“Baptism evolved into an initiatory rite or sacrament that assimilated the idea of ritual washing and cleansing from sin, a concept not entirely the same as the original confirmation of discipleship manifested by a symbolic burial and resurrection” (292)

Cornelius Jaenan denigrates baptism as a “mystical transformatory ritual” and blames the influence of Greek pagan religions for the “change” —> he says “mystical” like it’s a bad thing. He says “ritual” like it’s a bad thing. He says “evolved” like it’s a bad thing.

Jaenen says “Jesus was recorded as having said, ‘He who believes and is baptized shall be saved,’ not ‘he who is not baptized will be condemned’” (108)

He likes to quote Tertullian when he thinks he supports his conclusions - can’t have it both ways

“It is important to note that the first Christians did not conceive baptism to be an initiation rite giving entrance to the ‘kingdom of God’. Instead, they saw it as a rite of confirmation that individuals had become disciples, that they had given evidence of conversion or a changed life-style, and were therefore ready to be accepted into the full fellowship of the ecclesia symbolized by figurative burial of the old life and nature and their ‘resurrection’ into a new life as ‘new creatures’.” (105)

J offers ZERO biblical evidence for this claim; elsewhere he seems to recognize that “the teaching of Jesus emphasized that man in his natural state required a transformation or renewal to become a spiritual being.” (148)

later in his book J acknowledges that belief in baptismal regeneration existed but dismisses it as a “new concept” that became “firmly entrenched with the formulation of the doctrine of original sin” (292, VI:6) and dismisses it as Eric Habsbawm’s term “invented tradition” (271:VI)

read the stories of 2×2s regarding baptism at TTT: https://tellingthetruth.info/vot_archive/baptism.php

“While the early church taught baptism of believers, it did not make baptism an absolute requirement for salvation. Jesus was recorded as having said, ‘He who believes and is baptized shall be saved’, not ‘he who is not baptized will be condemned” (108)

Tertullian also said, “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!” (On Baptism, II). AND

“Well, but how great is the force of perversity for so shaking the faith or entirely preventing its reception, that it impugns it on the very principles of which the faith consists! There is absolutely nothing which makes men's minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect….Oh, miserable incredulity, which quite denies to God His own properties, simplicity and power!” On Baptism, III

All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying…Therefore, after the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue through the intervention of the angel, the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed. (On Baptism, IV)

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm. look also at Dave Armstrong’s patheos page https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2024/07/tertullian-on-baptismal-regeneration.html

another Tertullian quote “A treatise on our sacrament of water, by which the sins of our earlier blindness are washed away and we are released for eternal life will not be superfluous…. Taking away death by the washing away of sins. The guilt being removed, the penalty, of course, is also removed…. Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins” (On Baptism 1:1, 5:6, from https://www.catholic.com/tract/what-the-early-church-believed-baptismal-regeneration

ask AI to examine how Newman's concept of the development of doctrine is applied to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration

J says “baptism originally had not required a preparatory course of doctrinal study, or catechism” (293) → this is because by now generations had gone by

———————————-

Footnote #24 on page 104, “In the cult of Dionysus infants were initiated as a safeguard against premature death. The concept of infant baptism or “christening” appears to have been brought into later Christianity by converts from paganism” —> no actual citation was provided

later he says on page 292 “it would appear that the Greek pagan religions had much to do with altering the concept of baptism. Baptism was soon called the Enlightenment and the Seal in the East, names taken directly from the Greek mysteries. The rite was carried out with an elaborate mystic formula, performed usually in secret…” (VI:6). —> no citation provided by J

————————-

under the section header “Apostle John’s exposition of regeneration, J simply says “The apostle John expounded on divine regeneration as being ‘born again’” (pg 149, III.6.1) he quotes John 1:11-13 and 2:29 all the up to but stopping at Jn 3:3!!!!!.

J also says the hilarious statement, “Jesus was recorded as having said, ‘He who believes and is baptized shall be saved’, not ‘he who is not baptized will be condemned’” (109, II.2.4). The logic of this statement does not eliminate baptism. The argument assumes that whatever is not mentioned in the condemnation clause is therefore unnecessary.

Jesus states two conditions for salvation:

• Believe

• Be baptized

He then states the one condition that guarantees condemnation:

• Unbelief

The omission of baptism from the second clause does not remove its importance from the first clause.

For example:

"He who enters the airplane and remains seated will arrive safely; he who does not enter the airplane will not arrive."

The speaker need not add, "he who enters but refuses to remain seated" to affirm that remaining seated is still required.

2. Unbelief Already Prevents Baptism

Many sacramental theologians note that an unbeliever would ordinarily not seek Christian baptism at all.

Therefore the condemnation clause addresses the fundamental issue:

• If one does not believe, salvation is impossible.

• Discussion of baptism becomes moot because unbelief already excludes salvation.

This explanation was commonly given by ancient commentators.

3. The Parallel Form Actually Supports Baptism

The first clause is explicit:

"believes and is baptized"

If Jesus intended baptism to be irrelevant, critics ask why mention it at all.

The anti-baptismal-regeneration interpretation often ends up reducing the verse to:

"He who believes shall be saved."

Yet Jesus did not say that.

Instead He deliberately joined belief and baptism as the ordinary response to the gospel.

4. The Same Logic Could Be Used Against Other Necessities

Suppose someone argued:

"Repentance is not necessary because Jesus didn't say, 'he who does not repent will be condemned.'"

Most Protestants would reject that reasoning because other passages clearly require repentance.

Likewise, proponents of baptismal regeneration argue that Mark 16:16 must be interpreted alongside passages such as:

• Acts 2:38

• Acts 22:16

• Epistle to the Romans 3–4

• First Epistle of Peter 21

• Gospel of John 5

5. The Early Church Did Not Read It This Way

One historical rebuttal is that the earliest Christian writers overwhelmingly connected baptism with the reception of salvation, forgiveness, regeneration, or incorporation into Christ.

Examples include:

• Justin Martyr

• Irenaeus

• Tertullian

• Cyprian

• Augustine of Hippo

While they differed on details, they generally did not interpret Mark 16:16 as teaching that baptism was merely optional.

A More Technical Rebuttal

The strongest rebuttal is probably this:

The verse establishes a sufficient condition for salvation:

Belief + Baptism → Salvation

The second clause establishes a sufficient condition for condemnation:

Unbelief → Condemnation

It does not follow that baptism is unnecessary merely because the converse statement is omitted. The argument commits a logical fallacy by treating the absence of a condition in the condemnation clause as proof that the condition is irrelevant to the salvation clause.

In short, Mark 16:16 certainly teaches that unbelief condemns. The debate is whether baptism is also an instrumental means by which salvation is ordinarily received. The fact that Jesus does not repeat baptism in the condemnation clause is not, by itself, a decisive argument against baptismal regeneration.

Jaenan, C.J. The apostles’ doctrine and fellowship: a documentary history of the early church and restorationist movements. Legas Publishing. 2003.