Will believing in baptismal regeneration send a person to hell?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe you haven't understood what he's saying. Or, maybe you have, you just don't know what to do with it. Because as a Calvinist, you certainly agree that believing is a product of regeneration, and as Protestant, you believe that justification is a product of belief (saving faith). Therefore, regeneration is prior to justification, both logically and temporally.

Therefore, the answer to your question, "Are you suggesting that regeneration DOESN'T happen at the same time as justification?" is: Possibly, sometimes.

How much prior? Well, the answer to that question might be person-variable. Re: your use of the word "apart". It seems that you are using that word temporally. Neither I nor Rev. Winzer. would ever say that an infant is regenerate "apart from believing." The one produces the other as sure as certainly as the Sun's activity warms the earth. However, WHEN a person--whether infant, child, or adult: a) is regenerated, and b) believes unto his justification, has no necessary temporal union or close-connection.

Well, it does help when its explained clearly. If he means what you're saying (I assume he does) then I certainly have less of a problem with it. I wrote a previous post saying that it may be wise to use different terminology then "baptismal regeneration" for this view since others who use it place a dependence on the work. I do agree that regeneration is logically prior to faith but not temporally. Ephesians chapter 2:4-10

"4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."

The passage here says God "made us alive together with Christ" (regeneration) and then parenthetically states that it is saving grace. He then sums this up by stating "For by grace you have been saved through faith". This seems to make the regenerating grace mentioned in vs 4 inseperable from faith here; you can't have one without the other (from what I'm seeing in the text).
 
I agree that they are inseparable. I am just unwilling to insist that the one must follow from the other (faith after/from regeneration) in full, mature form.

It is quite proper to correlate spiritual "sight" with faith, as spiritual "blindness" is to lack of it. a man not "born again" cannot "see" the kingdom of God. The man born blind (John 9) was instantly and fully healed, granted mature sight. Mark 8:22-25 tells the story of a blind man healed by degrees. At first he saw no better than an infant just learning how to see--but he was still seeing. Jesus gave him not only sight, but mature sight over (a short) time.

The speed and quality of a man's seeing is not as vital as his sight. Likewise with faith. At some point that faith becomes awareness (appropriate to whatever age) of the Savior as lovely. No unregenerate eyes can so see.
 
Total Inability/Depravity and Unconditional Election

Any one that IS saved, is saved because they are freely justified by the grace of God and UNDERSTANDS that. One who is regenerated KNOWS the things of the Spirit of God, and of course a NATURAL man recieveth NOT the things of the Spirit of God. Explaining to a regenerated person the error of Baptismal Regeneration would naturally result in UNDERSTANDING that it is, in fact, error.

The reason one is saved at all is because one, in Adam we are all Totally Inable to save OURselves...whereby we NEEDed God the Father's ELECTION of us, into Christ that we would be saved. Not of works lest anyone should boast (not the baptizer, nor the baptizee). Paul was glad he didn't baptise but a couple of people at one time, because of an arguement and division amongst the believers in that church that "I am of Peter" "I am of Apollos" etc, etc. Sounds like a lot of boasting to me. I know, "I am of Christ" was added, but only because people began to get all carried away with their ideas of following after men...division.

Does this show they were lost because the boasted in it? Paul was certainly correcting them...and those who didn't heed his rebuke would certainly come under some sort of church discipline. But the point of fact is, once one is regenerated, they will see the error of erroneous teaching. Only a Natural man would consider natural elements of any kind would make them Spiritual.

So, after explaining to one who adheres to Bapt. Regen., if that one persists to believe in it, I would most certainly not count them as a brother, for they are still believing in a Natural man form of salvation. As one other posted, it is a works salvation conditioned on something someone does IN ADDITION to what God does...you do this, God will do that...doesn't show Total Depravity does it? Doesn't show Unconditional Election either. It shows CONDITIONAL election, that one has done something worthy of recieving something in return. Whether is be the one baptising or the one being baptised or both.

Again, I would count them lost who hold to it, until evidenced otherwise by their rejection of it.
 
1. No, it doesn't make my view irrelevent at all. You're dodging the question. Are you suggesting that regeneration DOESN'T happen at the same time as justification? Christ IS our justification and sanctification. Or are you suggesting that infants are regenerate apart from believing?

Bruce Buchanan has already made some good points. He is surely correct when he says that Presbyterians and Baptists use terms in different ways. That being the case, perhaps rather than accuse me of dodging the question, it would be wiser to ask clarifying questions. There is no evasiveness on my part, but the problem is with your either/or question.

As stated, justification is functioning one way and baptism is functioning another. Justification is relative to an individual's standing before God whilst baptism is a visible sign for the benefit of men. Justification is undoubtedly by faith alone, but it is also true that baptism is a seal of the righteousness of faith. If baptism is a seal to faith, it must be the case that, when a person believes, his baptism seals his justification before God.

2. Again you're dodging the question. The discussion isn't about whether God can do what He wants (we all agree), its about what has He said He will do in His Word. Are you suggesting that infants believe on the Son of God? The immediate fruit of regeneration is belief and repentence is it not? If you say that baptism regenerates (baptismal regeneration) then you are saying that baptised infants are regenerate.

The Holy Spirit regenerates, but that does not mean baptism should be seen as a bare symbol. It is a seal to faith. Those that believe can look on their baptism as effective. Hence the New Testament appropriation of the word "baptism" to a mystical union with Christ. One might believe from the womb, as David did, or he might believe on his death-bed. Either way, to his faith, his baptism is a seal of the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. If it were not, then baptism would have no didactic value for the Christian life.

3. No one denies that Baptism is required; I deny that it has any affect on regeneration. If someone denies receiving baptism then they deny the faith and prove themselves unregenerate but thats very different from believing in baptismal regeneration (baptism as a cause of regeneration).

If possible, please read the article "Baptismal Regeneration" by G. W. Bromiley in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. It will be seen from this article that you are defining baptismal regeneration according to it medieval perversion rather than its pristine meaning.
 
So you're insinuating that elect babies who are baptized are regenerate when they receive baptism; not when they believe or repent. What about elect, non-covenant babies? When do they recieve their regeneration? When they are baptized as adults or when they believe? (I am just curious because I'm not well versed in your view)

You are using temporal terms when there is really no basis for doing so. "When" is clearly stated by the Confession to be the sovereign prerogative of the Holy Spirit. It would be best if the ordo salutis were concevied in terms of logical dependence rather than strict temporal order.
 
So you're insinuating that elect babies who are baptized are regenerate when they receive baptism; not when they believe or repent. What about elect, non-covenant babies? When do they recieve their regeneration? When they are baptized as adults or when they believe? (I am just curious because I'm not well versed in your view)

You are using temporal terms when there is really no basis for doing so. "When" is clearly stated by the Confession to be the sovereign prerogative of the Holy Spirit. It would be best if the ordo salutis were concevied in terms of logical dependence rather than strict temporal order.

:up:

I was really musing upon this today and believe one way to express the issue of how the Reformed view the Church does not meddle into the things hidden. To those onlookers, you can see a consistent pattern by ManleyBeasley to describe regeneration and justification, which are statuses known only by God, and make the unwarranted leap into the historical Church as if we actually administer the visible Covenant in this fashion.

The preacher proclaims the Word. The Spirit regenerates the heart.
The preacher baptizes the individual and announces the Promise of God. The Spirit regenerates through the means of grace as the Lord pleases.

Even when the Church excommunicates, it is not making announcement that "...this man is reprobate..." but merely removes the man from the means of grace where he is surely imperiled but only God knows and controls his repentance/return into the fold.

Our tendency in knowing that God elects and calls and regenerates because He has revealed it in His Word is not to be used to start playing "Duck, Duck, Goose" with the visible Covenant community. We operate within visible means of grace - God gives the increase. When we truly understand it and don't try to confuse ourselves into thinking we know the hidden things of God then everything becomes much clearer.
 
If this understanding of Romans 4:11 is correct, then it would appear that at least with respect to Abraham circumcision functioned much like believer baptism today--an outward sign and badge of authenticity that points retroactively to an inward reality.

Yes, it is apparent that the temporal order of faith before circumcision is essential to the apostle's argument at that point; otherwise Abraham could not be the father of believers who are uncircumcised. Nevertheless, in v. 12, the apostle's statement requires that circumcision acts as a seal to those who walk in Abraham's steps after they are circumcised; otherwise Abraham could not be the father of believers who are circumcised.
 
I appreciate the clarification of your views. I think it just might be a good idea to use different terminology then those who we all know to be in error (RC, Church of Christ, FV). That being said, I still don't agree with your views here but my disagreement has to do with being Credo as opposed to Paedo and I think that should be dealt with (and is) on a different thread.
 
I agree that they are inseparable. I am just unwilling to insist that the one must follow from the other (faith after/from regeneration) in full, mature form.

It is quite proper to correlate spiritual "sight" with faith, as spiritual "blindness" is to lack of it. a man not "born again" cannot "see" the kingdom of God. The man born blind (John 9) was instantly and fully healed, granted mature sight. Mark 8:22-25 tells the story of a blind man healed by degrees. At first he saw no better than an infant just learning how to see--but he was still seeing. Jesus gave him not only sight, but mature sight over (a short) time.

The speed and quality of a man's seeing is not as vital as his sight. Likewise with faith. At some point that faith becomes awareness (appropriate to whatever age) of the Savior as lovely. No unregenerate eyes can so see.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't believe Eph 2 gives that level of liberality with its language in regards to a progressive growth in faith. "Grace through faith" is the operative phrase being connected to regeneration.
 
You can't get around the fact that baptismal regeneration is a works based salvation. The letter to the Galations DOES NOT teach us that a works mixture can be believed by truly saved people. The context of Galations is the uncompromising truth of the gospel of salvation by grace through faith ALONE as evidenced by the fact that he was refering to those opposing him as believing in another Christ (this = anathema, Gal. 1). Paul repeatedly said he was afraid all his labor had been "in vain" (that means wasted because they could be lost). The debate in Paul wasn't that this error may or may not be a deception that would result in damnation, but whether they had truly adopted the view or not at that point. Galations 5:10 says, "10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is."

He leaves no room for a faith/works mixture either, in fact thats exactly what he was dealing with in this false teaching (judaizers). Galations 5:2-4 says-

2Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

It cannot be argued that baptismal regeneration is not dependence on works. The phrase itself places regeneration as being dependent on baptism. This IS false gospel. We wont be surprised and see people who believed in baptismal regeneration (regeneration that is dependent on baptism) in heaven. We will see ony people that have trusted in Christ alone for their salvation. God has already spoken on that subject and He never contradicts Himself.


Spot on :up: It is Christ alone and that is it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top