10/18/13

Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Father

I feel the need to return to the topic of baptism and the Early Church Fathers. After a discussion with a Baptist today I felt the need to respond with this blog post. He said that baptismal regeneration was a doctrine that developed (paraphrase) and wasn't apostolic in origin. I have produced a succinct survey of the Fathers which shows that contrary to what this Baptist had hoped, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is most certainly apostolic and Catholic. My purpose for writing this will follow in the next post where I consider the issue of Baptismal Regeneration and Infant Baptism. I suggested that Infant Baptism is necessary requisite of Baptismal Regeneration which this post will argue is Catholic (universal) in the Fathers.

Clement
The undisputed letter of Clement often entitled I Clement or the Letter to the Corinthians says nothing of baptism despite many wonderful exhortations. This letter speaks neither negatively nor positively to the efficacy of baptism. The only possible inference can be made is when Clement quotes the Prophet Ezekiel regarding the ministers of grace and repentance.

The ministers of the grace of God have, by the Holy Spirit, spoken of repentance; and the Lord of all things has himself declared with an oath regarding it … Wash you and become clean; put away the wickedness of your souls from before my eyes; cease from your evil ways, and learn to do well; seek out judgment, deliver the oppressed, judge the fatherless, and see that justice is done to the widow; and come, and let us reason together.
1 Clement, Chapter 8

However this would be at best an inference that presumes the efficacy of baptism and that is not what this post is intending to do. Clement also turns to the prophet and psalmist King David who in Psalm 51 says: “You shall sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed; You shall wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. You shall make me to hear joy and gladness” (1 Clement, Chapter 18) Later Fathers would see this as a shadow or what happens in baptism just as Ezekiel 36 would be, but since this is not explicit it will simply be cited and left alone.

While the next writing has traditionally been attributed to Clement and will be referenced here it is safe to say it wasn’t of his authorship. The author will remain unknown and the dating may range anywhere from the late first century until the middle second century. Despite this it is still an example of an early Christian writing of the patristic period. When “Clement” speaks of Christian holiness he presents a dichotomy of either serving Christ or serving mammon, and then says it is impossible to serve both. He then cites Ezekiel to say that even the righteous saints of old Noah, Job and Daniel could not deliver their children from captivity and that we can only hope for this by doing the will of Christ. He reminds the reader of their baptism, and this baptism must be kept holy. He says:

Now, if men so eminently righteous are not able by their righteousness to deliver their children, how can we hope to enter into the royal residence of God unless we keep our baptism holy and undefiled? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found possessed of works of holiness and righteousness?
2 Clement, Chapter 6

Despite the off-hand statement by Pseudo-Clement about keeping our baptism holy and undefiled he does not say anything about the efficacy of baptism. He does say many things about holy living, repentance, doing the will of God, and turning from evil. He speaks much to the conversion of our soul in this sermon.

Ignatius
The next father to consider will be Ignatius who wrote a series of letters to different churches as he travelled to Rome to be executed. His writings represent a sense of orthodoxy which would emerge in western Christendom. The writings date from the early second century; they are generally recognized as authentic (110 AD). He wrote to the churches in Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna; he also wrote a letter to Polycarp the bishop of Smyrna. Ignatius was a bishop of Antioch which was of the seat of St. Peter and also a city very close to the early rise of Christianity.
The following are some of the statements made by Ignatius to the Ephesians, Phillipians, and Polcarp:

For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water.
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, 18

This creedal statement about Christ states very clearly that Christ was born and baptized that he might purify the water. This is not an explicit statement about baptism, that is warranted, but considering the baptism (βαπτίζω) means to wash, it is fair to infer that this cleansing and purifying of water is a reference to water. This is also supported by his other statements and the other Fathers.
“Let none of you be found a deserter. Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply. Let your works be the charge assigned to you, that you may receive a worthy recompense. Be long-suffering, therefore, with one another, in meekness, as God is towards you. May I have joy of you for ever!”
The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, Chapter 6

This statement reminds me of St. Paul who in the sixth chapter of his letter to the Romans reminds them that they were buried and risen with Christ in baptism. He reminds Polycarp that his defense is his baptism: “Let your baptism endure as your arms.” While Baptists may infer that this means your proclamation of your salvation/faith/saving those words have no foundation in Scripture while St. Paul’s (“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ”) and St. Peter’s (“baptism now saves you”). Until the Baptist can find a passage of Scripture that says baptism is a profession of faith I will side with Scripture and the Fathers who call it a saving act, our defense, our arms.

“…baptism, which is administered that we should have fellowship with the death of the Lord.”
Epistle to the Philippians, Chapter 1

This is a very succinct statement, but does not offer much outside the context of his other letters and the orthodoxy of the day. It again is reminiscent of St. Paul who spoke to the Romans “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?” (Rom 6:3 ESV). 

Nevertheless, it does state that baptism is administered to have fellowship with the death of Christ. This doesn’t say sign/symbol or profession or any other Baptist cliché, as such it should be taken at face value. I am suggesting that Ignatius means what he says.

Polycarp
Polycarp is the Bishop of Smyrna that Ignatius wrote to and is also the disciple of the Apostle John. His close tie to the apostles is a testament to the Catholic faith which was passed down by the apostles. Sadly he says nothing about baptism either negatively or positively. Many inferences could be drawn concerning his pastoral letter/sermon to the Philippians but it is best to let the issue remain silent concerning Polycarp. He smoke neither positively or negatively against the issue of baptism, but it would be fair to suggest that Ignatius and Polycarp were in doctrinal communion concerning the close relationship between their churches.

Barnabas
This epistle is traditionally attributed to the travelling partner of St. Paul.  Instead it seems more appropriate to date this as a contemporary of Ignatius and Polycarp rather than the apostle to the gentiles. A conservative dating of his writing is the late first century to the early third century (80-140 AD).

In Chapter 11 of his epistle he contrasts figures of Israel with Baptism and the cross. Concerning baptism he writes

Let us further inquire whether the Lord took any care to foreshadow the water [of baptism] and the cross. Concerning the water, indeed, it is written, in reference to the Israelites, that they should not receive that baptism which leads to the remission of sins, but should procure another for themselves.
Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 11

He says that the baptism Israel received was different than the baptism which we receive as Christians. Ours leads to the remission of sins, whereas the water of theirs is different. Barnabas continues to extol the conversion that occurs in baptism. Interestingly he is addressing adults who believe, and as Christians we could confess that faith alone does save, as such these men most certainly are saved. Nevertheless, in accordance with what the Scriptures say, Barnabas still extolls that when they descend in the water, they rise forgiven. There is no language of profession of faith, or sign/symbol, but rather it is like Ananias speaking to St. Paul who already believes and yet says “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16 ESV). Barnabas says:

Mark how He has described at once both the water and the cross. For these words imply, Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time: then He declares, I will recompense them. But now He says, Their leaves shall not fade. This means, that every word which proceeds out of your mouth in faith and love shall tend to bring conversion and hope to many. Again, another prophet says, And the land of Jacob shall be extolled above every land. Zephaniah 3:19 This means the vessel of His Spirit, which He shall glorify. Further, what says He? And there was a river flowing on the right, and from it arose beautiful trees; and whosoever shall eat of them shall live for ever. Ezekiel 47:12 This means, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. And whosoever shall eat of these shall live for ever, This means: Whosoever, He declares, shall hear you speaking, and believe, shall live for ever.
Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter 11

Barnabas says “we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” This is something that Lutherans would call a clear description of what Baptism does, it works faith, the forgiveness of sins, and salvation by the Word of God with Water.

Epistle to Diognetus
This epistle unfortunately speaks neither positively nor negatively to the sacrament of baptism.

Papias
Again there are no remaining works from Papias on Baptism. The fragments which we have do not speak to the Sacrament of Baptism.

Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr like the other fathers speaks to the efficacy of baptism quite explicitly in his Apology and in his Dialogue with Trypho. Concerning the Apology he says:

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
First Apology, Chapter 61

He specifically says that we are converted are regenerated by water (namely Baptism) and he speaks to the Word of God which accompanies this water, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Then he continues to cite the Gospel according to John where our Lord says “, Unless you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Such birth from above comes by grace and the powerful working of God in Baptism.  
In his next writing, his dialogue with Trypho the Jew he says:

But there is no other [way] than this—to become acquainted with this Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins; and for the rest, to live sinless lives.
Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 44

Justin says there is no other way to be acquainted but by baptism. He is clearly advocating an apostolic and biblical understanding which as St. Peter would agree says … baptism now saves you.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus can rightly be known as the heresy basher. Despite his famous work Against Heresies, he doesn’t speak negatively to Baptism but rather supports the various views which can be known as the Catholic (universal) doctrine concerning Baptism. He is recorded saying:

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment34 [A.D. 190]).

Irenaeus makes it abundantly clear that we are purified through baptism. We are made clean by “the sacrament water and the invocation of the Lord.” He says that we are spiritually regenerated. Like Justin Martyr he cites the gospel of John reminding that to be born from above / born again it is through water and spirit.

He also says

“Thus there are as many schemes of redemption as there are teachers of these mystical opinions. And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian ] faith.” Against Heresies, I.21.1

In the first writing he contrasts the opinions of heretics with the orthodox. Concerning the latter he says that there are some "instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole faith.”

What more can I say then what Irenaeus has already clearly stated in his writing Against Heretics?

I will try and write more later on, but for now this should suffice to say, as Irenaeus says, the Catholic faith teaches that baptism does save. 

3 comments:

  1. In 2011, I read Baptism in the Early Church by Everett Ferguson (definitely worth the read). It solidified baptismal regeneration. And even though Ferguson would see the doctrine differently because of his Church of Christ background, he was pretty even-handed in his presentation of the patristic era.

    ReplyDelete
  2. See http://www.whitehorseblog.com/category/baptismal-regeneration/ for another take on this, that the Catholic faith does not teach that baptism saves, incidentally also refuting Ferguson's errors,
    though I come at this as a reform monergist rejecting the alleged division between "lutheran" and "calvinist," especially the sinful use of "luther" & "calvin" those saints & 1 Corinthians 1 have condemned & rejected
    (though Luther himself sadly sinfully went back to it),
    considering modern pseudo-lutheranism to result from a sad
    (at least heterodox at worse heretical)
    rejection by Melanchthon of Luther's profound foreordination views (see his great “De Servo Arbitio/Bondage of the Will” at www.ccel.org) both to heal the breech with Rome & avoid his mistaken, unBiblical, synergist absurdity that this made God the author of sin. It is regrettable that there is so much sinful ignorance blocking the path to what could be a potential union between those few who would take both Luther & Calvin seriously as stellar monergist Christian apologists who themselves had so little disagreement (recognizing that they never met personally), unlike their sadly ignorant followers and their absurd, carnal turf battles Macbeth appropriately described as “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
    www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/macbeth_5_5.html

    But apart from all this babbling about relatively insignificant "Church Fathers" that doesn't impress me, it thereby conveniently avoids the primary Biblical consideration (though not utterly dismissing the former) that DOES impress me, that true children of God are PERSONALLY sons of Abraham as Paul makes plain throughout Romans, especially Romans 4, especially 4:8-25, not impersonal water hocus pocus that sadly utterly vitiates salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone.
    Rom 4:8-10 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. 9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
    μακαριος ανηρ Aου TSBω ου μη λογισηται κυριος αμαρτιαν 9 ο μακαρισμος ουν ουτος επι την περιτομην η και επι την ακροβυστιαν λεγομεν γαρ TSBοτι ελογισθη τω αβρααμ η πιστις εις δικαιοσυνην 10 πως ουν ελογισθη εν περιτομη οντι η εν ακροβυστια ουκ εν περιτομη αλλ εν ακροβυστια

    Most “lutherans” I've met are sadly so grossly ignorant of Scripture and Church history and even being thoughtful and informed that they have no idea of how “arminian” or at least “synergist” they are in their “theology” (if one can say their so often inane notions are coherent enough even rightly to be considered a proper “theology” in any meaningful sense of the word!), something to which I as a former proud Wesleyan-Arminian am painfully sensitive, for like I so often hear in “lutheran” circles today, so too in my proudly Wesleyan-Arminian days gone by crowed about how “Biblical” we were compared to those bad “calvinists” who IMPOSED their PHILOSOPHY on God's Word instead of being Biblical. Of course that only impresses other ignorant “arminians” and “lutherans” and conveniently covers up the gross hypocrisy of how it is almost only the Reformed view that has true Biblical support in any meaningful sense of the word beyond prooftexting. Because God is the One Who determines whom He elects (Philippians 2:12-13), not man, bad theology isn't necessarily an impediment (only when it results from one who was not elect, vs causing him to be so), but I do know for myself, if no one else, that if it were possible (NOT!, Romans 14:4; Revelation 7:17; 21:4), I'd be ashamed of all the unBiblical notions of which I've had (& I'm sure WILL HAVE) to repent when I stand before God as His elect!
    Russ D
    Soli Deo gloria!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very good writing! Not so sure exactly what the "unimpressed" commenter above has issues with as it is somewhat a run on diatribe and anonymous at that... I really enjoyed the detail in your peice. THANKS!

    ReplyDelete