When advocates of baptismal regeneration try to misframe discussions of the doctrine in the manner I discussed in my last post, they sometimes suggest that their opponents can't cite baptismal passages in support of their view. Supposedly, there aren't any Biblical passages about baptism that support justification apart from baptism. But the argumentation used elsewhere by advocates of baptismal regeneration suggests otherwise.
After claiming that no Biblical passages about baptism support justification apart from baptism, they'll often turn around and claim that all of the passages about baptism in the gospels other than the alleged references in John 3:5 and the post-resurrection context are irrelevant, since baptismal regeneration hadn't gone into effect yet. They'll say something along the lines of what Tertullian wrote against opponents of baptismal regeneration in his day: "Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and has become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism 13). Here's Jordan Cooper arguing for a late start to baptismal regeneration in some sense, in the context of addressing the thief on the cross. For a discussion of some of the evidence that leads advocates of baptismal regeneration to resort to that sort of argumentation, evidence that goes far beyond the thief on the cross, see here. It's the non-regenerative nature of baptism in the gospels that leads even many advocates of baptismal regeneration to concede that ground.
And when we get to Acts, there's a lot more of the sort of anti-baptismal-regeneration material we see in the gospels. See here, for example. The double healing phenomenon discussed in one of my posts linked above continues into the book of Acts, which makes more sense if there wasn't a change in the means of justification from the time of the gospels to the time of Acts. And advocates of baptismal regeneration will often dismiss Cornelius in Acts 10 as an exception to the rule. They also have difficulty explaining why Paul makes no reference to baptism when discussing how justification is normally received in Acts 19:2.
Likewise, 1 Peter 3:21 is a baptismal passage, and it provides evidence against baptismal regeneration rather than for it. Go here for a discussion of the passage.
The large majority of passages on baptism aren't even claimed as references to baptismal regeneration by advocates of the doctrine. And some of the passages advocates of justification apart from baptism appeal to the most are baptismal ones. I've frequently appealed to passages like Acts 10, Acts 19, and 1 Peter 3 over the years. The earliest discussion of baptism we know of in the New Testament era refers to being baptized for repentance (Matthew 3:11), which makes the most sense if regeneration occurs before baptism, thereby leading repentant individuals to participate in baptism and other acts of repentance. John the Baptist told people to repent (Matthew 3:2), which makes the most sense as something that was expected immediately, meaning that it was prebaptismal. He wanted repentance and its fruits to already be present among those coming to him for baptism (Matthew 3:7-8). The earliest discussion of baptism in the New Testament era, that one in Matthew 3, is anti-baptismal-regeneration. It's followed by other New Testament discussions of baptism that are opposed to baptismal regeneration as well. So, it isn't just non-baptismal passages that go against the idea that we're regenerated through baptism.
No comments:
Post a Comment