The Patristic Period: Part Two

Hippolytus and Baptism

“Hippolytus (c. 170-235) was the bishop of Rome in the third century and composed an important manual of church order titled On the Apostolic Tradition,” in which he presents a peculiar formula for the catechesis and baptism of new converts.¹ Following an examination period of three years and a time of fasting and prayer, the new Christians were immersed in the waters of baptism threefold, once for each person of the Trinity, while simultaneously replying that they believe in each person.²

This particular formula is peculiar compared to the standard Trinitarian formula today—a single immersion, demonstrating God’s Oneness, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, demonstrating their threefold personhood. Is it possible that this early formula for baptism was due to a misunderstanding of Trinitarian theology, emphasizing the Persons’ distinctions over and above their unity? Or, do Christians today err in the opposite direction, overemphasizing God’s unity in the compromise of the Persons’ distinctions? Perhaps neither formula of baptism is wrong, only emphasizing different aspects of Trinitarian theology. However, Hippolytus’s form of baptism does seem to reflect a period in time in which the distinction between the divine persons had to be defended against theological error and heresy, such as modalism. Moreover, Trinitarian theology was still being developed. In short, Hippolytus’s method was not erroneous, but simply a product of his time, yet certain aspects of his formula are relevant today.

First and foremost, Hippolytus’s formula of baptism, emphasizing distinct persons, demonstrates the importance of a proper balance between unity and distinction in Trinitarian theology. On the one hand, Christians must maintain the unity of God and his singular being. On the other hand, in response to today’s unitarianism, Christians must stand firm on the threeness of God in persons. Second, the examination by elders and bishops and a subsequent self-examination before baptism are other things that Hippolytus ordered and would be wise practice today.³ Baptism is a serious thing; it is a sacrament of the Lord Jesus. Thus, even today, it deserves the utmost contemplation.

Properly Ordering Scripture and Tradition

Scripture is the primary and infallible authority of the church and all individual believers, yet tradition is also a necessary form of authority. The early church and individuals such as Hippolytus especially “assumed a close relationship between Scripture and tradition. This emphasis on both Scripture and tradition reminds pastors that any good theological method is always biblically grounded, historically informed, and oriented toward the clear presentation of the gospel.”⁴ Thus, tradition, albeit less so than Scripture, is essential and authoritative for the church.

First, tradition includes creeds and confessions, and “these theological expressions of tradition formulate the ways the church has expressed the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). Good confessional statements arise out of a good reading of Scripture, and these expressions of tradition help guide the teaching and instruction in the Scriptures.”⁵ In other words, tradition is valuable and authoritative if it has derived its value and authority from Scripture. Moreover, these statements of tradition are beneficial because they succinctly convey the doctrines of Scripture, allowing them to be useful alongside Scripture as the primary source.

Second, tradition serves as a historical lens through which the church interprets the Scriptures throughout history. Pastors and theologians stand on the saints who have come and gone before them, depending on them as they faithfully expound the Scriptures and protect the church from various errors and heresies. For instance, “the Baptist Faith and Message (2000) [or any confession or creed] is so important for presenting a unified confessional statement that can help guide the church’s faith and practice.”⁶

Early Views on the Atonement in Light of Scripture

In the early church, there were primarily two theories of the atonement, and the beginnings of a third theory—Christus victor, ransom theory, and penal substitutionary atonement—all of which “rendered a myriad of cosmological effects as part of the history of redemption.”⁷ That is, the atonement of Christ involved a victory, a ransom, and a substitutionary element.

First, “the view that has come to be called Christus victor interprets the atonement as a cosmic victory over sin, death, and Satan,” which was the most popular theory for the first one thousand years of the church.⁸ The Apostle Paul has much to say regarding and supports this theory: “He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him” and “The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil” (Col. 2:15; 1 John 3:8).⁹ Furthermore, Paul writes, “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery” (Heb 2:14-15).

Second, “in one version of [the Christus victor], Christ paid a ransom, following Mark 10:45, to the devil,” a position held to different degrees and extents, including different recipients of the payment, by fathers such as Irenaeus, Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662), Athanasius, Origen of Alexandria (d. 254), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 394), and John of Damascus (d. 749).¹⁰ This position is also biblically supported by passages such as 1 Timothy 2:5-6: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” Matthew 20:28 also demonstrates the ransom theory: “the Son of Man came… to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Third, this period of church history saw an early development of a theory later known as penal substitutionary atonement. The Epistle to Diognetus espouses the view:

He gave his own son as a ransom for us—the Holy for the wicked, the Sinless for sinners, the Just for the unjust, the Incorruptible for the corruptible, the Immortal for the mortal. For was there, indeed, anything except his righteousness that could have availed to cover our sins? In whom could we, in our lawlessness and ungodliness, have been made holy, but in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange!¹¹

Furthermore, Irenaeus declares, “He propitiated the Father against whom we had sinned for us and cancel[ed] our disobedience by his own obedience.”¹² Likewise, Irenaeus, alongside arguing for propitiation, advocates Christus victor and ransom theory: “Christ has summed up all things, waging war against our enemy and crushing him who at the beginning led us away captive in Adam, and trampling on his head.”¹³ It is worth noting that, in reality, all of the various theories bleed into one and are not mutually exclusive. For instance, the Epistle to Diognetus references a “ransom” and a “sweet exchange.” The penal substitutionary theory, further expounded by theologians such as Tertullian, Hilary of Poitiers (c. 310-367), Ambrose of Milan (c. 337-397), and Augustine, is perhaps the best biblically represented of these early developments, although the other theories are also grounded biblically (Isa. 53:4-6; Romans 3:25-26; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24).¹⁴

Augustine and Pelagianism

Augustine, perhaps the greatest theologian the church has ever had apart from Paul, iterated much more than just substitutionary atonement, yet not everyone agreed with his interpretations. One such instance involved Pelagius “strongly object[ing] to Augustine’s description of man’s need for grace… For Pelagius, human nature retained a permanent capacity for sinlessness, which in turn influenced will and action.”¹⁵ Augustine saw this logic and conclusion as “jeopardiz[ing] the entire Christian message of salvation… Grace was not merely an aid to choosing what was good, but essential for being brought to life.”¹⁶ His reasoning behind the position was that he “firmly believed in original sin… humans begin life in the grip of a power that they cannot shake, and which will draw them deeper and deeper into destruction unless God himself rescues them.”¹⁷

The debate culminated in Pelagius’s condemnation at the Council of Carthage in 418 AD. Ultimately, Augustine prevailed in the discussion, yet splinter groups of Pelagians and later semi-Pelagians remained. Even today, incorrect understandings of man’s capacity to choose good are everywhere. Primarily, Christians who overemphasize the freedom of their will end up compromising God’s sovereignty and their need for grace. Therefore, in light of Augustine’s legacy, Christians must continue to defend His sovereignty, declaring that “Salvation belongs to the Lord!” (Jonah 2:9).

Footnotes

1. Stephen O. Presley, “Scripture and Tradition,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 84. ↩

2. Ibid., 84-85. ↩

3. Presley, 84. ↩

4. Ibid., 86. ↩

5. Ibid. ↩

6. Presley, 87. ↩

7. Coleman M. Ford, “Salvation,” in Historical Theology for the Church, eds. Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 93. ↩

8. Ibid. ↩

9. Unless otherwise specified, all Scripture references are to the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016). ↩

10. Ford, 94. ↩

11. Epistle to Diognetus 9.2-5, qtd. in Ford, 94-95. ↩

12. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.17.1, qtd. in Ford, 95. ↩

13. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.20.2, qtd. in Ford, 95. ↩

14. Ford, 96-97. ↩

15. Ibid., 103-104. ↩

16. Ibid., 104. ↩

17. Justin S. Holcomb, Know the Creeds and Councils (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014), 89. ↩