‍ 

Dialogue on Baptism (Part 1)

 

A discussion of the early Christians beliefs

about baptism

 

Gary Hoge

 

I understand that Calvinists believe that baptism is merely symbolic, and that it does not effect regeneration. (My brother is also a Presbyterian, and he confirms that this is what he believes).

 

I find that the use of the word “merely” as a modifier for the word “symbolic” accomplishes nothing but (unintentional) distortion of the Protestant position. For example, the WCF [Westminster Confession of Faith] states: “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.” (WCF XXVIII:1). Furthermore, “There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.” (WCF XXVII:2)

 

You quote the Calvinist position, but that is not synonymous with the “Protestant position,” even as you define “Protestant.” John Calvin taught that regeneration precedes faith, of which it is the evidence. Baptism follows later. But Martin Luther, whom you acknowledge as a Protestant, wrote,

 

Q. What does Baptism give? What good is it?

‍ 

A. It gives the forgiveness of sins, redeems from death and the Devil, gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, just as God’s words and promises declare …

‍ 

Q. How can water do such great things?

‍ 

A. Water doesn’t make these things happen, of course. It is God’s Word, which is with and in the water. Because, without God’s Word, the water is plain water and not baptism. But with God’s Word it is a Baptism, a grace-filled water of life, a bath of new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul said to Titus in the third chapter. (Small Catechism, Part IV, Holy Baptism).

 

Water baptism is not “merely” symbolic, but neither does it regenerate. Water baptism is the NT equivalent of OT circumcision (see Col. 2), and as such, is administered to “believers and their children” as a sign of God’s covenant of grace.

 

Martin Luther believed otherwise. So which is the true Protestant Position? that of Calvin, or that of Luther?

 

The early Christians were explicit and emphatic that baptism is the normal means by which God affects regeneration. Thus, I can say with some certainty that the Calvinist doctrine of baptism is not part of the faith that was once delivered unto the saints, unless those saints immediately forgot how they were regenerated, and all of them, scattered all over the Roman Empire, corrupted the very heart of the faith, and in exactly the same way. I hope we would both agree that such a supposition is absurd. (For more on this specific topic, I invite you to read a letter I wrote to my brother, “Why I believe in Regenerational Baptism”.)

 

I will want to know whether the passages from the Fathers you refer to explicitly state that “water baptism” regenerates, or if it is simply “baptism” that regenerates. The distinction between the two is, of course, the difference between the sign and the thing signified--which I believe was how Augustine (and the Reformers after him) described the sacraments.

 

Here is how Augustine described water baptism:

 

This is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism, which is celebrated among us: All who attain to this grace die thereby to sin—as he himself [Jesus] is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, “in the likeness of sin”)—and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man--since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth. (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13[41] [A.D. 421], emphasis added).

 

Augustine’s mention of the “baptismal font” shows that he has in mind water baptism. Elsewhere he says,

 

Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ—it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of baptism. For he that said, “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,” made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, “Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven” [Matt. 10:32] (The City of God 13:7 [A.D. 419]).

 

Likewise, here are some of the passages from the other Fathers, so you can see for yourself that they did teach that water baptism regenerates:

 

Regarding [baptism], we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead. … Here He is saying that after we have stepped down into the water burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it in full fruitage, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls. (Letter of Barnabas 11:1 [A.D. 74]).

 

“I have heard, sir,” said I [to the Shepherd], “from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “You have heard rightly, for so it is.” (Hermas, The Shepherd 4:3:1-2 [A.D. 80]).

 

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, [and] we pray and fast with them. 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 of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, “Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Justin Martyr, First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).

 

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration and is thereby living as Christ has enjoined. (Justin Martyr, First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).

 

Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration, all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God. (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus 12:16 [A.D. 181]).

 

When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . “and sons of the Most High” [Ps. 81:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation. (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).

 

“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 new-born 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]. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).

 

Regenerational baptism has always been the true Christian doctrine. It is still affirmed by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox (and all other historic Christian churches, e.g., Coptic), Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. Only Calvin and the Anabaptists thought to deny it. The Bible passages you quoted also support regenerational water baptism. How else do you explain Acts 22:16, “be baptized and wash away thy sins”?

 

Regarding baptism, you attempt to capitalize on the differences between the Lutheran and Calvinist positions on baptismal regeneration. For the moment, I must plead my great degree of ignorance of the nuances of the Lutheran position. I must do some further study on this, and so I cannot respond at this time.

 

Fair enough. 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. Also, I found a tract written by a Baptist group at “http://www.llano.net/baptist/luther&baptism.htm;,” in which they blast Luther for his views on regenerative baptism.

 

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. 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.”

 

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.

 

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. That’s a lot to swallow. On this issue, I think it’s clear that Luther was right, and Calvin was badly out of step with apostolic Christianity (to say nothing of Scripture).

 

I have no problem believing that Augustine or Athanasius or Irenaeus were fallible men who had some mistaken theological ideas and some correct ones, just as do we all. They are part of Mother Church, but not all of it.

 

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.

 

Consider Irenaeus, who learned the gospel from Polycarp, who himself learned it at the feet of the apostle John. Ireneaus explicitly taught that baptism regenerates, as the following quotations illustrate:

 

“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 new-born 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]. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment 34, [A.D. 190]).

 

In like manner he also who retains unchangeable in his heart the rule of the truth which he received by means of baptism, will doubtless recognise the names, the expressions, and the parables taken from the Scriptures, but will by no means acknowledge the blasphemous use which these men make of them. (Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 1:9:4, [A.D. 189]).

 

And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”(Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3:17:1, [A.D. 189]).

 

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. On the contrary, regenerative baptism was the doctrine of Irenaeus, and thus, of Polycarp, and thus, of John. It is also the doctrine of the Bible, taken at face value.

 

I’m reminded of something R.C. Sproul wrote:

 

The right to private interpretation always carries with it the responsibility of interpreting the Bible accurately. God grants no one the “right” to distort the meaning of Scripture. “Private interpretation” does not mean that the individual Christian is free to find in Scripture something that is not there. That is why we look at the interpretations of those who have gone before us. Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If, upon reading a particular passage, you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or that has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation. (R.C. Sproul, “A Serious Charge,” in The Agony of Deceit, ed. Michael Horton, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990), 35.)

 

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.

 

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). However, it’s possible that one or two of them may have denied it. Nevertheless, that remains for you to prove, and even if you do find one or two who denied it, that would not undermine the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” on this issue. You see, I think you may have misunderstood what we mean by “unanimous consent.” The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary gives this definition:

 

When the Fathers of the Church are morally unanimous in their teaching that a certain doctrine is a part of revelation, or is received by the universal Church, or that the opposite of a doctrine is heretical, then their united testimony is a certain criterion of divine revelation. As the Fathers are not personally infallible, the counter testimony of one or two would not be destructive to the value of the collective testimony; so a moral unanimity only is required.

 

Catholic author Steve Ray elaborates on this:

 

The Church has never understood or taught that unanimous consent means that the Fathers are individually infallible or that various Fathers have never held an alternative opinion. Any given passage of scripture may have several valid applications and they were all appropriated by the Fathers depending on the matter at hand. Thus, a Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter’s confession as the Rock. This is not unusual or unexpected. It certainly does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the “unanimous consent” of the Fathers. . . . The word “unanimous” comes from two Latin words: “unus,” one + “animus,” mind. “Consent,” as was used when coined means “to be of the same mind or opinion.” Where the Fathers speak overall with one mind, not necessarily each and every one, nor numerically complete, but by consensus and general agreement, we have “unanimous consent.”

 

In other words, “unanimous consent” means “broad agreement and single-minded affirmation of a certain point, notwithstanding that there may be an exception here or there to total numerical unanimity.” So often I’ve seen in Catholic/Protestant dialogue that Protestants want to redefine our terms, then use their own definitions to debunk our claims. (This tendency is especially prevalent with regards to papal infallibility). I’m not saying that you’re doing that, by any means. I’m sure you’re operating in good faith, but I wanted to bring to your attention this tendency among Protestants so that you can bear it in mind as you read Protestant critiques of Catholic doctrine. Often such critiques are based on a false definition of the doctrine under discussion.

 

Moving along, in my recent readings of St. Augustine, I not only learned much about his doctrine of grace and free will, but I also learned a lot about his doctrine of baptism, and justification (which will be the subject of a separate post in the near future). Regarding baptism, here is some of what he wrote:

 

However, even in that one sin, which “by one man entered into the wold, and so passed upon all men,” and on account of which infants are baptized, a number of distinct sins may be observed . . . And it is said, with much appearance of probability, that infants are involved in the guilt of the sins not only of the first pair, but of their own immediate parents. For that divine judgment, “I shall visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children,” certainly applies to them before they come under the new covenant by regeneration . . . Here lies the necessity that each man should be born again, that he might be freed from the sin in which he was born. For the sins committed afterwards can be cured by penitence, as we see is the case after baptism. (Enchiridion, 45-46, [ca. A.D. 420]).

 

Now, 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 regenerated by that Spirit, of whom Christ being generated, He did not need regeneraton . . . 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. (Enchirdion, 49, [ca. A.D. 420]).

 

And after he has said as much about the condemnation through one man, and the free gift through one man, as he deemed sufficient for that part of his epistle, the apostle goes on to speak of the great mystery of holy baptism in the cross of Christ, and to clearly explain to us that baptism in Christ is nothing else than a similitude of the death of Christ, and that the death of Christ on the cross is nothing but a similitude of the pardon of sin: so that just as real as is His death, so real is the remission of our sins, and just as real as is His resurrection, so real is our justification . . . If, then, the fact that we are baptized into the death of Christ proves that we are dead to sin, it follows that even infants who are baptized into Christ die to sin, being baptized into His death. For there is no exception made: “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death.” And this is said to prove that we are dead to sin. Now, to what sin do infants die in their regeneration but that sin which they bring with them at birth? (Enchiridion, 52, [ca. A.D. 420]).

 

But the angels even now are at peace with us when our sins are pardoned. Hence, in the order of the Creed, after the mention of the Holy Church is placed the remission of sins. For it is by this that the Church on earth stands: it is through this that what had been lost, and was found, is saved from being lost again. For, setting aside the grace of baptism, which is given as an antidote to original sin, so that what our birth imposes upon us, our new birth relieves us from (this grace, however, takes away all the actual sins also that have been committed in thought, word, and deed): setting aside, then, this great act of favor, whence commences man’s restoration, and in which all our guilt, both original and actual, is washed away, the rest of our life from that time that we have the use of reason provides constant occasion for the remission of sins, however great may be our advance in righteousness. (Enchiridion, 64, [ca. A.D. 420]).

 

“There can be no doubt,” he says, “that not all men are sanctified by the righteousness of Christ, but only those who are willing to obey Him, and have been cleansed in the washing of His baptism.” Well, but he does not prove what he wants by this quotation. For as the clause, “By the offense of one, upon all men to condemnation,” is so worded that not one is omitted in its sense, so in the corresponding clause, “By the righteousness of One, upon all men unto justification of life,” no one is omitted in its sense, -- not, indeed, because all men have faith and are washed in His baptism, but because no man is justified unless he believes in Christ and is cleansed by His baptism. (A Treatise on Nature and Grace, 48, [A.D. 415]).

 

But the possibility of regeneration through the office rendered by the will of another, when the child is presented to receive the sacred rite, is the work exclusively of the Spirit by whom the child thus presented is regenerated. For it is not written, “Except a man be born again by the will of his parents, or by the faith of those presenting the child, or of those administering the ordinance,” but, “Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit.” By the water, therefore; which holds forth the sacrament of grace in its outward form, and by the Spirit who bestows the benefit of grace in its inward power, cancelling the bond of guilt, and restoring natural goodness, the man deriving his first birth originally from Adam alone, is regenerated in Christ alone. (Letter 98:2, [A.D. 408]).

 

Hence men are on the one hand born in the flesh liable to sin and death from the first Adam, and on the other hand are born again in baptism associated with the righteousness and eternal life of the second Adam. (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, 21, [A.D. 412]).

 

Now they take alarm from the statement of the Lord, when He says, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God;” because in His own explanation of the passage He affirms “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” And so they try to ascribe to unbaptized infants, by the merit of their innocence, the gift of salvation and eternal life, but at the same time, owing to their being unbaptized, to exclude them from the kingdom of heaven. But how novel and astonishing is such an assumption, as if there could possibly be salvation and eternal life without heirship with Christ, without the kingdom of heaven! Of course they have their refuge, whither to escape and hide themselves, because the Lord does not say, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot have life, but--“he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” If indeed He had said the other, there could have risen not a moment’s doubt. Well, then, let us remove the doubt; let us now listen to the Lord, and not to men’s notions and conjectures; let us, I say, hear what the Lord says--not indeed concerning the sacrament of the laver, but concerning the sacrament of His own holy table, to which none but a baptized person has a right to approach: “Except ye eat my flesh and drink my blood, ye shall have no life in you.” What do we want more? (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, 1:26, [A.D. 412]).

 

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than “salvation,” and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than “life.” Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration?” or from Peter’s statement: “The like figure where-unto even baptism doth also now save us?” And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper life, than that which is written: “I am the living bread which came down from heaven;” and “The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;” and “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?” If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord’s body and blood. (A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, 1:34, [A.D. 412]).

 

This should be more than enough to prove that Augustine believed in regenerative baptism, both for infants, and for adults. John Calvin cannot have derived his doctrine of baptism from Augustine, except by grossly misunderstanding him. On the contrary, I believe Calvin derived it not from Scripture, or from the Fathers, but as a necessary consequence of his doctrine of regeneration. As you know, he believed that regeneration occurs when God secretly regenerates someone, apart from that person’s knowledge or consent. As R.C. Sproul wrote in his book, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,

 

Regeneration is not to be confused with the full experience of conversion. Just as birth is our initiation, our first entrance into life outside the womb, so our spiritual rebirth is the starting point of our spiritual life. It occurs by God’s divine initiative and is an act that is sovereign, immediate, and instantaneous. An awareness of our conversion may be gradual. Yet rebirth itself is instantaneous. No one can be partially reborn any more than a woman can be partially pregnant.

 

Regeneration is not the fruit or result of faith. Rather, regeneration precedes faith as the necessary condition for faith. We also do not in any way dispose ourselves toward regeneration or cooperate as co-workers with the Holy Spirit to bring it to pass. We do not decide or choose to be regenerated. God chooses to regenerate us before we will ever choose to embrace Him. To be sure, after we have been regenerated by the sovereign grace of God, we do choose, act, cooperate, and believe in Christ.

 

Obviously, since 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?

 

Part 1, Part 2