Here’s a paragraph from an online sermon by John MacArthur, used by many folks who want to defame the view of infant baptism and those who hold to them:
“For example, Friedrich Schleiermacher, the German theologian wrote, ‘All traces of infant baptism which are asserted to be found in the New Testament must first be inserted there.’ And he would come from a Lutheran tradition,but affirm…you would have to put it into the Bible because it isn’t there. The host of German and front-rank theologians and scholars of the Church of England have united to affirm not only the absence of infant baptism from the New Testament, but the absence from apostolic and post-apostolic writers. This is the Anglican Church, the Church of England that does infant baptism. This is the Lutheran Church that affirms and does infant baptism saying it’s not in the Bible.”
Besides the fact that it is not true to say that the Lutheran and Anglican churches hold to that infant baptism isn’t taught in the Bible or by the earliest fathers (passing off a heretic as Lutheran or speaking for Lutherans is like saying Marcion or Arius had sound doctrines and spoke for the early church), it is also very ironic that MacArthur would want to even appeal to the Apostolic and post-Apostolic fathers as argument infant baptism is not true since it is absent from them.
Here’s why: do you know what is absent not only from them but also from all of earliest Christianity and for many centuries afterwards? MacArthur’s own denials that baptism being means of grace and own view of baptism being a symbol that does nothing to save.
A future article will point out what the Lutheran Church teaches in regards to infant baptism in relations to what the Bible and earliest Christians taught, and why what he said about that church is completely untrue there.
This article will point out the whole idea of baptism being a mere symbol that does nothing is completely foreign to the thoughts of the early church. Outside the Incarnation denying Gnostics, who reject any use for any sacrament, MacArthur has no one on his side. And it is seriously doubtful he wants to claim Gnostics Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against, given he actually has use for them as ordinances.
Consider what the Apostolic and post-Apostolic fathers (the very ones MacArthur wants to claim on his side) have to say on baptism:
Epistle of Barnabas Chapter 11: “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.”
Shepherd of Hermas, Ninth Similitude, Chapter XVI: “Accordingly they descended with them into the water, and again ascended. [But these descended alive and rose up again alive; whereas they who had previously fallen asleep descended dead, but rose up again alive. ] By these, then, were they quickened and made to know the name of the Son of God.”
Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, Chapter 18: “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.”
Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, Chapter 6: “ Let your baptism endure as your arms; your faith as your helmet; your love as your spear; your patience as a complete panoply.”
The Didache, Chapter 9: “But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord.”
None of the writings of earliest (Apostolic) fathers treated baptism as a mere symbol disconnected from salvation and rebirth. Ignatius told Polycarp to endure his baptism as his salvation based on his view of baptism being sanctified water based on the fact Christ was baptized. The other writings like Barnabas and Hermes spoke of baptism in terms of rebirth and forgiving sins.
Nor can MacArthur find any support from the fathers afterwards on the topic that baptism is just a symbol we do after inward change in us:
First Apology of Justin, Chapter 61: “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.”
Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 18: “Wash therefore, and be now clean, and put away iniquity from your souls, as God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.”
Irenaeus’ Fragment 34: “ It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it 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 new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.”
Irenaeus’ Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching: “First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; and that what is everlasting and continuing is made God.”
Irenaeus’ Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 21: “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.”
Theophilus' To Autolycus, Book II: “On the fifth day the living creatures which proceed from the waters were produced, through which also is revealed the manifold wisdom of God in these things; for who could count their multitude and very various kinds? Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.”
Tertullian’s On Baptism: “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!”
And the list goes on and on. These fathers held to the views of baptism that MacArthur would have deemed as heretical even more so than holding to infant baptism by itself in non-salvation ways.
So when he tried to play card of look at what the fathers taught on baptism as proof how wrong others are, it falls flat to appeal to them on the baptism issue when he would see their views as completely heretical.
Even if we assume he is right infant baptism wasn’t taught early on, it would still predate his view of baptism as doing nothing towards salvation (among Trinity believers) by many, many many centuries.
Here we stand.
No comments:
Post a Comment