Thread: Will believing in baptismal regeneration send a person to hell?

It seems that baptismal regeneration denies justification by faith alone.
It becomes justification by faith alone + baptism. So one is then putting
their faith in baptism instead of Christ alone. This seems like a damnable
heresy. So how can baptismal regeneration be reconciled with
justication by faith alone?

Originally Posted by Javilo

It seems that baptismal regeneration denies justification by faith alone.
It becomes justification by faith alone + baptism. So one is then putting
their faith in baptism instead of Christ alone. This seems like a damnable
heresy. So how can baptismal regeneration be reconciled with
justication by faith alone?

Sin will send a person to hell.Sin that is not paid for will end up sending a person into the second death.
Baptismal regeneration is a false idea. Any sinner needs The Lord Jesus as their Great High Priest, and His once for all time sacrifice Hebrews 10

10By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

15Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

That is why you will be surprised by who is in heaven as well as by those who aren't...

Originally Posted by Javilo

It seems that baptismal regeneration denies justification by faith alone.
It becomes justification by faith alone + baptism. So one is then putting
their faith in baptism instead of Christ alone. This seems like a damnable
heresy. So how can baptismal regeneration be reconciled with
justication by faith alone?

The only teaching like baptismal regeneration that is combatted in Scripture is the teaching of the "perfection" of the saints by circumcision. In other words, not trusting in Christ, but in a sign of Christ. This leads men to hell, because they trust in something that is good, but not good enough.

Cheers,

I'm not certain why we seem to see threads that ask questions like: "Is ____ a damnable heresy...."

I think we need to be careful not to hold on to anything that is not taught by the Word of God. There are no teachings where we're permitted to believe something in rebellion to what God has revealed.

I think baptismal regeneration is like any other error. It depends, in the final analysis, about the other things that are attending this theology. It's not a "straw that breaks the camel's back" belief. If a person views baptism as instrumental to salvation on the basis of a free will decision of man then there are other very fundamental problems that are more problematic than the fantasy that he's now been regenerated because he got wet.

In the final analysis, we all doubt the Word of God to some extent and many of us hold on to heresy (error) or have held to it in the past. I don't take my orthodoxy lightly but completely agree with Anthony that, fundamentally, if we believe upon Christ then His sacrifice is perfect to atone for our sins. The person who belongs to Christ, however, is not marked by being rebellious to the Word of God. That doesn't men he won't believe error but ought not be obstinate to the Word.

Remember, Javilo, the assumptions behind the question can be as important as the question.

Nothing can "send one to hell" except not having Jesus as Savior and Lord.

It is great sin to misrepresent God's Word and there are consequences both temporal and beyond, but we get in to heaven only by God electing us, Christ dying for us, and the Holy Spirit effectually calling us at the appointed time so we put our faith in Christ alone for salvation.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I'm not certain why we seem to see threads that ask questions like: "Is ____ a damnable heresy...."

I think we need to be careful not to hold on to anything that is not taught by the Word of God. There are no teachings where we're permitted to believe something in rebellion to what God has revealed.

I think baptismal regeneration is like any other error. It depends, in the final analysis, about the other things that are attending this theology. It's not a "straw that breaks the camel's back" belief. If a person views baptism as instrumental to salvation on the basis of a free will decision of man then there are other very fundamental problems that are more problematic than the fantasy that he's now been regenerated because he got wet.

In the final analysis, we all doubt the Word of God to some extent and many of us hold on to heresy (error) or have held to it in the past. I don't take my orthodoxy lightly but completely agree with Anthony that, fundamentally, if we believe upon Christ then His sacrifice is perfect to atone for our sins. The person who belongs to Christ, however, is not marked by being rebellious to the Word of God. That doesn't men he won't believe error but ought not be obstinate to the Word.

The question you should be asking is whether one can have saving faith while believing in the need for baptism to save. The Galatians did this sort of thing for a while and yet were considered brothers in Christ. I've probably raised more questions than answered.

Ron

I think a better question is, "If a person believes in baptismal regeneration, is it possible for him to trust in Christ alone for his salvation from sin?" or "Is the doctrine of baptismal regeneration compatible with the doctrine of justification by faith alone?".

In response to the OP, I think it depends upon how he views his baptism. If someone believes that baptism is a man-made work that merits salvation, then he is denying that Christ's work alone is what saves us from sin.

There are those who believe in baptismal regeneration, but do not consider baptism to be a man-made work that merits salvation. They would believe that God's word comes through baptism and when God's word comes through baptism, God creates saving faith in the person being baptized.

Originally Posted by Scott1

Remember, Javilo, the assumptions behind the question can be as important as the question.

Nothing can "send one to hell" except not having Jesus as Savior and Lord.

It is great sin to misrepresent God's Word and there are consequences both temporal and beyond, but we get in to heaven only by God electing us, Christ dying for us, and the Holy Spirit effectually calling us at the appointed time so we put our faith in Christ alone for salvation.

I also think it misrepresents what people like Luther taught on Baptism and what has been represented in some Lutheran churches. There is a difference in teaching that one must be baptized to be saved and having a different view on Baptism by water and spirit.

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.

Belief in B-R often goes right along with belief that one can lose his salvation. B-R usually teaches that Original Sin is taken away. What good that does for someone is ultimately limited by his perseverance. He can still go to hell after "regeneration" via baptism due to his own sin.

The main issue, as has been pointed out, is such confidence in a human action that it is sufficient to save a person. If one has the confidence in his water baptism that the judaizers had in their bloody circumcision, then his soul is in danger.

If one's confidence is in the CHURCH that baptized (since the person is passive in baptism), and not in the CHRIST who baptizes, then his confidence is also misplaced, and his soul is in danger. He is looking away from himself, a necessary thing, but hoping in the wrong object.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Belief in B-R often goes right along with belief that one can lose his salvation. B-R usually teaches that Original Sin is taken away. What good that does for someone is ultimately limited by his perseverance. He can still go to hell after "regeneration" via baptism due to his own sin.

The main issue, as has been pointed out, is such confidence in a human action that it is sufficient to save a person. If one has the confidence in his water baptism that the judaizers had in their bloody circumcision, then his soul is in danger.

If one's confidence is in the CHURCH that baptized (since the person is passive in baptism), and not in the CHRIST who baptizes, then his confidence is also misplaced, and his soul is in danger. He is looking away from himself, a necessary thing, but hoping in the wrong object.

The Church of Christ believes in B-R and losing salvation though normal arminian groups don't believe in B-R at least. Heresy's that damn are ones having to do with the gospel itself. B-R fits the Galations passage exactly as dependence on a work.

We shouldn't have fear in confessing B-R as anathema; we should fear not saying it is. Its not our judgment to make; God has already made it (this last part has nothing to do with your quote, just saying it in general).

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

We shouldn't have fear in confessing B-R as anathema; we should fear not saying it is. Its not our judgment to make; God has already made it (this last part has nothing to do with your quote, just saying it in general).

What if the form of baptismal regeneration is one in which the person does not trust to the work performed, but to the One who works the salvation signified and sealed by the outward action?

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

We shouldn't have fear in confessing B-R as anathema; we should fear not saying it is. Its not our judgment to make; God has already made it (this last part has nothing to do with your quote, just saying it in general).

What if the form of baptismal regeneration is one in which the person does not trust to the work performed, but to the One who works the salvation signified and sealed by the outward action?

Can you elaborate on this question, please?

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Can you elaborate on this question, please?

See WCF 27:3, which speaks of grace being conferred, not from any power in the sacrament, but by the working of God's Holy Spirit, which, together with a positive precept authorising the use of the sacrament, holds out a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. Hence I might believe on the testimony of Scripture that baptism is a seal of the washing of regeneration and not a bare symbol.

Matthew. Now let's see how this will be misconstrued.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Matthew. Now let's see how this will be misconstrued.

If anyone else tackles this subject with the seriousness that I do then they shouldn't misconstrue this at all. I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, and granted I'm still struggling to understand it.

ing about it all the time.

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

Matthew. Now let's see how this will be misconstrued.

If anyone else tackles this subject with the seriousness that I do then they shouldn't misconstrue this at all. I'm trying to wrap my mind around it, and granted I'm still struggling to understand it.

ing about it all the time.

I'm not assuming you will Brother. Matthew's answers are fairly compact and, at first blush, it might appear he's saying more than he did. I understood what he pointed out and it's a very good point about BR and a manner of looking at it that I had never considered.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

I'm not assuming you will Brother.

I knew what you were saying, Rich. Unfortunately things are often misconstrued in baptism threads and they just deteriorate from there. That's too bad because I learn a lot from good discussions and answers like Matthew gave from the WCF.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

We shouldn't have fear in confessing B-R as anathema; we should fear not saying it is. Its not our judgment to make; God has already made it (this last part has nothing to do with your quote, just saying it in general).

What if the form of baptismal regeneration is one in which the person does not trust to the work performed, but to the One who works the salvation signified and sealed by the outward action?

There needs to be practical clarification here.

1.Do you believe someone is justified at the point of faith in Christ or the time of baptism?

2. Are the infants baptized in your church regenerate when they are baptized?

Saying that the sacrament brings regeneration but the person is trusting in Christ alone is implausible. If the baptism is the criteria then it is at least partially being depended on.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Barnpreacher

Can you elaborate on this question, please?

See WCF 27:3, which speaks of grace being conferred, not from any power in the sacrament, but by the working of God's Holy Spirit, which, together with a positive precept authorising the use of the sacrament, holds out a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. Hence I might believe on the testimony of Scripture that baptism is a seal of the washing of regeneration and not a bare symbol.

What of those who break covenant? They were baptized but never regenerated.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

What of those who break covenant? They were baptized but never regenerated.

If they break covenant and are ultimately apostate then they never had true faith, were never worthy receivers of the sacrament, showing they had no saving work of the Holy Spirit, so that baptism was never to them a seal of the washing of regeneration. But the unbelief of some does not make the faith of God null and void; rather, Let God be true, but every man a liar, Rom. 3:3, 4.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

1.Do you believe someone is justified at the point of faith in Christ or the time of baptism?

Justification and baptism operate in two different ways. One is a legal state before God, whilst the other is a visible word of God to man. This renders your alternative irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

2. Are the infants baptized in your church regenerate when they are baptized?

Elect infants are regenerated when God is pleased to regenerate them. The fact remains, however, that God has given baptism as a sign of spiritual blessings and a seal to the faith of those who are baptised.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

If the baptism is the criteria then it is at least partially being depended on.

Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." I cannot believe that the apostle expected his listeners to depend on baptism for the remission of sins, and yet he required it as an accompanying condition.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

1.Do you believe someone is justified at the point of faith in Christ or the time of baptism?

Justification and baptism operate in two different ways. One is a legal state before God, whilst the other is a visible word of God to man. This renders your alternative irrelevant.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

2. Are the infants baptized in your church regenerate when they are baptized?

Elect infants are regenerated when God is pleased to regenerate them. The fact remains, however, that God has given baptism as a sign of spiritual blessings and a seal to the faith of those who are baptised.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

If the baptism is the criteria then it is at least partially being depended on.

Acts 2:38, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." I cannot believe that the apostle expected his listeners to depend on baptism for the remission of sins, and yet he required it as an accompanying condition.

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?

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.

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).

It comes down to cause and effect. To place ANY work as the cause of regeneration is backwords and a salvation of works. Baptists and Presbyterians alike believe that baptism is a work produced by regeneration. Credo-baptists make it a result of the one being baptized's regeneration, while paedo-baptists make it a fruit of the parent's regeneration (from what I've been told by presbyterians). Either way its false to place it as even a partial cause of anyone's regeneration whether Paedo or Credo.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

What of those who break covenant? They were baptized but never regenerated.

If they break covenant and are ultimately apostate then they never had true faith, were never worthy receivers of the sacrament, showing they had no saving work of the Holy Spirit, so that baptism was never to them a seal of the washing of regeneration. But the unbelief of some does not make the faith of God null and void; rather, Let God be true, but every man a liar, Rom. 3:3, 4.

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)

Greetings, brothers!

Hope you don't mind if I jump into the discussion and raise a few questions for clarification. I'll quickly preface my questions with the admission that I'm not an expert in historical theology (my training is in Old Testament biblical studies), so I'll beg everyone's patience.

First, Matthew is correct that the WCF 28:1 identifies baptism as both a sign and also a seal of the covenant of grace and that, according to paragraph 6, baptism functions not merely as a pledge of grace but as a means by which grace is "really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time."

Am I correct to infer from the final two qualifiers that the real exhibition and conferral of grace are contingent on (1) the counsel of God's own will (i.e., whether God has predestined the person unto salvation) and (2) the historical point at which God in fact converts the person, i.e., "in God's own time"? This last point would seem to correspond to the opening statement, viz, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered." If I'm reading the WCF correctly, I would agree it's correct not to bind inexorably the timing of regeneration with the administration of baptism. I would think that both Prebyterians and Baptists could agree on this point.

Second, the primary prooftext to support viewing baptism as a "sign" and a "seal" appears to be Romans 4:11. According to this text, Abraham received the sign [semeion] of circumcision which functioned as a seal [sphragis] of the righteousness that he had obtained by the instrument of faith while still uncircumcised. I have always understood a sacramental semeion as an outward sign of an inward, spritual, or redemptive reality. The term sphragis is used of a badge or mark of authenticity (1 Cor. 9:2; 2 Tim. 2:9; Rev. 9:4). So in the case of Abraham, circumcision served to symbolize and authenticate an already existing inward redemptive reality, which he had before circumcision by faith, namely, a circumcised heart or regeneration.

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.

Now I'll raise some other questions. Paul makes it clear that circumcision functioned both as a sign and seal of an already existing inward reality. He seems to underscore this point when he highlights the fact that the inward grace was received via faith before the sacrament, which in turn pointed backwards in the case of Abraham. We know that God commanded Abraham to apply the sacrament indiscriminately to all the male members of his household. In this case, the sacrament would seem to take on a different character or function than its role vis-a-vis Abraham, at least for those who were not yet regenerate. The sacrament would point forward to an inward reality contingent on the faith of that individual. Hence, circumcision would serve as an outward sign of a potential or hypothetical inward reality. Or, as I suppose one who believes in a kind of presumptive regeneration might argue, it would serve as an outward sign of an inward reality not yet evident but inevitable in the individual. I think one might produce examples of "signs" that pointed forward to realities that were certain by virtue of God's pledge, e.g., the rainbow (Gen. 9:13) or realities that would become realized both on account of God's pledge and also on account of the individual's compliance with the covenant terms, e.g., the tree of life (Gen. 2:9; Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14).

Here are two questions that flow from my reflections above: (1) Is there scriptural evidence that God intended NT baptism to function as a sign [semeion] pointing forward to a merely potential or hypothetical inward reality? The text on baptism in Colossians 2:12 seems to assume the already existing reality of "a circumcision not made with hands," i.e., regeneration. (2) Is there scriptural evidence that God intended NT baptism to function as a merely potential or hypothetical seal or badge of authenticity [sphragis]?

No one questions that circumcision in the OT functioned to symbolize a potential or hypothetical reality. (At least I think no one questions this, but I could be wrong.) So I suppose I can see how by way of extension someone might accord NT baptism the same role. Is there clear NT data that assigns this role to baptism? More importantly, does a seal ever serve to authenticate that which is not yet authentic? Of course, when one applies baptism as a badge of authenticity to an infant, I suppose he could assume authenticity. This would seem to necessitate, at least in my present understanding, the view of presumptive regeneration.

Believe it or not, I'm not trying to set any traps. I'm just trying to better understand the paedobaptist's view of baptism's function as a sign and seal as reflected in the WCF.

Your servant,

Men, on further reflection, I realized that some of you may not judge my post above to relate specifically to the initial question posed by this tread. So I'm willing to use it for a different thread if others prefer.

My purpose, however, was to prepare the way for answering the original question. Will believing in baptismal regeneration send a person to hell? I guess, as I presently see it, the answer to that question probably depends on the particular variety of "baptismal regeneration" to which one adheres.

If one holds that baptism effects regeneration ex opere operato (by virtue of the inherent efficacy of the sacrament administered), he is espousing a fairly serious error that would seem to resemble that of the Judaizers in Galatia. I'm not sure Paul's anathemas were directed to everyone in the Galatian churches (laypeople included) who may have been initially swept away with this error. He did, however, seem to direct it toward teachers who were preaching this doctrine.

With respect to brothers who espouse and/or teach a form of baptismal regeneration and who do not make an ex opere operato connection between the sacrament and the reality but insert such qualifiers as potential or hypothetical, I'm not sure I could equate that analogously to the Galatian error. Confessedly, I'm very uncomfortable with a presumptive view of regeneration. I can't recall (it's been so long), but I think I remember reading some esteemed Reformed theologians who espoused something like presumptive regeneration. I'm not sure if their idea of "presumptive" necessitated an absolute connection between regeneration and baptism, i.e., because this child has been born into a covenant family and therefore has been baptized, we judge him ipso facto regenerate with no qualifications or doubts, or only a probable connection, i.e., we baptize the child because we presume (seeing he's born into a covenant family) that God has probably regenerated him and we will treat him as such until he proves otherwise. Perhaps some of you Prebyterian brothers can clarify.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

Men, on further reflection, I realized that some of you may not judge my post above to relate specifically to the initial question posed by this tread. So I'm willing to use it for a different thread if others prefer.

My purpose, however, was to prepare the way for answering the original question. Will believing in baptismal regeneration send a person to hell? I guess, as I presently see it, the answer to that question probably depends on the particular variety of "baptismal regeneration" to which one adheres.

If one holds that baptism effects regeneration ex opere operato (by virtue of the inherent efficacy of the sacrament administered), he is espousing a fairly serious error that would seem to resemble that of the Judaizers in Galatia. I'm not sure Paul's anatemas were directed to everyone in the Galatian churches (laypeople included) who may have been initially swept away with this error. He did, however, seem to direct it toward teachers who were preaching this doctrine.

With respect to brothers who espouse and/or teach a form of baptismal regeneration and who do not make an ex opere operato connection between the sacrament and the reality but insert such qualifiers as potential or hypothetical, I'm not sure I could equate that analogously to the Galatian error. Confessedly, I'm very uncomfortable with a presumptive view of regeneration. I can't recall (it's been so long), but I think I remember reading some esteemed Reformed theologians who espoused something like presumptive regeneration. I'm not sure if their idea of "presumptive" necessitated an absolute connection between regeneration and baptism, i.e., because this child has been born into a covenant family, we judge him ipso facto regenerate with no qualifications or doubts, or only a probable connection, i.e., we baptize the child because we presume (seeing he's born into a covenant family) that God has probably regenerated him and we will treat him as such until he proves otherwise. Perhaps some of you Prebyterian brothers can clarify.

I agree completely. Maybe a different term then "baptismal regeneration" should be used by those who don't believe in its inherent efficacy so as to avoid confusion with RC, FV, and groups that do subscribe to that error.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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?

Before you say that Rev. Winzer is "dodging", maybe you ought to review his body of work, and see if "dodging" is his style.

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.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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.

You seem awfully confident that Matthew is "dodging", instead of asking whether or not he might assent to your (incredulous?) follow-on propositions.

Of course Rev. Winzer is more than merely suggesting that infants could "believe on the Son of God." He confidently believes it may indeed happen and ought to be hoped for, on the authority of God's Word.

Psa 71:5-6 "For thou art my hope, O Lord GOD: thou art my trust from my youth. By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise shall be [or contextually, has been, the words being supplied in translation] continually of thee."

Similar to: Psa 22:9-10 "But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly."

So, faith in God is possible in utero, according to Scripture, and if from that point, then certainly at any moment thereafter, according to the mystery of Holy Spirit's operation.

Why must belief/repentance be the "immediate fruit of regeneration"?
What demands this? Why not simply "inevitable"?

All Rev. Winzer proposed is that SOME baptized infants might be regenerated; he certainly never stated that the application of water regenerated. Furthermore, baptism symbolizes regeneration (Titus 3:5), so if an infant has been regenerated (the possibility of which has has already been demonstrated from Scripture) then ipso facto he has been "baptismally regenerated" not by man's work but by Holy Spirit's baptism.

What we say is, that we are supposed to believe and act on the promises of God, for example: "I will be God to you, and to your children after you." We are to teach to those children "repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," with the expectation that such are the means of bringing out the natural effect of regeneration in our children, whenever that regeneration may have occurred.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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).

Part of the terminological problem in this discussion is the fact that Baptists and Presbyterians use the same terms in different ways.

On our side, we really don't draw hard distinctions between God's acts by himself and his acts as revealed through his church, when they pertain to the ELECT. We don't concern ourselves with the "timing" of baptism beyond a concern to obey God's commandment, because it isn't vital that we do so according to our theology.

For this reason, we seldom spend time trying to figure out whether a certain text is talking about "water" baptism or "Spirit" baptism. We simply consider those questions as differently applicable to the elect and the non-elect, secret things that we cannot detect in particular persons. For us, a baptized apostate (non-elect) is just that: an apostate baptized by the church, not by God himself, but liable to severer judgment for his former association and profession.

Whereas the Baptist does not consider the apostate to be baptized at all, because only believers (present tense) are baptized according to their ecclesiology. If the apostate comes back to the fold, if he (or the church) doesn't think he was a believer previously, then he must be baptized--not "once again", whatever ceremony he went through before, but again following his new (and improved) profession.

What it boils down to is that whomever the ELECT are, we (Presbyterians) associate baptism by the church with baptism by Holy Spirit, and we pay no attention to "when" his secret work takes place. We merely act on what we have seen or have record of.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

It comes down to cause and effect. To place ANY work as the cause of regeneration is backwords and a salvation of works. Baptists and Presbyterians alike believe that baptism is a work produced by regeneration. Credo-baptists make it a result of the one being baptized's regeneration, while paedo-baptists make it a fruit of the parent's regeneration (from what I've been told by presbyterians). Either way its false to place it as even a partial cause of anyone's regeneration whether Paedo or Credo.

No one on our side in this debate is placing faith in what men do. We are placing faith in what God does.

We are placing faith in what he SAYS when his church SPEAKS, when it speaks according to God's direction in the Bible, that is when it speaks "according to this Word" (Is. 8:20).

You are just speaking incorrectly when you say that we all believe baptism is a WORK produced by regeneration. This kind of view is one distinctly produced by the Baptist's ecclesiology. And the "what you've been told by Presbyterians," while it may have sufficed to try and explain in short-hand fashion, within your Baptist frame of reference, a correlation between your views and ours, it really fails the test of clarity within our ecclesiology and sacramentology.

What we (Presbyterians) are supposed to do is look at what the church has said (its outward performance of baptism) as the utterance of God's promise: "I will save all those who have faith in the suffering, dying, dead, buried, and rising Son." We are supposed to believe God's Word of gospel, whether it is printed, vocalized, or turned into a (authorized) symbol that we can see and feel.

Baptism is very suitable to a statement of the gospel, because it is not something we DO, but something that was DONE to us. When I look back at my (infant) baptism, I have FAITH that God has, somewhere in my past, begun a good work in me, in my spirit, through baptism of the Spirit (which is regeneration) that he is carrying through to completion and perfection in the resurrection of my body, on account of the work of Christ "who loved me and gave himself for me." This is the import of my external baptism.

What we musn't do is put false confidence in the FACT that it was done to us outwardly and without regard to saving faith as necessary to its salutary effect (as a species of the Galatian error), or that it was done to us by XYZ CHURCH, and therefore placing faith in such and such a ministry, and not in the Holy Spirit's ministrations.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Semper Fidelis

We operate within visible means of grace - God gives the increase.

Thankyou, Rich, for bringing this to the fore. It seems to me to be fundamental to a reformed understanding of ministry.

Originally Posted by Dr. Bob Gonzales

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.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

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.