I am borrowing my title from Dr. Gavin Ortlund who presents a very informative YouTube video (click to open) on the differences and similarities between Protestants and Catholics on the doctrine of justification. He notes some important differences such as
Protestants hold to imputed righteousness which is forensic. Imputed righteousness transpires at the moment of faith in Christ and is a completed judicial act.
Catholics advocate infused righteousness which is based on observing the sacraments throughout his/her life.
This article will focus on the sacrament of baptism and baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration for infants was taught by Augustine. Augustine taught the necessity of baptism for infants and infants who died unbaptized did not go to heaven:
It may therefore be correctly affirmed, that such infants as quit the body without being baptized will be involved in the mildest condemnation of all. That person, therefore, greatly deceives both himself and others, who teaches that they will not be involved in condemnation (Augustine, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants, Book I, chapter 21, AD 412).
Augustine’s view on unbaptized infants is not the official view of the Roman Catholic Church which is stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church, however, agrees with Augustine that baptism is necessary for salvation:
Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery. Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of His church but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, paragraph 1260).
Southern Baptist theologian John Hammett wrote of the lasting influence of Augustine’s teaching on infant baptism:
The influence of Augustine was decisive in this issue. Around 400, he gave the classic justification for infant baptism, as that which washes away the stain of original sin. Moreover, Augustine taught that infants who die without receiving infant baptism are forever barred from heaven. Thereafter, infant baptism became the norm. By the time of the Reformation, infant baptism was deeply ingrained in society and was the unquestioned assumption of the church. (John Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 269).
Evangelical endorsement of baptismal regeneration
Dr. Ortlund emphasizes the common ground between Protestants and Catholics with the doctrine of justification. For example, Dr. Ortlund contends that Catholics teach that the seeker of salvation does not have to do good works to enter into a state of salvation: “One does not need the initial works because salvation comes with baptism. If you have a problem with baptism, you have a problem with Martin Luther.”
Some conservatives do have a problem with Martin Luther’s view of baptism. You can read my review of, or even better read “Sola Fide Compromised? Martin Luther and the doctrine of Baptism” by Patrick Ramsey (in Themelios 34.2, 2009: 179-193 (click to open). D. Patrick Ramsey believes it is arguable that “Luther’s own doctrine of justification by faith alone is compromised by or at least in tension with his doctrine of baptism, particularly his understanding of baptismal regeneration.”
Ramsey states “This paper will argue that Luther’s doctrine of baptism is inconsistent with his doctrine of justification by faith alone.” Ramsey, a Presbyterian, is not alone.
John S. Hammett writes, “In fact, Luther, on other issues challenged tradition in the name of Scripture, used tradition to argue for infant baptism against the Anabaptists: ‘Were child baptism now wrong God would certainly not have permitted it to continue so long, nor let it become so universally and thoroughly established in all Christendom.’”[1] Luther taught that “grace” is “infused” in baptism[2] which is in contradiction to the righteousness of God imputed forensically at the moment of salvation as taught in Romans 4:3: “Abraham believed God, and it was counted [“imputed” from λογίζομαι logizomai] unto him for righteousness.”
From Dr. Ortlund’s statement that Catholics teach that salvation comes with baptism, with which Dr. Ortlund has no problem, it would seem that Dr. Ortlund advocates baptismal regeneration. Theologians Wayne Grudem and Charles Ryrie refute baptismal regeneration:
Theologians who refute baptismal regeneration
Wayne Grudem writes: This question was discussed to some extent above under the response to the Roman Catholic view of baptism. To say that baptism or any other action is necessary for salvation is to say that we are not justified by faith alone, but by faith plus a certain “work,” the work of baptism.[3]
Charles Ryrie agrees and adds that neither can Acts 2:38 be used to teach water baptism saves. The εἰς [“for”] is not purposive or causative as baptismal regenerationalists would teach. “It is equally true that it may say that baptism is not for the purpose of the forgiveness of sins but because of forgiveness (that had already taken place at repentance). Eis is clearly used with this meaning in Matthew 12:41---‘they repented at (on the basis of, or because of) the preaching of Jonah.’ It certainly cannot mean in that verse that they repented with a view to the preaching of Jonah.”[4] So Acts 2:38 is teaching that the hearers of Peter’s message are to be baptized on the basis of forgiveness.
The similarity of Protestant’s perseverance of the saints with Roman Catholicism
Dr. Ortlund approvingly quoted Anglican theologian Richard Hooker to show another similarity with Catholicism in his view: “We are justified by faith alone, and yet hold truly that without good works we are not justified.” He also quoted the more familiar statement from Calvin: “It is, therefore, faith alone that justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.”[5]
Dr. Ortlund uses these statements to teach that “works for Protestants are not casual for justification but are necessary” and he would see this as a commonality with Catholics. I think Dr. Ortlund is teaching the perseverance of the saints with his last statement. Works are necessary to prove one’s salvation and therefore necessary and not casual. The doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is the doctrine that if a person professing salvation does not persevere until the end that is proof the professor was not justified. Again, Dr. Ortlund would see this as a close, but not identical, parallel to Catholicism’s view of works necessary for justification.
There are many examples of believers in the New Testament who possessed eternal life but did not persevere to the end. The believers at Corinth who abused the Lord’s Supper were “asleep” or dead as a consequence in 1 Corinthians 11:30. They did not persevere to the end in holiness. John states there is a sin unto death for believers in 1 John 5:16. Their life is cut short because they did not persevere. Peter refers to “righteous Lot” in 2 Peter 2:7 who in the Old Testament was very immoral.
The similarity of Protestant’s Lordship Salvation with Roman Catholicism
Just as a Catholic’s salvation is initiated by grace through baptism which includes a commitment according to Ortlund, saving faith for Protestants also involves commitment.
Ortlund contends that faith is not just mental assent but involves a surrender to Christ. We agree that saving faith is more than mental assent, saving includes the act of the will of trusting Christ as Savior. Ortlund does not state his belief in Lordship'salvation, but that is what he is advocating, which again reveals more common ground with Catholicism. Lordship salvation front loads salvation with works (which would parallel Catholicism’s faith and baptism). Salvation in Lordship salvation is more than receiving Christ as Savior by faith alone. Salvation is turning from sin and committing oneself to Christ as Lord. Perseverance of the saints on the other hand backloads salvation with works which would parallel Catholicism’s keeping of the sacraments. Dr. Ortlund sees common ground with Catholics in the doctrines of baptismal regeneration, Lordship salvation, and perseverance of the saints.
Dr. Ortlund notes a difference between the Protestant and Catholic views of justification because of “the whole soteriological context of justification” in Catholic theology. “The context for justification includes indulgences, penance, purgatory, the sacraments, and the necessity of baptism.” Ortlund adds that “in practice how Catholics are justified, there are important differences.”
I totally agree. But this statement by Ortlund seems to contradict what Ortlund said earlier that Catholics believe that “one does not need the initial works because salvation comes with baptism. If you have a problem with baptism, you have a problem with Martin Luther.” Is one of the sacraments, baptism, acceptable to be added to faith in Christ, but all of the sacraments are not acceptable? If one sacrament, baptism, is added to faith in Christ, then the one coming to salvation is not trusting exclusively in Christ alone for salvation but also in the necessity of one of the sacraments. If one sacrament is added to faith, then Christ’s death is not sufficient and must be supplemented. From the cross, Christ did not cry, “It is almost finished.” He declared “It is finished.”
Charles Spurgeon’s famous sermon refuting baptismal regeneration
I will close out my thoughts with Charles Haddon Spurgeon’s battle over baptismal regeneration and the famous sermon “Baptismal Regeneration” (click to read). W. Y. Fullerton (Spurgeon’s assistant for fourteen years at Metropolitan Tabernacle) writes that the baptismal regeneration controversy was inaugurated by a sermon in the Metropolitan Tabernacle on June 5, 1864. Before he preached it, Mr. Spurgeon warned his publishers that he was about to destroy at a blow the circulation of his printed sermons, but the blow must be struck. He was mistaken, for there was never such a demand for any sermon as for that one. In these days, when newspapers circulate a million copies a day, it may seem a small thing to say that a sermon had at once a circulation of a quarter of a million, but in those days, and for a sermon in any day, such a sale is phenomenal.[6]
Spurgeon, however, paid the price for declaring the truth. W. Y. Fullerton wrote: Spurgeon in follow-up sermons “answered, directly and indirectly, the blizzard of pamphlets and sermons which his original sermon had called forth—there must have been a hundred and fifty of them.”[7]
Spurgeon in his “Baptismal Regeneration” sermon stated: I am not aware that any Protestant Church in England teaches the doctrine of baptismal regeneration except one, and that happens to be the corporation which with none too much humility calls itself the Church of England.
One source for baptismal regeneration was the Catechism. Spurgeon preached: We quote them from the Catechism, which is intended for the instruction of youth, and is naturally very plain and simple since it would be foolish to trouble the young with metaphysical refinements. The child is asked its name, and then questioned, "Who gave you this name?" "My godfathers and godmothers in my baptism; wherein I was made a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." Is not this definite and plain enough? I prize the words for their candor; they could not speak more plainly. Three times over the thing is put, lest there should be any doubt in it.[8]
Baptism is the outward sign of salvation
Next, Spurgeon made clear that faith alone is necessary for salvation and that baptism is the outward sign of what God did in salvation:
THE BAPTISM IN THE TEXT IS ONE EVIDENTLY CONNECTED WITH FAITH. "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." It strikes me, there is no supposition here, that anybody would be baptized who did not believe; or, if there be such a supposition, it is very clearly laid down that his baptism will be of no use to him, for he will be damned, baptized or not unless he believes. The baptism of the text seems to me—my brethren, if you differ from me I am sorry for it, but I must hold my opinion and out with it—it seems to me that baptism is connected with, nay, directly follows belief. I would not insist too much upon the order of the words, but for other reasons, I think that baptism should follow believing. At any rate it effectually avoids the error we have been combating.
A man who knows that he is saved by believing in Christ does not when he is baptized, lift his baptism into a saving ordinance. In fact, he is the very best protester against that mistake, because he holds that he has no right to be baptized until he is saved. He bears testimony against baptismal regeneration in his being baptized as professedly an already regenerate person. Brethren, the baptism here meant is a baptism connected with faith, and to this baptism, I will admit there is very much ascribed in Scripture. Into that question, I am not going, but I do find some very remarkable passages in which baptism is spoken of very strongly. I find this—"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." I find as much as this elsewhere; I know that believer's baptism itself does not wash away sin, yet it is so the outward sign and emblem of it to the believer, that the thing visible may be described as the thing signified. Just as our Saviour said—"This is my body," when it was not his body, but bread; yet, inasmuch as it represented his body, it was fair and right according to the usage of language to say, "Take, eat, this is my body." And so, inasmuch as baptism to the believer representeth the washing of sin—it may be called the washing of sin—not that it is so, but that it is to saved souls the outward symbol and representation of what is done by the power of the Holy Spirit, in the man who believes in Christ.[9]
[1] Martin Luther, “Concerning Rebaptism” in Luther, Basic Theological Writing, 353ff quoted in Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2005), 269.
[2] Martin Luther, “The Pagan Servitude of the Church,” in Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings (ed. John Dillenberger; New York: Doubleday, 1961), 299, 303.
[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 981.
[4] Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1999), 337.
[5] John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent: with the Antidote, 6th Session, can. 11.
[6] W.Y. Fullerton, “Two Great Controversies” in Charles Hadden Spurgeon at The Spurgeon Archive.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Baptismal Regeneration (click to open) at The Spurgeon Center for Biblical Preaching at Midwestern Seminary.
[9] Ibid.