If baptism is taken as the
instrumental cause, then Paul contradicts what he had established
before, namely that justification is by faith.
Elsewhere, the apostle Paul clearly teaches that
what is signified in baptism (buried and raised with Christ)
actually occurs “through faith.” Christians are “buried with
Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through
faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead”
(Colossians 2:12). Justification on account of union in Christ's death, burial and
resurrection is brought about “through
faith” - and is properly symbolized by dipping the new believer in and
out of the water.
1 Peter 3:21 There is also an antitype which now saves us -
baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Peter was speaking about Noah and his family who
were saved through the floodwater. He makes a comparison between
that water and baptism. One corresponds to the other (that’s what
antitype means). The flood symbolized baptism. Further, Peter says
that baptism now saves us.
Conscious that his statement is liable to
be misunderstood, Peter explains himself. Negatively, baptism does
not save because water is applied to the body: “not the removal of
the filth of the flesh.” Water can only cleanse the flesh
outwardly; it does not cleanse the heart from sin. Positively,
baptism saves because it follows a personal response to God as
indicated by the phrase “the answer of a good conscience toward
God.” The Bible usually uses such terms as “believe,” “repent,”
and “call upon” to describe this personal response to God. It is
that aspect of baptism (what is signified, “the answer of a good
conscience toward God”) rather than the external rite (the sign,
the application of water) that saves. In this sense, we affirm that
baptism saves.
Consider the following conversation:
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes, I am married; see, I’m wearing this ring.
Q. What does the ring signify?
A. It means that I gave my consent to my wife and, therefore, I am
united to her.
Strictly speaking, the husband is united to his
wife because of the marriage vows rather than the ring. Yet since
the latter is the sign of their union, it is natural to speak of the
ring to mean the reality it represents. He is married because he
wears a marriage ring. Compare this to a similar conversation about
salvation:
Q. Are you saved?
A. Yes I am saved, because I am baptized.
Q. What does baptism signify?
A. It signifies that I believe in Christ and, therefore, I am
united to Him.
So, when we say that baptism saves us, we do not
mean that the sacrament saves us apart from faith in Christ; we mean
that baptism signifies our salvation by faith in Christ. Contrast
this to the position of the Roman Catholic Church. Infants are said
to be saved by baptism even though by reason of his age a baby
cannot make such a personal appeal to God, as the Bible requires. 1
Peter 3:21 actually denies baptismal regeneration ex opere
operato!
Conclusion
We have seen that there are a few scriptures that relate baptism to
salvation. All these scriptures also associate baptism with faith and
repentance. Therefore, baptism can be understood as the sign of
salvation received by faith in Christ. None of these verses prove that
baptism, rather than faith, brings about justification, nor that infant
baptism is efficacious since personal faith is absent in infants.
Therefore, baptismal regeneration is not a proven biblical doctrine.
What are the practical implications? Be careful not to be deceived,
thinking that you are right with God simply because you have been
baptized. You could be baptized and still be lost. On the other hand, if
you truly believe in Christ - relying on Him alone for salvation, while
showing your faith in holiness and love - then baptism is God’s sign
to you of your saving union with Christ.