Another Reason To Reject The Baptismal Regeneration Interpretation Of John 3:5

In other posts, I've discussed some of the problems with taking John 3:5 as a reference to baptismal regeneration. The exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus is set in an Old Testament context, and baptismal regeneration isn't taught in the Old Testament. Even advocates of baptismal regeneration frequently admit that it wasn't in effect at the time when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus (thus explaining why so many people are justified apart from baptism in the gospels while nobody in the gospels is justified at the time of baptism). The claim that everybody agreed with the baptismal regeneration interpretation of John 3:5 prior to the Reformation is far from true. And so on. You can go here to find links to some of the relevant posts in our archives. What I want to do in this post is focus on another line of evidence.

The terminology of being born again is also used in 1 Peter. I've written elsewhere about how 1 Peter contradicts baptismal regeneration, including in 3:21. 1 Peter 1:23-25 tells us that people are born again in the context of preaching, which is distinct from the later context of baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17). I've discussed the importance of distinguishing between the preaching context and the baptismal context at length elsewhere, like here. So, not only is John 3:5 poorly explained by a baptismal regeneration interpretation in its own context, but such an interpretation also poorly explains the other New Testament passage that uses the language of being born again.

Protestants Are Being Consistent About Canonical Issues

I recently came across a critic of Protestantism who made the common assertion that we need an infallible source to tell us what canon of scripture to follow. Apparently, we're supposed to think that fallibly applying some general principles from an infallible source in order to arrive at a canon isn't enough. This critic of Protestantism seemed to be suggesting that we need an infallible source to do something like list the canonical books for us. Supposedly, it's too difficult to discern a canon without such guidance. And so on.

Part of what we should keep in mind when issues like those come up is that the manner in which Protestants handle those canonical issues is substantially the same as how they handle canonical issues in contexts other than scripture and how such critics of Protestantism handle canonical issues in many contexts in their lives. We all accept canons for the writings of various historical figures (Tacitus, Justin Martyr, George Washington, etc.) without any sort of infallible ruling on the subject, for example. There are ongoing disagreements among critics of Protestantism about which extrabiblical traditions are part of the Christian rule of faith and which aren't, such as which papal teachings qualify as an exercise of papal infallibility and which don't. Those non-Protestants aren't relying on an infallible list, just as they arrive at a lot of other canons in other contexts in life without any infallible list. For further discussion of topics like these, see here and here, among other posts.

More About Zeitoun And The Resurrection

Cameron Bertuzzi just posted a video responding to Gavin Ortlund regarding the Zeitoun Marian apparitions. I want to address several of the issues involved.

Three Problems With Baptismal Regeneration

There are more than three, but here's an easy way to remember three of them. Baptismal regeneration is inconsistent with:

- The freeness of justification (the exclusion of works).

- The immediacy of justification (you can be justified at any moment through a means you always have access to).

- The context of justification (the prebaptismal context of believing while hearing the gospel proclaimed).

You can click the three links above for further discussion of each.

Bede On Jesus' Opposition To Mary In Luke 8:19

"Allegorically this text [Luke 8:19] harmonizes with the one above, where it is said of the Jews who attend only to the letter of the Law: And whoever has not, that also which he thinks he has, will be taken away from him. For the Synagogue from whose flesh he was begot is the mother and brothers of Jesus and the Jewish people. Because the Saviour is teaching inside they are unable to enter in, even though they come, since they neglect to understand his sayings spiritually. The crowd in anticipation enters his house, because, with Judea abandoning him, the Gentiles flocked to Christ, and being more mentally receptive the nearer they were in faith, they drank in the inward mysteries of life, in accordance with what the Psalmist says: Come to him and be enlightened." (Bede, Calvin Kendall and Faith Wallis, translators and editors, Bede: Commentary On The Gospel Of Luke [Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press, 2023], 324-25)

I've written elsewhere about Bede's ignorance of the assumption of Mary.

Exercising The Soul

"For as inactivity hurts the body, so also inactivity as to what is good renders the soul more supine and feeble." (John Chrysostom, Homilies On Hebrews 10:5)

What should we make of the Zeitoun Marian apparitions?

I've discussed the subject in other threads over the years, but only briefly, and the Zeitoun case has been getting a lot of attention lately. So, I want to expand upon my previous comments.

How many ways are there to be justified?

There are some Biblical passages that can seem to support justification through something other than faith if the passages are taken in isolation. For example, Matthew 19:16-21 could be taken as evidence for salvation through selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor. John 6:53, if it's thought to refer to the eucharist, could be taken to prove justification through participation in the eucharist. John 13:8 teaches salvation through foot washing. Acts 2:38 teaches baptismal regeneration. Acts 8:17 teaches that we're justified through the laying on of hands. Etc.

Early Interest In Mark's Authorship

When critics of the traditional gospel authorship attributions discuss the subject, they sometimes distinguish between the two earlier gospels, which they consider to be Mark and Matthew, and what they take to be the latter two, Luke and John. They'll concede that there are significant internal indications of authorship in the latter two sources, such as the "we" passages in Acts and the reference to the author of the fourth gospel in John 21:24. But it's suggested that we don't have anything like that for the other two gospels.

Where's the fulfillment of Mark 10:39?

In my last post, I referred to how John 21:18-19 lines up well with what other sources report about Peter and Mark's use of Peter as a source. Something similar can be said of the apostle John, but with another element that adds further credibility to what's reported about him.

The Gospel Authors' Witness To Each Other

We often think of the evidence for the authorship of the gospels in terms of internal evidence and external sources of the patristic era, like Papias and Irenaeus. But we should also think in terms of the testimony of earlier sources, including the evidence the gospel authors provide for each other.

The Parallels Between Acts 10 And Galatians 3

When Cornelius' justification apart from baptism in Acts 10 is discussed, the focus tends to be on verses 44-48 and the timing of the reception of the Holy Spirit. But we should also include verse 43 and notice some other issues in verses 44-48.

Verse 43 refers to how "everybody" is justified by "believing". Peter isn't anticipating that his audience will be some kind of exception to the rule ("everybody"), and he mentions faith without saying anything about baptism. What happens in verse 44 seems to be what Peter was anticipating and what's normative, not exceptional.

In verse 44, we're told that Cornelius and those with him received the Spirit while "listening". That should sound familiar. Paul refers to how the Galatians were justified through "hearing with faith" in Galatians 3:2. That's further evidence that what happened to Cornelius, in terms of being justified and receiving the Spirit before baptism, is normative. The "listening" and "hearing" in Acts 10 and Galatians 3 are references to a prebaptismal context. You hear the gospel message being proclaimed, and you believe while hearing it. Baptism doesn't occur until later. And that helps explain why Paul distinguishes between preaching and baptizing (1 Corinthians 1:17). He was the spiritual father of the Corinthians through the proclamation of the gospel to them (1 Corinthians 4:15), even though he didn't baptize many of them. The preaching context of justification is another among many lines of evidence against baptismal regeneration, and it's another way in which Cornelius' justification is normal rather than exceptional.

Why is there prebaptismal justification in Acts 10?

An explanation often put forward for why Cornelius and those with him were justified prior to baptism in Acts 10:43-48 is that the prebaptismal reception of the Holy Spirit was offered as proof of God's acceptance of Gentiles. But that acceptance had already been revealed to Cornelius by an angel and to Peter in his vision. And a reception of the Spirit at the time of baptism would also have been proof of the acceptance of Gentiles. Changing the timing of the reception of the Spirit wasn't needed. The best explanation for the prebaptismal timing of the reception of the Spirit is that that's the normal scenario. Its normativity is further evidenced by how Cornelius and those with him are cited as being justified in the same way as others in Acts 11:17-18 and 15:7-11.

Updated Recommendations For Bible Study Resources

Here's the 2025 update for Denver Seminary's Old Testament bibliography. Here's the update for their bibliography for the New Testament. You can go here to access Steve Hays' bibliography, which he updated shortly before his death a few years ago. The Best Commentaries site also has a lot of useful information.

Has there been enough of an increase in apologetic work?

It's often suggested that more apologetic work isn't needed in a certain context, since there are so many web sites that have addressed the topic, there are so many books discussing it, etc. And people will sometimes make such comments about apologetics in general, not just a particular subcategory. Look at how many YouTube channels there are that address apologetic issues. Look at all of the books that have been published. And blog posts. And articles in academic journals. And radio programs. Sometimes somebody will even cite one source, as if the fact that one book has addressed a topic is sufficient. After all, anybody who's interested in the topic could go to that book to find the relevant information.