Original intent and the Nicene Creed

[raderag]

Can we as reformed really believe in the original intent of the Nicene creed without believing in Baptismal regeneration? I find it difficult to believe that this line of the creed isn't saying that our sins are actually washed away in baptism, especially in context with what many of the Ante-Nicene Fathers believed about baptism. Here are a couple of examples, but I haven't been able to find any church father opposed to the idea of baptismal regeneration. Can't we, and shouldn't we as reformed Christians say that, while we believe in the baptism for the remission of sins, that we understand it differently than when the creed was written? Is it really necessary that we hold to the inerrancy of creeds and confessions when clearly there is a contradiction in the Westminster Confession and the Nicene Creed? Perhaps I am missing something here, so please try to make me understand. First I'll quote the WCF on baptism.

[quote:8be9c8f297]
Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] [b:8be9c8f297]yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[/b:8be9c8f297] [15]
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is [b:8be9c8f297]not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered[/b:8be9c8f297];[16] 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.[17][/quote:8be9c8f297]


[quote:8be9c8f297]
I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins...

--Nicene Creed
[/quote:8be9c8f297]

[quote:8be9c8f297]
*Man with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the bath of regeneration. Therefore, the Lord said to [the blind man] after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, "Go to Siloam and wash." By this means, He restored to him both confirmation and that regeneration that takes place by means of the bath.

--Irenaeus
[/quote:8be9c8f297]

[quote:8be9c8f297]
*We indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement. However, we come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and the trust in Jesus in our spirit.

--Barnabas
[/quote:8be9c8f297]

[quote:8be9c8f297]
*They descended into the water dead, and arise alive.

--Hermas
[/quote:8be9c8f297]

*Early Church Fathers are quoted from:
"A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs"
David W. Bercot
Hendrickson Publishers, inc 1998
pp 50-53

 

[Guest]

[quote:6cdc8dc1dd]
I find it difficult to believe that this line of the creed isn't saying that our sins are actually washed away in baptism . . .
[/quote:6cdc8dc1dd]

It is all a matter of perspective. Our sins ARE washed away by Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

It is of the Holy Spirit, not the application of the water. And it may or may not happen at the same time as the application of the water.

 

[raderag]

[quote:285e64713c][i:285e64713c]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:285e64713c]
[quote:285e64713c]
I find it difficult to believe that this line of the creed isn't saying that our sins are actually washed away in baptism . . .
[/quote:285e64713c]

It is all a matter of perspective. Our sins ARE washed away by Baptism.

1 Peter 3:21

"Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"

It is of the Holy Spirit, not the application of the water. And it may or may not happen at the same time as the application of the water. [/quote:285e64713c]

I agree, but that perspective is much different from the ECF and those who wrote the creed. They believed, and [b:285e64713c]intended to say[/b:285e64713c] that our sins were washed away at the time of baptism. All I am saying is that their intent was in contrast to the writers of the WCF. Am I wrong? Ceratainly, we don't mean to say that the Westminster divines agreed with the ECFs on baptism, do we?

 

[Guest]

I am not sure.

If we look back to it through the perspective lens of the WCF then I do not see the dilemma.

 

[raderag]

[quote:f18398f819][i:f18398f819]Originally posted by Visigoth[/i:f18398f819]
I am not sure.

If we look back to it through the perspective lens of the WCF then I do not see the dilemma. [/quote:f18398f819]

Ok, and thanks for your comments. BTW, I don't see it as a challenge to the reformed faith, but rather to the idea that we must always fully subscribe to our creeds and confessions, and to always make sure that we keep the original intent. I do think original intent is very important, but perhaps it isn't the highest standard.

[Edited on 3-2-2004 by raderag]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I think you need to reevaluate your interpretation of their original intent. There was differences in opinion about the nature of baptism among the ECF. Also remember, that the early church fathers did not have to struggle so much back then between differentiating between the sign and the thing signified. Notice, the Creed does not say water baptism, which would seem to indicate to me that they were refering to spirit baptism which the water signified. And your quote from Ireanus seems to enforce this idea, that the sinner really needs the bath of regeneration.

 

[raderag]

[quote:6f85adccb9][i:6f85adccb9]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:6f85adccb9]
I think you need to reevaluate your interpretation of their original intent. There was differences in opinion about the nature of baptism among the ECF. Also remember, that the early church fathers did not have to struggle so much back then between differentiating between the sign and the thing signified. Notice, the Creed does not say water baptism, which would seem to indicate to me that they were refering to spirit baptism which the water signified. And your quote from Ireanus seems to enforce this idea, that the sinner really needs the bath of regeneration. [/quote:6f85adccb9]

Are you arguing that they didn't mean water baptism?

As far as the ECFs I have not found anything to suggest they didn't universally teach baptismal regeneration.

 

[Scott]

Patrick: I have never seen anything to suggest that they meant spirit baptism or separated the two. They connected the two like paper and ink are connected to the wealth of currency.

Scott

 

[cih1355]

Did the Nicene Creed take the expression "baptism for the forgiveness of sins", from Acts 2:38?

Acts 2:38 says to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. The "for" in this verse means, "because of ". Peter is saying to repent and be baptized because your sins have been forgiven. He is not saying to be baptized in order for your sins to be forgiven.

 

[Scott]

Brett:

Here are my two cents. I think there is consistency between many ECFs and the Westminster divines. The Westminster divines parsed things much more exactly and further than the ECFs, due in large part to the theological struggles facing them.

I think that Christian conversion and baptism is analogous to conception of a child and the birth of the child. We know that life begins at conception. When a child is conceived he or she is fully human, though still in the womb. The child has a soul and if the child dies in the womb, it soul has a final eternal destination. It is not the case that life begins at birth.

Yet, it is at birth that we measure a person's life span. We celebrate birthdays, not conception days (people ask when were you born, not when were you coneceived). Birth is the big event. It is where things really change.

The Christian conversion is similar. The unbeliever hears the Word and accepts. At this point he is a believer and if he dies without baptism he will be saved. Yet, he is just a catechumen, not a full communicant member of Christ's church. He is a spiritual fetus. Baptism is the means of entering the visible church. Prior to baptism a person is not a member of the visible church. Further, as the WCF 25.2 note about the visible organized church, "out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." So, baptism is a big turning point in the person's life. From a human perspective it is where we measure the convert's spiritual life, even though (like with fetuses) we recognize that there was true life beforehand.

So, I don't think that the language used to aggrandize baptism denies the state of the catechumen. Indeed, I think that the spiritual state of the catechumen is seen in that many ECFs, like Catholics today, recognized that catechumens who die before being baptized are saved and go to be with the Lord. To me that is where the real test is.

Scott

 

[Scott]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms that Baptism is the only known means of salvation know to the Church. It also notes this about catechumens who die without having received baptism: "For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament." Par. 1259.

The Catechism also recognizes Baptism by Blood (martyrdom).

So, even for the group that claims to faithfully follow the ECFs (and I don't think it does), there is recognition of the status of converts who have not been baptized.

Scott

 

[raderag]

[quote:7714ab6ab1]
So, I don't think that the language used to aggrandize baptism denies the state of the catechumen. Indeed, I think that the spiritual state of the catechumen is seen in that many ECFs, like Catholics today, recognized that catechumens who die before being baptized are saved and go to be with the Lord. To me that is where the real test is.

Scott [/quote:7714ab6ab1]

I didn't realize that RCs and the ECFs believed that non-Baptized would go to heaven. That makes sense though, since they made new converts wait up to a year to be baptized.

 

[Scott]

BTW, Luther used language very similar to the ECFs and he was a champion of sola fide (some would say he was the first post-apostolic person to advocate sola fide). Anyway, here is his "flood prayer," which was part of the baptismal service he created:

[/quote]Almighty eternal God, who according to thy righteous judgment didst condemn the unbelieving world through the flood and in thy great mercy didst preserve believing Noah and his family, and who didst drown hardhearted Pharaoh with all his host in the Red Sea and didst lead thy people Israel through the same on dry ground, thereby prefiguring this bath of thy baptism, and who through the baptism of thy dear Child, our Lord Jesus Christ, hast consecrated and set apart the Jordan and all water as a salutary flood and rich and full washing away of sins: We pray through the same thy groundless mercy that thou wilt graciously behold this N. and bless him with true faith in the spirit so that by means of this saving flood all that has been born in him from Adam and which he himself has added thereto may be drowned in him and engulfed, and that he may be sundered from the number of the unbelieving, preserved dry and secure in the holy ark or Christendom, serve thy name at all times fervent in spirit and joyful in hope, so that with all believers he may be made worthy to attain eternal life according to thy promise; through Jesus Chris our lord. Amen.[/quote]