Joe Heschmeyer (Catholic) on Tertullian's Theology of Water Baptism vs. Timothy Kauffman (Baptist/Critic of Baptismal Regeneration)

  

How Might a Protestant Respond?

 

Broadly speaking, Protestants who reject baptismal regeneration handle the evidence of early Christianity in one of two ways: by arguing that the early Christians (or at least the earliest of those early Christians) don’t really believe in baptismal regeneration, despite what they appear to say, or by arguing that the early Christians were all wrong.

 

In this first category, Timothy Kauffman at White Horse Blog maintains, despite all of the above evidence and much more, that “the early Church did not teach baptismal regeneration” (Timothy Kauffman “That He Might Purify the Water, part 1,” White Horse Blog, August 17, 2014, available at whitehorseblog.com). He takes a text like Barnabas saying “that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit (Ibid.) and comes away claiming that Barnabas actually “understood that eternal life comes by faith, and faith comes by the preaching of the word, and it is they who have already received eternal life by faith in the preached word who ‘go down into the water,’” even though Barnabas explicitly describes trust in Jesus as following (rather than causing) baptism. He’s doing this not because the texts themselves, or the scholarship analyzing them, point in this direction. Neither does. He’s doing this because he’s committed to the belief that “Roman Catholicism was formed out of a great apostasy that took place in the late 4th century” (Ibid.). He simply cannot concede that the Christians of the first centuries believe what Catholics today believe about baptism because his theological biases don’t allow it.

 

The most egregious example of Kauffman’s treatment of early Christian sources is Tertullian (c. 155-220). Slightly after the pre-200 period we’re looking at, Tertullian writes an entire treatise on baptism, called On Baptism. Kauffman even admits that “Tertullian spends twenty chapters defending the merits of baptism, its divine origin, the significance of the water, the power to sanctify, remit sins, grant life and secure eternal salvation’” (Timothy Kauffman, “That He Might Purify the Water, Part 3,” White Horse Blog, August 31, 2014, available at whitehorseblog.com). It almost seems as if Kauffman will have to give up his presupposition. But Tertullian also describes martyrdom as “a second font” of baptism (Tertullian, On Baptism 16, ANF 3:677). He actually has a good argument for it: when Jesus says, “I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!” (Luke 12:50), he's referencing not water baptism (which he had already undergone), but his upcoming death on the cross. And so Tertullian explains that “this is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost” (Ibid.). At the time Tertullian is writing, those who wanted to enter the Church underwent a three-year catechumenate before being baptized, (See Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, book 2, ch. 18, ANF 2:368) and Christianity was often persecuted, and so the idea of an unbaptized martyr isn’t as strange as it may sound. Tertullian’s point is basically, don’t worry: the martyr who died without baptism is still saved through this “second font.” Likewise, the baptized martyr will find in martyrdom a restoration to the spiritual purity that he possessed on the day of his (water) baptism.

 

But that’s not how Kauffman reads things. He claims that Tertullian “states plainly that the baptism of blood is that of faith in the cross.” He doesn’t, and it would make no sense to read Luke 12:50 as a way of saying Jesus was preparing himself to have “faith in the cross.” But on the basis of misreading this one passage in Tertullian’s treatise, Kauffman throws out the rest, saying, “Tertullian is tipping his hand, and showing that his own soaring rhetoric is hyperbolic, and he hints at this conviction (which he elsewhere states explicitly) that the water of the baptismal font is merely a signification of the actual baptism that takes place in the heart” (Kauffman, “That He Might Purify the Water, Part 3”). But no such thing is occurring. Indeed, Tertullian devotes several chapters of his treatise to responding to the objection “how foolish and impossible it is to be formed anew by water. In what respect, pray, has this material substance merited an office of so high dignity?” (Tertullian, On Baptism 3, ANF 3:670) He does this, among other ways, by pointing to the Spirit hovering of the waters (Gen. 1:2) as a prefigurement of baptism and the washing in the pool of Siloam as an instance in which “the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed” (that is, in which spiritual cleaning happened through bodily washing) (Tertullian, On Baptism 5, ANF 3:670-71). None of these answers makes sense if Tertullian’s real response is that “the water of the baptismal font is merely a signification of the actual baptism that takes place in the heart.”

 

I mention this incident because it’s egregious. If an author had left behind a few words on baptism, reasonable people could certainly disagree over what those words meant. But Kauffman isn’t even trying to understand Tertullian, or the twenty chapters he devotes to baptismal theology, which read nothing like what a Baptist would write. Instead, he isolates a passage, reinterprets it contrary to how everyone else reads it, and uses his own novel interpretation to write off the rest as metaphor. That’s just not serious work, or good-faith exegesis, and it suggests that there’s literally no amount of evidence that Kauffman (and those playing a similar game) won’t simply wave away as a metaphor for faith. (Joe Heschmeyer, The Early Church was the Catholic Church: The Catholic Witness of the Fathers in Christianity’s First Two Centuries [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2021], 55-58)

 

Further Reading

 

David Waltz, Baptismal regeneration and the early Church Fathers: introduction and Justin Martyr

 

Idem, Baptismal regeneration and the early Church Fathers: Tertullian

 

Idem, Timothy Kauffman on baptismal regeneration and the early Church Fathers: my critical examination continues

 

See my book (*), “Born of Water and of the Spirit”: The Biblical Evidence for Baptismal Regeneration (2021) for a full-length discussion of the biblical evidence for this doctrine (as well as responses to common "proof-texts" against it, such as Eph 2:8-10 and 1 Cor 1:17)

(*) for those who want a free PDF of this book, email me at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom)

How Adherence to Sola Scriptura Results in Protestant Apologists Engaging in Deceptive Tactics to Avoid Difficult Texts

  

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness . . . For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busy-bodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.

2 Thessalonians 3:6a, 10-12

 

This charge was made openly to the men of Thessalonica and the apostle even went on to say, “if anyone does not what we say in this letter, take note of that person, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed” (v. 14). (Jeremy Howard, You’re the Husband: A Blueprint For Leading in Marriage [Greenville, S.C.: Ambassador International, 2017], 46)

 

One will notice ellipsis (“…”) in the quote from 2 Thess 3. Here is the rest of the verse:

 

and not in accord with the tradition (παράδοσις) that you received from us.

 

So in reality, Paul was not teaching “if anyone does not what we say in this letter” merely but also his (inspired) oral teaching, too, which elsewhere he described as “the word of God” and on the same level of authority as inscripturated revelation:

 

And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers. (1 Thess 2:13 ESV)

 

So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thess 2:15 ESV)

 

On the topic of inspired (oral) revelation, one I am fond of using is that of 2 Chron 29:25 and 35:4, which read thusly:

 

And he [King Hezekiah] set the Levites in the house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the commandment of the Lord by his prophets. (2 Chron 29:25)

 

And prepare yourselves by the houses of your fathers, after your courses, according to the writing of David king of Israel, and according to the writing of Solomon his son. (2 Chron 35:4)

 

With respect to the first text, we learn the following: (1) David, Gad, and Nathan were dead for about 250 years at this point; however, (2) they passed on a "command . . . from the Lord" which was prescribed by God's prophets on how worship to be conducted in the temple (hardly a minor issue; the worship of God is a central issue in theology) and (3) such a prescription and commandment is nowhere found in the entirety of the Bible and yet Hezekiah regarded them as authoritative and binding. And before anyone brings up Mark 7/Matt 15 and the Korban rule, note that a Protestant who uses this “argument” is shooting themselves in the foot. Consider:

 

If Jesus had taught that Scripture had a higher authority than tradition, this would mean Jesus’ own words, which existed as an oral tradition after his Ascension, would have had less authority than Scripture. Whenever the first Christians said that the Lord Jesus “declared all foods clean” (Mk 7:19), the Jews could have used Jesus’ own words against them by saying Jesus’ oral tradition was less authoritative than the Old Testament’s written kosher laws. The words Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry that we have received through Scripture, as well as the words he spoke to the apostles that they transmitted to the Church through Sacred Tradition, both represent and word of God and are equal in authority. (Trent Horn, The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017], 43; for more on the Korban rule and Sola Scriptura itself, see Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura)

 

Protestantism forces her apologists and pastors to engage in blatant deception to support her pernicious doctrines. It is funny that they use the term “cult” and “cultists” against Latter-day Saints: functionally this butchering of Paul’s words is nothing short of cultic.

Editing a Book to Explicate Reformed Theology Concerning God's Decree

In chapter 3 paragraph 1 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, we read that

 

God hath decreed in himself, from all eternity, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, all things, whatsoever comes to pass

 

Elsewhere, in paragraph 2 we read that

 

Although God knoweth whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions, yet hath He not decreed anything, because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

 

With that in mind, let us make some appropriate edits to comments found in Jeremy Howard, You’re the Husband: A Blueprint For Leading in Marriage (Greenville, S.C.: Ambassador International, 2017)

 

Page 21:

 

Despite mankind’s fallen condition, wired into the hearts and minds of every human being is the ability to live out “common grace”—God’s way of keeping everyone form killing each other. Men who are civil and do the right thing when it’s expected or needed are not extraordinary—they’re simply human. But God has not called men to be mere humans. God created all men as humans, yet He calls them to be exceptional, extraordinary, and exemplary. Unfortunately, this concept is completely lost on a huge population of young men in our modern society. Because God, in his secret will, decreed infallibly that such would come to pass

 

Page 23:

 

David was sinful, he did sinful things, and he tried to hide his sin. Though he had great status and rank in the eyes of men, in the eyes of God he was being very childish and selfish Because God, in his secret will, decreed infallibly that such would come to pass

 

Page 42:

 

Mankind has always existed in a helpless state. Because of the sin that exists in every individual and the evil that is propagated by the world as a whole, men (and women) are unable to help themselves to be better. Because God, in his secret will, decreed infallibly that such would come to pass

 

Page 54:

 

Eve’s gullibility in the Garden was the proof for the points Paul made in his letters that were written thousands of years later. As God’s first-designed humans, men are called to be responsible spiritual leaders and women are their help-mates. This is what the Lord wanted from the very beginning (cf. Gen. 2:20); however both Adam and Eve failed to fulfill their spiritual duties in Genesis 3. Adam was not behaving as a passionate spiritual teacher in his union with Eve, as was evidenced by the ease with which Satan deceived her. Because God, in his secret will, decreed infallibly that such would come to pass

 

Page 60

 

Adam’s issues were traced back to his heart and his eyes. Because God, in his secret will, decreed infallibly that such would come to pass

 

Further Reading

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

David Schrock (Reformed) on the Unevangelized

  

Second, not all men hear the message. If the egalitarian view of the cross is correct, it raises the problem of the man on the island. Did Jesus really die and make complete provision for the sons of all men, and then neglect to send His Spirit to give them the news? In Ancient Israel, the priests not only atoned for sin, they were sent out to teach Israel how to walk in holiness (Leviticus 10:11). What kind of priest procures atonement and fails to communicate the message? It is better to trust the character of God, and believe His word that says from before the foundation of the world He predestined His elect in Christ to reach final salvation (Ephesians 1:3-6), and then to observe that as the sovereign Lord of history. He marked out the time and places of all people (Acts 17:26), and brought the message to all His sheep (John 10:16). (David Schrock, “Jesus Saves, No Asterisk Needed: Why Preaching the Gospel As Good News Requires Definite Atonement,” in Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy, ed. Matthew Barrett and Thomas J. Nettles [Cape Carol, Fla.: Founders Press, 2012], 115)

 

Many egalitarians, especially modified Calvinists who adhere to unconditional election, believe that they have protected God from the charge of unfairness by advocating a universal atonement. But the real problem remains, just in a different place. The doctrine of unconditional election is the real source of contention for people who want to charge God with unfairness. Ironically, by rejecting particular redemption, but maintaining a Reformed view of election, God’s ‘election process’ looks even more arbitrary. The Son dies for the salvation of all, but the Father and the Spirit respectively elect and regenerate some. How is that fair? How is that just? Clearly, if the doctrine of election stands biblically, there is no real apologetic benefit to making the cross of Christ universally atoning. Modified Calvinists are too optimistic that their view of Christ’s general atonement will help remove the offense of God’s particular election. (Ibid., 116)

 

Thomas R. Schreiner (Reformed) on αδοκιμος Always Denoting Someone Who Does Not Belong to God

 Thomas R. Schreiner, a defender of the Perseverance of the Saints, wrote that

 

Biblical writers recognized that there were some within the church who were not truly believers. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 11:19 that “There must, indeed, be factions among you, so that those who are approved may be recognized among you.” The word “approved” (δοκιμοι) signifies those who are truly saved in the church, and Paul implies that there are “unapproved” (αδοκιμοι) people in the church. The word “unapproved” (αδοκιμοι) in Paul always refers to unbelievers (cf. 2 Corinthians 13:5, 6, 7; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:16). Those who apostatize were not elected to salvation; they are the “unapproved,” who never belonged to God from the beginning. (Thomas R. Schreiner, “Promises of Preservation And Exhortations to Perseverance,” in Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy, ed. Matthew Barrett and Thomas J. Nettles [Cape Carol, Fla.: Founders Press, 2012], 210, emphasis added)

 

The problem for Schreiner et al., is that Paul himself warned he himself could become αδοκιμος (“reprobate”) in 1 Cor 9:24-27, a term which Schreiner acknowledges refers to someone who does not belong to God:

 

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air; but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified (αδοκιμος). (1 Cor 9:24-27 NASB)

 

For more on this pericope, see:

Craig Blomberg on 1 Corinthians 9:24-27 and the "Perseverance of the Saints" (cf. An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology)

Thomas R. Schreiner (Reformed) Refuting Various Apologetic Arguments Used by Defenders of Eternal Security to Explain Hebrews 6

Reformed Protestant Thomas R. Schreiner, while a proponent of the Perseverance of the Saints, wrote the following about the warning passage in Heb 6 which refutes a lot of the common apologetic responses by defenders of various theologies of eternal security against those who believe a truly saved/justified person can lose their salvation:

 

The third warning text in Hebrews (5:11-6:12) is certainly the most famous. Since all other warning texts in Hebrews address Christians, as is evident by the use of second person plural (“you”) and first person plural (“we,” “us”) pronouns, it is unlikely that the author addresses a distinct group in chapter 6. They are described as “enlightened” (φωτισθεντας), and the same term is used to designate the Hebrews’ response to suffering when they first became believers in 10:32. The readers also “tasted the heavenly gift” (6:4) and “tasted God’s word and the powers of the coming age (6:5). Scholars differ on defining “the heavenly gift,” but it probably denotes salvation. The “word” refers to the gospel which was proclaimed and “the powers of the coming age” the fulfillment of salvation history with the death and resurrection of Christ. The key question for our purposes is whether the readers’ experience of these blessings was saving or partial. Did they just “sip” these blessings or did they ingest them fully? In other words, does the word “taste” signify something short of salvation or salvation itself? The only other use of the word “taste” (γευομαι) in Hebrews refers to Jesus tasting death for others (2:8). Clearly, Jesus did not merely “sip” death; He experienced it fully. The only evidence we have from Hebrews suggests, therefore, that the readers truly experienced salvation, the gospel, and the powers of the coming age.

 

The readers were also “partakers of the Holy Spirit” (6:4). Some understand this to refer to experiences with the Spirit short of salvation. But the word is used of companions (1:9), of those who share a heavenly calling (3:1), of those who share in Christ (3:14), and of legitimate children who receive discipline (12:8). The verb “share” (μετεχω) indicates that Jesus partook of flesh and blood like all other human beings (2:14), of partaking of milk (5:13), and of the tribe to which one belongs (7:13). In every case the word is used of a real and genuine sharing and partaking. In no instances does the term denote an incomplete or partial sharing. The most natural way to take the phrase is that the readers truly shared in the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is the sign that one is a believer. Those who don’t have the Spirit don’t belong to God (Romans 8:9). When Paul wanted to persuade the Galatians that they were already Christians and didn’t need to be circumcised, he reminded them that they received the Spirit when they believed (Galatians 3:1-5). Similarly, at the Apostolic Council Peter argued that circumcision was unnecessary by reminding those present that Cornelius and his friends received the Spirit without submitting to the rite (Acts 15:7-11). What it means to be a Christian is to receive God’s Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:16). It seems likely, therefore, that the author addresses his readers as Christians. (Thomas R. Schreiner, “Promises of Preservation And Exhortations to Perseverance,” in Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy, ed. Matthew Barrett and Thomas J. Nettles [Cape Carol, Fla.: Founders Press, 2012], 203-4, italics in original)

 

Further Reading

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Matthew M. Barrett: God (in his revealed, not secret) will and decree commands and desires all men without distinction to repent and believe the gospel

  

. . . many times the invitation of the gospel call takes on the form of a command. Consider the words of Jesus in Matthew 4:17, “From that time Jesus began to preach, saying, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Likewise, Paul says in Acts 17:30, “The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (emphasis added). Here again we see that God commands people everywhere to repent of their sins for a day of judgment is coming. What is important to note at this point is that these commands demonstrate it is man’s duty to repent and believe. In other words, regardless of whether or not man has the spiritual ability to repent and trust in Christ (which, as DeVine demonstrated, the sinner does not), nevertheless, it is still man’s duty to do so. Therefore, the indiscriminating preaching of the gospel is necessary. . . . God offers the gospel freely to both Jew and Gentile, promising salvation if they believe. Such an offer is consistent with God’s desire to see sinners repent and be saved. As Peter states, the Lord is patient towards sinners, “not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 2:9). Likewise, Paul tells Timothy that God our Savior “desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). Such passages as these reflect God’s will of disposition (not His decretive will) in which He not only offers salvation but desires that lost sinners repent and be saved. Many other passages could be considered (Ezekiel 18:23; 33:11; Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:34; 2 Corinthians 5:20; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9), but the point is clear: God desires that all people be saved, a desire which is manifested in His indiscriminate offer of the gospel to all people.

 

Therefore, the preaching of the gospel to all people comes out of a real, genuine desire to see all people repent and be saved (Numbers 23:19; Psalm 81:13-16; Proverbs 1:24; Isaiah 1:18-20; Ezekiel 18:23, 32; 33:11; Matthew 21:37; 2 Timothy 2:13). (Matthew M. Barrett, “The Scriptural Affirmation of Monergism,” in Whomever He Wills: A Surprising Display of Sovereign Mercy, ed. Matthew Barrett and Thomas J. Nettles [Cape Carol, Fla.: Founders Press, 2012], 123, 124, emphasis in bold added)

 

Further Reading

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology