Steve Hays and I have been having a discussion with Bryan Cross on some subjects related to justification, including the role of baptism. The original thread at Bryan's blog is here. Steve recently commented on the thread here and here.
One of the issues raised in the discussion was also brought up by a Catholic poster here in another recent thread. If passages like John 3:5 and Galatians 3:27 aren't teaching justification through baptism, then why were such passages always interpreted in support of baptismal justification prior to the Reformation? Often, the person raising such an objection will mention the church fathers in particular. Why didn't they interpret passages like John 3:5 as Evangelicals commonly do today?
Several points should be kept in mind:
- Appealing to later sources you agree with doesn’t explain earlier sources for whom evidence has been offered of their disagreement with you. You can't justify your view of a passage like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, or Galatians 3:27 solely by appealing to what people like Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine believed.
- The Bible covers a far larger period of time than the patristic era does, and baptismal justification is highly inconsistent with the Biblical view. If I think I’ve misunderstood what a Biblical author says about justification, I can look for clarification elsewhere in his writings. If I think I’ve misunderstood that author, I can look to another Biblical author. Etc. Before we even get to the church fathers, we have multiple documents from multiple Biblical authors giving us information and clarification. For example, Galatians is widely thought to be the earliest New Testament document or one of the earliest. And Paul’s letters circulated widely early on and were highly regarded even before the apostolic generation came to a close (Colossians 4:16, 2 Peter 3:15-16, etc.). If somebody like Luke or John wrote fifteen, thirty, or more years after Galatians was written, then we can take what he wrote as an indication of how he interpreted Galatians or would have interpreted it if he’d read it (assuming apostolic unity, which conservative Catholics and Evangelicals do). It’s not as though we have to wait until the patristic era to get some idea of how a book like Galatians was being interpreted early on. A portion of the New Testament can be a line of evidence as to how another portion of the New Testament was being interpreted. What does Acts or the gospel of John, for example, suggest about how Galatians was interpreted early on? Or how do Paul's later letters suggest that an earlier letter, like Galatians, should be read?
- Advocates of baptismal justification often try to focus the discussion on post-apostolic sources by making the Biblical sources seem less relevant than they actually are. It's often asserted, for example, that justification apart from baptism in the Old Testament era is irrelevant, since baptism didn't become a requirement until later and, thus, there's some discontinuity between the Old and New Testament eras accordingly. But that conclusion needs to be argued, not just asserted. The New Testament authors suggest a high degree of continuity between the means of justification in the Old and New Testament eras. They cite Abraham and other Old Testament figures to illustrate how people are justified today. Bringing in baptism as a new means of receiving justification diminishes that continuity. Such a diminishing of continuity needs to be argued, not just asserted, since Biblical authors like Paul and James don't suggest such a qualified continuity when they discuss the subject.
- Similarly, John’s gospel emphasizes Jesus’ statements about salvation during His earthly ministry (John 3:16, 5:24, 11:25-26, etc.), and John tells us that he wrote his gospel to lead people to salvation (John 20:31), using language similar to Jesus’ language earlier in the gospel. Yet, advocates of baptismal justification often argue that baptism wasn’t added as a means of justification until after Jesus’ earthly ministry. Again, adding baptism diminishes the continuity suggested by the Biblical authors. A reason why many advocates of baptismal justification want to place the adding of baptism after Jesus’ earthly ministry is because that ministry was characterized by Jesus’ forgiving, pronouncing peace, and healing people upon their coming to faith, without baptism. See here. The discontinuity that advocates of baptismal justification want us to accept needs to be argued, not just asserted.
- Josephus tells us that John the Baptist’s baptism wasn't justificatory (Antiquities Of The Jews, 18:5:2). Given the close relationship between John's baptism and Christian baptism, the non-justificatory nature of John's baptism is a significant line of evidence for the non-justificatory nature of Christian baptism. And here we also see an example of the relevance of extra-Biblical sources other than the church fathers (Josephus in this case).
- Even if we limited ourselves to data postdating Jesus' earthly ministry and limited ourselves to Christian baptism, we're still told that justification occurs through believing response to the gospel, prior to baptism (Acts 10:44-46, 19:2, Galatians 3:2, etc.). And there's no reason to conclude that such passages represent exceptions to a rule.
- If the advocate of baptismal justification has to exempt the entire Old Testament era, exempt Jesus' earthly ministry, distance the non-justificatory nature of John's baptism from Christian baptism, and dismiss passages like Acts 10:44-46 as some sort of exception to the rule, then we're not in a situation in which we're looking to the church fathers and other later sources to clarify something that's unclear. Rather, the Biblical evidence heavily favors justification through faith alone. The reason why the advocate of baptismal justification wants to make a series of dubious exemptions (exempting the Old Testament era, etc.) and shift the focus to post-apostolic sources is because the earlier sources are so unfavorable to his position.
- We find a few views of baptism and justification, not just one view, in the patristic sources. The view that justification is normatively attained at the time of baptism was popular, and I consider that popularity the best argument for the doctrine. But we also find the view that justification occurs prior to baptism and views involving at least a beginning of justification prior to baptism. See here.
- When a source like Clement of Rome or Polycarp discusses justification without even mentioning baptism, any assumption that baptism was meant to be included must be argued, not merely asserted. Including baptism in such passages isn't the most natural way of reading the text. And it can't be assumed that such men must have agreed with other sources who advocated baptismal justification. Why not assume, instead, that they must have agreed with the rejection of baptismal justification that we see in other sources, including earlier ones? Clement of Rome could be read in light of Justin Martyr or Irenaeus, but he also could be read in light of Paul or Luke.
- We can know what people believed about baptismal justification by a variety of means, not just how they interpreted a passage like John 3:5 or Galatians 3:27. For example, if a Jehovah’s Witness were to interpret a passage in Isaiah in a manner that contradicts the deity of Christ, we wouldn’t need to have an extant document in which Athanasius comments on that passage in order to conclude that Athanasius probably didn’t view the passage as the Jehovah’s Witness does. Since Athanasius affirmed the deity of Christ, we would assume that he didn’t interpret the passage in Isaiah as the Jehovah’s Witness interprets it. Similarly, we wouldn’t judge whether a patristic source saw baptismal justification in Galatians 3:27 solely on the basis of what he said when commenting on that passage in particular. Since some Christian sources of the patristic era did reject baptismal justification, we can conclude that they probably didn’t see baptismal justification in Galatians 3 without having any documents from them in which they comment on that passage in particular.
- Much of what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe on other subjects was absent or widely contradicted in early church history. See here. There’s far better evidence for early belief in justification prior to baptism than there is for early belief in the papacy or the sinlessness of Mary, for example.
"Much of what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe on other subjects was absent or widely contradicted in early church history."
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be a Protestant if I didn't think otherwise.
Why?
ReplyDeleteEven RCs themselves have admitted so much that LITERAL water-baptism is not ALWAYS necessary for saving justification - that old-school Papist bigot Leonard Feeney indeed tried to push the RCC into rejecting "the baptism of blood" and "the baptism of desire" and failed...
ReplyDeleteSee here for some historical documentation by an anti-Feeney RC apologist - this can be interesting reading to Protestants as well:
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/currenterrors/bpdsir.htm
"In one of the most important statements on the subject, St. Augustine (City of God, XIII.7) has the following to say of the catechumens who were killed by the pagan Romans before receiving Baptism:
For whatever unbaptized persons die confessing Christ, this confession is of the same efficacy for the remission of sins as if they were washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For He Who said, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," made also an exception in their favor, in that other sentence where He no less absolutely said, "Whosever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven"; and in another place, "Whosoever will lose his life for my sake, shall find it.""
"The most famous early statement in favor of Baptism of desire is found in St. Ambrose's De obitue Valentiniani consolatio (funeral oration for Valentinian). Valentinian II (371-392) was the Roman emperor who had previously supported the Arian heretics. Having abandoned his erroneous beliefs, he invited St. Ambrose to Vienne to baptize him, but was assassinated there by one of his generals before this could be accomplished.
But I hear that you grieve since he [Valentinian] did not receive the sacrament of Baptism. Tell me, what else is in your power but the desire, the petition? But even for a long time he had this desire, that when he came into Italy, he should be baptized, and recently he made known that he wanted to be baptized by me, and so he thought I should be summoned for this reason, before other reasons. Surely because he asked, he received, and hence there is the Scripture: "The just man by whatsoever death he may be overtaken, his soul shall be at rest".... If [martyrs] are washed in their own blood, his devotedness and intention washed him."
If I thought the truth-claims of the RCC and the EOC were better (superior validity and soundness) than Reformation Protestantism I would be RC or EO.
ReplyDelete5 Solas, monergism, biblicist, grammatical-historical hermeneutic, inerrantist, non-evolutionist, complementarian, Two Greatest Commandments, Great Commission Bible-believing redeemed sinner and follower of Jesus Christ.
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
ReplyDelete"If I thought the truth-claims of the RCC and the EOC were better (superior validity and soundness) than Reformation Protestantism I would be RC or EO."
Yes, but in your initial comment you seemed to make the church fathers your standard of comparison.
Oh.
ReplyDeleteMy bad, then.
"It's often asserted, for example, that justification apart from baptism in the Old Testament era is irrelevant, since baptism didn't become a requirement until later and, thus, there's some discontinuity between the Old and New Testament eras accordingly. But that conclusion needs to be argued, not just asserted."
ReplyDeleteThis has been my experience as well when discussing the relationship between baptism and circumcision. Along the same lines as what you refer to, Jason, I've encountered several Catholics who have tried to pass off baptism as the instrument through which one enters the New Covenant, simultaneous to an insistent comparison of the functions of baptism and circumcision. I've yet to hear a compelling argument as to why baptism should not simply be the sign and seal of the covenant, just like circumcision (cf. Genesis 17).
- The Bible covers a far larger period of time than the patristic era does, and baptismal justification is highly inconsistent with the Biblical view.
ReplyDeleteThe vast majority of theologians who have ever taken up the matter including the holy fathers and ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church disagree with you.
If I think I’ve misunderstood what a Biblical author says about justification, I can look for clarification elsewhere in his writings. If I think I’ve misunderstood that author...
And none of that helps your contention that baptismal regeneration is unbiblical.
- Advocates of baptismal justification often try to focus the discussion on post-apostolic sources by making the Biblical sources seem less relevant than they actually are.
That is patently false. There is 2,000 years worth of biblical exegesis.
It's often asserted, for example, that justification apart from baptism in the Old Testament era is irrelevant, since baptism didn't become a requirement until later and, thus, there's some discontinuity between the Old and New Testament eras accordingly.
Again, false. Even Scott Hahn, who I've seen scoffed on this blog, writes extensively about this in several works.
But that conclusion needs to be argued, not just asserted.
A novel concept.
The New Testament authors suggest a high degree of continuity between the means of justification in the Old and New Testament eras...
Take up any one of the patristic sources on Baptism that came forth from the church and these objections and any other that you could conjure are addressed.
Since when is a veracity of a doctrine measured by whether Jason Engwer agrees with it anyway?
Augustine? Pshaw! Cyprian? Pshaw! As long as I am not convinced than it must not be biblical doctrine!
- Similarly, John’s gospel emphasizes Jesus’ statements about salvation during His earthly ministry ...
Again, reading the 2000 years of exegesis that you are pitting yourself against would be a good place to start on these questions.
- Josephus tells us that John the Baptist’s baptism wasn't justificatory...
Bait and switch don't you think? The Catholic Church agrees with Josephus here...that John's baptism was replaced by Jesus' baptism. Jesus' baptism was greater than John's.
- Even if we limited ourselves to data postdating Jesus' earthly ministry and limited ourselves to Christian baptism...
There are volumes of biblical data that support the orthodox Christian teaching on baptism. Acts record of Paul's conversion support it. Annias told Paul, "Why do you tarry? Arise be baptized and wash away your sins." Not, "Arise, be baptized. This is a symbol." Further, Ananias' phrase "wash away" comes from the Greek word "apolouo." "Apolouo" means an actual cleansing which removes sin.
Galatians 3:27 says that the baptized have put on Christ!
- If the advocate of baptismal justification has to exempt the entire Old Testament era..
Special pleading. The Church affirms that faith in the adult precedes baptism.
Rather, the Biblical evidence heavily favors justification through faith alone...
ReplyDeleteWell, this is the real reason why you are forced to reject the biblical and orthodox faith. Your paradigm does not allow baptism to be what scripture and tradition teach that baptism actually means. So you must close your eyes and put yourself out of the constant teaching of the church.
- We find a few views of baptism and justification, not just one view, in the patristic sources. ...
Well, Jason as you should know the Catholic and patristic teaching on justification is not that justification is a one time event.
- When a source like Clement of Rome or Polycarp discusses justification without even mentioning baptism....
This is a really sad attempt at arguing from silence. If you really approached reading the fathers by finding the very earliest sources and only accepting as orthodox what they explicitly mentioned that you surely wouldn't be a Presbyterian.
Even then, a simple reading of any of the earliest fathers only would leave you more Catholic than Presbyterian.
Justin Martyr: "As many as are persuaded and believe that what we Christians teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly . . . 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. For Christ also said, ‘Except you be born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ John 3:3" (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
AD 151. Justin Martyr quoting John 3 in support of Baptismal Regeneration.
AD 2010 (almost). Jason Engwer saying the opposite.
Not really a fair fight.
Seriously Jason. Take every doctrine that you hold dearly and approach the same fathers that you are clinging too based on silence and see if you can find your doctrines explicitly enough in them. If you are honest you'll have to jettison much of your faith.
The cherry picking approach of the Reformed trying to do Church history is a sham. Because, when the Church fathers are clearly and without question against them they discredit them.
There’s far better evidence for early belief in justification prior to baptism than there is for early belief in the papacy or the sinlessness of Mary, for example.
Lame and this is a straw man.
BLOGAHON SAID:
ReplyDelete“The vast majority of theologians who have ever taken up the matter including the holy fathers and ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church disagree with you.”
That’s not an exegetical argument. To the contrary, that surrenders the exegetical argument to Jason.
“Again, reading the 2000 years of exegesis that you are pitting yourself against would be a good place to start on these questions.”
You’re not giving us an actual exegesis to evaluate.
“There are volumes of biblical data that support the orthodox Christian teaching on baptism. Acts record of Paul's conversion support it. Annias told Paul, ‘Why do you tarry? Arise be baptized and wash away your sins.’ Not, ‘Arise, be baptized. This is a symbol.’ Further, Ananias' phrase ‘wash away’ comes from the Greek word ‘apolouo.’ ‘Apolouo’ means an actual cleansing which removes sin.”
Or course, that misses the whole point of symbols and metaphors. In symbolism you attribute to the symbol the properties of the thing it stands for. Take the metaphor of Jesus as the true vine (Jn 15).
“Galatians 3:27 says that the baptized have put on Christ!”
The next step is to exegete the verse in context.
“Well, this is the real reason why you are forced to reject the biblical and orthodox faith. Your paradigm does not allow baptism to be what scripture and tradition teach that baptism actually means. So you must close your eyes and put yourself out of the constant teaching of the church.”
That merely takes your Catholic standard for granted. That’s no more impressive than a devout Mormon who takes his Mormon standard for granted.
“The cherry picking approach of the Reformed trying to do Church history is a sham. Because, when the Church fathers are clearly and without question against them they discredit them.”
Catholics cherry-pick church history for what they choose to believe.
"Not really a fair fight."
True. Like picking a fight with Chuck Norris, if you're going to duke it out with Jason you need to make it 10-1 to give yourself a fighting chance.
"Some of the Jews believed that Herod's army had been destroyed by God, as a richly deserved punishment for his treatment of John who was called The Baptist. For Herod killed him, a good man who urged the Jews to train themselves in virtue, to be just to each other and pious toward God, and to come together for baptism: on one condition only would their baptism be acceptable to him–if it was undergone not to escape the penalty of sins but to purify the body, since the soul had been already purged by righteousness" (Antiquities XVIII, v, 2 [quoted by Eusebius in History of the Church, 1, 11, 8], all emphases mine).
ReplyDeleteFor those who don't know, Blogahon formerly posted under the screen name Sean and Stephanie. He's frequently been refuted in past discussions, and he claimed that he was no longer going to post here. See the thread here for a refutation of his claims in another recent discussion about justification. Much of what he's saying in this thread is a repetition of errors that were addressed earlier, and the thread at Called To Communion, linked above, addresses some of his other erroneous claims. Apparently, he either hasn't been following that thread or he's carelessly repeating arguments that have already been addressed there.
ReplyDeleteIn light of his citation of Justin Martyr and his appeal to men like Cyprian and Augustine, see the documentation here regarding widespread patristic contradictions of Roman Catholic doctrine.
The great NT proof AGAINST baptismal regeneration is the case of Simon Magus. Baptized in a regular manner and still full of "gall of bitterness".
ReplyDeleteSomeone once wrote that just like the dogma of transsubstantiation is simply contradicted by the testimony of our senses, so is baptismal regeneration.
For have seen and still see many mercenary scoundrels taking baptism for false reasons (like advancing their careers) and showing no fruits of saving justification whatsoever afterwards.
So, we now see that the appeals made to the early church fathers on 'Triablogue' are really done only to win arguments and not to pursue truth. Because if the pursuit of truth were important than church history would be approached in the same manner across the board for any given topic.
ReplyDeleteFor example, an appeal wouldn't be made to silence on a matter for one doctrine as if it settles the matter but the same silence ignored for other doctrines.
Also, if the pursuit of truth was the goal of 'Triablogue' than straw men wouldn't constantly be put up as valid arguments. For example, citing baptized apostates in order to disprove baptismal regeneration when all along orthodox Christianity does not view justification as a one time event and affirms that justification can be lost by sin. Another example would be to simply choose to ignore how the Church defines holy tradition such as in your 'church father' thread. Holy Tradition is not ‘every utterance of every church father’ but is rather formed by a broad consensus of the belief of the church. It just so happens that on baptism, the church fathers are unanimous so your only option is a weak appeal to the very earliest fathers based on silence alone…an appeal that you refuse to make on other matters.
All of this adds up to sophistry.
Furthermore, expecting every commentator to re-exegete baptism for you when you know full well the exegetical basis for what the Catholic Church teaches is an attempt at obfuscation. And besides, there are volumes and volumes written about baptism by the holy fathers of the church and by the church through her councils and any amateur theologian can approach this exegesis.
ReplyDeleteDo you suppose that I am unable to provide biblical exegesis in support of baptismal regeneration? I can insure you that this isn't the case. It is rather the case that I know that it would be a gigantic waste of time in this format because I know that I am not having a conversation with people interested in the pursuit of truth but people merely interested in debate.
For those who don't know, Blogahon formerly posted under the screen name Sean and Stephanie. He's frequently been refuted in past discussions,
Actually, I think I posted in one, perhaps two, previous threads in the history of this blog. And in that thread, rather than address my arguments, I was discredited for being an insurance salesman.
More vague assertions from Blogahon. Yet again, he doesn't interact with the specifics already provided by his opponents.
ReplyDeleteAnd he keeps contradicting what he said earlier about not posting.
Golly a whole thread making an appeal to silence and you can't even pull it off.
ReplyDeleteShucks.
Blogahon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Golly a whole thread making an appeal to silence and you can't even pull it off."
You keep making highly inaccurate claims, even after having been corrected repeatedly.
I haven't just "appealed to silence". In this thread, in the Called To Communion thread I linked above, and in other relevant discussions, I've argued for my position from the Bible and from extra-Biblical sources. Some of the sources don't mention baptism, but even if the citation of every such source were dismissed as an appeal to silence, that dismissal would only address a portion of my argument. And I've explained how sources who don't discuss baptism can be relevant. See my comments on the tax collector of Luke 18 in the Called To Communion thread, my comments on Clement of Rome in an earlier thread in which I addressed your previous false claims about justification, etc. You aren't interacting with what I've argued. Instead, you're vaguely dismissing vague mischaracterizations of what I've argued.
Jason.
ReplyDeleteIt ain't exegesis that you are after. I happened across about 8 pages worth of exegesis from Robert Sungenis the other day in direct response to your exegesis.
In fact, if you just google "jason engwer + baptism + catholic" you find several pages worth of exegetical responses to your arguments from Catholics. But that doesn't matter. You just continue to say that Catholics ignore the bible.
I've argued for my position from the Bible and from extra-Biblical sources.
In this thread you made the following bullet point arguments about the interpretation of John 3:5 prior to the Reformation.
1) Appealing to later sources you agree with doesn’t explain earlier sources for whom evidence has been offered of their disagreement with you. You can't justify your view of a passage like John 3:5, Acts 2:38, or Galatians 3:27 solely by appealing to what people like Irenaeus, Cyprian, and Augustine believed.
Please name those earlier sources then who disagree with the Catholic/Orthodox and unanimous interpretation of baptism.
2) The Bible covers a far larger period of time than the patristic era does, and baptismal justification is highly inconsistent with the Biblical view.
A vapid appeal to your own interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation files in the face of every single church father who ever wrote about baptism.
3) Advocates of baptismal justification often try to focus the discussion on post-apostolic sources by making the Biblical sources seem less relevant than they actually are.
That is simply false. As I said earlier, you aren't really interested in exegesis.
4) Josephus tells us that John the Baptist’s baptism wasn't justificatory
And??? So what? The Catholic Church tells us that John's baptism wasn't justificatory. Its right there in the Council of Trent session seven. This does not disprove baptismal regeneration and it has nothing to do with 'How John 3:5 was interpreted prior to the Reformation"
5) Even if we limited ourselves to data postdating Jesus' earthly ministry and limited ourselves to Christian baptism, we're still told that justification occurs through believing response to the gospel, prior to baptism (Acts 10:44-46, 19:2, Galatians 3:2, etc.).
ReplyDeleteAnd??? The Catholic Church teaches that faith precedes baptism in the adult. This doesn't disprove baptismal regeneration and it has nothing to do with 'How John 3:5 was interpreted prior to the Reformation"
6) If the advocate of baptismal justification has to exempt the entire Old Testament era
That is simply false. The first time I ever heard about baptism in the old testament was by reading Catholic authors.
7) We find a few views of baptism and justification, not just one view, in the patristic sources
Tell me which fathers didn't hold to baptismal regeneration. All of the church fathers you cite in your link are explicitly teaching the Catholic faith in regards to faith, baptism and justification.
You see...what you like to do and what you did in the prior thread was to offer some isolated quotes from a church father that by itself seemed to offer support for your position. However, in order for this to work you have to ignore the rest of what they said completely.
This is why you are unable to actually simply name a church father that taught against baptismal regeneration prior to the Reformation. If you tried to name one father, you know that I could easily prove that this father indeed taught baptismal regeneration.
I'll just ask you again, "Name the Church father(s) prior to the Reformation that interpreted John 3:5 differently than the Catholic Church."
This is the whole point of the thread isn't it????
8) When a source like Clement of Rome or Polycarp discusses justification without even mentioning baptism, any assumption that baptism was meant to be included must be argued, not merely asserted.
S I L E N C E
9) We can know what people believed about baptismal justification by a variety of means, not just how they interpreted a passage like John 3:5 or Galatians 3:27.
Ah, but we are talking about John 3:5 and how that verse was interpreted.
See how you keep on shifting gears? The thread is about how the fathers interpreted John 3:5 but half of you initial post is about how Jason Engwer interprets John 3:5...and other verses.
10) Much of what Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe on other subjects was absent or widely contradicted in early church history.
Ah yes, if all else fails in trying to prove your contention that some church fathers didn't teach the Catholic interpretation of John 3:5 (because you cannot name a single father) than just dial up your old bag of anti-Catholic propaganda.
BLOGAHON SAID:
ReplyDelete“So, we now see that the appeals made to the early church fathers on 'Triablogue' are really done only to win arguments and not to pursue truth. Because if the pursuit of truth were important than church history would be approached in the same manner across the board for any given topic.”
Actually, that’s done to answer Catholics on their own grounds. You need to bone up on what a tu quoque argument means.
“Furthermore, expecting every commentator to re-exegete baptism for you when you know full well the exegetical basis for what the Catholic Church teaches is an attempt at obfuscation. And besides, there are volumes and volumes written about baptism by the holy fathers of the church and by the church through her councils and any amateur theologian can approach this exegesis.”
i) Which church fathers? The Greek church fathers? They don’t represent the Roman Catholic church.
ii) Feel free to quote the relevant “exegesis” of your councils, then we’ll evaluate the quality of the proffered exegesis.
“Do you suppose that I am unable to provide biblical exegesis in support of baptismal regeneration?”
Then quit stalling.
“I can insure you that this isn't the case.”
What’s the going rate for Catholic exegetical “insurance.” Is that a group plan? What are the premiums, deductibles, and copays?
“It is rather the case that I know that it would be a gigantic waste of time in this format because I know that I am not having a conversation with people interested in the pursuit of truth but people merely interested in debate. ”
Given the amount of time you waste here, you must be bipolar.
“It ain't exegesis that you are after. I happened across about 8 pages worth of exegesis from Robert Sungenis the other day in direct response to your exegesis.”
I’m impressed that Sungenis is monitoring Jason’s exegesis and has taken the time to write a direct response to him. We must be moving up in the world (or moving down, as the case may be).
“In fact, if you just google 'jason engwer + baptism + catholic' you find several pages worth of exegetical responses to your arguments from Catholics. But that doesn't matter. You just continue to say that Catholics ignore the bible.”
It’s not Jason’s job to do your research for you. You need to learn how to pull your own weight. All you do is give us IOUs.
“A vapid appeal to your own interpretation of scripture. Your interpretation files in the face of every single church father who ever wrote about baptism.”
We await your documentation for every single church father who ever wrote about baptism.
“That is simply false. As I said earlier, you aren't really interested in exegesis.”
Jason and I have actually exegeted the Catholic prooftexts. You, by contrast, simply issue promissory notes.
“This is the whole point of the thread isn't it????”
Actually, no. Try not to publicize your monumental ignorance.
This got started over at Justin Taylor’s blog when Bryan Cross took issue with Jason’s interpretation of Galatians. It’s Catholic commenters who’ve tried to divert the issue to the church fathers. Jason has taken some time out from the original point of the thread to address them on their own terms, but that was always ancillary to the primary point at issue.
BLOGAHON SAID:
ReplyDelete"Actually, I think I posted in one, perhaps two, previous threads in the history of this blog. And in that thread, rather than address my arguments, I was discredited for being an insurance salesman."
Actually, I didn't both. Try to keep more than one idea at a time in that silly little head of yours.
And, yes, it makes a difference who presumes to speak for Catholicism. The church of Rome is not a democracy. You're not a bishop or even a priest. You have no degree in Catholic theology. You're at the bottom of the food chain of a hierarchical denomination.
You know. This topic isn't necessarily funny but I find myself laughing.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s the going rate for Catholic exegetical “insurance.” Is that a group plan? What are the premiums, deductibles, and copays?
A grown man, my senior no doubt, making fun of my profession in order to score points in a conversation about the ‘interpretation of John 3:5 prior to the reformation’ when really all it would take would be to name the church fathers who interpreted John 3:5 differently than the Catholic Church does today.
"Nah" says Steve Hayes. "Can't do that. Instead I'll just poke fun at the means you use to feed your family!"
"A grown man, my senior no doubt, making fun of my profession in order to score points in a conversation about the ‘interpretation of John 3:5 prior to the reformation’ when really all it would take would be to name the church fathers who interpreted John 3:5 differently than the Catholic Church does today."
ReplyDeleteActually, he was making fun of the way you spelled "insure" instead of "ensure".
So not only are you ignorant, but you're illiterate as well :)
Semper Reformanda.
ReplyDeleteActually, he was making fun of the way you spelled "insure" instead of "ensure".
Actually, the correct way would be "assure" not "ensure" or "insure."
But grammar smack is really only one peg up from vocation smack.
Blogahon,
ReplyDeleteRobert Sungenis' response to me was written eight years ago, and I responded to it eight years ago.
And you keep asking me for documentation I've already provided. I keep explaining to you that the church fathers aren't the only relevant sources, but you keep ignoring the other sources of the patristic era I've cited.
You claim that my appeal to sources like Clement of Rome is a matter of "silence", but you don't interact with my arguments to the contrary.
You seem to not even understand some of the issues involved in the discussion. You refer to "baptism in the old testament", but provide no documentation. (And in anticipation of a potential evasive response on your part, I'll note that the issue here is whether people were justified through baptism in the Old Testament era, not whether baptism or something similar to it existed for a portion of that era.)
You accuse me of "dialing up my old bag of anti-Catholic propaganda" when I refer to widespread patristic contradictions of Catholic teaching, but the material I linked cites the conclusions of widely respected historians and patristic scholars, like Jaroslav Pelikan, John McGuckin, and David Wright. What about the Catholic scholars I cite, such as Michael O'Carroll, Klaus Schatz, and Ludwig Ott? Are they "anti-Catholics" who have written "propaganda"? The fact is, there's far better evidence for justification apart from baptism than there is for some of the teachings of your denomination. Your own denomination's scholars, as well as highly regarded scholars outside of your denomination, acknowledge that much of what Catholicism teaches was absent or widely contradicted in early church history. I can make a far better case for seeing justification apart from baptism in sources like Luke 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-46, and First Clement 32-33 than you can make for something like prayers to the dead or the sinlessness or assumption of Mary in such sources.
You claim that my appeal to sources like Clement of Rome is a matter of "silence", but you don't interact with my arguments to the contrary.
ReplyDeleteKind of hard to 'interact' with your argument from silence Jason. I guess I would respond by saying that the very first church fathers who wrote explicitly and in detail about baptism support the Catholic view. Do I really need to provide examples?
Earlier this morning I addressed every single one of your bullet points on this thread. You haven't interacted with my interactions. Instead you accuse me of not understanding things and accuse me of not interacting with your arguments.
Balderdash. This thread is supposed to be about 'How John 3:5 was interpreted prior to the Reformation." Instead of addressing that question you simply glossed into an argument from silence alone and then started telling everybody Jason Engwer's interpretation of baptism. I don't really care about Jason Engwer's interpretation of John 3:5. If you intended this to be the topic of the thread you should have named it, "My post-reformation interpretation of John 3:5"
And you keep asking me for documentation I've already provided.
I must have missed where you provided the documentation of church fathers who taught a different interpretation of John 3:5 than that of the Catholic Church.
Could you be so kind as to just give me the names of those Church Fathers?
Thanks.
PS. I do see you just randomly cited First Clement, although you did not exegete it.
ReplyDeleteClement says nothing of about baptism in First Clement 32-33.
Its funny. Google "Clement of Rome" + "Baptism"
You'll see that your comment in this very combox is the number 2 highest hit item. Hilarious.
Blogahon wrote:
ReplyDelete"Earlier this morning I addressed every single one of your bullet points on this thread. You haven't interacted with my interactions. Instead you accuse me of not understanding things and accuse me of not interacting with your arguments. Balderdash."
You say that after having ignored large amounts of material that I and others wrote in response to you previously. And your "interactions" consisted largely of misrepresentations and unsupported assertions, such as your claim that people were justified through baptism in the Old Testament era. I asked you to support that claim, and you ignored that request. I reminded you, yet again, of the fact that the church fathers aren't the only relevant sources, and you ignored what I said. I reminded you that I have better evidence for my view of baptism than you have for much of what Catholicism teaches, and I reminded you that I've cited many widely regarded scholars, including Catholic scholars, in support of my supposed "anti-Catholic propaganda". You haven't interacted with that. Etc.
You write:
"I do see you just randomly cited First Clement, although you did not exegete it. Clement says nothing of about baptism in First Clement 32-33. Its funny. Google 'Clement of Rome' + 'Baptism' You'll see that your comment in this very combox is the number 2 highest hit item. Hilarious."
I did exegete First Clement in the post I wrote in response to you more than two weeks ago, which I linked above. You didn't interact with what I said then, and you've repeatedly ignored what I said there after I reminded you about it since then. Why would you ignore an article I wrote that was directed at you by name, ignore all of my later references to that article in discussions with you, and then go to Google to try to find out where I discussed a subject I addressed in that article?
And, for reasons I've explained, I reject the concept that baptism should be assumed in sources who only mention faith without making reference to baptism. The fact that Clement doesn't discuss baptism, even though he does discuss the means of justification and mentions faith in particular, is itself evidence against your position. It's not as though a term like "faith" is neutral on this subject and can have baptism or other works read into it any time it's used. The word has a meaning, and it's usual meaning should be assumed unless there's evidence for an unusual meaning in a given context. As I said in the discussion at Called To Communion, you might as well assume that foot washing and other works are included as well, since they aren't singled out for exclusion by name. If we apply your reasoning consistently, we end up with absurd results that you would reject.
And your "interactions" consisted largely of misrepresentations and unsupported assertions, such as your claim that people were justified through baptism in the Old Testament era. I asked you to support that claim, and you ignored that request.
ReplyDeleteWhere have I said that Jason?
I reminded you, yet again, of the fact that the church fathers aren't the only relevant sources, and you ignored what I said.
I didn't think this thread was about Jason Engwer's interpretation of John 3:5. Forgive me because you see your title is 'How was John 3:5 interpreted prior to the Reformation.'
I reminded you that I have better evidence for my view of baptism than you have for much of what Catholicism teaches, and I reminded you that I've cited many widely regarded scholars, including Catholic scholars, in support of my supposed "anti-Catholic propaganda". You haven't interacted with that. Etc.
But you withhold your golden evidence and instead try to get me to 'interact' with everything you've ever written about church fathers and if I don't do that than you claim victory.
Typically, Jason, arguments about church history should stand on their own. A novel concept. You should be able to make an argument for your position with out pleading to other things you've written about years ago.
I did exegete First Clement in the post I wrote in response to you more than two weeks ago, which I linked above.
Another argument from silence. 'Oh, look here. First Clement doesn't say anything about baptism therefore baptism must not have anything to do with justification.'
Clever Jason.
And, for reasons I've explained, I reject the concept that baptism should be assumed in sources who only mention faith without making reference to baptism.
Thank you. You admit that you are arguing from silence. Appreciate it.
Jason argues from silence and every single holy father of the church that ever provided exegesis of John 3:5 argues from the text itself and concludes with much vigor that John 3:5 is talking about baptism.
Blogahon,
ReplyDeleteI've already explained what I was referring to concerning baptismal justification in the Old Testament era. That was the subject I was addressing when you initially responded to me. You said that my claim of discontinuity (that people weren't justified through baptism in the past, but are now) is "false". But now you ask "Where have I said that Jason?" when I say that you're arguing for continuity between the Old and New Testament eras. Why would you deny that there was discontinuity, then object when I say that you think there was continuity? You're not making sense. You don't seem to be giving these issues much thought.
In response to my pointing out that the church fathers aren't the only relevant sources between the apostles and the Reformation, you said, "I didn't think this thread was about Jason Engwer's interpretation of John 3:5." How does that comment interact with what I wrote? Again, you're not making sense. I was referring to sources of the patristic era who aren't classified as church fathers, such as Tertullian's opponents referred to in his treatise on baptism. Those people aren't Jason Engwer, so how would my citation of such sources be equivalent to citing "Jason Engwer's interpretation of John 3:5"?
You claim that I try to "get you to 'interact' with everything I've ever written about church fathers". No, I never said or suggested that you should interact with "everything I've ever written about church fathers". Apparently, you don't have much concern for accurately representing your opponents.
You write:
"Typically, Jason, arguments about church history should stand on their own. A novel concept. You should be able to make an argument for your position with out pleading to other things you've written about years ago."
That doesn't make sense. Should a historian refrain from citing anything he's written in the past and refrain from citing what other people have written? Should he reinvent the wheel every time he writes?
And if you object to not letting our arguments "stand alone", then why have you linked to other web sites in support of your own arguments in the past (such as in the comments section of the thread here)?
You don't give us any reason to agree with your standard. You just assert it.
You write:
"Another argument from silence. 'Oh, look here. First Clement doesn't say anything about baptism therefore baptism must not have anything to do with justification.'"
You still aren't interacting with what I wrote about First Clement in the previous thread. I didn't just appeal to silence, and I've explained why silence is relevant in this context. Do you think that when you reply to me people will only notice that you've replied and won't notice how evasive you've been?
You write:
"Jason argues from silence and every single holy father of the church that ever provided exegesis of John 3:5 argues from the text itself and concludes with much vigor that John 3:5 is talking about baptism."
Another assertion bereft of documentation.
To remind the readers of a point I made earlier, I want to clarify something I said in my last response to Blogahon. I wrote that "the church fathers aren't the only relevant sources between the apostles and the Reformation". It should be noted that I was responding to what Blogahon said about the church fathers. I was addressing the era of history he brought up. But as I explained earlier, that isn't the only relevant timeframe in this context. The Biblical authors are relevant as well, not only in terms of what each one says, but also in terms of how they interpret each other. And the patristic era is usually considered to have ended long before the Reformation, so sources between the patristic era and the Reformation are relevant as well. Even the category of church fathers is a disputed one, often involving anonymous documents, the writings of men who are sometimes considered schismatics or heretics, etc. Not only is Blogahon wrong in ignoring or underestimating so many relevant sources, but he's doing so after having been corrected on this point many times.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not as though he applies his (irrational and refuted) standard consistently. When he sees his fellow Catholics claiming that a particular Biblical passage teaches prayers to the dead, the sinlessness of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or some other such concept, he doesn't object that no church father interpreted the passage that way during the earliest centuries of church history. I cited examples of the teaching of justification apart from baptism in the earliest Christian documents, while much of what Blogahon believes is absent or widely contradicted for multiple generations, sometimes even a few hundred years or more.