Devoted to the Propagation and Defense of New Testament Christianity
VOLUME 22
November 26, 1970
NUMBER 29, PAGE 7-8a

Baptismal Regeneration

Edward Fudge

In the October 22, 1970 Gospel Guardian, Brother Dan Walters took exception to my choice of words in an earlier Guardian article entitled "To Baptists, On Baptism, From An Outsider." Specifically, I said in that article that "we... reject completely the doctrine of 'baptismal regeneration.' " Brother Walters says that he, for one, does NOT reject that doctrine (at least in the way he defines it). For the record, and before I say any more about the expression in my article, I do not reject the doctrine either — IN THE SENSE IN WHICH HE DEFINES IT--and said so in my original article! And I strongly suspect that Brother Walters DOES reject the doctrine in the way I was using it there, which, by the way, has been the standard historical use of the term from the days of the medieval Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation.

What I DO REJECT is "a doctrine of sacra-mentalism." I said that in the second paragraph above the disputed quotation. Furthermore, the sentence immediately preceding the one with which my brother took issue said: "We affirm that baptism (in Peter's words) 'doth also now save us.' " "Yet, (I went on to say in the next sentence) "we reject completely the doctrine of `baptismal regeneration.' "

Toward the end of that article I spelled this out in more detail:

Paul affirms that faith to be "saving" MUST SHOW ITSELF IN THE ACT OF OBEDIENT BAPTISM. . . .THERE IS NO SAVING VALIDITY IN THE ACT OF A PHYSICAL IMMERSION AND IMMERSION ALONE. Yet when a man does this apparently foolish thing AS A SUBMISSIVE ACT OF OBEDIENCE to a gracious God ... THEN, AND NOT UNTIL THEN, baptism becomes for him an "obedience of faith." . . . Then that man becomes an heir of the righteousness which is by faith [emphasis added] .

Defining Terms

Brother Walters gives his own definition of "baptismal regeneration," namely the "washing of regeneration" in Titus 3:5. I see how he might misunderstand the expression in my article by momentarily forgetting the context while at the same time thinking of the "washing of regeneration." I appreciate his calling that to my attention. I apologize for not specifically stating that Titus 3:5 was not in my mind in that expression. I did not think that was necessary, however, as I was using the expression "baptismal regeneration" in its standard historical sense.

Historically, "baptismal regeneration" refers to the doctrine of baptism as an act which, in and of itself, in a sacramental and almost-magical way, has the power to remit sins. This was the doctrine of the apostate Roman Church of the middle ages. This "baptismal regeneration" doctrine led many people in those days to delay "baptism" (so-called) until they were on their death-bed, thinking that this would insure their dying in a forgiven state. It led others to think (as some still do today from time to time) that every time they sinned they needed to "get baptized" (their expression, not Scripture's) again. This false doctrine of "baptismal regeneration" made baptism a magic act to be performed at the last minute, rather than an act of obedient faith which brought one into Christ, into His body the church, and into a life of service which began at that point rather than ENDED! Baker's "Dictionary of Theology" has a discussion of the expression in its historical sense — other such reference works will give this same meaning.

I intended to make this all clear by the other statements in the article, but apparently did not--at least in the minds of some readers. For that I am sincerely sorry. Writers have a responsibility to their readers, and I try to remember that, but I believe that readers have a certain responsibility also. Some material is meant to be scanned. Other material is intended to be read carefully--it is written that way. Any written material (by any person) deserves a reading in its own context. I don't believe that is an unfair request to make.

Some Background

The article "To Baptists, On Baptism, From An Outsider" was written originally for the Baptist Standard, the "official" publication of the Southern Baptist Convention in the State of Texas. It was returned. The editor said that he "would welcome the opportunity" of publishing the article if his magazine were "primarily for ministers," but that since "98 per cent or so" of his readers were "in the lay category," he questioned "the value of launching a theological debate which (would] require so much space." He also noted that he "would want a balancing article from a Baptist" and that "others would also want to be heard." I waited about six months and tried him again, with the same result.

Finally I sent it to the Guardian (also published in Texas and read by many Texans), hoping that at least some of those "one out of five Southern Baptists" who "said they believed that baptism is necessary to salvation" would read it there. I wanted to tell them that they did not really BELONG in the Baptist denomination, and that they ought to be working with undenominational Christians who also believe that baptism "saves, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pet. 3:21).

"To Baptists, On Baptism, From An Outsider" was — as Brother Tant editorialized at the time — "an honest and sincere attempt to `communicate' with Baptists . . . to write in such a spirit and manner as will encourage Baptist people to give thought and study to what is said rather than rejecting it out of hand because of some triggering of a negative or hostile reaction."

Incidentally, I still have several copies of the material dealing with the so-called "causal" (denoting "cause") use of eis (see GG, May 28, 1970) and will be happy to send a copy to anyone who wants it. Please send a self-addressed, stamped envelope of the regular (No. 10, long) business size.

944 S. Geyer, Kirkwood, Mo., 63122