----- Original Message ----- 
From: <JACKJEFF@...>
>
> 1.  Titus 3:5 nowhere equates the two.  Baptism is not mentioned at all.
Any linkage between the "washing" >mentioned here and spiritual baptism
mentioned elsewhere must be established via gnC as the text will not >do it
for you.  I notice you have transposed the word "washing" which is in the
text into the parentheses, and >replaced it by "baptism" which is not in the
text.  You have brought this "equation" or identification to the >passage.
It is not apparent to me at all how it could be exegeted from it.

What was the purpose of John's baptism?  What did John's baptism signify?
Is Christ's and the Apostolic's baptisms different in purpose and
signification than John's baptism?  Where did John get his idea for
connecting baptism and repentance?

Among other things, baptism is a washing/purification/cleansing (Acts
22:16).  If there is any GNC, I'll grant it is here, but only because the
biblical theology of baptism is grounded in the Old Testament.  The idea
that John's baptism is "brand new" and "dropped from the sky" either on
John's mere whim or revelation by "dictation" is counter to the nature of
revelation itself.  We didn't get the canon that way... and John didn't get
his theology that way.  So anytime we see washing connected to the activity
of the Spirit, baptism is in view in some way.  Always.  That's the nature
of redemptive historical biblical theology.

> 2.  Regeneration is not the baptism.  The passage speaks of the "washing
of regeneration".  Regeneration is >not the washing.  The washing is one of
the effects of regeneration.  To equate the two even though they are
>related as cause and effect is not even gnC, it goes beyond what is
exegetically warranted by the text.  This is >as much as to say, "The cause
is the effect."  To go beyond this by transposing "baptism" for "washing" is
to >say, "The cause is what I assume the effect to be."

This is also where we differ.  Regeneration is the baptism.  The "of" is
describing content or substance, not merely by adjective.  In fact,
rendering "of" and "in" as mere adjective desriptors rather than
content/substance conjunctions strips much of Pauline theology of its
eschatology ("in Christ" is not merely descriptive, but is the predominant
reality of whatever it is attached to).  The washing is not merely an
effect.  That is not the purpose of "of".  The washing is an effect because
it is the reality.  Regeneration washes us.  It cleanses us by giving us new
life.

> 3.  The only other occurrence of this word in the NT is in Eph. 5:26 where
it is the cleansing of the Word which >is explicated.  Here, as in Tit. 3:5,
there is no mention of baptism, and no basis for connecting this “washing”
>directly to baptism which would in any way justify their equation or
identification.

Again, I would see Paul using the imagery of baptism in describing the
effects of the Word.  Why?  Because that word "cleansing" is grounded in the
Old Testament's "cleansing"... which is the contextual basis for John's
baptism.  It is interesting to note that Paul's use of "washing" in
proximity of "the Word" in 5:26 mimics the promity of the pattern of Acts
where the Word was "received" and immediately there's a baptism (2:41, 8:12,
11:1 w/ 10:48).

As for Beasley-Murray, I have not read his exegesis on baptism.  But as he
was inclined toward biblical theology, I'm sure it is a challenging read.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH