Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration

1. Baptism refers to identification or association with someone or something:

This one may be a little confusing, but it must be remembered that often when we consider baptism it refers to identification or association with someone or something. Why that is significant to the Baptism with the Spirit of God there is the spiritual union of the believer with God. We are identified and associated with God through the Spirit, Who indwells the believer upon salvation. The view of the Baptismal Regenerationist is that it is the immersion in water which is salvific, rather than the genuine identification the believer has with God as he/she is brought into union with God through the indwelling of God within the believer.


2. Baptism carries the picture of immersion:

Like unto point one, immersion is not into physical water, but into the Body of Christ, which is the condition of every believer that is Baptized with the Spirit of God. One becomes a part of the Body of Christ, that is, the spiritual union between God and man that was lost in Adam is restored. When the Baptismal Regenerationist looks to the immersion in water as salvific, rather than the reality of immersion into relationship with God, they make that which is meant to picture the reality the reality itself, thus diminishing the Work of Christ on the Cross as the only means by which man can be brought back into relationship with God.


3. The Book of Romans does not mention water Baptism:

If, as the BR teaches, water baptism were necessary for salvation (rather than obedience), it seems Paul would have mentioned this in his Epistle to the Romans.


4. Hebrews warns against a foundational view:

The Book of Hebrews not only does not speak of water baptism (washings, Hebrews 6:1-2), but gives solemn warning to the Hebrew believers of that day not to "lay again the foundation of...washings." The writer contrasts the ritual method of cleansing of the Law (Judaism, not the Word) with the completion found in He that the foundational doctrines pointed to, that is, Christ. The Law presented the picture, Christ presented the reality. There is little difference between one viewing Christian Water Baptism as a means of cleansing and the cleansing those engaged in Judaism saw in the washings they performed.


5. Christ is the Baptizer:

Whereas in Christian Baptism this is performed by a Minister/Pastor. Why this point is significant is due to the fact that the Baptism with the Spirit is said to be performed by Christ, not men, as we see it contrasted with the Baptism with John (Matthew 3:11). When we give salvific value to water baptism we make the one performing the baptism the Baptizer. But the Word of God makes clear that Christ is the Baptizer and He baptizes with the Spirit of God, not water.


6. Christ baptizes with Spirit (salvation) and fire (judgment)...never with water:

Nowhere do we have a record of Christ baptizing with water (John 4:1-2), but this was, just as it is today, accomplished by men appointed for this task. The baptism performed during His earthly ministry was not the Baptism with Spirit but a foundational baptism which had in view the picture of both cleansing and association as discussed in the first two points. But we can say with certainty that the Baptism with the Spirit of God did not begin until after the Ascension (John 16:7) by which we do well not to confuse that Baptism (with Spirit) with the Baptism of John or those performed by the Disciples of Christ.


7. Paul states he was not sent to baptize:

In 1 Corinthians 1:17 we see Paul state he was not sent to baptize, which would be the same thing as saying "I was not sent to lead men to salvation" if in fact water baptism, even Christian (water) Baptism...were intrinsic to salvation. In view is sectarianism in which men vaunt those they were baptized by as though this made them a superior member in the Body of Christ, when in fact Paul makes it clear that their baptism itself is not the important issue. In 1 Corinthians 1:13 & 18 Paul makes it clear that it is the death of Christ, not water baptism by which men are saved. He ascribes salvific value to the preaching of the Cross and in 1 Corinthians 1:14 actually thanks God that he himself did not baptize them.


8. The remission of sins is consistently taught as through the Death of Christ:

...not water baptism. Baptismal Regeneration attributes salvation as requiring water baptism, effectively adding to the Work of Christ.


9. The Disciples of Christ are never recorded as being baptized:

The Disciples of Christ are never recorded as being baptized either in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, nor in the Name of Christ. If water baptism were a requirement for one to be saved...it seems that the Disciples themselves would have undergone water baptism. We cannot attribute the foundational baptism prior to the coming of the Comforter as that precedes the Age of Grace and remains a part of the Age of Law. What we do see is that they were baptized with the Spirit when He came on the Day of Pentecost.


10. We have record of men being saved before water baptism:


Acts 10:44-48

King James Version (KJV)


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?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.



The Baptism with the Spirit of God is what is in view here. This is what John spoke of when he diminished his own baptism unto repentance and glorified Christ and the Baptism He would perform in regards to salvation.

I would also add that John's baptism had an identification with repentance. And that repentance was required before one was baptized, rather than taking a view that because one was baptized...repentance came. He rebukes the Jews that had not truly repented and forbad them from being baptized, calling for them to first bring forth fruit meet for repentance, or in other words...prove it! The works of the Pharisees gave testimony that they were falsely confessing repentance, though we also see that this rebuke was not just for the Pharisees (Luke 3:7-8).

The single greatest proof-text the Baptismal Regenerationist has for this doctrine is found here:


Mark 16:15-16

King James Version (KJV)


15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.



One being baptized after believing is a given. I believe it is water baptism in view here, but I do not see it as the Lord affirming Baptismal Regeneration. When we look at the means of salvation as consistently taught in Scripture we see that it is attributed to Christ alone, and that nothing can be added to that. We do believe it is commanded that men be baptized in water to affirm their profession of faith in Christ, and that this pictures the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. But, we understand that one is saved through faith in Christ...alone. No work of man can bring about salvation, for if that were possible, Christ need not have gone to the Cross to pay the penalty of our sin Galatians 2:21).


God bless.

 

Hello Trevor, as I say in the OP, water is never mentioned. And when we consider which baptism Paul might be referring to, we can see that for the very Apostles the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is the Baptism through which they were empowered to go into all the world and preach the Gospel.

The reference to our likeness to His death is spiritual. When we are immersed into Christ we are simultaneously born again, and that is due to our becoming something new, something which we were not before...spiritually alive.

Note carefully...


Romans 6:3-4

King James Version (KJV)

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


4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.


Paul does not say we were baptized into water, for our identification is not with water, but Christ Jesus. This is a literal immersion into Christ, and that which Christ teaches will happen after He has departed...


John 14:20

King James Version (KJV)

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.



The context of this indwelling is teaching about the coming of the Comforter, another Comforter Who would, unlike the departing Christ, be with them/us...forever.

The Reconciliation that occurs in salvation is a re-union of God and man. Man is born spiritually dead, and this is the root cause of his nature, which is only sinful. He cannot be righteous because there is nothing in him righteous.

But, when Reconciliation takes place, because God enters into man, we are placed into Christ. That is our righteousness before God.

Here is that reunion spoken of by Paul:


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


Now, consider that Christ is the Baptizer. We know that because John prophesies about the Baptisms Christ will perform in contrast to His own:


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


John's Baptism is contrasted with two Baptisms Christ will effect, one with the Holy Ghost, which refers to salvation itself (which was yet future at this point, also foretold by Christ in John 14 and 16 (in specific detail, not the only places He teaches about the Comforter)), and one with fire, which speaks of eternal judgment (i.e., wheat versus chaff, gathering versus the chaff being burned up with unquenchable fire).

We see that the disciples had not yet been Baptized with the Holy Ghost on the very Day of Ascension:


Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.


And as the OP mentions...we do not see the disciples baptized again, but rather, see them receive the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. The only Baptism they would have undergone that we are aware of is John's Baptism, and that baptism is contrasted by John, Christ, and Paul...


Acts 19

King James Version (KJV)

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

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

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


The Baptismal Regenerationist will try to support his doctrine by saying they received the Holy Ghost when baptized, but as mentioned in the OP, we have occasions where the Holy Ghost comes upon those believing first. For example, Peter preaches Christ and the result of the preaching is (and I will just pick up in the tail end of Peter's sermon)...


Acts 10:40-48

King James Version (KJV)

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

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?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.


Now the only thing that remains consistent in all instances of salvation is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Nowhere is Christ said to baptize with water, and when water is mentioned, it is dismissed as the former medium. Christ is the Baptizer, and water Baptism is performed by men. Men to not transfer salvation, salvation is the Operation of Sovereign God.

So when Paul speaks of our being Baptized into Christ, in view is a literal immersion into Christ. This is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost. We are saved by the washing (cleansing) of regeneration and...the renewing of the Holy Ghost.

And just wanted to encourage you to join in on the "Were men born again before Pentecost" thread.

Thanks for your response.


God bless.

 

Trevor, I have already acknowledged that we see people baptized and receiving the Spirit in the OP.

How about those who received the Spirit before being baptized? When were the Apostles baptized?

I am not saying people should not be baptized, but that the baptism which is salvific is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, which is present in all of these salvation events, but, some have water baptism afterwards.

Acts 10, for example, we see the Holy Ghost falling on them through the preaching of the Gospel.

In Acts 2, we see the same thing we see in John's baptism...the baptism signifies repentance and identification with Jesus Christ. It is not saying that one will receive the Holy Ghost through that baptism, no more than the Pharisees would have repented by being baptized (which is why John rebuked them).

Where do we see baptism demanded here...

Acts 16:27-33

King James Version (KJV)

27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.

28 But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm: for we are all here.

29 Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas,

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.


...?

Here...

Acts 8:5,12 (KJV): 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 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.

...we see belief precedes baptism. And we can see they were baptized...but they had not received the Holy Ghost...

Acts 8:12-17

King James Version (KJV)

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.

13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

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 Ghost.


Now which baptism saved these people? Was Simon saved because he believed and was baptized?

Here...


Acts 8:36-38 (KJV): 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. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

...we again see belief precedes baptism. And just as in the Jailer's case, baptism was secondary to faith in Christ. Here it is made clear that one may be baptized if they believe, rather than may believe if they are baptized. Simon believed but his heart was not right with God, and he refused to repent of his sin.

And finally...


Acts 10:44-48 (KJV): 44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Spirit 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 Spirit. 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 Spirit as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Why is this significant? Why would anyone forbid the baptism identifying these Gentiles with Christ?

Because Gentile Inclusion was a mystery. Peter himself can be seen to have an issue with Gentiles. This event was for the purpose of showing that God had saved (was saving, is saving) them as well.

And we see they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost prior to water Baptism.

Now, here is one for you, my friend:


Titus 3:4-5

King James Version (KJV)

4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,

5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


Where is water Baptism in this?

What part do men have in the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost?


God bless.

 

Excellent response, Trevor, thanks!

The first thing I would point out to you that is of utmost importance is that we distinguish between that which is salvific (meaning the operation of Sovereign God in salvation) and that which pertains to our walk with Christ. Simply put, we distinguish between Positional Sanctification and Progressive Sanctification.

Now let me illustrate the difference using your proof-text: You may well be crucified with Christ in a perspective of Progressive Sanctification, but, from a perspective of Positional Sanctification you, my friend...did not die on the Cross with Christ.

Christ alone died for the sins of man, and He alone is credited for a Death that is salvific. What you do after you have been saved does not, in any way, contribute to why and how you were saved on an eternal basis.

Now how we apply that to the Redemptive Plan in an overview of Redemption is to point out that many Old Testament Saints were justified by faith, but not one of them were made perfect in regards to redemption. We have discussed this in short in past discussions, but, this is a critical piece of the "puzzle," the Mystery of the Gospel.

I am getting close to my time being up here, as it is time to move on to a new forum, but, I may begin a new thread on Perfection. Understanding that redemption was incomplete until Christ died is vital to a sound view of Redemption.

And that is the purpose of discussion, that our views be presented and others of faith challenge those views. When challenged only two results should occur, the position stands, or it falls. We can help each other as we point out weaknesses in our views.

So you allow your view on one verse to nullify the many teachings that make it clear that water baptism is not salvific?

Again, if by "making progress" you mean I come to accept your view, that is simply not going to happen concerning this doctrine. The incredible weight of testimony that denies Baptismal Regeneration should, for the serious student of the Word of God, make that absolutely clear. There is nothing in Scripture that negates the fact that salvation is attributed to Sovereign God solely, and that the means of Life for the lost, for those dead...is Christ, the Bread from Heaven.

And I will continue here to isolate your questions better, perhaps to bring at least some point into focus, that we might thresh it out.


Continued...

 

But Trevor...I haven't argued from silence, lol.

I have given quite a bit of Scripture to illustrate Baptismal Regeneration is a faulty view.

And while Christ was Baptized in water, again, I would point out that Christ never Himself baptized with water (which above you imply He did), and that the Baptism which Christ was baptized with was under Law, and...

...it is clearly pointed out that the Baptism of the Baptizer is not water.

It is never said to be water.

And in fact three times water is contrasted with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost.

Three times John's Baptism is dismissed and the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is what was to come (prior to Pentecost), and what had come (Post-Pentecost).

Nevertheless, here again is John saying basically, "The day is coming when you will not be baptized with water, but with the Holy Ghost and with Fire...by the Baptizer Christ:"


Matthew 3:11-12

King James Version (KJV)

11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


Christ reiterates that water baptism to profess repentance is contrasted with the coming Baptism with the Holy Ghost:


Acts 1

King James Version (KJV)

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.


Paul reiterates:


Acts 19

King James Version (KJV)

1 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.


And in this last we see that in view is belief in Christ which is associated with receiving the Holy Ghost.

All three contrast John's Baptism with the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, and water is not in view. The Holy Ghost is.

And while this last has them being baptized in the Name of Christ...


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

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.


...we still do not make this to mean something different than what is taught in our previous sections.

And I would point out that water is not mentioned in this last event.

These men were baptized unto John's baptism...and that was not good enough. They had not even heard about the Holy Ghost. They were commanded by John that they were to believe on Him that would come after them.

They had not done that yet.

When they were baptized, their identification changed from John...to Christ.

Now, what is it that Paul is concerned with?


Acts 19

King James Version (KJV)

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.


That they had received the Holy Ghost.

This is the same concern in First Corinthians 1 when he deals with the issue of baptism, and rebukes the Corinthians for sectarian division:


1 Corinthians 1:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


There is simply no way we can attribute a salvific context to the very water baptisms all of these people had undergone. The primary issue is that Christ died for them.


14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;


As mentioned in the OP, if salvation required water baptism...then Paul is saying here "I am glad I didn't lead you people to Christ."

Understand?

If water baptism is required, or, one receives the Holy Ghost (which without one is not saved at all) when water baptized, Paul refutes a very simple fact...he did lead these people to the Lord.

Just think about that, Trevor, and see if you can reconcile water baptism as having salvific value when Paul is glad he did not participate in their baptism.

And again, we see that he is rebuking them for erroneously identifying with himself, Apollos, and Peter, when their identification is with Christ Himself.

How about those claiming to be "of Christ?"

Glad you asked, because this should be the final nail in the coffin for this argument because it makes it clear water baptism, even in association with Christ Himself...isn't the issue.


1 Corinthians 1:12-13

King James Version (KJV)

12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


The issue that stands in preeminence for believers is that Christ died for us.


Continued...

 

I have never intimated that in the least.

In view is not an intent to deny Christian Baptism, but Baptismal Regeneration.

On a salvific level being water baptized is not necessary, because we are not saved by obedience to anything other than obedience to the Gospel.

Again, we have two different aspects of salvation in view, which, if we do not keep all passages within the proper context, we will corrupt the teaching. Those two aspects of our salvation are progressive and positional sanctification.

Progressive sanctification:


Philippians 2:12

King James Version (KJV)

12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.


Positional sanctification:


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


This topic is worthy of it's own thread, and seldom do we see it discussed in detailed discussion.

The Baptism with the Holy Ghost should be viewed from the eternal and salvific perspective which does not relate to the efforts of men, whereas water baptism does. The disciples were commanded to go out and preach the Gospel, baptizing people in the name of Christ.

What that means is that they were to preach the Gospel and identify them with Christ, as opposed to, as our group in Acts 19, something or someone else, like John.

The disciples did not "save" people, but were used of God to convey the very thing that does save...the Gospel. Salvation is wholly the operation of Holy God.

That is the Testimony of Scripture from Genesis 3:15 to Revelation 22.

But you are ascribing water baptism as a meritorious work associated with salvation.

That is in error, my friend.

That is the perspective and context of this thread (to reject Baptismal Regeneration, not reject Christian Baptism), and there is nothing I have ever said to discourage anyone from being water baptized.

A similar discussion would be to reject trans-substantiation. If I did that, would you say I was telling people they should not partake of Communion?

Let me ask you this: does Communion impart salvation? Maintain salvation?

The obvious answer is no, and this is the same issue we are dealing with concerning Christian Baptism.

On the contrary, I have done nothing of the sort, lol.

In fact, I have pointed out that Christian Baptism is a profession of something that has already taken place. Remember the conversation about John refusing to baptize the Pharisees? He did that because he accused them of falsely professing something which the baptism represented. When those people were baptized of John, the profession was one of repentance.

As I am pretty sure I have already said...John's baptism did not create repentance, repentance was required prior to one being baptized by John.

The same is true for Christian baptism...one has to believe first.

And not one passage in Scripture gives even the slightest intimation that belief or salvation is a result of Christian Baptism. IT simply represents, like repentance in John's baptism, something that has already taken place.


Continued...

 

This is altogether a different topic, though I can understand why it would come up, seeing that several salvific events are followed by the display of gifts.

But yes, I do distinguish between the two, because one is the event and the other is the result of the event. The event is salvation, and the gifts given unto believers are results, even as eternal life is a result.

This strays from the topic, but I will just say, when the Pentecostals can show me someone exercising what I believe to be the Gift of Tongues (languages) in the manner it is exercised at Pentecost, I will have no problem recognizing it as a gift of God.

The Day of Pentecost had 17 different languages represented, and it is clear that the intent and result of the Gift of Languages was to convey the Gospel:


Acts 2:5-11

King James Version (KJV)

5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,

10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,

11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.


While I have heard instances in the Mission field where this gift has been said to have been witnessed...that is not the "gift" we see in operation in many Charismatic and {Pentecostal Churches. Often those churches "teach" people how to "speak in tongues," and the simple truth I would suggest to you is...

...the gifts of God are not learned, they are given.

And I hope he is happy there. I do not hate Pentecostals and Charismatics, and have known many who are sincere believers who love the Lord.

Doesn't mean I agree with their Doctrine. Doesn't mean I am going to overlook some pretty basic errors they have.

You might be surprised. Many Charismatic churches attach "Baptist" to their names, but, that doesn't mean they are Baptists. For that matter, I would point out that even among Baptists, there is a great diversity of beliefs.

But the core issue that should be found in all Baptists is in regards to, well...Baptism. lol

And where a group stands in regards to baptism is the distinguishing point of doctrinal position which in my view defines a true Baptist. The name, to the best of my Knowledge, first became associated with the Anna-Baptists, who denied a Catholic view of infant baptism, and declared that when a person understood salvation in Christ it was then that they were saved and they should be, in accordance to the Great Commission...baptized to show their profession of Christ, and in this way identify with Christ.

That was not a well received message, because what that did was change identification from a group to Christ Himself.

Now who do you think would take offense at that?

Those teaching that men were saved through infant Baptism.

Well, primarily because Baptists have a reputation to uphold, since we are known as diligent students of the Word of God.



I do not reject glossolalia because I am a Baptist, my friend, I reject it because it is not the gift exercised in Acts, it is a pagan practice that the Corinthians would have been influenced by. Look into the Oracle of Delphi. We see the use of glossolalia in that pagan ceremony.

The gift of languages has, like all gifts, an intended use, and like all gifts, those purposes all pertain to the spreading of the Gospel and the glorification of Christ.

Whereas in the modern movement of tongues...we can see clearly who is glorified in the practice.

A basic instruction manual on how to learn the gift of tongues would be "...clear you mind and just speak whatever comes into your head."

Is that how the Word of God and godly behavior has ever been taught? No, we are to maintain self control and be reasonable and logical in our handling of the Word of God.

I usually stay away from this topic, because people get their feelings hurt if one denies a practice they have embraced. But you brought it up, so, I have to be honest in my response. And the truth is, pretty much everyone is going to be offended when one disagrees with their doctrine. That is not how it should be, but that is the ugly fact about Doctrinal Discussion, lol.

Continued...

 

No, all relevant passages make it clear that it is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost which pertains to salvation itself, and that water baptism is a command which has significant meaning in a culture where to be baptized in the Name of Christ could not only cause one to be excommunicated, could not only cause one to be rejected of his family, but...could get one killed.

Those who were baptized in the name of Christ in the First Century, as well as other periods of History, stood at risk of far more severe penalties than anyone in our own cultures in modern days are faced with. We would have to look at countries that are primarily Muslim to get a parallel, where one might face the dangers of public profession the First Century Believer faced.

It's a valid point. Cornelius' salvation was a lesson to Peter, really, concerning Gentile Inclusion. So too is the event in Samaria.

And we keep that in mind, but, we don't create a doctrinal position that stands in direct contradiction to the rest of the New Testament. And the overwhelming basic principle is that salvation is wholly of Holy God, it is through Christ's death only, and it is not something that any effort of man can either effect or maintain.

It is wholly of Holy God, Who is absolutely Sovereign in all aspects of salvation and those elements are in the Eternal Perspective, not the temporal.

For example:


Colossians 1:14

King James Version (KJV)

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


This verse sums up how salvation is accomplished. It is the consistent teaching of the New Testament.

You are the only one bringing that into the discussion, Trevor.

At no time have I said believers should not be baptized. The point is to combat imposing a salvific context to Christian Baptism.

Right. Because they did not repent, not because they were not baptized.

For the Pharisees to be baptized apart from genuine repentance is parallel to people being water baptized apart from being saved.

Bot baptism identify the one being baptized with the object of the baptism, in the case of John's Baptism would be repentance, and in the case of Christian Baptism would be Christ.

To say that people are saved when they are baptized is equal to saying the people baptized of John repented when baptized.

And I would point out that in view is Baptismal Regeneration, which refers to regeneration occurring when one is baptized. It is true that one is born again when they are Baptized with the Holy Ghost, but that takes place when one believes, not when they are water baptized. Just as the people coming to be baptized were professing they had already repented.

You assume too much, lol.

Simon was baptized, wasn't he? The Pharisees were rejected because they were public figures, and apparently their rejection was based on public image. We do not preclude, either, that John was not supernaturally made aware of their hearts. This rebuke would forever be written into the pages of Scripture as a lesson in regards to repentance, so it is very likely that John's knowledge and the rebuke that came forth had a supernatural element.


Continued...

 

They were? lol

I have found no Scripture that supports a view that God needs to use men to save anybody.

Nobody "passes on the Holy Spirit."

This is the point of the fact that Christ is the Baptizer.

Nowhere do we see that men Baptize with the Holy Ghost...only Christ.

Who...


Acts 8:34-39

King James Version (KJV)

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

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.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.


...passes who in this account? lol

DO you see how what Philip states contrasts the view you are trying to defend?

Look at it again:


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.


Now let me ask you the same question, Trevor: what hinders a man from being baptized with water?

What is the prerequisite taught here?

This prerequisite is the consistent teaching of the New Testament.

And neither of these instances support Baptismal Regeneration.


God bless.

 

Just noticed this...I didn't put that in there intentionally, lol.

I will replicate the statement to see if it activates the code again:

Whereas in the modern movement of tongues...we can see clearly who is glorified in the practice.


God bless.

 

That is odd. I didn't put it there and I have changed it in the original statement.

Not sure how that happened.


God bless.