Follow
In Part 3 of this series, we continue where we left off last week with Called To Communion‘s efforts to find Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. In the first week, we covered Ignatius of Antioch, Barnabas of Alexandria, The Shepherd of Hermas, and Justin Martyr. Last week, we covered Theophilus of Antioch, and Irenaeus.
What we find as we proceed through the Patristic writers is that the Fathers often referred to Christ Himself, His Passion, His Word, His Gospel and the preaching ministry of the Church as the “laver of washing” or the “laver of regeneration.” Because the “laver of washing” under the Old Covenant was a basin of water placed “between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar” (Exodus 30:18), the Church Fathers saw it as a figure or a type of Christ Who would wash the nations by His Passion, His Word, His Gospel, etc…. Roman Catholics, on the other hand, see the Old Covenant basin of water as a figure or type of yet another basin of water—the Roman Baptismal font. Carrying the full weight of that assumption into their reading of the Fathers, Roman apologists then seek to prove that the Fathers taught Baptismal Regeneration.
But to support that position, Roman apologists must first assume that the Fathers saw the “laver” in the same way they do, namely as a figure for yet another water basin—which is to say that Rome cannot “prove” that the Fathers taught Baptismal Regeneration without first assuming that the Fathers taught Baptismal Regeneration. Thus, every mention of “laver” or “water” or “washing” or “regeneration” or “baptism” in the Fathers is assumed to be a reference to Baptismal Regeneration by the Roman font, and Rome rushes through its closing arguments without examining the evidence.
As we noted in Week 1 and Week 2, when Justin Martyr refers to the “laver of repentance and knowledge of God,” he was citing Isaiah 52-54, which speaks of Christ’s passion. This, says Justin, is the “water of life,” in comparison to which the Jewish basin recedes into obscurity for its ineffectiveness. Christ’s Passion is the true “laver,” a laver of repentance and knowledge of God. Rome, on the other hand, overlooks Justin’s reference to Christ, and substitutes its Baptismal Font in His place.
In Week 2, when Theophilus of Antioch proposed the waters of Genesis as a type of those who “receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration,” Rome rushed to the Baptismal Font and claimed the victory. But Theophilus stated plainly that his figure was only valid for those who “come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God,” for God “heals and makes alive through His word,” not through water. Rome overlooks Theophilus’ reference to the Word, and substitutes the Baptismal Font in its place.
In Week 2 we also saw Irenaeus claim that “our bodies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption.” Rome runs to its own laver, thinking it occupies the high ground, and claims regeneration by water. But Irenaeus explicitly states that he is referring to Christ Himself as the “living water … springing up to eternal life” from within, and it is this Water and the Holy Spirit Who grant life to our soul and incorruption to our bodies. Rome overlooks Irenaeus’ reference to Christ, and substitutes its Baptismal Font in His place.
This week we cover Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian, and Rome’s apologetic style is on full display. What we continue to find is that the Church Fathers assigned the spiritual work of regeneration to the ministry of the Spirit, Christ’s Passion, and the preached Word of God, and acknowledged that the baptismal water followed regeneration and was intended to signify it, but could not bring it about.
As we did last week, we provide Called to Communion‘s argument, followed by our analysis.
Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd Century)
Called to Communion: Next consider St. Clement of Alexandria (d. 215), in The Paedagogus ([Christ] the Educator):
Is it, then, that [Christ] was made perfect only in the sense of being washed, and that He was consecrated by the descent of the Holy Spirit? Such is the case. The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal. “I,” says He, “have said that you are gods, and all sons of the Highest.” This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing: washing, by which we cleanse away our sins; grace, by which the penalties accruing to transgressions are remitted; and illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly. Finally, we call it ‘perfection’ as needing nothing further, for what more does he need who possesses the knowledge of God? It would indeed be out of place to call something that was not fully perfect a gift of God.” …
For what ignorance has bound ill, is by knowledge loosed well; those bonds are with all speed slackened by human faith and divine grace, our transgressions being taken away by one Pœonian medicine, the baptism of the Word. We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing. And since knowledge springs up with illumination, shedding its beams around the mind, the moment we hear, we who were untaught become disciples. Does this, I ask, take place on the advent of this instruction? You cannot tell the time. For instruction leads to faith, and faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit.
In the same way, therefore, we also, repenting of our sins, renouncing our iniquities, purified by baptism, speed back to the eternal light, children to the Father. (Book I, Chapter 6)
White Horse Blog: Here we will point out what Clement says so plainly, but that Called to Communion cannot see: the washing, the illumination, the remission of sins is by “the baptism of the Word,” not by the baptism of water.
The document cited by Called to Communion is The Paedagogus, or (The Instructor, or The Educator), in which Clement implores the reader to cast aside the errors and distractions of the world and focus on the Word of God, which is Christ Himself, the Paedogogus. From the opening paragraph of The Paedagogus, Clement draws us to the Word of God:
“It is, however, one and the self-same word which rescues man from the custom of this world in which he has been reared, and trains him up in the one salvation of faith in God.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I, Chapter 1)
Clement continues on this theme over the course of three books, totaling 38 chapters. Because Clement says that “knowledge springs up with illumination … the moment we hear,” it is not water that effects the regeneration, but the preached Word, heard and believed. That Clement here held to regeneration by the preached Word is plainly evident by his own assertions in the very chapter cited by Called to Communion. Clement affirms that the agent of regeneration is the Word of God itself, which then serves to nourish the newborn babe, “for it is proper that what has procreated should immediately supply nourishment to that which has been procreated.” Here is Clement in context:
“In His own Spirit He says He will deck the body of the Word; as certainly by His own Spirit He will nourish those who hunger for the Word. … For if we have been regenerated unto Christ, He who has regenerated us nourishes us with His own milk, the Word; for it is proper that what has procreated should immediately supply nourishment to that which has been procreated.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I, Chapter 6)
Clearly, Clement has us illumined, washed, reborn, cleansed and baptized with the knowledge that springs up by the preached Word, which not only regenerates us, but nourishes us, too. Thus, when Clement says, “Being baptized, we are illuminated,” it is the Word, not the water, that illuminates us, for he is referring to baptism by full immersion, as it were, in the Word of God. Clement laid the groundwork for this in the previous chapter, saying, “for those must necessarily be new, who have become partakers of the new Word” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I, Chapter 5). Called to Communion missed this because Clement mentioned baptism, and with their eyes trained by habit to see water whenever baptism is mentioned, they overlooked what manner of baptism Clement had in mind.
Called to Communion then continues with Clement and commits a glaring, and certainly unintentionally misleading, mischaracterization of him:
Called to Communion: In chapter 12 of Book I, St. Clement writes:
He Himself formed man of the dust, and regenerated him by water; and made him grow by his Spirit; and trained him by His word to adoption and salvation, directing him by sacred precepts; in order that, transforming earth-born man into a holy and heavenly being by His advent, He might fulfil to the utmost that divine utterance, “Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness.” (Genesis 1:26) And, in truth, Christ became the perfect realization of what God spoke; and the rest of humanity is conceived as being created merely in His image. (Paedagogus, Bk I, Chapter 12)
In the next chapter he writes:
the transparent Word, by whom the flesh, regenerated by water, becomes precious. (Paedagogus, Chapter 13)
White Horse Blog: By describing these two citations as coming from successive chapters, Called to Communion attempts to have Clement link Adam’s regeneration “by water” to our regeneration “by water.” It is true that the first citation is from Chapter 12, and the second is from Chapter 13. However, in its haste to associate these two thoughts, and with its eye ever on the Roman font, Called to Communion overlooked that the first citation is from Book I, and the second from Book II, with a full 13 chapters between them. The second citation is not from “the next chapter” at all. It is from the next Book. In Book II, Chapter 13, Clement has long since moved on from Adam’s regeneration in Book I Chapter 12, and is now talking about pearls, and one pearl in particular—Jesus Christ, the Word of God.
And here again, Called to Communion misses Clement’s own statement that he is not talking about regeneration by literal water, but by the water of the “transparent Word,” Whom Clement states is Jesus. In context, Clement was correcting the inordinate affection some women had for pearls, when they should rather learn from the oyster to adorn themselves with the water of “the transparent Word” in the same way that the mollusk is completely immersed in water:
“And the highly prized pearl has invaded the woman’s apartments to an extravagant extent. This is produced in a kind of oyster like mussels, and is about the bigness of a fish’s eye of large size. And the wretched creatures are not ashamed at having bestowed the greatest pains about this little oyster, when they might adorn themselves with the sacred jewel, the Word of God, whom the Scripture has somewhere called a pearl, the pure and pellucid Jesus, the eye that watches in the flesh—the transparent Word, by whom the flesh, regenerated by water, becomes precious. For that oyster that is in the water covers the flesh all round, and out of it is produced the pearl. … God brought our race into communion by first imparting what was His own, when He gave His own Word, common to all, and made all things for all. … For they ought to be adorned within, and show the inner woman beautiful. … But for those women who have been trained under Christ, it is suitable to adorn themselves not with gold, but with the Word, through whom alone the gold comes to light.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book II, Chapter 13)
Clearly, Clement was not talking about baptismal regeneration here, but training in the Word of God, that these women in the throes of materialism might, like the oyster, be adorned within by the transparent water of the Word, Who is Christ. He was exhorting women to adorn themselves with “the pearl of great price” (Mathew 13:46), rather than with mere pearls of the ocean. This is Clement’s appropriation of what the Scriptures call the washing by the water of the Word (Ephesians 5:26). Hardly a reference to baptismal regeneration.
Now let us now return to Book 1, Chapter 12, where Clement was speaking of Adam’s “regeneration by water.” Because the Scripture makes no mention of Adam being regenerated by water at all, we take Clement to be referring to the work of the Spirit when Adam was first inspired, for Clement writes of him: “and regenerated [Adam] by water; and made him grow by his Spirit; and trained him by His word to adoption and salvation.” To which “water” therefore did Clement refer, if not the Holy Spirit? And by which means was Adam saved and adopted except by the training of the Word of God? With that in mind, did Clement link Adam’s regeneration “by water” to our regeneration by the water of the Baptismal font? Far from it. Instead, he connects it to our being anointed with the oil of the Word of God unto eternal life :
“But let us, O children of the good Father— nurslings of the good Instructor— fulfil the Father’s will, listen to the Word, and take on the impress of the truly saving life of our Saviour; and meditating on the heavenly mode of life according to which we have been deified, let us anoint ourselves with the perennial immortal bloom of gladness— that ointment of sweet fragrance— having a clear example of immortality in the walk and conversation of the Lord … Our superintendence in instruction and discipline is the office of the Word, … Thus, therefore, the Word has been called also the Saviour, seeing He has found out for men those rational medicines which produce vigour of the senses and salvation;” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I, Chapter 12)
Called to Communion‘s mishandling of Clement here is illustrative of what dangers await those who carry their own assumptions into the Fathers. Called to Communion was looking for Baptismal Regeneration, and found it by transposing chapters, and therefore missed Clement’s passionate insistence that it is into the Word of God, not the water, that we must be plunged for it is the Word that both regenerates us and nourishes us.
Called to Communion then continues with Clement from his Stromata.
Called to Communion: St. Clement teaches that in baptism we are cleansed, i.e. completely purified from our sins.
It ought to be known, then, that those who fall into sin after baptism are those who are subjected to discipline; for the deeds done before [baptism] are remitted, and those done after are purged. (Stromata, IV.24)
In baptism all the sins committed prior to baptism are remitted. But baptism cannot be repeated. So confession, prayer and penance are for sins committed after baptism.
White Horse Blog: Here we will simply defer to what Clement himself explicitly states in the Stromata about the remission of sins in baptism. Baptism is merely an image of the purification that takes place in the heart and mind by repentance, for which the water of baptism itself is merely an outward sign:
“So it is said that we ought to go washed to sacrifices and prayers, clean and bright; and that this external adornment and purification are practiced for a sign. Now purity is to think holy thoughts. Further, there is the image of baptism, which also was handed down to the poets from Moses…
It was a custom of the Jews to wash frequently after being in bed. It was then well said—
Be pure, not by washing of water, but in the mind.
For sanctity, as I conceive it, is perfect pureness of mind, and deeds, and thoughts, and words too, and in its last degree sinlessness in dreams. And sufficient purification to a man, I reckon, is thorough and sure repentance.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book IV Chapter 22)
Clement clearly saw water baptism as an external figure or a sign for what occurs inwardly, in the heart, which regeneration is by the Word of God, and not by the water of baptism.
Called to Communion then continues with Clement:
Called to Communion: Elsewhere he writes:
For it is said, “Put on him the best robe,” which was his the moment he obtained baptism. I mean the glory of baptism, the remission of sins, and the communication of the other blessings, which he obtained immediately he had touched the font. (Fragments, Parable of the Prodigal Son)
White Horse Blog: A sufficient rebuttal of Called to Communion‘s invalid inference is our own knowledge, and Clement’s own knowledge, of the Parable which he was expounding. Clement has the Prodigal returning in humble repentance. He then states explicitly that the son was entitled to wear the best garments, not as a washing, but because he had already been washed “by our Teacher and Lord”, for “the font” to which Clement refers is Christ Himself:
“Wherefore the Father bestows on him the glory and honour that was due and meet, putting on him the best robe, the robe of immortality; and a ring, a royal signet and divine seal,— impress of consecration, signature of glory, pledge of testimony (for it is said,
He has set to his seal that God is true,) and shoes, not those perishable ones which he has set his foot on holy ground is bidden take off, nor such as he who is sent to preach the kingdom of heaven is forbidden to put on, but such as wear not, and are suited for the journey to heaven, becoming and adorning the heavenly path, such as unwashed feet never put on, but those which are washed by our Teacher and Lord.” (Fragments, Parable of the Prodigal Son)
In this context, we can see what Called to Communion cannot: the best robe, the ring and the best shoes were his as a seal of what he had already received when “he had touched the font,” but the garments themselves were not the Font. They were external indications of a baptism that had already taken place in the heart, a washing administered by the Font of Life Himself, our Teacher and Lord.
Surely we need not remind Called to Communion that the son is given the robe, not to grant life, but because he who was dead has been found alive: “Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; … For this my son was dead, and is alive again” (Luke 15:22-24). This defeats Called to Communion‘s attempt to make Clement teach regeneration by baptism, for in the Parable, the baptism (the robe) is applied only after the son is regenerated, and only after he has already been washed by his Savior, and Teacher and Lord.
We conclude this section on Clement by reinforcing the connection he makes to the preached Word, and the cleansing that takes place thereby. Note well that the “baptism” that regenerates and cleanses is the baptism of instruction and knowledge of the Word of God, which is the laver of salvation:
“
Wherefore also I have given you milk to drink,he says; meaning, I have instilled into you the knowledge which, from instruction, nourishes up to life eternal. … In saying, therefore,I have given you milk to drink,has he not indicated the knowledge of the truth, the perfect gladness in the Word, who is the milk?” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book I, Chapter 6)“But most of all is it necessary to wash the soul in the cleansing Word … The best bath, then, is what rubs off the pollution of the soul, and is spiritual. … And the mode of cleansing, the Word subjoined, saying,
by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning.The bathing which is carnal, that is to say, of the body, is accomplished by water alone, as often in the country where there is not a bath.” (Clement of Alexandria, The Paedagogus, Book III, Chapter 9)“but it is that treasure of salvation to which we must hasten, by becoming lovers of the Word. … ‘
Become righteous,’says the Lord. You that thirst, come to the water; and you that have no money, come, and buy and drink without money. He invites to the laver, to salvation, to illumination, … Only, O child, thirst for your Father; God shall be revealed to you without price; the truth is not made merchandise of. … come and I will set before you in abundance, materials of persuasion respecting the Word. … Receive, then, the water of the word; wash, you polluted ones; purify yourselves from custom, by sprinkling yourselves with the drops of truth.” (Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 10)“She who has committed fornication lives in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life.” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book II, Chapter 23)
There can hardly be a clearer explanation from a Church Father that washing by water is merely an outward signification of the internal cleansing and regeneration that is attended by the Spirit in the ministry of the preaching of the Word of God unto rebirth. The Word itself is the “laver of salvation.” Clement’s ardent belief was that water baptism is preceded by the preaching of the Word and the regeneration of sinners, for which that water baptism was merely a carnal bathing and a sign or figure of what had already been accomplished in the heart and soul and mind.
Tertullian (early 3rd Century)
Called to Communion: Next consider Tertullian (c. 160- c. 240) in his work “On Baptism.” (written between 200 and 206):
“Happy is the sacrament of our water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free, [and admitted] into eternal life! … But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in [that] water.” (chapter 1)
…
Notice in the quotation from chapter 1 that Tertullian says that baptism washes away our sins, sets us free (from sin), and admits us into eternal life. In the second quotation he describes how the Spirit supervenes over the water, to work in us in baptism. His comment about the angel is a reference to the Gospel of John chapter 5 verses 2-4. This account is viewed by the Fathers as a prefiguring of baptism. In the quotation from chapter 7 we see the general view of the sacraments; they involve a physical principle, but the Holy Spirit operates spiritually through them. In the quotation from chapter 12, we see that Tertullian, like all the fathers, sees John 3:5 as teaching about baptism.
White Horse Blog: The citations that Called to Communion uses from Tertullian’s On Baptism here are too numerous to include, though we encourage our readers to examine them all. Better yet, to read Tertullian’s entire treatise, On Baptism. We have included only one citation, above, so our readers can at least get a taste of Tertullian’s writing, and Called to Communion‘s evidence from him.
On Baptism was written in response to the “viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, [which] has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism” (Tertullian, On Baptism, chapter 1). Tertullian spends 20 chapters defending the merits of baptism, its divine origin, the significance of the water, the power to sanctify, remit sins, grant life and secure eternal salvation. Here Called to Communion seems to have read Tertullian for what he plainly says as he implores Christians, with soaring rhetoric and impassioned reasoning, not to dispense with a command of Christ by stumbling into the Cainite heresy.
But Tertullian says more than this, and we find that he knew very well that the power of regeneration emanates from the Cross, and that baptism, the baptism of the Cross, “stands in lieu of the fontal bathing”:
“For He had come ‘by means of water and blood,’ [1 John 5:6] just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.” (Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 16)
It is important to note here that Tertullian has identified two baptisms—one of water, one of blood—and these baptisms can happen in either order. The baptism of blood is that received by “they who believed in His blood,” and may be followed by water baptism, as we shall see momentarily in his work On Repentance. It is also possible that “they who had been bathed in the water,” later “drink the blood” by faith, a baptism he describes more fully in his Answer to the Jews. The reason this must be highlighted here is because the typical approach to On Baptism, chapter 16 is simply to invoke On Modesty, chapter 22 or Scorpiace, chapter 12, in which martyrdom is either identified as another baptism, or equated to it. (Everett Ferguson makes exactly this assumption in his Baptism in the Early Church, (2009) p. 349). But if the two baptisms of On Baptism, chapter 16 can happen in either order, then the baptism by blood is clearly not martyrdom for water baptism cannot follow it.
We note as well that Tertullian has said nothing at all of martyrdom in On Baptism, and further invokes Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen” as his proof text on the two baptisms: “to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood.” If Tertullian has here identified martyrdom with baptism “by blood,” then he has essentially made martyrdom a requirement for salvation, for Matthew 22:14 is in the context of the wedding feast, in which many are called, but those not chosen are “cast … into outer darkness” where “there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matthew 22:13). Those who assume that baptism by blood is martyrdom here make Tertullian say that water baptism is the means by which we are called, but martyrdom is the way we are chosen, and everyone not “chosen” by the baptism of martyrdom is cast into outer darkness. Tertullian clearly did not mean that, for he states plainly that the baptism of blood is that of faith in the cross. Rather here in On Baptism, Tertullian is tipping his hand, and showing that his own soaring rhetoric is hyperbolic, and he hints at his conviction (which he elsewhere states explicitly) that the water of the baptismal font is merely a signification of the actual baptism that takes place in the heart.
Notice, for example, that Tertullian was so free in his use of figures that he actually has us drinking from the baptismal font unto eternal life. If taken literally, this is a divergence from the command of Christ, for He did not command that we “take and drink” the water of baptism. But if Tertullian is to be taken figuratively—as well he should—the water of baptism that we are to drink is the Word of God and the truth of Christ’s Passion, which revives us, which is to say, regenerates us. This Tertullian plainly states:
“For this
treein a mystery, it was of yore wherewith Moses sweetened the bitter water; whence the People, which was perishing of thirst in the desert, drank and revived; just as we do, who, drawn out from the calamities of the heathendom in which we were tarrying perishing with thirst (that is, deprived of the divine word), drinking,by the faith which is on Him,the baptismal water of thetreeof the passion of Christ, have revived—a faith from which Israel has fallen away, ….” (Tertullian, An answer to the Jews, 13)
Note once again that we have a Church Father referring to Christ’s Passion as the “baptismal water,” or the laver of revivification, as it were. This is important because next we shall see that Tertullian insisted that the literal water of baptism ought not be approached until the spiritual water of baptism is already evident in the believer.
If Called to Communion is correct about Tertullian—namely, that we will never be safe until we enter the water—then Tertullian must be found to rush people to the font of eternal life, lest, perishing without literal water, they die in their sins. But this is not what Tertullian commends. In fact, he insists that baptism be delayed until there is evidence of life, and until the strength and the will to resist temptations have been forged in the life of a mature believer. Indeed, according to Tertullian, baptism must be delayed until “sound faith is secure of salvation”:
“And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. … Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the
remission of sins?More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how toaskfor salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have givento him that asks.For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.” (Tertullian, On Baptism, 18)
If Tertullian meant that baptism is the means by which salvation is secured, his insistence that baptism be delayed until faith has secured salvation, is an odd way to say it. That faith and regeneration must come before baptism was evident from Tertullian’s writing on repentance. He wrote that baptismal washing is the outward sign of an inward regeneration that is already presumed to have taken place in the heart. Water was merely a sign and a seal of what had already happened inwardly, which is to say, a sign and seal to be administered after regeneration:
“That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance. We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already.” (Tertullian, On Repentance, Chapter 6)
Despite the abundance of citations of Turtullian as brought forward by Called to Communion, it is sufficient for our purposes to show that Tertullian believed that regeneration preceded baptism, and that regeneration is by drinking the baptismal water of Christ’s Passion and the Word of God, and that the application of water is merely a sign and a seal of a regeneration that has already taken place inwardly. Therefore Called to Communion is defeated in its attempt to show that Tertullian believed that Christians are regenerated by the water of baptism.
Called to Communion then continues from another work by Tertullian:
Called to Communion: In chapter eight of his work titled “On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” Tertullian writes:
“[T]he flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges. And since the soul is, in consequence of its salvation, chosen to the service of God, it is the flesh which actually renders it capable of such service. The flesh, indeed, is washed, in order that the soul may be cleansed; the flesh is anointed, that the soul may be consecrated; the flesh is signed (with the cross), that the soul too may be fortified; the flesh is shadowed with the imposition of hands, that the soul also maybe illuminated by the Spirit; the flesh feeds on the body and blood of Christ, that the soul likewise may fatten on its God. They cannot then be separated in their recompense, when they are united in their service.”
He goes into the other sacraments here, but with regard to baptism, notice that the soul is cleansed by the washing of the flesh with water.
White Horse Blog: We respond simply that the first half of the sentence, omitted for brevity by Called to Communion, states “that there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe while it is in the flesh” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 8), and elsewhere in the same work, Tertullian indicates that man is dead because of his ignorance, and regeneration is therefore by “access to the truth,” after which believers put on the Lord in baptism:
“… it is rather the ignorance of God, by reason of which man is dead to God, and is not less buried in error than he would be in the grave. Wherefore that also must be held to be the resurrection, when a man is reanimated by access to the truth, and having dispersed the death of ignorance, and being endowed with new life by God, has burst forth from the sepulchre of the old man, even as the Lord likened the scribes and Pharisees to
whited sepulchres.Matthew 23:27 Whence it follows that they who have by faith attained to the resurrection, are with the Lord after they have once put Him on in their baptism.” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 19)
In his concluding remark in this work, he implores the reader to drink doctrine from the font of Jesus’ resurrection:
“If you will only draw water from His fountains, you will never thirst for other doctrine: no feverish craving after subtle questions will again consume you; but by drinking in evermore the resurrection of the flesh, you will be satisfied with the refreshing draughts.” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 63)
This is wholly consistent with his other teachings that baptism must be delayed until there is evidence of life, and that revivification is by the Word, and that baptism is only applied because “in heart we have been bathed already.”
As noted above, we agree that Tertullian’s impassioned defense of baptism and its merits and powers, when taken in isolation, appears to support baptismal regeneration. We do not fault Called to Communion for its errant conclusions, as they appear to be based on a limited reading of Tertullian. But Tertullian must be evaluated comprehensively, and not merely from isolated statements. If Tertullian states explicitly that we are washed externally only after the internal bathing has already occurred, and that baptism by water must be delayed until we have partaken of the true baptism, that revivification is by access to the truth, which is “drinking, by the faith which is on Him,
the baptismal water of the tree
of the passion of Christ,” and “by drinking in evermore the resurrection of the flesh,” it is a sure indication that his superlatives on the rite of baptism can and should be read as the hyperbole that they plainly were.
Next week we will continue with Hippolytus and Origen who, like Clement and Tertullian, saw Christ, not the Roman baptismal font, as the laver of regeneration, and washing, and eternal life. As we shall see, Called to Communion continues in its effort to substitute the waters of the Roman baptismal font for Christ and His Word.
Tim, faith comes thru hearing and hearing the word of God. God saves thru the Spirit regenerating us thru the word, the gospel. But in Rome the church is the gospel. So they are not baptized as asign and seal of true salvation, they are baptized into a church of lies. This is a mark imho that doesnt allow men to be saved. But God in His mercy will bring some out, but they must here the gospel. Spurgeon said if we knew who was elect we could have then lift there shirt and there would be a big E on there back. But we dont and must continue to bring the word which is the way the Spirit who blows where and how He wills brings salvation. The false sense of security of infant baptism ex opere operato is leading them to the slaughter. Yesterday on Jason’s site Debbie said ” Yes I am becoming more just every day, and I have to get there, and my family has to get there, we are not there yet.” Do Catholics need our prayers. Yes. For they have a zeal for God but not in accordance with knowledge, not knowing about the righteouness of God, And seeking to establish their own. Nice job on this series Tim. K
Jim, I thought you would like this rendering of Romans 1:17 ” For I am not ashamed of the Roman Catholic church, for it is the power of God to all who merit increases of grace thru its sacraments ex opere operato, to the Roman Catholic first and to the schismatics. ” Would that be a fair rendering of that verse Jim? Thx P.S. the next verse would read ” For in it the righteousness of the Law is revealed thru from faith to works as it is written the in the process of becoming righteous inherently shall live by faith plus works”
Tim wrote:
“But to support that position, Roman apologists must first assume that the Fathers saw the “laver” in the same way they do, namely as a figure for yet another water basin—which is to say that Rome cannot “prove” that the Fathers taught Baptismal Regeneration without first assuming that the Fathers taught Baptismal Regeneration.”
This typical presupposition and epistemology to historical (and biblical) knowledge is among the greatest scourges to invade the Christian church since the fall of Adam.
The solution is to learn the distinction between true liberty of conscience and pretended liberty of conscience within ourselves. Rutherford gives us a great Primer (or far more) on the subject.
——–
Full Title: A Free Disputation Against Pretended Liberty of Conscience (1649 edition)
Author: Samuel Rutherford
Pages: 416
File Size: 25.44MB
Publisher: Still Waters Revival Books
Samuel Rutherford’s Free Disputation, though scarce (with maybe only a few copies of the actual book left in existence), is still one of his most important works.
Though Rutherford is affectionately remembered in our day for his Letters, or for laying the foundations of constitutional government (against the divine right of kings) in his unsurpassed Lex Rex, his Free Disputation should not be overlooked — for it contains the same searing insights as Lex, Rex. In fact, this book should probably be known as Rutherford’s “politically incorrect” companion volume to Lex, Rex. A sort of sequel aimed at driving pluralists and antinomians insane.
Written against “the Belgick Arminians, Socinians, and other Authors contending for lawlesse liberty, or licentious Tolerations of Sects and Heresies,” Rutherford explains the undiluted Biblical solution to moral relativism, especially as it is expressed in ecclesiastical and civil pluralism! (Corporate pluralism being a violation of the first commandment and an affront to the holy God of Scripture).
He also deals with conscience, toleration, penology (punishment), and the judicial laws, as related to both the civil and ecclesiastical realms. Excellent sections are also included which address questions related to determining the fundamentals of religion, how covenants bind us, the perpetual obligation of social covenants (with direct application to the Solemn League and Covenant and the covenant-breaking of Cromwell and his sectarian supporters), whether the punishing of seducing teachers be persecution of conscience, and much more.
Walker adds these comments and context regarding Rutherford’s Free Disputation, “The principle of toleration was beginning to be broached in England, and in a modified shape to find acceptance there. Samuel Rutherford was alarmed, or rather, I should say, he was horrified, for he neither feared the face of man or argument. He rushed to the rescue of the good old view… It is not so easy to find a theoretical ground for toleration; and Rutherford has many plausible things to say against it. With the most perfect confidence, he argues that it is alike against Scripture and common sense that you should have two religions side by side. It is outrageous ecclesiastically, it is sinful civilly. He does not, however, take what I call the essentially persecuting ground. He does not hold that the magistrate is to punish religion as religion. Nay, he strongly maintains that the civil magistrate never aims at the conscience. The magistrate, he urges, does not send anyone, whether a heretic (who is a soul murderer–RB) or a murderer, to the scaffold with the idea of producing conversion or other spiritual result, but to strengthen the foundations of civil order. But if he gives so much power to the king, he is no lover of despotism withal: the king himself must be under law. To vindicate this great doctrine is the object of another book, the celebrated Lex, Rex; of which it has been said by one competent to judge, that it first clearly developed the constitutionalism which all men now accept” (Theology and Theologians…, pp. 11-12).
In our day Francis Schaeffer, and numerous others, have critiqued many of the problems found in modern society, but most have spent little time developing explicitly Biblical solutions — especially regarding the theoretical foundations that Rutherford addresses here.
Rutherford’s Free Disputation provides a detailed blueprint for laying the foundations for Reformation (in all areas of life) that must be laid before any lasting, God-honoring solutions will be found. Furthermore, Rutherford and his writings were the enemies of all governments not covenanted with Christ.
This book will give you a very clear picture as to why “the beast” (civil and ecclesiastical) has reserved his special hatred for such teaching. As Samuel Wylie noted, “[t]he dispute, then, will not turn upon the point whether religion should be civilly established… but it is concerning what religion ought to be civilly established and protected, — whether the religion of Jesus alone should be countenanced by civil authority, or every blasphemous, heretical, and idolatrous abomination which the subtle malignity of the old serpent and a heart deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, can frame and devise, should be put on an equal footing therewith” (Two Sons of Oil: or, The Faithful Witness For Magistracy and Ministry Upon a Scriptural Basis, softcover).
Can our generation swallow Rutherford’s hard, anti-pluralistic, Covenanter medicine, poured forth from the bottle of the first commandment, without choking on their carnal dreams of a free and righteous society divorced from God (and His absolute claims upon everyone and everything)? Not without the enabling power of the Holy Spirit — that is for sure!
In summary, this book answers all the hardest questions theonomists (and their wisest and best opponents) have been asking for the last 20-30 years (and these answers are much more in depth than any we have seen in the last couple of millennia [less about a century to account for the apostles]).
As the reader will discover, Rutherford was a wealthy man when it came to wisdom (and much advanced theologically), and those who take the time to gaze into the King’s treasure house, as exhibited in this book, will find that they are greatly rewarded.
Furthermore, because of its uncompromising stand upon the Word of God, this book is sure to be unpopular among a wicked and adulterous generation. However, on the other hand, it is sure to be popular among the covenanted servants of King Jesus!
This is one of the best books for advanced study of the Christian faith. We have now obtained an easy-to-read, amazingly clear copy of this very rare, old treasure. Great price too, considering that a copy of the 1649 edition, containing this quality of print, could cost upwards of $1000 on the rare book market — though it is unlikely you would ever see a copy for sale!
Tim, have you seen anything in the writings of the Early Church Fathers that contradicted the reformers teaching as summarized in the WCF on Baptism. Did they see baptism as a “sign and seal” of the following biblical principles?
Of Baptism
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1]
not only for the ***solemn admission*** of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2]
***but also to be unto him a sign and seal*** of the covenant of grace,[3]
[a sign and seal-Walt] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4]
[a sign and seal-Walt] of regeneration,[5]
[a sign and seal-Walt] of remission of sins,[6]
and [a sign and seal-Walt] of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7]
Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.[17]
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]
Walt,
There are varying degrees of what might be called conformity to the Reformed standards. The sign and the seal language is prominent—in all the categories listed—as is the language of “solemn admission.” Dipping and sprinkling are both used, and we find evidence of both believer’s and infant baptism, but infants are not presumed to be regenerate, and believers are baptized because of their regeneration, not to bring it about. Thus far, the language in the Fathers militates strongly against ex opere operato.
Cyprian (mid-3rd century) and the Africans introduced novelties that Rome herself rejects (as we will see in a couple weeks), and there is evidence that Cyprian had not fully worked out his sacramentology. But by the end of the 4th century, the fix was in on baptismal regeneration—due in no small part to misinterpretations of the Early Church Fathers.
It’s an interesting study, to be sure.
Thanks,
Tim
Walt, Romans 5:17 says that faith comes thru hearing the word of God. 1Peter 1:23 and James 1:18 support this. Paul said he did not come to baptize but preach the gospel. It was so important that Peter in his sermon in Acts olivet never mentions it. Baptism ex opere operato takes the sovereignty out of the hands of God who alone has jurisdiction on the conscience na dputs it in the hands of man. Jesus was very clear the Holy Spirit blows where and how HE wills. It is the spirit who regenerates thru the word and the sacrament, as circumcision was in the OT was a sign and seal of the inward reality. Paul explains al that in Romans 4. Your thoughts? God Bless Hope you are well.
Kevin,
Roman Catholics would deny that ex opere operato is an affront to the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit. Rather, they would respond that in His sovereignty, the Spirit elected to impart grace, justification and life through baptism, in the same way that we hold that in His Sovereignty, He effects regeneration and faith by the preaching of the Word of God.
Thus, the real point of contention is this: the Roman Catholic position requires that a man put his faith in the Church, while the Christian position is that a man must put his faith in God. The Scriptures affirm the latter and reject the former, as apparently did the Early Church.
Roman Catholicism, as religions go, came late, and piled its ex opere operato on top of the Gospel, along with its veneration of Mary, invocation of the martyrs, priestly celibacy, papal primacy, etc… that it might obscure and occlude the Gospel entirely. To that end, Roman Catholicism has been a failure in the sense that its sorcery and priestcraft have failed to capture a single elect child of God. It has also been a failure in the sense that its gospel of gracious merit, the abominable sacrifice and endless chain of mediation have also failed to rescue a single soul from either the real fire of hell or the imagined fire of purgatory.
Not one breeze in the winds of history has blown outside of God’s eternal decrees. Rome’s deception must end as surely as its rise could not have been prevented. Our burden therefore is not to stop Antichrist, but to minister the gospel to the elect who must and will come out of her.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
” Rather, they would respond that in His sovereignty, the Spirit elected to impart grace, justification and life through baptism, in the same way that we hold that in His Sovereignty, He effects regeneration and faith by the preaching of the Word of God.”
Thanks Tim for making a great point.
You are against the Sacraments working “ex opere operato”? Hmmmmm? Would you prefer ex opere operantis only? Yes? Then why have them?
By the way, speaking of priestcraft and such, since your mom is caught up in it, how hot will her place be in hell. How about your Dad? Is/was he a Catholic? Is he still with us or has he already died and gone on to hell? ( Assuming he died a Catholic and received the Viaticum ).
Tim,
“Roman Catholicism, as religions go, came late, and piled its ex opere operato on top of the Gospel, along with its ( veneration of Mary,) invocation of the martyrs, priestly celibacy, papal primacy, etc… tha”
Whoa! Our “veneration” of Mary? I thought you and Kelvin say we “worship” Mary?
I am soooo confused!
Jim, regarding your questions about my parents…
My mother prays the rosary each day for one of her kids, of which there are 7—some became Christian, some remain staunchly Roman Catholic and some have gone the way of the Druids. My mother still has the “miraculous medal” I gave to her after my summer at a monastery in 1979. She attends mass frequently. She was a convert to Catholicism from Episcopalianism. She has told me that the reason she was attracted to Roman Catholicism, and the reason she stayed even after her divorce, was for the “blessed sacrament,” and she taught me to worship it. She worships bread, prays to Mary, trusts in a demonic apparition and believes the pope is infallible. Yet for all this, she is lost, without hope in this world. Unless she repent, she will die in her traditions. There is nothing “meritorious” in being related to me, so I am under no illusion that her near relation to me will somehow justify her before a holy God. Because she worships the image of the beast and has his mark, and because those who do so will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:15), I have no expectation that God will make an exception to His Word and exempt her from that lake—unless instead He be pleased to grant her rebirth, that she might trust in Him, the true Laver of Salvation.
My dad was Catholic, and my mother converted to Roman Catholicism to marry him. That is why I was born and raised Catholic. Dad is no longer Roman Catholic—he left for what he might call a secular spiritualism that acknowledges the benefits of the Reformation, but not its gospel.
I am on good terms with both of them.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
Your mom is an amazing woman!
Tim, I wen the back and read this post again aftervre reading all your articles on baptism. This post is exactly it. Baptism ex opere operato is the hook, faith in thd church. Great stuff.
Tim, you wrote:
Called to Communion….He goes into the other sacraments here, but with regard to baptism, notice that the soul is cleansed by the washing of the flesh with water.
White Horse Blog: We respond simply that the first half of the sentence, omitted for brevity by Called to Communion, states “that there is not a soul that can at all procure salvation, except it believe while it is in the flesh” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 8)…
——————
Is seems the RC can hold their understanding of Tertullian by distinguishing between faith, produced from an actual grace, and habitual faith infused after baptism.
Thanks, Eric,
Yes, they can, but what they cannot escape is that in Tertullian the object of faith is the Word of God, not the baptism. If Tertullian says a soul cannot procure salvation unless it believe, and then goes on to say that reanimation is by access to the truth, it is clear that, in Tertullian, faith is in the word of God and not in the efficacy of the sacrament. The only baptismal water that Tertullian held to be effective is that baptismal water of the word of God,
In that context, the “baptismal water of the tree of the passion of Christ” is the Word of God in which the Passion of Christ is revealed to fallen men, not the actual baptismal water.
The essence of Rome’s deception is that they will appeal to a Father who said life is by the baptismal “water” and by the “laver of regeneration” without stopping to discover What or Who that “water” or “laver” is. If the Word is the baptismal water and Christ is the laver, it completely changes what the Fathers were saying.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, Thanks Tim well put. Yes I know our job is to minister the gospel who must and will come out of her. I wasted way to much time arguing with none elect, although I have always preached the gospel. Trust me I have been on my knees about the many errors I make. The Roman Catholic church has replaced the gospel for their people. Thats leading the lambs to the slaughter. But it is God who is faithful to save His elect. I believe Roman Catholicism is the greatest hoax eve perpetuated on the world, and has bewitched the gullible world. Spurgeon said we should pray everyday that God would tie a millstone around their doctrine and throw it to the bottom of the sea. But we should always love there people. I have failed much at this Tim i cofess to you. And I have repented and must love them with the truth in love. K
Tim, just to expound on your statement that Catholics believe in a church instead the Word, I think obviously that is why it is idolatry. J.C. Ryle said its one big system of church worship, man worship, Mary worship, sacrament worship, etc.
Kevin,
I am really ‘cornfused’ now. Tim just said we venerate Mary. Now you says we worship her. Which is it? Make up your minds.
” Faith is in the word of God and not in the efficacy of the sacrament” Bingo! Tim, this statement is going into my file. Faith and trust in salvation is not in Christ but in sacramental efficacy, which is always imperfect and cannot save. It directs the participant to the church and its sacraments for salvation instead of the Word which alone is sufficient to save. ” to as many as receive Him , he has given the right to be called sons of God. It is based on your statement Tim that we can conclude that sacramental efficacy in Rome truly replaces faith in the word and the power and sufficiency of the atonement. Because they will not let Him of the cross and place their faith in a finished work, we can conclude it is of no effect. And it is for this reason Luther said the Pope and his religion will not permit men to se saved. We must snatch them from the fire as we are instructed.
Kevin you blowhard,
“Bingo! Tim, this statement is going into my file. Faith and trust in salvation is not in Christ but in sacramental efficacy, which is always imperfect and cannot save. It directs the participant to the church and its sacraments for salvation instead of the Word which alone is sufficient to save. ” to as many as receive Him , he has given the right to be called sons of God. It is based on…”
No wonder Bryan is about to dump your arse off of C2C for grandstanding.
By the way, BINGO is played in Catholic Church basements by old people. Sure it is a romish spin off from the nefarious practice of indulgence trafficking. Tim should write it up as a mark o’ the beast.
Jim, It always amazes me how a Roman Catholic who looks form outside of God’s grace can claim antiquity. It can’t. The early church is completely in line with the Reformed view.
Jim, Jim ya its like the soviet union at CtC. If Bryan is losing an argument or thinks the point is to good he just nixes you. About one out of every ten posts get through.
Kevin, he nixed you for pontificating.
Jim, you have gone afater Tim’ mom and parents 1000 times. Out of common decency Jim can yoh drop the your mamma stuff. I mean you got nothing against his arguments so you go after the family. Your act is tiring, get a new schtick.
Kevin,
Are you serious? I am going after Tim’s mom?
Tim! Am I going after your mom? Have I ever gone after your mom?
You know I haven’t but Kevin has accused me of such before.
( Like I said over on Jason’s, Tim is a Catholic. A non-Catholic like Kevin doesn’t even speak our language.)
Tim, 1 Corinthians 1:17 Paul says For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel. If this isn’t the repudiation of baptismal regeneration. This verse unequivocally says we are saved by believing the gospel. Baptism conferring grace as opposed to ” for by grace you have been saved thru faith.” Tim, many Reformed believe that baptism confers grace also, as if it were a necessary work for salvation. Where do you come down on this? Its a problem I have with Horton sometimes gives the indication that grace is conferred thru doing the sacrament. This to me is a violation of the gospel apart form a work. The efficacy in salvation is in believing the gospel only, and a sacrament can only be a sign and seal. Do you agree?
Kevin,
The Pope seldom baptizes. Not because he doesn’t believe in it but because he is busy and anyone can baptize.
Tim, have your mom and dad, siblings visited the site?
Kevin,
I do not know, but I doubt it. Mom visited a Facebook page for Quite Contrary once, and accidentally “liked” it. She does not “like” Quite Contrary.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, have you been able to take her to lunch, just you and her and tell her what happen with you and your concern with her and be lovingly direct with her one final time. The reason is, my mom is 92 and had thought she was a good person all her life, and how could I argue because from a human standpoint she is an incredibly loving woman, awesome mother and well loved by the whole town. She was homecoming queen and sent cards to people here whole life. She was what unbelievers say a good person. But one day when she was 85 she was staying with us. She came out of the bathroom one morning and I said mom I want to talk to you about something. She said sure. And I told her it was getting toward the end of her life and I wanted to tell her something. I proceeded to tell her the gospel. I told her that even though I thought she was the greatest person I ever knew that the scripture says we all sin and fall short of God. When I was done she said I agree and wanted to receive Christ right there. That night at dinner I watched my mother pray for the first time in my entire life, and thank God for everything in her life including her new salvation. God is merciful. Don’t rule out the seclusion of a mother and a son. Of course we know God elects who He wills. K
kevin,
“That night at dinner I watched my mother pray for the first time in my entire life, and thank God for everything i…’
Your case is totally unrelated to Tim’s. For whatever reason, your good mother did not pray ( according to you). She neglected to raise you in the Church ( again, for reasons known only to God ). God who reads hearts will judge mercifully.
Tim’s mother raised her son in the true Faith. She probably, like Monica, prays for his return to the Sacraments before he dies and goes before the Judge. She, no doubt, wants to see her grandchildren in Christ’s Church. Alas, her stone hearted son kicks at the goad.
Jim, I just listened to a Priest for a half hour, how faith is on the altar of the blessed sacrament. How the sacraments are God’s work and man’s work in cooperation in the process of a Catholic’s salvation. Was it Augustine who said he who doesn’t have church as his mother doesn’t have God as his father. So maybe it should really read he who doesn’t trust in Christ alone as his savior, doesnt have the church as his mother. One thing Tim is showing again thru his series on baptism and CtC’s reversal of the what realy regenerates a man, baptism being the outward sign, and the Word being the real laver of salvation, proves my rule that read Catholic doctrine and believe the opposite and arrive at biblical truth. So if Tim’s reading of the fathers is correct on the laver of regeneration ( and Im in concurrence) then we can really say the one who isn’t regenerated by the Word thru the Spirit doesn’t have the church as his mother. This is perspicuous in scripture that Faith in the Word saves and faith in the Roman church and its sacramental system doesn’t. The object of faith is the issue.
Jim, again you cant make those claims being in a church outside God’s grace. Tim is raising his children in Christ’s church is, where the word is preached rightly and the sacraments administered correctly, there lay the church. The Scripture teaches clearly Jim that God doesnt dwell in buildings but in the hearts of people trusting Him alone for their salvation. Does it not say we are the temple of the Holy Spirit. As I said where a man has been regenerated by the Spirit thru the word and true faith exists, one that puts no confidence in doing, being, loving, but lives by faith alone in C hrist alone, he has the true church as his mother. Your Priests are lost Jim, asked to live in unnatural life, committing desperate acts of sin and lonely, in need of salvation. We must pray for them, that they will be freed from that awful system. And incidentally Tim is just like me, and I intend to eat with Him at the great banquet. The Lord keeps his promise.
Tim, Paul is clear in Romans 4 that faith was credited to Abraham before he was cirumcised. So he was regenerated before the OT sacrament. Can we not conclude that a the efficacy isnt in the sacrament but the Word which is apprehended by faith. The sacrament does not have the power to justify or to save or to produce faith, omly the word. Am Ireading this right? For the Reformed Tim is there efficacy in the Sacrament?
Kevin, the Reformed position on baptismal efficacy is that its efficacy is in the hands of the Spirit and not in the water or the minister or the words spoken during baptism:
As such, baptism does not regenerate, remit sins, ingraft into Christ, etc… nor is baptism a guarantee that these have happened or will happen. But it is better for Christians to be baptized than not, because Our Lord has commanded it, and we are to be known before Christians and the world as a people obedient to His commands. But neither the obedience nor the baptism justify.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim,
When I read drivel like this,
“As such, baptism does not regenerate, remit sins, ingraft into Christ, etc… nor is baptism a guarantee that these have happened or will happen. But it is better for Christians to be baptized than not, because Our Lord has commanded it…”
I have to wonder why God didn’t create us already in heaven or hell.
Why would God command it? What show ones robotic faith before a world of reprobate fellow robots? Where is the glory given to God?
Nonsense.
Have a nice First Saturday.
Jim, God commanded many things but it doesn’t make them regenerating. Even Catholic Apologists admit there isn’t one instance of infant baptism in the bible. Household baptisms were always a result of repenting and believing. Christ gathered children and blessed them, they have a special place with God, but we are saved thru faith. The Spirit regenerates thru the hearing of the Word. History isn’t a hermeneutic Jim. Infant baptism came in 4th centuryish to monolithically Christianize for the State, Constantine. Adult baptism was the predominant practice. At one time the church practiced peso communion. How come you guys don’t still do that? Jim, if you really want a good picture of what happened in the church Jim. But a book with the letters between Cardinal Saldoleto and Calvin. Trust me you will run to the Reformation as fast a s you can. We love the Reformation Jim because it brought the truth of salvation back to the people. Its was a tragic blow on Rome that had distorted doctrine so bad it was unrecognizable. Penances, satisfactions, sacrifice of the Mass, worshipping Christ body as the elements of the supper table, superstitions, distorting sacraments so badly. Always being Reformed Jim. We can never forget that, so we always measure the church by the only infallible source, the precious word of God.
Should be pedo communion
Jim,
Why would God command circumcision if it did not bring about actual circumcision of the heart? Moses implores the Hebrews, who have long since been circumcised in infancy, “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked” (Deuteronomy 10:16). Just as circumcision was an outward sign of a heart circumcision that it signifies but cannot effect, baptism is an outward sign of a heart baptism that it signifies but cannot effect. As Tertullian said,
Surely you understand what he means by a baptism of the heart? Well might we say of our Roman Catholic acquaintances—along with unregenerate members of our own household: “Baptise therefore thy heart, and be no more stiffnecked.”
Just because we believe baptism is symbolic does not mean we think the symbol is meaningless. My wife’s wedding ring did not cause our marriage, nor does it keep us married. But we’re not selling it on e-Bay, either. It’s precious to both of us. It also tends to keep the wolves at bay—something I appreciate very much.
Thanks for writing. You are always welcome here.
Tim
Tim, said ” Why would God command circumcision if it did not bring about circumcision of the heart?” The only question I have about this is that Paul says it is not those who have been circumcised outward but those who have been circumcised inward. IMHO he is saying there that there must be category of people who have been circumcised outwardly that have no inner faith. Would you agree Tim? Thx
Tim, I think the example of your wife’s wedding ring is perfect. To make God’s will exacted by baptism ex opere operato is to take the sovereignty away from God to regenerate whom He chooses. ” I chose you, you did no choose me.” Or said to a Catholics Priest, I chose him, you can’t. This gets to the heart of the Roman church” First Tim they make a finished perfect atonement which secured redemption and propitiation and purged all sins, even though now being applied by Christ in His Priestly office, into a continual atonement where they can ease the sacrifice of Christ thru their own sacrifice of themselves for sin. This is to take away what solely belongs to him at an appointed time in history. Then they put this process at the hand of secondary cause ( the church being the Sacrament of salvation and not the Spirit, and his working at the behest of a man). They substitute the church for the natural body of Christ and the work of the Spirit is usurped by the Priesthood. This misunderstanding of the permanency of the atonement and the efficacy only accrued by the Savior is a fatal error. It is a human institution that becomes more human everyday as Christ renews Himself in His youth in the Flesh and continued atonement thru the acts of the church. To miss that the one time sacrifice at the consummation of the ages put sin away and purchased for those who believe entrance into heaven is the great blasphemy of the Roman church.
Tim, This is the thing. How can a Roman Catholic be saved if their Savior is still on the cross. If he hasn’t secured salvation for them then they have to get there, and if they don’t get there, they don’t get there. What power can a Savior have to save who can’t finish His atonement, can’t get off the cross and the alar, and is an eternal victim in the hands of a man. How can a Savior who has not risen save anyone. He can’t. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 if Christ hasn’t risen your faith is “useless” and your still in your sins” The point is He is risen and we are no longer in our sins. If the RC can’t say that their sins are paid for past, present and future, Im sorry they have no faith. Either he put sin away and perfected us by one sacrifice or he didn’t. All cults do two things, they reduce Christ to something less than He is and base salvation on works somehow. Romanism is no better than Moronism, and may be worse because they claim the Trinity, yet they minimize the sole role of the second member of the Trinity, the full accomplishment of atonement. By minimizing the perfection of the second ember of the Trinity, they dent it. And they deny the gospel.
Tim,
Where does the Bible say baptism is a sign only of an already existing reality? Paul being told to rise and wash away his sins or the 3.000 on Pentecost being Baptized in order to receive the Holy Ghost say otherwise.
Tim In becoming Reformed I have had a problem with one phrase ” grace promised” Is grace promised in infant baptism? This seems like a kind of half way between ex opere operato and a sign. The Spirit blows where and how He wills. Is God committed to give salvation to a baptized infant. Help me I’m trying to work through this.
Kevin, you wrote:
“The Spirit blows where and how He wills. Is God committed to give salvation to a baptized infant. Help me I’m trying to work through this.”
Remember that certainly there is grace given in baptism. As an ordinance of Christ, baptism (like the Word) is a means of grace given by God to His church.
However, there is not a saving grace given in baptism.
Nevertheless, God calls babies in the womb to a saving grace if He so chooses, even without hearing the gospel which is a ordinary means of salvation. The extraordinary means that God can save those who cannot hear, nor understand, is an amazing grace from God. While we have no guarantees that God saves every baby and infant in or out of the womb, I do have great hope that He saves exactly those He chooses to save, and that the heavens are filled with babies and children who did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel under ordinary preaching.
Hope this helps.
That does help Walt. Its all coming together for me my position on baptism. Thanks for taking the time brother, hope you are well.
Tim, if you want to nix my last question go ahead, because you explained it. Is it the same for the Supper?
Tim, did you know that the phrase ex opere operato means” on account of the work done” This is significant. As I see that starting with Cyprian ( the father of Roman catholic sacerdotalism), furthered by Augustine and later Lombard, we literally see the transformation of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone replaced by salvation ” on account of the work done” thru sacraments being the efficacy of salvation. This has for me always been the antithesis. It plays right into the writers of Hebrews hands when he warns against the need for physical sacrifice, altar, and Priesthood as a shrinking back in faith. Roman Sacerdotalism isn my mind is a return to works righteousness for salvation instead of trust in Christ. And the switching of efficacy from Christ to doing of the sacraments through secondary causes is an affront to the sovereignty of God. It is literally a return to the OT way of the law and OT sacrifices thru a Priesthood that dies, with a sacrifice of a Christ who is not off the cross, and is not risen, and therefore of none effect to the participant. Tim where am I wrong ? Thanks
Tim, Revelations 14:13 ” For I heard a voice from heaven saying ” Write ” blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on”!Yes says the Spirit ” so they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them” Tim, I re read Revelations 13 and 14 and there was a tremendous clarity and confirmation in my heart of who you have deduced is the beast, the mark, and the image. Its eery its seems so true. This verse tells us that those who die in Christ are blessed and can rest. Those who have entered His rest have indeed rested from their deeds. What do we say about a church who promises the alternative, a safety net based on their righteousness, where on goes thru fire and purging. Could Christ have done anything for those. A Savior who never left the cross and bought them time in fiery Purgatory, now thats good news gospel. K
Jim, the real issue is the inability for Rome to recognize the absolute finality of the atonement and the accrued efficacy that justified us, purged all our sins, and put sin away. Yes this perfect sacrifice is being applied on our behalf as we sin. But its complete efficacy has been accrued in the passive and active obedience to death on a cross. It obtained salvation at a moment in history and perfected and sanctified us past tense Hebrews 10:8-14. There remains no more sacrifices for sins. In Rome the atonement isn’t finished, his incarnation and atonement are being finished in the acts of the church. Past sins and future sins are forgiven, but temporal punishment must be atoned for by the believer. They relieve Christ of his sacrifice, as if they are qualified to participate in what was exclusively the work of the second member of the Trinity. Since the atonement in Rome isn’t finished, ts hasn’t accomplished anything. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Christ hasn’t risen we are still in our sins and our faith is useless. Christ is still on the cross in Rome. They won’t let Him off to be Lord and Savior. A savior who can’t obtain eternal redemption and can’t get off the cross can’t save anyone.
Jim, I got my ip blocked today at CtC.I was having a great discussion with Bryan and he nixed me for no reason. Is he good friends with the code, creed guys. I was surprised.
Kevin,
They seem to be having server problems. I cannot get into Called to Communion, either, from any device. They’ll probably be back online soon.
Tim
Tim, thank you my friend.
Tim,
“In Part 3 of this series, we continue where we left off last week with Called To Communion‘s efforts to find Baptismal Regeneration in the Early Church Fathers. ”
Did you take the time to challenge Bryan Cross on his”efforts” over on that blog?
No? I didn’t think so.
Tim,
Bryan Cross begins his article with this;
“According to PCA pastor Wes White, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is “impossible in the Reformed system.””
That is because of your errors on election and Penal Substitution=sacrifice.
Internet troll Pastor Ken Temple put in a kudo for you over on C2C but any comments by you are conspicuously absent.
( I am sure C2C has cleared up the server glitch they were have by now. It has only been a year. )