Studying one doctrine in the ancient Church unexpectedly showed me I’d likely have to become Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.
It wasn’t the Eucharist, Our Lady, the priesthood, or any of the doctrines Protestants perhaps more frequently object to.
It was baptism.
In the ancient Church, we see unanimity on a doctrine most Protestants reject: baptismal regeneration.
As a Protestant, I was open to the possibility that baptismal regeneration was true. I knew smart people who affirmed it and smart people who denied it.
Baptism in general is an issue upon which most Protestants agree to disagree. We’d have separate denominations over it (which bothered me), but didn’t necessarily deny that those who disagreed with us were Christians. I knew most Protestants rejected baptismal regeneration, and I did too–but only very softly. Baptism in general was one of many subjects I felt fairly agnostic about, given that good, educated people took different positions on it.
But when I opened the Church Fathers, the situation could not have been more different. I was stunned at the unanimity they exhibited on the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. It’s absolutely everywhere.
In baptism, they said, we are:
- reborn/born again/made new creatures,
- cleansed of/forgiven all our sins,
- given the Holy Spirit, and
- justified/made righteous.
Seven years into studying the Church Fathers, I have yet to find a single one who denied any of these.
This was very disturbing for me, because I knew most of us Protestants rejected precisely what ALL the Fathers were affirming. And while we treated baptism as a non-essential issue (though apparently essential enough to divide denominations), that never made sense to me either.
Baptism is one of the three basic commands of Christ in the Great Commission to the apostles before he ascended into heaven. How could this be a non-essential issue? Likewise, baptism comes up constantly in Scripture. Indeed, however you interpret it, St. Peter flat out says “Baptism . . . now saves you” (1 Pet. 3:21). How can something that “saves you” be non-essential?
Again, I held all these doubts at bay for many years because good, educated men disagreed, so I assumed they had figured something out that I hadn’t.
But that all changed when I read the Church Fathers. They were completely consistent on baptism century after century; east and west; in Europe, Africa, and Asia; pre-Constantine and post-Constantine, etc. I was shocked not only at their doctrinal position, but also at their doctrinal unity! Truth be told, I had all but given up on doctrinal unity as a Protestant, despite it being commanded in the strongest terms in Scripture, and obviously necessary given the nature of truth, which cannot contradict itself.
While the topic of baptismal regeneration is raised in many different works, here is a very short list of them from the first century to St. Augustine if you want to dig deeper:
- The Shepherd of Hermas
- Letter of Barnabas
- Tertullian, “On Baptism”
- St. Justin Martyr, “First Apology” and “Dialogue with Trypho”
- St. Irenaeus of Lyon, “Against Heresies” and “On the Apostolic Preaching”
- St. Clement of Alexandria, “The Instructor”
- St. Hippolytus of Rome, “Discourse on the Holy Theophany” and “The Apostolic Tradition”
- St. Cyprian of Carthage, many letters, “Treatise 4: On the Lord’s Prayer,” and “Treatise 8: On Works and Alms”
- St. Methodius, “Banquet of the Ten Virgins”
- St. Aphrahat the Persian, “Demonstrations”
- St. Athanasius, “Discourse 3 Against the Arians”
- The Nicene Creed
- St. Pacian of Barcelona, “On Baptism”
- St. Cyril of Jerusalem, “Catechetical Lecture 3”
- St. Gregory Nazianzen, “Oration 40: On Holy Baptism”
- St. Basil the Great, “Concerning Baptism” and “The Holy Spirit”
- St. Ambrose of Milan, “The Holy Spirit” and “On the Mysteries”
- St. John Chrysostom, “On the Priesthood” and “Catechetical Lectures”
- St. Augustine, “City of God,” “Faith, Hope, and Charity” (and many others)