# Titus 3 v 5 ?



## Free Christian (Feb 4, 2015)

Hi all. I was recently reading some commentaries in regards to Titus 3 v 5 and found Mathew Henry and Adam Clarke saying it refers to Baptism where it says "by the washing of regeneration". I found John Gill and Albert Barnes saying it does not. By reading their explanations I am of the mind to agree with Gill and Barnes.
What is the reformed stance on this passage?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 4, 2015)

It's an allusion or oblique reference to baptism. The language refers to the _substance_ (some of what baptism symbolizes, i.e the new birth, what the Spirit does) under the terms of the _administration_ (washing, a bath, what the church does). 1Cor.6:11 refers to the distinctly _spiritual_ activity of God himself as "washing" unto the soul; and other cleansing metaphors are common enough in the NT, e.g. 1Jn.1:7, when referring to the exclusively divine work of saving grace _applied_.

The Reformed acknowledge the intimate tie between sign and thing signified with regard to a sacrament, without confusing the one with the other. Nevertheless, we say such a verse as Tit.3:5 shows that the reality and sign or pointer _belong_ together. Likewise, the interchange of terms (speaking of one side of the equation under the other side's terms) also demonstrates the closeness intended between them.

The specific term used in Tit.3:5 (and Eph.5:26) is actually a noun (not a participle), meaning "bath" (laver) or the act of bathing. The concrete term (a physical place, item, or act) instead of a verbal (action) concept, argues for reference to the physical sign, which has a particular spiritual meaning that then is given prominence.


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 5, 2015)

Thanks Bruce. The whole answer is probably there in what you wrote but I have no great mind. So are Gill and Barnes wrong then?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 5, 2015)

Yes, I think they are wrong. The Baptist grammarian of fame, A.T.Robertson also disagrees with them:


> *Through the washing of regeneration* (dia loutrou palingenesias). Late and common word with the Stoics (Dibelius) and in the Mystery-religions (Angus), also in the papyri and Philo. Only twice in the N.T. (Mt.19:28 with which compare _apokatastasia_ in Act.3:21, and here in personal sense of new birth). For loutron, see note on Eph.5:26, here as there the laver or the bath. Probably in both cases there is a reference to baptism, but, as in Rom.6:3-6, the immersion is the picture or the symbol of the new birth, not the means of securing it.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 5, 2015)

The WCF's and LC's scripture proofs both cite Titus 3:5 as being in reference to baptism, and the HC explicitly states "scripture calls baptism 'the washing of regeneration'...Titus 3:5."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 5, 2015)

It seems to me a rather "agendized" theology when someone insists that an ordinance (the administration of baptism) and a spiritual reality (baptized in Christ) are denoted by the same word in Scripture but that we must not think they are correlative in any way beyond bare symbology. Memorialists will even cite a passage from Romans 6 that speaks of being buried with Christ (clearly referring to vital union with Christ) and then use that phraseology to say we are baptized in a "watery grave" but then deny altogether any Sacramental relationship.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Feb 5, 2015)

What is the reformed view of how "the washing of regeneration" applies to an infant's baptism, where the infant is not actually regenerate?


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 5, 2015)

Im still trying to understand what "by the washing of regeneration" means. I read in so many places that Baptism is not regeneration. So if one is "washed by regeneration"  how is that regenerational washing, Baptism? I thought they were two different things. I do a search on here and see answers to questions like "Is Baptism regeneration?" and see answers "no". This is what confuses me. In one place it is said "no" but another the term "washing by regeneration" is. What I see when I read that passage is that my regeneration cleanses, washes me. That it is something that regeneration does to me, not an act I do or perform.
Still don't get the connection.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 6, 2015)

Water as a physical element upon the body represents what the Spirit of God does to a soul. The words "washing of regeneration" literally put the two concepts into a single expression.

There's the sign (water) and the thing signified (regeneration). The former is intended to put you in mind of the latter. It is a _*rich*_ expression. The two constituents (sign/signification) are bound together in what we term a sacramental union.

In Presbyterian parlance (not so much in Baptist), the tightness of the bound-expression points to the closing of the daylight between two distinct things, one earthly, the other heavenly. The expression doesn't mean (to us) that the _water_ is that which regenerates. We speak in terms of "means of grace," divinely ordained instruments (along with the preached Word) which God uses for the purpose of conveying the riches of his grace (i.e. himself, a relationship with him) to us.

God promises to use his Word in the saving of his elect. He also uses his "sensible signs" to promote that same salvation to us: a visible, tactile, olfactory, tasty Word. How he does it all is a bit mysterious, but that's fine. We believe first, in order that we may understand by degrees.

We deny that any (adults or infants) who are not elect, being baptized, are actually recipients of what baptism signifies--even regeneration. That fact doesn't make it any less "the washing of regeneration," as if man's activity one way or the other made a change in what God ordained. That would be like saying that an unlawful (impossible) marriage attempt wrecked the marriage institution of God, since the union did not (could not) take place, and marriages as a rule are entered into before God. [Not saying marriage is a sacrament either; it's an illustration]

We also deny that time-and-place of baptismal rites _*compels*_ a certain amount of Holy Ghost activity (even toward the elect), like a magical incantation, at the moment of a recipient's baptism; only that God _does_ convey his work toward those to whom it belongs, in his appointed time. Perhaps then; perhaps later, and in greater measure.

But any spurning of one's baptism does _profane_ the ordinance of God, and brings additional condemnation (just as abuse of the Supper would).

I hope you are able to make use of some of these thoughts.


----------



## Free Christian (Feb 8, 2015)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I hope you are able to make use of some of these thoughts.


Thanks Bruce. Yes, I can.


----------

