Is the plunge salvific? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
Now Bates will look at some passages that are used for baptismal regeneration. He notes that 1 Peter 3:21 speaks about the pledge of a good conscience towards God. The pledge is what is salvific. It could be Peter is not saying the water doesn’t wash away sins, as if it could, but rather entering the water is a sign of loyalty to Jesus.
Bates also argues that whatever matters when it shows up is faith, i.e. pistis. It is the loyalty that we give to Jesus. While this would include baptism, it is not that baptism saves us. Undergoing baptism would be more an outward expression of our inward commitment to Jesus.
This also helps deal with some claims that are often struggled with both within Protestantism and Catholicism. I have heard Catholics speak of a baptism of desire, for example. This is a case where someone wants to get baptized, but for whatever reason, they cannot. In such a case, a person is considered saved. Cyprian in his time in the early church noted that some people were martyred before they could get baptized.
He also notes that while the Council of Trent is considered authoritative for Catholics, we do have access to documents the Council did not have. This is simply a matter of fact and is no way an attack on Catholicism. It just means that perhaps some things in Catholicism might need to be re-examined in light of such evidence. Two such documents he refers to are the apology of Justin Martyr and the Didache. (Also, the Reformers would not have access to these so some of their positions might have to be adjusted as well in light of new evidence.) We could consider a parallel with the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Bates then quotes from the First Apology:
Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water
I do not find this as convincing an argument as I do not see anything about them doing it to themselves as Bates says. I do agree with him that there is no mention of a priest in this. Bates says there is no evidence that priests existed at the time and at that, it would be the burden of the other side to demonstrate that they did.
After this, he takes a brief look at Tertullian. The topic under question this time for Bates seems to be infant baptism. Again, there is no indication that this was going on in the early church. If one wishes to say that the practice is biblical, then it will be their burden to make a case for it from the Scriptures.
A final statement is there can be a lot of concern about valid baptisms. Bates says we should relax because salvation is not constrained by baptismal methods, but it is based on allegiance to Jesus. We should expect nothing less today. My own thinking is God does not keep us out of eternity on a technicality.
If I would have added more to this, I would have liked a much more thorough look at Scriptural passages related to the topic of baptismal regeneration, such as Acts 2:38.
Next, Bates will take a look at Calvinism and doctrines of election and regeneration.
In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)