Ten Reasons To Reject Baptismal Regeneration

[P1LGR1M]

I never went to church. my family never went to church. My dad was saved later in life and it is was in a truck listening to the radio.

My dad kept witnessing to me and a couple years later I was saved as I walked out of my shop. Never went to a church before this and was no where near a church.

I started to investigate churches after I was saved. did this for probably a year, just sat in the back and listened. I was never led to be baptized or had the ear to hear if it was preached.

SO, I was asked by a friend to do a mission trip in Alaska. I couldn't go unless I was baptized and affiliated with a particular church. So I got baptized.................for that reason. To go to Alaska.

If I knew what I know now, I would of refused baptism. That is not the reason we get dunked in a tank of water.

I would never hinder someone who wants to be dipped in a tank of water. But water baptism is not for the Church. Water baptism was a teaching tool, to show the reality of the coming TRUE baptism of the Spirit.

Thanks for the testimony, I can relate to it, as my own experience with a church was very limited when I was a kid.

But, there is a purpose for Christian Baptism, first being that the disciples were commanded to Baptize in the Name of Christ. Again, the significance has a historical value lost in Modern Christendom, but, there is no Scripture that nullifies this command.

In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul addresses the issue of sectarian division, and makes it clear that in view the important issue is that Christ died for us, not who baptized us. But he doesn't say that the practice should not be carried out.

There is a danger of going to extremes when refuting false doctrines. One example would be denying the deity of Mary as embraced by some Catholics (they range in belief from honoring Mary, which we should, she is a very special person in Scripture, to viewing her as Co-Redemptrix) and taking that to the point where we despise Mary, as if it is her fault some people are confused, lol.

While I would agree that salvation is not dependent on being water baptized, I do maintain the view that it is the first act of obedience in the life of a believer, and see no valid reason not to comply with what is seen as traditional to the Church.

By the way, was there a particular Preacher your dad listened to that he felt instrumental to his own coming to Christ?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Pilgrim...I whole heartedly agree with you on this topic. Yes, we identify with JESUS CHRIST by being baptized in water, as HE was and set an example that gave us the full picture of JESUS, GOD (The Father) and the presence of the Holy Spirit at one time, all present and accounted for.

But we notice the Father and the Spirit were not water baptized by John, lol.

I view Christian Baptism as a public profession of faith in Christ, and the imagery is that of one being dead, buried, and raised (to new life). We could use dirt and make it more impressionable, but, that would be time consuming and a bit messy.

What I see is that most denominations do not emphasize the importance of being baptized 'in the spirit"

And that is the purpose of this thread, as it will cover a number of topics vital to our understanding. Our conclusions on this specific topic has great significance to our Soteriology.

And I am getting the impression that you may believe the Baptism with the Holy Ghost is an empowerment, which is a subsequent "work" of God. I have to be straight-forward and say that I do not take that view, but view the Baptism with the Spirit of God to be the Baptism in which believers are immersed into Christ, and this through the eternal indwelling of God Himself.

But understand, I am not making light of your beliefs, if that is the case, and would be glad to discuss that particular issue in this discussion. I am fully aware that many take this view, and it is understandable in light of a few key passages, but, I see the disciples being empowered through receiving the Spirit of God. Empowerment for the Christian is much like the Old Testament ministry of the Holy Ghost, which we call filling. There is a significant difference between a Christian receiving the Spirit of God and a Christian being filled with the Spirit of God.

for then, it would run against the grain of the denomination itself!

I don't know, my Pastor can be a little Bapticostal at times, lol.

I attend an Independent Baptist Church, and while I don't agree with every doctrine taught there (and all fellowships are different), in large part it is a great place for a new believer to become grounded in Scripture.

Why, if people were allowed to gather in spirit, in one accord, seeking the Holy Spirit, inviting HIM to be part of the worship service, it would cause a huge disturbance, it would not be able to be put on the big screens, it would take time away from the choir singing a well practiced Special, and it just might cause the altar to be used and the decorations would be knocked over or have to be taken down to make room for the people coming forward.

We do that every week. We understand that where two or three are gathered, that Christ is there in the midst of us.

I will say that I am not particularly fond of the specials, and think there is just a little too much music, but, I can understand that for some this is a big part of worship. Personally, I Prefer Congregational singing, and the old Hymns. But, I don't decide how a service is run, and to be honest, most people today are used to a general format in the Worship Service. And traditional is not always a bad thing. So the general tradition should cover most. While one might enjoy communion with God through preaching, others might enjoy worship through music.

Who wants to miss the Noon dismissal?

Not me, we let out a little early, and I am always thankful to beat the Methodists to the restaurant if we go out to eat.

Just kidding.

Who needs to hear praising, singing, and witness people responding to the movement of the Holy Spirit. Somebody just might shout, or dance or laugh and then the bats in the belfry would be awaken.

Believe it or not, that happens in my fellowship as well, but, it is not a matter of people disrupting the service.
The presence of God is something each believer seeks in worship, and for some of us that may be different. While I have nothing against brothers and sisters who prefer a more lively service, I myself prefer an atmosphere I feel shows the respect the House of God deserves. But that's me. I don't question other denominations, because I believe that in most of them we will find members of the Body, even as I think in most of them we will find tares. The ratio of one to the other will be, I believe, in large part impacted by the purity of the Doctrine taught there.

But I thank you for your contribution pwrnJC, and again invite you to discuss the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, as this is simply an on topic issue that continues the discussion.


God bless.

 

[Gr8grace]

Thanks for the testimony, I can relate to it, as my own experience with a church was very limited when I was a kid.

But, there is a purpose for Christian Baptism, first being that the disciples were commanded to Baptize in the Name of Christ. Again, the significance has a historical value lost in Modern Christendom, but, there is no Scripture that nullifies this command.

In 1 Corinthians 1 Paul addresses the issue of sectarian division, and makes it clear that in view the important issue is that Christ died for us, not who baptized us. But he doesn't say that the practice should not be carried out.

There is a danger of going to extremes when refuting false doctrines. One example would be denying the deity of Mary as embraced by some Catholics (they range in belief from honoring Mary, which we should, she is a very special person in Scripture, to viewing her as Co-Redemptrix) and taking that to the point where we despise Mary, as if it is her fault some people are confused, lol.

While I would agree that salvation is not dependent on being water baptized, I do maintain the view that it is the first act of obedience in the life of a believer, and see no valid reason not to comply with what is seen as traditional to the Church.

By the way, was there a particular Preacher your dad listened to that he felt instrumental to his own coming to Christ?


God bless.

96 AD nullifies water baptism IMO. The word gives us everything we need to know about our union and identification with Christ. Water baptism was a visual aide because the early church didn't have the completed canon.

Water baptism does nothing for the Christian way of life or our spirituality. The only Good we can do and only true obedient works we do are through the Spirit and the Spirit doesn't need to be dipped in a tank of water.

Like is said, I would never hinder a person from being dipped in a tank. But if the person didn't know why they were being dipped and no one said a word and didn't explain(from the word) what was going on...........what benefit is there in it?

It is what it MEANT that was important, not the act. And we have all we need to know about our identification in Christ from His completed word. The first act of obedience for the believer is be filled with the Spirit and Grow in His grace and knowledge.


Chuck Smith.

 

[P1LGR1M]

96 AD nullifies water baptism IMO. The word gives us everything we need to know about our union and identification with Christ. Water baptism was a visual aide because the early church didn't have the completed canon.

Water baptism does nothing for the Christian way of life or our spirituality. The only Good we can do and only true obedient works we do are through the Spirit and the Spirit doesn't need to be dipped in a tank of water.

Like is said, I would never hinder a person from being dipped in a tank. But if the person didn't know why they were being dipped and no one said a word and didn't explain(from the word) what was going on...........what benefit is there in it?

It is what it MEANT that was important, not the act. And we have all we need to know about our identification in Christ from His completed word. The first act of obedience for the believer is be filled with the Spirit and Grow in His grace and knowledge.


Chuck Smith.

I don't have a great problem with that, though I do not see a nullification of the practice in Scripture, so for myself, if I were to start a denomination, I would include Baptism as a part of the tradition. Communion as well.

But I agree that it is critical that we understand that the spiritual aspects of salvation must be understood. If you started a denomination which excluded the tradition of Baptizing, one thing for sure, it's not something that would impact the preaching of the Gospel. Of course, you are going to have guys like me asking "How come we don't baptize people?" lol

By the way, if I did start a Church, I think I would call it "The First Church of the Stranger," lol. How about you?

I once visited a Free Will Baptist Church, where foot washing is an ordinance. Just as some of us believe Baptism and Communion to be an ordinance, they believe we should actually have a foot washing ceremony.

Talk about getting to the restaurant after the Methodists...

But they said those who did not wish to participate didn't need to. So I can see a bit of a parallel between your view on Christian Baptism and Foot Washing. Just as the Lord washing feet and using this to illustrate service, and it has a historical significance (being a land of people with extremely dirty feet, that is), I guess I can understand a view that rejects a need for Christian Baptism. Again, we do not see a command or instruction in regards to Foot Washing, as we do in regards to Baptizing in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or in the Name of Jesus Christ, or see it practiced in quite as many references we see baptism, so I think that not baptizing would raise questions for many.


God bless.

 

[SOGMan]

Now, I would be glad to look at these "loop-holes" and "gray areas" you perceive in Scripture, as well as invite you to address the points made (which again, were made to stir up discussion on this issue).

1) I'd be delighted to accommodate you. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread on this topic, since it is wildly off-topic re: the baptism discussion.

2) You realize, however, that I know almost nothing regarding your outlook on Scripture or your faith background and experience, nor you mine. As such, most of our initial discussions must be devoted to establishing baselines from which to operate.

Because...

This is a question that transcends differences in doctrine, and cuts right to the heart of how we perceive Religion/God/Canon/.../.../...etc.

Do you really want to start this?

 

[dcontroversal]

Would you mind providing a context for the quote?


God bless.

The context is he believes in baptismal regeneration and is saying you are blind to the gospel would be my guess...

 

[Kefa54]

Place that question into the historical context of the Early Church and we could come up with a number of reasons why men would refuse to be Baptized in the Name of Christ. Especially for a First Century Jew, who risked being excommunicated from the society he grew up in. Possibly death.

The command to be baptized demanded that a true profession be verified by baptism. Those who refused would evidence that their faith was not something they would give up what they had for.

Today, in our modern culture here in America, we have the problem of people thinking that baptism has salvific quality. And for those groups which teach that salvation begins at water baptism, the problem of false profession of faith is compounded.

Those that teach that people receive the Spirit and are regenerated when they are water baptized instill a false sense of security that Scripture never intends to do. Scripture intends to convict the heart, and help people avoid a false sense of security.

Genuine faith is evidenced in the lives of believers, and there is a change in them. But how many are involved in what is called "Churchianity," as opposed to Christianity? Many have been, through poor teaching, convinced that because they were baptized, and go to "church" regularly, that they are Christians. Some think Christianity is something that can be entered into through heritage.

So addressing Baptismal Regeneration is a serious matter, and unfortunately, like some other issues, it might be thought that a rejection of Baptismal Regeneration is a rejection of Christian Baptism, which is generally considered to be the first act of obedience for a new believer.

Those who refuse raise questions as to the genuine nature of their conversion. It is unlikely that someone recently under conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment...would seriously refuse to obey what Christ has commanded.

I think we need to understand, though, that the danger of improperly understanding Christian Baptism demands that we understand salvation better, that we might better impart to new believers how they were saved, and how they were not saved. Teaching someone they receive salvation and/or the Spirit of God by being baptized by a man stands in direct contradiction to Scripture.

For most of us it seems simple enough, Christ is the Baptizer, not men. We are Baptized into Christ, not water. The identification with Christ is expressed in Christian Baptism, but, that Baptism would have meant something entirely different back then, in regards to a public profession. Here in America, and perhaps many parts of the world, the worst thing one might experience is a little embarrassment if they are overly shy. If one stood to be ostracized, and possibly put to death for a profession of faith, that would be a different story altogether.


God bless.

If a person accepted Christ and refused to be baptized?? I would be lead to question their commitment.

My question would be. Why would a healthy believer not want to be baptized?

Kefa

 

[Kefa54]

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. BUT this sure looks like a command to me....
Matthew 28:18-20Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) [SUP]18 [/SUP]Then Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [SUP]20 [/SUP]teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

 

[Dan_473]

long post... I'll start here, and we can go from there...

From the very beginning, lol.

The point is made here, I believe:


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

[SUP]2 [/SUP]Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


While it could be argued based on Romans 3:1-2...

Romans 3

King James Version (KJV)
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

[SUP]2 [/SUP]Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

In the Hebrews and Romans passages there, I see that God gave humans his word... but I don't see the "why" part... I don't see that they say that it was so humans could know everything about God's will...

While someone might find a vague reference to something they feel is not something any man can understand, chances are we need only cross reference that "mystery" with the overview of Biblical Doctrine and come to an understanding of it.

Christ stated...


John 16:13

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

does the passage say how long the guiding takes? maybe it takes a lifetime... if so, then at any point up until the moment of a person's death, they are not yet in all truth...

 

[P1LGR1M]

1)


I'd be delighted to accommodate you. Perhaps you would like to start a new thread on this topic, since it is wildly off-topic re: the baptism discussion.

Excellent suggestion.

1)
2) You realize, however, that I know almost nothing regarding your outlook on Scripture or your faith background and experience, nor you mine.

I have a very simple philosophy about this, if we study Scripture and understand it better, it relieves us of having to waste time in study of other belief systems. I heard of a man that worked in the counterfeit division of some agency who was asked, "I guess you spend a lot of time studying counterfeit money, don't you?" He replied, "No, I study the genuine article, then when I run across the counterfeit I can easily identify it." That made a lot of sense to me, and has shaped my approach to addressing views I feel to be in error.

1)
As such, most of our initial discussions must be devoted to establishing baselines from which to operate.

Not really, you present the loop-holes and gray areas, and we will discuss it.

Scripture will be the Mediator.

1)

Because...

This is a question that transcends differences in doctrine, and cuts right to the heart of how we perceive Religion/God/Canon/.../.../...etc.

Agreed, but as long as we agree that Scripture is the final authority, there shouldn't be a problem. I will say I recognize a 66 Book Canon, and while I understand some of my brethren view other books as inspired, I do not. I can recognize historical value, but I don't recognize them as foundational to Doctrine and Practice. So I would ask that we keep it within that Canon, and if you have a problem with that, I'm pretty easy to get along with, lol.

1)
Do you really want to start this?

Absolutely, lol, I think it would be a lot of fun.

I started the thread "Gray Areas."

Look forward to it, SOG.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

If a person accepted Christ and refused to be baptized?? I would be lead to question their commitment.

My question would be. Why would a healthy believer not want to be baptized?

Kefa

Again, persecution could be a reason. Keep in mind that because water baptism is not salvific, and all believers start out as babes, who lack knowledge, experience, and have a faith that is not grounded in Scripture (and we can find exceptions, such as someone who sat in a fellowship for years only to realize they were not actually saved, and had been playing church), that the possibility for their to be hesitance to be baptized could arise. It would not mean they lose their salvation, because born again believers pass out of eternal judgment. It could impact their reward, though this too is questionable. It would be similar to being angry with a baby because you have to change their diaper.

And I think that most new converts will have no problem with it. In about 20 years I have never heard of someone refusing to be baptized.

And I would agree, refusal might be a reason to question the genuine nature of their confession. But the bottom line still remains water baptism does not contribute to salvation. Salvation is accomplished through the Cross of Christ, and we can see that He died alone on that Cross. No man contributes to eternal salvation, for if that were possible, as Paul wrote...Christ is dead in vain.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. BUT this sure looks like a command to me....
Matthew 28:18-20Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) [SUP]18 [/SUP]Then Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. [SUP]19 [/SUP]Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [SUP]20 [/SUP]teaching them to observe everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

I would agree, it is a command. But, who is the one this command applies to first?

The disciple. Meaning, it will be the more mature Saint that is under obligation to baptize. That does not negate that we see a call for new converts to be baptized, specifically the quote in the OP.

But consider a scenario where the leadership refuses to baptize. Let's say they question the genuine nature of a profession and say "We are not going to baptize you until we watch your life and test the genuine nature of your profession."

Does this impact the convert's salvation? Not at all.

But written into the Great Commission is the command to "teach them to observe everything I have commanded you." And the first thing on the list would be to believe on Christ. The obvious second would be baptism in His name, that they be identified with Christ. And while we can speculate about scenarios where one would not be baptized, as well as how one should be baptized (sprinkling, immersion), the general tradition has been for converts to be baptized in His Name.

But, as there is a tendency sometimes to exaggerate an issue, where in attempting to enforce a doctrinal position sometimes we go overboard to the point we recreate the doctrine, we should be careful to maintain that baptism with water is physical, and it is the Baptism with the Holy Ghost that is Spiritual and salvific. A person can be water baptized ten thousand times and still not be saved.

And that is how I view Baptismal Regeneration, it is an exaggerated doctrinal position that blurs the truth of baptism.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

long post... I'll start here, and we can go from there...

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by P1LGR1M

From the very beginning, lol.

The point is made here, I believe:


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

[SUP]2 [/SUP]Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


While it could be argued based on Romans 3:1-2...

Romans 3

King James Version (KJV)
1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

[SUP]2 [/SUP]Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

In the Hebrews and Romans passages there, I see that God gave humans his word... but I don't see the "why" part... I don't see that they say that it was so humans could know everything about God's will...

Well, let me ask you this: why did God tell Adam and Eve that they were not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Why did God not respect Cain's offering?

Why did God tell Noah to construct the Ark?

Why did God tell Abraham to leave his country?

We understand the answer to those questions in Scripture, right?

When we go into the Age of Law, which the above verses would be more specific to, we could ask "Why did God send Moses into Egypt?"

Why did God have Moses pen Scripture?

The why is in there, and it is always that men would know His will.

While someone might find a vague reference to something they feel is not something any man can understand, chances are we need only cross reference that "mystery" with the overview of Biblical Doctrine and come to an understanding of it.

Christ stated...


John 16:13

King James Version (KJV)
[SUP]13 [/SUP]Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

does the passage say how long the guiding takes? maybe it takes a lifetime... if so, then at any point up until the moment of a person's death, they are not yet in all truth...

I would agree with that. The bottom line still remains that for those diligent to seek after God's will...it's right there for them in His Word. He had no intention of confusing us, but to reward us.

It doesn't really matter that it is a journey, the destination is still promised to us. And we make that trip a step at a time.



God bless.

 

[mailmandan]

The context is he believes in baptismal regeneration and is saying you are blind to the gospel would be my guess...

Believing in baptismal regeneration (or any other works for salvation) is not believing in Christ. In John 3:36, we read - He who believes in the Son has everlasting life.. *Notice that this BELIEF is not in yourself, getting water baptized or any other type of good works. Notice also that this BELIEF is not in Jesus Christ "plus something else," (Jesus needs no supplements!) otherwise the BELIEF (trust, reliance) would not be "IN THE SON." Whatever we are trusting in to save us, that's what we BELIEVE in. Unfortunately, in the case of most people, it's works.

The gospel is the "good news" of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) and is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16). The gospel is HID (2 Corinthians 4:3,4) to those who don't believe the gospel by refusing to trust exclusively in Christ's finished work of redemption as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation. The gospel is not "water baptized or condemned."

 

[Dan_473]

Excellent suggestion.

I started the thread "Gray Areas."

Look forward to it, SOG.


God bless.

thanks for starting that thread!

I responded to two of your posts from here (30 and 33) over there...