When we discuss biblical topics, we need to define key terms clearly. I’ve realized that in past conversations about baptismal regeneration, I didn’t always share the same definition as others in the room. In those cases, we just left confused; no real harm done. But the experience reminded me how easily unclear terms can derail a conversation. In other settings, that kind of confusion could create serious misunderstandings. What do people mean by baptismal regeneration? Before diving in, let me clarify what I mean by each term.
Definitions
By baptismal, I’m referring to baptism, specifically, the New Testament practice. The Greek word baptizō means “to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water.”1 Biblically, baptism involves full-body immersion in water. Sprinkling or pouring is not baptism; the word rightly means “immersion.”
The Greek word paliggenesia gives us the term regeneration. This compound word combines pali (“new”) and genesia (“beginning”), forming the idea of a “new beginning,” or as some Bible translations put it, a “new birth.”2 BDAG defines it as an “experience of a complete change of life, rebirth.”3 In John 3:3–5, Jesus tells Nicodemus that one must be “born of water and the Spirit” to enter God’s kingdom, emphasizing spiritual rebirth. Titus 3:5 also describes the “washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,” highlighting regeneration as a Spirit-driven transformation.
Different views on baptismal regeneration
I’ve come to understand that there are three major views on what baptismal regeneration means. Here are high-level summaries of each.
View 1: Sacramental / Ex Opere Operato
This view teaches that baptism is a sacrament which causes the new birth. A person is spiritually reborn at the moment of baptism. In other words, the ritual itself brings about regeneration. This belief rests on the idea of ex opere operato, a Latin phrase meaning “from the work performed.” According to this view, the effectiveness of baptism depends only on it being done properly. It does not depend on the faith of the person being baptized or the spiritual condition of the one baptizing.
Baptism, in this framework, is more than symbolic. It becomes the actual means by which God gives saving grace and forgives sin. The faith of the recipient is irrelevant, which is why this view is embraced by those who practice infant baptism.
View 2: Faith-Response / Spirit Regeneration
This view sees baptism, not as a sacrament, but as the point in time when the Holy Spirit regenerates a person. The water or ritual does nothing by itself. The baptizer’s spiritual condition makes no difference. What matters is the faith of the one being baptized. This is the moment when the Holy Spirit removes sin and regenerates. This timing appears as the norm in the New Testament. However, Scripture shows that regeneration doesn’t always happen at immersion. Acts records cases before and after baptism. Regeneration happens only when someone responds in faith to the gospel’s invitation.
View 3: Critics’ Conflation View (Timing Equals Cause)
This view isn’t a theology of its own, but rather a criticism. It comes from those who oppose any link between baptism and regeneration. They argue that if regeneration happens at baptism, then baptism must cause it. In their minds, timing equals cause. So even when someone claims faith-based regeneration, if it happens during baptism, critics label it “baptismal regeneration.”
This view assumes that linking regeneration with baptism—regardless of intent—makes salvation dependent on a human ritual. Critics overlook or dismiss distinctions between sacramental and faith-response views when baptism and regeneration coincide.
Baptismal regeneration is a misnomer
In my writings on baptism, I argue that the New Testament teaches the Faith-Response / Spirit Regeneration view. The baptismal theology found in the New Testament leads me to reject the term baptismal regeneration as a misnomer. Before I summarize my reasons for this conclusion, let’s reflect on Anthony R. Cross’s comments on the topic.
Cross, a British Baptist, authored Recovering the Evangelical Sacrament, in which he argues that baptism plays an essential role in the salvation process. Dr. Jack Cottrell called it “the best book on baptism since George R. Beasley-Murray’s Baptism in the New Testament.”4 Although Cross uses the term baptismal regeneration, he closely aligns with the Faith-Response / Spirit Regeneration view, or as he calls it, “conversion-baptism.”5
Baptismal regeneration in church history
Chapter six of his book focuses on baptismal regeneration and presents several important observations.
- In the first three centuries of the church, most Christians held baptismal regeneration as the orthodox view of conversion. Cross quotes Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Cyprian, and others who described baptism as the moment of regeneration.
- This view persisted into the post-Nicene period, following the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Theodore of Mopsuestia affirmed the regenerating and renewing power of baptism. Cyril of Jerusalem also upheld the doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
- Augustine (354–430 AD) initiated a shift in thought regarding baptismal regeneration. He argued for baptismal regeneration in order to support infant baptism. In the following centuries, the church developed his ideas into the doctrine of ex opere operato.
- John Calvin (1509–1564 AD), following Augustine’s example, upheld infant baptism, teaching that baptism signifies union with Christ and the regeneration of the elect through the Holy Spirit. He argued that only the elect receive the Spirit who regenerates them before baptism. Rooted in predestination, this view influenced the Westminster Confession and shaped early evangelical and Calvinistic Baptist theology. Although many modern evangelicals have distanced themselves from sacramental views, Calvin’s legacy still resonates in their understanding of baptism.
- Cross notes that Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531 AD) did what no one in church history had done before: he severed baptism from faith. Evangelicals, especially Baptists, have largely adopted a Zwinglian view of baptism as merely symbolic. This perspective, which separates baptism from faith and regeneration, rejects both sacramental theology and the idea that baptism imparts grace. Their discomfort with the notion of spiritual benefit through physical means has led them to dismiss baptismal regeneration altogether.
Baptismal regeneration in the New Testament?
Cross goes on to make a bold and confident assertion:
“The reason why baptismal regeneration has featured in the writings of the church’s theologians and in its initiatory rites is because it is present in the New Testament. This is a bold and contentious statement, but one which, quite simply, the evidence of the New Testament demands. The majority of Evangelicals have rejected this in large measure due to their emphasis on a form of justification sola fide that has not seen baptism as faith-baptism, set the spiritual and physical in opposition, and, more importantly, because of the development of the ex opere operato views of baptism that owe so much to Augustine and his doctrine of infant baptism and original sin.”6
The New Testament teaches that immersion is inseparably linked to salvation. However, I take issue with the term baptismal regeneration.
Baptismal regeneration as described by the Bible
In my opinion, we are better off thinking in terms of “Holy Spirit Regeneration.” This is not meant to sidestep the modern stigma surrounding baptismal regeneration. Rather, it more accurately describes the One who does the regenerating. The waters of baptism do not regenerate, nor does the ritual itself. In fact, it is the Holy Spirit who regenerates (Jn 3:5-8; Ti 3:5; 1 Co 6:11; Rom 8:11).
Far from denying the importance of baptism, a Holy Spirit Regeneration framework affirms it as the divinely appointed moment of response—where faith, confession, repentance, and immersion converge, and the Spirit gives new life.
Regeneration belongs to the Spirit, not the water
In the end, regeneration is not about the water; it’s about the Spirit. Immersion plays a vital, God-ordained role in our faith response, but it is not the source of new life. The New Testament consistently presents regeneration as the Spirit’s work, received through faith, not through ritual.
While baptism marks the moment of that transformation, it is never the cause. That’s why I believe “baptismal regeneration” is a misleading label. It shifts the focus away from the Holy Spirit and obscures the dynamic of faith and grace at work in salvation. If we want to speak biblically and clearly, we should say what the New Testament says: the Spirit gives life—and He does so when faith meets God’s appointed means of responding to the gospel.
References
- Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, s.v. “βαπτίζω,” paragraph 2055.
- NIV, NET, BEREAN, CJB, etc.
- BDAG, s.v. “παλιγγενεσία,” 752.
- https://jackcottrell.com/a-new-book-on-baptism-a-review/.
- Cross, Anthony R.. Recovering the Evangelical Sacrament: Baptisma Semper Reformandum (p. 56ff). Pickwick Publications. Kindle Edition.
- Cross, Anthony R.. Recovering the Evangelical Sacrament: Baptisma Semper Reformandum (p. 221). Pickwick Publications. Kindle Edition.