This article is the result of nearly a year of study. Kayla and I did not take this topic, or the transformation of our doctrine, lightly, as you’ll see in the extent of my paper below. I have many Baptist friends, family, and mentors. Many of you have poured into our lives as we have poured into yours. As we prepare to baptize our children, I believe we owe many of you an explanation, considering the countless hours of counsel, fellowship, and prayer we have shared together.
Of course, I wish you would be convinced of my position. But if not, and far more importantly, I would be satisfied if you would recognize that my position is at least Scripturally and historically reasonable and well within the boundaries of Christianity. I hope you can continue to accept my family and me as your brothers and sisters in Christ, as we do you.
Origen would subscribe (maybe?)…
Ancient Christian answers for our culture’s most profound questions. Subscribe for regular articles in your inbox.
Outline
Thesis
In this article, I hope to prove the following thesis:
Baptism is a sacrament in that it bestows grace to the recipient. The particular grace it bestows is the washing away of sin, the regeneration of the recipient, and union with Christ, his Covenant, and his Church. Baptism effectually identifies the recipient with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection and is the ordinary means of regeneration.
Defining Terms
Sacrament
To Augustine, a sacrament is an effectual and visible sign of an invisible grace.1 The sacraments are physically displayed works of God, established by the Son founded on His death, burial, and resurrection, and given to the recipient through the bride of Christ, the Church, by the action of the Holy Spirit. Further, they unite the recipient to Christ and His body and bride, the Church. These sacraments not only symbolize Christ’s sacrifice but also make present and apply the benefits of His one perfect and sufficient sacrifice. As such, sacraments communicate the power of God on behalf of the recipient when rightly performed. Sacraments are efficacious because of Christ’s promise, not because of the recipient’s merit, yet their efficacy is contingent on the faith and disposition of the recipient.
Baptism
Baptism is the initiatory sacrament into union with Christ and His Body, the Church. It signifies and is a participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, wherein the recipient is immersed, affused, or sprinkled with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God and His Church are active in baptism, while the recipient is passive. A valid baptism will include proper form (Trinitarian formula), matter (water), and intent (The one baptizing must intend to baptize in accordance with Christ’s institution even if he does not have a complete understanding).
Covenant and Covenantalism
God graciously initiates each covenant as a binding agreement between Himself and humanity, establishing a relationship defined by promises and signs. Each covenant provides a further understanding of God’s ultimate redemptive plan. Covenantalism is a theological framework that understands God’s Word as a unified narrative of redemption, structured through covenants and fulfilled in the New Covenant in Christ. In the Old Testament, ethnic Israel were the people of God, yet many within Israel rejected their Messiah. God united the faithful remnant of Israel with redeemed Gentiles into one people. The Church is the continuation of God’s people under the New Covenant, fulfilling the role once entrusted to ethnic Israel as the genuine people of God in Christ.
Original Sin
Original sin, as opposed to original holiness, is the condition of the fallen human nature resulting from Adam’s sin and its impact on all humanity (Romans 5:12, 19). While initially in a state of holiness, Adam committed a personal sin that plunged human nature into a fallen state. Adam’s fallen nature, deprived of original holiness, is transmitted to all his descendants. This is original sin. Original sin passes to all humanity the same consequences of Adam’s sin, namely guilt, noetic errancy, deceptive affections, suffering, death, and concupiscence. Original sin is something inherited, not personally committed.
Cleansing
The cleansing of sin, or expiation, is the act of God by which sin is removed, resulting in the absolution of guilt and the restoration of fellowship with Him. Through expiation, accomplished by Christ’s atoning work, man is reconciled to God, as the wall of sin is removed. Another term for expiation is the "remission of sins," which Scripture closely associates with baptism (Acts 2:38; 22:16).
Regeneration
Regeneration, or rebirth, is the sovereign act of the Holy Spirit unmerited by the recipients by which they receive new life and union with Christ. A person is spiritually awakened through regeneration, receiving a transformed nature that inclines them toward God. If expiation is the negative aspect of removal of sin, regeneration is the positive aspect of adding life. Regeneration is inseparable, though distinct from justification and adoption, and is the beginning of the Christian life.
Scriptural Evidence for Regenerative Baptism
That baptism is one of the sacraments (or as some call them, ordinances) is widely agreed upon among all branches of Christianity. Baptism is one of the only two sacraments among those with a minimalist view. Among those with a maximalist view, baptism is one of the two most preeminent sacraments ordained by Christ. As to whether baptism is a sacrament or ordinance, if baptism is regenerative, it cannot be merely an ordinance. If baptism is regenerative, it must be a sacrament as traditionally defined.
Interestingly, a Baptist best sums up the efficacy and salvific aspects of the sacrament of baptism. George Beasley-Murray, a late professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, knowing that it went against his denominational ties, wrote,
In the light of the foregoing exposition of the New Testament representations of baptism, the idea that baptism is a purely symbolic rite must be pronounced not alone unsatisfactory but out of harmony with the New Testament itself….The Apostolic writers make free use of the symbolism of the baptismal action; but they go further and view the act as a symbol with power, that is, a sacrament….The extent and nature of the grace which the New Testament writers declare to be present in baptism is astonishing for any who come to the study freshly with an open mind. Adolf Schlatter, who was no traditionalist sacramentarian, stated, ‘There is no gift or power which the Apostolic documents do not ascribe to baptism…. On the basis of the exposition offered above, and without any attempt to give exhaustive references, the ‘grace’ available to man in baptism is said by the New Testament writers to include the following elements: forgiveness of sin, (Acts 2:38) and cleansing from sins, (Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11); union with Christ, (Gal. 3:27), and particularly union with Him in his death and resurrection, (Rom. 6:3 ff, Col. 2:11 f), with all that implies of release from sin’s power, as well as guilt, and the sharing of the risen life of the Redeemer, (Rom. 6:1–11); participation in Christ’s sonship, (Gal. 3:26 f); consecration to God, (1 Cor. 6:11), hence membership in the Church, the Body of Christ, (1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27–29); possession of the Spirit, (Acts 2:38, 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13), and therefore the new life in the Spirit, i.e. regeneration, (Tit. 3:5, Jn. 3:5); grace to live according to the will of God, (Rom. 6:1 ff, Col. 3:1 ff); deliverance from the evil powers that rule this world, (Col. 1:13); the inheritance of the Kingdom of God, (Jn. 3:5), and the pledge of the resurrection of the body, (Eph. 1:13 f, 4:30).2
Baptism is Covenantal and Fulfills Old Testament Typology
Baptism is deeply connected to the broader narrative of Scripture. It is not a practice God arbitrarily instituted in the New Testament but one that finds its roots and foreshadowing in the Old Testament. Whispers of baptism resonate through the covenants, accounts, and miracles of the Old Testament. One must carefully discern the echoes woven throughout Scripture's story to grasp the full significance of baptism.
Noah and the Flood
1 Peter 3:20-21 says,
“…because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”
This is one of the most explicit verses in Scripture in support of the salvific efficacy of baptism. Baptism is the fulfillment of the Old Testament’s Noahic typology and covenant. Noah and his family were saved through water while the wicked perished. To Noah, the water represented salvation because of his and his family’s union with the ark. To the wicked, the water represented judgment. Cyprian writes,
Moreover, Peter himself, showing and vindicating the unity, has commanded and warned us that we cannot be saved, except by the one only baptism of one Church.… For as, in that baptism of the world in which its ancient iniquity was purged away, he who was not in the ark of Noah could not be saved by water, so neither can he appear to be saved by baptism who has not been baptized in the Church which is established in the unity of the Lord according to the sacrament of the one ark.3
The ESV translates ἀντίτυπον (antitypon) to “corresponds to this.” The word ἀντίτυπον has the idea of connection between a type and antitype. The water that saved Noah is a picture, or a type, of baptism, the antitype, that now saves. Baptism saves, not as an outward act of cleansing but as “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” The translation choice of the “for” is weak. Most translations use the descriptive “of” or similar constructions. The NKJV has perhaps one of the best translations of the verse, “There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…” [emphasis mine].
Baptism, then, is an appeal or request out of a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ, which, corresponding to the Noahic flood and union with the ark, now saves “us.” Salvation is the work of God, but that does not mean He cannot use the sacrament of baptism to apply that work if He intends to do so. Therefore, baptism is both our passive appeal for salvation and the active work of God by which He applies salvation.
1 Corinthians 10:1-2 is a passage with similar themes to 1 Peter 3:20-21,
“For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea…”
In the “baptism” of the Exodus, the Israelites were united with Moses, their God-appointed mediator, and through this union, passed from slavery into freedom. The same waters that saved the Israelites and their children also brought judgment and destruction upon the Egyptians. What delivered the Israelites was their identity with Moses, through whom God led them to safety and freedom.4 Paul uses this example to urge the Corinthians to focus on how their identity with Christ has a similar effect. As will be demonstrated, Baptism, like the baptism into Moses, identifies the believer with Christ, just as circumcision identified the Jews with the Old Covenant.
Abraham and Circumcision
Colossians 2:11-12 says,
“In him [Christ] 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.”
This passage parallels Romans 6, which speaks of the reality of participating in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection through baptism. In verses Romans 6:6-7, Paul writes, “We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin.” Baptism unites us to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, breaking the power of sin over our lives.
Colossians takes this even further, showing that baptism is not just participation in Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection—it is the New Covenant fulfillment of circumcision. In the Old Testament, circumcision symbolized putting away the flesh, but Paul contrasts this with a “circumcision made without hands,” which he explains as “having been buried with him in baptism.” This phrase (συνταφέντες αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ βαπτισμῷ) describes what happens in this new circumcision. As Romans 6 explains, baptism enacts death, burial, and resurrection—primarily, death to the old self and resurrection to life in Christ.
Baptism accomplishes what circumcision could only point to: spiritual renewal, regeneration, and the cleansing of sin (Acts 2:38; 1 Peter 3:20–21; Titus 3:5). The antitype is always better than the type. While circumcision was incomplete, baptism goes beyond circumcision by uniting the recipient with Christ and applying the benefits of His work. However, Colossians 2:12 clarifies that these benefits can only be received through faith. Chrysostom writes,
No longer, he saith, is the circumcision with the knife, but in Christ Himself; for no hand imparts this circumcision, as is the case there, but the Spirit. It circumciseth not a part, but the whole man. It is the body both in the one and the other case, but in the one it is carnally, in the other it is spiritually circumcised; but not as the Jews, for ye have not put off flesh, but sins. When and where? In Baptism. And what he calls circumcision, he again calls burial…. He speaks of a greater thing than circumcision, for they did not merely cast away that of which they were circumcised, but they destroyed it, they annihilated it…. But it is not burial only: for behold what he says, “Wherein ye were also raised with Him, through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.” He hath well said, “of faith,” for it is all of faith. Ye believed that God is able to raise, and so ye were raised.5
Jewish Circumcision brought children and proselytes into the Old Covenant. That baptism now corresponds to circumcision makes sense. Circumcision is an act usually fulfilled soon after birth. Likewise, baptism is the spiritual birth in John 3. And baptism now brings its recipients into the New Covenant. Like circumcision, baptism is not an active work of the recipient but a “powerful working of God.”
Another way baptism is better than circumcision is its inclusiveness. The New Covenant is not merely given to Jewish men as in the Old Covenant. All are welcome to accept the benefits of the New Covenant: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.” (Ga 3:28–29).
Israel and the Sprinkling of the Sacrifice
Hebrews 10:19-23 says,
“Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”
Verse 22 is particularly pertinent to the topic at hand. It starts with an urge for the reader to draw near to God because their High Priest, Jesus, has negated the effect of the curtain separating them from God. There are four conditions listed in this passage for those desiring to draw near to God: first, “with a true heart”; second, “in full assurance of faith”; third, “with our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience”; fourth, “[with] our bodies washed with pure water.”6 Only the third and fourth will be discussed here.
The third condition of sprinkling is derived from Levitical practice. In the Old Testament, the people were sprinkled with the blood of a sacrifice to signify the creation of the covenant with Israel (Ex 9:19; 24:8) and to sanctify the priesthood (Ex. 29:21). Likewise, the blood of Christ has been shed (v19) to signify His creation of the New Covenant and to purify His people. Sprinkling, then, likely refers to the meritorious work of Christ on the cross on which the New Covenant is founded and through which Christ sanctifies His people.
The fourth condition of bodies being washed with pure water is undoubtedly an allusion to baptism. Here, baptism is one of the conditions for drawing near to God. That this verse refers to baptism is evident from the testimony of early Christians. Baptist theologian Tom Schreiner concedes that the early Church would have naturally recognized any mention of “washing” in the NT as a reference to baptism:
The words washed, sanctified and justified all refer to the time of conversion. Some believe the washing (apelousasthe) here is metaphorical and does not refer to baptism. Against this, early Christians would naturally think of baptism when washing was mentioned (e.g. Eph. 5:26; Titus 3:5; cf. Acts 22:16; Heb. 10:22).7
Notice that both our sprinkling and washing are in the passive voice. The recipient does not sprinkle or wash himself. These are actions done to the recipient. Following the phrase about washing, verse 23 indicates that the Christian is to hold fast to his confession. The confession of faith and baptism are inherently tied to one another. Unlike the ordinary Jew in the Old Testament, because of Christ’s atoning work and our faith and baptism, we can now enter the very presence of God.
Prophecy of Cleansing for God’s Covenant People
Ezek. 36:25-28 says,
“I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules. You shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers, and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.”
This prophecy contains four promises. First, God promises to cleanse His people with water. Second, He promises to give His people a new heart, signifying spiritual rebirth or regeneration. Third, God pledges to give His Holy Spirit uniquely to enable His people to walk in His ways. Fourth, God promises entrance into the covenant relationship, where they will indeed be His people.8 The following points will demonstrate how each promise in Ezekiel’s prophecy is fulfilled in the New Covenant through God’s work in the sacrament of baptism.
Baptism Cleanses Sin
At Pentecost
Acts 2:38 says,
“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
At the end of Peter's Pentecostal sermon, the crowd cries out, “Brothers, what shall we do?” In response, Peter gives two direct commands: repent and be baptized. The most straightforward reading of the grammar indicates that obeying these commands results in the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. Both conditions are ordinarily necessary. The forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit necessitates both repentance and baptism.
Mantey, driven by his opposition to Baptismal Regeneration (BR) as works-based salvation, proposed a way to reinterpret Peter’s explicit instruction by suggesting that the preposition εἰς in this verse might have a causal usage, rendering the phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins.”9 Since Mantey introduced this idea, many opponents of BR have embraced it as a way to avoid the cleansing efficacy of baptism in this passage. However, Mantey’s interpretation has been widely discredited.
Even Wallace, an opponent of BR, acknowledged that Mantey’s “ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction.”10 Similarly, the translators of the NET Bible noted, “Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here.”11 Ultimately, Mantey’s interpretation fails the test of time. There is no clear evidence that this view existed before Mantey, and such a drastic theological shift from historic Church interpretation, based on the premise that BR constitutes works-based salvation, raises serious questions about the Church’s legitimacy if true. If Mantey’s interpretation were correct for the reasons he states (works-based salvation), it would imply a troubling inconsistency in the Church’s understanding of salvation from very soon after Pentecost until Mantey’s interpretation. The Epistle of Barnabas, a document dated between 70-135 AD and included in the Codex Sinaiticus, states
Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water…. we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.12
The straightforward reading of God’s Word teaches that baptism has a sin-cleansing efficacy and brings the Holy Spirit.
Saul’s Conversion
Acts 22:16 says,
“And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
Baptism is the outward confession of the individual’s faith. As already seen in Hebrews 10:23 and 1 Peter 3:21, baptism and confession are inherently linked. Some argue that the confession alone saves and not the baptism, but Acts 22:16 provides no support for separating the two. The most apparent sense of this verse is that baptism and confession are united in one act: baptism is simultaneously the washing away of sins and the calling on Christ’s name. This demonstrates that baptism is both the means of cleansing from sin and the verbal acknowledgment of faith in Christ. The inseparability of baptism and confession here is so clearly expressed that it leaves little room for doubt. The idea that baptism and confession are inseparable is not uncommon in Church history. Mark the Monk states,
When we say these things, we are not presenting the orthodox faith as unknowable and devoid of witnesses—Holy Scripture is full of supporting statements concerning the faith—but, rather, are confessing in our baptism that God the Word took flesh and became human and in the flesh was crucified, died, and was buried, and for us rose from the dead on the third day and ascended into heaven and will come to judge the living and the dead.13
Baptism Regenerates
The Effects of Christ’s Work in Baptism
Romans 6:3-5 says,
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.”
Baptism is seen here as regeneration. In baptism, the recipient is baptized into the death of Christ, and in this way, he is incorporated into Christ’s passion. Just as a man is buried with Christ in baptism, it is logical that he should rise with Him in baptism; therefore, he is united to Christ’s resurrection through baptism. Why? The subjunctive of purpose “περιπατήσωμεν” provides an answer, “that we may walk in newness of life.”14
The recipient is united with Christ in that he shares in Christ's supernatural death and resurrection. In uniting with Christ’s death, the recipient is sacramentally made dead to his sin. In uniting with Christ’s resurrection, the recipient is sacramentally given the power to live a new life. Baptism unites the recipient to Christ, His death and resurrection. The union of the dead soul to Christ is regeneration. Before baptism, the recipient is non posse non peccare. After baptism, the recipient is posse non peccare. The ultimate fulfillment of baptism will be the resurrection of the recipient’s body when he will be non posse peccare.15
There is no indication in this passage that Paul is likening baptism to death/resurrection and every indication that he is equating baptism with death/resurrection. Nor is there any indication that this is merely some spiritual baptism that did not include the literal usage of water. Here again is another passage where the clear reading of Scripture would lead the baptized reader to comfort himself alongside Luther in the face of their struggle with sin, “Now if you fall into sins, then remember to flee again to your baptism. For that is the little boat that can help us over.”16
To what sin is the recipient dead in baptism? To every sin, both original and actual. The recipient is not only dead to their own sin in baptism but also to Adam’s. In birth, we are united to the first Adam. In baptism, we die to Adam’s sinfulness and are united to Christ, the Second Adam (1 Cor. 15:45). Romans 6:1-5, on baptism’s regenerative work in uniting sinners with Christ, follows Paul’s discussion of Adam’s generational sin and Christ’s justification in Romans 5:12-21. The logical flow is that the recipient of baptism is dead not only to personal sin but to Adam’s inherited sin. In his commentary on Revelation, Victorinius, a pre-Augustinian Church Father, recognizes the effect of baptism in washing away original sin,
Moreover, they ask that their reproach may be taken away—that is, that they may be cleansed from their sins: for the reproach is the original sin which is taken away in baptism, and they begin to be called Christian men, which is, “Let thy name be called upon us.”17
The Washing of Regeneration
Titus 3:5 says,
“[H]e saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,”
Titus 3:4-7 is generally regarded as an early hymn, likely adapted by Paul. This is implied in the opening words of v8, “This saying is trustworthy.”18 The main verb of the construction is ἔσωσεν, “He saved us.” The verse makes it very clear that those He saved do not contribute to their salvation by their righteous deeds but that they are saved by two means: the washing of regeneration (new birth) and the renewal (new life) of the Holy Spirit.
Regeneration (παλιγγενεσίας) is best understood as new birth and is related to passages like John 3:5, “…unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” The connection between these two passages is cemented further by comparing washing and the Holy Spirit in Titus with water and the Spirit in John.
Washing here refers to baptism. Along with Schreiner, John Stott, who supported an Evangelical view of baptism and opposed BR, recognized that washing here and throughout the New Testament refers to baptism, “Washing (loutron) is almost certainly a reference to water baptism. All the early church fathers took it in this way. This does not mean that they (or Paul) taught baptismal regeneration.”19
However, there are two significant issues if baptism is merely symbolic here. First, if baptism is symbolic here, it could not legitimately be regenerative as the verse states. How can a mere symbol of salvation also be the means thereof? Secondly, and more significantly, if baptism is merely symbolic here, the other accompanying means, namely the renewal of the Holy Spirit, should also be symbolic for the hymn to be consistent. Ultimately, there is no valid reason from the text to extract any other meaning than that which is clearly stated: Baptism is regenerative. Gregory of Nyssa indicates how he, a Greek writer, understands washing to mean baptism and also writes of those who disregard baptism as a means of salvation,
But since the economy of washing—which, whether one should want to call it baptism, or illumination, or regeneration, we make no dispute about the naming—is also some part of the mystic teaching, it would be good to go through this shortly also. For when [the unbelievers]…hear of these things and the like, and have been taught beforehand the manner [of rebirth], that prayer to God, and calling upon heavenly grace, and water, and faith are the things through which the mystery of regeneration is fulfilled, they are incredulous, since they look at the [outward] appearance, on the ground that the bodily activity does not correspond with the promise.20
Baptism Brings the Holy Spirit
John 3:3-5 says,
“Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
In John 1:32-34, John the Baptist testifies that he baptizes with water, but Jesus, the One upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at His baptism, would baptize with the Spirit. Immediately following Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus, John the Baptist gives his final testimony before being imprisoned. Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus is nestled within John’s baptismal ministry, and the hearers of this discourse would have understood water to mean baptism.
In John 3:5, Jesus tells Nicodemus that only those born of both water and the Spirit will see the kingdom of God. Notice that Christ does not say that the Spirit is the sole means of regeneration but that water is also required. In this, as well as in several of the previously discussed passages, baptism is shown to be inseparably linked with the coming of the Holy Spirit. Baptism and the Holy Spirit are also connected in 1 Corinthians 12:13, where baptism unites Christians with one another, a logical conclusion if baptism unites Christians with Christ.
Some would define “water” as natural birth and “Spirit” as the second birth to remove the requirement of baptism from salvation. Neither Osborne nor Comfort hold to BR and disregard this theory because “there is no evidence in ancient writings for ‘water’ as a reference to natural birth.”21 This is a novel interpretation.
Nicodemus would have been incredulous at such a suggestion. As a Jew, he likely believed he was assured of seeing the kingdom of God by virtue of his natural birth. But Christ told him he must be born again of water and Spirit. Baptism would have been humiliating for a Pharisee like Nicodemus, who would have associated it with John the Baptist’s call to repentance. Accepting that the Spirit was part of this regeneration, as prophesied in the Old Testament, would have meant admitting that the Messiah had come, something a Pharisee may have been unwilling to accept. John of Damascus wrote,
He caused the fountain of remission to well forth for us out of His holy and immaculate side, water for our regeneration, and the washing away of sin and corruption; and blood to drink as the hostage of life eternal. And He laid on us the command to be born again of water and of the Spirit, through prayer and invocation, the Holy Spirit drawing nigh unto the water. For since man’s nature is twofold, consisting of soul and body, He bestowed on us a twofold purification, of water and of the Spirit: the Spirit renewing that part in us which is after His image and likeness, and the water by the grace of the Spirit cleansing the body from sin and delivering it from corruption, the water indeed expressing the image of death, but the Spirit affording the earnest of life.22
Baptism Unites Us with Christ and His Church
Put on Christ
Galatians 3:23-29 says
“Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”
Paul wrote Galatians as a polemic against the Judaizers, those who would force God’s children under the New Covenant to conform to the cultic laws of the Old, chiefly the law of circumcision. In verses 23 and 25, Paul draws a clear divide in history between the Old and New Covenants. There is a time “before faith” and a time “now that faith has come.”
“Before faith” refers to the time of the Old Covenant under Moses. During the Old Covenant, the people of God were under the custody of the law and were prisoners to it. But Paul is careful to say in verse 24 that this imprisonment was not a negative aspect of the law. The law protected and guarded God’s people until the coming of Christ. At Christ’s coming, the people of God, past and present, would be declared righteous by faith. After Christ’s coming, when justification by faith is possible, there is no longer a need for the law of the Old Covenant to have custody over God’s people because they are declared righteous through faith. Through union with Christ, God’s people are now God’s children through faith (v26).
This is of extreme importance. Only those united “in Christ” are the sons of God, and unity with Christ only happens “through faith.” Those who are not “in Christ” have no right to call themselves the sons of God because they do not have a reasonable claim of faith in Him. Here, Paul binds being in Christ with adoption. The question then follows, how does one become “in Christ”? How is faith activated?
Both faith and baptism are necessary. “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” “Put on” means clothing oneself within a garment. Therefore, those who have been baptized have clothed themselves in Christ. Again, like in many previous passages, there is no reasonable hermeneutical justification for making baptism here merely symbolic. As in Romans 6, Paul in Galatians clearly states that baptism unites the recipient to Christ. Therefore, those who are baptized with faith are the only ones who can rightfully claim to be children of God. After all, if baptism is the second birth, how can one say they are a son of God if they have not received the second birth? Basil of Caesarea writes,
“Now faith and baptism are two ways of salvation that are naturally united with each other and indivisible. While faith is perfected by baptism, baptism is established by faith, and each is carried out by the same names. For as we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so also we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The confession that brings salvation comes first and there follows baptism which seals our assent.”23
The New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant. Unlike circumcision, the sign of the Old Covenant which united a people in the law, baptism unites a people in Christ as sons of God. The New Covenant is also far more inclusive in ways the Old Covenant had been exclusive. Only Jewish men would have been circumcised. Now adoption as children of God is offered to all types of people—Jew and Gentile, slave and freeman, male and female—all are united to Christ in their baptism and are therefore united with one another (1 Cor. 12:13). Therefore, baptism is not only the sacrament of entry into Christ but simultaneously the sacrament of entry into the Church (Ephesians 4:4-6).
Responses to Objections Against Regenerative Baptism
Those who object to BR have their Scriptural reasons. These must be examined. The following are the four most common objections to BR from Scripture:
Faith Explicitly the Means of Salvation
Romans 3:28 says,
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
And Ephesians 2:8-9 says,
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
Objection
Some oppose BR because they believe the teaching contradicts the doctrine of “faith alone.” For them, baptism is merely a natural work that follows faith, with faith alone doing the saving. To require baptism for salvation, they argue, would compromise the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice. Adrian Rogers summarizes this view,
You’re saved by the grace of God…. It is saving grace. And that means it’s not of works of any kind. Works don’t save, and works don’t help save. You can’t mix grace and works. If it’s by grace, forget your good works. Baptism, whether a spoonful or a tank-full, can’t take away your sin...24
Scripture teaches that salvation is “by grace through faith” and is “the gift of God, not of works” (Eph. 2:8-9). Those who oppose BR argue that it undermines the sufficiency of Christ’s finished work on the cross. They believe Christ’s atonement fully accomplishes the forgiveness of sins and the regeneration of the sinner. For them, BR adds a human work to what Christ has already completed. Many argue that baptism is merely a symbol, an outward sign of an inward change, and a public declaration of saving faith.
Response
Βαπτίζω and its forms appear 77 times in the New Testament, and the noun βάπτισμα is used 19 times. While not every instance refers to the sacrament of the New Covenant, that is a combined 96 uses in the New Testament. Yet, objections to BR typically come from passages where this word does not even appear. Advocates of this position often take passages that, on a straightforward reading, suggest baptism plays an efficacious role in salvation and reinterpret them based on their presuppositions. Rather than first considering all soteriological passages in their context and then gathering all such data to form a fuller understanding of soteriology, they impose their presuppositions onto the text.
This reveals an arbitrary interpretive priority and hierarchy of verses. They dismiss the possibility that baptism could be salvific, not because Scripture is unclear, but because their preconceived ideas about justification or the role of works from a narrow interpretation of other verses will not allow so-called “problem” verses to mean what the Bible seems to plainly say. Their framework shapes their interpretation rather than letting Scripture speak for itself.
Baptism is indeed a work, but it is God’s work performed through His Church. Human works cannot gain salvation, but the works of God are necessary for salvation. That baptism is God’s work is clear—the administrator invokes the Triune God (Matthew 28:19-20), and Paul in Colossians 2:11-12 says believers are raised in baptism by “the powerful working of God.”
God does this work through His Church. This is evident again in Matthew 28:19-20, where Jesus commands His apostles to baptize, in the many examples of the Church administering baptism throughout Acts, and in passages like 1 Corinthians 12:13, which show baptism unites recipients with the Church, the body of Christ.
That baptism is a work of God, not of man, is also evident in its passive usage in the New Testament. The recipient of baptism never initiates it. Unlike Jewish proselytes who baptized themselves into Judaism at the end of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant allows for no such self-baptism. Baptism is stewarded by the Church, which has the authority to administer or withhold it. Baptism is not something someone does for God—it is a work of God that He accomplishes through His Church for those He longs to save. Luther writes,
But some are accustomed to ask, “If baptism is itself a work and you say that works are of no use for salvation, what place is there for faith?” Answer: Yes, it is true that our works are of no use for salvation. Baptism, however, is not our work, but God’s work…. God’s works are salutary and necessary for salvation, and they do not exclude but rather demand faith, for without faith one cannot grasp them. Just by allowing the water to be poured over you, you do not receive or retain baptism in such a manner that it does you any good. But it becomes beneficial to you if you accept it as God’s command and ordinance, so that, baptized in God’s name, you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Neither the hand nor the body can do this, but rather the heart must believe it. Thus you see plainly that baptism is not a work that we do but that it is a treasure that God gives us and faith grasps…25
This begs the question, “How can Christ’s sacrifice be sufficient if God also requires baptism for salvation?” However, this conundrum is not just an issue for those who hold to BR but also for the opponents of BR. These opponents would agree that Christ’s sacrifice is sufficient, yet they would still require faith in addition to the work of Christ on the cross. Clearly, the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice must be defined. Christ’s sacrifice accomplished the entire requirement to merit salvation for those He died. Yet, though Christ fully accomplished this meritorious requirement, this merit must still be applied to those who would be saved.
The Bible identifies three requirements for Christ’s merit to be applied to the sinner: faith, repentance, and baptism. Scripture uses language for all three that is equivalent to "to save." Sometimes, each of these three is mentioned individually, and other times, they are combined (for example, Gal. 3:24-27 combines faith and baptism).
Faith, repentance, and baptism are not meritorious—they are how Christ’s merit is applied to the sinner. A good example is the Passover. The Israelites were commanded to slaughter a lamb and apply its blood to their doorposts so their firstborn would be spared. They had to believe God’s promise and obey by applying the blood. If an Israelite believed God would only save those who applied the blood but failed to do so, their firstborn would die.
The Israelites had agency. They had to trust God and appeal to Him by applying the lamb’s blood. Yet, God clarified that their deliverance was His work, not theirs, by claiming the firstborn as His own and declaring that He bought them through the Passover (Exodus 13:1-15). Similarly, faith, repentance, and baptism are how God applies Christ’s merit to the sinner. The sinner’s agency to passively accept God’s merit does not negate that salvation is entirely a work of God. Faith and repentance are distinct from baptism, yet they are not separate from it. Therefore, proponents of BR can still affirm the precious doctrine of Sola Fide.
The Thief on the Cross
Luke 23:39-43 says,
“One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, ‘Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!’ But the other rebuked him, saying, ‘Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.’ And he said, ‘Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.’ And he said to him, ‘Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise.’”
Objection
Some object to BR by arguing from the account of the thief on the cross (some call him Dismas). There is no evidence that Dismas was baptized, yet Jesus told him, “Today you will be with me in paradise.” Jesus’ words indicate a clear promise of salvation without the requirement of baptism, suggesting that Christ only required faith and repentance for Dismas’ salvation.
Answer
God is sovereign and does as He pleases. Baptism, faith, and repentance are His clearly established ordinary means of salvation. While we are bound by God’s sacraments and must follow His instructions to have assurance of salvation, God is not bound by them. God may save Dismas apart from baptism if it pleases Him to accomplish a particular purpose in His divine decree, even though this is not the ordinary way He has chosen to save people. He can save outside of baptism, but this is not the normative way of salvation revealed in Scripture. Salvation, apart from baptism, is an extraordinary act of God, not the ordinary means He has revealed to us. For this reason, we cannot have assurance without baptism, as it is the ordinary way God has ordained for salvation to be applied to sinners.
Objectors to BR must also grapple with exceptions to their understanding of soteriology. For instance, many theological systems that reject BR still make exceptions for those they deem incapable of faith, such as infants or the mentally handicapped. However, while possibly grounded in biblical principles, these positions are ultimately theoretical and not explicitly stated in Scripture. Those who hold such views must admit that these cases fall outside the clear teaching of Scripture, leaving them without full assurance. Therefore, they must also agree that all capable people should rely on God’s revealed and ordinary means of salvation, according to their understanding.
Further, using Dismas as an objection to BR is an argument that proves too much. All denominations would have to admit that baptism is required if for no other reason than the simple fact that Jesus commands it, even if they do not believe it is salvific. If the objection is taken to its logical conclusion by using an exceptional case to define baptism, objectors must also admit that baptism is unnecessary for obeying Christ. Dismas never fulfilled the command to be baptized. Does that mean he sinned by disobeying His Lord’s command? Opponents of BR would presumably say no, that this was an exceptional case where Dismas could not obey God’s command to be baptized.
Those who do not hold to BR rely on the same exception that those who hold to BR use, namely, that this was an extraordinary case and that, if he were truly saved, his faith would have led him to baptism if he had lived long enough. Many objectors to BR would even say that if someone, after faith, disregarded the command to be baptized, he had not truly been saved because his faith was not of such quality that it led to obedience in baptism.
Far from refuting BR, Jesus’ words to Dismas are an outstretched hand of grace for those who know converts who died never having the opportunity for baptism. Christ’s words show that God makes exceptions in certain circumstances, though Scripture does not explicitly reveal the boundaries of such exceptions. Rather than undermining BR, Dismas’ case provides hope for those who seek Jesus but are prevented from baptism, demonstrating that God can work beyond His sacraments when He chooses.
Cornelius Receiving the Holy Spirit Before Baptism
Acts 10:44-48 says,
“While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, ‘Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?’ And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.”
Objection
Here is a clear example of someone receiving the Holy Spirit before baptism. Receiving the Holy Spirit is usually a sign of salvation, but in this case, the Spirit is given before baptism. This shows that baptism is unnecessary for salvation. Cornelius is saved by his faith, and baptism is a response to that faith (Acts 10:48), not a requirement. Since Cornelius received the Holy Spirit without being baptized, this seems to undermine the idea that baptism is necessary for salvation. Instead, it shows it as a response of obedience, not a condition for being saved.
Answer
Already established earlier is the argument that God can work in extraordinary ways to save those who are not first baptized in exceptional cases to accomplish His divine purposes. The receiving of the Holy Spirit before the baptism of Cornelius is likely a similar case.
Cornelius does receive the Holy Spirit before baptism. Everyone must admit that this account is an anomaly and is not the ordinary sequence of events as narrated in other accounts of baptism in Scripture. Jesus had the Holy Spirit light upon Him after His baptism. Peter in Acts 2:38 teaches that repentance and baptism occur before the gift of the Holy Spirit. In Acts 8:14-17, the Apostles laid their hands on the Christians in Samaria to receive the Holy Spirit after they had been baptized. The equivalence between Paul’s baptism and his being filled with the Spirit is likely in Acts 9:17-19, meaning that Paul likely received the Holy Spirit at Baptism. Lastly, Paul only laid his hands on those initially baptized by John to be filled with the Spirit after being baptized properly in Jesus’s name.26
Recognizing that Cornelius is an exception to the norm and remembering that we are bound by God’s sacraments, and He is not, we must be careful not to define the general rule by the exception. We should first ask if there is a good reason that the account of Cornelius’ baptism should be an exception. Why would God alter the typical sequence of baptism in this specific case?
There is, in fact, a good reason why Cornelius should be an exception to the modus operandi. Every Christian up to this point was either Jewish or Samaritan. It would be natural for the Jews, coming out of the Old Covenant, to believe that the New Covenant was only for Israel. Cornelius and his household were the first Gentiles in Scripture to be brought into the New Covenant. To prove to the Jews that Gentiles were just as entitled to the New Covenant as they, God worked through extraordinary means in this specific case. Everett Ferguson, perhaps the leading scholar of our time on baptism in the Patristic period, writes,
The purpose of this special occurrence of the coming of the Spirit is evident from the use made of it in 11:1–18. It justified to the other apostles and brothers in Jerusalem Peter’s going to the uncircumcised and eating with them (11:1–3). The point of criticism was not that ‘Gentiles had accepted the word of God,’ but that they had been received while uncircumcised and had participated in table fellowship. The problem was the conditions under which they received the word and how they were to be treated by observant Jews. In the making of proselytes the decisive step was circumcision, and when proselyte baptism became normal it followed on circumcision. But Peter reasoned that to withhold baptism from these uncircumcised Gentiles would be to “hinder God” (11:17)…. The result of the aftermath of Peter’s going to Cornelius showed further its purpose: the Jewish believers acknowledged, “Then God has given even to the Gentiles repentance that leads to life” (11:18). The baptism of the Holy Spirit in the case of Cornelius, instead of eliminating the need for water baptism, was the justification for administering it (10:47–48). That Peter commanded water baptism shows the norm: if these Gentiles received the Holy Spirit, then they have to be baptized in water. The implication of 11:17 is that God would have been hindered in giving salvation if they were denied baptism.27
Paul’s “Deemphasis” on Baptism
1 Corinthians 1:14-17 says,
“I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”
Objection
In this passage, Paul thanks God that he baptized so few in Corinth because it helped prevent disunity in the Church. In verse 17, he clarifies that Christ did not send him to baptize but to preach the gospel. If baptism were central to salvation, it would seem irresponsible for Paul, an apostle, to say God did not send him to baptize. By separating baptism from the gospel, Paul minimizes its role and shows that salvation comes from hearing and believing the gospel, not from baptism.
Answer
This interpretation disregards the context of this passage and the testimony of many other passages in Scripture. The broader argument in 1 Corinthians 1 is about disunity among those who have already been baptized. That they were already baptized is clearly understood in v13 when Paul asks the rhetorical question, “Were you baptized in the name of Paul?”
The foolish Corinthians were dividing themselves into factions based on their preferred teachers. Some were even dividing themselves based on who baptized them. Knowing that his position in the eyes of many was highly favored as one of the preeminent apostles, Paul was thankful that no one could use a Pauline baptism to their contentious advantage. Later, in the same epistle, Paul would further seek to shift their mindset, “For I am the least of the apostles, unworthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor. 15:9).
That Christ sent Paul to preach the gospel and not to baptize does not mean that his converts were not baptized. Such an idea would go against Christ’s command, “Go therefore…baptizing them” (Mt. 28:19). This passage, then, clearly shows the division of labor among Paul’s missionary team. Jesus had the same practice during His earthly ministry (Jn. 4:1-2). Paul always had other coworkers in the faith who traveled with him. The fact that others helped with baptism is evident only two chapters later. Paul is still arguing against division when he writes,
For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not being merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.
Paul plants the seed through the preaching of the gospel. Apollos28 watered the gospel seed with baptism. But the whole work and increase is God’s alone. Therefore, Christians should not say they are of this man or that man and divide themselves but strive to be of God alone. In this sense, faith and baptism are not separate—the work of God unites them. As Ambrosiater writes, “To plant is to evangelize and to bring to faith, to water is to baptize with the approved form of words. To forgive sins, however, and to give the Spirit belongs to God alone.”29
That Paul was not the primary baptizer does not lessen the importance of baptism. If anything, Paul is magnifying its unifying importance above himself. Paul was more concerned that the Church was unified through baptism than he was in magnifying his own fame. In fact, on occasions when others could not baptize, Paul did baptize, as in the cases of Crispus, Gauis, and Stephanas' household, showing that he indeed perceived baptism’s necessity.
Traditional Evidence
In light of such a large amount of clear Scriptural evidence, historical evidence should not be needed. Yet, many opponents of BR examine the Scriptural evidence and interpret the usage of baptism as salvific in many verses in a symbolic or metonymical manner. What is the Church to do when there is a difference in interpretation on a topic so central to her existence?
Tradition as an Interpretive Boundary
When two parties disagree on a Scriptural interpretation, the first step after thoroughly studying the Scriptural evidence is to assess whether the Church has historically reached a consensus on one position and whether the other interpretation is novel. Given the Church’s many internal disagreements, any clear evidence of consensus deserves serious consideration. The Church ought to cherish all the more dearly those doctrines which are consensual as indicative of the pure Christianity. As Vincent of Lerins writes,
“But here some one perhaps will ask, since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason,—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters….Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation. Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. [emphasis mine]”30
Alongside perspicuity, Church consensus is the greatest interpretive boundary for examining Holy Scripture. Why is Church consensus so essential? Because those doctrines that can be identified as consensual form the very foundation of orthodoxy itself. God has promised to preserve His Church from its inception throughout history. Orthodoxy within the Church is a prerequisite for the Church’s existence. Therefore, God will preserve Orthodoxy within the Church from its inception throughout history. As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 3:15, “…the Church of the living God [is] a pillar and buttress of the truth.”
The correct interpretation is clear if there is strong evidence that one interpretation holds significant consensual priority while the other is novel and lacks consensus. If an interpretation has no precedent in Church history, it is worth humbly contemplating why it was not held by the faithful Christian leaders and laity who have served God from the beginning of the Church until now (or when the interpretation was first understood). Could it be that they, also guided by the Spirit and Scripture, understood something that more modern men might have missed?
Patristic Consensus
That there is a Patristic consensus on BR extending to the Radical Reformation in the 16th Century is overwhelmingly accepted by scholarship. A Roman Catholic Apologist, Jimmy Akin, writes, “Some today dispute this and say that we are not regenerated in baptism, but the early Church Fathers disagreed unanimously.”31 J.N.D Kelly, one of the most prominent scholars on Patristic theology of the 20th Century, writes, “From the beginning baptism was the universally accepted rite of admission to the Church….As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins.”32 Furguson, previously mentioned, writes, “In the Augustinian-Pelagian controversy, infant baptism was a principal support for the doctrine of original sin, rather than the other way around since baptism was universally recognized as for forgiveness of sins.”33 William Webster, a Reformed Baptist and apologist against Roman Catholicism admits, “The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers.”34 For further Patristic evidence, please see the Appendix.
One clear example of the early Church's consensus on BR is the Nicene Creed, which quotes Acts 2:38 when it states, “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” Opponents of BR can only accept the Nicene Creed by twisting the intended meaning of these words as understood by the authors of the Nicene Creed. Those who wrote the Nicene Creed unequivocally intended that baptism as a sacrament was effective for the removal of sins.
Baptist scholar David Allen said as much when he advised that it would be best for the Southern Baptist Convention not to accept the Nicene Creed as an article of unity. Commenting on the phrase concerning baptism as the remission of sins, Allen writes,
“Though the language is directly from Scripture in Acts, the language was interpreted by many among the Church Fathers and by many today who use the creed to mean baptismal regeneration. Baptists would reject such an interpretation…. Baptists can wholeheartedly endorse it when properly interpreted.”35
However, interpreting a document differently than intended by its authors cannot rightfully be called proper. There are logical problems for anyone who would knowingly accept a creed while twisting its words to mean something other than what the author intended. Anyone accepting the Nicene Creed who does not hold to BR is only partially accepting the Creed and not in whole.
Infant Baptism
This will not be an exhaustive case for infant baptism as this study primarily focuses on BR. But, as will be seen, outside of even the Scriptural evidence, infant baptism is a logical conclusion if BR is true. It is essential to acknowledge that infant baptism is not explicitly stated in Scripture. However, it does not need to be. The connection between baptism and circumcision as the means of entry into the people of God and the inclusion of infants and young children into the covenant would have been unmistakable to the Jewish ear. Yet, the apostles never negate this immediate and natural understanding of the Jewish mind. Instead, they often assume that children should have a share of the New Covenant as will be demonstrated.
Scriptural Support
In Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, after he commands the Jews listening to be baptized for the forgiveness of sins, he then encourages them in verse 39, “For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” That Peter is speaking to Jews is extremely important as he indicates a new component that will add to their preexisting understanding.
Israel understood their relationship with God through covenant. That a promise between God and His people would include them and their children would not have been revolutionary to them (Genesis 17:7). However, in the New Covenant, God makes his promise more expansive, not less so. He also includes “all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord calls to himself.”
Nowhere in the New Testament does God impose stricter requirements for the New Covenant than those of the Old Covenant. Instead, He expands the boundaries of the promise, making the New Covenant more inclusive. As demonstrated in Galatians 3:27-28, baptism surpasses the exclusivity of the law, particularly the exclusivity of circumcision. Allowing infants into the covenant was commanded, and nowhere in the New Testament does God revert that decree. When Peter explicitly tells an all-Jewish crowd at Pentecost that their children are included in the New Covenant, it necessarily implies that their children should also receive the regenerating baptism that provides entry into the New Covenant and corresponds with circumcision—just as Peter has declared for their parents in the previous verse.
However, some would disregard this interpretation of “your children” because of the qualifying phrase, “whom the Lord our God calls to himself.” They would say the promise is only for those children whom God has called to Himself. Therefore, baptism should not be given to a child until God has clearly called him. Yet, this is not an accurate grammatical reading of the passage. Scott answers this objection,
However, this qualifying clause [whom…himself] modifies only the category immediately preceding it, “all who are far off”; the Lord would summon some, but not necessarily everyone, to come near for salvation. The word hosos is often used in this way to qualify pas (see Acts 3:22, 24; 5:36, 37). And if “your children” were also qualified, so would “you,” but “you” were already summoned (see v 37).36
This understanding of Acts 2:39 not only better fits the covenant understanding of Peter’s Jewish listeners and the inclusivity of the New Covenant but also Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 7:14, where Paul is encouraging wives of unbelieving husbands that their holiness sanctifies their husbands, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.” Children of Christian parents are to be considered holy because they are. This implies that at some point, God makes a claim not only on the individual but also on his family and that God sets apart any children of that family for Himself.
This naturally corresponds to the four household baptisms (Cornelius: Acts 10:48; Lydia: Acts 16:15; The Philippian Jailer: Acts 16:33; Stephanas: 1 Cor. 1:16). None of these accounts of household baptisms mention conditions on age or a requirement of individual faith. This silence supports the understanding that baptism was applied to all household members regardless of youth, including infants. Perdue explains the Jewish understanding of a household,
Family households did not consist of nuclear families in the modern understanding of a married couple and their children but rather were multigenerational (up to four generations) and included the social arrangement of several families, related by blood and marriage, who lived in two or three houses architecturally connected…. Those who belong to the family household are mentioned a number of times in the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 7:1, 7; 36:6; 45:10; cf. Gen. 46:26; Ex. 20:8–10, 17; Deut. 5:12–15, 21; Josh. 7:16–18; Judg. 6:11, 27, 30; 8:20). These texts indicate that the family household was primarily a kinship system that included lineal descent and lateral extension: grandparents, adult male children and their wives and children, unmarried children, and widowed and divorced adult daughters who may have had children. Marginal members of households outside of this immediate kinship structure could include debt servants, slaves, concubines, resident aliens, sojourners, day laborers, orphans, and Levites, together with any family they may have had (Ex. 20:8–10; Deut. 5:12–15; 16:11, 14).37
Some oppose infant baptism by raising the reasonable question, “If faith and baptism are both required, and babies cannot have faith, how can infant baptism be legitimate?” There are two false assumptions in this question.
The first false assumption is that the infant’s personal faith is the sole requirement for baptism. This contradicts the biblical pattern for initiating children into the covenant. While faith is undoubtedly involved in this process and perhaps by the infant, it is expressed primarily by the parents and the broader covenantal community. Circumcision, the Old Covenant sign of initiation, was an act of faith, typically performed on infants by the parents' desire, effectively initiating the child into the covenant community. Baptism is similar in practice and greater in effect.
The second false assumption is that infants cannot have faith. But faith is a gift of God (Eph. 2:8). While people have the agency to deny the faith offered to them, infants are in the privileged position of not having the reason needed to have the agency to deny the faith. In fact, it is the faith of a child—a simple, trusting faith that does not reject the salvation freely given—that a person must rise to embrace in order to secure salvation (Matt. 18:3, παιδίον = very young child). It is to the children (παιδίον) that the kingdom of heaven belongs (Mark 10:14), yet some hinder them from being initiated into the kingdom in baptism. Hinder them not!
Did not John the Baptist leap within his mother’s womb when approached by the pregnant virgin Mother of God? Is this not a show of faith? An infant’s entire life is governed by faith. They cannot remain clean but by faith. They cannot move from one place to another but by faith. They cannot eat but by faith. As the Psalmist sings, “Yet you are he who took me from the womb; you made me trust you at my mother’s breasts. On you was I cast from my birth, and from my mother’s womb you have been my God.” An infant exists in a posture of faith, and faith can exist without intellectual expression. It is reasonable to expect that an infant, nurtured by a godly family and church, will grow in faith so naturally that, by the time their understanding matures, the covenant community will never recall a time from their birth until their age of understanding when they did not have faith in God.
Together, the fact that others can have faith on behalf of the infant and the possibility that an infant can indeed have faith underscore the role of the covenant community. Faith is a corporate reality, not merely an individual one. In the Old Covenant, the faith of the parents and the broader Jewish community brought children into the covenant. In the New Covenant, the parents and the Church do the same. God’s covenant has always included infants (Gen 17:7; Acts 2:39), and there is no Scriptural evidence that this mandate has ceased.
An Important Question
The Church has maintained a unanimous consensus on BR from the earliest Patristics until the Radical Reformation. Even honest opponents of BR must acknowledge this historical fact. Baptism is the ordinary means by which God regenerates His children. If BR is true—and the scriptural and traditional evidence overwhelmingly supports it—then this reality carries significant implications for infant baptism.
Those who affirm BR must also affirm that infant baptism is efficacious, even if they initially view it as less ideal than believer's baptism. To argue otherwise implies that God’s ordinary means of regeneration was set aside in favor of infant baptism for over a millennium by an overwhelming majority of the Church. Thus, to hold to BR while rejecting infant baptism leads to a troubling dilemma: either condemning millions of infant-baptized Christians throughout history to hell (since they were supposedly not regenerated) or denying that baptism is truly the ordinary means of regeneration and that God worked extraordinarily outside of his ordinarily established means of regeneration for the likely majority of Christians throughout history.
Rebaptizing those who were validly infant-baptized becomes not only unnecessary but dangerous if infant baptism is salvific. If baptism were merely symbolic, one might justify rebaptism to “correctly honor the symbol.” However, if infant baptism is regenerative—and this has been the overwhelming understanding of the Church for 2000 years—then rebaptism is baseless. Those baptized as infants have already received Christ’s baptism and been initiated into His covenant.
If infant baptism is indeed efficacious, why would any Christian parent deny this grace to their child? If both forms of baptism achieve the same end, why would one be considered wrong, especially when infant baptism is neither explicitly nor implicitly prohibited, is strongly supported by Scripture, and is affirmed by over a millennium of unanimous Church consensus dating back to the early Church and even by most orthodox Christian traditions after the Radical Reformation?
Conclusion
Based on the evidence presented, Baptism is the ordinary means of regeneration. Again, that does not mean God cannot act beyond His sacrament, only that the Church is bound to follow what He has clearly revealed. Baptism washes away sin, unites the recipient to Christ, and initiates the recipient into the Church and New Covenant.
Baptism is not divorced but united with faith. Both are gifts from God. Both are required. Baptism is ineffective without faith. Faith is incomplete without baptism. No one can baptize themselves. Though they may have passive agency in their baptism, that does not make baptism a work. Instead, it is a gift given by God through His Church.
Like circumcision, baptism initiates the recipient into the New Covenant. Unlike circumcision, baptism is far more inclusive, allowing Gentiles, women, and slaves to receive the sign of the New Covenant. Infant baptism is not only Scriptural but also flows from the inclusivity of the New Covenant and is a logical necessity if BR is true.
BR was unanimously accepted by the Church until the Radical Reformation. That this is true is accepted by scholars on all sides and is plain by primary documentation. Even today, most Christian traditions accept and practice BR. Such a consensus should not be cast aside lightly but bears an extreme weight as an interpretive authority.
Appendix: Early Church Quotations
The following quotations are by no means exhaustive but are meant to be a representation of the Early Church’s views on baptismal regeneration. They will include many sayings of the Fathers from the beginning of the Church through Augustine. The quotes will be longer to include the surrounding context. The specific sections that affirm baptismal regeneration will be in italics. All dates are estimates.
Letter of Barnabas (AD 70-132)
What does he say next? “And there was a river flowing on the right hand, and beautiful trees grew out of it, and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever.” He means to say that we go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing the fruit of fear in our hearts, and having hope on Jesus in the Spirit. “And whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever.” He means that whosoever hears and believes these things spoken shall live for ever.38
The Shepherd of Hermes (AD 140)
“Explain to me, Sir,” said I, “still more.” “What,” said he, “are you asking further?” “Why Sir,” said I, “did the stones come up from the deep and were put into the building of the tower, after they had borne these spirits?” “They had need,” said he, “to come up through the water that they might be made alive, for ‘they could not’ otherwise ‘enter into the kingdom of God’ unless they put away the mortality of their former life. So these also who had fallen asleep received the seal of the Son of God and “entered into the kingdom of God.’ For before,” said he, “a man bears the name of the Son of God, he is dead. But when he receives the seal he puts away mortality and receives life. The seal, then, is the water. They go down then into the water dead, and come up alive.39
St. Justin the Martyr (AD 100-165)
I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all. And how those who have sinned and repent shall escape their sins, is declared by Esaias the prophet, as I wrote above; he thus speaks: “Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from your souls; learn to do well; judge the fatherless, and plead for the widow: and come and let us reason together, saith the Lord. And though your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white like wool; and though they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow. But if ye refuse and rebel, the sword shall devour you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed.40
So that it becomes you to eradicate this hope from your souls, and hasten to know in what way forgiveness of sins, and a hope of inheriting the promised good things, shall be yours. But there is no other [way] than this,—to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives.”41
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (AD 130-202)
It happens that their tradition [Gnosticism] respecting redemption is invisible and incomprehensible, as being the mother of things which are incomprehensible and invisible; and on this account, since it is fluctuating, it is impossible simply and all at once to make known its nature, for every one of them hands it down just as his own inclination prompts. Thus there are as many schemes of “redemption” as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith.42
And [Naaman] dipped himself…seven times in the Jordan. It was not for nothing that Naaman, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon being baptized, but as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean of our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord; we are spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”43
St. Theophilus of Antioch (d. AD 183)
On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.44
Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215)
Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal. “I,” says He, “have said that ye are gods, and all sons of the Highest.” This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing: washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.45
Tertullian (AD 155-250)
Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed (in the faith), but them who, content with having simply believed, without full examination of the grounds of the traditions, carry (in mind), through ignorance, an untried though probable faith. The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and basilisks themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!46
When, however, the prescript is laid down that “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, “Unless one be born of water, he hath not life”), there arise immediately scrupulous, nay rather audacious, doubts on the part of some, “how, in accordance with that prescript, salvation is attainable by the apostles, whom—Paul excepted—we do not find baptized in the Lord? Nay, since Paul is the only one of them who has put on the garment of Christ’s baptism, either the peril of all the others who lack the water of Christ is prejudged, that the prescript may be maintained, or else the prescript is rescinded if salvation has been ordained even for the unbaptized.” I have heard—the Lord is my witness—doubts of that kind: that none may imagine me so abandoned as to ex-cogitate, unprovoked, in the licence of my pen, ideas which would inspire others with scruple.47
It would suffice to say, indeed, that there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe whilst it is in the flesh, so true is it that the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also may be illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.48
Origen (AD 185-254)
Formerly there was Baptism, in an obscure way, in the cloud and in the sea; now however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the Flesh of the Word of God, as He Himself says: “My Flesh is truly food, and My Blood is truly drink”49
Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin.… And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which required a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.50
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.51
St. Hippolytus of Rome (d. AD 236)
But give me now your best attention, I pray you, for I wish to go back to the fountain of life, and to view the fountain that gushes with healing. The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and He, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the breath (spirit) of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the baptism. I bring good tidings of life to you who tarry in the darkness of ignorance. Come into liberty from slavery, into a kingdom from tyranny, into incorruption from corruption. And how, saith one, shall we come? How? By water and the Holy Ghost. This is the water in conjunction with the Spirit, by which paradise is watered, by which the earth is enriched, by which plants grow, by which animals multiply, and (to sum up the whole in a single word) by which man is begotten again and endued with life, in which also Christ was baptized, and in which the Spirit descended in the form of a dove…. For he who comes down in faith to the laver of regeneration, and renounces the devil, and joins himself to Christ; who denies the enemy, and makes the confession that Christ is God; who puts off the bondage, and puts on the adoption,—he comes up from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing forth the beams of righteousness, and, which is indeed the chief thing, he returns a son of God and joint-heir with Christ.52
Commodian (AD 250)
In few words, I admonish all believers in Christ, who have forsaken idols, for your salvation. In the first times, if in any way thou fallest into error, still, when entreated, do thou leave all things for Christ; and since thou hast known God, be a recruit good and approved, and let virgin modesty dwell with thee in purity. Let the mind be watchful for good things. Beware that thou fall not into former sins. In baptism the coarse dress of thy birth is washed. For if any sinful catechumen is marked with punishment, let him live in the signs of Christianity, although not without loss. The whole of the matter for thee is this, Do thou ever shun great sins.53
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (AD 315-386)
For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, having our heart sprinkled by the Spirit, and our body washed with pure water. When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both thou canst not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He saith, Except a man be born anew (and He adds the words) of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Neither doth he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who hath declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and alms-deeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spake with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture saith that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the water partake of the grace.54
If any man receive not Baptism, he hath not salvation; except only Martyrs, who even without the water receive the kingdom. For when the Saviour, in redeeming the world by His Cross, was pierced in the side, He shed forth blood and water; that men, living in times of peace, might be baptized in water, and, in times of persecution, in their own blood. For martyrdom also the Saviour is wont to call a baptism, saying, Can ye drink the cup which I drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And the Martyrs confess, by being made a spectacle unto the world, and to Angels, and to men; and thou wilt soon confess:—but it is not yet the time for thee to hear of this. Jesus sanctified Baptism by being Himself baptized. If the Son of God was baptized, what godly man is he that despiseth Baptism? But He was baptized not that He might receive remission of sins, for He was sinless; but being sinless, He was baptized, that He might give to them that are baptized a divine and excellent grace. For since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise partook of the same, that having been made partakers of His presence in the flesh we might be made partakers also of His Divine grace: thus Jesus was baptized, that thereby we again by our participation might receive both salvation and honour.55
St. Ambrose of Milan (AD 333-397)
Things that are impossible with men are possible with God. God is able, whenever He wills, to forgive us our sins, even those we think cannot be forgiven. Thus it is possible for God to give us what to us seems impossible to obtain. Now, it seemed impossible that sin should be washed away in water.… But what was impossible was made possible by God, who gave us so great a grace. It seemed likewise impossible for sins to be forgiven through penance; yet Christ granted even this to His Apostles, and by His Apostles it has been transmitted to the offices of priests. That has been made possible, therefore, which seemed to be impossible.56
The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed Himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of Baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins.57
The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins so that he can be saved; … for no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism. “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity. They may, however, have an undisclosed exemption from punishments; but I do not know whether they can have the honor of the kingdom.58
That water does not cleanse without the Spirit is shown by the witness of John and by the very form of the administration of the sacrament. And this is also declared to be signified by the pool in the Gospel and the man who was there healed. In the same passage, too, is shown that the Holy Spirit truly descended on Christ at His baptism, and the meaning of this mystery is explained. The reason why you were told before not to believe only what you saw was that you might not say perchance, This is that great mystery “which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man.” I see water, which I have been used to see every day. Is that water to cleanse me now in which I have so often bathed without ever being cleansed? By this you may recognize that water does not cleanse without the Spirit. Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: “For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace. So that Syrian dipped himself seven times under the law, but you were baptized in the Name of the Trinity, you confessed the Father. Call to mind what you did: you confessed the Son, you confessed the Holy Spirit. Mark well the order of things in this faith: you died to the world, and rose again to God. And as though buried to the world in that element, being dead to sin, you rose again to eternal life. Believe, therefore, that these waters are not void of power.59
St. Augustine of Hippo (AD 354-430)
Forgiveness of sins. Ye have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when ye receive Baptism. Let none say, “I have done this or that sin: perchance that is not forgiven me.” What hast thou done? How great a sin hast thou done? Name any heinous thing thou hast committed, heavy, horrible, which thou shudderest even to think of: have done what thou wilt: hast thou killed Christ? There is not than that deed any worse, because also than Christ there is nothing better. What a dreadful thing is it to kill Christ! Yet the Jews killed Him, and many afterwards believed on Him and drank His blood: they are forgiven the sin which they committed. When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What hath the Prayer? “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.” Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs be separated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For those whom ye have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice. In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God doth not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? when they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remitteth. For how can they say, “Our Father,” who are not yet born sons?60
The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration?” or from Peter’s statement: “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us?”61
Augustine of Hippo, “On the Catechising of the Uninstructed,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 312.
George R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 1962), 263–264.
Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 389.
Brad Doskocil, “Is Our Understanding of Baptism All Wet?,” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 28, no. 55 (2015): 60.
John Chrysostom, “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Colossians,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. Ashworth and John Albert Broadus, vol. 13, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889), 285–286.
Donald Guthrie, Hebrews: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 15, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1983), 215-216.
Thomas R. Schreiner, 1 Corinthians: An Introduction and Commentary, ed. Eckhard J. Schnabel, vol. 7, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 2018), 123.
Joe Heschmeyer "Does Baptism Save Us?," Shameless Popery Podcast, November 14, 2024, video, 57:51,
H E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1957), 104.
Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament, 9. Repr (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 371.
Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).
Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Epistle of Barnabas,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 144.
Mark the Monk, Counsels on the Spiritual Life, ed. John Behr, trans. Tim Vivian and Augustine Casiday, vol. 1 & 2, Popular Patristics Series (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2009), 262.
John D Harvey, Romans, ed. Andreas J Köstenberger and Robert W. Yarbrough, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (B&H, 2017), 151.
Augustine of Hippo, The City of God, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. William Babcock, vol. 7, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2012–2013), 552.
Michael F. Bird, Romans, ed. Scot McKnight, The Story of God Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016), 204.
Victorinus of Pettau, “Commentary on the Apocalypse of the Blessed John,” in Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, Venantius, Asterius, Victorinus, Dionysius, Apostolic Teaching and Constitutions, Homily, and Liturgies, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 7, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 346.
I. Howard Marshall and Philip H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), 307.
John R. W. Stott, Guard the Truth: The Message of 1 Timothy & Titus, The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 204.
Gregory of Nyssa, Catechetical Discourse: A Handbook for Catechists, ed. John Behr, trans. Ignatius Green, vol. 60, Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2019), 134–135.
Grant Osborne, Philip W. Comfort, Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, Vol 13: John and 1, 2, and 3 John (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2007), 51.
John Damascene, “An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,” in St. Hilary of Poitiers, John of Damascus, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 9b, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1899), 78.
St Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, ed. John Behr, trans. Stephen Hildebrand, vol. 42, Popular Patristics Series (Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011), 59.
Adrian Rogers, “The Gospel of Grace,” in Adrian Rogers Sermon Archive (Signal Hill, CA: Rogers Family Trust, 2017), Ga 1:6–12.
Robert Kolb, Timothy J. Wengert, and Charles P. Arand, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), 460–461.
Luke likely uses the “name of Jesus” here not to mean that they were not baptized with the trinitarian formula, but either to distinguish it from John’s baptism or as a shorthand for the trinitarian formula.
Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church: History, Theology, and Liturgy in the First Five Centuries (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 177.
a coworker mentioned alongside Paul in 1 Cor. 1:10-13
Gerald Lewis Bray, ed., 1–2 Corinthians, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 29.
Vincent of Lérins, “The Commonitory of Vincent of Lérins,” in Sulpitius Severus, Vincent of Lérins, John Cassian, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. C. A. Heurtley, vol. 11, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 132.
Jimmy Akin, The Fathers Know Best: Your Essential Guide to the Teachings of the Early Church (San Diego, CA: Catholic Answers, 2010), 261.
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth, Revised. (London; New Delhi; New York; Sydney: Bloomsbury, 1977), 193–194.
Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, 857.
William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), 95.
“Southern Baptists Do Not Adopt Nicene Creed at Annual Meeting,” ChurchLeaders (blog), June 14, 2024, https://churchleaders.com/news/487608-southern-baptists-do-not-adopt-nicene-creed-at-annual-meeting.html.
J. W. Scott, “Dynamic Equivalence and Some Theological Problems in the NIV,” Westminster Theological Journal 48, no. 2 (1986): 356.
Leo G. Perdue, “The Israelite and Early Jewish Family: Summary and Conclusions,” in Families in Ancient Israel, ed. Don S. Browning and Ian S. Evison, First edition., The Family, Religion, and Culture (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 175.
Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, ed. Kirsopp Lake, vol. 1, The Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge MA; London: Harvard University Press, 1912–1913), 383.
Pope Clement I et al., The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 2, 261–263.
Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 183.
Justin Martyr, “Dialogue of Justin with Trypho, a Jew,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 217.
Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 345.
Akin, The Fathers Know Best, 262.
Theophilus of Antioch, “Theophilus to Autolycus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Marcus Dods, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 101.
Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 215.
Tertullian, “On Baptism,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 669.
Tertullian, “On Baptism,” 674–675.
Tertullian, “On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” in Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 3, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 551.
W. A. Jurgens, trans., The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1970–1979), 206.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, 208.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1, 209.
Hippolytus of Rome, “The Discourse on the Holy Theophany,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 237.
Commodian, “The Instructions of Commodianus,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 212.
Cyril of Jerusalem, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” in S. Cyril of Jerusalem, S. Gregory Nazianzen, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. R. W. Church and Edwin Hamilton Gifford, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894), 15.
Cyril, “The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril, Archbishop of Jerusalem,” 16–17.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, 161.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, 162.
Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 2, 169.
Ambrose of Milan, “On the Mysteries,” in St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. H. de Romestin, E. de Romestin, and H. T. F. Duckworth, vol. 10, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1896), 319–320.
Augustine of Hippo, “On the Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens,” in St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity, Doctrinal Treatises, Moral Treatises, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. C. L. Cornish, vol. 3, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 374–375.
Augustine of Hippo, “A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants,” in Saint Augustin: Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. Peter Holmes, vol. 5, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 28.
This was a really good and in-depth article, and I think you made a convincing biblical and historical case that baptism does indeed save. I was raised Baptist, but have recently changed my views on baptism due to the research I have done, and decided to become Presbyterian. Although I am incredibly thankful for the values instilled in me from my Baptist upbringing, this experience of changing denominations has been overwhelmingly positive, and I have learned a lot about church history, theology, and biblical interpretation.
Joshua, this is fantastic. Thank you for your work on this. This piece is still yielding much fruit over a year later :)