Is Baptismal Regeneration False?

[tulipbee]

If you are someone opposed to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, please give your reasons for being opposed, and preferably back up your argument from the text of Scripture.

baptism is of God. several ways he does them

 

[Saint Steven]

baptism is of God. several ways he does them

I think the OP is referring to the claimed regeneration due to water baptism.
Do any of the other baptisms you refer to have a regenerational effect?

 

[Phil W]

I'll have to admit that this concept was new to me as well.
I take it as theory since we don't know for sure what happened.
Here are a few factors to keep in consideration that we can be sure of.
1) Acts chapter two says this: Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. ... vs 46
Note that this is a continuation of something they were already doing.
2) They baptized three thousand new believers that day.
That means that Peter preached to more than three thousand. It requires a lot of space to do that. Where did they meet? These three thousand were also baptized. Where?

Furthermore, if we go with the traditional upper room scenario, how does all this work?
You have 120 in an upper room at the outpouring who began speaking in tongues and then all went down the stairs and out into the street where the chaos gathered a crowd.

The Acts two text doesn't really support this. Only the traditional story we have heard repeatedly. The chapter begins with these words: When the day of Pentecost came... - vs 1
This is our clue as to where they were. It was a feast day in the Temple. The text continues: ... they were all together in one place. - vs 1 --- The article has a picture of the Temple showing all the porches that line the perimeter of the courtyard. Where Jesus used to preach, and where they still met.

In Acts chapter three we read this: One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. - vs 1
So we can understand that they still followed the attendance requirements of Judaism. Which means they would have likely also been in the Temple on the Day of Pentecost.

I can agree with you that it is all theoretical, and really of no real importance.
I always thought that the "one place" of Acts 2:1 was a different place than the upper room...without any reference to go on here either.
So either could be right...but of no doctrinal importance.
I do suppose that the disciples may not have been afraid to go to the temple yet, as Stephen had yet to be killed and the converts weren't being persecuted till Acts 8.
I do think it an interesting scenario though.

 

[Phil W]

Eat the meat and spit out the bones.

"A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump".

How do you know that the early church met on the first day of the week instead of the Sabbath day? Ultimately we have to rely on the writings of the early church outside the NT canon. Do we take these writings as scripture? Nope. Can we use them for reference material? Yes.

I made no mention of meeting on a certain day, so it must have been something you read from the site.
Frankly, I think they met every day.

Those writings define the term "the Lord's Day" for us. The only appearance of that term in the Bible is found in Rev.1:10, where it is not defined. But the writings of the early church define it for us. The Lord's Day is the first day of the week, the day of our Lord's resurrection, the day the church gathered, the queen of days, Sunday.

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." (Rom 14:5)

 

[nolidad]

I would describe it as when we are transformed from a spiritually dead sinner at enmity with our Creator, and destined to an eternity under His wrath; to a place of being made spiritually alive, completely forgiven by our Creator, who is now our Heavenly Father, and destined to an eternity of the fullness of life to enjoy our inheritance as co-heirs with Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:4–7 (ESV)

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— 6 and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.

Titus 3:4–7 (ESV)

4 But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Hi JOhn the ex-Baptist, I am Ron the still Baptist!

I believe in Baptismal regeneration! Not by water though but by the baptism of the spirit as described in 1 Cor. 12. Water Baptism is for believers only! Baptism in this day and age is a seriously misunderstood act in the age!

When it was instituted, It was a public declaration that you had received Christ and were now intent on followin HIm! It cost many nearly everything once baptized! Buit even with the Philippians jailer- they recieved christ by faith first(were immediately baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ) then they were water baptized. Same is true with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Hope this helps.

 

[Hillsage]

I believe in Baptismal regeneration! Not by water though but by the baptism of the spirit as described in 1 Cor. 12. Water Baptism is for believers only! Baptism in this day and age is a seriously misunderstood act in the age!

I agree, repenting results in being baptized into the death of Jesus for the receiving of the Spirit of Christ so that we may be part of the body of Christ.

ROM 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

When it was instituted, It was a public declaration that you had received Christ and were now intent on followin HIm! It cost many nearly everything once baptized! Buit even with the Philippians jailer- they recieved christ by faith first(were immediately baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ) then they were water baptized. Same is true with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

.

I don't see anything in the scripture saying that the baptism of the jailer was where they; (were immediately baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ).
I'm going to assume they were getting the baptism which every other mention in scripture speaks of...that being "in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins". A baptism which, according to Acts 8 at Samaria was prior to their next baptism which was as you said by the Spirit.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

ACT 8:12,16 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. …:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

ACT 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord….

ACT 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

 

[Phil W]

Hi JOhn the ex-Baptist, I am Ron the still Baptist!

I believe in Baptismal regeneration! Not by water though but by the baptism of the spirit as described in 1 Cor. 12. Water Baptism is for believers only! Baptism in this day and age is a seriously misunderstood act in the age!

When it was instituted, It was a public declaration that you had received Christ and were now intent on followin HIm! It cost many nearly everything once baptized! Buit even with the Philippians jailer- they recieved christ by faith first(were immediately baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ) then they were water baptized. Same is true with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Hope this helps.

Which scriptures do you use to equate belief in Christ with receiving Christ?
Peter said that if you are baptized (immersed) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
There wasn't a baptism of the Holy Ghost first, and then baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, except in the case of Cornelius...a Gentile.
The Spirit of God will not reside in a polluted temple.

 

[Saint Steven]

Which scriptures do you use to equate belief in Christ with receiving Christ?
Peter said that if you are baptized (immersed) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
There wasn't a baptism of the Holy Ghost first, and then baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, except in the case of Cornelius...a Gentile.
The Spirit of God will not reside in a polluted temple.

As humans, we like to see patterns from which we can gain a stable understanding of something. However this does not work with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is rather unpredictable.

For example, you made some statements about the Holy Spirit but then had to qualify them with an exception (Cornelius). And what about Pentecost? Does that fit your formula? (Nope) Where was the water baptism before the outpouring?

You also made what I consider to be an erroneous statement about baptism. You have forced your doctrinal understanding onto Peter's words to make it fit. Compare your claims to his actual words. Notice what you have added and omitted.

I tend to look at the book of Acts as being a story of the early church flying by the seat of their pants. They were going with the flow and making the best of it. The manifestations of the Holy Spirit were very unpredictable.

- At Pentecost the Holy Spirit came on the 120 without much warning. What happened was unprecedented.
- After the outpouring at Pentecost, 3000 new believers who were water baptized, received the Holy Spirit. (no mention of the laying on of hands)
- No report of any difficulties for the five thousand new believers in Acts chapter four.
- However, the baptized believers in Samaria did not receive the Spirit until the Apostles laid hands on them. Acts chapter eight.
- At the house of Cornelius the Holy Spirit came on the Gentiles while Peter was still preaching. Water baptism followed.
- The newly baptized believers in Ephesus received the Holy Spirit baptism when Paul (not one of the 12) laid hands on them.
- Ananias (not an Apostle) was sent to Saul to lay hands on him for healing and to receive the Holy Spirit.

Do you see a pattern here? Can you make a solid formula that fits all of these examples?
1) Believe
2) Be water baptized
3) Receive the indwelling Spirit
4) Receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit for power (manifestations)
5) Not necessarily in that order, step #4 is optional

 

[nolidad]

Which scriptures do you use to equate belief in Christ with receiving Christ?
Peter said that if you are baptized (immersed) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
There wasn't a baptism of the Holy Ghost first, and then baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, except in the case of Cornelius...a Gentile.
The Spirit of God will not reside in a polluted temple.

Rom 10: 9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Acts 4: 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 16:
30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

32 And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.

33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

34 And when he had brought them into his house, he set

Acts 8:
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Acts 10:
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

In all cases- belief came first (which equals salvation) then came the instantaneous baptism in the Spirit, then came water baptism.

 

[nolidad]

Which scriptures do you use to equate belief in Christ with receiving Christ?
Peter said that if you are baptized (immersed) in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins you will receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
There wasn't a baptism of the Holy Ghost first, and then baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, except in the case of Cornelius...a Gentile.
The Spirit of God will not reside in a polluted temple.

Everyu time the word baptism appears- it does not automatically mean water baptism. Just like every time the word salvation appears it does not automatically mean eternal salvation. if it did then in timothy Paul said women are saved not by faith in Christ but by childbearing.

 

[nolidad]

I agree, repenting results in being baptized into the death of Jesus for the receiving of the Spirit of Christ so that we may be part of the body of Christ.

ROM 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

I don't see anything in the scripture saying that the baptism of the jailer was where they; (were immediately baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ).
I'm going to assume they were getting the baptism which every other mention in scripture speaks of...that being "in the name of the Lord Jesus for the remission of sins". A baptism which, according to Acts 8 at Samaria was prior to their next baptism which was as you said by the Spirit.

ACT 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

ACT 8:12,16 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. …:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus).
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

ACT 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord….

ACT 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10 showed the jailer recieved the HS first then was baptized in water.

I also caution against relying on Acts to establish doctrine. Acts is a transitional book where Jews were transitioning out of the law and Gentiles were being saved apart from becoming Jews.

Baptism when it appears does not always mean a water baptism.

I do not know if this is proper here, but I would recommend an excellent work by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum on Baptism. It is found at ariel.org. On the pull down menu on discipleship called come and see.

I know water baptism is commanded for all believers! but it is an ordinance for believers not unbelievers to become believers. We are not forgiven sins by immersion, but by faith in Christ. We are baptized in the Spirit at teh moment of salvation- that is what causes the new birth.

But as to why Gentiles who recieved Christ had no yet received the Spirit is simple, Peter held the keys to the kingdom and He had to open the door for Gentiles to receive the Spirit.

First it was to Jews as you quote, then Samaritans then the Gentiles!

 

[Saint Steven]

In all cases- belief came first (which equals salvation) then came the instantaneous baptism in the Spirit, then came water baptism.

What went wrong in Samaria?

Acts 8:14-17
When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

 

[Saint Steven]

Peter held the keys to the kingdom...

Only Peter?
Do you also believe that he was the first Pope?

 

[Saint Steven]

First it was to Jews as you quote, then Samaritans then the Gentiles!

So the Samaritans weren't considered gentiles?
Do we see Jesus putting the woman at the well in a different "spiritual" category?
Was Jesus "sent" to her? A divine appointment? (yes)

Matthew 15:24
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

 

[Saint Steven]

Baptism when it appears does not always mean a water baptism.

It rarely means anything else, and is obvious in context.
Unless I am missing something here.

 

[Saint Steven]

I know water baptism is commanded for all believers! but it is an ordinance for believers not unbelievers to become believers. We are not forgiven sins by immersion, but by faith in Christ. We are baptized in the Spirit at teh moment of salvation- that is what causes the new birth.

I agree with what you are saying here, except for your position on the baptism with the Holy Spirit (see bold above). And I understand that it is a common Baptist position. But consider this...

Jesus told the disciples to wait for the outpouring (baptism) of the Holy Spirit. Were they not saved? The Apostle Paul (Saul) received the Holy Spirit when Ananias laid hands on him. Water baptism followed. Was he not already saved? The believers in Samaria were water baptized but did not receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit until the Apostles laid hands on them.

None of this squares with your position. Furthermore, the biblical examples of the baptism with the Holy Spirit include manifestations of the Holy Spirit as evidence. Typically tongues or prophecy. This is what was missing in both Samaria and Ephesus. Requiring the laying on of hands. Nothing immediate upon belief.

Therefore, I see the baptism with the Holy Spirit as a subsequent experience to salvation and water baptism.

 

[Hillsage]

Acts 10 showed the jailer recieved the HS first then was baptized in water.

You might want to recheck your above statement. It wasn't Acts 10 but 16 and there is nothing in scriptural context of the jailer's story that even says anything about receiving the HS.

I also caution against relying on Acts to establish doctrine. Acts is a transitional book where Jews were transitioning out of the law and Gentiles were being saved apart from becoming Jews.

I do agree that Acts is transitional and the church had some real issues which have only grown from then unto today.

Baptism when it appears does not always mean a water baptism.

Again, I totally agree. I think that the great commission itself is not a 'word mantra' that goes along with 'one water baptism', but is instead the declaration of experiencing the Godhead in three different baptisms. The Father in repentance, the Son in the forgiveness of sin, and the Holy Spirit in the manifestation of supernatural power.

I do not know if this is proper here, but I would recommend an excellent work by Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum on Baptism. It is found at ariel.org. On the pull down menu on discipleship called come and see.

If it isn't proper, then you are not alone, because it happens all the time. I'll go there later and check it, but Honeydo's do call today also.

I know water baptism is commanded for all believers! but it is an ordinance for believers not unbelievers to become believers. We are not forgiven sins by immersion, but by faith in Christ. We are baptized in the Spirit at teh moment of salvation- that is what causes the new birth.

Everyone is entitled to 'their opinion', but do you have scriptural backing for the above? I believe that the baptism of John was for the forgiveness of sins;

MAR 1:4 John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

LUK 3:3 and he went into all the region about the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

So, in your opinion, were the sins of these people forgiven or not? If YES, elaborate. If NO, elaborate. I believe they were forgiven, but will withhold my 'elaboration' for the moment.

But as to why Gentiles who recieved Christ had no yet received the Spirit is simple, Peter held the keys to the kingdom and He had to open the door for Gentiles to receive the Spirit.

OK, then explain what 'the keys' are, since they are really a pretty big basis for your position.

 

[Saint Steven]

You might want to recheck your above statement. It wasn't Acts 10 but 16 and there is nothing in scriptural context of the jailer's story that even says anything about receiving the HS.

I agree, but this brings up an interesting point.
I like to view these things from a "Where's the news?" perspective.
Here's an example.

"On Monday I picked up my Wife at work and picked up the daily gallon of milk.
I picked up my wife on Tuesday through Friday too."

Question: Did I pick up milk on Tuesday through Friday? (yes)
The first sentence declared that milk was picked up daily.
Therefore on Tuesday through Friday it wasn't news.

I think the same thing happens in the book of Acts. We can't determine whether something happened purely by whether it was mentioned or not. Here's an example.

Did the Apostle Paul speak in tongues when he received the Holy Spirit?
The text doesn't indicate that he did. But what does everything we know about him tell us? I can't imagine that he didn't speak in tongues. Yet the text gives no indication.
At that point, Where's the news?

 

[Hillsage]

I agree, but this brings up an interesting point.
I like to view these things from a "Where's the news?" perspective.
Here's an example.

"On Monday I picked up my Wife at work and picked up the daily gallon of milk.
I picked up my wife on Tuesday through Friday too."

Question: Did I pick up milk on Tuesday through Friday? (yes)
The first sentence declared that milk was picked up daily.
Therefore on Tuesday through Friday it wasn't news.

I love allegorical stories people give to prove the strength of their doctrinal point. Having said that; Nor was it really 'news' on 'Monday', if this is something that was done every week...right? IOW what big earlier 'news' 'point' did I miss, with what I said in my last post. I think I know, but this is fun.

I think the same thing happens in the book of Acts. We can't determine whether something happened purely by whether it was mentioned or not. Here's an example.

I agree, so we must have a standard that is equally applicable to 'both sides of the argument. Right? That's why I bring up things, such as I've shared with you before, which go back a long ways to support my POV. IOW I think the church error now is one that goes way back to the time before people remember the Apostate church which gave rise to so many errors that Luther bailed. And then he didn't begin to cure all the woes IMO. That's why 'the church' (there's only one from Jesus perspective) is still morphing, in as much as it yields to the leading of the instruction of the Holy Spirit today in curing the errors of days past. How far 'past'? All the way back to the first TWO gospels.

Galatians 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel OF the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel OF the circumcision was unto Peter;

Did the Apostle Paul speak in tongues when he received the Holy Spirit?
The text doesn't indicate that he did. But what does everything we know about him tell us? I can't imagine that he didn't speak in tongues. Yet the text gives no indication.
At that point, Where's the news?

I agree that I believe he did, just as I believe that Jesus did. He is the pattern Son, right? But as you say, no verse to prove it.

End note; I hear what you are saying Steve and I totally agree. So if there is a 'point' you think I'm not addressing, get more specific as to what you think I missed in my last post.

 

[Saint Steven]

I agree that I believe he did, just as I believe that Jesus did. He is the pattern Son, right? But as you say, no verse to prove it.

End note; I hear what you are saying Steve and I totally agree. So if there is a 'point' you think I'm not addressing, get more specific as to what you think I missed in my last post.

Nope, just a side note. What I thought about when I read your post. So I wanted to be clear right up front that it wasn't a rebuttal.

Jesus speaking in tongues? Now that's a curious and thought-provoking comment.
Some would say, "No scripture to back that up!" -- But that's really the point here.
I say, no wonder he went off to pray by himself. lol --- (a closet Pentecostal) Who knew?