The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum William Webster on unanimous consent of baptism

In William Webster's book Rome at the Bar of History on page 96-97 I think he talks about how baptism was one of the only things that was uninaimously believed by the early church which included remission of sins, regeneration, etc.

Yet, I also believe there are many traces of solafide in the early fathers. Yet, if it's true that there is unanimous consent on this view of baptism, how can it also be held that anyone in the early church did believe in solafide if they also all believed that baptism is necessary for remission of sins and regeneration? Is there something I'm missing or do Catholics have a powerful argument on this point?

Please help with good insights.

Thanks,

Cameron

Cameron,

I appreciate you thought. I was someone who was Reformed and then strayed and almost became a Catholic; and the arguments by Catholic Teachers and Apologists from the Early Church Fathers was one of the things that was a draw for me.

As with anything, people are going to take what ever supports their position and highlight it and then have the tendency to ignore or explain away the rest.

When it comes to the study of the Early Church Fathers, this can be done very easily. I've been reading and studying the writings of the Early Church Fathers now for several of years and here is my honest conclusion.

They were all over the place in their doctrine and practice. Each Church Father, in my opinion, was a little bit different and had different reasons for writing what they did.

Some of them did believe in the "real presence." Some of them did not.

Whether or not most of them believed in baptismal regeneration or not is hard to tell I believe. I really don't think there is enough writing to support this. There really isn't enough to support whether they baptized infants or not, but I do believe that they did.


My point is this; there is a lot in the Early Church writings that I believe "does" support the Catholic Position. I'm not going to deny that.

But I also believe that the Early Church was also in error in many ways. I believe that even in the first century, the Church was starting to slide into error in many ways...... or why else would have Christ given warnings to all of the Churches through John?

My point here is, I personally don't view the Early Church Writings with any authority.

Just like I don't hold to the writings of Luther and Calvin with much authority.

My main authority comes from Scripture and Scripture is very clear that Justification is by faith in Christ alone. That is the gospel and to deviate from that in any way is a different gospel.

I hope this helps

Dave

Thanks Dave,

Webster's quote is actually on pages 95-96 for anyone who's interested. I agree that the father's are all over the map, which is a blow to Catholicism because it forces them to their tautology that tradition = tradition, since tradition cannot = a consensus of the ECF.

Here's what I've discovered in regard to my question. We can say it's true that the ECF were universal on BR (baptismal regeneration) only about those whom were explicit on BR. So far, I haven't seen that Ambrosiaster for example, was explicit on BR. I'm currently debating a Catholic here http://www.catholicforum.com/forums/showthread.php?40355-Faith-alone on this topic.

Cameron,

I briefly glimpsed over the arguments made; I'm not a stranger to Catholic Forums, so most of what was said was familiar.

I almost had to smile at how Justification by Grace Alone is manipulated by the Catholic apologist.

Straight away they "affirmed" the position of Justification by Grace Alone; LEADING UP TO BAPTISM. and then they stop there as if to say "YOU SEE"

Ummmmmm..... actually no.

Paul in his epistle to the Romans isn't referring to "works of the law" as merely the Levitical Law. He is referring to the Moral Law also as he explicitly uses the Moral Law or the Mosaic Law as an example more then once. All through Romans, Paul is referring to the Moral Law.

The whole Epistle to the Romans and the Galatians is refuting justification on anything other then faith in Christ.

As far as baptismal regeneration; I believe that it would be pretty hard to appeal to the Church Fathers.

Baptism was, is and always should be a necessary, established holy sacrament of the Church. In other words, even if Reformed Protestants only consider it a sign and seal it should still be maintained in strict reverence as being a means of grace that God, through physical worldly means, through us, uses to bring the elect to saving faith.

But of course, it's hard enough to show even a reformed protestant the basics of covenant theology, let alone a closed minded Catholic.

The honest truth concerning baptismal regeneration in my opinion is that most people in some way, shape, form or fashion lean more too and or wholly embrace baptismal regeneration.

So this is an extremely hard subject to apologize too. In my opinion.

Dave

So I guess I'd like to ask now, did Ambrosiaster adhere to baptismal regeneration? I think he makes some statements that could go either way. For example on his commentary on Rom 6:4 that "baptism is the sign and symbol of the Resurrection". Also that "this [baptism] is symbolized by water, because just as water cleanses the dirt of the body, so we believe that we have been spiritually cleansed by baptism from every sin and renewed, for what is incorporeal is cleanses invisibly."

Yet on Rom 6:2 he says, "Therefore when the grace of God through Christ and through faith came upon us, we began to live for God by the spiritual rebirth of baptism, and we died to sin."

I know what the ECF's wording can be confusing because a Protestant will interpret through the lens of their understanding and the likewise the Catholic. I understand baptism in a spiritual context to refer to regeneration, and baptism in the physical sense to be a sign of regeneration. Thus, it's hard to know where certain people stood. Can anyone help with this in light of Ambrosiaster?

Dave,

I'm also debating that same Catholic about solafide here http://www.catholicforum.com/forums...uot-merits-quot&p=335997#post335997.

Of course I fully agree with you. Paul is talking about the moral law, especially in Rom 2-4,7. It's inescapable. After arguing this with the Catholic my beliefs in solafide became even more solidified. Especially when it comes to Rom 3:19-21. 1. The moral law is the law that condemns the whole world (v.19), 2. the moral law brings death not life for having broken it once (v.20), 3. and thus, is what we are justified apart from (v.21).

That's what I've found to be the iron clad case. There really is no way around it. It's awesome!

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, but I alway like to refer to 1 Peter 3:20-22.

.

I believe this also makes it pretty clear that Baptism is an outward sign of an already renewed heart as well as a sign and seal of covenant membership.

Meaning that faith comes prior to baptism in the case of a professing believer and not that Baptism causes faith.

So why baptize infants? Because Baptism is a covenant sacrament not a salvific sacrament. It IS a means of salvific grace used by God, but not in a physical application to the one receiving it way. But in a spiritual way. i.e., if the professing recipient is still in unbelief and or any who are witnesses to the baptism who are still in unbelief.

If that makes any sense.... ?

Sorry, I'm still a novice here, so I'm sure I'll need someone like Pilgrim to come in behind me and clean what I just stated up. Because I probably made a mess of it.

Dave

To say that Baptism IS an outward SIGN of an already renewed heart, aka: "an inward reality", de facto everyone who submits to baptism MUST BE SAVED! If you then wish to backtrack and say that there are false professors who are baptized, then baptism is not a sign of regeneration, for how could it be a sign of something that doesn't exist. Remember that old law of non-contradiction? Therefore, you cannot say that Baptism is a sign and is not a sign of a renewed heart. This is one of the insurmountable obstacles of the CB position. The whole premise of defining baptism subjectively leads to all kinds of issues.

It is far better to define baptism objectively as the Bible does and therefore the meaning of baptism never changes. So, what objectivity should baptism be defined upon?... GOD and His immutable promise of salvation. So, one can then rightly say that baptism is a sign of the cleansing of a sinner by Christ's blood to all who believe. In short, we can rightly say that baptism is the visible Gospel. And, if one who is baptized is not truly regenerated, self-deceived as to their spiritual state or if one deliberately feigns conversion, the definition/meaning of baptism remains true.

For one who truly has saving faith, this sign is true for them and baptism then also becomes a seal, the seal of God's promise to that believer that just as the water cleanses the body from filth so has Christ's blood cleansed your soul from the filth of sin.

A very good statement of baptism can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII "Of Baptism".

Pilgrim,

Yes, that is absolutely what I meant, I just didn't expound on it enough. I didn't mean to say that everyone who is baptized is a true believer.

All I meant by what I said was that I don't believe in baptismal regeneration.

Pilgrim,

So it definitly sounds like your a CB, which I am also. When you said this...

Did you mean to say "PB position"?

Actually, I am a PB, although not the typical type you might converse with. What makes me differ is mainly the issue of "presumptive regeneration", i.e., I do not hold that all covenant children are to be presumed regenerate, or saved, or infant Christians, etc., etc., for we are ALL born under the wrath of God, have Adam's guilt imputed to us and have inherited a corruption of nature. Thus ALL are estranged from God and need to repent and believe upon the Lord Christ.

Now, as to the above quote, the insurmountable obstacle I was referring to, although most commonly held by CBs, but not exclusively to them, is the erroneous way baptism is defined; "An outward sign of an inward reality. IF baptism is a "sign", which it surely is, then that which it points to, that which it signifies, MUST of necessity exist. To give a couple examples: If while driving down an unfamiliar road you saw a sign that said Culver City 15 miles and then found out that Culver City was 100 miles in the opposite direction, you would have to conclude that the sign was false. Or, the hood ornament on a Mercedes Benz is a type of "sign", i.e., it signifies that the automobile on which it is mounted is a Mercedes. It is exclusive to that type of car. However, if you take that hood ornament and bolt on the front of a Kia, it would not indicate that the car was a Mercedes. Thus one must define baptism according to what it IS in reality and not upon anything that may or may not be. Since baptism is a true "sign", the definition of what baptism means MUST point to that which is in reality. I thus suggested that baptism is a sign of God's saving grace in the washing away of sins in Christ's blood through faith. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever if the recipient of baptism is a believer or non-believer, for the sign is perpetually and immovably true.

However, this doesn't mean that the application of baptism has no subjective element to it, for it surely does. IF the one submitting to baptism is in fact regenerate and has believed savingly upon the Lord Christ, then that which baptism signifies is true to him/her.

I hope that clears things up for you in regard to my position and my simple statement concerning one small aspect of baptism.

Lastly, this board does allow the use of HTML in addition to UBBCode. But, if you are going to use HTML tags, you need to choose that option from the drop down menu located just below the message text box in the lower left corner, i.e., "using HTML and UBBCode" or "using HTML" if you aren't going to use both.

Pilgrim,

I've heard the arguement before that if it's a sign then it must absolutely exist.

1. As a CB I would disagree for the same reason that communion is a sign, is only allowed for believers, yet some may be decieved when they partake. The same can apply to baptism as a new covenant sign. The aposltes in Acts are only and always baptizing those who believe, thus we can, even if we baptize one who later walks away from the faith since Scripture does teach that our faith can be in vain. Bottom line is we use the sign the best we can.

2. Even the PB has this same problem because even when you baptize an adult you don't know for certain if he's an apostate or not. The problem goes both ways.

Those are two major reasons I don't see that as a very good argument.

Cameron

Just so you know, I am NOT going to get into yet another debate over baptism. I'm far too educated on the subject and now in my old age far too wise to even bother.

Baptism and the Lord's Table are two entirely different sacraments and thus your analogy falls on its face. And trust me, you didn't really comprehend what I wrote given your reply.

As I noted above, you don't get it.... ! PBs don't define baptism based upon a subjective criteria but rather an objective criteria. Thus "this same problem" is totally irrelevant and your argument is mute.

The majority of members here are Credo Baptists and we get along just dandy. IF <--- (notice the IF?) you want to push this subject which will doubtless cause an unwanted reaction from both sides here, you may find yourself standing alone. Most of us are quite aware of our differences and most have resolved to not make it a matter of breaking fellowship. I respect that mutuality among us, even treasure it and will not allow it to be jeopardized... if you catch my drift, Snowbank?

So, just keep on baptizing adults and I'll keep on baptizing adults and their children and encouraging them to impress upon them that they need to get right with God through a Spirit-wrought repentance and Spirit-wrought faith in the Lord Christ resulting in living a life of holiness to the glory of God.

Peace!

Pilgrim,

Just so you know, I am NOT going to get into yet another debate over baptism. I'm far too educated on the subject and now in my old age far too wise to even bother.

I don't plan on debating either. 1. I don't have time. 2. Don't think it's that pressing of an issue. So far your replies have been longer than mine. I'm just stating my opinions, not getting in-depth. You started by giving your opinions. I'm going to layout some of mine.

Baptism and the Lord's Table are two entirely different sacraments and thus your analogy falls on its face.

I don't believe that just because they're different that implies my analogy falls on its face. Just saying that doesn't make it so.

And trust me, you didn't really comprehend what I wrote given your reply. As I noted above, you don't get it.... ! rolleyes2 PBs don't define baptism based upon a subjective criteria but rather an objective criteria. Thus "this same problem" is totally irrelevant and your argument is mute.

Yes and no, and it depends on which PB view. CB define it on objective material too. It's not either/or, but both/and. And it becomes the same problem when it comes to adults for some PB (those holding to presumptive regeneration). Your rolling eyes make you come across just as obnoxious as James White. You may mean it in a joking way, but if I were talking about this with you in person and you did that it wouldn't go to good! These things can be discussed and opinions can be shared respectfully without those type of armchair reactions. The Charasmatics are spiritually prideful and the Reformed are intellectually prideful. Cameron

Hey Cam,

Unlike Pilgrim, I'm neither too old nor too well versed in this subject. So I enjoy talking about it, especially to others who hold different positions then I do.

Your original question about SolaFide and the Catholic Church's doctrine of Baptism is a really great question.

How is it that the Early Church who might have held dearly to faith in Christ alone; made the sacraments of the Church necessary and essential?

Again, I do believe that the Early Church were all over the place, but it's still a good question for us in the present age.

I was involved in a discussion about this very topic in a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod a few months ago.

All of the conservative Lutherans there held to their belief's on baptismal regeneration. With the conservative Lutherans, they do believe in "both" sacraments as being a "salvific" means of grace. i.e., all those who continue to participate in the Church's sacraments are receiving justifying grace.

This is also the position of the Catholic Church of course.... how is one assured of their salvation? If one stays near to the Church.

I for one have to reject this completely though as I see this as works righteousness.

For my personally, there is absolutely no justifying or saving grace in the receiving of the elements and or the dunking or sprinkling of the water in a physical way. I say physical meaning that it isn't "if I do this, I will be saved"

Now I'm not saying that these can't be a means of grace spiritually, God certainly does use these, but not in a guaranteed, if you do this you will be saved way. But in a God's Spirit works through these means when and where He will, but only when and where He will in a completely monorgistic, sovereign way.

Does that make sense?

Anyway.... I'm not a Theologian by any means, I'm just a simple layman. Most of what I say comes from my own understanding of Scripture and not from the writings of the great Reformers.

But for me; first off, one of the things that I like to point out to myself in our Church age is that most Protestant Church's are not operating the way I believe they should be.

I for one believe that the Protestant Church in many ways "should" be more like the Catholic Church was a hundred or so years back.

In other words, it's pretty clear to me through Scripture and through the early Church Fathers, especially like Ignatius of Antioch that the Visible Church should be the Lords visible Church here on earth.

I'm not sure how the WCF would state this, I'm just sharing here.

But in other words, "believers" or Christian disciples or anyone who like the Ethiopian Eunuch or the Jailor who desires to "be saved" should desire to enter into the visible Church and it should be the visible Church where one who truly desires to "stay in covenant and in grace" with God want to remain.

So, if the Visible Church admonishes someone, they will have to seriously consider their reaction of either disobedience and possible excommunication from the visible Church or their acceptance and repentance to therein remain in the visible Church.

Anyway, I say all of that to say that if our modern Protestant Church did operate in this way, and maybe some reformed churches still do, I don't know, there is none in my area that do; then the Sacraments would be, in my opinion, be much more easily seen and accepted as covenant actions.

Anyway, that's kind of how I see it.

What frustrates me is that I had a chance to move my family into a reformed church and I did but there was no discipline. I being the head of "my household" should have been supported by the Church in the teaching, instructing and admonition of the "rest" of my family, but that didn't happen. So eventually, in order to keep peace within my family, I had to leave that "reformed church" because they didn't do anything and when I told them I was planning on leaving they just smiled, waved and said ok dokey, good luck and if you change your mind your more then welcome to come back! Of course there were many in that church who didn't even believe in the infallibility of the Word of God, yet they professed to be a reformed church.

The point I guess I'm trying to make here is that I personally believe that while the sacraments are not a physical means of justifying grace in a physical way, I do believe that are absolutely necessary for our sanctification.

Dave