Baptism Not Required

[Michael68]

This is unbelievable!!!
Acts 2:38 Peter says baptism is for the forgiveness of sins. If it were not so, he wouldn’t have said it. No mention of an outward sign of an inward reality. That is a man made idea that doesn’t line up with scripture or tradition

 

[cominghome1966]

I find myself in a shock induced state because I was having a discussion with a Protestant and found out that his particular church does not believe that baptism is required. This amazed me, as I have never hear of baptism not being required.

So please who here does not believe it is required and why? Further more, how do you interpret John 3:5?

It can be hard to generalize about Protestants. But I think you’ve encountered somebody who believes in forensic justification. Once you’re justified, you’re saved. Baptism is just something that the believer would do if he wanted to, but it’s not required for salvation in that paradigm.

Here’s a good video I found a few months ago that talks about forensic justification vs. the teaching of the Catholic Church on justification:

youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

I don’t know what they do with John 3:5.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

The difference is that for Catholics, baptism is what determines whether someone is a Christian or not. For evangelical Protestants, a Christian should be baptized, but the outward act of baptism by itself is not what makes someone a Christian.

I’ll just point out that there are evangelical protestants who disagree with you and follow what you’ve (mis)stated the Catholic position to be; but suffice it to simply be an example of what others have stated - we can’t generalize protestant beliefs/practices.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

You know I have to say, with so many things that Protestants claim to be just symbolical, what is left that is actually real? In their eyes, what did Jesus do that they actually have to follow?

This is precisely what started my journey home to Rome. I just knew in my heart that didn’t add up.

 

[Michael68]

When you as a Catholic and I as one of those awful Protestants stand before God our common judge of our souls is it possible that the question he will have for both of us will be like that of Pilate of old…“what did you do with Jesus?”

If that is the question, what is the protestant answer?

 

[Wannano]

If that is the question, what is the protestant answer?

There is no Catholic or Protestant answer. The answer will be a personal answer for each of us.

 

[Sy_Noe]

It depends on what you mean by “required” and “required for what?” Many Protestant denominations reject baptismal regeneration (even Presbyterian Churches, which do practice infant baptism).

From an evangelical Protestant perspective, baptism is not necessary to be justified or regenerated or saved. Baptism is a means of grace ordained by Christ himself, but it is not the only means of grace. It typically follows the hearing and receiving of the preached gospel. One hears the gospel preached, is convicted by the Holy Spirit of your sins and your need for Christ, and you then confess and repent of your sins-placing your trust in Christ. Baptism is part of this process of identifying with Christ by appealing to God for a clean conscience, putting on Christ, and being buried and raised to new life with Him through faith.

Therefore, baptism is certainly part of becoming a disciple of Christ, but most evangelical Protestants would not make it the linchpin of whether or not someone was truly saved. It is a means of grace, but not the only one.

However, many evangelical Protestants do make baptism a pre-condition for official membership in the church. This has no bearing on whether the unbaptized is regenerated already or not. It’s simply felt necessary to ensure that church members are truly committed to becoming disciples of Christ by obeying Christs commands to be baptized.

As to the interpretation of John 3:5, it is taken to refer to a spiritual washing (this is derived from placing this verse in the context of Ezekial 36:25-27 and Titus 3:5). We can also look at Ephesians 5:26, which speaks of the Church being sanctified and cleansed “by the washing of water with the word.” This washing with the word or washing of regeneration is a spiritual washing that takes place.

Yes Presbyterians do practice infant baptism as you said.

And as to baptism not required, from the PCUSA perspective…

“Can a person who is not baptized be saved?”

“In a word, yes; but this by no means diminishes the importance of the sacrament. To insist on baptism as necessary for salvation would be to impinge on the limitless sovereignty of God, one of the essentials of the Reformed theological tradition. At the same time, baptism is an indispensable part of Christian life (Rom. 6:3–4), Christian identity (Gal. 3:27–28), and the church’s mission (Matt. 28:19).”

presbyterianmission.org/story/what-presbyterians-believe-the-sacrament-of-baptism/

 

[ltwin]

I’ll just point out that there are evangelical protestants who disagree with you and follow what you’ve (mis)stated the Catholic position to be; but suffice it to simply be an example of what others have stated - we can’t generalize protestant beliefs/practices.

The Catholic Catechism states on baptism the following:

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

If regeneration, freedom from sin, adoption, and being incorporated into the Church all occur at baptism, then it seems to me that Catholics believe baptism is what makes someone a Christian. How am I misstating the Catholic position? (I’m aware about baptism of desire and baptism of blood, but it seems that this applies to people who explicitly wanted to be baptized but died before having the opportunity.)

Can you name me an actual evangelical Protestant who believes baptism is what makes someone a Christian? It’s been a defining feature of Evangelicalism for its entire existence that a person is joined to Christ the moment he places his faith and trust in him and repents of sin, irregardless of whether this takes place during baptism or on a street corner somewhere.

Yes Presbyterians do practice infant baptism as you said.

And as to baptism not required, from the PCUSA perspective…

“Can a person who is not baptized be saved?”

“In a word, yes; but this by no means diminishes the importance of the sacrament. To insist on baptism as necessary for salvation would be to impinge on the limitless sovereignty of God, one of the essentials of the Reformed theological tradition. At the same time, baptism is an indispensable part of Christian life (Rom. 6:3–4), Christian identity (Gal. 3:27–28), and the church’s mission (Matt. 28:19).”

presbyterianmission.org/story/what-presbyterians-believe-the-sacrament-of-baptism/

PCUSA hasn’t been representative of evangelical Presbyterianism for sometime. But even they deny baptismal regeneration, while also affirming the importance of baptism.

What the Westminster Confession (Presbyterianism’s most important confession of faith) states on baptism is this:

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

{Cut for space}

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.[17]

Paragraph 5 points out that while baptism should not be neglected unbaptized people can still be saved and baptized people might not have been regenerated. Paragraph 6 ties baptismal theology to the Calvinistic doctrine of election. Some are predestined to salvation, while others are predestined to damnation. Baptism of infants does not change this.

This is why the Confession can say that the grace promised in baptism is really conferred, eventually (note the first sentence of paragraph 6), to those the grace “belongs unto”. The grace does not belong to those infants or adults who are not among the elect, and so baptism will not be effective.

For those who are among the elect, the grace promised in baptism will be conferred at the moment of regeneration (which doesn’t occur at infancy but in God’s appointed time").

Another Reformed confessional writing, the Heidelberg Catechism states in question 72: “Does this outward washing with water itself wash away sins? Answer: No, only Jesus Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins.”

In historic Reformed theology, the sacraments only become effective through the faith of the one receiving the sacrament. Question 91 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism states: "How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? Answer: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in the one who administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in those who by faith receive them."

 

[ltwin]

P. S. Actual evangelical Presbyterians do agree with me. This is a quote from Presbyterian Church in America pastor R. C. Sproul on the meaning of “baptized into Christ”:

Is Paul teaching that our water baptism is the means by which we are united to our Savior and enjoy His benefits?

The answer must be “no,” considering what the Apostle has thus far said about the primacy of faith. Nevertheless, today’s passage indicates that baptism does do something. There is no effectual connection between baptism and regeneration such that everyone who is baptized is automatically regenerated. However, there is a theological connection such that the Lord communicates via baptism His promise of regeneration, although this regeneration occurs in God’s sovereign timing and is not bound to the moment of baptism. Baptism, as the new covenant analogue to circumcision, is the sign and seal of the righteousness we enjoy only by faith (Rom. 4:8; Col. 2:11–12). This sacrament is God’s visible confirmation to us that He washes us clean of the filth of sin when we believe. Just as an ancient seal made with a signet ring showed a letter’s origin, so baptism shows the origin of the cleansing we enjoy in regeneration and faith. By baptism, God tells us that He is the one who washes us clean, He is the one that buries us and raises us with Christ, and He is the source of regeneration and faith, which realities are invisible and occur when He sees fit.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I find myself in a shock induced state because I was having a discussion with a Protestant and found out that his particular church does not believe that baptism is required. This amazed me, as I have never hear of baptism not being required.

So please who here does not believe it is required and why? Further more, how do you interpret John 3:5?

One is to be baptized by fire and the Holy Spirit. The word of God is sufficient to this effect. It is by the word of God that we proclaim the Holy Spirit, in faith and in works. Water is baptism of angels; for they are all subject to the water. Man is no angel, his potential exceeds the angels in wisdom. Wisdom is in dwelling within the midst of good and evil. The Holy Spirit forms you in wisdom–that is the fire. When fire and Spirit are present within a human soul, the baptism of Christ is present–that is the anointing.

 

[USMC_Convert]

One is to be baptized by fire and the Holy Spirit. The word of God is sufficient to this effect. It is by the word of God that we proclaim the Holy Spirit, in faith and in works. Water is baptism of angels; for they are all subject to the water. Man is no angel, his potential exceeds the angels in wisdom. Wisdom is in dwelling within the midst of good and evil. The Holy Spirit forms you in wisdom–that is the fire. When fire and Spirit are present within a human soul, the baptism of Christ is present–that is the anointing.

Yeah, I have literally never heard anything like that before and I don’t think that is a Catholic teaching. Where are you getting this from?

 

[Sy_Noe]

PCUSA hasn’t been representative of evangelical Presbyterianism for sometime. But even they deny baptismal regeneration, while also affirming the importance of baptism.

What the Westminster Confession (Presbyterianism’s most important confession of faith) states on baptism is this:

Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

{Cut for space}

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.[17]

Paragraph 5 points out that while baptism should not be neglected unbaptized people can still be saved and baptized people might not have been regenerated. Paragraph 6 ties baptismal theology to the Calvinistic doctrine of election. Some are predestined to salvation, while others are predestined to damnation. Baptism of infants does not change this.

This is why the Confession can say that the grace promised in baptism is really conferred, eventually (note the first sentence of paragraph 6), to those the grace “belongs unto”. The grace does not belong to those infants or adults who are not among the elect, and so baptism will not be effective.

For those who are among the elect, the grace promised in baptism will be conferred at the moment of regeneration (which doesn’t occur at infancy but in God’s appointed time").

Another Reformed confessional writing, the Heidelberg Catechism states in question 72: “Does this outward washing with water itself wash away sins? Answer: No, only Jesus Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sins.”

In historic Reformed theology, the sacraments only become effective through the faith of the one receiving the sacrament. Question 91 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism states: "How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? Answer: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them or in the one who administers them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in those who by faith receive them."

I don’t recall saying PCUSA is evangelical but thank you for your additions.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

The Catholic Catechism states on baptism the following:

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua),4 and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."5

If regeneration, freedom from sin, adoption, and being incorporated into the Church all occur at baptism, then it seems to me that Catholics believe baptism is what makes someone a Christian. How am I misstating the Catholic position? (I’m aware about baptism of desire and baptism of blood, but it seems that this applies to people who explicitly wanted to be baptized but died before having the opportunity.)

Fair enough. This is all I was going for - that the Catechism explains the general and usual way, but does not limit to the only way. Also, we would not refer to ecclesial communities and other non-Catholics as “Christian” if we didn’t believe that they are, in some way/shape/form. (And I admit, there are many among us, even the Church herself officially in some places, that use “Christian,” literally and/or metaphorically in quotes, to describe non-Catholic believers on a not-so-consistent basis, thereby showing either uncertainty of their proper label or just to note the distinction.)

Can you name me an actual evangelical Protestant who believes baptism is what makes someone a Christian? It’s been a defining feature of Evangelicalism for its entire existence that a person is joined to Christ the moment he places his faith and trust in him and repents of sin, irregardless of whether this takes place during baptism or on a street corner somewhere.

Absolutely. The Campbellite Churches of Christ (non)denomination {which is what I belonged to prior to fully entering the Catholic faith} almost all teach as I described unless you have some relatively ‘modern’ or ‘liberal’ elders. Same goes for the nondenominational Christian Church congregations in many places, again, dependent upon their particular elders. You are not entitled to the name “Christian” unless you have followed and completed the 5 basic steps of the “plan of salvation” - Hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. (Forgive me if I got those out of order… it’s been 20+ years!)

Pardon my poor choice of adjectives; I have only stumbled on a few such elders in recent years and haven’t quite figured out a way to describe them compared to the norm of what I grew up with…

 

[ltwin]

Fair enough. This is all I was going for - that the Catechism explains the general and usual way, but does not limit to the only way.

Understood.

Also, we would not refer to ecclesial communities and other non-Catholics as “Christian” if we didn’t believe that they are, in some way/shape/form.

But this is, as far as I understand it, based on those non-Catholic communities practicing Trinitarian baptism, correct? Southern Baptists, though very different from Catholics on several theological issues–including the timing, manner, and effect of baptism–are considered Christian because they have a Trinitarian faith and practice Trinitarian baptism. The LDS Church is denied “Christian” status by the Catholic Church (and many other churches) in part because it lacks true Trinitarian baptism.

(And I admit, there are many among us, even the Church herself officially in some places, that use “Christian,” literally and/or metaphorically in quotes, to describe non-Catholic believers on a not-so-consistent basis, thereby showing either uncertainty of their proper label or just to note the distinction.)

Is there any official Catholic standard for assessing whether a denomination or religious group is within the Christian fold or not?

Absolutely. The Campbellite Churches of Christ (non)denomination {which is what I belonged to prior to fully entering the Catholic faith} almost all teach as I described unless you have some relatively ‘modern’ or ‘liberal’ elders. Same goes for the nondenominational Christian Church congregations in many places, again, dependent upon their particular elders. You are not entitled to the name “Christian” unless you have followed and completed the 5 basic steps of the “plan of salvation” - Hear, believe, repent, confess, and be baptized. (Forgive me if I got those out of order… it’s been 20+ years!)

OK, I’ll acknowledge that the Campbellites are an interesting case. One can make an argument that they are evangelical Protestants, but there are also lots of reasons not to think of them as evangelicals (at least not mainstream evangelicals). I could be convinced to call them “evangelical-like” or fringe evangelicals. But their beliefs on baptism and their sectarianism, etc. indicate a legalistic and works righteousness theological milieu that most evangelicals would find foreign.

Another interesting case are the non-Trinitarian “Oneness Pentecostals” or “Jesus Name Only” Pentecostals. They also make water baptism a condition of salvation–demanding repentance, water baptism,and Spirit baptism (with the evidence of “tongues” or glossolalia) all occur before one can be considered having authentically been regenerated. These I would not consider authentic evangelicals either.

Let me rephrase–mainstream evangelicals do not believe that baptism is necessarily the moment a person becomes a Christian. Even “mainstream” evangelicals who do practice infant baptism, like the Presbyterians, also acknowledge that the grace of baptism is not effective for the non-elect and in the elect only becomes effective at the time of justification and regeneration when the gift of faith is granted.

That being said, someone could come to faith in Christ and immediately ask for and receive baptism. In that scenario, which I would say was the norm in Scripture, regeneration is temporally tied to baptism. Many evangelicals have suggested the need to more closely follow this biblical pattern.

 

[Vico]

Understood.

But this is, as far as I understand it, based on those non-Catholic communities practicing Trinitarian baptism, correct? Southern Baptists, though very different from Catholics on several theological issues–including the timing, manner, and effect of baptism–are considered Christian because they have a Trinitarian faith and practice Trinitarian baptism. The LDS Church is denied “Christian” status by the Catholic Church (and many other churches) in part because it lacks true Trinitarian baptism.

Is there any official Catholic standard for assessing whether a denomination or religious group is within the Christian fold or not?

OK, I’ll acknowledge that the Campbellites are an interesting case. One can make an argument that they are evangelical Protestants, but there are also lots of reasons not to think of them as evangelicals (at least not mainstream evangelicals). I could be convinced to call them “evangelical-like” or fringe evangelicals. But their beliefs on baptism and their sectarianism, etc. indicate a legalistic and works righteousness theological milieu that most evangelicals would find foreign.

Another interesting case are the non-Trinitarian “Oneness Pentecostals” or “Jesus Name Only” Pentecostals. They also make water baptism a condition of salvation–demanding repentance, water baptism,and Spirit baptism (with the evidence of “tongues” or glossolalia) all occur before one can be considered having authentically been regenerated. These I would not consider authentic evangelicals either.

Let me rephrase–mainstream evangelicals do not believe that baptism is necessarily the moment a person becomes a Christian. Even “mainstream” evangelicals who do practice infant baptism, like the Presbyterians, also acknowledge that the grace of baptism is not effective for the non-elect and in the elect only becomes effective at the time of justification and regeneration when the gift of faith is granted.

That being said, someone could come to faith in Christ and immediately ask for and receive baptism. In that scenario, which I would say was the norm in Scripture, regeneration is temporally tied to baptism. Many evangelicals have suggested the need to more closely follow this biblical pattern.

I find that interesting that the grace is effective at the time of justification and regeneration when the gift of faith is granted. Contrast that with the Catholic teaching of actual graces given by God even before conversion and the baptism of desire of catechumens that occurs before the celebration of adult baptism.

Catechism

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

 

[dje101]

I find myself in a shock induced state because I was having a discussion with a Protestant and found out that his particular church does not believe that baptism is required. This amazed me, as I have never hear of baptism not being required.

So please who here does not believe it is required and why? Further more, how do you interpret John 3:5?

Every protestant church I went to back in the day (all 5+ years ago) never said anything about baptism being required for salvation. They basically held it to be a “well, if you want to, there is a list to sign up for the next round of baptisms”. And that was it. More of a formality, the “public” part of publicly proclaiming your faith in Christ. But it was always just a symbolic gesture.

 

[ltwin]

I find that interesting that the grace is effective at the time of justification and regeneration when the gift of faith is granted. Contrast that with the Catholic teaching of actual graces given by God even before conversion and the baptism of desire of catechumens that occurs before the celebration of adult baptism.

Catechism

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

2000 Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul itself to enable it to live with God, to act by his love. Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God’s interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification.

This comes from the Presbyterian and evangelical Anglican (many evangelical Anglicans are Reformed in this regard) belief in the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. Baptism can be performed on infants as a sort of dedication of the child to God and incorporation into the visible church so that they can be trained in righteousness. The hope is that the infant will be among the elect and so will see the promise of baptism fulfilled when they are truly justified and regenerated by grace through faith (which faith being entirely given by God–Calvinists do not believe we contribute any effort or play any role in this process). However, if the infant is not among the elect, then they of course will never have faith in Christ and as a result will never be regenerated.

Anglican theologian John Stott writes:
The third and evangelical view is that the sign not only signifies the gift, but seals or pledges it, and pledges it in such a way as to convey not indeed the gift itself, but a title to the gift –the baptized person receiving the gift (thus pledged to him) by faith, which may be before, during or after the administration of the sacrament.

He goes on to write:

But the receiving of the sign and seal, and the receiving of the blessings signified, are not necessarily (or even normally) simultaneous. To truly believing adults the covenant sign of baptism (like circumcision to Abraham when he was ninety-nine years old) signifies and seals a grace which has already been received by faith. To the infant seed of believing parents, the covenant sign of baptism (like circumcision to Isaac at the age of eight days) is administered because they are born into the covenant and are thereby ‘holy’ in status (1 Cor 7:14), but it signifies and seals to them graces which they still need to receive later by faith.

This is the case also with adults who are baptized in unbelief and later believe. We do not rebaptize them. Their baptism conveyed to them a title to the blessings of the New Covenant; they have now ‘claimed their inheritance by faith. This point was established in the early centuries of the Church in the case of the fictus, the person baptized in a state of unworthiness. He was not rebaptized, because a distinction was drawn between the title or character of baptism, which was always conferred on the recipient, and the grace of baptism which depended on ‘worthiness’, i.e. repentance and faith.

 

[ltwin]

I find that interesting that the grace is effective at the time of justification and regeneration when the gift of faith is granted. Contrast that with the Catholic teaching of actual graces given by God even before conversion and the baptism of desire of catechumens that occurs before the celebration of adult baptism.

How does the grace received in baptism practically affect a person? It’s clear that at least some baptized infants grow up to reject the Christian faith. In light of this, what contributes to this loss of faith in those who have been baptized. Is there a seed of faith deposited in the infant or do Catholics believe faith comes later and if faith does not come later what does that mean for the infant baptism?

I hope I’m making sense.

 

[Vico]

This comes from the Presbyterian and evangelical Anglican (many evangelical Anglicans are Reformed in this regard) belief in the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination. Baptism can be performed on infants as a sort of dedication of the child to God and incorporation into the visible church so that they can be trained in righteousness. The hope is that the infant will be among the elect and so will see the promise of baptism fulfilled when they are truly justified and regenerated by grace through faith (which faith being entirely given by God–Calvinists do not believe we contribute any effort or play any role in this process). However, if the infant is not among the elect, then they of course will never have faith in Christ and as a result will never be regenerated.

Anglican theologian John Stott writes:
The third and evangelical view is that the sign not only signifies the gift, but seals or pledges it, and pledges it in such a way as to convey not indeed the gift itself, but a title to the gift –the baptized person receiving the gift (thus pledged to him) by faith, which may be before, during or after the administration of the sacrament.

He goes on to write:

But the receiving of the sign and seal, and the receiving of the blessings signified, are not necessarily (or even normally) simultaneous. To truly believing adults the covenant sign of baptism (like circumcision to Abraham when he was ninety-nine years old) signifies and seals a grace which has already been received by faith. To the infant seed of believing parents, the covenant sign of baptism (like circumcision to Isaac at the age of eight days) is administered because they are born into the covenant and are thereby ‘holy’ in status (1 Cor 7:14), but it signifies and seals to them graces which they still need to receive later by faith.

This is the case also with adults who are baptized in unbelief and later believe. We do not rebaptize them. Their baptism conveyed to them a title to the blessings of the New Covenant; they have now ‘claimed their inheritance by faith. This point was established in the early centuries of the Church in the case of the fictus, the person baptized in a state of unworthiness. He was not rebaptized, because a distinction was drawn between the title or character of baptism, which was always conferred on the recipient, and the grace of baptism which depended on ‘worthiness’, i.e. repentance and faith.

Similarly, the Catholic teaching is that the elect are those that are given actual graces and in whom the grace is efficacious because they willed to cooperate with that grace, and that have final penitence. In those that choose to turn away from God willfully and do not attain to final penitence, the grace give is called merely sufficient and they are not one of the elect. For an infant, or mental incompetent, that cannot actually sin because of lack of discretion, must upon attaining the age of discretion profess the faith, because of becoming culpable for sin at that time. Those infants that die without baptism did not profess that faith so they may merely be in a natural state of peace after death without the Beatific Vision. For those infants that are baptized by water and spirit and die before developing discretion (about age 7) without professing the faith are assured salvation.

 

[jlhargus]

It depends on what you mean by “required” and “required for what?” Many Protestant denominations reject baptismal regeneration (even Presbyterian Churches, which do practice infant baptism).

From an evangelical Protestant perspective, baptism is not necessary to be justified or regenerated or saved. Baptism is a means of grace ordained by Christ himself, but it is not the only means of grace. It typically follows the hearing and receiving of the preached gospel. One hears the gospel preached, is convicted by the Holy Spirit of your sins and your need for Christ, and you then confess and repent of your sins-placing your trust in Christ. Baptism is part of this process of identifying with Christ by appealing to God for a clean conscience, putting on Christ, and being buried and raised to new life with Him through faith.

Therefore, baptism is certainly part of becoming a disciple of Christ, but most evangelical Protestants would not make it the linchpin of whether or not someone was truly saved. It is a means of grace, but not the only one.

However, many evangelical Protestants do make baptism a pre-condition for official membership in the church. This has no bearing on whether the unbaptized is regenerated already or not. It’s simply felt necessary to ensure that church members are truly committed to becoming disciples of Christ by obeying Christs commands to be baptized.

As to the interpretation of John 3:5, it is taken to refer to a spiritual washing (this is derived from placing this verse in the context of Ezekial 36:25-27 and Titus 3:5). We can also look at Ephesians 5:26, which speaks of the Church being sanctified and cleansed “by the washing of water with the word.” This washing with the word or washing of regeneration is a spiritual washing that takes place.

mark