Baptismal regeneration

[6] One of the earliest of the Church Fathers to enunciate clearly and unambiguously the doctrine of baptismal regeneration ("the idea that salvation happens at and by water baptism duly administered") was Cyprian (c. 200 – 258): "While he attributed all the saving energy to the grace of God, he considered the 'laver of saving water' the instrument of God that makes a person 'born again,' receiving a new life and putting off the self-centred life that he had previously lived.

[16] Gavin Ortlund has argued that regenerative language used by some early Church Fathers, could be more complex than implying a causative relationship, him stating: "the sign and the thing signified often stand in one for the other", he pointed to Cyril of Jerusalem as seeing Cornelius being saved at the moment of faith, yet connecting baptism as regenerative for him, without being causative.

[18] Petr Chelčický did not believe that baptism by itself could save but is a part of the process of salvation which included instruction, confirmation and discipleship.

38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

(Titus 3:5)" Quoting the Decree on the Church's Missionary Activity, Christopher J. Walsh comments that the Second Vatican Council reaffirms the traditional understanding of Christian initiation as a unity and a process: "It is not something achieved with a trickle of water one Sunday afternoon, but a progressive entry into a commitment and a relationship [...] Becoming a Christian is a conversion a growing adherence to Christ in faith and sacrament over an extended period of time" (see also Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1229–31).

Against this background the more detailed doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church can be summed up in the following statements from that catechism: Saint Cyprian of Carthage explained the salvation promised by Jesus to one of the thieves crucified with him ("Today, you shall be with me in paradise", Luke 23:43) but who is not reported to have been baptized with water, by saying he was baptized in his own blood as a martyr, an opinion shared by Saint Jerome, while Saint Augustine of Hippo said that "the thief received the baptism of substitution ... through the faith and conversion of the heart, taking into account that circumstances made it impossible for him to celebrate the sacrament".

[35][36] The Bible's author uses the picture of cleansing to show how baptism applies Jesus Christ's saving work to receivers.

[38] Lutherans state that in his letter to Titus, Paul introduces the work of the Holy Spirit, again linking baptism, new life, and the blessings Jesus has won.

The results are amazing: buried and raised with Christ; clothed with Christ; washed clean of sin; a forgiven, believing child of God; an heir of eternal life.The Lutheran Small Catechism states that baptism "works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare.

[41] According to a Lutheran writer, "[i]t is in the context of writing against people who believed that 'Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are no benefit'...Luther's point was that since the Lord instituted baptism (Matthew 28:19) and spoke of its importance (Mark 16:16), then we are to do as he says and baptize, knowing that the Holy Spirit works through baptism to change people's hearts.

"[42] Twentieth-century Lutheran theologian Edmund Schlink, citing Titus 3:5, comments: "In this act of salvation all human activity is expressly excluded.

It is done entirely by God's deed, by the one act of the washing and the activity of the Spirit through which regeneration and renewal take place.

In the seventeenth century, the puritans objected strongly (it was mentioned specifically at the Savoy Conference in 1660);[48] the subject come to the fore again in 1810[49] and after the rise of the Tractarian Movement it was again hotly debated and gave rise to the celebrated Gorham Case, wherein the Church of England decided in favor of Baptismal Regeneration, but the secular court overruled them.

[50] In his summary of the situation from 1810 onwards, Nockles detects at least seven different strands of thought on the subject:[49] Low Church/Evangelical Anglican, William Griffith Thomas summed it up as follows: "Articles XXV, XXVI, XXVII are all clearly against the opus operatum [i.e. the invariable spiritual regeneration of every baptized infant (ed)] and yet the Baptismal Service has, "Seeing now that this child is regenerate"; and the Catechism also speaks of, "My Baptism wherein I was made a member of Christ", etc.

The High churchmen took their stand on the fact that "the liturgy declared the infant to be regenerate";[50] the Evangelical knew this "and wrote books to prove that he might use the service with a good conscience, interpreting the liturgy in a charitable sense"[50] Bishop Moule spoke for this second group when he wrote:"In the sense of title and position, he [the newly baptized] is at once regenerate.

[55] Another evangelical Anglican theologian Geoffrey W. Bromiley, has written, "Baptism as identification with Christ is the sacrament of the regenerative work of the Holy Spirit, not of my consciousness and confession of faith.

[58] Mascall explains that "The grace of incorporation into Christ, the normal channel of which is baptism, is a supernatural fact in the ontological order which does not of itself immediately produce physical and moral effects; but it does produce such effects mediately and progressively when, and to the degree in which, the soul co-operates with this grace and surrenders itself to its influence.

"[63] John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, taught that: In baptism a child was cleansed of the guilt of original sin, initiated into the covenant with God, admitted into the church, made an heir of the divine kingdom, and spiritually born anew.

He said that while baptism was neither essential to nor sufficient for salvation, it was the "ordinary means" that God designated for applying the benefits of the work of Christ in human lives.

He saw spiritual rebirth as a twofold experience in the normal process of Christian development—to be received through baptism in infancy and through commitment to Christ later in life.

4:5 and 5:26, Titus 3:5), concluded: "In the light of these statements it is difficult to believe that the more neutral phrases, e.g. 'baptized into Christ,' 'baptized into one body,' imply a merely symbolical interpretation of baptism.

With this evidence before us it seems very hard to resist the conclusion (however little we may like it) that if the Epistles do not enunciate the ecclesiastical doctrine of baptismal regeneration, they at any rate approximate very closely to it.

"[70] The twentieth-century Scottish theologian D. M. Baillie has remarked that "[I]n New Testament thought baptism was closely connected with the death and resurrection of Christ.

The Lord, as his part of the covenant, is to pour out his spirit upon them, redeem them from their sins, raise them in the first resurrection, and give them eternal life.

[77] Critics of the doctrine frequently allege that it tends to emphasize external form (including the role of water) rather than internal belief (Acts 16:31, Rom.

[81] Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and Pentecostal Christians emphasize the need for a conversion experience that involves a personal encounter of the individual with the power of God.

However, those who believe they were "born again" at a young age often do not have a conversion experience, but find confidence in their salvation by showing the fruits of the spirit (Gal.