Baptismal regeneration

[lakeside]

Jordan, Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit.

 

[Zenas]

Perhaps you could explain to me how people in Acts were able to receive the Spirit of God before they received baptism? did God give his spirit to people who were not saved and regenerated?

It only happened once (Cornelius and his household). In view of a dozen or so other times when the Holy Spirit came with baptism, Cornelius must be viewed as an anomaly. The best explanation I have heard is that the Holy Spirit came on these people to convince Peter (the skeptic) that salvation really was for the uncircumcised.

 

[PreachTony]

The thief on the cross received Baptism by desire and from the washing of blood.

You have been adamant in your argument that water baptism is required for salvation, and now you are changing your position in order to shoehorn the thief into glory. The fact is, lakeside, you cannot be so flimsy in your stance. The thief was not baptized, and it did not matter to the Lord. The thief was still in Paradise with Christ. There was not "baptism by desire." That phrase, so far as I can tell, isn't even a biblical starting point. Sorry, pal.

 

[DHK]

It only happened once (Cornelius and his household). In view of a dozen or so other times when the Holy Spirit came with baptism, Cornelius must be viewed as an anomaly. The best explanation I have heard is that the Holy Spirit came on these people to convince Peter (the skeptic) that salvation really was for the uncircumcised.

According to Acts 16:31 his household WOULD be saved. The time is not given.
But given the historical facts, Cornelius and his wife were between 50-52; had four children--3 boys and one girl. In all between the youngest and oldest there was a range of ten years. Thus the two oldest were recently married with no children and the two youngest were still teens. There were no infants.
How do I know all this?
The same way Catholics know there were infants in the household.

As for Cornelius, all that were saved were baptized. If they were regenerated they were saved. Regeneration and salvation take place simultaneously.
But Peter said: "Who can forbid baptism?" And thus they were all baptized later.

 

[DHK]

And yet there is not a single English translation that says "because of the remission of sins," or words to that effect. Even those translators who believe like you always say "for the remission of sins." Maybe that is because they know deep down that "for" best translates this word into English.

Actually there are some.

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.

Acts 2:38 πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων και ληψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος

The word in question is the Greek preposition "eis" one of those pesky prepositions that have so many meanings.

Take for example:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:

εγω μεν βαπτιζω υμας εν υδατι εις μετανοιαν

Now just a few verses earlier John the Baptist had said:
Matthew 3:8 Therefore bring forth fruit worthy of repentance! (WEB)
--He wanted proof that they had repented. He would not baptize them unless they had repented.
He would baptize them "unto" repentance, or because they had repented.
It is the same word used in Acts 2:38 with the same meaning.

"Baptized for (unto) or (because of) the remission of sins.
Because they had repented they were baptized.
Because they had received the remission of sins they were baptized.
That is the meaning. That is how the Greek word is used.

"eis" is used 1,773 times in the NT and in a variety of different ways.

 

[PreachTony]

Acts 16:30-33 - it was only the adults who were candidates for baptism that had to profess a belief in Jesus. This is consistent with the Church's practice of instructing catechumens before baptism. But this verse does not support a "believer's baptism" requirement for everyone. See Acts 16:15,33. The earlier one comes to baptism, the better.

Only a believer can truly be baptized. Why the Catholic church refuses to believe this is beyond me. The Bible is clear that only believers were baptized. Not once is a non-believer baptized.

For those who come to baptism as adults, the Church has always required them to profess their belief in Christ.

Good. As it should be. This is scriptural.

For babies who come to baptism, the Church has always required the parents to profess the belief in Christ on behalf of the baby.

This is pointless, lakeside. My parents cannot speak on behalf of me before God. You know who can? ME! I can give account for me. I cannot give account for anyone else. Should I get married and have children, no matter how much I will wish I could, my experience with God is not sufficient to save them. They must come to God on their own. Not through my testimony.

But there is nothing in the Scriptures about a requirement for ALL baptism candidates to profess their own belief in Christ (because the Church has baptized babies for 2,000 years).

The church has done a lot of things. They have thoroughly corrupted the practice of baptism. Do not base your belief on this topic off what the Catholic church says. Base it off scripture. Scripture shows only believers being baptized. No babies. It does nothing for a baby. It only gets them wet.

Acts 16:33 - Paul baptized the jailer (an adult) and his entire household (which had to include children). Baptism is never limited to adults and those of the age of reason. See also Luke 19:9; John 4:53; Acts 11:14; 1 Cor. 1:16; and 1 Tim. 3:12; Gen. 31:41; 36:6; 41:51; Joshua 24:15; 2 Sam. 7:11, 1 Chron. 10:6 which shows “oikos” generally includes children.

You cannot say "his household had to include children." You don't know that, so the argument is not valid. Baptism is not limited to adults, but it is clearly limited to those who profess faith in Christ. There is not one single instance in the New Testament, post crucifixion, of a person being baptized without confessing Christ.

Rom. 5:12 - sin came through Adam and death through sin. Babies' souls are affected by Adam's sin and need baptism just like adult souls.

Different discussion for a different day. Loads of threads have already danced over this topic. Needless to say, only the RCCers seem to be as adamant as you in thinking baptism somehow saves someone.

 

[Robert William]

Only a believer can truly be baptized. Why the Catholic church refuses to believe this is beyond me. The Bible is clear that only believers were baptized. Not once is a non-believer baptized.

Good. As it should be. This is scriptural.

This is pointless, lakeside. My parents cannot speak on behalf of me before God. You know who can? ME! I can give account for me. I cannot give account for anyone else. Should I get married and have children, no matter how much I will wish I could, my experience with God is not sufficient to save them. They must come to God on their own. Not through my testimony.

The church has done a lot of things. They have thoroughly corrupted the practice of baptism. Do not base your belief on this topic off what the Catholic church says. Base it off scripture. Scripture shows only believers being baptized. No babies. It does nothing for a baby. It only gets them wet.

You cannot say "his household had to include children." You don't know that, so the argument is not valid. Baptism is not limited to adults, but it is clearly limited to those who profess faith in Christ. There is not one single instance in the New Testament, post crucifixion, of a person being baptized without confessing Christ.

Different discussion for a different day. Loads of threads have already danced over this topic. Needless to say, only the RCCers seem to be as adamant as you in thinking baptism somehow saves someone.

Your doing a good job Tony, lakeside does not give a rats behind about truth. He serves himself, feelings, and traditions of men.

 

[Eliyahu]

Baptismal Regeneration is a Heresy supported by Augustine and Calvin.

Jailor's family were all baptized( Ac 16:33) because all of them believed ( Acts 16:34)


Eliyahu

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan, Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.

There is also a definite parallel between John 3:5 and Titus 3:5: (1) John 3:5 – enter the kingdom of God / Titus 3:5 – He saved us. (2) John 3:5 – born of water / Titus 3:5 – washing. (3) John 3:5 – born of the Spirit / Titus 3:5 – renewal in the Spirit.

Titus 3:5 is the washing of regeneration done by the blood of Christ and the Spirit of God. no way is it water baptism.

Get out of here with that.

John 3:5 born of water is the physical birth where we are born and the amniotic sac is broken, the subject is the New/Spiritual birth whereby we are brought into the kingdom of God. John 3:6 even defines vs 5, it says that which is flesh is flesh..

Your bible interpretation is so out of context and ignores the rest of scripture. You will answer to God for holding the traditions of men above the scriptures.

 

[PreachTony]

How in the world did I miss this one?

These are the ordinary steps for sinners to convert: believe, repent, baptism. Those have not reached the age of reason, can "immediately" receive the free gift of salvation in Baptism, based on the faith of their parents (Acts 16:33) and, of course, they must profess faith themselves when they come to the age of reason.

No. No no no no no! Good grief, NO!
No one is saved based on the response of someone else. It never happens. No where in scripture is someone saved because of the testimony of someone else. A baby is not saved because you sprinkled some water on it. Especially not if that salvation is then dependent on that baby making a profession of faith once grown up. That is so horrifically anti-scriptural...

 

[Robert William]

Baptismal Regeneration is a Heresy supported by Augustine and Calvin.

Jailor's family were all baptized( Ac 16:33) because all of them believed ( Acts 16:34)


Eliyahu

Were there babies there, if yes, were the babies able to understand and embrace the gospel?

 

[lakeside]

PreachTony, you wrote: " No. No no no no no! Good grief, NO!
No one is saved based on the response of someone else. It never happens. No where in scripture is someone saved because of the testimony of someone else. A baby is not saved because you sprinkled some water on it. Especially not if that salvation is then dependent on that baby making a profession of faith once grown up. That is so horrifically anti-scriptural... "


The infant that is baptized has a much better chance for receiving the Fullness of the Christian Faith than an infant in one of the protestant churches, why, because that young infant will be a recipient of the Holy Spirit way before any protestant child, being that the Baptized infant will have,not only parents, but also has{ G } god-parents that are responsible for the child's education on Jesus and His Teachings [ leading children to Christ ]. The Baptized infant is liken to Jesus { Matt.19:13-15 ] ".......... Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."


In Matthew's Gospel the Greek word that does not denote any particular age of children is " paidia. "Luke's Gospel uses the word"brephe " a Greek word which means "infants", children who are too young to walk and therefore were unable to "come to Christ" under their own power. These infants, Luke tells us, were being brought to Christ by adults, most likely their parents, so that Christ " might touch them". In the sacrament of baptism, Christ touches the soul with His grace and life. Holy Scripture tells us that baptism in the New Covenant replaces circumcision in the Old [ Col. 2: 11-15 ] So, in the same way that Jewish parents, prior to the time of Christ, would covenant with God on behalf of their eight day old infant, Christian parents also do covenant with God through baptism.

Jesus sees the faith of the adults of those that bring others for baptism as in { Matt.8:5-13 ] where the centurion.s servant is healed because of the centurions faith in Christ [ MATT.15:21-28 }where the Canaanite woman's daughter was healed because of the mother's appeal to Christ on behalf of her daughter, and perhaps most strikingly in Luke 5: 17-26. In this episode, a crippled man friend's bring him to Christ ".... " the Gospel tells us that when Jesus saw their faith....."

 

[Eliyahu]

Were there babies there, if yes, were the babies able to understand and embrace the gospel?

Nope!

There was no baby and therefore all the house could believe.

Eliyahu

 

[DHK]

The infant that is baptized has a much better chance for receiving the Fullness of the Christian Faith than an infant in one of the protestant churches, why, because that young infant will be a recipient of the Holy Spirit way before any protestant child, being that the Baptized infant will have,not only parents, but also has{ G } god-parents that are responsible for the child's education on Jesus and His Teachings [ leading children to Christ ]. The Baptized infant is liken to Jesus { Matt.19:13-15 ] ".......... Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."

So did the one thief on the cross have a better chance of "receiving the fullness of the Christian faith" (whatever that means) because the other thief called upon Christ?
NOPE! He went to hell anyway.

There is only way to heaven and that is faith through Christ. Water doesn't save; it only gets you wet. Baptismal regeneration is as much a Hindu belief as it is Christian. In fact they practiced it first.

 

[McCree79]

PreachTony, you wrote: " No. No no no no no! Good grief, NO!
No one is saved based on the response of someone else. It never happens. No where in scripture is someone saved because of the testimony of someone else. A baby is not saved because you sprinkled some water on it. Especially not if that salvation is then dependent on that baby making a profession of faith once grown up. That is so horrifically anti-scriptural... "


The infant that is baptized has a much better chance for receiving the Fullness of the Christian Faith than an infant in one of the protestant churches, why, because that young infant will be a recipient of the Holy Spirit way before any protestant child, being that the Baptized infant will have,not only parents, but also has{ G } god-parents that are responsible for the child's education on Jesus and His Teachings [ leading children to Christ ]. The Baptized infant is liken to Jesus { Matt.19:13-15 ] ".......... Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."


In Matthew's Gospel the Greek word that does not denote any particular age of children is " paidia. "Luke's Gospel uses the word"brephe " a Greek word which means "infants", children who are too young to walk and therefore were unable to "come to Christ" under their own power. These infants, Luke tells us, were being brought to Christ by adults, most likely their parents, so that Christ " might touch them". In the sacrament of baptism, Christ touches the soul with His grace and life. Holy Scripture tells us that baptism in the New Covenant replaces circumcision in the Old [ Col. 2: 11-15 ] So, in the same way that Jewish parents, prior to the time of Christ, would covenant with God on behalf of their eight day old infant, Christian parents also do covenant with God through baptism.

Jesus sees the faith of the adults of those that bring others for baptism as in { Matt.8:5-13 ] where the centurion.s servant is healed because of the centurions faith in Christ [ MATT.15:21-28 }where the Canaanite woman's daughter was healed because of the mother's appeal to Christ on behalf of her daughter, and perhaps most strikingly in Luke 5: 17-26. In this episode, a crippled man friend's bring him to Christ ".... " the Gospel tells us that when Jesus saw their faith....."

I see DHK has addressed some things earlier. I will not repeat him, but I will address 2 of your last paragraphs.

Colossians:
"In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead."

"You were raised with him through faith". Paul makes it clear faith is the driver here. Not baptism. Baptism is just the identification with Christ in his death along with identification with Christ in his resurrection. Dying and rising in Christ symbolizes, death to the power of sin and our life in Jesus.

Luke 5:17-20.
"On one of those days, as he was teaching, Pharisees and teachers of the law were sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem. And the power of the Lord was with him to heal. And behold, some men were bringing on a bed a man who was paralyzed, and they were seeking to bring him in and lay him before Jesus, but finding no way to bring him in, because of the crowd, they went up on the roof and let him down with his bed through the tiles into the midst before Jesus. And when he saw their faith, he said, “Man, your sins are forgiven."

Whose faith did Jesus see? We know it was faith of multiple people, hence "their". The word " their" does not exclude the faith of the cripple. For the cripple to be forgiven of his sins, he would have also had to have faith.

 

[Robert William]

Nope!

There was no baby and therefore all the house could believe.

Eliyahu

:thumbs:

You mean household of believers.

 

[Zenas]

According to Acts 16:31 his household WOULD be saved. The time is not given.
But given the historical facts, Cornelius and his wife were between 50-52; had four children--3 boys and one girl. In all between the youngest and oldest there was a range of ten years. Thus the two oldest were recently married with no children and the two youngest were still teens. There were no infants.
How do I know all this?
The same way Catholics know there were infants in the household.

As for Cornelius, all that were saved were baptized. If they were regenerated they were saved. Regeneration and salvation take place simultaneously.
But Peter said: "Who can forbid baptism?" And thus they were all baptized later.

I'm not following you here. Your response doesn't seem to have anything to do with what I had said and you quoted.

 

[Zenas]

Actually there are some.

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.

Acts 2:38 πετρος δε εφη προς αυτους μετανοησατε και βαπτισθητω εκαστος υμων επι τω ονοματι ιησου χριστου εις αφεσιν αμαρτιων και ληψεσθε την δωρεαν του αγιου πνευματος

The word in question is the Greek preposition "eis" one of those pesky prepositions that have so many meanings.

Take for example:
Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance:

εγω μεν βαπτιζω υμας εν υδατι εις μετανοιαν

Now just a few verses earlier John the Baptist had said:
Matthew 3:8 Therefore bring forth fruit worthy of repentance! (WEB)
--He wanted proof that they had repented. He would not baptize them unless they had repented.
He would baptize them "unto" repentance, or because they had repented.
It is the same word used in Acts 2:38 with the same meaning.

"Baptized for (unto) or (because of) the remission of sins.
Because they had repented they were baptized.
Because they had received the remission of sins they were baptized.
That is the meaning. That is how the Greek word is used.

"eis" is used 1,773 times in the NT and in a variety of different ways.

Yes, I am aware of these. However, I was referring to Acts 2:38. If eis meant "because of" it would seem that some translator would use it. However, I have not seen a single English translation or paraphrase that translates eis as "because of" or "on account of" or words to that effect in Acts 2:38. They all use "for".

 

[Zenas]

even if For is the best translation, that does not prove the meaning of for is "in order to receive" instead of "because of". For is an English word with multiple meanings. and I already demonstrated that it can also mean because.

"I go to jail FOR crime."

does one go to jail in order to receive crime?

For is word that has multiple meanings, you are guilty of choosing a meaning that makes the verse contradict other scriptures. It cannot possibly mean in order to receive Baptism is a work of righteousness which according to Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:5 cannot be the case

Jordan, I will give you a challenge. Go out on the street and read Acts 2:38 to a dozen random people, unfamiliar with scripture. Then ask them to describe in their own words the relationship between baptism and forgiveness of sins. I will be very surprised if any of them says anything other than that this verse shows baptism somehow causes forgiveness of sins. If you do this, let me know how it turns out.

Now, as for baptism being a work of righteousness, that is what you say. You won’t find that in scripture. And you have certainly misplaced the import of Titus 3:5 which is itself a reference to baptism. Yes, I know you will reject this. You have to because if you accept that washing of regeneration refers to baptism your whole house of cards comes tumbling down. However, it is a truth that was universally acknowledged without exception from the close of the canon to late in the reformation.

 

[PreachTony]

The infant that is baptized has a much better chance for receiving the Fullness of the Christian Faith than an infant in one of the protestant churches, why, because that young infant will be a recipient of the Holy Spirit way before any protestant child, being that the Baptized infant will have,not only parents, but also has{ G } god-parents that are responsible for the child's education on Jesus and His Teachings [ leading children to Christ ]. The Baptized infant is liken to Jesus { Matt.19:13-15 ] ".......... Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Truly, I say to you whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it."

In other words, Catholics have a better chance of being saved than protestants do... You actually think that being baptized as an infant means a child will have a better education than a non-baptized infant. I wasn't baptized as an infant and I received a great education in Christ, because I had a family and a church family that cared. Having god-parents doesn't necessarily mean you have a better education.

In Matthew's Gospel the Greek word that does not denote any particular age of children is " paidia. "Luke's Gospel uses the word"brephe " a Greek word which means "infants", children who are too young to walk and therefore were unable to "come to Christ" under their own power. These infants, Luke tells us, were being brought to Christ by adults, most likely their parents, so that Christ " might touch them". In the sacrament of baptism, Christ touches the soul with His grace and life. Holy Scripture tells us that baptism in the New Covenant replaces circumcision in the Old [ Col. 2: 11-15 ] So, in the same way that Jewish parents, prior to the time of Christ, would covenant with God on behalf of their eight day old infant, Christian parents also do covenant with God through baptism.

What eight-day old infant FEMALE was circumcised? The fact is, the outward circumcision was replaced in the new covenant by "circumcision of the heart." That is a circumcision not made by hands, one made by God Himself, and available to all believers. It has nothing to do with baptism. Baptism is a great thing for a believer. But it imparts no saving grace, it is not some magical conduit to God. It does absolutely nothing for unbelievers or for those incapable of making a profession of faith.

Jesus sees the faith of the adults of those that bring others for baptism as in { Matt.8:5-13 ] where the centurion.s servant is healed because of the centurions faith in Christ [ MATT.15:21-28 }where the Canaanite woman's daughter was healed because of the mother's appeal to Christ on behalf of her daughter, and perhaps most strikingly in Luke 5: 17-26. In this episode, a crippled man friend's bring him to Christ ".... " the Gospel tells us that when Jesus saw their faith....."

Note that these people were healed of physical maladies, not the sickness unto death, which is sin. Forgiveness and cleansing of sin comes from God. We can pray for those around us that they might come to repentance, but we cannot repent for them.