Reasonable Faith Forums

General Discussion => Choose Your Own Topic => Topic started by: 031107 on June 02, 2015, 10:49:25 am

Title: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: 031107 on June 02, 2015, 10:49:25 am

I just don't get it. The passage clearly says "baptism now saves you." So I just don't understand how it doesn't teach baptismal regeneration.

Even if it's not through the "removal of dirt" it sounds like the passage is saying "baptism saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." So even if baptism doesn't save as a removal is dirt it still saves as an appeal to God, i.e. baptism is how we make an appeal to God.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: 031107 on June 03, 2015, 08:45:44 am
I ask because I'm generally interested in knowing the truth and being aligned with God's will for my life.

Also because I was affiliated with a church that teaches baptismal regeneration, but I'm thinking of joining a different fellowship that does not teach baptismal regeneration.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: JFS on June 03, 2015, 11:24:48 am
That's a big topic for sure and welcome!

Let's have a look at the passage in context:

Quote
20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.[e] It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

I would like to present a couple of things that I think are evident from this verse:

a.  Baptism is a GOOD THING
b.  The salvation comes through the resurrection, not the symbolism of the Baptism

So, while I don't get into the salvation by baptism debate because I think that being baptized is a wonderful and great thing to do.  On the other hand, I am quite comfortable that if a dying person gives their heart to the Lord without having time to have been baptized before dying they would be granted eternal life.  How do I know?  The thief on the cross was not baptized.

I hope this helps!  If you are considering joining a church that does not baptize (I don't think that is the case) then make sure you understand why they wouldn't want to baptize believers.  It wouldn't be for me.  God bless!
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: Quo Vadis? on June 03, 2015, 01:35:40 pm

I just don't get it. The passage clearly says "baptism now saves you." So I just don't understand how it doesn't teach baptismal regeneration.

Even if it's not through the "removal of dirt" it sounds like the passage is saying "baptism saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." So even if baptism doesn't save as a removal is dirt it still saves as an appeal to God, i.e. baptism is how we make an appeal to God.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

It says nothing about "regeneration" in the passage.  That is the easy answer.

What it does say is that it is a "pledge" of a clear conscience towards God.  There is no doubt there is a very close relationship between this "pledge" or "sign" of faith and what it signifies [i.e. faith].  But it is by grace that we are saved through faith.  The baptism is a sign of that faith.

Let me put it this way, Noah was ultimately saved by faith.  When God tells Noah he is about to flood the whole earth and that Noah should build a boat, Noah believes.  Noah's faith results in him building a boat which is the means of grace for his salvation from the flood.

When the Christian places their faith in Christ they do what Christ commands also.  The first of those commands is to be baptized as a sign.  That is what Christians do.  They identify with Christ.  The baptism is a means of grace to signify this salvation because it signifies the faith through which they are being saved. 

But again, there is nothing about regeneration in the passage.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: 031107 on June 03, 2015, 01:50:05 pm
Thanks, JFS!

The church I am considering joining teaches baptism, but it does not teach that people are saved at the point of baptism.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: 031107 on June 03, 2015, 01:54:54 pm

It says nothing about "regeneration" in the passage.  That is the easy answer.


People that teach baptismal regeneration (the belief that we are saved at the point of baptism) would say "saves" is equivalent to "regenerates." I.e. they read the passage as "baptism now provides you with salvation."
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: JFS on June 03, 2015, 02:32:58 pm
Thanks, JFS!

The church I am considering joining teaches baptism, but it does not teach that people are saved at the point of baptism.

Yes, that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.  I don't believe that baptism is a deal breaker (again, consider the thief on the cross).

Good chattin' with ya bro!
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: Quo Vadis? on June 03, 2015, 02:59:11 pm

It says nothing about "regeneration" in the passage.  That is the easy answer.


People that teach baptismal regeneration (the belief that we are saved at the point of baptism) would say "saves" is equivalent to "regenerates." I.e. they read the passage as "baptism now provides you with salvation."

Well, that is the first problem right there.  "To save" is not the same as to be "regenerated".

Regeneration deals with being made spiritually alive.  Salvation deals with our escape from judgment and receipt of an inheritance along with Christ.  However, if you understand it in that sense you can see how being made spiritually alive can lead to faith, and through faith we are saved, and that baptism is a sign of faith.  But regeneration must happen first before you can have faith.  If you are spiritually dead you cannot have faith.  And you must have faith before you can seek baptism as a sign of that faith.  Regeneration must precede faith and faith must precede baptism.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: JFS on June 03, 2015, 03:17:52 pm
Zclub, I am just wondering if you would mind changing your member name?

Every time I see it, this happens in my mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9hBtN7pGw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9hBtN7pGw)

I trust that you understand my pain. :P
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: Quo Vadis? on June 03, 2015, 03:31:31 pm
Zclub, I am just wondering if you would mind changing your member name?

Every time I see it, this happens in my mind:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9hBtN7pGw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z9hBtN7pGw)

I trust that you understand my pain. :P

Lol.  Well, I wouldn't want to cause a brother to stumble.  I will consider it.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: Quo Vadis? on June 03, 2015, 03:36:23 pm
How is that?
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: 031107 on June 03, 2015, 03:40:08 pm

Yes, that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me.  I don't believe that baptism is a deal breaker (again, consider the thief on the cross).

Good chattin' with ya bro!

Yeah, I'm just contemplating the costs of leaving since I have a lot of friend at my old church, although I don't agree with the church's doctrine.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: Gordy on June 03, 2015, 06:09:42 pm

I just don't get it. The passage clearly says "baptism now saves you." So I just don't understand how it doesn't teach baptismal regeneration.

Even if it's not through the "removal of dirt" it sounds like the passage is saying "baptism saves you as an appeal to God for a clear conscience." So even if baptism doesn't save as a removal is dirt it still saves as an appeal to God, i.e. baptism is how we make an appeal to God.

Any input would be greatly appreciated.

The Early Christians believed in Baptismal regeneration. Though modern sects fallen away from early Christianity deny the regeneration of baptism and are obstinate in their denial.

"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." Theopilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, 2:16 (A.D. 181).

" 'And dipped himself,' says [the Scripture], 'seven times in Jordan.' It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but it served as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born 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.'" Irenaeus, Fragment, 34 (A.D. 190).

"But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regeneration: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, 'Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God' Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent's poisonous bite, unless we wilfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted." Augustine, On Forgiveness of sin and baptism, 43:27 (A.D. 412).

If you believe in baptismal regeneration you have for your company all the early Christians in that belief.
Title: Re: Can someone explain how 1 Peter 3:21 doesn't teach baptismal regeneration?
Post by: JFS on June 03, 2015, 07:19:44 pm
How is that?

Lol. Awesome!