Sunday, May 12, 2024
The Problems For Baptismal Regeneration In Romans 10
I want to expand on what I've said about the subject in other posts (like here and here). Notice that baptism is absent across multiple contexts addressed in Romans 10: the activities of the justified person and others involved (no getting baptized, no baptizing, no sending a baptizer), the means by which justification is received (no baptism), the nearness of redemption (as referenced in verses 8-11, and both the theme of nearness in general and what this passage in particular says about it make more sense if you don't have to wait until baptism to be justified), and the Old Testament passages cited (involving no baptism or equivalent of it). The absence of baptism across such a large number and variety of contexts is conspicuous and is best explained by justification apart from baptism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Baptismal regeneration does not deny the possibility of justification apart from baptism (cf perfect contrition), and even new covenant believers who have not been regenerate by perfect contrition or baptism, like all believers under the old covenant (regeneration is a new covenant blessings), are justified in the limited sense in which all believers always were prior to the new covenant
ReplyDeleteThe primary issue in any discussion like this is what's normative, not an exception allowed by an individual or group who holds the view in question. Since Romans 10 and other such passages are addressing what's normative, it's inadequate to respond by referring to how advocates of baptismal regeneration allow for exceptions in whatever circumstances.
DeleteI don't know what you have in mind when you refer to some kind of justification in a "limited sense" without regeneration. The context of Romans 10 is justification in the fullest sense, what Paul had been discussing leading up to that chapter.