The Baptist View of Baptism Destroys the Meaning of Baptism

[aiki]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

Well, you certainly seem sure that it is. I'm not as certain. In fact, it seems evident to me that a person is "response-able" to the Gospel, which is "the power of God unto salvation," and so held responsible by God for their decision concerning the Gospel. No one is made a puppet by God and forced to receive spiritual regeneration.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

Obviously, such Baptists as you describe don't hold to your view of divine monergistic salvation. Are they wrong? I don't think so. I'm in the process of abandoning Calvinism for a more scriptural and less philosophically tangled soteriology. Both Molinism and Provisionalism (or Traditionalism) seem better options than the Reformed perspective. Staunch proponents of either soteriological systematic would point at you and declare with confidence equal to your own that your view of baptism and spiritual regeneration is in error.

For those interested in an alternate view of salvation than that proposed by Calvinist/Reformed proponents see:

www.soteriology101.com (Provisionalism)
www.reasonablefaith.org (Molinism)

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better.

Only to those who have already agreed to a Reformed soteriological systematic.

Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

Which for someone like myself surfaces all the glaring problems with Reformed doctrine rather than properly picturing how a person comes to be saved.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, you certainly seem sure that it is. I'm not as certain. In fact, it seems evident to me that a person is "response-able" to the Gospel, which is "the power of God unto salvation," and so held responsible by God for their decision concerning the Gospel. No one is made a puppet by God and forced to receive spiritual regeneration.



Obviously, such Baptists as you describe don't hold to your view of divine monergistic salvation. Are they wrong? I don't think so. I'm in the process of abandoning Calvinism for a more scriptural and less philosophically tangled soteriology. Both Molinism and Provisionalism (or Traditionalism) seem better options than the Reformed perspective. Staunch proponents of either soteriological systematic would point at you and declare with confidence equal to your own that your view of baptism and spiritual regeneration is in error. For those interested in an alternate view of salvation than that proposed by Calvinist/Reformed proponents see:

www.soteriology101.com (Provisionalism)
www.reasonablefaith.org (Molinism)



Only to those who have already agreed to a Reformed soteriological systematic.



Which for someone like myself surfaces all the glaring problems with Reformed doctrine rather than properly picturing how a person comes to be saved.

Thank you Aiki, I think you've demonstrated my point rather well. Since you reject Reformed soteriology, you also reject the Reformed view of baptism. There are those who want to accept Reformed soteriology and reject the Reformed view of baptism, but I don't think this works as well.

 

[aiki]

Thank you Aiki, I think you've demonstrated my point rather well. Since you reject Reformed soteriology, you also reject the Reformed view of baptism. There are those who want to accept Reformed soteriology and reject the Reformed view of baptism, but I don't think this works as well.

No, I suppose it doesn't. "In for a penny, in for a pound" seems to be the Reformed way.

It is unfortunate that you did not state as clearly in your OP what you do here, that Reformed theology can be rather monolithic and inflexible. Your OP had more the flavour of denigrating Baptists and Baptist practices than illustrating the need for doctrinal consistency on the part of those adopting a Reformed view of salvation.

Anyway, for those looking for an alternative to Reformed thinking, consider the following:

 

[Calvin_1985]

Furthermore, baptists will say that a person who was baptized as an infant should be baptized again as an adult professing their faith.

But baptism is a sign of regeneration, and regeneration is something that only happens once.

Thus rebaptism also destroys the meaning of baptism.

If you want to know what Baptism truly means, I mean to know it, not just recite Reformed and Christian descriptions, then you need to set aside everything and indulge in the story of Israel. Their story is the representation of God and His people and this would include Baptism by water and what it means. Again, just set everything aside and read The written word and be led by the Word.

 

[GodsGrace101]

No, I suppose it doesn't. "In for a penny, in for a pound" seems to be the Reformed way.

It is unfortunate that you did not state as clearly in your OP what you do here, that Reformed theology can be rather monolithic and inflexible. Your OP had more the flavour of denigrating Baptists and Baptist practices than illustrating the need for doctrinal consistency on the part of those adopting a Reformed view of salvation.

Anyway, for those looking for an alternative to Reformed thinking, consider the following:

Aiki, I checked --- I'm in general theology, so I can safely tell you that I totally agree with your switch from a system of theology that changes the nature of God, must quote only their own commentators, and most times it's Calvin himself, and that state the most mind-bending doctrine I've ever come into contact with.

Just to imagine that a person could be regenerated and not even become a believer for months or years is simply preposterous when one understand the N.T., the love God has for His creation, the mercy He shows toward everyone and the justice.

God's sovereignty is HEIGHTENED by our having free will....not reduced.

God's sovereignty is heightened by allowing man to decide for himself if he wishes to be saved or not.

What kind of a weak God fears having sovereignty taken away from Him, anyhow?

Welcome home.

 

[Calvin_1985]

One is not born again through baptism, but through the work of the Holy Spirit when, where, and how he pleases. Baptism is only a sign and a seal of the work of the Spirit.

John ch. 3.

 

[Jonaitis]

Baptism is a sign of regeneration. It is not a sign that the baptized person is regenerate. We do not know whether or not baptized people are regenerate. Even baptists do not know that the people they baptize are regenerate. But baptism is still a sign of regeneration. The washing of a person with water is a symbol of the washing of regeneration done by the Spirit. Whether or not the person being baptized is regenerate is immaterial.



Yes the credo baptists still capture this important part of baptism. But the fact that they will not baptize infants and will only baptize professing believers erodes the meaning of baptism in that it suggests that we must respond to God in order to be regenerate.



I agree that an unbaptized person is not baptized. Seems tautological. Did you mean to say something else?



Baptize demonstrably does not mean "immersion". It means "washing" which could include immersion but also demonstrably includes pouring and sprinkling from a purely semantical standpoint.

Apparently I am not a Baptist as some here have assumed they know what we believe.

 

[ChicanaRose]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

I am very interested in the Reformed faith, so I appreciate you posting this.

If an infant is baptized, do you automatically consider him to be an elect since it was part of God's sovereign plan that he was brought to this point through his parents?

 

[CGL1023]

Faith in Christ is given to the baptizee (provided of course that the baptism is in the name of God, Christ and the Spirit).

Does your statement mean that a person being baptized receives additional faith in/from the act of baptism? I admit I may be misunderstanding what you wrote so would you give scripture supporting your position? Thank you.

 

[Calvin_1985]

Aiki, I checked --- I'm in general theology, so I can safely tell you that I totally agree with your switch from a system of theology that changes the nature of God, must quote only their own commentators, and most times it's Calvin himself, and that state the most mind-bending doctrine I've ever come into contact with.

Just to imagine that a person could be regenerated and not even become a believer for months or years is simply preposterous when one understand the N.T., the love God has for His creation, the mercy He shows toward everyone and the justice.

God's sovereignty is HEIGHTENED by our having free will....not reduced.

God's sovereignty is heightened by allowing man to decide for himself if he wishes to be saved or not.

What kind of a weak God fears having sovereignty taken away from Him, anyhow?

Welcome home.

Yep, Regeneration comes after placing Faith in Jesus Christ. You get it

 

[Tree of Life]

I am very interested in the Reformed faith, so I appreciate you posting this.

If an infant is baptized, do you automatically consider him to be an elect since it was part of God's sovereign plan that he was brought to this point through his parents?

No. Not all who are baptized are elect. Many will be baptized who turn out to be unsaved.

 

[Tree of Life]

Apparently I am not a Baptist as some here have assumed they know what we believe.

Huzzah!

 

[johnnywong]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.
Throne

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

wrong.

Salvation needs the participation of the Soul ,need repentance and invite God as the Lord of the life.
Man needs to died in Christ by the decision of his Will , then he can be regenerated passively by Holy Spirit.

Infant is a totally different story.

They and the one never heard of Christ will be judged By God the father at the Great White Throne independent of the salvation by Christ scheme.(There also has a book of Life)

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

Does your statement mean that a person being baptized receives additional faith in/from the act of baptism?

Well, I was speaking of infant baptism. An infant who is baptized is normatively given the gift of faith via their baptism.

 

[Ecclesiastian]

I agree, honestly. I like that Baptists practice immersion, which mirrors Christ's baptism, but I agree that we've forgotten what Baptism stands for. I don't think it's a problem with Baptists by virtue of being Baptists, there are some who believe in baptismal regeneration, but not many. I think it's an issue that requires reform. I was baptized in a Baptist church, but I went into that baptism with faith that a regeneration would take place, and I believe it did.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm having trouble viewing this image for some reason. I trust that it must have been funny or insightful!

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings “Tree of Life”,

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

I like the example of the Samaritans where they believed Philip’s preaching of Christ, that is, he was preaching the gospel of the Name and Kingdom. As a result of this belief they were motivated to be baptised.
Acts 8:5–12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 12 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.

Acts 8:12 also helps to define the gospel, consisting of two parts, the things of the Kingdom of God and the things concerning the Name of Jesus Christ. Baptism is the appointed way whereby the believer voluntarily identifies with the death and resurrection of Jesus, and thus leaves behind his old way of life and is raised to the new way of life in Christ Romans 6:1-8. His life is thereafter motivated by the love of God revealed in and through Jesus Galatians 2:20.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

There is no mention of infant sprinkling or baptism of children in Acts 8:12, because baptism is the response generated by faith.

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Are infants regenerated when they are sprinkled? Also the Samaritans believed the gospel and were baptised before they received the Holy Spirit Acts 8:14-17.

Kind regards

Trevor

 

[Justified112]

Baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration.

Regeneration is a saving act of God wherein man is totally passive. God removes the heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh. Man cannot regenerate himself nor participate in his own regeneration. Baptism is an outward sign of regeneration. That is its meaning.

But baptists say that only adults may be baptized because only adults have the ability to understand the gospel, repent, and believe. This emphasizes not God's monergistic action in regenerating a person, but man's response to God and his participation in his salvation.

The Reformed view of baptism captures the meaning of baptism much better. Seeing an infant who has no ability to repent and believe be baptized testifies to us that regeneration is an act of God alone which does not require man's participation.

Infant baptism is not biblical. Baptist is connected to faith. And the Bible does not use "regeneration" the way you do.

Baptism is a sign of salvation, a testimony of faith and reminder of our future resurrection. God does not save us apart from our faith in Jesus as Savior.

 

[DamianWarS]

I would have to know all the circumstances of his case in order to answer that. Basically, Orthodox churches consider baptisms performed in other Christian churches to be valid, whether or not they are by immersion.

I dug up an old quote from a well-known poster now absent from CF

For The Orthodox Church, it must be done by triple immersion, in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit for the remission of sin. If it wasn’t done that way then we will baptize the person as soon as possible.

perhaps it's my perspective but triple immersion or single immersion seems arbitrary and if it's the latter it shouldn't be a reason to call a baptism invalid, yet it seems to be, at least from the posters pov. I don't see why this is any different in spirit among evangelicals.