From an article I wrote defending Baptismal Regeneration:
Mantey, driven by his opposition to Baptismal Regeneration (BR) as works-based salvation, proposed a way to reinterpret Peter’s explicit instruction by suggesting that the preposition εἰς in this verse might have a causal usage, rendering the phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins.”9 Since Mantey introduced this idea, many opponents of BR have embraced it as a way to avoid the cleansing efficacy of baptism in this passage. However, Mantey’s interpretation has been widely discredited.
Even Wallace, an opponent of BR, acknowledged that Mantey’s “ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction.”10 Similarly, the translators of the NET Bible noted, “Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here.”11 Ultimately, Mantey’s interpretation fails the test of time. There is no clear evidence that this view existed before Mantey…
Hey Josh! Thanks for the comment. I think this explanation also fails as well. But part of the problem with BR is the clear contradiction it gives to other Bible verses that proclaim salvation is by grace alone. I know you and I have discussed this before, but the issue remains the same.
Baptism would be classified as a work, something we must “do.” I understand the argument of BR, that it is still of grace, but disagree with conclusion.
Got it. Thanks! This is an important topic, and I am glad there is dialogue about it. I think the argument can go the other way. If you have to repent, profess your faith, and prove it by the way you live to be baptized, how is that not legalistic? One example of this would be influential Baptist churches that will only baptize adults because they cannot know if faith is real until then.
It’s not about “proving” one’s faith. It’s a declaration of your faith. Yes, churches should talk with individuals interested in baptism and see if they understand the gospel and demonstrate biblical fruit. But that’s a far cry from “proving it.”
I certainly wouldn’t advocate inly baptizing adults due to this!
Thanks for your reply! I am not trying to say that you do. I was using that as an example of how one can argue that requiring an understanding of the gospel and fruit to be baptized is legalistic. Also, it is hard to see a difference between "proving it" and evaluating someone's profession and fruit before baptizing them, especially when they are children of believers. Hope that makes sense!
I would just push back and say we have to interpret Scripture together. The Bible is just as clear that Baptism saves. Historically, both have been reconciled quite beautifully founded on Scripture’s own testimony.
My pastor teaches the same. Good to see alignment.
From an article I wrote defending Baptismal Regeneration:
Mantey, driven by his opposition to Baptismal Regeneration (BR) as works-based salvation, proposed a way to reinterpret Peter’s explicit instruction by suggesting that the preposition εἰς in this verse might have a causal usage, rendering the phrase “because of the forgiveness of sins.”9 Since Mantey introduced this idea, many opponents of BR have embraced it as a way to avoid the cleansing efficacy of baptism in this passage. However, Mantey’s interpretation has been widely discredited.
Even Wallace, an opponent of BR, acknowledged that Mantey’s “ingenious solution of a causal εἰς lacks conviction.”10 Similarly, the translators of the NET Bible noted, “Although a causal sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain here.”11 Ultimately, Mantey’s interpretation fails the test of time. There is no clear evidence that this view existed before Mantey…
https://saintsandsociety.substack.com/p/yes-baptism-saves
Hey Josh! Thanks for the comment. I think this explanation also fails as well. But part of the problem with BR is the clear contradiction it gives to other Bible verses that proclaim salvation is by grace alone. I know you and I have discussed this before, but the issue remains the same.
Hey Blake! How is BR a contradiction to grace alone? Thanks!
Baptism would be classified as a work, something we must “do.” I understand the argument of BR, that it is still of grace, but disagree with conclusion.
Got it. Thanks! This is an important topic, and I am glad there is dialogue about it. I think the argument can go the other way. If you have to repent, profess your faith, and prove it by the way you live to be baptized, how is that not legalistic? One example of this would be influential Baptist churches that will only baptize adults because they cannot know if faith is real until then.
It’s not about “proving” one’s faith. It’s a declaration of your faith. Yes, churches should talk with individuals interested in baptism and see if they understand the gospel and demonstrate biblical fruit. But that’s a far cry from “proving it.”
I certainly wouldn’t advocate inly baptizing adults due to this!
Thanks for your reply! I am not trying to say that you do. I was using that as an example of how one can argue that requiring an understanding of the gospel and fruit to be baptized is legalistic. Also, it is hard to see a difference between "proving it" and evaluating someone's profession and fruit before baptizing them, especially when they are children of believers. Hope that makes sense!
I would just push back and say we have to interpret Scripture together. The Bible is just as clear that Baptism saves. Historically, both have been reconciled quite beautifully founded on Scripture’s own testimony.