What baptismal regeneration means, at least to those that I've had dealings with, is that no one can be saved unless they are baptised. No, it does guarantee salvation, but as I said, no one can be saved unless they are baptised - according to those who subscribe to that belief. Obviously I reject that.
Why does it matter? It's false teaching, which is never a good thing. And some Christians may doubt their genuine salvation because it's called into question by the false teachers.
All churches which subscribe to the historic Christian teaching of baptismal regeneration agree that the mere fact of not being baptized does not negate the possibility of a person being saved. That's simply not how Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, et al understand the significance, meaning, and purpose of Baptism.
Is Baptism necessary? Yes. Scripture makes this abundantly clear.
Is Baptism absolutely necessary? Well, no, there can be plenty of reasons why someone may not have received Holy Baptism, that alone doesn't mean they are outside of God's saving work. Today, the most common reason many don't get baptized is out of ignorance of the meaning and significance of Baptism. And so many put it off, not realizing that they are saying no to the gift and power of God. Nevertheless, they have heard the word, they have believed, and so God is at work justifying, working His salvation.
Based on many conversations over the years here is my assessment: Those who reject the traditional Christian teaching on Baptism have often had the traditional view explained to them either poorly, or they have fundamentally misunderstood some really important nuances of it.
So you might, for example, hear me say "Is Baptism necessary? Yes." and conclude that I'm saying that it's impossible for someone who hasn't been baptized to be saved. But that's not what I'm saying at all.
I suspect the reason for this stems from the fact that a lot of modern Christians operate under a highly binary, absolutist, either/or kind of framework when it comes to salvation. Therefore if Baptism is salvific, they reckon, then anyone who isn't can't be saved; ergo if it is possible for someone to be saved outside of the Sacrament of Baptism, then Baptism can't be necessary.
That's just not the way more traditionally-minded Churches think and operate. Salvation isn't a formulaic thing involving going through some particular set of steps or processes, or getting certain ducks in a row, or getting the right t's crossed and i's dotted. Salvation is what happens when God, by His grace, meets sinners in Christ and sets them free. That happens through the Word, that happens in the Sacraments, that happens wherever Grace is. There is Grace in the preaching of the Gospel, there is Grace in Baptism, there is Grace in the Lord's Supper.
The problem with rejecting baptismal regeneration isn't that doing so mean you can't be saved. The problem with rejecting baptismal regeneration is that when we reject the works of God we end up making up our own human works to try and fill in the gaps. We introduce our own works, our own powers. And that's exactly what's happened in churches which have rejected the historic teaching of the Christian Church: They have replaced the revealed and instituted Means which God Himself has given and introduced their own man-made "
New Measures". And the result is the preaching of a righteousness and salvation based on human works and efforts, rather than the Perfect and Finished work of Jesus Christ, which is ours freely as a gift, apart from our works, which is received passively through faith by the power and word of God alone.
-CryptoLutheran
