Truth Unites - Baptismal Regeneration: Responding to Common Arguments

Episode Date: March 14, 2022

Here I respond to some common arguments in favor of baptismal regeneration.   Truth Unites is a mixture of apologetics and theology, with an irenic focus.   Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) serves as senior pastor of First Baptist Church of Ojai.    SUPPORT:  Become a patron: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites  One time donation: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/truthunites   FOLLOW:  Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/  Website: https://gavinortlund.com/

People often say if there's anything that's clear in the church fathers, if there's anything that's universal, it's baptism or regeneration. From the New Testament as well, people will often say, look, the New Testament couldn't be clearer about this. You guys interpret the Bible so literally until you come to the baptism texts. And then when you get to 1st Peter 321, baptism now saves you. And there's six or seven other texts that assign saving efficacy to baptism. You twist into pretzels to get around them. You know, that's the charge. And you've probably heard that if you're into these discussions at all.

It's very common. And this is a really key area in the whole issue of differences among Christians today, this whole question of baptismal regeneration. So I'd like to give a response to those concerns in this video, drawing and kind of summarizing some of the things I've done in earlier videos and having a few new thoughts as well. My hope is this could help people who are wrestling with this, but also it could push the conversation forward so that perhaps those who are making those appeals

would maybe make them a little bit less absolutely or simply in relation to some of the observations I'm going to make. So I'm going to go in five steps here. We're going to talk about first I want to define baptismal regeneration. Then I'm going to explain my view as an alternative to baptism of regeneration. Won't be arguing for it yet. Just want to get clear about what these things are. right up front. Thirdly, we'll talk about the book of Acts and how baptism functions there.

Fourthly, we'll look at the rest of the New Testament, especially the epistles. And then fifthly, we'll look at baptism of regeneration in the church fathers very briefly. None of this is exhaustive, but especially that is not, that's just kind of hitting a few trajectories of thought, not going through all the fathers. So let's dive right in. First, what is baptism of regeneration? Okay, this is one of those things where this point alone could advance the conversation if there was more appreciation that there's not just one definition of what baptism or regeneration is because when the appeal comes in it's universal among the fathers we have to know what are we talking about specifically certainly there's an association between baptism and regeneration that is universal

among the church fathers but the nature of that association does change a bit from one to another and there's nuances and questions about how that relationship is construed. And then today, from a Catholic to a Lutheran to Cretto-Baptist groups like the Church of Christ, there will be differences in how baptismal regeneration is understood. So for our purposes in this video, let me define baptismal regeneration as simply the view that baptism is the ordinary means of regeneration. And I say ordinary because most traditions acknowledge that it's not always and in every case, how God regenerates someone through baptism. But ordinarily, it's how God regenerates a person.

It's through baptism. Now, one side point here is I want to call my other Baptist friends and others who don't believe in baptism of regeneration to not necessarily assume that this is works righteousness. I think we need to move away from that. People often say that, but I think that is a category error. just because you believe that baptism is the means of regeneration doesn't mean you're understanding that to be a work. Faith alone is still the way you receive that. So now I'm not saying it couldn't go into works righteousness, but I don't think it's necessarily works righteousness. And the obvious thing here is with the reformers themselves. I mean, Luther believed in both Solafide and Baptism or regeneration. Some people say he's inconsistent, but I don't think that's the best way to respond to

this whole issue. So I want to try to encourage that not to be the main criticism or concern at issue here. Now, so definition of baptism or regeneration, ordinary means of regeneration. One of the frequent consequences of this view throughout history is that baptism is thereby necessary for salvation. Okay. Now, one of the curiosities in this is people will appeal to all of the church fathers for saying baptism of regeneration, but then they'll leave off that appeal to tradition with regard to the necessity of baptism for salvation, which was kind of a frequent corollary of it. So there's a selectivity in this appeal to tradition. It's like, we're appealing, look at what all the fathers say. Oh yeah, and they're also saying this other thing, but we'll

leave that off. Now, that is not universal. The idea that baptism is necessary for salvation, you can find some people prior to Augustine who would say, no, an unbaptized baby who dies, for example, can be saved. But it comes to be pretty much universal, particularly in the West. I've looked into this. Some people deny this, but it really is true from Augustine on through Gregory the grave, through Anselm, pretty much everywhere throughout the medieval era, you find if the baby is unbaptized, the baby is damned.

Okay. Now, and then you see it in the east as well. I'm not aware of whether it's universal in the east. I can't speak to that. I know it isn't today. But historically, you see it in Dacetheus, Dacetius, and many others. But the key point here with the definition of baptism and regeneration is that with this word means, means of regeneration, we're getting at causation. This is how God causes regeneration to happen. Okay, it's the means by which it happens. Okay. So second section, here's my proposal as an alternative to that. Just, I'm not trying to argue for this, whether this is biblical or patristic yet. I just want to explain. Again, we're trying to kind of disentangle some things and be clear about what we mean by baptism and regeneration and what the various spectrum of options is. So here's an alternative, that baptism and salvation are, I'll say baptism and the blessings of salvation, including regeneration, though not limited to that, are drawn into extremely close

coordination in the New Testament and in the fathers, but that relationship is not a causative one. It's not that it's not the means of it. It's not that, you know, baptism causes regeneration. It's not that precisely, okay? So that it's really unhelpful when people frame this issue as either you believe in baptism or regeneration, or you believe that baptism is just a symbol. We hear this language all the time. Now, so let's just get some conceptual clarity about what the different options are here,

because people are often ignorant of historic Baptist views. They think that the Baptist view is that it's just a symbol. That is not the historic Baptist view. A lot of Baptists don't know that. Historically Baptists spoke of baptism as a sign, among other things, but as an effective sign by which language they were rejecting the idea that it's just a symbol. They spoke of it as a sacrament, and they didn't think of the word sacrament as an alternative to the word ordinance. They spoke of it as a meeting place of grace and faith. It's one of the

most common. It's like this. That's the touching point for grace and faith. They spoke of it as a means of grace. Some will talk about it as the objectification of faith and repentance. Some will speak of it as a ceiling of regeneration and the other blessings of salvation. Some will speak of it as a further endowment in the spirit. So you have the spirit, but you get the spirit more copiously, more abundantly at your baptism. If you want to look at all these different options, by the way, I highly recommend people checking out Stan Fowler's book, more than a symbol. He goes through 16th century, 17th century, 18th century British Baptists up to the present day and just shows over and over and over or how the idea of just a symbol isn't the historic Baptist view.

Two of the specific points of emphasis in the Baptist tradition for what God is doing through baptism, because it's not just us showing our faith or something. God is at work in it. One is the emphasis upon the gathered community. It's not just for the baptism. It's for everyone who is gathered, and it's giving a visible portrait of the gospel

to everyone who is present, and God is communicating grace to those who observe in faith. And so the language of sign and seal that you find throughout the reform tradition, that isn't just with reference to the baptism. Another emphasis in the Baptist tradition is on the experiential role for assurance of salvation in baptism. Okay? That's a really fascinating one.

If we were to cut to the chase and if I could just try to make it really conceptually clear really quickly because I'm already going on longer in this video than I thought I would. I'll try to keep it moving. Let's just use the word seal. This is one of the terms that was frequent in the Baptist tradition. So to set up the contrast like this, we're saying it's not the cause of regeneration. It's the seal of regeneration. What does that mean?

Well, here's a way you can picture it. This is from Henry Lawrence, who is a 17th century Baptist, lived from 1,600 to 1664 in history. describing the way the word and sacrament are different. And he says, the word especially teacheth, the sacraments especially seal and confirm. The word indeed signifies and applies spiritual things, but the sacraments more efficaciously represent and apply. So if we were to take a distinction here between the grace by which God brings us into a state of salvation and the grace by which God nourishes and

strengthens and furthers us in our salvation, the Baptist tradition puts baptism in the latter category. It's not the cause. Although that's not universal, you can find, of course, Baptists who do believe in baptism or regeneration. But the view that I'm trying to articulate right now is between that and the just a symbol idea. And it's saying, no, it is a powerful sealing and means of grace and communication of the spirit and communication of assurance and all these things, but it's not actually what causes you to become alive to God, because regeneration is when you go from dead and sin to alive to God. And the Baptists are saying,

no, I don't think that's actually what happens when you're baptized. I don't think baptism causes that. I think it's associated with that. It symbolizes that. It seals that and so forth. But it's not actually the cause of that. So that's brief explanation of the view. Now let's ask, why would somebody think that?

because I'm sure people are watching now and I've gotten used to the comments and how to anticipate them. And I'm sure they're saying, yeah, but that's what, that goes against all the fathers. That goes, you're just trying so hard to make your view work and that kind of thing. I don't think so. I think it's actually a view I'm inexorably driven to by the data. And let me just explain why in a spirit of appealing for less simplistic arguments for baptism of regeneration when people just say, well, it's obvious. You quote 1st Peter 321, close your Bible, case shut. And I want to say, no, it's actually not, this is actually really tricky to figure out the relationship.

And we all agree there's a profound interconnection between sign and things signified, baptism and regeneration. The nature of that relationship, that that's causative, that's not so clear, in Scripture or in the fathers. And I think this idea of a sealing actually makes a lot of sense. And I've argued for it as I'll get into metanomy and all that stuff in this video. So let's walk through this a little bit. Third section. Let's talk about the book of Acts. If I were to say, why do I think baptism isn't the cause of regeneration?

One of the reasons is over and over and over and over in my ministry and throughout my life, I see people who seem to become regenerate at faith. And then baptism happens subsequent to that. But in their catechetical process between the baptism and the coming to faith, they look regenerate already. Now, that itself is not an argument for anything, yet because the sacramentalist traditions can allow for that as a concession as something that sometimes happens as we'll see. But when you look at the Book of Acts, my experience, I think,

is what you see consistently in the Book of Acts. We've got these four major baptismal episodes in Acts and Acts 2, Acts 8, Acts 10, and Acts 19. There's a few others as well, but those are the four most pivotal ones. Now, to acknowledge two things up front, these are historic unique events. They are showing the expansion of the gospel out into different groups. So that's true. That's how one of the things the other side will say to try to kind of get around these is to say, well, this is redemptive historically unique.

And that is true that these are unique. They're also odd cases for all of us in some of them, like Acts 8. So I want to acknowledge that as well. Nonetheless, I come back to this. I don't see a single time. in the book of Acts where baptism is the cause of regeneration, where someone is baptized, and that is the instrumental means by which they are made alive to God. On the contrary, in every case, without exception, I see it happening differently, where someone comes to faith

or someone is regenerated and receives the Holy Spirit prior to the baptism. Okay? Now, again, I know that there are ways that the other side can respond and interpret that. So I'll deal with those in a little bit. But first, let's just kind of see. what this is because even in the clearest example is cornelius but even with paul in acts chapter nine when ananias lays hands on paul the spirit descends upon him upon the laying on of anonias's hands and he receives his sight back at that time according to acts nine 17 and 18 and then subsequently he rises up and is baptized that's not instrumental means of regeneration. And that's what you just see over and over throughout Acts. You get Cornelius.

They respond to, this is what I see in my ministry all the time. There's the word preached. There's a response to the gospel. In connection to that, there's the Holy Spirit reception. The Holy Spirit falls down. They're speaking in tongues. And then in response to that, Peter says, can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have. Water baptism is then subsequent to and in response to spirit baptism. And, you know, someone can say, well, those are exceptional circumstances because the gospel is expanding in this way and so forth. But maybe you can feel my dilemma, you know, because basically what I see in my ministry over and over and over and over is the same exception.

I see only the exception and never the rule. I never see someone who is, baptized as the, and then that is the cause of regeneration. Over and over, I see people who, you know, they'll come to faith on January 1st, they'll go through a catechetical process, and they'll be baptized on June 1st, and throughout the spring they look regenerate. Obviously, we don't know their heart, but they give all the fruits of regeneration. So that's sort of an initial observation that starts the process of, Okay, maybe this idea that, yeah, baptism is doing something with respect to regeneration.

It's spoken of as regenerative in some ways, but it's not actually the cause. It's the seal. Why that kind of might make sense to somebody based upon what you're seeing universally in your ministry and universally in the narrative passages of the scripture. But what about fourth section of the video? This would be the longest one. All the passages that say baptism saves. How do we then interpret those?

All right, let me make some reflections on these. All I can do is protest with all of my heart. I'm not trying to get around anything. I genuinely, I genuinely think it's unavoidable to recognize complexity in how we interpret those passages and I don't think it's crazy to wonder at. How literally do we take these? I think it's instinctive and unavoidable to wonder, how literally do we take these? So just to lay some groundwork here, I'd say, first of all, based upon the nature of what a

sacrament is, it's unavoidable that there will be linguistic complexity for how it functions. Sacraments are symbolical and representative events. I'm not saying it's just a sign, but it is at least a sign. And so you have this question of how does the sign relate to the thing signified? And basically what you see is the sign, and I think every view has to acknowledge this, the sign and the thing signified are often spoken of one for the other. One is often a stand-in. for the other. You can see that with circumcision, for example, where circumcision of the heart is signified by physical circumcision, oftentimes circumcision, physical circumcision will function as a stand-in for that. So Paul can say, circumcision is of the heart in Romans 2.28, 29.

Baptism is also the visible, public, formal part of salvation. You can look at baptism happening and say, there is salvation. That person is now a Christian. It's their formal identification. So based upon its symbolic and sort of representative thrust, as well as its visible, formal character, the possibility of linguistic complexity is only natural to wonder about here.

The other reason why it's not crazy to wonder how literally do we take these passages in the epistles, which I'm about to canvas some of those, how literally do we read those, that talk about baptism as saving is because the Bible also speaks of faith as saving, and faith and baptism are usually not coincident. So you then have to ask, well, how do we coordinate those two, right? Just like I mentioned in my ministry, it happens over and over.

And what's interesting is that almost all of the traditions that teach baptism of regeneration will acknowledge, that's why I said ordinarily, the ordinary means of regeneration, they'll almost all acknowledge that it can happen differently. Someone can become regenerate prior to baptism. And so I'll just give a few examples of this, and then I'll make the point from that. Here's how the Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard puts it. I reference this passage in my dialogue with Jordan Cooper, and I'll put up the citation so people can look it up for themselves if they're interested.

He says, when therefore they are baptized to have already been regenerated through the word as a spiritual seed, they have no need of regeneration through baptism. but in them baptism is confirmation and sealing of regeneration. You can see, there are different views in the Lutheran tradition, but you can see that view pretty commonly. Francis Peeper says the same thing. He says basically regeneration can happen prior to baptism. And in that case, baptism is simply a strengthening and confirming of regeneration.

And that's very similar to my view and to the Baptist view, sealing. We're not saying the spirit is not poured out at you in a powerful way on your baptism. We're saying it's not the cause of regeneration. It doesn't make you alive to God. And Thomas Aquinas and many others will have similar concessions. Aquinas and Subit Theologica, he'll often, at one point, he frames it in terms of a baptism of desire. But he has a way of acknowledging that, yeah, before your water baptism, you can be regenerated. Now, and so a lot of people would say the person in that catacadacal process from January 1st to June 1st,

the baptism of desire is sufficient that, first of all, they'll be saved if they die. and some would speak of them as regenerative or as regenerated or some kind of they'd see them in some kind of hybrid complicated state so that's kind of interesting now here's my point from all of that so i'm not arguing for anything just from that alone here's the point the possibility of regeneration prior to baptism generates linguistic complexity because and it and it shows why we have to wonder how do we interpret it when first peter three 21 says baptism now saves you because the person who's regenerated like Gerhardt talks about through the word, like Cornelius. Though some will say Cornelius wasn't even regenerate while he's speaking in tongues, but I don't find that very plausible. I think the better route is how most people will go and say, yeah, that can happen. When that happens, it's still true that baptism now saves you. You see, we all acknowledge that baptism can be spoken of as salvific without necessarily being the cause of salvation.

The only question is whether you see that as an exquisite. exceptional circumstance or as I do more of the norm. So for those two reasons, I would say that the language about the saving efficacy of baptism in scripture is complicated and we've got to kind of work at it. So let's do that. Let's work at it a little bit. Let's talk about some of these texts. Let's work through some of the details. What we're going to see is they're very complicated. And I won't cover all of them. Maybe I'll just make a few general comments because the same with the church fathers. I actually had planned if you can believe it or not to make this a briefer video. And here I go. But I have a meeting coming up soon, so I'll try to keep it moving.

I'll just a few general comments on these texts and then on the fathers, and I'll wrap it up. And I can say more in the comments if people want to raise a question in the comments. So here's the thing. There is language all throughout Holy Scripture, including in the Old Testament, about saving water. And no one takes every reference of that to baptism. Some of the big ones are in the Old Testament. Ezekiel, it's a common motif throughout Ezekiel. Ezekiel 169, God speaking to the nation of Israel, I bathed you with water and washed off your blood. Later in Ezekiel, there's the promise in chapter 36 of a new heart and the removal of a heart of stone, and I will put my spirit within you.

And this is where you get the language of sprinkling clean water on you to cleanse. This is an image all throughout the scripture, and I think there's two errors that we could make. on the one hand is to completely flatly identify this imagery of cleansing water with baptism so that it's nothing other than that in every text. And the other error, I think, would be to disassociate them, as though they have nothing to do with each other. And my proposal would be that there's a larger spiritual category of language of cleansing water that baptism participates in and fulfills, and it points to baptism.

but baptism does not exhaust it. It's not always and only talking about baptism without remainder, if that makes sense. So why do I say that? Well, if you look at these various passages, an interesting one would be, oh, and by the way, if you just go into the New Testament, you can just plainly see this. I mean, people always quote John 3, and we can talk about John 3. I actually don't think John 3 is an open and shut case either. But then you just keep going to John 4 and John 7, you know, cleansing water, spiritual water,

all throughout the book of John, and at times it's explicitly identified with the Holy Spirit rather than baptism, as in John 7, 38, and 39, which I'll put up on the screen. But just looking at a few of these other texts that people often take as baptism, when there's reference to cleansing water, and they say, well, that's baptism. It's actually impossible to take all of them as baptism. I think they point to baptism, but I don't think they're necessarily referring to baptism directly. So Hebrews 1022 is a good example. It talks about, you know, let us draw near to God with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies wash with pure water.

People often see baptism in this text. I think it's better to do it the way I framed it, remember, where there's a larger spiritual category of language that baptism participates in, but it's not just baptism per se. And the reason is it's talking about people who are already Christians. and he's already talked about the elementary things of the faith like washings in chapter 6 of Hebrews this whole passage is about perseverance so to have your body washed with pure water it's not really baptize he's not saying let's be baptized um he's talking about the spiritual reality baptism points to and fulfills and is typified in baptism and that that's true with a lot of the language of the old

Testament. I don't think, you know, with Ezekiel 16, I don't think God is saying, I baptized you. I mean, how would you baptize the entire nation at once? You could have an event like the Red Sea or something like that that could be seen as a type of baptism. But again, it's not baptism per se. Another example of this would be Ephesians 526, which talks about as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word. Some people see baptism in this passage. Again, it's an example of where you've got the language of cleansing water that can't refer just to baptism because you've got a reference to the entire church collectively here. There's no episode in which the entire church collectively

was baptized. But there is, we can understand that with reference to the effects of Christ's saving death for the church. So what I'm trying to say here is there's, again, linguistic complexity in how we coordinate sign and things signified. And I think it's a little bit sloppy to just, you know, cut through all of that nuance and just say, well, if it's saving water, it's baptism per se. Now, if it's saving water, it's got a relationship to baptism, but it doesn't necessarily mean it is baptism.

I'll just, I've got so many notes on some of these other passages, Titus 3-5 and the text and acts. I won't go through all of them for the sake of time. And I've said more about 1st Peter 321 in my dialogue with Jordan Cooper. people could see that if they're interested. But essentially I would just say if people are wondering what, okay, so because I know some people will accuse me of just trying to throw complexity at things. I'm not. I'm trying to abstract what the meaning is. Because if you can't take it as baptism all the time, well then what do you take it as? And the view that I've argued for

is one I've expressed with the word metonymy, which means part for the whole. So in the sentence, the blood of Jesus saves, we're not saying that it's the blood as distinct. from the flesh. The blood is representative of the larger complex of events we associate with Jesus's death on our behalf. So similarly, when we say baptism saves, this doesn't mean baptism per se. Baptism as distinct from the prior parts of conversion that lead up to it, but baptism as representative of that entire process, because baptism is the visible picture of salvation. So it's true that baptism saves, but it's not like, well, you're unregenerate until you actually get in the water. And the metaphors I've given for this are, you know, graduating from college,

the actual graduation ceremony is the visible public expression, but you're not actually made a graduate on that day. You can, for job application purposes, function as a graduate as soon as all your coursework is in. Or the coronation service of a monarch that doesn't actually make the person the king or queen. Technically, they're already the king or queen, but that's when they're formally publicly recognized as such. Sometimes there's like a year gap between when you become the queen and you're actually coronated as with Queen Elizabeth the second. There were 14 months between.

That's the idea here. That baptism is not the cause of regeneration, but it is the sort of formal public summative expression of salvation. And among other things, it's sealing salvation. So that's hopefully can explain the idea. I can go back to some of those New Testament passages if people want. Let me quickly touch on the church fathers and try to show why similarly here there's more complexity than is often seen. So how do we know that the fathers don't always mean that it is true that throughout the fathers you find pretty universally this profound intercoordination between baptism and regeneration, the sign and signified often stand in for one for the other?

How do we know that there's more complexity to it than simply being a causative relationship? I'll just give three reasons. One is that you can see fathers speaking of people having been regenerated prior to baptism at the moment of faith, and yet they'll still use that language of baptism as regenerative. So Cyril of Jerusalem is the one that I've pointed to in the past, where in his catechetical lectures, he's talking about Cornelius, not as an exception. He gives Cornelius as an example or rule for those in the catechetical process. And he says, Peter came, he's summarizing Acts 10, and the spirit was poured out upon them

that believed and they spoke with other tongues and prophesied. And after the grace of the spirit, the scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, X 1048, in order that the soul having been, past tense, born again by faith, the body also might by the water partake of the grace. Now, I want to be really clear that Cyril does have a very high view of baptism. To not think baptism is the cause of regeneration, it doesn't mean you think it's just a symbol, and it doesn't mean you think that it's not, you don't have a realist view of baptism in some way. So Cyril does, he really coordinates faith in baptism together. He sees them like his two parts of one thing, really. So I'm, people are going to go nuts, you know, and come up

with all these other quotes in Cyril. I've read through the catacotical lectures very carefully. I'm aware there's other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith. And yet he still speaks of baptism as regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one. All right. A second thing we see in the fathers is that the very term baptism, as well as related terms

like washing and bath, are used for more than simply the actual event of getting baptized. But again, they stand in as a metonymy for the entire process. Sometimes the word baptism simply means repentance. So Justin Martyr is a good example of this. In his dialogue with Trifo, chapters 13 and 14, he references that saving bath of the olden time which followed those who repented. And then he quotes the entirety of Isaiah 53. And then he says, by reason, therefore, of this laver of repentance and knowledge of God, which has been ordained on account of the transgression of God's people as Isaiah cries, we have believed and testify that that very baptism by which he announced, that's Isaiah, is alone able to purify those who have repented. So you see the words baptism

and laver of repentance and saving bath here and throughout to refer to the spiritual cleansing that results from repentance and is in view in Isaiah 53. And then he goes on to contrast the baptism that cleanses only the body with the baptism that cleanses the soul. Well, what's the baptism that cleanses the soul. Repentance. You repent and that baptizes your soul. So my point in these comments is to show that the term baptism is used as metonymy in some cases for the entire process. And that creates a complexity when you're saying, ah, but he says baptism saves. You see? So that's, I'm not saying every text is like that, but that's another example of the complexity where the profound connection between baptism and salvation is not always understood.

is a causative one. And the third example is that the fathers frequently insist upon the necessity of faith in order for baptism to be efficacious. Now, some traditions that affirm baptism or regeneration could agree with that, and that wouldn't be a problem. Others, though, it would depend upon how it works out. So let me give just another example from Cyril of Jerusalem here, where it's really interesting. The whole set of catechetical lectures opens with this warning about Simon the magician in Acts 8, who's baptized and he doesn't have faith. And it says that basically his baptism does nothing for him. And he's offering all these warnings throughout of basically don't be a Simon. And he says, if you don't repent, the water will receive you, but the spirit will

not accept you. And he says this throughout in Lecture 3, Section 4, he says, neither does he that is baptized with water, but not fond worthy of the spirit receive the grace and perfection. Now this is not going to be a problem for all views of baptism or regeneration, but to the extent that you get infant baptism and then a disconnect between the regenerative work of baptism and saving faith in the baptism, these passages are going to require some kind of explanation. Overall, you look at the Church Fathers and you see, again, the association between baptism and regeneration is very clear. The nature of that association is not, and I don't think it does work to always understand that as a causative relationship.

At the very least, hopefully those who are advocating for that position would kind of factor in my comments here and not just say baptism regeneration is universal in the fathers, or not just quote, 1st Peter 3-1 case closed, but try to enter into and interact with the alternative view of these things historically among, say, the Baptist tradition, which would agree with that general association, but say, that doesn't mean causation. And again, there's good reasons to not take it as causative based upon what we see in the Book of Acts and what we understand the nature of a sacrament to be and the other considerations I've raised here.

So hopefully this video could be useful for furthering our dialogue about these things, for those who do affirm baptism of regeneration and are on the other side. Hopefully this will still be productive to interact with and could hopefully maybe help the conversation move forward a little bit. And for those who are wrestling with this issue, or just wondering kind of, how does the other side view this? At the very least, hopefully it might just help people not be so dismissive. I mean, man, people are so dismissive on this issue. They just kind of act like, oh, you know, baptism regeneration is obvious. The nuances of the different, of the kind of spectrum of different definitions that that can mean are kind of.

of glossed over and then alternatives to that are not really seen. The only alternative that's seen is the, oh, it's just a symbol view, which is kind of on the far edge of the other side, but there's a whole spectrum of options here. So anyways, hopefully this will be helpful to kind of push things forward in this area. If this video was helpful to you, consider subscribing to my channel. I have one video come out every week. Sometimes they're on theology issues like this. I also do apologetics, making arguments.

for the existence of God, the resurrection of Christ, those things. And then occasionally I'll do devotional or cultural videos as well. So I hope my channel is a blessing and an encouragement for others. I try to steward it before God so that it is edifying and productive amidst all the crazy things you see on social media. Hopefully it's an ironic approach, but also hopefully something that could help be constructive for people as they're working through various questions. So, hey, thank you so much for watching.

God bless you.