These will simply represent some off the top reflections on the topic of baptism, in particular so-called baptismal regeneration. To be frank, I have almost no tolerance for even considering this doctrine. I see it as heretical with all the gravitas that word is supposed to convey. In fact, on both Twitter and Facebook I posted the following quick quip: “Baptismal regeneration is not biblical; it is hermeneutical QED.” I received a response from someone I respect, but who I also severely disagree with on this very significant point. I didn’t realize he maintained this position tell he made his comment; he wrote:

I’d argue that Romans 6-8 stands as a witness against this statement. But, of course, I’m sure you read it otherwise. So, it appears the debate itself is hermeneutical all the way down.

And further:

Bobby – It’s certainly a serious and important matter. Furthermore, one position on it is right (true, orthodox, and faithful to the witness of scripture) while the other position is wrong. I’m certainly not trying to trivialize it. My point is that there is no perspicuous witness of Scripture on this point. Everything hinges on the reader’s tradition of hermeneutics. Otherwise, there would be no disagreement or debate.

For the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglican, and Lutheran Churches, your rejection of Baptismal Regeneration is a profound misreading of scripture (and heresy—insofar as your reading departs from the orthodoxy collectively affirmed by these communions and the consensus fidelium). But you, being formed and schooled in the Reformed Protestant tradition, have learned to read scripture differently on this point. So, based on your tradition’s hermeneutic, you are ready to declare the majority of your fellow Christians, as well as the long history of Christian witness from at least the Church Fathers to Luther and beyond, in heresy.

Now, you may be right. The majority of the present, as well as the majority of the past have no special claim on truth. Both sides of the debate will have to argue it out, as we have been doing since the Reformation, furnishing arguments rooted in scripture. But neither side can say, Scripture clearly and plainly bears witness to my position. Scripture’s witness on the matter just is the crux of the debate.[1]

I responded to my interlocutor:

but this isn’t ultimately a matter of biblical exegesis in your response, but ecclesiology and theory of authority. It is a matter of thinking grace and its givenness; again, bound up in dogmatic concerns, that are discernibly proximate to Scripture’s witness or not. If Scripture is not simply a wax nose of one’s tradition then it can speak for itself and on its own canonical terms. And it can do so in such a way that will be perspicacious to the point that it can divide through the bone and marrow of the Church’s tradition. That’s the basis upon which I argue that baptismal regeneration is false. Not to mention that the early church itself engaged in credobaptism. Ie credo in the sense that belief preceded baptism, it wasn’t instigated by it.

Sometimes it seems to me that folks seem to adopt a sort of biblical relativism and equate that with being charitable. Yes, I can recognize a pervasive interpretive pluralism as a sociological phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean the bible doesn’t teach something that is clearly greater than one’s location in whatever tradition. That seems to be the premise of your response, but I think that is wrong.

I want to expand even further. The seriousness of this is hard to overstate. Neither my son or daughter have been baptized yet, but they have professed and confessed Christ as their Lord and Savior for years. Because of a variety of life circumstances neither of my kids have been in an ecclesial situation where they could be baptized. According to my interlocutor’s tradition my kids are not ‘saved.’ But this is where things become exceedingly problematic for his tradition. Holy Scripture does not provide us with the pattern he asserts; when he asserts that the consensus fidelium has maintained for centuries of the Church. This is not the consensus fidelium, it is the consensus Catholicium; there’s a strident difference. He claims that this even bleeds into the trad of the Church all the way up and until Luther. Even so, many things, such as indulgences were present in the Church up and until Luther. Further, there are many things that have been present in the Western Church for millennia at this point; greatest of which is the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and the interpretive Magisterium of the Holy Roman Catholic church. None of these represent exegetical arguments from Scripture for baptismal regeneration, instead they present us with a fertile tradition wherein things like baptismal regeneration are allowed to be home-spun from layers of traditional fabrics that have been woven extra Scriptura.

Back to my point about pervasive interpretive pluralism. This is the sociological phenomenon Roman Catholic sociologist, Christian Smith, identified in his book Bible Made Impossible: Why Biblicism Is Not a Truly Evangelical Reading of Scripture. But forthrightly, so what! All this does is identify a superficial, but real phenomenon that will result the moment more than one person attempts to exegete Scripture (or anything else for that matter). This does nothing to subvert the reality that Scripture teaches something, and it does so per its own canonical and theological context. Indeed, Scripture, if it finds its reality in Christ alone, then this must be allowed to be regulative for determining the ultimate meaning of the Text; not some tradition in the Church, no matter how ancient or layered that tradition is. As C.S. Lewis noted, it is utter chronological snobbery to make arguments based simply upon a time-honored tradition; whether that be with reference to the past, present, or future. This is the basis of my interlocutor’s argument; which he obviously recognizes is an issue. Nevertheless, he still appeals to the “consensus” as if it ought to have some sort of interpretive weight simply because it is.

Like I noted previously, to make the appeal my interlocutor does is one that is grounded petitio principii in what yet needs to be proven. In other words, his appeal is to an ecclesial tradition that is itself subject to the reality of Scripture’s witness. Does it withstand that witness; a witness that comes loaded with its own categories and points of teaching? Is Scripture really so malleable that it is subject to a reader’s response interpretation that is in-formed by an alien tradition that may or may not have proximity to Scripture’s ‘Sacra Doctrina?’

The weightiness of this question cannot be overstated. My interlocutor ostensibly maintains that the Church alone has the capacity to dispense effectual or saving Grace; as if grace is a quantity or substance that has the capacity to be possessed and manhandled by the Church herself. But is this really what the reality of Scripture teaches? All throughout Scripture we see just the opposite. We see the Apostle Paul referring to his ‘in Christ’ theology, or what Calvin, or even Cyril would call unio cum Christo (union with Christ) soteriology. In other words, we don’t see the Church in the place or as the dispenser of salvation through the holy sacraments; instead we see Christ directly as the mediator of salvation himself for the many. We see teaching by the Apostle John that tells us to confess our sins directly to God in Christ, and here comes the te absolvo; not through the disbursements of the Church.

Baptism is clearly an important step in the salvific process, but in Scripture baptism does not save; instead it bears witness to the Savior’s work in the recipient’s life. Theologically it is Christ’s vicarious faith, his vicarious baptism for us in his vicarious humanity that has salvific weight. But it isn’t baptism that brings salvation, it is Christ himself and his vicarious identification with us. There are no conditions for salvation to inhere in someone’s life, other than saying yes by the Spirit in and through the Christ’s Yes for us as He serves as our Mediator and High Priest. This is the ground of salvation, not a watery immersion (or sprinkling). But we must attend to Scripture itself, and not allow the Church’s tradition to supervene in such a way that Scripture is not allowed to speak and even contradict the Church’s teaching. If we don’t attend to Scripture this way then there is no way for the voice of the living God to contradict aberrant teaching within the Church’s walls; there is no voice but an ad hoc voice presumed to be the Lord’s voice as it comes conflated with the Church’s.

The Pink Elephant

The seriousness of this issue is this: if what my interlocutor is claiming is true then I am not his brother in Christ, and he is not mine. From my perspective I can maintain that he is saved, as long as he sees salvation coming from the dispensary of Christ’s life itself rather than the treasury of merits in the Church. But from his perspective I cannot be saved unless I am in his Church, or in the traditional line of churches he believes represent the so-called consensus fideilum (the consensus of the faithful). This is as serious as things get. This is not merely an adiaphoric teaching that we can agree to disagree on. Nein, it is an issue that determines whether or not we believe someone will spend eternity with Christ or not. There is nothing more serious than this! In our time of glossing over things, in the age of the internet and social media, it seems like issues like this are often papered over; but this cannot be. If my interlocutor is right then I am not saved, and on my way to an eternal hell. If I am right, at best, his salvation is questionable. I can see him as a brother in Christ, but not with much assurance.

[1] Anonymous Facebook commenter, accessed 09–10–2019.