Baptism: An Anglican Evaluation of the Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist Theology of Baptism in the Light of Scripture and the Early Church
Introduction
To the average reader, it may seem odd if not completely disingenuous for an Anglican to write a critique of any theological position, let alone baptism. After all, what is Anglicanism anyways? In popular understanding, it would appear that Anglicanism has no central core let alone a solid dogmatic or doctrinal confession by which it can be formally understood or critiqued in its own right. To the outsider, Anglicanism seems to be on one end of the spectrum, a bastion of flaming liberalism, full of people playing church and “denying the substance and power therein[1]”. On the other end of the spectrum, Anglicanism seems like an orphan of the Reformation, a child of Roman Catholic and Calvinistic parents. A child that has never been able to shake off its parentage. And to the American reader, a second layer of this spectrum which complicates things, lays in Anglicanism’s apparent “anti-patriotic” affiliation with England in contrast with America’s home-grown Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptists. And if we are truly honest, Anglicanism is institutionally, quite fragmented in our day. The reasons for these perceptions and realities are not without their own respective validities. However, this used to not be the case. Much like any denomination in the United States which has its roots in England, to include Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptists, all have experienced complete fragmentation due to a plethora of cultural shifts and changes of sociological tides. Nevertheless, despite these perceptions, cultural disparities, and shifts, each tradition can see their own inner continuities and rational unity. For Anglicans, who claim to be of any traditional stripe, we too believe that our Church is possible to navigate, and for over a millennia, has served what history knows to have been one of the greatest empires known to man (Britannica). However, our navigational road map does not look like most, but it is quite ancient.
Why the Subject of Baptism?
In 1997, at Ligonier Ministries’ Pasadena Regional Conference, R.C. Sproul, a Presbyterian minister, and John MacArthur, a Baptist minister with elements of Reformed understanding, each gave presentations on their respective positions on paedo-baptism, that is, the baptizing of infants. These two presentations have been a staple for hundreds of thousands of Christians who decide to delve into the debate surrounding the subject of paedo-baptism. So much so, that since the posting of the two presentations back in June of 2020 by Ligonier Ministries, over the past three years, as of the writing of this article, John MacArthur’s presentation has hit 91,752 views and R.C. Sproul’s presentation has reached over 120,000 views. And three years ago, Reformed Baptist Apologist, James White, put out a 16 part series on Baptism which has reached between 20,000 views to 52,000 views depending on the video.
Who would have imagined that a discussion on infant baptism from the late 90’s or a series of 16 videos would still be making such a large ripple even after all these years? And when one begins to read the comments under each respective presentation, there are plenty of examples of individuals changing their minds on the subject precisely because of the presentation to which they listened. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that the topic of baptism is somehow irrelevant or paling in the consciousness of the American mind. To the contrary, it would seem, even if it be a trope, that every generation must sort through the morass of information to which it is handed, and thereby strive to reach their own conclusions (with this author being no exception).
However, despite such issues, it is the purpose of this paper to accomplish two things: One, establish that Anglicanism, despite its internal disunities, has a consistent historical understanding of baptism which aligns both with Scripture and Holy Tradition. Two, Anglicanism, for better or for worse, having gone through the Medieval Reformation, is more in line with Scripture and Holy Tradition than North American Presbyterianism and Reformed Baptist Theologies on the issue of Holy Baptism. These are overly ambitious goals, and that usually is the case when it comes to writing such a paper and will most surely have its own pitfalls as a result. Nevertheless, I will attempt to produce something meaningful for the reader. Anyways, prior to evaluating such claims, we need to look at some definitions from which we can begin to contextualize such a conversation.
Definitions
Reformed Baptist
The Confession commonly adhered to by those who would claim the label of “Reformed Baptist”, generally speaking, adhere to the definitions laid out in the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689. The London Baptist Confession of Faith, under chapters 28 and 29, we have the explanations of baptism. Chapter 28:1 describes baptism and the Lord’s Supper as being the two ordinances appointed by Christ “to the end of the world”. Chapter 28:2 affirms that these ordinances are to be administered by those who are qualified and called. Under chapter 29:1, baptism is described as being a sing of his fellowship with Christ, a sign of his being engrafted into Christ and through Christ. Number two affirms that those who profess repentance, faith, and obedience to Christ are the only ones to undergo the ordinance of baptism. Number three states that the outward sign is water and affirms that baptism is in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, number four states that immersion in water is necessary for proper administration. (Knollys, et. al)
In summary, baptism is a visible metaphor of theological truths and an ordinance undergone by those who profess to have already experienced the inward spiritual realities. One undergoes baptism, by immersion only, as a public testimony of their new life in Christ. In the Reformed Baptist schema, there is no spiritual, or sacramental, connection between the sign and the thing signified, let alone any Covenantal promises especially tied or applied to baptism. This is why the Reformed Baptist tends to prefer the term ordinance rather than sacrament.
Presbyterian
For the sake of this paper, we will be focusing on American Presbyterianism, which has traditionally used the Westminster Standards: The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), The Westminster Larger Catechism (WLC), and the Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC). In Chapter 27 of the WCF, it starts out ensuring the reader that its use of the word “sacrament” is devoid of any vestiges of “Romish sacerdotalism[2]” and notes that this is why the Baptist Confession dropped the term altogether. However, it defends the use of the word sacraments due to “…Calvin [suggesting] that the “the ancients [Church Fathers] had no other intention than to signify that they are [sacred] signs of holy and spiritual things.” (Lim)
Chapter twenty-seven goes on to say that sacraments were established by God as "signs and seals[3]" of the covenant of grace to represent Christ and his benefits. The confession under 27:1:a delves into what it means by “signs and seals ”. With regards to baptism, the confession draws a link in the Covenant of Grace between baptism and circumcision by appealing to Col. 2:11-12. The confession draws a connection between the Abrahamic Covenant by appealing to Peter’s address in Acts 2:38-39 and cross-referencing Gal 3: 14-16. It further states that in every sacrament there is a spiritual relation between the sign and what is being signified; because of this, the names and effects of one are attributed to the other. The effectiveness of a sacrament depends upon the work of the Holy Spirit and the words of institution, which contains a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. The confession goes on to argue that baptism is to visibly differentiate members of the church from the rest of world and draw them to God's service according to His Word The confession teaches that only ordained ministers can provide the sacraments, of which there are only two: baptism and the Lord's Supper. The confession argues that the lack of an intrinsic power can be seen in the fact that many who partake of the sacraments are not partakers of God, and uses Simon Magus in Acts 8:13, 23 as an example. It states, that rather, the efficacy takes place in the work of the Holy Spirit, the word of institution, and the faith of the partakers.
WCF Chapter 28: Of Baptism presents a summary of Reformed (i.e. Calvinist) baptismal theology and the chapter opens with summarizing the previous chapter: Baptism joins a person to the visible church, is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, signifies the person's union with Christ, regeneration, forgiveness of sin, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. In 28.1.a.i. the confession argues that just as circumcision was a spiritual exercise as it signifies the changes wrought by God in the heart of God’s covenant people, this is the same reality for baptism, “in other words, physical circumcision points to the real circumcision with is of the heart. Baptism has the same spiritual significance”, but the confession pushes this point by further stating that,
Paul says “[being] buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead” (Col 2:12). To paraphrase, Paul is saying, “Don’t you see: physical circumcision does not save, it is a sign of the circumcision of the heart, and when you were baptised [sic] with water to signify your union with Christ, it was a sign of your heart circumcision.” Paul, in effect, is saying that baptism has replaced circumcision. (pp. 318-319)
The confession goes on to expand on the above stated elements of baptism. The confession argues that baptism is necessary for “the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church.” It then continues to explain what this covenant community is and how unregenerate individuals can belong to it and it still be called “the people of God” and “the body of Christ”. At this point the confession transitions to discussing the manner of baptism, who can administer it, the mode of baptism, and who can be baptized. Baptism by immersion is not necessary; affusion and aspersion are acceptable modes. The confession approves of infant baptism if one or both parents are Christians. While it teaches that neglecting baptism is a "great sin", the confession does not endorse baptismal regeneration. This is because the effectiveness of baptism is not tied to the moment in time it is administered; the grace promised is granted by the Holy Spirit to the elect according to God's own will and at the time of His choosing. According to the confession.
In summary, Presbyterians understand that baptism is a sacrament as it is a “means of grace” in that, through Divine election of the individual, when the sacrament of baptism is applied to believers and their children, God works through His covenantal promises applied through the sign and seal of baptism to bring about the salvation and redemption of the one, who by faith or the faith of the parent, undergoes its administration.
Anglican
For those coming from confessional churches, the idea of belonging to a church that isn’t per se, formally confessional, can seem irresponsible and imprudent. Also, it can be frustrating for those coming from confessional churches to evaluate the truth claims of a tradition that is not regulated by a confession. For example, this is a fairly common experience for those coming from Western Protestant traditions who are trying to learn about Eastern Orthodoxy, a tradition which eschews even the notion of being systematized into reducible inventory list of doctrines or dogmas. Trying to pin down Orthodoxy, for those who have been enculturated into something like The Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity[4] is a completely foreign endeavor, and frequently can feel like an exercise in futility due to Eastern Orthodoxy’s theological emphasis being on the lived Christian experience of the worship of the Church and daily life, rather than on formal definitions. What is the relevance to Anglicanism? Anglicanism shares a common ethos and pathos with the East as it embodies the dictum, “lex orandi, lex credendi”, a phrase which originates with Prosper of Aquitaine (c. 390 – c. 455 AD) [5], a disciple of St. Augustine of Hippo. Sometimes the phrase is expanded as, “lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi”. A Latin phrase which means “the law of what is prayed [is] what is believed [is] the law of what is lived"; or to paraphrase, “how we worship and live is what we believe”. Such an idea is captured in the Epistle of St. James, where he states, “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” (v. 2:19 ESV) That is, theology ought to be first and foremost and activity of the body through faith in worship before it is an activity of the mind. Again, this idea is captured in St. Augustine of Hippo’s (c. “fides quaerens intellectum” or “faith seeking understanding” which was later expanded on by St. Anselm of Canturbury (c. 1033 – 1109), a Benedictine monk, philosopher, and theologian, who was considered the father of scholasticism, in his work “Proslogion” and used this principle as a foundation to his theology and apologetics. The reason for this, is because prior to Pope St. Gregory the Great sending St. Augustine of Canterbury to England in 597 AD, Christianity had already been well established. The Venerable St. Bede (c. 672 – c. 735 AD) gives us one of the first accounts of the history of the British Isles. However, not only the Venerable Bede, but, J.R.H. Moorman in his A History of the Church in Englan[6]d recounts that prior to 597 AD,
The first mention of any Christians in Britain is in Tertullian’s tract against the Jews, written about 200, in which he speaks of parts of Britain, inaccessible to the Romans, which had yet been conquered by Christ; while Origen, writing about forty years later, includes Britain among the places where Christians are to be found. (p.3)
Richard W. Pfaff, in his work, The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History, tells us,
That one must always be aware of the brilliant filter of Bede’s mind is shown by the following example. His account of the mass baptisms of many in the British army before its engagement with a combined force of Picts and Saxons (HE I.xx) specifies that these took place at Easter, [with] Lent (quadragesimae venerabiles dies) being over. That baptism was often conferred at Easter is scarcely surprising, nor that the shout that discomfits the enemy should be that of Alleluia, appropriate to the day… (p.34)
The reason for the importance of this historical fact is due to the reality, that England at this time was following the early pattern of Easter being the beginning of the Church Calendar wherein converts and infants were baptized and chrismated.
Building on the ancient liturgies, the Book of Common Prayer[7], which contains the liturgy (worship service) of the English Church, for Easter Even, the occasion wherein the ancient Church in Jerusalem, Rome, and later England, the catechumens were baptized, the Epistle of 1 Peter 3: 17-22 is paired with the Gospel of Matthew 27:57-66. The Prayer Book, by means of the Collect (ie prayer) ties these two passages together: GRANT, O Lord, that as we are baptized into the death of thy blessed Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, so by continual mortifying our corrupt affections we may be buried with him; and that through the grave, and gate of death, we may pass to our joyful resurrection; for his merits, who died, and was buried, and rose again for us, the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. (p.161) Massey Hamilton Shepherd, Jr, in his The Oxford American Prayer Book Commentary, in discussing the collect, notes,
…It is a free paraphrase of Rom. vi.3ff. (cf. Col. ii.12, i.5)… It is noteworthy that the Collect preserves the ancient association of this day with Holy Baptism, by using the dramatic figure of St. Paul to conform our experience of regeneration through Baptism - that is, our death unto sin and new life unto righteousness - with the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord. The administration of Holy Baptism on this day has never dropped out of common use in our Church…
The reason for this ancient association with Easter and Baptism is more than just a theological symbol or metaphor. The liturgy from Easter Even to Easter day teach the believer about the very nature of their baptism. For on Easter Day, the Propers (Collect, Epistel, and Gospel) tie Colossians 3:1-4 and John 20:1-10 (p.164) wherein the believer is said to be “risen with Christ” and that “we are dead, and our life is hid with Christ in God” followed by “Christ, who is our life.” Due to the rapid expansion of the English Church, the ability to maintain withholding Baptisms until Easter became too cumbersome for traveling bishops. Nevertheless, the historic practice still resides within the liturgy of the Book of Common Prayer.
In the Liturgy rite for Holy Baptism, this connection becomes further evident when the bishop or priest opens with,
DEARLY beloved, forasmuch as our Saviour Christ saith, None can enter into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate and born anew of Water and of the Holy Ghost; I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this Child (this Person) that which by nature he cannot have; that he may be baptized with Water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ’s holy Church, and be made a living member of the same. (p. 273-274)
The bishop or the priest then transitions from this introduction into the opening collect, where he prays,
ALMIGHTY and immortal God… We call upon thee for this Child (this thy Servant), that he, coming to thy holy Baptism, may receive remission of sin, by spiritual regeneration. Receive him, O Lord, as thou hast promised… that this Child (this thy Servant) may enjoy the everlasting benediction of thy heavenly washing, and may come to the eternal kingdom which thou hast promised by Christ our Lord. Amen. (p. 274)
Through the remainder of the Ministration of Holy Baptism, we find the bishop or priest making the following statements whether through prayer or declaration,
…[Jesus] did shed out of his most precious side both water and blood; and gave commandment to his disciples, that they should go teach all nations, and baptize them In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation; sanctify this Water to the mystical washing away of sin; and grant that this Child (this thy Servant), now to be baptized therein, may receive the fulness of thy grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful children… (p.279)
Such prayers tell us about the nature of the administration, the nature of the water, the spiritual and physical effects of the ministration, and the covenantal promises which are both fulfilled and still looked forward to in hope and prayer by the congregation. The baptismal rite, towards the end, gives us the following prayer,
WE yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Child (this thy Servant) with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thine own Child, and to incorporate him into thy holy Church. And humbly we beseech thee to grant, that he, being dead unto sin, may live unto righteousness, and being buried with Christ in his death, may also be partaker of his resurrection; so that finally, with the residue of thy holy Church, he may be an inheritor of thine everlasting kingdom; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
The Catechsim in the back of the book is purposefully structured for preparation for children and adult converts who are to be confirmed by the Bishop. The reason for the simple structure is functional and historical. Children of age and adult converts undergo catechesis prior to baptism. However, the catechism is structured as such, due to a period and time in history when most adults had been baptized already as infants. The Catechism, in the beginning, discusses the Covenantal promises which are continued to be fulfilled and the Covenantal promises to which the believer yet hopes. The catechism then moves into the recitation of the Articles of Religion, the Apostles’ Creed, the Decalogue, what it means to love God and to love one’s neighbor, the Lord’s Prayer, and then the Sacraments.
The Catechism simply defines a sacrament as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us; ordained by Christ himself, as a means whereby we receive the same, and a pledge to assure us thereof.” (p.581) This may sound familiar as it seems similar to the WCF, as the catechism continues to define a sacrament as “the outward visible sign, and the inward spiritual grace. However, there is a notable difference: in the Anglican sacramental understanding, we do not merely symbolize what has already happened, nor as infants do they merely receive just a promise. In baptism, we receive the forgiveness of original sin, culpable sins, regeneration, and we receive a Covenantal promise.
To summarize this particular section, these definitions must be looked at from bit more of a distance to see the whole picture. It is to this end that we must look briefly at the sacramental theology of these respective positions.
Sacramental Theology
The best way I can think to demonstrate the differences between Reformed Baptist, Presbyterian, and Anglican Theology is to imagine two circles side by side, not touching[8]. This is the Reformed Baptist understanding of ordinances. The sign and the thing signified are not metaphysically related. One circle merely points to the other’s existence. Therefore, when one is baptized, it is nothing more than a formal public demonstration of a cognitive nostalgia of what happened spiritually. Something akin to a souvenir of one’s vacation that one shows their friends as evidence of their trip and stories. Now, with Presbyterianism, take these two circles and draw a line connecting them. This line is the covenantal promise which connects the two. The circles may or may not touch, depending upon the circumstance and person, but what relates them is the promise[9]. Now overlap the two circles with the line still connected, and this is the Anglican understanding of the Sacraments. Where the circles overlap write the word “faith”, as it is the Holy Spirit given faith which enjoins the sign and the thing signified so that the faithful experience the physical, spiritual, and covenantal realities and promises in the act of baptism. However, note that the circles do not eclipse each other and remain discernable as separate, meaning that not everyone who participates in the sign receives the thing signified.
Therefore, it is my task to demonstrate that these circles overlap through Scripture and Holy Tradition. In other words, that they provide a relatively seamless understanding of the efficaciousness of baptism. If I can do this, then I propose that we will have responsibly and sufficiently responded to both Reformed Baptist theology and the theology of Presbyterianism and have defended an Anglican understanding.
Sacred Scripture & Holy Tradition
An Excurses
As someone who has passed through, to varying degrees, the circles of multiple traditions and the intra-mural debates and dialogues which are common between them, I feel the need to cast an indictment against them all, to include my current one: no tradition has the moral or epistemological high ground. All have suffered at the hands of their own pretense and arrogance. And, in accordance with this, no tradition can offer the degree of moral or epistemological certitude that it strives to guarantee. Such claims reek of the first sin ever foisted upon a rational creature. No amount of applied dogmas of Sola Scriptura, the Sufficiency of Scripture; or the infallibility of the Papacy, the Magisterium, or Holy Tradition; or Post-Reformational Reformed Dogmatic Confessions can ever fully guard against heresy, heterodoxy; or political or bureaucratic buffoonery; or more specifically, downright imbecility. Every episcopal see, every rite, every denomination, despite having at its disposal Sacred Scripture and its respective given loci of the deposit of faith has experienced the twisting and squandering of fools and naives, whether educated or not, and has not been able to guard against them from making havoc of a good thing, let alone militarizing their respective code against their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. However, if there is one Lord, one faith, and one Baptism; then maybe there’s a simpler approach to the faith which we call Christianity, and maybe there is a reason why the work of an Anglican layman like C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity” continues to stand the test of time and be received in a multiplicity of Christian traditions… maybe, there is something to the English Reformation’s desire to “simplify the faith” which was handed down? While Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists can be frequently found accusing Anglicanism of retaining its Catholic vestiges, one thing remains clear: while Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists may have what they consider to be a simpler worship, their theology is far from simple and retains the vestiges of the intellectual complexities of Rome.
Now, lest I be accused of casting unnecessary dispersions, I merely address such an indictment as means to attempt to contextualize this portion of the conversation within a framework of humility. Debates surrounding such dogmas of Sola Scriptura, the Sufficiency of Scripture; or the infallibility of the Papacy, the Magisterium, or Holy Tradition; or Post-Reformational Reformed Dogmatic Confessions are immaterial to the simple reality that Scriptures, Creeds, and the Fathers have been cited as authoritative since the beginning. It is the rank Biblicist that falls outside of the purview and pale of the ancient church. The purpose of this section isn’t meant to defend any particular perspective of the aforementioned dogmatic positions. Rather, it is simply to discuss what will likely be the shared common ground of the most traditions or denominations.
For simplicity sake, we will discuss a few passages of Sacred Scripture, and look at how the Early Church understood those passages. As it has been observed,
Every pious and well instructed member of our Church will in the abstract acknowledge, that in examining whether any doctrine be a portion of revealed truth, the one subject of inquiry must be, whether it be contained in Holy Scripture; and that in this investigation, while, in proportion to the fulness of the evidence, he defers to the interpretations handed down to us through the early Church… (Pusey, p.1)
Holy Scripture & the Patristic Interpretation Thereof
Luke 3:16 John answered them all, saying, “I baptize you with water, but he who is mightier than I is coming, the strap of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
For the sake of this paper, we are going to look in-depth into one passage. The rationale for this is twofold: 1.) the early Church had a unified understanding of the distinction between the Baptism of John and Jesus’ baptism and their relative effects. 2.) John Calvin gave an interpretative twist of Luke 3:16 that had not been known to any previous generation within the Undivided Church of the first millennia. However, we will get back to the second point at the end. First it must be fairly well demonstrated that point one is accurate.
The inferiority of John the Baptist’s baptism and the superiority of Jesus’ baptism is observed here by St. Luke. St. Luke says that the baptism is with water only. However, the baptism of Christ is with the Holy Spirit and fire. The early Church did not view these baptisms as being of the same kind. John the Baptist’s baptism was one of “repentance for the forgiveness of sins” (Lk 3:3) and through the baptism with water, was proclaiming a turn from sin towards God. It had no effect other than being a symbol of an inward reality. That is, it was a Baptist baptism. The early Church however, saw in Jesus’ baptism, the fulfillment of His forerunner. This union is seen when the Holy Spirit descends upon Christ, and the Father proclaiming from heaven “this is my Son in whom I am well pleased.” (Mt 3:17). In Christ’s baptism, is not Christ who is the one being renewed, it is rather, baptism which is being reconciled so that all those who are “baptized into Christ” (Gal. 3:27) are “baptized into His baptism” as St. Cyril of Jerusalem states in his On the Mysteries of Baptism. Christ perfected, in His person, the baptism of John the forerunner through the Trinitarian work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
St. Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD)
St. Justin Martyr, a Christian philosopher who lived at the time of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, in his Dialogue with Trypho, assumes the regenerative nature, the restorative nature, and the purgative nature of baptism as he discusses the Baptism of John and that of Jesus. He states to Trypho, “There is no other way than this, that you come to know our Christ, be baptized with the baptism which cleanses you of sin (as Isaias testified), and thus live a life free of sin.'(p. 214), and later in his letter, tells him "I indeed baptize you with water, for repentance; but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and His sandals I am not worthy to bear. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and will gather His wheat into the barn; but the chaff He will burn up with unquenchable fire." (p. 222) For St. Justin Martyr, baptism is God’s means of separating the wheat from the chaff, as God gathers the wheat into the barn, that is the Church.
St. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130-202 AD)
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, a Bishop of Lyons, was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who was in turn a disciple of St. John the Apostle. St. Irenaeus wrote a massive work against a major heresy of his time called Gnosticism. Therefore, when reading his statements about this passage, as it applies to his understanding of baptism, one has to keep in mind that he is applying his theology in response to this heresy; and that if one does not understand this heresy as St. Irenaeus did, his statements may seem odd. Nevertheless, he says, “However, their statement [Gnostics] is, that it is requisite for those who have won the perfect knowledge, i.e., for their being regenerated into the power which is above all: it being else impossible to enter within the Pleroma: since it is this which brings them quite into the Deep. For the Baptism of the visible Jesus they hold to relate to the forgiveness of sins, but the Redemption of the Christ who came down therein, to perfection; the one natural, the other spiritual. And that Baptism was proclaimed by John unto Repentance, but Redemption brought hither by Jesus unto Perfection.”
In the Gnostic understanding, Jesus and the Christ are two different entities. Jesus is understood as being a human vessel for the Spiritual Christ. The Gnostics understood the baptism of the physical body of Jesus to be akin to St. John the Forerunner, and the spiritual baptism of the Christ to be akin to the Jesus’ baptism, that of new life. St. Irenaeus corrects this misunderstanding by pointing to the difference between the baptism of John and the baptism of Jesus Christ. It is to this heresy that St. Irenaeus discusses the baptism of the one person of Jesus Christ and that his baptism is both physical and spiritual and brings perfection. (Against Heresies, 22.1) It is actually due to St. Irenaeus’ work, that one can see the errors of the Reformed Baptist, and in some ways the Presbyterian understanding: there are not two baptisms, one spiritual and one physical. Rather, there is one baptism which is both physical and spiritual. This particular understanding of St. Irenaeus’ teaching on baptism is important. For when reads his other works, such as his The Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching, and reads such statements as,
…the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. For as many as carry [in them] the Spirit of God are led to the Word, that is to the Son; and the Son brings them to the Father; and the Father causes them to possess incorruption. Without the Spirit it is not possible to behold the Word of God, nor without the Son can any draw near to the Father: for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of the Son of God is through the Holy Spirit; and, according to the good pleasure of the Father, the Son ministers and dispenses the Spirit to whomsoever the Father wills and as He wills. (Ch. 7)
We see that for St. Irenaeus, there is one baptism, which is inherently Trinitarian, and this Trinitarian work through the waters of baptism is both physical and spiritual. And this one baptism is the Trinitarian cause of our regeneration. St. Irenaeus, later in chapter forty-one and the beginning of forty-two, then brings the reader into the covenantal fulfillment and promise of the sacramental “already and not yet” of baptism,
41 And His forerunner was John the Baptist, who prepared and made ready the people beforehand for the reception of the Word of life; declaring that He was the Christ, on whom the Spirit of God rested, mingling with His flesh. His disciples, the witnesses of all His good deeds, and of His teachings and His sufferings and death and resurrection, and of His ascension into heaven after His bodily resurrection - these were the apostles, who after [receiving) the power of the Holy Spirit were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles, showing to mankind the way of life, to turn them from idols and fornication and covetousness, cleansing their souls and bodies by the baptism of water and of the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit they had received of the Lord, and they distributed and imparted It to them that believed; and thus they ordered and established the Churches. By faith and love and hope they established that which was foretold by the prophets, the calling of the Gentiles, according to the mercy of God which was extended to them; bringing it to light through the ministration of their service, and admitting them to the promise of the fathers: to wit, that to those who thus believed in and loved the Lord, and continued in holiness and righteousness and patient endurance, the God of all had promised to grant eternal life by the resurrection of the dead; through Him who died and rose again, Jesus Christ, to whom He has delivered over the kingdom of all existing things, and the rule of quick and dead, and also the judgment. And they counselled them by the word of truth to keep their flesh undefiled unto the resurrection and their soul unstained. 42 For such is the state of those who have believed, since in them continually abides the Holy Spirit, who was given by Him in baptism, and is retained by the receiver, if he walks in truth and holiness and righteousness and patient endurance. For this soul has a resurrection in them that believe, the body receiving the soul again, and along with it, by the power of the Holy Spirit, being raised up and entering into the kingdom of God… (emphasis mine)
Through this passage, we see in St. Irenaeus that the baptism of St. John the Baptist and the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ are not the same, yet there is continuity and discontinuity between them. The baptism of John the Baptist was fulfilled in the baptism of Jesus.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254 AD)
Origen of Alexandria was an early Christian scholar, ascetic, and theologian. He wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, hermeneutics, homiletics, and spirituality. Origen was a very controversial figure in the 3rd and 4th century due to Arians appealing to him for their heresy. The reason for appealing to Origen on the issue of baptism is due to the fact that frequently, Baptists and Presbyterians attempt to argue that baptism lacked unanimity within the early Church. However, if it can be demonstrated that those on the theological fringe, such as Origen, retained a similitude of perspective with regards to baptism, then I would suggest that the Baptist and Presbyterian claim is heavily exaggerated. Origen, in his Homilies on Luke, in Homily 26 discusses our passage in Luke 3:16. I shall cite him at length for proper context,
1 God is Spirit and those who worship him should worship in spirit and in truth.'" Our God is also "a consuming fire." Therefore, God is called by two names: "spirit" and "fire." To the just he is spirit; to sinners he is fire. But the angels are also called "spirit" and "fire." Scripture says, "He makes his angels spirits and his servants a burning fire."3 To those who are saints, the angels are spirits; but to those who deserve punishment, they administer fire and burning. In this sense, our Lord and Savior, because he is spirit, also "came to cast fire upon the earth.'" He is "spirit" according to the passages where Scripture says, " But when you have been converted to the Lord, the veil will be taken away,'" and, "The Lord is spirit.” 2 But "he came to cast fire" not upon the heavens, but "upon the earth." He himself shows that when he says, "I have come to cast fire upon the earth, and how I wish it were already burning.'" For, if "you are converted to the Lord," who is spirit, Christ will be spirit for you, and has not "come to cast fire upon the earth." But, if you are not converted to him but cling to the earth and its fruits, "he comes to cast fire" upon the earth. Scripture also says something like this about God: "The fire of my wrath has been ignited" -not as high as heaven, but "all the way to the underworld below," and it will consume, not heaven, but "the earth and its vegetation." 3. Why do I mention this? Because the baptism with which Jesus baptizes is "in the Holy Spirit and fire." I am mindful of what I said before, and I have not forgotten my earlier explanation. But I also wish to present something new. If you are holy, you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit. If you are a sinner, you will be plunged into fire. One and the same baptism will be turned into condemnation and fire for the unworthy and for sinners; but to those who are holy and have been turned to the Lord in total faith, the grace of the Holy Spirit, and salvation, will be given. Therefore, he who is said to baptize "in the Holy Spirit and fire" has "a winnowing fan in his hand, and he will cleanse his threshing floor. And he will gather his wheat into a barn, but the chaff he will burn in unquenchable fire."" I want to find the reason why our Lord has a winnowing fan, and what wind is blowing as the light husks are carried off this way or that, while the heavy grains of wheat are borne down into one place. For, wheat and chaff cannot be separated with- out wind. (pp. 109 – 110)
It is obvious here, that compared to the previous Fathers cited, the only distinction that Origen makes, is the nature of the fire with which Jesus’ baptism is administered to those, who receive baptism, do so unworthily to their condemnation. However, even in this detail, one can see a similar pattern in St. Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians, where he admonishes them, “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord.” (1Co 11:27) The natural implication here being, that if one can partake or participate in a Sacrament in an unworthy manner, the opposite is true: one can participate in a Sacrament worthily. When one takes such statements within the context of the Fathers, that worthiness is contingent upon “faith, hope, and charity” as St. Irenaeus tells us above, and the spiritual action which encompasses these the most is repentance towards God, which is imaged in the baptism of St. John the Forerunner, and fulfilled in the life giving baptism of Jesus Christ.
St. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 210-258 AD)
In the second video of James White’s series on baptism, entitled Baptism: Basic Meaning, he cites Cyprian at length. However, it has to be observed that White brushes over all of the explicit theology of baptismal regeneration, and then fixates on immersion, then states "in case you're thinking that Cyprian didn't sound very sound... first of all he was only a Christian for a short number of years. He died as a martyr..." It cannot be understated enough, regardless of the time being a Christian, the fact still remains: St. Cyprian of Carthage was the Patriarch of Carthage. One did not simply become Patriarch in the 3rd century through theological ignorance or heresy. That isn’t to suggest that Patriarchs didn’t slip into heresy, as they most certainly did. However, to suggest that a Patriarch, who was later canonized a Saint by both East and West, was ignorant or in heresy, I would argue that such the burden of such a statement rests on White… especially, if what is articulated by St. Cyprian of Carthage is in harmony with the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church up until his time. And with that, in St. Cyprian’s Epistle to Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics, Epistle 72; and his Epistle to Pompey, Epistle 73 in his Complete Works, we are provided the following ,
But further, when they know that there is no baptism without, and that no remission of sins can be given outside the Church, they more eagerly and readily hasten to us, and implore the gifts and benefits of the Church our Mother, assured that they can in no wise attain to the true promise of divine grace unless they first come to the truth of the Church. Nor will heretics refuse to be baptized among us with the lawful and true baptism of the Church, when they shall have learned from us that they also were baptized by Paul, who already had been baptized with the baptism of John, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles… And since baptism and the Church can by no means be separated from one another, and divided, he who has first been able to lay hold on baptism has equally also laid hold on the Church…(pp. 377 – 378)
This is the essence of regeneration: to be made a member of Christ’s body, to put on Christ. As St. Paul states, For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (1 Cor 12:12 – 13).
For if the Church is not with heretics, therefore, because it is one, and cannot be divided; and if thus the Holy Spirit is not there, because He is one, and cannot be among profane persons, and those who are without; certainly also baptism, which consists in the same unity, cannot be among heretics, because it can neither be separated from the Church nor from the Holy Spirit. 5. Or if they attribute the effect of baptism to the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the name of Jesus Christ, are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them, for the reception of the Holy Spirit? Why does not the same majesty of the same name avail in the imposition of hands, which, they contend, availed in the sanctification of baptism? For if any one born out of the Church can become God's temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually reformed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit; since the apostle says, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." [Galatians 3:27] (pp. 383-384).
St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339 – 4 April 397)
St. Ambrose was the Bishop of Milan in North Africa, and was involved in the conversion of St. Augustine of Hippo, who later became his successor as St. Augustine tells us in his Confessions.
John is quick to prove that he is not the Christ, since the ministry he performs is but a visible one. The human person subsists in two natures, namely soul and body. The visible part is consecrated by visible elements; the invisible part by an invisible mystery. Water washes the body; The Holy Spirit purifies the soul of its faults. We do one part; regarding the other part, we implore. Even if, on the very fountain, the divinity breathes its sanctification, the water is not all the ablution required. No, there are two factors, and they cannot be separated. That is why baptism of repentance is one thing, and baptism of grace is another. The latter is composed of both elements [spirit and water], the former is composed of one. Since sin touches both soul and body, a purification of both is required… Man's task is to practice penance for his sins. God's gift is to fulfil the mystery. (Paragraph 79)
The sacramental nature of baptism is supported here by St. Ambrose as he distinguishes between John and Jesus’ baptisms. He does so by referring to John’s as a “baptism of repentance” and Jesus’ as “baptism of grace”. He states that the body and the spirit of man are washed in Jesus baptism of grace, hence why he says that Jesus baptism is “composed of both elements: spirit and water. It will come as no surprise, that St. Augustine of Hippo, in his Confessions gives us the same picture of baptism.
St. Cyril of Alexandria, (c. 376 – 444)
St. Cyril was the Patriarch of Alexandria, Egypt. He was made Patriarch during a time of extensive controversy over the nature of the person of Christ. Cyril wrote extensively and was a presiding bishop at the third Ecumenical Council, the Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople. Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, believed that Christ had two distinct, human and divine, persons. He therefore believed that the Virgen Mary, only gave birth to the human person of Jesus, and was therefore the Christotokos (Christ-bearer) but not Theotokos (God-bearer). St. Cyril became one of the greatest defenders of the understanding that Christ is one person with two natures. In St. Cyril’s Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, he also emphasizes the difference between the ministry of John the Baptist and that of Jesus. Cyril argues that John's baptism was preparatory as he was the forerunner of Christ, while Jesus' baptism brings the Holy Spirit and purifies believers. He states, "John indeed baptized with water, calling men to repentance and preparing the way for the Lord. But Christ baptizes with the Holy Spirit and fire, transforming the inner man and granting the gift of the Holy Spirit, which purifies and renews." St. Cyril echoes those before him,
He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.' Observe, my brethren, the excellence of the grace bestowed upon us through baptism. For John indeed baptized with water, but our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior of us all, baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire. The water of John's baptism was a symbol of repentance, but the baptism of Christ is a reality, bringing with it the gift of the Holy Spirit and the purifying power of fire… He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire; that is, with the fiery energy of the Spirit, which burns away the chaff of our sins, and purifies us like gold in the furnace. For just as gold, when it is placed in the fire, is purified and separated from the dross, so also we, when we are baptized with the fire of the Spirit, are cleansed from the stains of sin, and made radiant with the brightness of virtue. And this is what the Prophet Jeremiah meant when he said, 'He shall purify the sons of Levi, and refine them like gold and silver.' (Malachi 3:3) For the fire of the Spirit is a refining fire, which takes away the impurities of our souls, and makes us worthy of the heavenly kingdom… Therefore, let us not think that baptism is merely a washing with water, but rather a spiritual circumcision, a burial with Christ, and a resurrection with Him. For in the waters of baptism, we are made partakers of the death of Christ, and we are raised up with Him to newness of life. And the Holy Spirit, who is given to us in baptism, is the earnest of our inheritance, the guarantee of our salvation, and the seal of our redemption."
Within St. Cyril’s citations we see covenantal type and fulfillment. We see a tie between circumcision and baptism which is frequently objected to by Reformed Baptists. We see sign and seal, and what that means. However, none of these aspects which are frequent debating points between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are in question in the early Church. Within the early Church, one could say, in a way, that all of the contention points are true. They are a both/and not either/or. Yes to covenant, yes to sign and thing signified, yes to sign and seal, yes to types and shadows, yes to faith being a requirement, yes to the initiation into the church… what else could be said?
The Problem of Tertullian and Delayed Baptism
Tertullian (c. 160-220 AD)
Tertullian is a frequent pulpit to pound in Baptist and Presbyterian debates when the issue of the early Church arises. Whether there is validity or invalidity to the delaying of baptism, it nevertheless stands as a fact, that Tertullian’s reasons for doing so did not coincide a Baptist or Presbyterian understanding of baptism. It was precisely because of the salvific effects of baptism and the severe consequences of abandoning that baptismal grace, that he argued that it ought to be delayed. The evidence of this reality comes at the point in chapter 7 “Of the Unction”, in Tertullian’s work Of Baptism, where he states,
After this, when we have issued from the font, we are thoroughly anointed with a blessed unction, — (a practice derived) from the old discipline, wherein on entering the priesthood, men were wont to be anointed with oil from a horn, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. Whence Aaron is called Christ, from the chrism, which is the unction; which, when made spiritual, furnished an appropriate name to the Lord, because He was anointed with the Spirit by God the Father; as written in the Acts: For truly they were gathered together in this city against Your Holy Son whom You have anointed. Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs carnally, (i.e. on the body,) but profits spiritually; in the same way as the act of baptism itself too is carnal, in that we are plunged in water, but the effect spiritual, in that we are freed from sins. (On Baptism, 7)
Here Tertullian not only defends the regenerative nature of baptism, but also defends the practice of chrismation, which later in the West, became Holy Confirmation. Again, it must be restated, Tertullian is not a defense for Baptist theology of delayed baptism.
John Calvin (10 July 1509 – 27 May 1564)
John Calvin was a prominent French theologian, pastor, and second-generation reformer in Geneva during the Protestant Reformation, and it is not an exaggeration to suggest that he completely reshaped the West. Calvin was never ordained, but was originally trained as a humanist lawyer, and his first work was a commentary on the Stoic philosopher, Seneca, and his work, De Clementia (On Mercy), written in 1532. This work was not theological in nature, but rather a philosophical commentary showcasing Calvin's humanist training and skills.. He was a principal figure in the development of the system of Christian theology later called Calvinism, which emphasizes a particular doctrine of predestination and of God's absolute sovereignty in the salvation. Calvin's teachings built upon Augustinian and other Christian traditions of his time. Calvin and Calvinism influenced various Congregational, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches who still consider him to be their principal, or at least original, Biblical expositor. In addition to his seminal systematic theology, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin wrote commentaries on most books of the Bible, confessional documents, and various other theological treatises. Calvin broke away from the Roman Catholic Church around 1530. Following the outbreak of violent persecution against Protestants in France, he fled to Basel, Switzerland.
As stated at the outset of this section, the rationale for focusing on Luke 3:16 is twofold: 1.) the early Church had a unified understanding of the distinction between the Baptism of John and Jesus’ baptism and their relative effects. 2.) John Calvin gave an interpretative twist of Luke 3:16 that had not been known to any previous generation within the Undivided Church of the first millennia. I believe that the above provided patristic citations have provided a sufficient sampling of prominent theologians from a decent variety of places, locations, and time periods. I believe that despite controversies over the validity of the baptism of heretics, and the debates over when baptism ought to be received, there is a common thread: baptism is regenerative, when participated in by faith and repentance. Therefore, let us now look at point two to see if it holds any weight.
John Calvin provides us with a three-volume commentary on the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Calvin does something unique as he provides commentary on the three Gospels as though they are a whole narrative. In his first volume, commenting on Luke 3:16, Calvin says the following,
Christ is thus declared to be so far superior in power and rank, that, with respect to him, John must occupy a private station. He uses ordinary forms of speech to magnify the glory of Christ, in comparison of whom he declares that he himself is nothing. The chief part of his statement is, that he represents Christ as the author of spiritual baptism, and himself as only the minister of outward baptism. He appears to anticipate an objection, which might be brought forward. What was the design of the Baptism which he had taken upon himself? For it was no light matter to introduce any innovation whatever into the Church of God, and particularly to bring forward a new way of introducing persons into the Church, which was more perfect than the law of God. He replies, that he did not proceed to do this without authority; but that his office, as minister of an outward symbol, takes nothing away from the power and glory of Christ.
Thus far, Calvin points to the power and rank of Jesus as being over that of John the Baptist. However, he then shifts to state that Christ is “the author of spiritual baptism” and that John the Baptist is “the author of outward baptism”. And in this move, Calvin is not distinguishing between John’s baptism and Jesus’ baptism in the ways in which we have seen by the Patristic sources. Such a move should cause one to start reflecting on St. Irenaeus’ statements above. Lest one think that this is an overreaction, Calvin continues,
Hence we infer, that his intention was not at all to distinguish between his own baptism, and that which Christ taught his disciples, and which he intended should remain in perpetual obligation in his Church. He does not contrast one visible sign with another visible sign, but compares the characters of master and servant with each other, and shows what is due to the master, and what is due to the servant. It ought not to have any weight with us, that an opinion has long and extensively prevailed, that John’s baptism differs from ours. We must learn to form our judgment from the matter as it stands, and not from the mistaken opinions of men. And certainly the comparison, which they imagine to have been made, would involve great absurdities. It would follow from it, that the Holy Spirit is given, in the present day, by ministers. Again, it would follow that John’s baptism was a dead sign, and had no efficacy whatever. Thirdly, it would follow, that we have not the same baptism with Christ: for it is sufficiently evident, that the fellowship, which he condescends to maintain with us, was ratified by this pledge, when he consecrated baptism in his own body. (emphasis mine)
John Calvin in the first paragraph states that it is “it was no light matter to introduce any innovation whatever into the Church of God”, and then immediately moves in the subsequent paragraph to introduce an innovation and explicitly rejects all of the Church that comes before him. Calvin then goes on to give his reasons for why he rejects all Patristic interpretations by providing flawed misconceptions of the consequences of what the Church Fathers taught.
Calvin continues with his novel interpretation,
We must therefore hold by what I have already said, that John merely distinguishes, in this passage, between himself and the other ministers of baptism, on the one hand, and the power of Christ, on the other, and maintains the superiority of the master over the servants. And hence we deduce the general doctrine, as to what is done in baptism by men, and what is accomplished in it by the Son of God. To men has been committed nothing more than the administration of an outward and visible sign: the reality dwells with Christ alone.
Calvin here continues to bifurcate the sacramental into separate symbols and the things to which they signify, and in so doing, lays the framework for Baptist sacramentology. This bifurcation becomes quite evident when Calvin finally gets to the last half of verse 16,
He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire It is asked, why did not John equally say, that it is Christ alone who washes souls with his blood? The reason is, that this very washing is performed by the power of the Spirit, and John reckoned it enough to express the whole effect of baptism by the single word Spirit The meaning is clear, that Christ alone bestows all the grace which is figuratively represented by outward baptism, because it is he who “sprinkles the conscience” with his blood. It is he also who mortifies the old man, and bestows the Spirit of regeneration. The word fire is added as an epithet, and is applied to the Spirit, because he takes away our pollutions, as fire purifies gold. In the same manner, he is metaphorically called water in another passage, (John 3:5.) (Emphasis mine)
In Calvin’s mind, he had to create a spiritual and physical separation between what occurs in baptism. Therefore, later inheritors of Calvin’s novel interpretations in the Westminster Standards and the London Baptist Confession of Faith, continued this sacramental separation because to them, if salvation is through “Christ alone” then this cannot mean that baptism sacramentally saves us through uniting us to Christ and His Church (such an idea actually obfuscates and undermines what it means for a sacrament to be a “means of grace”). Therefore, Calvin has to create a categorical distinction between “outward baptism” and “spiritual baptism”, and states that the former “figuratively” represents the latter. In so doing, Calvin put himself outside of the pale of the Undivided Church of the first thousand years, and slipped into Gnostic-like[10] errors. This is no small issue.
In Summary
Anglicanism is more in line with Scripture and Holy Tradition on the issue of baptism than Presbyterianism and the Reformed Baptists. While we may have only looked at one text in-depth, it should be observed that Scriptural references perforate the theology articulated above and the text reviewed is an interpretive linchpin of Scriptural innovation by Calvin[11]. And through Calvin, the entire history of the interpretation of Scripture has undergone historical revisionism, and all for for the sake of not wanting to be affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church. When we review the WCF and the LBCF in light of Calvin and the early Church, it becomes apparent that the WCF and the LBCF are out of sync with history, and even according to Calvin’s words, purposefully so.
Calvinism has had its influence on the Anglican Church, to be sure. However, once its theologians began diagnosing these innovations, attempts to go ad fontes, that is, back to the sources in order to reassess the state and condition of the Church so as to ensure that the Church had not drifted too far off course, ended up leading many accusations of being “too Catholic”. However, if being in sync with Scripture and the early Church is what it means to be “Catholic”, then we heartily embrace such slander.
Those in the vein of the historic and ancient English Church affirm how the late 1800’s Anglican Cleric, Edward Bouverie Pusey, a patristics scholar, defined baptism,
Baptism may obviously be looked upon either with reference to the past or the future; as a passage from death, or to life; as a deliverance from sin, or a renewal to holiness; a death unto sin, or a new birth unto righteousness; and men's minds might from circumstances be directed prominently to the one or other view. Again, they might look upon Baptism as it was a channel of these blessings, in that the person baptized becomes thereby "a member of CHRIST," (which one saying comprehends more than all which men's or angels' thoughts can conceive of blessedness;) or they might look at the blessings of which it is the channel. (Pusey, pp.20 – 21)
To put it in the words of the Reformers baptism is a “Gospel issue” and we must attend to it with the utmost diligence and responsibility.
Footnotes
[1] 2 Timothy 3:5, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power therof: from such turn away.” This passage exists as an indictment of the Pharisees, who has the outward appearance of godliness, but due to their pride and immorality, lacked spiritual power as they embraced worldliness even though they appeared very religious. This passage has been applied to the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States in the 1970’s, and in recent years to the Church of England, when they went decisively liberal in their ethical standards.
[2] It is this author’s contention that the principal driving force behind much of the Post-Reformational dogmatic accretions precisely stem from their full desire to not, in any way, be associated with Rome. And in so doing, Rome and Protestantism polarized in their mutual rejections over the subsequent centuries in contradistinction to each other, leading to many errors on both sides. Therefore, rather than going ad fontes (i.e. back to the sources), the primary concern was to either, “be Roman” or to “not to be Roman”. As an analogy, this isn’t unsimilar from when a couple goes through a divorce, or siblings alienating each other, or tribes or nations go to war. As time goes on, their respective identities become formed around how they are “not like their evil ex” and how much their new boyfriend or girlfriend “is perfect and not like their ex”, when in reality, far too often, they and their new boyfriend or girlfriend are far more similar to their ex than they would ever be willing to admit. Such demonizations and romanticizations throughout history are nothing new, and this applies to the Reformation as well. That is, Protestants are the flipside of the “Roman” coin whether they like it or not.
[3] An interesting passing observation at this point in the confession is its observation that “a seal is something that authenticates or confirms that to which it is attached.” While many North American Presbyterians reject Confirmation as being a valid sacrament, this author would argue that the theology is nevertheless present in large part by accident, especially, when one observes the indelible nature of the seal upon the elect within Presbyterianism. While they may not use such terminology as “indelible mark”, the idea is at least functionally present. Also, within the liturgies of the Early Church, baptism and confirmation (or chrismation) were conducted under the same liturgical rite at the same time. It wasn’t until several hundred years later, that baptism and confirmation became separate and distinct sacramental rites in the West. (Hall) Also, to note, the fact that in North American Presbyterianism, children must undergo catechesis, examination, and make a public profession of faith prior to being admitted to the Lord’s Supper. If according to Presbyterians, Baptists practice a “waterless baptism” when they dedicate their children, then Presbyterians are engaging in a “graceless (ie legal) sacrament of confirmation” through their practice.
[4] The Three Forms of Unity are the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort. The Westminster Standards are the Westminster Confession of Faith, The Westminster Larger Catechism, and the Westminster Shorter Catechism.
[5] “Let us consider the sacraments of priestly prayers, which having been handed down by the apostles are celebrated uniformly throughout the whole world and in every Catholic Church so that the law of praying might establish the law of believing" (emphasis added) Latin: “...obsecrationum quoque sacerdotalium sacramenta respiciamus, quae ab apostolis tradita, in toto mundo atque in omni catholica Ecclesia uniformiter celebrantur, ut legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi.” (Patrologia Latina)
[6] However, through St. Gregory the Great in St. Augustine of Canterbury, down to St. Anselm, Anglicanism also retains an ethos and pathos of the West as it did formulate The 39 Articles of Religion and a formal Catechism.
[7] The 1928 American BCP will be used throughout unless otherwise indicated due to its broader reception since its publishing by Episcopalians, Reformed Catholics, and Anglo-Catholics. It has also been received, however, with modifications by Western Rite Orthodox in the Lancelot Andrews Press BCP, and the Roman Catholic Newman House Press Divine Worship Daily Offices
[8] This idea of the circles is not entirely my own. I am indebted to the work of Hans Boersm’s “Heavenly Participation”, wherein he outlines the difference between a symbol and a sacrament by depending upon the work of C.S. Lewis’ essay “Trasposition” found in “The Weight of Glory, and Other Adresses”. (Boersma) Obviously, this analogy will likely fall apart at the fringes like any analogy will. If I could, I would add further elements to the analogy in order to attempt to create a fuller picture. However, for the sake of brevity, I will leave it as such. So, for whatever benefit it may serve, hopefully its helpful.
[9] See: WCF: Obviously, Christ does not mean as Rome and the Lutherans teach that the bread was literally His flesh or contains His flesh, nor the wine literally His blood or contains His blood. In the case of Baptism, it is the same, for Paul says: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Tit 3:5). Clearly, Paul is referring primarily to the spiritual reality of regeneration, but he alludes to the sign of baptism to remind his readers that baptism as a work does not save, rather, it signifies and seals regeneration. (p. 312) The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution; which contains, together with a precept authorising the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (ibid.)
[10] “Gnostic-like” is used purposefully to demonstrate the overlapping parallels, while at the same time recognizing the dissimilarity that Calvinism has with ancient Gnosticism. Secondly, this term is used precisely with regards to the Reformed understanding of Baptism. While Presbyterians, such as Dr. Michael Horton, in his article, The New Gnosticism, attempt to argue that many of Protestantism’s goals were to react against Gnostic tendencies which had encroached themselves into the Church. Horton levies the blame at such things as asceticism and mysticism, which had a rich history in both England, North Africa, Rome, and the East, and in a broad brush dismisses them by saying, “Mysticism has a long tradition within Christianity, and although it developed out of the same influences and centers as Gnosticism itself, it was deemed acceptable even by some who had opposed the heresy. The ‘ladder of spiritual ascent’ and the dualism between spirit and matter, the inwardness and related themes, remind us that the difference is a matter of degree.” Horton uses his poor understanding of monasticism and ascetism to bemoan the ways in which a spiritual emphasis has been placed in contemporary times, while seemingly being entirely unreflective of the ways in which the Puritans, who he favors, themselves cultivated such ascetical practices with an emphasis on holiness and worldly separation (e.g. Thomas Watson “Heaven Taken by Storm”). Horton further states, “As for the Gnostic preoccupation with spirit, and the eternal over matter and time… who, according to St. Ignatius, did not bother themselves with the physical needs of this world”, utilizes such assessments to then diagnose any such spiritual or ascetical practices as being a form of “spiritual arrogance”. In Horton’s closing, he states the following, “The whole point of Christianity, however, is that one cannot ‘access’ God at all! He must come to us through a personal Word (God in flesh) and a written Word (Scripture), and when we do come to him it must be through Christ, and we come to Christ through the ordained means.” It cannot be overstated that Horton, in criticizing the History of the Church and modern Christianity, seems entirely unreflective of the “sacerdotal” nature of his sacramental conclusion, and how his view of baptism does not correspond with an incarnational view of Christ’s ordained means of baptism.
[11] This text is not the only text which has suffered Calvin’s novelties and blatant arrogance. Calvin also did such reworking with John 3:5, “Jesus answered, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’” A verse which had a very uniform understanding for well over a thousand years.
Bibliography
Ambrose of Milan. Commentary on Luke. Translated by Íde M. Ní Riain. Dublin: Halcyon Press, 2001.
Britannica. "8 of the Largest Empires in History", accessed 30 July 2024, (https://www.britannica.com/list/8-of-the-largest-empires-in-history).
Cyprian of Carthage. The Complete Works of St. Cyprian of Carthage. Translated by Philip R. Amidon, S.J. Fathers of the Church, vol. 111. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2016.
Cyril of Alexandria. Commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Translated by R. Payne Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1859. Reprint, Studion Publishers, 1983.
Edward Bouverie Pusey. Scriptural Views of Holy Baptism, as Established by the Consent of the Ancient Church, and Contrasted with the Systems of Modern Schools. Oxford: J.H. Parker, 1836.
Francis J. Hall. Dogmatic Theology: Volume VII - The Sacraments. New York: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1948.
Hans Boersma. Heavenly Participation: The Weaving of a Sacramental Tapestry. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011.
Hanserd Knollys, William Kiffin, William Collins, and Benjamin Keach. The London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 with Preface, Baptist Catechism, and Appendix on Baptism . Chapel Library. Kindle Edition.
Michael Horton. The New Gnosticism. Modern Reformation, accessed July 30, 2024, (https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/the-new-gnosticism).
Irenaeus of Lyons. Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching: A Theological Commentary and Translation. Translated by Thomas M. Gallagher. New York: Paulist Press, Reissued by Routledge, 2018.
Irenaeus of Lyons. The Five Books of St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies: With the Fragments That Remain of His Other Works. Translated by John Keble. Reprint, Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
James R. White. Sermons on Baptism. Apologia Radio, YouTube playlist, accessed July 30, 2024,(https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzOJll8dItg7GcgUsrm2Cy18iYQEpp37i&si=w6eIiyrB1qcEtQ4c).
John Calvin. A Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Translated by A. W. Morrison. Edited by David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance. 3 vols. Hendrickson Publishers, 1972.
MacArthur, John. "Baptism Debate: A Credobaptist Position." YouTube video. Posted June 12, 2020. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyzC0T78w20&t=2868s).
JJ Lim. The Westminster Confession of Faith: With Study Notes (The Westminster Standards) (p. 307). Pilgrim Covenant Church, Singapore. Kindle Edition.
J.R.H. Moorman. A History of the Church in England. 3rd ed. Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1980.
Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2003.
Origen. Homilies on Luke. Translated by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J. Fathers of the Church, vol. 94. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1996.
Oxford University Press. The 1928 Book of Common Prayer (p. 237). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.
Patrologia Latina [Latin Patrology] (in Latin), vol. 51, pp. 209–10
R.C. Sproul. Baptism Debate: A Paedobaptist Position. Ligonier Ministries. YouTube video. Posted June 12, 2020. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLRX1WP2wg4)
Richard W. Pfaff. The Liturgy in Medieval England: A History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.