Refutation of baptismal regeneration utilizing Mk. 16:15; Acts 2:38; 22:16

One movement that holds to baptismal regeneration is the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma clearly represents the RCC: “Baptism is that Sacrament in which man being washed with water in the name of the Three Divine Persons is spiritually reborn …. Faith, as it is not the effective cause of justification … need not be present. The faith which infants lack is ... replaced by the faith of the Church. The formula ‘ex opere operato’ asserts, negatively that the sacramental grace is not conferred by reason of the subjective activity of the recipient, and positively, that the sacramental grace is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 971-972). The Latin phrase “ex opera operato” means “by work performed” which means grace is conferred by the sacrament of baptism.

Mark 16:16 cannot be used to teach baptismal regeneration: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” The second part of the verse negates baptismal regeneration being taught in the first part because of the omission of baptism as a basis for condemnation. “The verse is simply talking about general cases without making a pedantic qualification for the unusual case of someone who believers and is not baptized” (Grudem, 981).

Neither can Acts 2:38 be used to teach water baptism saves. The eis is not purposive or causative as baptismal regenerationalists would teach. “It is equally true that it may say that baptism is not for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins but because of forgiveness (that had already taken place at repentance).  Eis is clearly used with this meaning in Matthew 12:41---‘they repented at (on the basis of, or because of) the preaching of Jonah.’ It certainly cannot mean in that verse that they repented with a view to the preaching of Jonah” (Ryrie, 337).

Refutation of infant baptism

There are two contrasting views on whom should be baptized. Credobaptists contend that only believers should be baptized and paedobaptists advocate for infants to be baptized.

There are some groups of paedobaptists that believe infant baptism is necessary for salvation. Roman Catholic Church believes that the sacrament of baptism is necessary for salvation and therefore unbaptized infants go to Limbus Infantium. Augustine believed in the eternal damnation of unbaptized infants (Bowman, Infant Salvation, 1).

Augustine wrote: It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, chapter 21, AD 412).

Covenant theologians also believe that infants must be baptized because Old Testament infants were circumcised. Their argument says that since circumcision and baptism are closely linked in Colossians 2:11-12 infants must be baptized.

Argument from Colossians 2:11-12

Douglas O’Donnell, senior lecturer in biblical studies and practical theology at Queensland Theological College in Brisbane, offers this argument for infant baptism:

There were two signs of the covenant in the Old Testament—circumcision and the Passover. It is fairly clear that the Lord’s Supper replaces the Passover. That baptism replaces circumcision seems logical (a point from Colossians 2:11–12?), but the exegetical connection is not certain.

Guy M. Richard, president of Reformed Theological Seminary in Atlanta, is much more certain that Colossians 2:11-12 teaches infant baptism: Colossians 2:11–12 makes the theological connection between circumcision and baptism explicit by applying both spiritual circumcision (of the heart) and spiritual baptism (of the Holy Spirit) to the Christian. If inward circumcision and inward baptism are linked, then surely their outward signs—that is, physical circumcision and water baptism—are as well (“Paedobaptism” in Tabletalk. click to open).

My response is that Paul is clearly not talking about physical circumcision but spiritual circumcision in Colossians 2:11 when he writes about “the circumcision made without hands.” Neither is Paul talking about physical baptism but spiritual baptism in Colossians 2:12. Paul does not make the connection between physical circumcision and infant baptism. That connection has to be read into the text.

Our spiritual circumcision (v. 11) took place when God regenerated us (cf. Gal. 5:24). It involved Christ cutting off the domination of our sinful nature (flesh), which slavery characterizes the unregenerate person (cf. Rom. 7:24-25). “Baptism” (v. 12) is Spirit baptism (Thomas Constable at netbible.org).

Argument from Covenant Theology

O’Donnell continues: Some of the important texts on infant baptism are not “baptism” texts, notably Abraham and his new covenant faith (Romans 4) and Paul’s view of the children of believers (1 Cor. 7:12–14; Eph. 6:1). Are we still under the Abrahamic covenant, the covenant of grace? If so, how should we treat our children? Perhaps like Abraham treated Isaac—as an heir of the covenant (Hughes, R. Kent. The Pastor's Book, Crossway. Kindle Edition, 402).

Paedobaptists equate the Abrahamic Covenant with the New Covenant in defending infant baptism.

“The argument rests on the covenant theology concept of a single covenant of grace which involved an initiatory rite into that covenant, the rite being circumcision in the Old Testament and baptism in the New Testament. These rites indicate membership in the covenant, not necessarily personal faith” (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, 423).

Guy M. Richard who is a paedobaptist makes this argument: “Galatians 3:16 and Romans 4:11–12, furthermore, teach us that the Abrahamic covenant is essentially the same as the new covenant”(Guy M. Richard “Paedobaptism” at Tabletalk (click to open).

In the Old Testament, the Abrahamic Covenant found originally in Genesis 12 and the New Covenant given to Israel in Jeremiah 30:34 are two separate covenants. The two covenants are never connected in the New Testament. In Romans 4:11-12, Paul is teaching the doctrine of imputation which is by faith in 4:3 and not works which includes circumcision. Paul is downplaying the importance of circumcision not making a connection to baptism of infants.

“Baptism is the initiatory rite into a believing community, the church; therefore it should only be done to believers. By contrast, circumcision initiated people (including infants) into a theocracy which did have unbelievers in it” (Ryrie, 423). “There is no Biblical parallel, for circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant (Genesis 17:9-4); whereas, baptism in the New Testament identifies with the local church. If the two were parallel then covenant theologians cannot explain why infant girls are baptized” (Hoyle Bowman, Advanced Ecclesiology, 38).

Argument from Titus 3:3-7

O’Donnell continued to argue for infant baptism: Titus 3:3–7 is important for at least two reasons: (1) it shows the link between regeneration and Spirit baptism using the water metaphor, and (2) the water metaphor is pouring (Hughes, R. Kent. The Pastor's Book (p. 402). Crossway. Kindle Edition).

Salvation is the subject of Paul in Titus 3:3-7, not baptism, and pouring is never used in reference to water baptism. The word “baptize” means to immerse. Lexicons define the Greek word baptizo to mean to dip, immerse, or submerge. “The intens. βαπτίζω occurs in the sense of ‘to immerse’ (trans.) from the time of Hippocrates, in Plato and esp. in later writers, ‘to sink the ship’” (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). To immerse is how the word is used in Scripture (Lk.16:24). There is a word for sprinkling in Scripture: ῥαντισμός rantismos (1 Pet.1:2). There is also a word for pouring in Scripture: ἐκχέω ekcheo (Acts 2:17). But neither of these words is used for baptism.

Argument from “household salvation”

Guy M. Richard writes: Ever since Genesis 17, God’s people had been practicing “household” circumcision, applying the outward sign of God’s inward covenant to professing adult believers (who never received it before) and to their children. Indeed, we would expect to find some mention in the New Testament if, after thousands of years of including children in the covenant community as recipients of the covenant sign, things were supposed to be so radically different in the new covenant era. Are we really to believe that children are now cut out of the covenant community and that the old covenant is, for that reason, greater and more inclusive than the new? What is the basis for this? It runs counter to the principle of expansion that we see at work everywhere else when we move from Old to New Testament. Not only is paedobaptism consistent with the continuity that we see between the covenants and between the covenant signs, but it is also consistent with this principle of expansion because it applies the covenant sign to both men and women and to their male and female children.

Notice that it is the principle of expansion that qualifies infant baptism as part of household salvation instead of New Testament references such as Acts 16:31-34 which states that only those who believed were baptized which excludes infants.

Paedobaptist Louis Berkhof in his Systematic Theology makes this admission: “Although the NT contains no direct evidence for the practice of infant baptism in the church this is due more to the fact that the apostolic age was primarily a missionary period which focused on the baptism of adults” (Systematic Theology, 632-634). It seems to reach children in its missionary outreach would have been very important for the church to not just baptize adults but infants if it were biblical. The apostolic church did not practice infant baptism because it was not an effective method for outreach but because the Scriptures taught only believer’s baptism.

The Biblical order is that baptism follows faith in Jesus Christ (Matt. 28:19 and Acts 2:37-38) and infants cannot believe. In order for the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 to be fulfilled, the baptized must be taught to observe what Jesus taught which is impossible for infants.

How to distinguish John the Baptist’s baptism, Christ’s baptism and the Church’s baptism

“Theologically, baptism may be defined as an act of association or identification with someone, some group, some message, or some event. John the Baptist’s baptism associated His followers with His message of righteousness (he had no group for them to join)” (Ryrie, page 488). John the Baptist’s baptism was a kingdom baptism that identified his baptized converts with the kingdom he was offering (Matthew 3:1-6).

            Christ’s baptism also was a kingdom baptism for He was fulfilling all Messianic righteousness by identifying with Israel. Church baptism also means identification.  Church Baptism is the first of two ordinances and is the initiatory ordinance. “Christian baptism means identification with the message of the Gospel, the person of the Savior, and the group of believers” (Ryrie, page 489).

Answers to Twenty-Five Advanced Salvation Questions

Here is the second of twenty-five salvation questions answered:

2. What is Universalism?

            Charles Ryrie lists the verses that universalists use to support their view: John 12:32; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Philippians 2:11, and 1 Timothy 2:4.[1] These verses, however, can be shown not to teach universalism. In John 12:32, Jesus said he would “draw all men unto myself.” Jesus also mentions judgment on His rejecters in 12:48. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:22 promises that “in Christ shall all be made alive.” The promise is not to all but to all who are in Christ who will be resurrected in the first resurrection. John notes that there is a “first resurrection” and adds “Blessed and holy is he that has a part in the first resurrection: on such the second death has no part” (Revelation 20:5-6). Paul in Philippians 2:11 does predict “that every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” This is a future prophecy of all people including the unsaved bowing to the Lordship of Christ, but Paul does not promise that all unsaved are going to acknowledge Him as Savior. So many other Scriptures teach against second changes after death (Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 16:19-31; Revelation 20:11-15). 1 Timothy 2:4 like 2 Peter 3:8 expresses God’s desire or wish for all sinners to be saved not His determination that all unsaved will be saved. Another strong argument is the fate of the two human opponents of Christ: the antichrist and false prophet in Revelation. At Christ’s second coming, both are cast into “the lake of fire burning with brimstone” (19:20). One thousand years later after the millennium, Satan is “cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are” (20:10) and have been for 1000 years. Then John adds “and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

            [1] Charles Ryrie. Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986), 607.

Answers to Twenty-Five Advanced Salvation Quesions

Here is the first of twenty-five salvation questions answered:

1. What is Restorationism?

            Michael Horton stated that “the concept of universal restoration (apokatastasis) was taught by the ancient Gnostics.”[1] So Horton shows the similarity between restorationism and apokatastasis and universalism. Horton also calls apokatastasis and universal restoration inclusivism. Horton notes the conflicting views of Karl Barth on universal restoration. In one place in his Church Dogmatics, he writes “There is no one who does not participate in Christ in this turning to God... There is no one who is not raised and exalted with him to true humanity.” But for them, Barth insists, “The Church ought not to preach Apokatastasis.”[2]

            The difference between restorationism and universalism seems to be that restorationism emphasizes the restoration of even Satan and his demons. Horton refutes universal restoration. “Any notion of a final restoration of all spiritual beings, including Satan and his demonic forces, is dispelled by the clear teaching of Scripture that they will be destroyed.”[3] As argued under universalism, Satan, the antichrist, and the false prophets eternally perish according to Revelation 19:20 and 20:10. Origen, however, in his Apokatastasis also taught the restoration of Satan and his demons. So, it is difficult to find a clear distinction between restorationism and apokatastasis, and universalism.

            [1] Michael Horton. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On The Way (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 976.

            [2] Karl Barth. Church Dogmatics, vol 4. 2, (New York: The Tower Building, 2010), 27.

            [3] Michael Horton. The Christian Faith, 981.