Did the ECF teach baptismal regeneration or is is simply a confusion over language?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

According to different sources I have read there were various teachings. The need to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin was one unbiblical teaching as well as baptismal regeneration.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

It depends on whose side one puts them on. Those who deny BR will find quotes supporting their position and those who believe in br will do the same. All in all they did believe in br....

__________________
N. Robert; Trinity Reformed Church RCA, Holland MI

Once in a while you can get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

The early church fathers certainly believed in baptismal regeneration. It can be argued that the reformed churches did too (although their doctrine of baptismal regeneration differed significantly from Rome). Cornelius Burgess, one of the assessors at the Westminster Assembly, and the convener of the committee that wrote the confession's chapter on baptism, argued this is his book entitled "Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, According to the Scriptures, the Primitive Church, the Present Reformed Churches, and Many Particular Divines Apart". (The nice thing about long titles is that you can see the outline of the entire book in them.)

Cornelius Burgess, one of the most prominent and respected divines at Westminster, would probably be considered unorthodox (if not heretical) in most confessional Presbyterian churches today because of his view of baptismal efficacy.

I'm considering republishing his book. As far as I know its been out of print since 1629 and is only available in a PDF image of the original (part of Early English Books collection). If anyone is interested in a reprint, please contact me.

Dear AV,

The general consensus in ECF scholarship is that baptismal regeneration was universally believed. The great proof text was John 3:5 "unless one is born of water and spirit". A good summary is found in the work of J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines. He is fairly reliable.

Of course, not all ECF speak about it. However, when they do they are pretty clear. The first occurrence of the teaching is found in Barnabas. The first extended treatment is that of Justin Martyr.

You won't find any of the ECF saying that baptism is simply a sign alone. Protestants have been reading the ECF for years and haven't found anything convincing (especially when put in their context).

As far as I can find it the first people to say that baptism doesn't actually save you (from sin) were people like Walter Brute and his Lollard counterparts. This was the early 1400s.

It's an uncomfortable truth we just have to accept.

God bless bro.

__________________
Marty
Minister / Theological Educator
Anglican Church of Australia
(On Sabbatical) Cambridge, UK.
"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Thanks for the responses thus far. Is it possible to determine whether they held to an ex opere operato view of baptismal efficacy, i.e. disounting "worthy reception" (by/through faith)? From my reading of St. Augustine he would hold that baptism takes away original sin. That poses the question in my mind, is Augustine saying that the water does that or that the Spirit of God does that through the water.

Are we able to determine what the ECF meant by "regeneration". Calvin understood it to be lifelong if I am not mistaken.

My biggest problem with saying tha baptism regenerates is the even if it were true then that must mean circumcision regenerated in the OT but then what did before Genesis 17?

Random thoughts, I know, but I need to get back to my essay.

There are a few more things to consider when reading the ECFs on the topic. 1. They were all too often influenced by Neo-Platonism's belief that what men do on the earth is mirrored by the gods (or God in Xity) in heaven. 2. They applied two issues from Acts 2, via their incipient Platonism, to the efficacy of baptism. 3. Those twin issues are remission (forgiveness) and regeneration. So, early on there were two efficacies enjoined to the act of baptism: that it regenerated and/or that it brought forgiveness. The remission can be incomplete or complete. Constantine put off baptism until late in life so he could have a plenary forgiveness, even though baptized by a heretic (the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia). Augustine seems to have taught that baptism washed away the effects of original sin.

Have you ever read Stander & Louw's "Baptism in the Early Church?"

Mike

__________________
Mike Renihan
~Pastor, Heritage Baptist Church, Worcester, MA, ARBCA
~Executive Director, Mission::Ireland, "Bringing the Reformation to the Emerald Isle one book at a time."
~Professor, Worcester State College, Dept. of History & Political Science
~Publisher, B & R Press, Auburn, MA
"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend; inside of a dog, its too dark to read." --Groucho

Calvin used the term regeneration differently than we do today. When you read Calvin he includes the effectual call, justification and sanctification when he talks about regeneration. It was the latter reformers that started to make the various distinctions. In fact in the Standards, the effectual call is synonomous with regeneration.

__________________
~Wayne Wylie~
Member, Mid Cities Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Ruling Elder - Inactive
http://www.mcopc.org
Bedford, TX

Job 28:28 - And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Who were right?

I would say that none of them were wrong it was just the definitions that were in use at the time. Hodge makes note of this in his Systematic. IMHO, as the Reformed faith grew, the latter reformers became more precise in their use of terms as the situation dictated. The same can be said of covenant theology. We can see the foundations of covenant theology in the ECF and have seen continued refinement up through today.

How folks in the past used certain terms may end up being quite different than how we use them today. That is why we need to be very careful not to read 21st century terminology and ideas back into 16th and 17th century mindsets. The previous comments about Burgess is an example. I have heard this before about Burgess but there are those who would dispute that he believed in BR. In fact some in the Reformed faith have tried to use Burgess and his comments as leverage to prove that the Standards teach BR or at least allows for it, which it doesn't.

Not only this, but it is important to bear in mind that when the Reformers used the term, they weren't talking about the mere application of water, but the entire sacrament: the sign, the thing signified, and the sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. In other words, none of the Reformers divorced the sign from the thing signified. Furthermore, Calvin at least was quite careful to say that without faith and the Holy Spirit's regenerating power, you didn't have the complete sacrament.

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Here goes...



Burgess believed in baptismal regeneration. That much is absolutely not disputable. Read him for yourself:
http://www.trinity-pres.net/essays/h...es-baptism.pdf

I would say that the WCF teaches a form of baptismal regeneration similar (if not identical) to Burgess. That shouldn't be surprising considering Burgess' role in drafting the chapter on baptism. The confession speaks about the efficacy of baptism, and it asserts that the grace offered is *really conferred*. That's pretty clear to me. True it makes a few statements to clarify various aspects about the efficacy of baptism. (E.g. its possible to be saved without being baptized etc.) Of course, if the confession taught what the majority today claim, those clarifying statements wouldn't be necessary. They could simple have said: baptism has no efficacy, and they would have been done with the matter. When they say that "grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to it . . .", what they are clearly implying is that yes, grace and salvation are annexed to it, but that they are not absolutely inseparable. Had they believed as many of us do, that statement would have been completely unnecessary. There's no need to spell out the exceptions to a rule unless you first accept the rule. The rule in this case being the efficacy of baptism.

I do think the confession is very clear about baptismal efficacy and leaves little room for the sacramentalism which is so popular today.

If this is what the word 'baptism' means, (the sign, the thing signified, the union between the two) then we all believe in baptismal regeneration, right?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

Can you explain this a little more?

In other words, the confession clearly teaches that through baptism the Holy Ghost "really confers" the grace promised. The grace promised it defines to include remission of sins and regeneration (among others).

Perhaps that confusion lies with my using the word Sacramentalism to describe the prevalent view today. This word has undergone a curious inversion of its definition. It once referred to people who held to a very low view of the efficacy of the sacraments (thats the way I was using it and the way Burgess uses it). Now its often used in exactly the opposite sense.

In any case, I think the majority today (as I perceive it anyway) are out of step with what the confession actually says.

HTH

__________________
John
Member, RPCNA
Atlanta, GA

[quote=onemaster;373489]Pardon Emoi, but this sounds like FV clap trap. Trinity Pres is part of the FV gulag (see Trinity Presbyterian Church ~ Birmingham, Alabama).

Mr. Moderator, would you please remind this man of the agreement he took upon entering the Puritan Board?

Cheers,

__________________
Adam Brink, Livermore, California
Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA

He who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.

Sir,

Cornellius Burgess was an assessor at the Westminster Assembly. The fact that the PDF of one of his most famous books happens to be hosted on a website associated with a FV man is completely irrelevant to the contents of that book (which is what we are discussing). Doctor Burgess predated the FV movement by nearly four centuries. I assure you he was not involved with it in any way.

I'd be willing to put the book on a different server if that would make you feel better about it.

I think I would put it this way (a bit tentatively): if the sign and the thing signified are both present, then regeneration has occurred. Or, if the thing signified is present without the sign being present, then regeneration has occurred. For the thing signified is the cleansing of sin by the blood of Jesus. Of course, for that to happen, God-given faith must be present. The problem here is that baptismal regeneration has only negative connotations in today's evangelical circles. Therefore, I don't really like using the term. The bare rite of baptism does not confer regeneration. Only the thing signified does that. Baptism as a sign is a sign of that. It says, "regeneration is in Christ. Go that way." Of course, if we go that way, it is only because the Holy Spirit has directed us in that way. Hopefully, this hasn't confused any of the issues.

Hello All,

Just to clear up what the Confession says, instead of just guessing:

So, there are a few points to be made. First, this comes in the context of the broader sacramentology of the WA:

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither does the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that does administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Sacramental efficacy is a three-legged stool. First, we're told what the legs of the stool ARE NOT: (1) the sacrament itself has no power, (2) the minister who administers it has no power. Then we are told what those legs ARE: (1) God's divine, sovereign work by the Spirit "the work of the Spirit", (2) The Word of God's explanation of the gospel "the word of institution" and the "precept authorizing the use thereof," and "a promise of benefit", and (3) The subjective response: it being "rightly used", and the promise being made to "worthy receivers".

Now to the section on Baptism:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

Notice, this merely states the intention of baptism; that is, what it is "to be" to everyone who receives it. This DOES NOT say what "IT IS" to everyone who receives it. Recall the point above about "worthy receivers" and "rightly receiving".

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

The element and the lawful calling of the administrator.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

We're not baptists.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

Our children are holy.

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Two errors are rejected: one is that of reducing the Holy Spirit to the church's servant. The wind blows where it wills. Not all who receive baptism are undoubtedly regenerated (Chrysostome's view). The other error rejected is that a person must be baptized to be saved (Augustine's view). None of the errorists are named (as, if I'm not mistaken, they never are by the Assembly), but their errors are repudiated.

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.

Again, baptism is a three-legged stool: The "right use", the "conferring by the Holy Ghost" and the "counsel of God" in "His time" (the third leg of Scripture being mentioned above as the "word of institution"). Notice again, only those predestinated unto life according to God's counsel enjoy the actual conferrence of grace by God's Spirit.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.

Again, rejecting anabaptism.



Cheers,