Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #12: Baptismal Regeneration

Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #12: Baptismal Regeneration

Last updated on: July 21, 2025 at 11:44 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #12: Baptismal Regeneration 2025-07-21T11:44:32-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Including: Did Paul Refuse to Baptize Because it Was Contrary to the Gospel?; Meaning of Baptism in Acts 2

Photo credit: St. Peter (1632), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Norman L. Geisler (1932 – 2019) was an American evangelical Protestant theologian, philosopher, and apologist. He obtained an M.A. in theology from Wheaton College and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University, and made scholarly contributions to the subjects of classical Christian apologetics, systematic theology, philosophy of religion, Calvinism, Catholicism, biblical inerrancy, Bible difficulties, biblical miracles, the resurrection of Jesus, ethics, and other topics. He wrote or edited more 90 books and hundreds of articles.

Dr. Geisler was the Chairman of Philosophy of Religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (1970–79) and Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary (1979–88) and a key figure in founding the Evangelical Philosophical Society. He also co-founded Southern Evangelical Seminary. He was known as an evangelical Thomist and considered himself a “moderate Calvinist”. He was not an anti-Catholic (i.e., he didn’t deny that Catholicism was fully a species of Christianity).

This is one of a series of comprehensive replies to his book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-author, Ralph E. MacKenzie, graduate of Bethel Theological Seminary-West; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 1995). It’s available online in a public domain version, which has no page numbers, so I will utilize page numbers from my paperback copy, for the sake of full reference. I consider it the best Protestant critique of Catholicism (especially in terms of biblical arguments) that I have ever found, from any time period. The arguments are, for the most part, impressively presented, thought-provoking, respectful, respectable, and worthy of serious consideration (which I’m now giving them).

I’ll be concentrating on the eight sections of Part Two: “Areas of Doctrinal Differences” (202 pages). These installments will be listed and linked on my Calvinism & General Protestantism web page, in section XVII: “Catholics and Protestants” (second from the end). Dr. Geisler’s and Ralph MacKenzie’s words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.

*****

Baptismal regeneration appears to be contrary to grace. The belief that baptism brings regeneration seems inconsistent with the biblical teaching on God’s grace, namely, that salvation comes by grace through faith and not by any works of righteousness, including baptism. Baptism is called a work of “righteousness” in Matthew 3:15, but Paul declared that it was “not because of any righteous deeds we have done but because of his mercy, he saved us” (Titus 3:5). He also said that it is “by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9). So, baptism appears to be no more necessary for being saved than is any other “work of righteousness.” Indeed, any work of righteousness to obtain salvation is contrary to grace.

Baptismal regeneration is in conflict with the need for faith. Throughout the Bible it is faith and faith alone that is commanded as a condition for receiving God’s gift of salvation. . . . If baptism-or anything in addition to belief-is necessary for salvation, then it seems difficult to exonerate Jesus from misleading his audience. (p. 260)

What it is actually contrary to is Dr. Geisler’s and several strains of Protestantism’s late-arriving anti-sacramental tradition of men. Geisler is giving that prominence over the Bible, which clearly teaches at least 14 times that we are saved, regenerated, justified, sanctified, Spirit-filled, and born again through baptism. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:40, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:21 all state that we are “saved” by it. Aren’t four plain statements enough? Jesus in John 3:3-5 taught that we are born again as a result of baptism. According to Acts 2:38 (the first Christian sermon, by St. Peter), we receive “forgiveness” of “sins” and “the gift of the Holy Spirit” via baptism.

Acts 9:17-18 reaffirms that we are “filled with the Holy Spirit” at baptism (cf. also 1 Cor 6:11; 12:13; Titus 3:5). Acts 2:41 asserts that we are “added” to the Church or the kingdom of God. We “wash away” our “sins” by being baptized (Acts 22:16; cf. 1 Cor 6:11; Titus 3:5) and “live a new life” (Rom 6:4) and are “sanctified” and “justified” (1 Cor 6:11). Titus 3:5 informs us that baptism brings about our “regeneration” — precisely what Dr. Geisler denied above, astoundingly making out that it is both unbiblical and “contrary to grace.” Paul in Galatians 3:27 notes that we “put on Christ”. We even die with and are raised with Jesus through baptism (Rom 6:3-4).

How much more clear biblical evidence is needed, pray tell? It’s amazing that any Christian can manage to somehow not grasp the undeniable implications of all of these Bible passages. Nor did Jesus say in Matthew 3:15 that baptism is “a work of ‘righteousness'” — as Dr. Geisler describes it. This was at His own baptism, and He said to John the Baptist, “Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.” This is a Jewish idiom or way of speaking. Meyer’s NT Commentary (Protestant) explains:

all which as duty it is obligatory on us to do. . . . If I do not allow myself to be baptized, and thou dost not baptize me, there remains something unfulfilled . . . which ought to be done by us, in accordance with the divine will; then satisfaction is not made by us to all righteousness.

Baptism is not so much a “work” as it is a willing act of reception of God’s grace and blessings. It is indeed something we do (if we are old enough to know what we are doing), but there are a lot of things God requires us to do, so this is nothing any different from that. In a collection of many Bible translations of Matthew 3:15, not a single one uses the word “work”. Dr. Geisler is simply reading that into the text, which is eisegesis, and improper. In a second larger collection of translations, “work” appears once, but in a different sense: “. . . ‘Do it. God’s work, putting things right all these centuries, is coming together right now in this baptism.’ . . .”

That’s from The Message translation and it backs up an important consideration that I just alluded to above. Baptism is primarily God‘s work, not ours. To the extent that it is also our work, it is still His — and much more His — at the same time, similar to St. Paul writing, “by the grace of God I am what I am, . . . I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me” (1 Cor 15:10; cf. similar passages 3:10; 2 Cor 1:12; 1 Pet 5:12).

Baptismal regeneration is contrary to the teaching of Paul. The great apostle called of God to take the gospel to the Gentiles said emphatically, “Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 1:17), thus putting the “gospel” and “baptism” in opposition. Clearly, baptism is not part of the gospel. But the gospel “is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16). Since, then, the gospel saves us and baptism is not part of the gospel, it follows that baptism cannot be part of what saves us. Baptism, rather, is an outward sign of what saves us, namely, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit in the lives of those who believe the gospel. (pp. 260-261)

Salvation is by faith alone, apart from baptism. (pp. 479-480)

With all due respect, this is sheer nonsense, and some of the worst, most unbiblical argumentation in the entire book. Obviously, baptismal regeneration is in harmony with the gospel (the same as Paul’s gospel), because he taught it. He recorded what happened at his own baptism, by citing Ananias’ words to him: “Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16), and he wrote that by baptism we are “saved” and undergo “the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5) and “live a new life” (Rom 6:4) and are “sanctified” and “justified” (1 Cor 6:11) and “put on Christ” (Gal 3:27) and die with and are raised with Jesus (Rom 6:3-4).

St. Paul’s teaching is the most explicit and detailed of anyone‘s regarding baptism, yet Geisler astonishingly places baptism in opposition to both Paul’s teaching and the gospel. All of the biblical data above about baptism simply cannot be rationalized into a mere “outward sign.” It’s impossible. If words mean anything at all, baptism is bringing about all the things associated with it. Moreover, Paul was not “personally opposed” to baptizing anyone. This is a myth. The context of 1 Corinthians 1:17 that Geisler cited is the following:

1 Corinthians 1:13-16 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? [14] I am thankful that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius; [15] lest any one should say that you were baptized in my name. [16] (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any one else.)

That strictly had to do with the Corinthian congregation, which was being chastised by Paul for being divided in the larger passage. It doesn’t prove that he was opposed to baptizing folks, generally speaking. In fact, even in this passage he mentions two people and a whole household that he baptized. It’s strongly implied that Lydia and her whole household were baptized by either Paul or his companion Silas (Acts 16:14-15). It’s the same with the Philippian jailer and his family (Acts 16:25-33), where it seems even more so, but is not absolutely certain, that it was Paul who baptized.

Again, in a fourth instance, in Acts 18:18, we learn that “Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household; and many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.” Note how baptism again instantly follows the professed belief of adults. It’s all in one verse! A fifth time occurs when Paul met believers at Ephesus who had never heard of the Holy Spirit. They were baptized (seemingly by Paul) and “the Holy Spirit came on them” (Acts 19:1-7).

Therefore, St. Paul sees no opposition whatsoever between his preaching the gospel and the sacrament of baptism. He preached the gospel in all these cases, and as soon as someone accepted it, they were baptized, either by Paul or by his traveling companion, and Paul taught what it meant and brought about. Far from being “contrary”, belief or exercised faith — even justification — and baptism are frequently closely associated, as I documented in my article, Millions of Christians Think Baptism Is Unrelated to Justification — Here’s Why They’re Wrong [National Catholic Register, 6-22-24].

Since Protestants believe that the Bible alone is sufficient for faith and practice, they take seriously any attempt by Catholics to support their doctrines from Scripture. (p. 480)

I’ve been specializing in this very thing for almost 35 years now. One would never know, however, how serious Protestants are about this, given their almost total lack of willingness to discuss such matters, these days. It’s like climbing Mt. Everest trying to find even a single one. But I am truly delighted to at least see the opinion expressed. Dr. Geisler then goes on to interact with many of the Bible passages that I have brought forth in defense of baptismal regeneration and other closely related results of baptism.

People are “born again” by receiving God’s word (cf. 1 Pet. 1:23), . . . (p. 480)

In context, works are not excluded from the overall equation:

1 Peter 1:14-17, 22-23 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance, [15] but as he who called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct; [16] since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.” [17] And if you invoke as Father him who judges each one impartially according to his deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile. . . . [22] Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart. [23] You have been born anew, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;

The context is filled with good works (eight different mentions), done in faith by God’s grace. Geisler simply ignores them and sees only faith and belief. Catholics don’t, because we think the entirety of God’s revelation in Holy Scripture is inspired, inerrant, and important. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin of salvation, as James makes very clear.

and Peter’s audience “accepted” his word before they were baptized (Acts 2:41). (p. 480)

Well, of course they did, which is why they were baptized. If they didn’t believe the message, there would be no reason to do that. But none of this means that only belief caused any change in them, and that baptism was merely symbolic and caused nothing. The passage shows many beneficial spiritual effects from baptism. We can’t force anyone to see and accept what’s in the Bible if they refuse to do so and close their eyes. But like the old soup commercial, “it’s in there” nonetheless.

Elsewhere in Acts those who believed Peter’s message clearly received the Holy Spirit before they were baptized. Peter said, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?” (Acts 10:47). (pp. 480-481)

Sometimes. In Acts 2:38 the order is the other way around: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” And it seems to be a result of baptism in Titus 3:5: “he saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit.” Acts 2:38 is the most clear as to the order of things, so we should apply the time-honored principle of Bible interpretation: let the clearer verses help interpret those less clear.

Acts 2:41 speaks of “those who accepted his message” (i.e., believed) as having been baptized later on. (p. 481)

This is rather silly. In the space of seven words, we have belief followed by baptism: “those who received his word were baptized.” That’s not “later on.” It appears to be immediate. As soon as these people “were cut to the heart” they asked, “Brethren, what shall we do?” (2:37). And Peter answered, “Repent, and be baptized” (2:38). Jesus said, “make disciples . . ., baptizing them” (Mt 28:9) and “Go into all the world and preach the gospel . . . He who believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mk 16:15-16). Jesus appointed His disciples to baptize:

John 4:1-2 . . . the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John [2] (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), (cf. 3:22, 26)

Thus, Jesus, through His disciples, was baptizing more than even the person (John the Baptist) whose main characteristic and function was to baptize! The first thing the new disciple was to do was to be baptized. It’s what St. Paul did, washing away his sins (Acts 9:17-18; 22:16); it’s what Cornelius and other Gentiles did, after the former was told by an angel to go see Peter, to “hear what” he had “to say” (Acts 10:22). When Peter met them and saw that the Holy Spirit come down on them (10:44-46), “he commanded them to be baptized” (10:48).

In the scene with the Ethiopian eunuch, right after Philip “told him the good news of Jesus” (Acts 8:35), he baptized him (8:38). Simon the magician “believed” after hearing Philp preach and was “baptized” (Acts 8:12-13), and many others after they “believed” as a result of Philip’s proclamation of the gospel, “were baptized” (Acts 8:12). have already noted several more similar examples. Baptism obviously followed professed belief as soon as possible, among the earliest Christians.

And verse 44 [Acts 2:44] speaks of “those who believed” as being constituents of the early church, not all of whom were baptized. (p. 481)

One can always find exceptions, but as we have just seen, the norm was to be baptized immediately upon profession of faith or belief.

Nowhere does it say, “whoever is not baptized will be condemned.” (p. 481)

It doesn’t have to. If the Bible states over and over that baptism saves and regenerates, then to not receive it obviously implies a strong likelihood (though not in absolutely every case; e.g., the famous “thief on the cross) of not being saved and regenerated. It’s simple logic. To say that x causes y is at the same time to imply that non-x causes non-y.

Water baptism would be called for because they had been saved, not in order to be saved. Even in the broader sense of “with a view to” the view could be backwards to the fact that they had been saved, baptism being a later outward manifestation of it. (p. 482)

We might be able to hold that, but for the inconvenient fact that there are so many biblical assertions of baptism saving, regenerating, etc., putting the lie to the above imaginary scenario.

Even if “for” is taken in the sense of “in order to” this text [Acts 2:38] does not prove baptismal regeneration for two reasons: first, the apostles were already believers by this time (cf. Matt. 16:16-18; John 20:30-31). It was not a question of their getting saved; they already were saved. What they were promised here after water baptism as Christians was “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” not the gift of salvation or eternal life (cf. Rom. 6:23) which is received only by faith (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7). They were already regenerate, . . . (pp. 482-483)

The problem with this reply is that Peter’s words in Acts 2:38 were not spoken to the apostles in the first place. One has to take into account the context (not often a strong suit or hallmark of Protestant Bible commentary):

Acts 2:5-6 Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. [6] And at this sound [tongues-speaking] the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language.

Acts 2:9-11 lists all the many ethnic groups present, and this is right at the beginning of Christianity, so they were not yet Christians. Peter addresses them as “Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem” (2:14) and “Men of Israel” (2:22).Then he distinguishes between the Jewish hearers and the apostles who had spoken in tongues (other languages): “these men are not drunk, as you suppose . . .” The next thing he does is preach the gospel of salvation to them, thus proving again that he is neither addressing apostles nor Christians in general (2:23-36), but Jews. If these men “already were saved” — as Geisler claims –, why is Peter preaching the gospel to them? Peter proceeds to talk about repentance and receiving “the forgiveness of your sins” and receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit” (2:38).

That obviously can’t be the apostles, either, because they were already believers and had just been “filled with the Holy Spirit” (2:4) right before Peter’s sermon! In fact, Peter is preaching precisely because he, too, had just been filled with the Holy Spirit. The new covenant had begun. Peter “exhorted them, saying, ‘Save yourselves . . .'” (2:40). Apostles already were saved. Dr. Geisler’s scenario — to put it mildly — is hopelessly incoherent. It’s a desperate attempt to avoid the clear implications of Peter’s sermon, which is completely harmonious with a Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration.

***

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become a Catholic or to return to the Catholic Church, or better understand some doctrines and why Catholics believe them. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.

You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my two YouTube channels, Catholic Bible Highlights and Lux Veritatis (featuring documentaries), in partnership with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos and documentaries), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!

***

Photo credit: St. Peter (1632), by Rembrandt (1606-1669) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I survey biblical indications of baptismal regeneration, interact with Geisler’s arguments that it’s contrary to the gospel, and examine the context of mass baptism in Acts 2.

Baptism and Sacramentalism

Calvinism & General Protestantism

Baptism

baptismal regeneration

grace

Norman Geisler

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences

sacraments

Previous Post

July 19, 2025

Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #11: Seven Sacraments