Sunday, April 7, 2024

In Defense of Bercot's Lectures On Pedobaptism Vs. Credobaptism

    David W. Bercot recently released a short lecture series on what the early Christians believed about pedobaptism. It can be purchased at the Scroll Publishing website or accessed as part of a course at the Historic Faith program. Here's a short promo:


    Earlier this week I chanced upon a group of three individuals who, while having a generally favorable view of Bercot (and at least one of whom were even introduced to patristics through his publications) took special exception to these lectures, so much so that they produced several reaction/commentary videos which largely consist of meandering, vitriolic diatribes against Bercot and the message. As these things tend to go, I was promptly blocked from their YouTube channel so that no one can see my critiques of their arguments. And so, once again, I present their videos and my exchanges with Nolan Fultz, one of the three commentators (the others being Luke and Christian):

Reacting to "What David Bercot Believes About Infant Baptism" (Part I)


The TL;DR version: Bercot makes his case that the Bible doesn't explicitly answer the question of pedobaptism one way or the other, and the commentators prove his case by appealing to the typical eisegesis of proof-texts. Move on to the next video...

David Bercot claims "paidion" doesn't refer to infants, but simultaneously calls infant-baptizers by the name of "paido-baptists." That's the real headline!

And here  @ante-nicenechristianity  appeals to a red herring, seemingly in an effort to draw attention away from the fact that the Scriptures don't explicitly make his case.

 @PatristicArcana  No, I think people find our summary more convicting than yours.

How convenient for you to think that,  @ante-nicenechristianity . I'm sure people already indoctrinated with pedobaptism would be more likely to entertain that fancy.


Reacting to "What David Bercot Believes About Infant Baptism" (Part II)


I get the impression that much as Protestants tend to treat sola scriptura as 'by my interpretation alone,' so, too, have you done with sola patrologia. You snub your nose at David Bercot's treatment of Irenaeus as influenced by his affiliation with the Anabaptists, and yet when he appeals to another patristic scholar, Kurt Aland, who himself was a pedobaptist, you simply dismiss him as a "heretic," too. Likewise, you had a similar reaction to the patristic scholar who I cited elsewhere when he gave the following assessment: “Since regeneration clearly refers to baptism in some passages, [e.g., Against Heresies 1.21.1; 3.17.1] Irenaeus has been adduced as a witness to the practice of infant baptism . . . . “This [i.e., Against Heresies 2.24.4] may be the earliest reference to infant baptism. Before rushing to accept a reference to infant baptism here, we should be cautious. For one thing, the verb used, renascor (‘reborn’), is different from regenero (‘to regenerate’), the verb related to regeneratio in the passages on baptism. But if we accept the two words as conceptually the same, there is another consideration. Besides its reference to baptism, regeneration is used by Irenaeus for Jesus’ work of renewal and rejuvenation effected by his birth and resurrection without any reference to baptism. That could be the case here. And such a reference better fits the context of recapitulation in which this passage occurs. [Cf. Against Heresies 4.38.2] The coming of Jesus brought a second beginning to the whole human race. He sanctified every age of life. Accepting his renovation by being baptized is another matter and falls outside the purview of this passage.” (Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church, pg. 308) These men are patristic scholars who have a different and arguably superior understanding of Irenaeus than you do, especially given that you don't seem to understand his view of Recapitulation to begin with in order to grapple with its implications for this passage. And yet you act as if disagreeing with your interpretation of Irenaeus is tantamount to disagreeing with Irenaeus himself, again much as many Protestants do with their interpretations of the Bible. Everything prior to that in the video was the expected argument from silence in the face of many attestations to believers' baptism, and the occasional strawman argument. Can't wait to see your response to Tertullian in the next video.

We know about David's argument that Irenaeus is referring to some brand new kind of rebirth apart from baptism (i.e. recapitulation), which is when he lost the argument, by his own admission: David Bercot's Infant Baptism series, part 2 (48:36): "We were all reborn, we were all regenerated, in a certain sense. Not in the same sense of regeneration... uh... that we receive in baptism.... he's not talking about THAT new birth. He's talking about a regeneration that occurs to everybody through the incarnation. Okay? But in this quote I just read to you, you may have had trouble following it, Irenaeus is clearly not talking about baptism, because he's talking about regeneration in hades. So unless you believe in baptism in hades, that's clearly not his topic." But Irenaeus IS talking about baptism in hades, as are the rest of the fathers. David admits defeat by overlooking baptism in hades. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, book 4, chapter 27: It was for this reason, too, that the Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, preaching His advent there also, and [declaring] the remission of sins received by those who believe in Him. Now all those believed in Him who had hope towards Him, that is, those who proclaimed His advent, and submitted to His dispensations, the righteous men, the prophets, and the patriarchs, to whom He *remitted sins in the same way as He did to us*, which sins we should not lay to their charge, if we would not despise the grace of God. Shepherd of Hermas, Similitude 9: Accordingly, those also who fell asleep received the seal of the Son of God. For, he continued, before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead, and they arise alive. And to them, accordingly, was this seal preached, and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God.

Notice that, as anticipated,  @ante-nicenechristianity  failed to address the argument from Bercot, Aland, Ferguson, etc., regarding the implications of Irenaeus' teaching on Recapitulation on the passage in question.

 @PatristicArcana  Do you want to have a live debate or be blocked? Choose one.

    And from elsewhere in the comments section:

​ @PatristicArcana  Everett Ferguson is absolutely being dense, and so are you. The context of this passage is that Jesus came to be baptized. "Being thirty years old when He came to be baptized.... For He came to save all through Himself — all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men." Therefore, Irenaeus is certainly speaking of baptism when he says infants are regenerated, just like all the other times he talks about regeneration and rebirth, which are synonymous terms: It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: Unless a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. - Fragments of the lost writings of Irenaeus, chapter 34 [The Holy Spirit] was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God. And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit. - Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 7 This class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God.... - Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 21:1 And inasmuch as man, with respect to that formation which was after Adam, having fallen into transgression, needed the laver of regeneration*, [the Lord] said to him [upon whom He had conferred sight], after He had smeared his eyes with the clay, Go to Siloam, and wash; thus restoring to him both [his perfect] confirmation, and that *regeneration which takes place by means of the *laver*. - Against Heresies, book 5, chapter 15 And again, giving to the disciples the power of regeneration into God, He said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. - Against Heresies, book 3 chapter 17 This baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God.... - Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, chapter 3

​ @ante-nicenechristianity  So when a high-caliber patristic scholar who recognizes your interpretation of Irenaeus, but proposes another interpretation based on the context of this statement being couched within Irenaeus' view of Recapitulation, and you have no response to the implications which Recapitulation could have for the passage, then this is a case of said patristic scholar being "dense" and not of you being dense? See, this is the problem with your polemics which has been pointed out by others, viz., your rebuttals are uncharitable and emotionally charged, as opposed to being scholastically informed.

@PatristicArcana  Everett Ferguson is a Campbellite, a member of the church of anti-Christ, which desecrates the eucharist, supports war, allows divorce and remarriage, sends children to government school, teaches women to dress like harlots, and rejects all authority. I refuted his dumb point and yours. You're the one being emotional by telling us how much you love Everett Ferguson instead of making a rebuttal. The scriptures strictly forbid giving charity to sinners.

First of all,  @ante-nicenechristianity , it's intellectually dishonest for you to claim that you refuted Ferguson when—as anyone can see—you completely failed to even address his point on Recapitulation. Secondly, your emotionally charged response to his denominational affiliation not withstanding, his academic on this matter has been peer-reviewed by patristic scholars of many different faith traditions, and even those who disagree with him are composed and honest enough not to imagine his treatment of Irenaeus to be "dense" or "dumb."

@PatristicArcana  So your final argument comes down to, "You're wrong because you refute us too harshly." You're not even responding to anything we said, except that you're hoping we'll believe your mommy Everett Ferguson's word over our lying eyes and ears.


Reacting to "What David Bercot Believes About Infant Baptism" (Part III)


After all the pomp of the two previous videos, the attempted response to Bercot's treatment of Tertullian is, to be blunt, disappointingly and woefully inept. It is asserted that Tertullian's treatise On Baptism was written during his descent into Montanism, which is patently false and utterly ignorant of elementary patristic studies. Even the 19th century Ante-Nicene Fathers set (vol. 3, pg. 11) gives this work, dated by John Kaye to be "Pre-Montanist (probably)," and by August Neander to be "Pre-Montanist." Likewise modern patristic scholarship: "Between ca. 200 and 206 is placed a series of important moral treatises . . . . To the same period are added the three other important works: De baptismo," etc., with earmarks of his transitional phase of becoming a Montanist sympathizer dating from 207 (Paolo Siniscalco, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity 3:718). This completely undermines the commentators' claim in this video that Tertullian's view on baptism—which was arguably the prevailing Carthaginian view at the time—was the product of Montanist influence and a driving factor in their controversy with orthodoxy. No, this view came from Tertullian's early and thoroughly orthodox writing career. In an earlier video the commentators shot themselves in the foot when they noted the Quartodeciman controversy as a witness to documentation by the early Christians of internal controversies; all three of them apparently either forgetting or never knowing in the first place that this didn't become particularly controversial until the late 2nd century with earlier proponents of the two positions having gotten along just fine all the way down to Polycarp, a personal student of the Apostle John, and Anicetus, a bishop in Rome, and thus proving that the early Christians were capable of having disagreements for the best part of a century before becoming big issues. And even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that Bercot's position for Tertullian referring to small children other than infants to be incorrect, Tertullian still destroys their case: “The earliest explicit reference to infant baptism occurs ca. 200 in Tertullian On Baptism 18, a passage that opposes what appears to be a relatively new practice. A few years later, Origen (Comm. Rom. 5.9) claimed infant baptism as a tradition from the apostles, and the ceremony of baptism in the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus makes provision for children (21.3-5). It and later baptismal liturgies, however, describe procedures that presuppose believers’ baptism as the norm. Cyprian defended the validity of infant baptism (Ep. 58), but believers’ baptism must have been frequent well into the fourth century, for the great church leaders, including those born to strong Christian parents (Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Ephraem the Syrian, Jerome, Rufinus, Augustine), were not baptized until the end of their student days. The inscriptions that mention the baptism of children ordinarily place that baptism in close proximity to the death of the child, indicating that infant baptism was not routine but occurred as a precaution against death. The principal impetus for the rise and spread of infant baptism may have been the desire that the child not depart life without the safeguard of baptism.” (Everett Ferguson, Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed., pg. 162) Which quotation refutes another of their arguments from earlier in this video, viz., claiming that Gregory of Nazianzus was only referring to the baptism of converts when the three of them were manifestly oblivious to the fact that Gregory himself, despite being born in circa 330 to a father, Gregory the Elder, who was bishop of Nazianzus since circa 325, was, "not baptized until the end of [his] student days." I could spend hours correcting the historical ignorance and logical fallacies which these three videos are fraught with, but the comments I've made thus far should be sufficient for now, and better things have I to do with the rest of my time.

Scholars disagree with each other and are all heretical. True Christians don't care what they say. Philip Schaff and W. D. Killen both think Tertullian wrote On Baptism after departing to the Montanist heresy, though. We quote them in our baptism video reluctantly. Have you seen that video yet?

Why else do you suppose that I started with two 19th century scholars,  @ante-nicenechristianity , if not to refute your assertion that, "you may accept this anecdote from the scholars if you value their consensus," thus showing that there was no such "consensus" even at that dated period of patristic scholarship, and then followed by citing two massively peer-reviewed sources of current patristic scholarship, one from the close of the 20th century (Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed.) and the other from the 21st century (Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity) to demonstrate that the modern consensus shows that Tertullian was in his early, orthodox phase when he composed On Baptism? Will you then be amending that patently erroneous and misleading statement you made regarding the scholarship? And yes, your penchant for branding virtually anyone and everyone else apart from yourselves as "heretics" has been duly noted.

    Also of note is that Travis Morgan, on whom my first blog was a mini-exposé, made an appearance in the comments to another of these videos and is still attempting to project his own character flaws and failings onto others:

Bercot is a restorationist who finds what he wants in the church fathers and ignores any evidence that runs counter to his claims. I've watched some of his other videos and his overall approach to history is pathetic.

Specifically, I watched his video on Luther, and his take was extremely biased and relied on a great deal of out-of-context quotes. It became apparent only a few minutes into the presentation that Bercot knew nothing about Luther but was instead spewing the worst kind of Roman Catholic pop polemics. Luther had his issues. But Bercot failed to treat the man fairly or even try to be unbiased.

    Naturally Mr. Morgan is unaware that in Bercot's autobiographical material he reveals that in order to obtain an ordination as an Anglican priest he took courses through Cambridge University in which he received excellent marks for his knowledge of the Reformation. Then again, given Morgan's track record, even if he did know that he certainly wouldn't be above lying about it in order to slander Bercot.


    Update, 04/09/2024: After all of the above had transpired, a new video, "David Bercot is WRONG about Irenaeus," was uploaded to their YouTube channel, in which they blatantly misrepresent Everett Ferguson's view on the matter, thus demonstrating that all of their accusations of Bercot supposedly "lying" are merely a projection of their own intellectual dishonesty.


at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Chronological New Testament & Dating of the Apostolic Fathers

     Knowing when a given early Christian writing was composed can notably impact one’s study of the text. Which events and teachings precip...