What Wesleyan groups believe in baptismal regeneration?

[ByTheSpirit]

I just read an article (link here:http://www.featheredprop.com/theological-works/assessing-john-wesleys-view-of-baptims/) that said Wesley believed baptism was a necessary sacrament, even said baptismal regeneration. It seemed written by a Methodist that knew his stuff about Wesley. I can't afford a sermon book on Wesley and seem unable to find any sermons of his on the topic so I was wondering are there any Wesleyan denominations that believe in baptismal regeneration, where baptism is a necessary sacrament of the faith?

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue this. Please also I am not interested in a debate on baptism's importance or the like. I just want some answers from those who follow the particular group. Be blessed!

 

[circuitrider]

Wesley did not teach baptismal regeneration nor does any Wesleyan group I know about.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Hmmm perhaps I should have said the sacrament. I'm learning terminology still.... I just read through the UMC's SoF and it said something along the lines of baptismal regeneration, at least as far as I understood it. I don't mean it in the sense of baptism itself saves... Not like the RCC or something...

 

[circuitrider]

Maybe it is the terminology you are using. "Baptismal regeneration" is a theological term that means you would be saved by baptism alone. Wesley or Wesleyan Christians have never taught that.

What we do believe is that God we experience the love and grace of God in the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion as well as other means of grace such as Bible study, prayer, holy conferencing, etc.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Would it help to explain that for United Methodists and most Wesleyan Christians, Baptism is something "in the middle" of what you might see in the RCC vs. something in some other denominations?

We DO believe Baptism is a sacrament. And we do believe that God is at work through the sacrament of Baptism. We do not teach that Baptism is optional; that it's a reasonable thing for a Christian to reject. All Christians MUST be Baptized. But NOT because they won't be saved if they don't; their salvation doesn't hinge on Baptism. But it is the faithful, obedient thing to do. Just as rejecting sin, and growing in Christ aren't optional; Baptism is not optional. But the Grace of God is vast and infinite and we cannot faithfully say that God would refuse a faithful person into the kingdom because they failed to be Baptized.

Martin Luther wrote in his Catechism that Baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, but any Christian who had the opportunity for Baptism and rejected it surely wasn't saved. I don't recall ever hearing Wesley say the same thing; and we don't make a habit of judging others salvations. But that sort of thinking makes sense to me, as a Wesleyan Christian. A person who has a genuine faith in Christ must want to be Baptized. Though I would stop short of Martin Luther when he says they "Surely aren't saved", as I'm not privvy to God's knowledge of who is and is not saved.

Is that helping you come to terms with our understanding of Baptism? We're not infinitely far from Baptismal regeneration, and we certainly believe it's a sacrament, and that the Holy Spirit is at work in a specific way in Baptism.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Maybe it is the terminology you are using. "Baptismal regeneration" is a theological term that means you would be saved by baptism alone. Wesley or Wesleyan Christians have never taught that.

What we do believe is that God we experience the love and grace of God in the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion as well as other means of grace such as Bible study, prayer, holy conferencing, etc.

Would it help to explain that for United Methodists and most Wesleyan Christians, Baptism is something "in the middle" of what you might see in the RCC vs. something in some other denominations?

We DO believe Baptism is a sacrament. And we do believe that God is at work through the sacrament of Baptism. We do not teach that Baptism is optional; that it's a reasonable thing for a Christian to reject. All Christians MUST be Baptized. But NOT because they won't be saved if they don't; their salvation doesn't hinge on Baptism. But it is the faithful, obedient thing to do. Just as rejecting sin, and growing in Christ aren't optional; Baptism is not optional. But the Grace of God is vast and infinite and we cannot faithfully say that God would refuse a faithful person into the kingdom because they failed to be Baptized.

Martin Luther wrote in his Catechism that Baptism wasn't necessary for salvation, but any Christian who had the opportunity for Baptism and rejected it surely wasn't saved. I don't recall ever hearing Wesley say the same thing; and we don't make a habit of judging others salvations. But that sort of thinking makes sense to me, as a Wesleyan Christian. A person who has a genuine faith in Christ must want to be Baptized. Though I would stop short of Martin Luther when he says they "Surely aren't saved", as I'm not privvy to God's knowledge of who is and is not saved.

Is that helping you come to terms with our understanding of Baptism? We're not infinitely far from Baptismal regeneration, and we certainly believe it's a sacrament, and that the Holy Spirit is at work in a specific way in Baptism.

Thanks so much for this. It is exactly how I view salvation I guess. I am honestly trying to come to terms with it. Sacrament is definitely more along my lines than ordinance or as I've heard from some, not even necessary ever....

 

[circuitrider]

Actually many Protestant groups believe baptism is a sacrament. Presbyterians, Lutherans, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, and the United Methodist Church believe that baptism is a sacrament.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Actually many Protestant groups believe baptism is a sacrament. Presbyterians, Lutherans, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, and the United Methodist Church believe that baptism is a sacrament.

Yep!

OP; there's a lot of puritan influence in "Ordinances". There was a lot of rivalry in the enlightenment period, Catholics and Protestants. In England it got pretty dangerous, one king or queenwould be protestant, and would jail or even kill clergy who seemed "too Catholic", and vice versa when the next Catholic king or queen came along. Famously, "Bloody Mary" was responsible for numerous deaths of Clergy and Laity alike who she espoused to be "Protestant", despite prior to her rule Protestantism was the state religion.

Born out of all of this conflict was the Puritan movement, which was neither Anglican or Catholic. They were decidedly Protestant, so much so that they adamantly rejected anything Catholic. Anglican and Catholic worship was essentially the same, and at the time Theologies were really similar (it was more political than anything; rather the Pope should lead the church or someone appointed by the British Crown- an Anglican Archbishop; most commonly of Canterbury), Puritans took a movement that basically said if it's Catholic, it's bad. From that movement grew other movements that sprang into a number of other movements and denominations. And Anglicanism became more 'Protestant' itself, in theology. Though even today, their worship is very similar to Roman Catholics.

So, a result of all of this is a rejection of Sacraments. And saying that these traditions are merely symbols of something that happened long ago, as opposed to something happening right now. Sacraments really require a higher view of church, the Clergy, and tradition. Puritans had low views of all of these.

Many Protestants certainly do understand two very important things as Sacraments, Baptism and Holy Communion. Christ himself instituted both of these things, and calls us to celebrate them. It wasn't until about the 18th Century that Roman Catholics actually began to understand 7 sacraments; prior to that, Roman Catholics also understood there to be only 2 sacraments.

United Methodists do recognize other things as rites or traditions of the church; including Marriage, Ordination, etc.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Actually many Protestant groups believe baptism is a sacrament. Presbyterians, Lutherans, the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, and the United Methodist Church believe that baptism is a sacrament.

Yeah, I read about those groups, but I find I am almost completely in agreement with UMC doctrine. Which is why I asked here... I did ask about this in the Lutheran forum, but after some research find Wesley had some great doctrine and theology.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Yeah, I read about those groups, but I find I am almost completely in agreement with UMC doctrine. Which is why I asked here... I did ask about this in the Lutheran forum, but after some research find Wesley had some great doctrine and theology.

Well you've come to the right place. There are a lot of great UMC Theology folks around here, including United Methodist Clergy (like Circuitrider and myself in this thread; and GraceSeeker who usually jumps in.) and committed laypeople in both the UMC and other denominations who have a broad understanding of Wesleyan theology.

Oh, and one thing to add that's important when talking about Baptism in the UMC; is that we do not rebaptize. We believe God is the author of Baptism and it is not a repeatable sacrament. Communion, however, is the repeatable sacrament and is connected to our baptism.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Short answers (just to confirm what others have already said):
1) We do NOT believe that baptism in and of itself saves a person.
2) We DO BELIEVE that baptism confers grace.
3) #1 & #2 are neither the same nor contradictorty statements.
4) Wesley was sort of stuck in an inbetween no mans land. He held a very high view of the sacrament as a means of grace. He saw it as conferring membership into the family of God. He also thought that no one could be saved by virtue of depending on their baptism alone, and that people needed a genuine repentance of sin and affirmation of faith in their life to be saved. Thus, children were baptized, yet later they would need to confirm their faith. And salvation was effected not by the efficacious work of God's grace experienced in baptism, but by the accepting of Christ in one's life by faith. Still, for young children we believe that even though they may not have made such a verbal commitment, that God is gracious.

OK. Already not a short answer. So, I'll just have to stop here even if it is incomplete and raising more questions than it answers.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Short answers (just to confirm what others have already said):
1) We do NOT believe that baptism in and of itself saves a person.
2) We DO BELIEVE that baptism confers grace.
3) #1 & #2 are neither the same nor contradictorty statements.
4) Wesley was sort of stuck in an inbetween no mans land. He held a very high view of the sacrament as a means of grace. He saw it as conferring membership into the family of God. He also thought that no one could be saved by virtue of depending on their baptism alone, and that people needed a genuine repentance of sin and affirmation of faith in their life to be saved. Thus, children were baptized, yet later they would need to confirm their faith. And salvation was effected not by the efficacious work of God's grace experienced in baptism, but by the accepting of Christ in one's life by faith. Still, for young children we believe that even though they may not have made such a verbal commitment, that God is gracious.

OK. Already not a short answer. So, I'll just have to stop here even if it is incomplete and raising more questions than it answers.

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, would you agree with my assessment of Wesley that he viewed Baptism as a non-optional, and mandatory (short of excluding you from grace and being necessary for salvation) for all Christians?

I know it seems strange to call something mandatory while not considering it necessary for salvation; but when I read Wesley that's the 'sense' I get. And when I look to the scriptures for guidance on Baptism; that's the sense I get in my own theology as well. Curious for your take on that specific idea.

Maybe even your taken on Martin Luther's point in his catechism where he says that anyone who REFUSED Baptism surely isn't saved, but Baptism is not necessary for salvation. (I don't play the 'isn't saved' game and I don't think you do either; but your thoughts on his thoughts would be appreciated for my own edification)

 

[GraceSeeker]

Just to satisfy my own curiosity, would you agree with my assessment of Wesley that he viewed Baptism as a non-optional, and mandatory (short of excluding you from grace and being necessary for salvation) for all Christians?

No, I would not.
I think if you had asked the question differently I probably would have agreed. But I can't as phrased because I believe that Wesley was ever open to the possibility that God might do something different than the customary and usual. Therefore, even though Wesley saw baptism as something essential, that didn't make it necessary (at least not as I understand the term "necessary"). But, I don't have any specific Wesley quote in mind at the moment. So, I may be projecting my own understanding of those terms on to Wesley in ways he would not have accepted.

I also think I like the term "expected" rather than "mandatory." Again, that might be more personal preference than giving you Wesley's thoughts. But what I am talking about is that Wesley's sense of grace went beyond theology to Christian praxis. So, even as Wesley had "standard sermons" and high expectations (with accountability) for those who were members of the Methodist Societies, there seems to have always been room for exceptions with Wesley.

Now, if you would have phrased the question in terms of general practice, I would have said, YES.

Maybe even your taken on Martin Luther's point in his catechism where he says that anyone who REFUSED Baptism surely isn't saved, but Baptism is not necessary for salvation. (I don't play the 'isn't saved' game and I don't think you do either; but your thoughts on his thoughts would be appreciated for my own edification)

Despite serving in a Lutheran Church for 4 years, and even taught confirmation in it from the Catechism, I'm going to have to please ignorance regarding Luther's comments on baptism.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

That makes sense. The wording was intentionally strong to illustrate my feelings. "Expected" is probably a good word, too. In short, I don't believe a Christian has the option to reject Baptism. But at the same time, I believe, as you said, God can operate outside of our boundaries, and one needn't be baptized to be saved. Which sounds like a contradiction, but really it isn't. I believe I can faithfully say to a new Christian, or to Christian parents of a new child, "Baptism is an expectation of God and the church now", and at the same time tell them that their faith in God and acceptance of Christ's offering is what affords them eternal security, and not any act on earth; including Baptism.

You've given me something to think about from the point of view of Wesley's views.

I am actually looking for my copy of "Martin Luthers Small Catechism". It's somewhere around here. Maybe then I'll illustrate the quote I'm talking about, and see how you interpret it.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

So this is where I am on the subject. Something very real happens in baptism. Can a person be saved and not baptized, right now I believe they can in instances. I view baptism as this, it is an initial demonstration of your faith. Faith of course works obedience in us. So if a person says no to baptism then perhaps they yet lack saving faith. It "saves" you because of that demonstration, it verifies your faith. Before a person is baptized, can they die and still go to heaven, I don't know. Jesus said believe and be baptized. I leave it up to him to decide in such instances. I just don't see why churches don't baptize someone immediately when they convert. It'd be so much easier and that is the scriptural pattern.

 

[Dave-W]

Jesus said believe and be baptized.

Actually, He did not say that. It was Peter.

Our Lord commanded the apostles to baptize (Matt 28) and when Peter told those who responded to his message in Acts 2, he was simply following the command of the Lord who had put the onus on HIM.

It was my experience in the CoN that baptism was considered optional. I was not baptized until 10 years after I first prayed for salvation. I never heard that it was required or even suggested. I had to seek it out myself, and only did so after some of my friends in the Church of Christ said I was not saved at all because of not being water baptized.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Actually, He did not say that. It was Peter.

Our Lord commanded the apostles to baptize (Matt 28) and when Peter told those who responded to his message in Acts 2, he was simply following the command of the Lord who had put the onus on HIM.

It was my experience in the CoN that baptism was considered optional. I was not baptized until 10 years after I first prayed for salvation. I never heard that it was required or even suggested. I had to seek it out myself, and only did so after some of my friends in the Church of Christ said I was not saved at all because of not being water baptized.

I don't believe your salvation was in Jeopardy because of not being baptized. I just don't think it fits the character of God; nor scripture, to say God will refuse the relationship that he himself started because of a technicality. Yet, surely, Baptism is not optional; and the responsibility of every believer!

 

[Dave-W]

I don't believe your salvation was in Jeopardy because of not being baptized.

Nor do I. Never have.

I just don't think it fits the character of God; nor scripture, to say God will refuse the relationship that he himself started because of a technicality.

That would be something akin to divorcing my wife on a technicality. That Ain't happenin'.

Yet, surely, Baptism is not optional; and the responsibility of every believer!

Not optional for sure.

But as to the "responsibility" part, it seems to me that depends on how you understand Acts 2.38. Is that to be taken as a divine command for all new believers; or is it merely Peter fulfilling his own responsibility per Matt 28.19?

 

[RomansFiveEight]

Nor do I. Never have.



That would be something akin to divorcing my wife on a technicality. That Ain't happenin'.



Not optional for sure.

But as to the "responsibility" part, it seems to me that depends on how you understand Acts 2.38. Is that to be taken as a divine command for all new believers; or is it merely Peter fulfilling his own responsibility per Matt 28.19?

The latter part is a tough question. It's clearly the churches responsibility to Baptize. After all, the Great Commission isn't "Go and be Baptized", it's "Go and Baptize". It seems every New Testament concept of Baptism is, repeatedly, that the church (or an individual, or the apostles; depending on the context) is called to "Go and Baptize". Though often this occurs after their own Baptism! Once again indicating this, what seems obvious to me, scriptural expectation that Baptism begins ones life as a Christian.

But, even so; I still think that when one begins an earnest relationship with God; Baptism has to be a desire; it simply must be done. It's the churches responsibility to facilitate it (After all, Baptism is a sacrament; it's a part of the church), but surely, anyone professing Christ should be feeling an obligation to themselves be Baptized.

I have a hard time believing someone who might say they have a relationship with God; love God, want to grow in Christ; and don't want to get Baptized. That's the beginning step; that's where the Church gets to claim you and your journey as a Christian begins. It's simply, a must!

 

[Dave-W]

R58 - I think we are pretty much in agreement here.

Now as to the OP question - I know of no Wesleyan family denomination that believes in Baptismal regeneration; with the possible exception of the United Pentecostal - if you count them as Wesleyan. I do not.

Indeed, the ONLY other protestant denoms I know that DO believe in Baptismal Regeneration are the Stone/Campbell Restoration groups: Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Christian Church.