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
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)
Another important article I have written on this topic is: