‍ 

Dialogue on Baptism (Part 2)

 

A discussion of the early Christians beliefs

about baptism

 

Gary Hoge

 

I’d suggest you read the sections on baptism in Luther’s “Large Catechism” and “Small Catechism.” That should be enough to dispel any doubts you may have that Luther believed in regenerative water baptism.

 

Indeed he did. Nevertheless, the Lutheran position differs from the Catholic one in that the former does not believe that grace is “added” to the water by the blessing of a priest or Pope.

 

Well, we don’t believe that, either. If we did, then only a priest or pope could baptize. Or else, only “blessed” water could be used. Now, it is true that blessed water is normally used, but it doesn’t have to be. Any ordinary water will do just fine. Also, it is true that bishops, priests, and deacons are the ordinary ministers of baptism, but the Church teaches that “in case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 1256). We believe that no matter who administers the water and says the words, it is really Jesus Christ himself who baptizes. As Augustine wrote,

 

Wherefore the Church calmly declines to place her hope in man, lest she fall under the curse pronounced in Scripture, “Cursed be the man that trusteth in man,” but places her hope in Christ, who so took upon Him the form of a servant as not to lose the form of God, of whom it is said, “The same is He which baptizeth.” Therefore, whoever the man be, and whatever office he bear who administers the ordinance, it is not he who baptizes; that is the work of Him upon whom the dove descended. (Letter 139, 5, A.D. 406).

 

So even yours truly, if I ran across someone who was in danger of death, and if I had a cup of water in my hand, could validly baptize that person, because it is really Christ who baptizes. Ironically, when it comes to baptism, we’re actually less “authority-driven” than you guys are, because in your faith only a “minister of the word lawfully ordained” can baptize. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 27:4). This raises an interesting question: If I baptized someone, and he decided to join your church, would the baptism I gave him “count,” or would you guys have to rebaptize him?

 

Regeneration in the Lutheran doctrine occurs because the water “contains” the very Word of God, so that the person is literally regenerated by “the washing of the water of the Word”. Lutherans maintain that the justification of the infant occurs through faith alone, which faith “grasps” the Word contained in the water. Furthermore, the righteousness given in justification at baptism is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the infant, not a substance merely infused, as Catholics say.

 

I realize that Catholics and Lutherans understand regeneration and justification somewhat differently, but my point was simply that we both believe that water baptism is the instrument of regeneration. However the mechanics of it work, a person goes into the water unregenerated and comes out of it regenerated. That was Luther’s belief, and it is ours as well.

 

At any rate, I must also do further research into baptismal regeneration in the Fathers. Nonetheless, no matter what the Fathers are brought forward in defense of (even if by me!), I insist that their doctrines be judged by Scripture.

 

Which invariably leads again to the problem of interpretation. What you mean, perhaps even unconsciously, is that their doctrines must be judged against your interpretation of Scripture.

 

No, that’s not what I mean. I realize that it’s difficult for you to understand how anybody in their right mind can believe that Scripture is NOT a wax nose that can be twisted into any shape anybody likes, but that is what the doctrine of perspicuity affirms. I am just as sure that the Bible’s teaching on baptism is clear as you are sure that your Magisterium’s teaching on baptism is clear.

 

Exactly, and because you are so “sure” that the Bible is clear on this subject, you’re also sure that you understand it correctly. How could you not, what with the Bible being so clear and all? That’s why I said that you would judge all of historic Christianity against your interpretation. See, if you weren’t so sure of the Bible’s inherent clarity, you might be less willing to contradict fifteen centuries of unanimous Christian teaching. In that case, the fact that everyone before Calvin interpreted the Bible differently than he did might cause you to wonder if perhaps Calvin was wrong.

 

Now, I don’t doubt that you’re “sure” that the Bible is clear on this issue, but if you look around you’ll see that your certainty has run aground on the rocks of history. Even within the tiny group that you acknowledge as real Protestants (essentially just yourselves and the Lutherans) there is no agreement on what the Bible “clearly teaches” about baptism. The Lutherans, who also claim that the Bible is quite clear, believe that it clearly teaches regenerative water baptism, which you say the Bible clearly does not teach. Well, obviously one of you is wrong about the teaching itself, and if you’re both interpreting in good faith, then you’re both wrong about the clarity of its presentation in the Bible.

 

I am also sure that it is possible for me to miss the boat in my interpretation of Scripture, hence, you will not catch me acting like a fundamentalist and simply chunking everything that doesn’t strike my fancy.

 

Well, I agree with you there. You are certainly not an individualist. In fact, my impression is that you simply follow Calvin no matter what. Please don’t misunderstand me—I’m not knocking you for your loyalty, not at all. Though I think it is misdirected, it is nevertheless an admirable quality.

 

I also accept that you’re not willing to simply “chunk” everything that doesn’t strike your fancy, but unfortunately, by following Calvin you’ve “chunked” everything from the historic faith that didn’t strike his fancy. You see, unlike yourself, Calvin was quite the individualist, and he arrogated to himself the right to determine for everyone else what the true faith is. The issue of baptism is an excellent example, and it proves that for Calvin, the ultimate standard of truth was his own personal interpretation of Scripture. Granted, he tried to support his interpretation by appealing to the Fathers when he could, but he had no qualms about repudiating all of them if they didn’t support his interpretation. Thus, his own opinion was the ultimate standard, and he judged the Fathers as right or wrong according as they agreed or disagreed with him.

 

Consider just one example. In Book IV, chapter 15, section 7, of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin reached into his magic bag and pulled out an ancient error. Like the Donatists before him, Calvin equated the baptism of John with the baptism of Christ. Augustine had fought hard against the Donatists on this point, apparently in vain as far as Calvin was concerned. For what does Calvin say? “Wherefore, let no one be perplexed because ancient writers labour to distinguish the one from the other. Their views ought not to be in such esteem with us as to shake the certainty of Scripture.” (I guess the ancient writers never read Scripture). What Calvin is really saying here is, “Their views are not held in such esteem with me as to shake the certainty of my interpretation of Scripture.” Thus, he says, “Who would listen to Chrysostom . . .” and “Nor can we admit Augustine’s subtlety …” Indeed. I guess the Donatists were right after all.

 

* * * * *

 

Thus, instead of using the testimony of the Fathers as a check on your interpretation, especially in this case, where their testimony is so explicit and so consistent, you will judge their testimony against your interpretation, as if your interpretation must necessarily be the right one. Then, because they repudiate your interpretation of Scripture, you can disregard their testimony as being “contrary to Scripture.”

 

Well now, how do you know how I’m going to respond to the testimony of the Fathers before I’ve even responded?

 

I suppose I don’t know, but it’s not too hard to predict, and as it turns out, I was right, too! Later in this letter you admit that “there is a universal consent of the Fathers” in favor of regenerative water baptism. And yet, you say, “since Protestants don’t accept that ‘the universal consent of the Fathers’ is a proof of the orthodoxy of a belief, this fact doesn’t help you.” Well, it vindicates my prediction that if the whole of Christian history is against you, you will simply dismiss the whole of Christian history as being “contrary to Scripture.”

 

Again, I know that you’re only following John Calvin’s lead here. I don’t mean this as a criticism, but my impression is that for you the only proof of the orthodoxy of a belief is whether it was taught by him. It doesn’t seem to matter to you whether anyone had ever taught it before, nor are you dissuaded upon discovering that on some issues everyone before him had in fact taught something substantively different. However, since I’m sure you will admit that Calvin was fallible, I hope you’ll reconsider the evidence, at least on this one issue, because I think it shows rather conclusively that Calvin erred in his theology of baptism.

 

Might that be because on some level (perhaps unconsciously?) you don’t really recognize that disavowing Roman Catholicism is not equivalent to ignoring history and starting “from scratch” with one’s “own opinions”?

 

No, it’s just my observation that all of us, myself included, naturally try to interpret the Bible according to what we already think it teaches. We also tend to evaluate everyone else’s interpretation of the Bible against what we already think it teaches. So when you look at what the Fathers have to say about baptism, it’s natural that you would compare what they say against what you think the true doctrine is, and judge their testimony accordingly. Believe me, I know that it’s very hard not to do that. It’s going to be very hard for you to approach it from the opposite direction and say, “You know, everyone before Calvin taught that water baptism regenerates. Maybe they were right, and Calvin was wrong.”

 

Besides, I think that you, too, could easily be shown to be “disregarding” the testimony of the Fathers on a number of issues, and that your “disregard” is simply because your Church currently teaches things that are contrary to the Fathers. You seem to imply that the testimony of the Fathers does form a check on your interpretations, but that is simply not true. No check can exist on your interpretations, since you get them from an “infallible” Church that is subject to nothing save itself.

 

Well, I’d certainly agree that the Fathers were not infallible, and on some issues, some of them were wrong. And of course, I can only judge whether they were right or wrong by comparing their views to the later doctrinal definitions of the Church. You, on the other hand, judge whether they were right or wrong by comparing their views to the later teachings of John Calvin, and this is where we differ. You see, it’s one thing to judge the teachings of an individual Father against those of the universal Church, and another thing entirely to judge them against those of another fallible individual. If we’re going to compare individuals to individuals, how do we know which one should be the standard by which to judge the other?

 

If you are Augustinian, as you claim, you should know that for him, the authority of the universal Church was always the standard by which any individual’s teachings were to be judged. Consider his reaction to the teachings of the great St. Cyprian. Cyprian taught that heretical baptism was invalid. As you can imagine, the Donatists, who taught the same thing, relied heavily on the authority of such a renowned bishop and martyr to vindicate their teachings. Here’s how St. Augustine responded:

 

For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him [Cyprian], in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew. And I take it, that the reason why the Lord did not reveal the error in this to a man of such eminence, was, that his pious humility and charity in guarding the peace and health of the Church might be made manifest, and might be noticed, so as to serve as an example of healing power, so to speak, not only to Christians of that age, but also to those who should come after. For when a bishop of so important a Church, himself a man of so great merit and virtue, endowed with such excellence of heart and power of eloquence, entertained an opinion about baptism different from that which was to be confirmed by a more diligent searching into the truth; though many of his colleagues held what was not yet made manifest by authority, but was sanctioned by the past custom of the Church, and afterwards embraced by the whole Catholic world; yet under these circumstances he did not sever himself, by refusal of communion, from the others who thought differently, and indeed never ceased to urge on the others that they should “forbear one another in love, endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”

‍ 

For so, while the framework of the body remained whole, if any infirmity occurred in certain of its members, it might rather regain its health from their general soundness, than be deprived of the chance of any healing care by their death in severance from the body. And if he had severed himself, how many were there to follow! What a name was he likely to make for himself among men! How much more widely would the name of Cyprianist have spread than that of Donatist! But he was not a son of perdition … but he was the son of the peace of the Church, who in the clear illumination of his mind failed to see one thing, only that through him another thing might be more excellently seen. …

‍ 

For it was not in vain that our Lord Jesus Christ, when He declared himself to be the vine, and His disciples, as it were, the branches in the vine, gave command that those which bare no fruit should be cut off, and removed from the vine as useless branches. . . . Whilst then, that holy man entertained on the subject of baptism an opinion at variance with the true view, which was afterwards thoroughly examined and confirmed after most diligent consideration, his error was compensated by his remaining in catholic unity, and by the abundance of his charity; and finally it was cleared away by the pruning-hook of martyrdom (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book I, 18).

 

For Augustine, any conflicts between the earlier Fathers were resolved in favor of what was later “declared authoritatively” and “made manifest by authority” after “a more diligent searching into the truth.” In fact, he appeals to the authority of the universal Church over and over again in his disputes with the Donatists. Not only that, but Augustine praised Cyprian because Cyprian did not insist on his own interpretation and sinfully separate himself from the Church, even though many would have followed him. Cyprian was a great man in Augustine’s sight because he remained within the unity of the Catholic Church. And so I leave it to you to decide whether Augustine would have considered John Calvin to be a “son of perdition” or a “son of the peace of the Church.”

 

* * * * *

 

It seems to me that on the issue of regenerative baptism, the Scriptures could hardly be more clear, but if you approach them already believing that baptism does not regenerate, then you can find a way to dismiss even such bold statements as “be baptized and wash away thy sins” (Acts 22:16), “baptism doth also now save us” (1 Pet. 3:21), “he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5), “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16), “Repent and be baptized every one of you … for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38), etc.

 

Ok. I can grant that the Scriptures are clear on the idea that regeneration occurs by baptism.

 

Excellent! Now if only you didn’t redefine “baptism” in a manner contrary to the unanimous understanding of Christian history and artificially separate the visible sign from the thing signified.

 

But—and I believe I said this in an earlier letter—why must we take that to mean that the mere application of water by some approved authority causes a person’s regeneration?

 

It takes more than the “mere application of water,” Tim. In the case of an adult, baptism presupposes and requires faith. The Catechism of the Council of Trent teaches that,

 

Besides a wish to be baptized, in order to obtain the grace of the Sacrament, faith is also necessary. Our Lord and Savior has said: He that believes and is baptized shall be saved. Another necessary condition is repentance for past sins, and a fixed determination to avoid all sin in the future. Should anyone desire Baptism and be unwilling to correct the habit of sinning, he should be altogether rejected. For nothing is so opposed to the grace and power of Baptism as the intention and purpose of those who resolve never to abandon sin.

 

So you can’t just pour water on someone, say the magic words, and presto! they’re regenerated. Baptism is not magic. The water indeed conveys the grace it signifies, but only by the action of God himself, and you can’t fool God. If a person is not properly disposed (i.e., if he lacks faith and repentance), he will not be regenerated, nor will his sins be forgiven. That is our teaching.

 

And, as I stated above, baptism does not have to be administered by “some approved authority” in order to be valid. That is the teaching of your church, not mine, so it would seem that your argument on this point is with them, not with us.

 

Or even that if it does, that all people must have water applied to them in order to be regenerated? The single greatest obstacle to the view you are presenting is the thief on the Cross. He was not water baptized. How then was he regenerated?

 

This is not an obstacle at all. We believe that water baptism is a normative requirement. It is the normal and ordinary means by which Christ regenerates. However, it is not an absolute requirement. The Church teaches that “God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.” (CCC 1257)

 

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (CCC 1258).

 

Note that even the desire for baptism is sufficient for those who are unable to receive the sacrament. And that desire need not be explicit, either. For those who seek to follow Christ and be saved, but who don’t know that baptism is necessary, they are considered to implicitly desire it, since “it may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” (CCC 1260).

 

The thief on the cross is a good example of “baptism of desire.” He, and others like him, are the exceptions to the ordinary method of regeneration, which is water baptism. But the fact that God, in His mercy, allows exceptions to the rule does not disprove the general applicability of the rule. Ordinarily, Christ regenerates a person through the instrument of water baptism. That was the unanimous testimony of Christianity from the apostolic age right up until Calvin decided that the Bible “clearly” taught otherwise.

 

Regarding Acts 22:16, I think you need to consider the fact that this is simply an expansion of the account in Acts 9:17-18, in which nothing at all is said about baptism equaling the remission of sins.

 

Am I missing something here? Are you saying that because the parallel account in Acts 9 is silent with respect to baptism, you can ignore the explicit statements in Acts 22 that do equate baptism with the remission of sins? I really hope I’ve misunderstood you. Acts 22:16 says, “Be baptized and wash away your sins.” The fact that the parallel account in Acts 9 omits that part of the story is meaningless. Is Acts 22 any less inspired than Acts 9?

 

But I understand that you can’t accept Acts 22:16, because according to your theology, Paul should have had his sins “washed away” three days earlier on the Damascus road. His subsequent baptism should have been merely an appendix, a visible confirmation of what had already taken place. (By the way, have you read Calvin’s attempt to explain away this verse in Institutes, book IV, chapter 15, section 15? I’m going to quote it verbatim in my Revised Fundamentalist Version of the Bible. It’s much funnier than anything I could have come up with.)

 

Furthermore, when you take the entirety of Scripture’s teaching on the outward signs of God’s covenant, you simply can’t derive a theology of regeneration by the application of physical water.

 

And yet, everyone before Calvin did derive a theology of regeneration by the application of physical water. All of the churches, both Eastern and Western, arrayed throughout the entire Christian world, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers onward believed as we do. How do you explain that? I’m sorry, Tim, but I find the united testimony of fifteen centuries of Christian doctors, martyrs, and saints from all over the world much more persuasive than the contrary personal opinion of a single French lawyer. (You know, Church Tradition is sometimes called “the democracy of the dead,” and in this case, Calvin is outvoted several million to one.)

 

I will expand this for you if you wish, but for now, just consider that verses too numerous to mention here state that forgiveness of sins comes through believing, not through participating in some external action (Acts 10:43 is but one example).

 

Again, you dichotomize where Scripture does not. For you it is “faith OR baptism,” whereas in Scripture it is “faith AND baptism.” “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). It is true that forgiveness of sins comes through faith, but that does not preclude the use of water as the instrument that conveys to us the forgiveness we receive by faith. Consider the many times in the New Testament when people were healed because they touched Christ’s body or his clothes. Often, Jesus said to them, “Your faith has healed you.” So obviously, there was nothing contradictory about the use of a physical agency (Christ’s clothes) to convey the spiritual grace of healing that was the result of faith.

 

This kind of thing happened a lot in the New Testament. The eyes of the man born blind were not opened until he washed in the pool of Siloam (John 9:7). Sick people were not healed until they touched the handkerchiefs and aprons that Paul had touched (Acts 19:12). Others were not healed until they touched the edge of Christ’s cloak (Matt. 14:36). In all of these cases, the people obviously had faith, but the spiritual grace they received coincided with the physical action of touching, washing, etc. Could it be that Jesus was showing by this His fondness for using physical signs as instruments of His grace?

 

If baptism is the New Testament equivalent of Old Testament circumcision, as Colossians 2:11-12 seems to imply, then what I’m saying is even more solid.

 

Circumcision is not the equivalent of baptism, it is the foreshadowing of it. You can no more equate circumcision to baptism than you can equate the sacrifice of the Passover lamb to the sacrifice of Christ, of which it was the shadow. If you were to argue that because circumcision had no inherent efficacy, baptism must also have no inherent efficacy, then you must also affirm that because the sacrifice of the Passover lamb had no inherent efficacy, the sacrifice of Christ must also have no inherent efficacy.

 

The Passover lamb was a bare symbol that prefigured the effectual reality of Christ’s sacrifice. Likewise, circumcision was a bare symbol that prefigured the effectual reality of the sacrament of baptism. Remember, “the law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming— not the realities themselves.” (Heb. 10:1). Baptism is the reality, circumcision is the shadow. Thus, you cannot prove the powerlessness of baptism by appealing to the powerlessness of circumcision.

 

Paul tells us in Romans 2:28-29 that merely being physically circumcised was no guarantee of being a child of God, and if this is true of circumcision, how much more must it be true of that which replaces circumcision—baptism?

 

I agree. There are bad men who are baptized, e.g., Simon (see Acts 8:13), and good men who are not baptized, e.g., Cornelius. Discussing these two examples specifically, Augustine concludes, “The sacrament of baptism is one thing, the conversion of the heart another; but … man’s salvation is made complete through the two together.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, 25). This is exactly what I’ve been trying to say all along. The doctrine of regenerative baptism does not set aside the need for faith. God forbid! In the case of an adult, conversion of heart (which is a gift of God) must precede baptism. If an evil, unrepentant man is baptized, I don’t care if he’s baptized in St. Peter’s Basilica by the Pope himself, that man will not be regenerated, nor will his sins be remitted. But if a man has faith, and is truly repentant, I don’t care if he’s baptized in a puddle by me, that man will be regenerated, his sins will be remitted, and he will be incorporated into the Body of Christ.

 

Faith, repentance, conversion of heart—all these are gifts from God, and they form the basis of justification. Baptism is merely the instrument that God has established by which the faithful man is regenerated, his sins are remitted, and he is incorporated into the Body of Christ.

 

There is no stronger confirmation of this view than is found in Romans 4:1-12, wherein Paul tells us that Abraham was justified prior to his circumcision, and that his circumcision was simply a “sign and seal” of the righteousness he already had by faith.

 

All true, but you are drawing an inference from this passage that the apostle himself did not. Paul did not write these words in order to show that remission of sins does not come through baptism, but in order to show that righteousness does not come through circumcision. Those are two entirely different issues. Regarding baptism, though, we have the apostle’s own testimony that three days after he was brought to faith in Christ, he was told, “Be baptized and wash away your sins.” (Acts 22:16). Ananias, who spoke those words to Paul, had been hand-picked by God and sent to deliver that message, so it must be accurate. Thus, many years later, the same apostle tells us that God saves us, “not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.” (Titus 3:5, NAS). That Christians have always understood the phrase “washing of regeneration” to be a reference to water baptism, you either know, or can learn.

 

Regarding 1 Peter 3:21, I mentioned to you previously that the verse explicitly rejects the idea that the application of water causes salvation.

 

I agree. The application of water is not the cause of salvation, it is the instrument of salvation. It’s important that you keep that straight. God’s grace is the cause of salvation; baptism is merely the channel by which he communicates it to us. Peter affirms that baptism saves, i.e., the water conveys the grace of salvation. But he clarifies that there’s no magic in the water itself. We agree with that, as I’ve discussed above.

 

Peter expressly states that it is “not the removal of filth from the body” (which the application of water does do), but “an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

 

Exactly. It is faith AND baptism working together. It is not the mere application of water, but the application of water with the Word upon one who is properly disposed (i.e., one who has faith and repentance, and who appeals to God for a good conscience). Augustine explains this well:

 

“Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” Why does He not say, Ye are clean through the baptism wherewith ye have been washed, but “through the word which I have spoken unto you,” save only that in the water also it is the word that cleanseth? Take away the word, and the water is neither more or less than water. The word is added to the element [of water], and there results the Sacrament. … And whence has the water so great an efficacy, as in touching the body to cleanse the soul, save by the operation of the word; and that not because it is uttered, but because it is believed? (On the Gospel of St. John, tractate 80, 3).

 

You will note that the parallel Peter draws between the “baptism” he is speaking of and the salvation of Noah also would seem to deny that the mere application of water saves, since the water did not touch Noah at all. Noah was saved through entering the Ark, which might be seen as a type of faith in Christ.

 

Actually, both Cyprian and Augustine saw the Ark as a type of the Church. Also, Augustine saw the wood of the Ark as a type of the wood of the cross. But the deluge itself was a type of baptism. The Holy Spirit himself tells us that, so it must be true. But how can that be, you ask, if the people who were saved didn’t even get wet? Well, the problem is, you’re looking at the metaphor too narrowly. It isn’t that Noah got wet and so was cleansed of sin, for the Scriptures tell us that Noah was already a righteous man. Rather, Noah himself represents righteousness, and the people who were destroyed represent sins, which are washed away in the flood (i.e., baptism). The flood cleansed the earth of sin just as baptism cleanses the individual believer of sin.

 

The Bible presents the crossing of the Red Sea as another type of baptism (see 1 Cor. 10:2). According to Augustine, “[B]y the sacrament as it were of the Red Sea, that is by Baptism consecrated with the Blood of Christ, the pursuing Egyptians, the sins, are washed away.” (Commentary on Psalm 107, 3).

 

Elsewhere, Augustine explains again how both the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of baptism:

 

Thus, then, just as the earth through the agency of the flood was cleansed by the waters from the wickedness of the sinners, who in those times were destroyed in their inundation, while the righteous escaped by means of the wood; so the people of God, when they went forth from Egypt, found a way through the waters by which their enemies were devoured. Nor was the sacrament of the wood wanting there. For Moses smote with his rod, in order that that miracle might be effected. Both these are signs of holy baptism, by which the faithful pass into the new life, while their sins are done away with like enemies, and perish. (On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed, chapter 20).

 

By the way, Augustine describes the typology of the ark in exquisite detail in his Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XII, 14-21. It’s an interesting read, and I recommend it for your further edification.

 

Regarding Titus 3:5, I note that you are reading your own view into the passage, since all it states is that “he saved us...by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit”. The passage does not even mention “water”; the closest it gets is the term “washing”, which could easily be symbolic of the Spirit’s action on our souls. And, given that the Reformation’s theology of the sacraments is Augustinian (e.g., signs linked to the things signified), “symbolic” here does not mean “imaginary”. (I will expand this point below).

 

If only you were Augustinian, perhaps you would interpret Titus 3:5 as he did:

 

Have we not been regenerated, adopted, and redeemed by the holy washing? And yet there remains a regeneration, an adoption, a redemption, which we ought now patiently to be waiting for as to come in the end, that we may then be in no degree any longer children of this world. Whosoever, then, takes away from baptism that which we only receive by its means, corrupts the faith; but whosoever attributes to it now that which we shall receive by its means indeed, but yet hereafter, cuts off hope. For if any one should ask of me whether we have been saved by baptism, I shall not be able to deny it, since the apostle says, “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” But if he should ask whether by the same washing He has already absolutely in every way saved us, I shall answer: It is not so. Because the same apostle also says, “For we are saved by hope; but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, we with patience wait for it.” Therefore the salvation of man is effected in baptism, because whatever sin he has derived from his parents is remitted, or whatever, moreover, he himself has sinned on his own account before baptism; but his salvation will hereafter be such that he cannot sin at all. (A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book III, chapter 5).

 

Regarding Mark 16:16, consider the words of Francis Turretin: “Why did he not say, ‘He that believeth not and is not baptized,’ but only ‘he that believeth not,’ unless there is a diverse relation of baptism and faith in the business of salvation?” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 19:13:7).

 

That is precisely why we say that baptism is a normative requirement, not an absolute requirement. If Jesus had said, “He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned,” it would be an entirely different matter. But he didn’t say that, and so we recognize that there can be exceptions to the ordinary requirement for baptism. It seems to me, though, that Protestants often use the second half of Mark 16:16 to repudiate the first half. We, on the other hand, affirm the whole verse. Baptism is a normative requirement, but exceptions can be made.

 

Turretin brings up not only the issue of the thief on the cross, but also that of the many martyrs who were undoubtedly converted and then executed before they could be water baptized. Maybe this type of thing is why the Catholic Church had to invent the so-called “baptism of desire”?

 

I find it ironic, and indeed humorous, that you should accuse us of invention, you whose baptismal theology was created by a French lawyer in the sixteenth century, before which time it was completely unheard of. But I can’t wait for you to tell me who invented “baptism of desire.” Hey, maybe Augustine invented it! Since you claim to be Augustinian, this should interest you:

 

That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, “Today shall thou be with me in Paradise.” On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book IV, chapter 22).

 

Finally, we have perhaps the most explicit Scriptural testimony that would seem to agree with the Catholic position—Acts 2:38. But does it? Given that, again, the true condition for justification is belief in Christ, it’s not too difficult to see Acts 2:38 as simply assuming that one who believes in Christ and is justified is going to be baptized, just as Abraham believed in God, was justified, and only later was circumcised as a sign and seal of the righteousness he already had by faith.

 

That is a clever analogy, I grant you, but I think you’re missing the point. You said that “the true condition for justification is belief in Christ.” Who denies it? I’m not arguing that baptism is the true condition for justification. Baptism is merely the instrument by which justification is communicated to the sinner who believes in Christ.

 

Your interpretation not only misses the point, but it does violence to the text of this verse. Peter did not say, “Repent and be baptized, in order to receive the assurance that your sins have already been forgiven [as Calvin would have it], and because you have received the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Rather, he said, “Repent and be baptized … for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive [future tense] the gift of Holy Spirit.” According to Strong’s, the word “for” (Greek: εἰς) expresses “purpose (result, etc.)” The purpose, then, of our baptism is that we may receive the forgiveness of our sins. That is what the verse says, and that is what Christians have always believed. And, again, the gift of the Holy Spirit is the promised result.

 

Taking the whole of Scripture’s teaching on justification shows what this means. Clearer passages shed light on unclear ones. But in no way does Acts 2:38 taken in isolation show that the Catholic position on baptism is true.

 

Taking a single verse in isolation and erecting a doctrine on it is a Protestant technique. ;-) We, on the other hand, rely on many, many verses to demonstrate our doctrine of baptism, and we also rely on the fact that every Christian who put pen to paper between the time of the Apostles and the time of the Reformation believed as we do.

 

These Scriptures and the testimony of the Fathers form a powerful one-two punch in favor of regenerative baptism. To maintain the Calvinist position, you must say that these verses are not to be taken at face value, but must be understood to mean something other than what they literally say, and that the Fathers, even those who still had the apostles’ teaching ringing in their ears, were all badly mistaken about how regeneration occurs.

 

Ironically, you argue just like a fundamentalist in speaking of taking verses of Scripture “literally” and “at face value”! As if for you Scripture is anything but a book of incomprehensible teachings that can be turned any which way and made to say anything at all without the intervention of an “infallible” Church!

 

What I have argued is that the Bible, standing alone, is unclear on many issues. This is proved by the fact that it can be, and has been, given a multitude of interpretations by Christians who study it in good faith. There are a number of reasons for this. One is that many Bible verses can be legitimately translated in more than one way. Also, there are usually a number of figurative interpretations that can be deduced from a given verse. And given that the Bible does use many figures of speech, e.g., simile, metaphor, hyperbole, etc., how does one know when a verse should be interpreted literally, and when it should be interpreted figuratively? If we decide that it should be interpreted literally, we may have to choose between different possible translations. And if we decide that it should be interpreted figuratively, we may have to choose between different possible figurative interpretations. Now, multiply that by the number of verses in the Bible, and it’s really not hard to see how the Bible can yield all kinds of doctrines once we strip it from the framework of the Apostolic Tradition within which it was meant to be interpreted.

 

However, I have also stated that the Bible has what I call “hindsight perspicuity.” If you know what it teaches (or think you do), and then read it, it does seem clear. That is because if you think you know what the Bible teaches, you will thereby also know how to interpret a given passage in order to make it conform to what you think the Bible teaches. Thus, if you know that baptism regenerates, then you know to interpret at face value those passages that we’ve discussed. But if you are a Baptist, and you believe that baptism is merely symbolic, then you would have to interpret those passages figuratively.

 

It’s interesting that in all that I’ve said above about the relationship of circumcision to baptism, Abraham, etc, I think I’m taking the Scriptures quite “literally” and “at face value”!

 

No, what you’re doing is taking the story of Abraham, his faith, and his subsequent circumcision, and you’re using it to draw a conclusion, by way of analogy, about the sacrament of baptism that was foreshadowed by circumcision. But the story of Abraham in no way undermines the historic Christian doctrine of baptism. Abraham believed God, and that faith was the ground of his righteousness. Who denies it? Likewise, an adult who is unbaptized must believe and repent before he can be baptized. Baptism is not the basis for his righteousness, it is merely the channel by which he receives its fruit.

 

And as for the Fathers having the apostles’ teaching ringing in their ears, what does that prove? Even you admit that the Fathers are not infallible. It is entirely possible that the Fathers misunderstood (or at least did not understand as clearer as later generations did) some things they were taught. I could produce a number of quotes from the Fathers that say things you yourself would not believe to be true, and yet, “the Fathers had the teaching of the apostles ringing in their ears”. I don’t think you can prove anything by simply noting that the Fathers were so close to the Apostles.

 

It is true that our understanding of the faith increases over time, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, but it is also true that the essence, or substance, of a doctrine never changes. Our understanding of a doctrine is clarified and refined over time, but legitimate development is always conservative of what came before, building on it, shedding new light on it, and clarifying it. A corruption, on the other hand, repudiates what came before and alters the essence of the doctrine. In the case of baptism, the early Christians, and their successors for the next fifteen centuries, were unanimous that water baptism regenerates. That doctrine has indeed become clearer to us over time, as we’ve come to understand certain aspects of it better, but if someone comes along and denies that water baptism regenerates, that does not clarify what came before, it repudiates it. Such a denial is a manifest corruption, not a development.

 

Certainly, the Fathers were not infallible, but I would have a hard time accepting that they could all be wrong about something as important as how they were regenerated. That is not a small, peripheral issue, after all, it is the very heart of the gospel.

 

It’s not exactly true that the Fathers were “wrong” about regeneration. After all, regeneration does occur by the washing of the water of the Word. I would say that they were simply not as clear as subsequent generations would be on the relationship of the sign (the water) to the thing signified (regeneration).

 

By “subsequent generations” you mean “John Calvin.” It is only he, and those who follow him, who divorce the sign from the thing signified, and deny that the sign conveys the thing signified. The Lutherans don’t do that, and neither do the Anglicans.

 

* * * * *

 

Most significantly, just before Irenaeus discussed the many forms of “baptism” practiced by the Gnostics, he wrote,

 

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. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1:21:1, [A.D. 189]).

 

Now, how likely do you think it is that Irenaeus was wrong, and the Gnostics were right? There was only one man (St. Polycarp) between Irenaeus and the apostle John. I find it inconceivable that if John taught non-regenerative baptism, his teaching could have been so badly mangled by the time it got to Irenaeus, having passed through only one man, that Irenaeus could say that those who denied regenerative baptism were guilty of renouncing the whole Christian faith. It is absurd to think that Polycarp, who was known as a pillar of orthodoxy in the ancient Church, could have been so unfaithful to John’s teachings.

 

I would reply that they weren’t so much being “unfaithful” to John’s teachings as simply confusing two related, but different things. This idea should not cause you any trouble, since you yourself believe that the understanding of Christian truth increases over time (e.g., the Trinity, the canon, etc).

 

As I explained above, Calvin’s denial of regenerative water baptism causes me trouble because it is a manifest corruption. It repudiates, rather than refines, the apostolic doctrine. The Fathers received that doctrine from the apostles, and they were unanimous in their acceptance of it. It’s true that the Fathers sometimes disagreed over certain aspects and implications of their doctrines, but they were unanimous (with a few isolated exceptions here and there) about the essence of the doctrines themselves. And in this case, Irenaeus was quite adamant that a denial of regenerative baptism was a denial of the whole Christian faith. How could he be so badly mistaken, not only about baptism itself, but also about its importance as a doctrine of the faith?

 

Recently, I became aware that Justin Martyr and the other Apologists were subordinationists in their doctrine of Christ. Should I do as you do and say that, “I find it inconceivable that if the Apostles taught non-subordinationism, their teachings could have been so badly mangled by the time they got to Justin and the Apologists, having passed through only one generation, that the Apologists were denying the whole Christian faith”? I think not!

 

I have not heard that some of the Apologists were subordinationists, as you claim, but for the sake of argument, I’ll assume you’re right that they were. In light of the Church’s later doctrinal definitions, what this shows me, then, is not so much what the apostles taught, as what they didn’t teach. It is obvious from even a cursory study of the first few centuries of Christianity that the apostles didn’t precisely explain all the nuances of Trinitarian theology, probably because God did not reveal it to them, choosing instead to guide the Church to a full understanding over time.

 

The Apostles taught certain basic things, and their successors pondered those things in their hearts, and tried to figure out what they meant and how they related to each other. They knew that in some sense the Father was God, the Son was God, and the Holy Spirit was God, but they didn’t know the precise relationship between those three. And since there are verses in the Bible where Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I” (e.g., John 14:28), it is entirely natural and to be expected that many of the early Christians would have deduced a doctrine of subordinationism. But the important thing to realize is that it was a deduction on their part, not an explicit apostolic teaching that they had mangled. They knew what the apostles had taught them, and from those facts they deduced certain things. Those deductions were not always right, and over time, usually in the heat of battle against heretics, the Holy Spirit clarified the Church’s understanding of her doctrines, and guided her to separate the correct deductions from the incorrect ones. But I sure don’t recall any of the apostolic Fathers declaring that a denial of subordinationism was a denial of the whole Christian faith, do you?

 

* * * * *

 

Non-regenerative baptism is a doctrine that escaped the notice of every Christian for hundreds and hundreds of years, beginning with those who wrote within living memory of the apostles. It is also a doctrine that was championed by universally recognized heretics, the Gnostics. By every measure, it is a false doctrine. Face it, Tim, Calvin missed the boat on this one. But this fact really shouldn’t cause you grave discomfort. One can acknowledge regenerative baptism and still be a Protestant. Luther did.

 

Well it’s hard to “face” something that is as transparently flawed as your defense of regeneration by the application of water. You seem blissfully unaware of the facts which I have raised above about circumcision, Abraham, signs and things signified, etc.

 

What facts? Where have you shown me any Scripture to support your definition of the difference between signs and things signified? So far, you’ve simply asserted it. Now, perhaps, you can show me where the Scripture teaches that regeneration precedes baptism, or that baptism conveys merely the assurance of the remission of sins, and not the remission itself. All you’ve given me so far is a metaphorical interpretation of Abraham and circumcision, as it relates to justification and baptism, but your metaphor conflicts with other, clearer verses, and it repudiates the unanimous teaching of Christian history. To me, that is clear evidence that your interpretation is erroneous.

 

Keeping in mind all that I’ve said above so that you don’t think I’m about to introduce a red herring, let me just note that several supposedly “Catholic” doctrines (papal infallibility and the Marian doctrines) that your Church says MUST be held lest loss of salvation be experienced “escaped the notice of every Christian for hundreds and hundreds of years, beginning with those who wrote within living memory of the apostles.” But I guess that doesn’t matter to you, since the “infallible” Church has decreed them dogmas of the faith, right?

 

I think I understand what you’re saying, and it’s a good point. I would just reply that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that Justin Martyr, for example, didn’t write about the Assumption doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. Silence is just, well, silence. Justin did explicitly teach that water baptism regenerates, but as far as I know, he didn’t write anything about Mary. So his writings prove a lot about the early Christian doctrine of baptism, and exactly nothing about the early Christian beliefs about Mary. It may surprise you to hear me say this, but the Marian doctrines are really not central to the Gospel. So, it doesn’t surprise me that they were not discussed much in the early days, when Christians had so many more important issues to hammer out, e.g., the two natures of Christ, His divinity, etc.

 

* * * * *

 

Given that there really is no such thing as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” on doctrines such as the papacy and the Apocrypha, I find it difficult to believe that every single Church Father believed in baptismal regeneration. As I said, I must do further research on this matter.

 

I don’t know whether “every single Church Father” believed in regenerative baptism, but I haven’t seen any that didn’t (and I suspect that if there were any, the Calvinists would be trumpeting it from the rooftops).

 

For the record, allow me to quote a source I have thus far found to be quite trustworthy (though I’m sure you will vigorously disagree with me on that point!):

 

The doctrine of baptism is one of the few teachings within Roman Catholicism for which it can be said that there is a universal consent of the Fathers...From the early days of the Church, baptism was universally perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit. (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 95-96).

 

I have no reason to doubt what Webster says here, but since Protestants don’t accept that “the universal consent of the Fathers” is a proof of the orthodoxy of a belief, this fact doesn’t help you.

 

Actually, it helps me a lot. For one thing, it shows to be false your statement that the Reformation was based on “a large body of historical and theological evidence” (See our Dialogue on Sola Scriptura). Where is the historical and theological evidence in support of Calvin’s doctrine of non-regenerative water baptism? You’ve just admitted that there is none. That doctrine is found solely in Calvin’s misguided interpretation of Scripture, and it completely repudiates the doctrine that had been universally believed and taught “from the early days of the Church.”

 

You once said to me, “I would not lightly and uncritically accept a doctrinal principle that did, in fact, run clean contrary to the whole of the history of interpretation.” Well, if you really meant that, here’s your chance to prove it. In this instance you’ve admitted that Calvin’s interpretation does run clean contrary to the whole of the history of interpretation. Now it’s up to you to decide whether to put your faith in the universal and constant teaching of historic Christianity, or in the say-so of one man who claimed to know better.

 

Remember, we don’t think that Scripture is a book of puzzles that can be twisted with equal plausibility into nearly any shape unless we have an infallible Church to guarantee the correct interpretation for us.

 

No, you don’t, and neither does any other Protestant group. You all think that the Bible clearly establishes your mutually contradictory doctrines. On the issue of regenerative baptism, the Lutherans are quite sure that the Bible clearly supports their doctrine, and you, on the other hand, think that only John Calvin’s interpretation is plausible. But the truth is that before Calvin, every Christian who ever breathed believed that regenerative water baptism was the clear teaching of Scripture. Yet, in spite of that overwhelming testimony, you don’t blush to claim that Calvin’s contrary interpretation is really the clear teaching of Scripture. So, apparently the Bible’s teaching on baptism and regeneration is so clear that everybody completely misunderstood it (and misunderstood it in exactly the same way) until the sixteenth century. And, of course, this fact does not prove that the Bible is unclear on this issue, because apparently no amount of evidence could ever prove that. Well, I respectfully disagree. If Calvin was right about baptism, then the Bible is obviously not perspicuous on that issue, or at least it wasn’t perspicuous until the sixteenth century.

 

After a long series of quotes of Augustine, you said: “John Calvin cannot have derived his doctrine of baptism from Augustine, except by grossly misunderstanding him.”

 

I refer you to my discussion below of Augustine’s teaching on baptism and signs linked to the things signified. I would direct you to compare Augustine to Calvin by actually reading Book IV, Chapter XIV of the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

 

Very well, let’s discuss Calvin’s definition of a sacrament, and see how it compares with that of Augustine. In Institutes 4:14:1, Calvin writes,

 

First, we must attend to what a sacrament is. It seems to me, then, a simple and appropriate definition to say, that it is an external sign, by which the Lord seals on our consciences his promises of good-will toward us, in order to sustain the weakness of our faith, and we in our turn testify our piety towards him, both before himself and before angels as well as men. We may also define more briefly by calling it a testimony of the divine favour toward us, confirmed by an external sign, with a corresponding attestation of our faith towards Him. You may make your choice of these definitions, which, in meaning, differ not from that of Augustine, which defines a sacrament to be a visible sign of a sacred thing, or a visible form of an invisible grace, but does not contain a better or surer explanation. As its brevity makes it somewhat obscure, and thereby misleads the more illiterate, I wished to remove all doubt, and make the definition fuller by stating it at greater length.

 

This is a clever slight-of-hand on Calvin’s part. He takes advantage of the simplicity, and thus the ambiguity, of Augustine’s definition in order to foist his own upon it and try to pass it off as merely an equivalent amplification of Augustine’s. In this way, he seeks to make Augustine the patron saint of his error. But it should be abundantly clear by now that Augustine did not regard baptism as merely the confirmation of God’s favor by an external sign. For Augustine, the sacrament does something. The water touches the body and cleanses the soul, said he. Augustine’s actual definition, that the sacrament is the visible form of an invisible grace, is a very elegant description of the Catholic view.

 

Calvin continues, in Institutes 4:14:3, “From the definition which we have given, we perceive that there never is a sacrament without an antecedent promise, the sacrament being added as a kind of appendix, with the view of confirming and sealing the promise, and giving a better attestation, or rather, in a manner, confirming it.”

 

Again considering the sacrament of baptism, it should be manifestly obvious from the many quotations I have provided herein and in my previous letter, that Augustine did not view baptism as an “appendix” which confirms what God has already done. For him, baptism affects what it symbolizes. For example, he wrote,

 

“But,” he will say, “it is enough for me that in baptism I received remission of all sins.” Because iniquity was blotted out, was therefore infirmity brought to an end? “I received,” says he, “remission of all sins.” It is quite true. All sins were blotted out in the Sacrament of Baptism, all entirely, of words, deeds, thoughts, all were blotted out. (Sermon 81, 6).

 

Now, at this point you may accuse me of misunderstanding Augustine, and of confusing the sign and the thing signified. “Sure,” you may say, “baptism does blot out all sin and effect regeneration, but the word ‘baptism’ here and elsewhere refers to the invisible action of the Spirit, not to the subsequent rite in which water is applied in the name of the Trinity.” If you would say that, then I would respond with Augustine’s own words:

 

But it may be one says, Christ does indeed baptize, but in spirit, not in body. As if, indeed, it were by the gift of another than He that any is imbued even with the sacrament of corporal and visible baptism. Would you know that it is He that baptizes, not only with the Spirit, but also with water? Hear the apostle: “Even as Christ,” says he, “loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, purifying it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” Purifying it. How? “With the washing of water by the Word.” What is the baptism of Christ? The washing of water by the Word. Take away the water, it is no baptism; take away the Word, it is no baptism. (On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate 15, 4).

 

Augustine did not make an artificial distinction between the application of the water and the operation of the Spirit. For him, the one is simply the visible form of the other. Again, he wrote,

 

For material symbols are nothing else than visible speech, which, though sacred, is changeable and transitory. For while God is eternal, the water of baptism, and all that is material in the sacrament, is transitory: the very word “God,” which must be pronounced in the consecration, is a sound which passes in a moment. The actions and sounds pass away, but their efficacy remains the same, and the spiritual gift thus communicated is eternal. (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Book XIX, 16, A.D. 400).

 

Please note that the spiritual gift is “communicated” by means of the transitory and material elements of the sacrament, i.e., the water and the word. That is exactly the Catholic (and Lutheran) doctrine. Please bear this in mind whenever you read Augustine, and don’t read him through the distorted lens of Calvin’s error. You see, I perceive that whenever you read Augustine extolling the benefits of baptism, you think he’s talking about only the invisible action, and not the application of water also. But for Augustine, if there is no water, there is no baptism.

 

* * * * *

 

Obviously, since [according to R.C. Sproul] regeneration is the first step in the Christian life, baptism, which occurs later, cannot confer regeneration. But how very different this theory is from the doctrines of St. Augustine! In fact, I would challenge you to find any Father who taught that regeneration precedes baptism. For that matter, can you find any Scripture that teaches that regeneration precedes baptism?

 

I would remind you that Augustine taught a great deal about the fact that the sacraments are signs linked to the things signified.

 

Great! I believe that too. But Augustine also taught, over and over and over again, that water baptism regenerates. I’ve proved that a dozen times, and if need be I have a dozen more irrefutable quotations I could present. But what would be the point? You’ve already admitted that there really was a “unanimous consent” of the Fathers in favor of regenerative water baptism, and that obviously includes Augustine. So why do you contradict him and every one else by divorcing the sign from the thing signified?

 

I, too, believe in baptismal regeneration—we are regenerated by being baptized into Christ through faith.

 

Yet you divorce the sign (water) from the thing signified (regeneration). Augustine did not do that, Tim. According to him, regeneration and the forgiveness of sins does not occur when we first believe. According to Augustine, we believe first, and then are baptized in water. And it is only when we are baptized in water that we receive regeneration, justification, and the forgiveness of sins. If you doubt that, consider this sermon he preached to a group of catechumens [For those who don’t know, “catechumens” are believers who are not yet baptized]:

 

Opportunely then it occurs that today you should hear from the Gospel, that, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he shall not see the kingdom of God.” For it is time that we exhort you, who are still catechumens, who have believed in Christ in such wise, that you are still bearing your sins. And none shall see the kingdom of heaven while burdened with sins; for none shall reign with Christ, but he to whom they have been forgiven: but forgiven they cannot be, but to him who is born again of water and of the Holy Spirit. …

‍  

… Jesus answered and said unto him, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Therefore to them who have been born again could Jesus trust Himself. Behold, those men had believed on Him, and yet Jesus trusted not Himself to them. Such are all catechumens: already they believe in the name of Christ, but Jesus does not trust Himself to them. Give good heed, my beloved, and understand. If we say to a catechumen, Dost thou believe on Christ? he answers, I believe, and signs himself; already he bears the cross of Christ on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord. Behold, he has believed in His name. Let us ask him, Dost thou eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink the blood of the Son of man? he knows not what we say, because Jesus has not trusted Himself to him.

‍ 

… And as the catechumens have the sign of the cross on their forehead, they are already of the great house; but from servants let them become sons. For they are something who already belong to the great house. But when did the people Israel eat the manna? After they had passed the Red Sea. And as to what the Red Sea signifies, hear the apostle: “Moreover, brethren, I would not have you ignorant, that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea.” To what purpose passed they through the sea? As if thou wert asking of him, he goes on to say, “And all were baptized by Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” Now, if the figure of the sea had such efficacy, how great will be the efficacy of the true form of baptism! If what was done in a figure brought the people, after they had crossed over, to the manna, what will Christ impart, in the verity of His baptism, to His own people: brought over through Himself? By His baptism He brings over them that believe; all their sins, the enemies as it were that pursue them, being slain, as all the Egyptians perished in that sea. … Let them [catechumens] pass through the Red Sea, let them eat the manna, that as they have believed in the name of Jesus, so likewise Jesus may trust Himself to them. … and he that is baptized is justified. (On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate 11, 1, 3, 4, 8).

 

The application of water, which we call “baptism”, is not the thing itself, but its sign. As Augustine himself says in On Christian Doctrine:

 

But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. (On Christian Doctrine, 3:9)

 

And yet, Augustine believed as we do. I hope I have made that one thing abundantly clear. Such is the great efficacy of the water that in touching the body it cleanses the soul, said he (On the Gospel of St. John, Tractate 80, 3). If you are still not convinced, I have many, many more quotations I could bring forward, until you are compelled by the sheer weight of them to concede that Augustine believed in regenerative water baptism. That being undeniably true, it is thus obvious that if you understand the above passage to be a denial of regenerative water baptism, it must be that you have misunderstood what Augustine was trying to say.

 

In the first part of the chapter from which you quoted, Augustine wrote, “He, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer.” Thus, we don’t honor the water, which is just water, we recognize the water as a useful sign divinely appointed to convey to us the grace of regeneration and remission of sins. That was Augustine’s belief.

 

Furthermore, there’s only ONE mention in any of the quotes of Augustine which you provided of the application of water . . .

 

This is why I said earlier that it seems to me you read Augustine through the lens of Calvin’s interpretation, and so you automatically assume that if water is not explicitly mentioned, Augustine must be talking about only the operation of the Spirit. Well, here are yet two more quotations to dispel that notion:

 

In his Confessions Augustine describes an event in his life after he decided to become a Christian, but before he was baptized, saying, “Perchance, some of Thy servants, my brethren, may say that I sinned in this, that with a heart fully set on Thy service, I suffered myself to sit even one hour in the chair of lies. Nor would I be contentious. But hast not Thou, O most merciful Lord, pardoned and remitted this sin also, with my other most horrible and deadly sins, in the holy water?” (Confessions, Book IX, chapter 2, A.D. 401).

 

Also in the Confessions Augustine asks God for the forgiveness of his mother’s post-baptismal sins. “[D]o Thou also forgive her debts, whatever she may have contracted in so many years, since the water of salvation.” (Confessions, Book IX, chapter 13, A.D. 401).

 

… and that mention (Letter 98:2), states that the water “holds forth the sacrament of grace in its outward form” while the Spirit “bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power”! (emphasis mine). Pay careful attention to the fact that, for Augustine (and the Reformers after him), there are TWO elements in a sacrament—the sign and the thing signified—and that both are required for the benefit of the sacrament to be experienced by an individual.

 

No kidding. I agree completely. I simply maintain, with Augustine, that the sign confers the thing signified. Or, if you prefer, the sign and the thing signified coincide chronologically. If you really are Augustinian, you should heed his words. He described the newly baptized person as “rising from the font regenerate” (Enchiridion, 42-43, [ca. A.D. 420]). Do you believe that we rise from the baptismal font regenerate, or do you think regeneration is chronologically disconnected from the application of the water?

 

In the very quote you mentioned, Augustine says that the infant is “presented to receive the sacred rite,” i.e., water baptism. Augustine then describes the mechanics of the sacrament. It is “by the water … which holds forth the sacrament in its outward form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power.” By the co-operation of these two elements, water and Spirit, the infant “is regenerated in Christ alone.” Augustine presents this as the fulfillment of Christ’s statement, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit …” For Augustine, the water and the Spirit are both required, and they both operate at the same time to effect regeneration.

 

Indeed, in the passage you quoted from Enchiridion, 49, the following words appear:

 

For His [Christ’s] baptism is not with water only, as was that of John, but with the Holy Ghost also; so that whoever believes in Christ is regenerated by that Spirit, of whom Christ being generated, He did not need regeneration … Therefore He asked to be baptized in water by John, not that any iniquity of His might be washed away, but that He might manifest the depth of His humility. For baptism found in Him nothing to wash away, as death found in Him nothing to punish.

 

Note well that Augustine explicitly connects believing in Christ with regeneration, and that this comes immediately after contrasting the baptism “with water only” of John with the baptism “with the Holy Spirit” of Christ! Did you just miss the implication of this?

 

No, but I think you did. Augustine’s point was that John’s baptism did not regenerate because it consisted of water only. Christ’s baptism consists of both water and the Holy Spirit; therefore, it regenerates. If Augustine and his contemporaries did not believe that water baptism regenerates, then why did he point out that “those who were baptized in the baptism of John … were not regenerated”? Why would his readers think that they would be, unless they believed that people were usually regenerated by water baptism?

 

This passage makes perfect sense given Augustine’s teachings on signs / things signified, but it makes no sense given your point of view.

 

Really? I would say that it proves my point of view. Let me present again the whole quotation, with words added by me to flesh out what I think Augustine is trying to say, and see how smoothly my interpretation of this passage flows:

 

Now, [unlike us, who are baptized with Christ’s baptism,] those who were baptized in the baptism of John, by whom Christ was Himself baptized, were not regenerated; but they were prepared through the ministry of His forerunner, who cried, “Prepare ye the way of the Lord,” for Him in whom only they could be regenerated. For His baptism is not with water only, as was that of John, but with the Holy Ghost also; so that whoever believes in Christ is [upon receiving the baptism of Christ] regenerated by that Spirit, of whom Christ being generated, He did not need regeneration. … Therefore He asked to be baptized in water by John, not that any iniquity of His might be washed away [as is the case with us when we are baptized in water], but that He might manifest the depth of His humility.

 

Again, if Augustine and his contemporaries did not believe that water baptism washes away iniquity, why did he make a point of stating that Christ did not ask to be baptized in water in order to wash away iniquity? Obviously, Augustine is contrasting John’s water-only baptism with Christ’s baptism of water-and-the-Holy-Spirit, which does regenerate, and which does wash away iniquity. This whole passage clearly illustrates the Catholic (and Lutheran) point of view, but it makes no sense whatsoever from your point of view.

 

Just to make it clear once more, I think that you are doing exactly what Augustine warned of when he said, “… to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error.”

 

Well, since Augustine believed as we do, and as the Lutherans do, and as the Eastern Orthodox do, and as the Anglicans do, and as all of the Fathers throughout Church history did, I would say that the error here is yours. I would say that you have misunderstood what Augustine meant by that statement, unless you wish to postulate that you understand it better than its author did. To quote that great theologian, Al Borland, from Home Improvement, “I don’t think so, Tim.” ;-)

 

I believe that I have more than adequately answered your points, Gary. It seems to me that you need to rethink some very key aspects of your theology of baptism.

 

Well, one of us does! I hope that you will take your own advice, because it seems to me that this doctrine of Calvin’s bears all the earmarks of a false teaching. For me to accept it, I would have to reject the literal meaning of Scripture (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38, Tit. 3:5, 1 Pet. 3:21, etc.), reject the teaching of the Church, and contradict every Christian who ever taught on the subject before the sixteenth century, only to embrace instead the private opinion of one man. That doesn’t seem like a very safe thing to do, no matter how plausible you may think Calvin’s opinion is. Recall the words of J.C. Ryle, which you quote on your own website:

 

False doctrine does not meet men face to face, and proclaim that it is false. It does not blow a trumpet before it, and endeavor openly to turn us away from the truth as it is in Jesus. It does not come before men in broad day, and summon them to surrender. It approaches us secretly, quietly, insidiously, plausibly, and in such a way as to disarm man’s suspicion, and throw him off his guard. (J.C. Ryle, Warnings to the Churches, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1967), 56).

 

That is precisely why Jesus gave us a Church—to guard and proclaim the truth, so that we would not follow off after this or that teacher who says he knows better, whose novelties are cloaked with plausible arguments, and sweetened with the heavenly taste of the Scriptures. Such teachers would come, Jesus warned us, and come they have. They deceive us with “fine-sounding arguments,” warns the apostle (Col. 2:4). Since you like to listen to Augustine, I hope you will take his advice, which I present below, with the appropriate substitutions:

 

For to you it was proclaimed by the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that His “gospel shall be preached unto all nations, and then shall the end come.” To you it has moreover been proclaimed by the writings of the prophets and of the apostles, that the promises were given to Abraham and to his seed, which is Christ, when God said unto him: “In thy seed shall all nations of the earth be blessed.” Having then such promises, if an angel from heaven were to say to thee, “Let go the Christianity of the whole earth, and cling to the faction of Calvin,” … he ought to be accursed in your estimation; because he would be endeavouring to cut you off from the whole Church, and thrust you into a small party, and make you forfeit your interest in the promises of God. (Letter 53, A.D. 400).