Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Baptismal regeneration" in English language version.
As Confessional Lutherans we believe in baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper, and infant baptism.
In baptism, however, we do not do something for God, rather he does something for us and in us. He works to either create or to strengthen faith. It is true that neither baptism nor the proclamation of the gospel will benefit anyone apart from faith. However, through the proclamation of the gospel and through baptism the Holy Spirit works faith. The means of grace have the power to create the faith they require.
We believe that Christians can fall from faith (Luke 8:13). If a person who was baptized as an infant subsequently falls from faith, he needs to be called to repentance.
Furthermore, the Lutheran Church also thoroughly teaches that we are cleansed of our sins and born again and renewed in Holy Baptism by the Holy Ghost. But she also teaches that whoever is baptized must, though daily contrition and repentance, drown The Old Adam so that daily a new man come forth and arise who walks before God in righteousness and purity forever. She teaches that whoever lives in sins after his baptism has again lost the grace of baptism.
It is true that throughout the fathers you find pretty universally this profound inter-coordination between baptism and regeneration, the sign and thing signified often stand in one for the other. How do we know that there's more complexity to it than simply being a causative relationship? Trent Horn: Before I continue on this point, I need to point out that this view is a minority one even among Protestants. There is a recognition that the fathers universally taught baptismal regeneration or that baptism was the ordinary means by which we are forgiven of the past sins in our life, show that we have turned from them and have received the promises of eternal life. According to the Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly, he writes, "From the beginning, baptism was the universally accepted first rite of admission to the church. As regards its significance, it was always held to convey the remission of sins." William Webster in a book that denies the fathers' taught many Catholic doctrines, he makes an exception here. He says, "The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent to the Church Fathers." Gavin Ortlund: Cyril of Jerusalem is the one that I pointed to in the past where in his catechetical lecture he's talking about Cornelius not as an exception. He gives Cornelius as an example or rule for those in the catechetical process. And he says, "Peter came," he's summarizing Acts 10, "and the Spirit was poured out upon those who believed, and they spoke with other tongues and prophesied." And after the grace of the Spirit, the scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, Acts 10:48. In order that, their spirits having been, past tense, born again by faith, their bodies also might by the water partake of the same grace. Now, I want to be really clear that Cyril does have a very high view of baptism. To not think baptism is the cause of regeneration, it doesn't mean you think "it's just a symbol." And it doesn't mean you don't have a realist view of baptism in some way. Gavin Ortlund: So Cyril, he really coordinates faith and baptism together. He sees them like as two parts of one thing really, two sides of one coin. People are going to go nuts and come up with all these other quotes in Cyril. I've read through the catechetical lectures very carefully, I'm aware there's other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith, and yet he still speaks of baptism as physical regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one. Trent Horn: But this is also a boundary case where criticism is explaining how someone who is described as having the Holy Spirit and in scripture we see that could happen without being baptized first- but baptism should follow after as soon as possible. It's not very helpful to tell us what St. John Chrysostom thought about baptism in general. And when you see what Chrysostom says about baptism, it's hard to say, well, "it's just a really high view." And we can't require them, the fathers, like Chrysostom, that they have to use technical language like baptism is the primary cause of salvation or something like that in order to say they believed in baptismal regeneration, we should just look at the plain meaning of what they said. Here's what he writes, you see how many are the benefits of baptism? And some think it's heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated 10 honors it bestows.
When they baptize babies, pastors should make sure that their prayers include clear requests that God will bring the children to a personal faith that "owns" what the parents are promising at a time when the children (who "belong" from day one) cannot act for themselves. And when they dedicate children, pastors should make sure that their prayers include clear gratitude to God for the fact that he is already at work in the life of that child, who already "belongs" in the Christian community. Here's what must be stressed: whether at the time of baptism (in the adult baptism tradition) or at the time of confirmation when the vows made earlier by the parents are personally "owned" (in the infant baptism tradition), it is faith in Jesus (dependent trust, not mere cognitive affirmation) that is crucial. Paul goes so far as to say that without faith and obedience, the old rite of circumcision has no value (Romans 2:25). The same is true of baptism. With either rite, clear evangelistic follow-through is crucial.
But the Pelagians assert that what is said in holy baptism for the putting away of sins is of no avail to infants, as they have no sin; and thus the baptism of infants, as far as pertains to the remission of sins, the Manicheans destroy the visible element, but the Pelagians destroy even the invisible sacrament.
The United Methodist Church does not accept either the idea that only believer's baptism is valid or the notion that the baptism of infants magically imparts salvation apart from active personal faith.
As Confessional Lutherans we believe in baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ's body and blood in the Lord's Supper, and infant baptism.
In baptism, however, we do not do something for God, rather he does something for us and in us. He works to either create or to strengthen faith. It is true that neither baptism nor the proclamation of the gospel will benefit anyone apart from faith. However, through the proclamation of the gospel and through baptism the Holy Spirit works faith. The means of grace have the power to create the faith they require.
Yes, it is necessary in the sense that God tells us to do it and that it provides the means of grace, the gospel of Christ, that works faith and salvation. It is not absolutely necessary since a person can come to faith through the gospel in God's word without being baptized. It would be a sin to despise and refuse baptism or to deny baptism to children.
We believe that Christians can fall from faith (Luke 8:13). If a person who was baptized as an infant subsequently falls from faith, he needs to be called to repentance.
