The basic doctrines that distinguish Christianity from all other religions have, at their root, assumptions that also differentiate Catholicism from all other forms of Christianity. I have spent some time illustrating this phenomenon in the case of several dogmas—the Incarnation, the authority of Christ, and the exclusive claim to grace. However, if you are just joining me now, don’t be daunted. Each essay is independent in its argument, since each one examines a different facet of Christian dogma.  

 

In the beginning, the world was good. This message is echoed seven times throughout the Genesis narrative—as if the narrator, already aware of the many controversies his writing would engender, felt the need to emphasize this one truth about the beginning above all else. If so, his foresight paid off: among the myriad of disagreements between the Hebrews and, later, the Christians, there has never been much disagreement about this point. At the beginning of the world, it was good.

Despite all the evils that the fall of man brought into the world, this goodness is still more fundamental than evil. While sin bends our will towards itself, and brings us guilt and misery, we are not made in its image. Only God defines our existence.

The same is true of nature, which is subjected to hardship and disaster in the wake of our curse, yet nevertheless preserves some of the beauty with which its Creator first endowed it. Through Saint Paul, we have also received intelligence that nature is not a neutral observer in the battle between good and evil, but that it “waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God” (Romans 8:19). The realm of nature is, in essence, on the side of good—like us, its perversions are accidental, rather than formal.

One imagines that it is for these reasons, among others, that the Divine Persons have been slow to destroy Their creation. Elsewhere in Genesis, God says even of Sodom, “For the sake of ten I will not destroy it” (Genesis 18:32). Intriguingly, in 1 Chronicles 21:15, “God sent the angel [of death] to Jerusalem to destroy it; but when he was about to destroy it, the Lord saw, and he repented of the evil.” The Old Testament’s refrain that the Lord is “slow to anger” means nothing if not this: that He prefers to redeem rather than to destroy and replace.

Therefore, it is unsurprising that God has brought about our salvation through the “washing of regeneration” (Titus 3:5). This refers to baptism, the means by which God brings souls to purity, and thus to Himself. While this theological formulation is now disputed, it is worth noting that for the early Christians, the matter was settled: as the Epistle of Barnabas (11:11, 130AD) explains, “We go down into the water full of sins and foulness, and we come up bearing fruit in our hearts, fear and hope in Jesus and in the Spirit.” Or, in the more simple words of Saint Peter, “baptism […] now saves you” (1 Peter 3:21).

However, baptismal regeneration is not essential to the argument I am making. I make reference to it only to explain why I refer to Christianity’s regenerative tendencies as ‘baptismal.’ Whether or not you agree with my sacramentology is rather beside the point. The broader idea—that Christianity aims to sanctify the earth—ought to be less controversial.

It is worth noting, furthermore, that Christianity’s particular brand of regeneration is not merely restorative. We are not simply heading back towards Eden. Instead, the Gospel baptizes believers into a supernatural perfection that surpasses our long-lost natural perfection. By dying and rising with Christ in baptism, we are united to Him irrevocably; our identity is found in Him, and in return, He is in us.

This aspect of Christianity is, importantly, not limited to the soul of the believer. Our bodies, and even the natural world, will be renewed in union with Christ at the end of time. In a similar way, the Jewish law is given new and supernatural meaning by the coming of Christ: as our Lord teaches in Matthew, “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them” (Matthew 5:17).

The Gospel’s baptismal effects continued throughout history. For example, the ancient Christians immediately realized that Plato’s philosophy was given new meaning if understood through the faith. Saint Justin Martyr and Saint Augustine, among many others, aided in this baptism of Plato. Later, St. Thomas sponsored the baptism of Aristotle by swearing that he would do good, and not harm, if brought under the light of the Gospel. The early Christians even built churches from the design of ancient pagan architecture, adding arms so that the old temples might become crosses. This baptism was brought to many other people, institutions and ideas in the ancient and medieval world—including pagan myths and holidays (a fact which we are still reminded of by skeptics and Puritans alike every Halloween, Christmas and Easter).

I have found that many criticisms of the Catholic Church ultimately boil down to ignorance of this phenomenon. It baffles me that a fellow Christian, who believes that even the most hardened sinner can be regenerated, cannot accept that the Gospel might also regenerate the ancient pagan office of Pontifex Maximus. Or to use another example, why cannot the power that brought truth out of Aristotle through Saint Aquinas also bring some truth out of modern rights-theory through Vatican II? We can all agree that Christ ought not bow to Plato—but must we destroy Plato? Is it not possible to make Plato bow to Christ?

So I admit the obvious: yes, parts of the Church are doubtlessly sourced from extra-Christian contributors. This is true in art, philosophy, and even in some religious practices. But it is also true of the very people who make up the Church. We are all brought from a state of sin, and we are all baptized into grace. And if human beings, who are far more complex than mere ideas, can be renewed by the Gospel—why not ideas? Why not offices and institutions and holidays? By rejecting the regeneration of these, we reject a core power of Christianity itself.

 

Original photograph found here.

9 responses to “Catholicism’s Uniquely Baptismal Theology”

  1. Matthew Bryan Avatar
    Matthew Bryan

    Thought provoking, Christian. Thank you for sharing.

    I’m not clear how this is unique to Roman Catholicism. I’ve heard similar reasoning from Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox believers. Can you clarify how the RCC is unique in regard to the topic?

    1. Christian McGuire Avatar
      Christian McGuire

      Well, like what? What’s an example of something that has been uniquely baptized (ie not during times of union with the Catholic Church, nor in conjunction with the Church) by one of those branches of Christianity?

      1. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        Apparently I misunderstood your article. Rereading it, it appears you’re educating us to the fact that Roman Catholics have baptismal ceremonies on behalf of deceased persons and on behalf of holidays. Is that correct?

      2. Christian McGuire Avatar
        Christian McGuire

        No, I think you understood be right the first time.

      3. Benjamin Winter Avatar
        Benjamin Winter

        I know some things don’t come through well via text, but it seems like this conversation is getting tense? I just want to chime in and say that I hope cool heads prevail. =)

      4. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        I’m not upset, Ben. But thank you.

        Christian, my initial understanding was not that Catholics are baptized in proxy on behalf of other people, but that they consider ideas as having been redeemed by Catholic teaching. The Ethiopic Church would be the best specific example of that in my studies. The EOTC takes particular pride in redeeming pagan rituals and assimilating them into church practices, overlaying them with truth and showing how any good desires latent in paganism find their fulfillment in Christianity. Their Meskel holiday epitomizes that practice.

        The Nestorian Stele is another specific example of how the Assyrian Church of the East redeemed Bhuddist ideas in Christian truth.

        If the RCC has actual baptismal ceremonies in regard to such redemptive theology, then that would seem to set Catholic practice apart from other branches of the faith. Perhaps that was your point? I tried to find more information on the “baptism of Plato,” but without success.

      5. Christian McGuire Avatar
        Christian McGuire

        I’m not either, Ben, JSYK.

        Yes, that initial impression was what I attempted to communicate.

        As far as the two examples you mentioned, I don’t see how either fit the criteria. Could you explain how the Meskel holiday is a redemption of a pagan practice? But, more generally, I would note that the holiday is a commemoration of an event that took place before the Chalcedonian split.

        The Stele is an amazing artifact, but again, I’m not really sure where you are coming from re: the redemption of Bhuddist concepts. What in the Stele led you to this conclusion?

      6. Matthew Bryan Avatar
        Matthew Bryan

        To clarify, I’m not attempting to defend the claims of other branches that they have redeemed pagan thought, only stating that they do proudly claim to have redeemed pagan thought. I did not bring it up as a counter argument. Rather, I assumed your claim to RC uniqueness to be accurate, therefore I mentioned other traditions in order to elicit your clarification of that uniqueness in comparison to the other traditions.

        The EOTC Meskel celebration differs substantially from the Chalcedonian feasts of the True Cross. Advocates of the EOTC state that it was used to replace local pagan spring rituals (see Keon-Sang An’s “An Ethiopian Orthodox Reading of the Bible” for example). They also did not celebrate it in the current form according to some EOTC advocates until the 13th-14th century when Egypt provided several pieces of the cross to Ethiopia … long story.

        The Nestorian Stele is decorated with the Bhuddist symbol of the lotus blossom. Examples of Bhuddist themes in it include, “they never obtained their vast desires … they lost their path.” Central to Bhuddism is the eightfold path and being released from “desires,” which sounds to Westerners like being released from sin, but is quite different in that religion.

        I am sincerely interested in how RC tradition differs from these in redeeming pagan ideas. You mentioned the baptism of Plato and Aristotle (which I misinterpreted in my second response). I assume more information is available on the topic, and I’d love to be pointed in the right direction to learn more.

      7. TJ Humphrey Avatar
        TJ Humphrey

        This is a great article. Thanks for sharing! It makes me think of something that I heard a lot (and certainly believed) whenever I was a Calvinist minister; that “all truth is God’s truth”. This led the Dooyeweerdian and Vollenhovian philosophers to incorporate portions of secular philosophy into their Reformed epistemology, and allowed many people (theologians and otherwise) to embrace evolutionary theory. Many would make the same sort of argument for something like women’s ordination, in that aspects of feminist idealigy need to be (and in some cases already have been) baptized by the church.

Leave a Reply

Conciliar Post

Conciliar Post is an online community and archive devoted to thoughtful Christian reflection. Since its founding, the site has published theological conversations, reflections on Christianity, reviews, and commentary on culture and current events from a Christian perspective.

Top Posts

The Old Testament in OrderDecember 13, 2024Jacob Prahlow
The New Testament in OrderApril 14, 2021Jacob Prahlow
How the Christ Defined the ChristianAugust 15, 2025Matthew Bryan
Why Liturgy?December 2, 2016Wesley Walker
Life After Life After DeathOctober 7, 2024Jacob Prahlow

Discover more from Conciliar Post

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading