Baptismal Regeneration

by T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Category: Departure From The Faith | Oct 1972

It will not be disputed by any serious student of the New Testament that baptism in water was authorized by the command of our Lord Himself. The declaration of the risen Christ places this beyond doubt:

"Make disciples ... baptizing them into the name of the

Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

It is outside the scope of this series of articles to consider in depth the subject of Christian baptism. Our purpose is to examine some deviations from apostolic teaching and practice which occurred in the early centuries A.D., and their modern counterparts. But it will be necessary to outline briefly some of the basic principles of New Testament teaching on the ordinance. We will therefore consider, what is the mode of baptism, who are its subjects, and what is its meaning and purpose.

To baptize is 'to dip'. This is always the meaning of the Greek verb baptizo in the New Testament. Burial and resurrection, the figure prominently associated with baptism, requires that the person baptized be submerged in water and raised up again. There is no instance in the New Testament of pouring or sprinkling being adopted as a substitute for dipping.

The persons to be baptized are "disciples": Our Lord enjoined that those responding to the call in the gospel were to be enlisted as His disciples, and were to submit to baptism in water as the outward sign of their allegiance to Him. Baptism is not the means of the new birth. Those who have been born again are persons who have been "begotten ... through the word of God" (1 Pet. 1:23). Although in the New Testament baptism is regarded as the normal sequence to belief, it plays no part in securing for the believer the merits of the atonement (Rom. 3:23-28).

Baptism is "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh" (1 Pet. 3:21). The words of Ananias to Saul of Tarsus, "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins" (Acts 22:16), cannot refer to the forgiveness of sins, for Saul was already a converted man. They mean that by the public act of baptism he would dissociate himself completely from his former manner of life. Baptism is the symbol of the believer's identification with Christ in death, burial and resurrection (Rom. 6: 3-5; CQI. 2:12). The meaning of the ordinance is helpfully illustrated by the crossing of the Red Sea by the children of Israel. The apostle Paul, referring to this event, wrote, they "were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1 Cor. 10:2). The words "unto (Greek, eis, into) Moses", imply a committal by the people to their appointed leader, and may be compared with the expression "baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27), where subjection to the authority of Christ and identification with Him are in view. The further lesson to be learned from Israel's Red Sea crossing is that it severed them from their old life. When they reached the wilderness side of the sea there was no possibility of return, the waters had completely cut them off from Egypt. So with the believer: his baptism is a confession that in Christ he died to sin and that henceforth he will "walk in newness of life" (Rom. 6:4).

As early as the second century A.D. the ordinance of baptism as the confession of the believer's allegiance to Christ as Lord began to be adopted by 'the Church' as a 'sacrament'. This was a Latin term already in use to describe rites and customs in the pagan "Mystery" cults. "The numerous heathen Mystery cults, which for centuries contended with Christianity for pre-eminence, had their mystical customs and ordinances. They are called mysteries (that is secrets), which in the Latin ecclesiastical language of Western lands was reproduced by sacramentum. With these Mysteries there was joined the idea that 'in and by them believers entered into a relationship with their god through a definite sacramental act and definite sacramental formulas'. Suggestions of these purely heathen ideas of magically operating religious rites are found more or less strongly stamped in many Christian writings of the post-apostolic period" (J. Warns, Baptism, p.94). Readers who consider this to be an overstatement should examine the evidence for themselves (see e.g. Hatch, The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, and The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church; Hislop, The Two Babylons; Pember, The Church, the Churches and the Mysteries, and Mystery Babylon the Great, and the Mysteries and Catholicism).

Most of the standard 'Church Histories' refer to this early departure from apostolic teaching on baptism. Here is a comment by Samuel G. Green (C. of E.), "It is hardly surprising that the converts from heathenism found it difficult to appreciate the spirituality of a religion without priest or earthly sacrifice or mystery of initiation. Too eagerly, in the simple ordinances bequeathed by the Founder of Christianity, they discerned some analogy with the rites and ceremonies of the worship they had left. Add to this that the ordinances are symbolic, and that men have always been prone to idolize the emblems of truth as containing in themselves the reality. The sacraments became mystic initiations, direct channels of communication with heavenly powers; to be baptized was to be born again". Thus the pagan rite was confused with the Christian practice. The baptismal water had mystical efficacy, and the terrible error of 'Baptismal regeneration' took shape. The professing 'Church' arrogated to itself the sole right to administer the 'sacrament' and no one outside its pale could be saved.

Because of our restricted treatment of the subject here we do not discuss the various passages of' Scripture which are adduced by those who claim Scriptural support for 'Baptismal regeneration'. Readers will find a full examination of these in the valuable treatise by Johannes Warns, Baptism (Paternoster Press, 1957). This book gives the fullest treatment of this subject I have seen. While there may be reservations on minor details of his exposition, the Scriptural case he presents against 'Baptismal regeneration' and infant 'baptism' is irrefutable. He also gives valuable information on the background history of the heresies, and evaluates the attitude of the Reformers to the ordinance of baptism. This is an important book on this whole subject.

The first clear reference to the baptism of infants is in a writing by Tertullian in 197 A.D. in which he condemns the practice beginning to be introduced. But his protests failed to check the gradual adoption of the practice, which in later centuries took the form of sprinkling. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (210-258), who was a leading exponent of 'Baptismal regeneration', teaching that through baptism men were born again, contended that no infant should be prevented from obtaining divine grace through the 'sacrament' of baptism. Augustine (354-430), the great theologian of the West, gave powerful dogmatic support to the heresy, and his advocacy of it has influenced Christendom right down to the present day. He was the foremost apologist for the union of Church and State. Augustine taught that a unitary State Church was necessary for the salvation and upbringing of the whole people. "His conception of the sacraments and his idea of the Church worked together to build up his conception of infant baptism" (Warns). Infant baptism became an ecclesiastical question within the State Church. If a whole people were to be incorporated into the 'Church' then the baptism of infants would be an effective means to this end. It would gain control over the individual before consciousness was developed and the voluntary decision of the will was possible. These were the ideas behind the Augustinian ideal of the State Church and the use of the 'sacrament' of baptism to secure and sustain it. No matter how well-meaning the motive, the concept comes from man and not from God. It belongs to "the precepts and doctrines of men" (Col. 2:22): it is dev6id of Scriptural authority. Thus, "Biblical baptism is abolished. Its place has been taken by a ceremony which is performed on non Christians, and on infants, who cannot yet believe in the New Testament sense (Rom. 10:17). After this had been sanctioned by the State, and, on the other hand, the Biblical baptism had been made punishable by death, 6ne could safely venture to alter the form also, by choosing sprinkling instead of immersion" (Warns). This did not happen all at once but by the sixth century it came gradually to prevail.

What then was the attitude of the 16th century Reformers to the practice of infant sprinkling and the doctrine of 'Baptismal regeneration'? It is a blot on the great work these men did that in general they retained the practice of infant sprinkling although it is devoid of Scriptural authority. Luther's defence of it-postulating that new-born children are really believers has been justly described as a "desperate expedient". Zwingli although originally in favour of believers' baptism later came out strongly in support of infant baptism. Even Calvin was unable to dispense with it. The fact is that these Reformers never discarded the Augustinian doctrine of the Church-State affinity. Their conceptions of baptism are expressed in the various Confessions of the Reformed Churches and have been tenaciously held by their successors.

Article 27 of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England contains this statement: "The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ". In support of this arguments similar to those used by Luther are adduced. In his exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, W. H. Griffith Thomas, D.D., comments:

"Our Lord's Commission (Matt. 28:19,20) was, 'Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them ... teaching them'. A disciple is a learner, and as all disciples were to be baptized all the baptized were regarded as learners. So that the one question is whether children can be disciples or learners, whether the term is elastic enough to include them... Assuming, therefore, that children can be disciples or learners, the following reasons may be adduced why young children should be regarded as fit subjects for Baptism, and their Baptism considered as 'most agreeable with the institution of Christ' ... (Principles of Theology, p.377). We leave the reader to decide whether such reasoning, that unconscious infants can be regarded as disciples or learners within the meaning of our Lord's words, can be properly designated as a "desperate expedient".

It is conceded that the view of the main body of Protestant communities differs fundamentally from the Roman Catholic doctrine of Baptism. Nevertheless the retention of the practice of infant sprinkling lays them open to the charge of teaching 'Baptismal regeneration'. Does not this follow when it is claimed that infants who are sprinkled are thereby on a different spiritual plane to those who are not sprinkled? Does it not attach some spiritual efficacy to the baptismal water?

To conform to our Lord's command, and to the teaching and practice of His apostles, baptism is only properly administered to those who are born again and who are enlisted as disciples of the risen Christ. The simplicity of New Testament teaching on this subject stands out in glorious clarity against the intricacies with which Christendom has distorted it:

"Oh how unlike the complex works of man,

Heaven's easy, artless, unencumbered plan I"

T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Oct 1972
Departure From The Faith