# Baptismal Regeneration in ECF



## Poimen (Sep 29, 2005)

I was talking to a RC priest in training a month ago and he said that he would not believe anything that was inconsistent with the ECF. Since they were closest to the apostles era, they should know best what they taught and believed.

The discussion was in relation to a talk I gave to some young peoples on regeneration (John 3) where I claimed that Jesus was not talking about water baptism in John 3:5. 

So I was wondering if anyone has examined the ECF to see if they all taught the same doctrine uniformally or if there are those who dissented from this opinion. 

DTK? Anyone? 

Thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2005)

I hear Ligon Duncan say in an interview wtih Mark Dever that the ECF (I assume you mean Early Church Fathers) began to move in a baptismal regerneation postion after Ambrosiaster.


----------



## Poimen (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I hear Ligon Duncan say in an interview wtih Mark Dever that the ECF (I assume you mean Early Church Fathers) began to move in a baptismal regerneation postion after Ambrosiaster.



No! I meant Evangellyfish Capitulating to Foolishness. 

Thanks. Do you know where I might get access to that interview? Is that the one where Devers interviews him on the NPP?


----------



## Poimen (Sep 29, 2005)

Looks like this was discussed briefly here as well:

http://puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3380


----------



## RamistThomist (Sep 29, 2005)

Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul

If this link doesn't work, go to www.9marks.org, click on "audio" and scroll down until you find the interview with Duncan.


----------



## DTK (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> I was talking to a RC priest in training a month ago and he said that he would not believe anything that was inconsistent with the ECF. Since they were closest to the apostles era, they should know best what they taught and believed.
> 
> The discussion was in relation to a talk I gave to some young peoples on regeneration (John 3) where I claimed that Jesus was not talking about water baptism in John 3:5.
> ...


Daniel, 

I'm somewhat busy right now, several irons in the fire, not the least of which an article that is due Saturday.

But I would like to address this more in-depth regarding John 3:5 later. Perhaps for starters, to make a brief statement, and then discuss a particular case. Generally speaking, the one thing that comes near to any kind of unanimous consent among the ECFs is their adherence to one form or another of baptismal regeneration, though there are some very early fathers (e.g. Clement of Rome) who are silent on this matter, and who offer statements which seem to suggest the contrary. But for the most part, baptismal regeneration was taught by them.

Now, for a particular case. Augustine believed in baptismal regeneration. But like so many in his day, he did not view regeneration as an act, but as a process which began at baptism. In fact, the ECFS (Augustine included) tended to view all components of salvation (regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc.) as a process, and all of these (i.e., the components of salvation) were usually viewed together, rather than distinct from one another. Augustine believed that all the regenerate (speaking here in the past tense) would be saved, for the simple reason that he didn't believe that the process was completed until life this side of eternity ended. Thus, with regeneration being completed only at the end of one's life, all the regenerate were saved. Of course, Augustine also taught that all the elect would persevere in faith to the end of life this side of eternity.

Someone mentioned Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384). We do not know for sure the real name of this individual. He is an anonymous ECF. He was at first confused with Ambrose, i.e., some of his writings were attributed to the ECF Ambrose (c. 339-97). It was later determined that this man was someone other than Ambrose, and it was the humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, who tagged him with the name, "Ambrosiaster," which consequently stuck as a designation/name for him ever since. He is a rather interesting church father. He offers us several very clear statements on _sola fide_, but had Pelagian leanings. 
I'll try to reply to this further at a later date.

Blessings,
DTK

[Edited on 9-30-2005 by DTK]


----------



## Poimen (Sep 29, 2005)

Thanks David. I'm looking forward to hearing more from your research when you have time.


----------



## DTK (Oct 4, 2005)

Pastor Kok,

Perhaps, this web site will help you. It offers something similar to the _Glossa ordinaria_ (a running commentary that was used for basic biblical instruction from the twelfth century onward). It is a patristic commentary on the Scriptures...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/

Patristic comments on John 3:5 can be found here...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/john3.html

Just scroll down a bit on this page until you come to John 3:5.

Blessings,
DTK


----------



## Poimen (Oct 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by DTK_
> Pastor Kok,
> 
> Perhaps, this web site will help you. It offers something similar to the _Glossa ordinaria_ (a running commentary that was used for basic biblical instruction from the twelfth century onward). It is a patristic commentary on the Scriptures...
> ...



Thanks David. Much obliged.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 6, 2005)

Daniel,
I think you would find the relevant note on John 3:5 in J.C.Ryle's _Expository Thoughts on John _ Vol 1 very helpful. Ryle goes into quite a lot of detail and shows himself aware of the beliefs of the ECTs.

I don't know whether this is available on line. Perhaps someone else does?

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------

