Some of the church fathers who use highly efficacious language about baptism also use highly efficacious language, including language about the new birth and salvation, when discussing prebaptismal faith. However you explain that (that they viewed justification as a multistep process, that they were inconsistent, or whatever), it offers partial corroboration for the view that we're justified through prebaptismal faith. They ascribe more to prebaptismal faith than advocates of baptismal regeneration typically do. It also provides another example of the diversity of the baptismal beliefs of the pre-Reformation sources. The historian Nick Needham writes that the view of these fathers "effectively makes initial justification itself a twofold process: faith introduces us to salvation, and baptism perfects the introduction" (in Bruce McCormack, ed., Justification In Perspective [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006], 42). He cites Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Basil of Caesarea as examples. He goes on, "Basil's use of 'seal' imagery may indicate that he regarded baptism as the public and official declaration of a justification that until then has been private and unofficial" (ibid.). Whether you explain these fathers' comments as Needham does, explain them in some other way, or remain agnostic about it, I agree that such comments are found in the three fathers he mentions. At least in the passages I've read, it's clearer in Cyril and Basil than in Origen, but seems likely to be present in Origen as well. It may also be present in a Western source of the fourth century, Fortunatianus, though his comments are highly metaphorical and harder to interpret. He wrote in his Commentary On The Gospels:
"No-one makes their testament unless they are about to die. So the two Testaments are the two millstones; the wood is the Passion; the grain of wheat from which flour is made is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ: this is the Church which, when it receives unrefined people (meaning those who persist in their old behaviour), strips them down from that old behaviour and breaks anything which is opposed. For just as grains cannot stick together of their own accord, so an unbelieving people, once it has come to belief, passes through the mill: the outer coverings of the grains are removed and it becomes flour; it is sprinkled with water (which is baptism) and it becomes bread, meaning that the people are made one through their belief and through baptism they become the Church, which is the body of our Lord Jesus Christ." (section 84 on p. 69 here)
Here are the clearer comments of Cyril and Basil:
"For since man is of twofold nature, soul and body, the purification also is twofold, the one incorporeal for the incorporeal part, and the other bodily for the body: the water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul; that we may draw near unto God, 'having our heart sprinkled' by the Spirit, 'and our body washed with pure water'. When going down, therefore, into the water, think not of the bare element, but look for salvation by the power of the Holy Ghost: for without both thou canst not possibly be made perfect. It is not I that say this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter: for He saith, 'Except a man be born anew' (and He adds the words) 'of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God'. Neither doth he that is baptized with water, but not found worthy of the Spirit, receive the grace in perfection; nor if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but receive not the seal by water, shall he enter into the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine, for it is Jesus who hath declared it: and here is the proof of the statement from Holy Scripture. Cornelius was a just man, who was honoured with a vision of Angels, and had set up his prayers and alms-deeds as a good memorial before God in heaven. Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spake with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture saith that Peter 'commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ'; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith, the body also might by the water partake of the grace." (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 3:4)
"Faith and baptism are two kindred and inseparable ways of salvation: faith is perfected through baptism, baptism is established through faith, and both are completed by the same names. For as we believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, so are we also baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; first comes the confession, introducing us to salvation, and baptism follows, setting the seal upon our assent." (Basil of Caesarea, On The Holy Spirit, 12:28)
Origen clearly said at times that there's some kind of death to sin that occurs prior to baptism (e.g., 5:8:2 in Thomas Scheck, Origen: Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Books 1-5 [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2001], 353-54). As I've documented elsewhere, G.W.H. Lampe criticized the church fathers, including Origen, for often being inconsistent or seemingly inconsistent on baptismal issues. Lampe wrote that Origen was inconsistent on the issue of the relationship between baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit. According to Lampe, "Not infrequently Origen speaks of the gift of the Spirit being received in Baptism itself, although when he is expounding the Pauline teaching on the [pledge] of the Spirit he does not directly connect the gift of that 'earnest' of our final redemption with Baptism; it is to be obtained by making the response of faith to the preaching of the Gospel of salvation." (The Seal Of The Spirit [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004], 164) He cites Origen's commentary on Ephesians regarding receiving the Spirit through faith prior to baptism. I've read Origen's commentary on Ephesians (what we possess of it today), and it does seem that Lampe is correct in his interpretation. Origen wrote, concerning Ephesians 1:13 in Book 1 of the commentary, "Moreover, the one who has heard the word of truth and has believed in it is sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise. Because there are many who have heard and remain unbelieving, they by no means obtain the seal of the Holy Spirit." (in Ronald Heine, trans. and ed., The Commentaries Of Origen And Jerome On St. Paul's Epistle To The Ephesians [New York: Oxford University Press, 2002], 103) In the nearby context, in the section on Ephesians 1:14, Origen discusses the significance of receiving the pledge of the Spirit within us, having God's kingdom within us (Luke 17:21), and comprehending such things within us (105). That sort of context makes it more likely that Origen is focused on inner faith, not something like inner faith combined with outer baptism. Later, commenting on the last verses of Ephesians 4 near the end of Book 2 of the commentary, Origen says that all who have "believed in God" are sealed with the Spirit (200).
As I said above, there's a variety of ways in which we could interpret this sort of material in these fathers. You could try to harmonize the passages the way Needham suggests, conclude that these fathers were inconsistent on one or more of the issues involved as Lampe did, or whatever else. But we can summarize this material in these fathers as a sort of hybrid position, one that holds a highly efficacious view of both prebaptismal faith and baptism. I reject that position. I think justification occurs entirely through faith alone, prior to baptism, and I think baptism is only efficacious in the context of sanctification (as Evangelicals typically define sanctification). But the sort of hybrid view we see in these fathers is at least closer to the truth than baptismal regeneration as it's typically formulated. And this hybrid view illustrates the fact that there aren't just two views to choose from and that there wasn't just one view that everybody held before the Reformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment