Saturday, June 15, 2019

J.V. Fesko on Early Christians teaching Baptismal Regeneration


In his book on the Reformed Presbyterian understanding of water baptism, J.V. Fesko, while himself rejecting baptismal regeneration, admitted that the earliest Christian sources outside the New Testament affirmed baptismal regeneration. For instance, while commenting on the Shepherd of Hermas, Fesko wrote:

The Shepherd of Hermas, which probably dates from the early to middle second century, is a series of visions, followed by twelve commandments and ten parables, purportedly written by one Hermas. In the ninth parable, the longest, the author receives a vision of a tower made of stones, which is supposed to be imagery representing the church, consisting of the faithful. In this parable, the author makes a number of statements concerning baptism. In particular, he writes: “Before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God” (Similitude 9.16).

It appears from this statement that the author ascribes certain consequences to baptism that are not found in Scriptures. In particular, this statement appears to echo Paul’s teaching in Romans 6, the idea of being buried with Christ in baptism and being raised with him to walk in newness of life (Rom. 6:3-4). Yet, there is a significant difference between Hermas and Paul. The apostle attributes saving efficacy not to the water but to the believer’s union with Christ (Rom. 6:5). Bu contrast, Hermas states that when a person descends into the waters of baptism, he arises alive. In other words, saving efficacy is tied to the water of baptism. (J.V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Reformation Heritage Press, 2010], 17, emphasis added)

On Justin Martyr, we read:

One of his most famous works is his First Apology, in which he defends the Christian faith and addresses a number of theological topics, including baptism. In this brief chapter (as in the Didache), Justin explains that when a person is persuaded of the Christian faith, he is to fast, pray, and seek God for the forgiveness of his sins. Once this is completed, the candidate is then baptized: “Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water” (The First Apology, § 61). There is a clear connection between the water and regeneration. In support of this claim, Justin cites John 3:5 and Isaiah 1:16-20, passages that speak of new birth and the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, in water baptism, a person is illuminated in his understanding and obtains the remission of sins (First Apology, § 61). (Ibid., 18, emphasis added)

Finally, when commenting on Tertullian’s theology of water baptism in his book, On Baptism, Fesko notes:

Tertullian begins his treatise by explaining why God chose water as a vehicle of divine operation. He argues that waster was one of the shapeless substances with which God originally created the world (§ 3). It should come as no surprise, then, that Tertullian argues that the waters of the primeval creation typify baptism, though he also identifies the Red Sea crossing and the water that flowed from the rock as other types (§ 9). In addition, he states that God used water and made it a channel of sanctification in that the outward sign resembled the inward grace that was communicated in this rite. Combining the ideas of the waters of creation and baptism, Tertullian writes:

All the waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying.

Tertullian goes on to explain, “Therefore, after the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue through the intervention of the angel, the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed” (§ 10).

From these statements it is apparent that, for Tertullian, God through the Holy Spirit uses the water of baptism as an instrumental means of cleansing a person from his sin. (Ibid., 18-19, emphasis added).

Fesko is wrong about Romans 6 (according to Paul, water baptism is the instrumental means of receiving a remission of sins), something other Reformed apologists are forced to admit based on the exegetical evidence (e.g., see Tony Costa on Baptism and the Resurrection), one appreciates his admission that The Shepherd of Hermas teaches baptismal regeneration (on Rom 6, see the discussion of the passage at Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer)

Fesko elsewhere notes that even according to Zwingli who also rejected baptismal regeneration, the patristic witness, as seen in the interpretation of John 3:5, taught the doctrine:

In terms of justification by faith alone, Zwingli believed that the church fathers erred in their exegesis of John 3:5. Zwingli states, “These doctors thought that by water he meant material water, and consequently they ascribed more to the water than was justified” (Of Baptism, 154). One of the points that Zwingli reiterates throughout his treatise on baptism is that material water cannot give birth to anything but material things: “Material water cannot contribute in any way to the cleansing of the soul” (Of Baptism, 154). (Ibid., 60-61).

Zwingli’s reasoning against baptismal regeneration and the patristic witness is nothing but support for a form of Gnosticism—a disdain of God using material instruments to bring out his saving purposes. Let us not forget that God, through the perfect life and obedience, as well as the bodily sufferings of Jesus, wrought an infinite atonement. Furthermore, this implicit Gnosticism is often part-and-parcel of much of Protestantism. For a book-length discussion, see:

Philip J. Lee, Against the Protestant Gnostics (Oxford University Press)

As Catholic apologist Karl Keating noted about the implicit Gnostic (and docetic) sensibilities in the common Protestant rejection of ordinances (in Catholicism, the sacraments):

The fundamentalists' problem is that theirs is a religion almost entirely lacking in the mysterious. More precisely, they readily acknowledge only those mysteries that are purely spiritual, such as the Trinity. They know the doctrine of the Trinity has been revealed, that something about the Trinity can be known, that certain deductions can be drawn from what is known; and they realize the essence of the Trinity lies beyond human comprehension, and they are happy to leave it at that. When it comes to mysteries that involve the mixing of spirit and matter, a kind of Docetism shows.

For fundamentalists, the sacraments are out because they necessitate a spiritual reality, grace, being conveyed by means of matter. This seems a violation of the divine plan. Matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided, and in this lies the unease with which they view the Incarnation. One suspects that, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to effect mankind's salvation, they would have advised him to adopt an approach that would have appealed to Mary Baker Eddy. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988], 244)

 On John 3 itself, see:


Another important article I have written on this topic is: