Biblical Baptism (Part 3-3): The Errors of Baptismal Regeneration, Continued.

Acts 22:16

16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

In actuality, Baptism does not wash away sins, but then why was Paul instructed to get baptized “… and wash away thy sins…”? Look at the underlined words and look at the following passage:

13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
– Romans 10

Now read this: “… and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” I believe that the word “By” is implied here so as to read as “… and wash away thy sins, (by) calling on the name of the Lord.” By reading it as I put it, it harmonizes well with the overall context of salvation in terms of salvific methodology. One is saved by Faith Alone,

Romans 6:3-4

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

In showing this passage, they, the supporters of BR says that by being Baptized the person mystically participates in His death, burial, and resurrection and so the recipient is saved, regenerated which also washed his/her sins are washed away.

However, the context (6:4-7) indicates that this is not to be taken literally as it speaks of it in a spiritual sense. Recall that in Part 1 that the root word for Baptism (Gk: Baptizo) means “To be identified with”.

Romans 6:3 is really about the fact that when the Roman believers are Baptized, they were identified with Christ. By undergoing Baptism they’re showing the world the change wrought within them. So how can they go on sinning when they’re supposed to be changed believers? Their continued sinning send a contrary message that they are not.

Later, Paul said that sinners are a slave to sin. So when they do they’re either slaves to sin or slaves to righteousness, thankfully, they’re not but a slave to the latter (6:13-18).

Colossians 2:12

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

This is in a similar language of Romans 6:3-7 so this should not be taken literally. Not only that, see the proceeding context:

11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

So, if Baptism here is to be taken literally then why did verse 11 say “… ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands….”? What Colossians 2:12 is really saying is that the Colossians believers were regenerated spiritually. If vs 12 really did speak of the ordinance of Baptism, then our regeneration would be by hands and yet vs 11 contradicts that notion.

2 Peter 3:21

21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The first question to be asked about this is, “What is it that Baptism saves us from”? It is in reference to Noah when he was saved by water in vs. 19-20 which should strike one as odd. Supporters of BR believes that Baptism saves yet the proceeding verses speaks of the water saving Noah by destroying all of the inhabitants.

What is being spoken of here is having a peace of mind, saved from worry, that one is saved from judgment. So when we were Baptized as believers, it reminds us of the fact that we’re saved from the judgment and wrath of God. That is why it says the latter verse of 21 “… (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:”

And when it says, “… by the resurrection of Jesus Christ”, it speaks of His work of regeneration alone… and not ours. Back to Colossians 2:11, we are circumcised made without hands and so this is no different.

Concluding Notes

If you are new to bible reading and/or apologetics, you will notice a commonality with how I’ve answered each verse, and that commonality is the use of context. the context of scripture is the most important thing with regard to proper interpretation.

That is how scriptures are answered, not just doctrinal issued claimed to be biblical such as Unitarianism, Hebrew Roots, and of course, Baptismal Regeneration but alleged Bible Contradictions as well as to explain disturbing events such as the annihilation of the people of Canaan, the practice of slavery in Israel, and the suffering and loss of Job.

The first book that should take as priority for apologetics study is not “Kingdom of the Cults” by Norman Geissler*, nor is it the “Case for Christ” series by Lee Strobel, but the Holy Scriptures. the Bible. This is true for all other areas of study whether it be for holiness and purity; for the running of the church; for the missions field, or for the raising of the family; the Bible takes precedence over all. The Bible, and the Bible alone decides what is to be established, what is to be kept, and what is to be rejected.

The Bible is God’s word.

12 The eyes of the Lord preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.

19 That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee.
20 Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge,
21 That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
– Proverbs 22:12, 19-21, 30:5-6

CORRECTION: The author of “The Kingdom of the Cults” is by Dr. Walter Martin, not Norman Geisler.

Published by a.israelthomas

A Protestant Christian whose mission is to defend the Gospel, the fundamentals of the Faith, and to reach the lost for their salvation. The Icon that I'm using conveys multiple purposes of a Christian believer. The sword represents our mission to evangelize; not through force of arms, but through the truth of the word of God (Psalm 19:7-9). The shield represents our obligation to defend the truths of the scriptures and the confessions of the faith (1 Peter 3:15). Lastly, the wings represents the grace, love, gentleness, and care we must show and give to each other as brothers and sisters in the Lord, and everyone else around us - to the righteous and to the unrighteous - as God has loved us (Ephesians 2:2-3 & 1 John 4:19). IMAGE SOURCE: Sword Shield FreeImg.com https://freepngimg.com/png/32238-sword-shield/icon

7 thoughts on “Biblical Baptism (Part 3-3): The Errors of Baptismal Regeneration, Continued.

  1. Thanks for the good, Bible-based series on Biblical baptism!

    RE: Geisler and Strobel

    Many people put their trust in apologists like Geisler (d. 2019) and Strobel (who is more of a pop apologist). While both of them would agree in theory with your articles denouncing baptismal regeneration, they are both ecumenists and embrace as fellow Christians those who propagate baptismal regeneration (i.e., Roman Catholics).

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Actually, Walter Martin made several ecumenical concessions to Roman Catholicism. I’ll send you the links to some posts I wrote about him tomorrow.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I’ve written many posts on Norman Geisler, a prominent theologian who mentored many of today’s pop apologists including McDowell, Craig, Strobel, Zacharias (d. 2020), Turek, etc. All embrace ecumenism with Rome just as their mentor, Geisler, did.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I knew Norman Geisler/s view of the RCC is not good, as he does not see them as having a false Gospel, but i was hoping that Lee Strobel was not the same as. But, he is a member of Saddleback church (if I’m right), and the pastor who he was under is Bill Hybels. I’ve only come to discover the latter when I’ve watched the popular movie on Lee Strobel.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: