Saturday, September 10, 2016

What Did the Early Church Believe About Baptism?


One of my students was recently asked about the Catholic (and Orthodox and Lutheran) practice of baptizing infants.  She did a fine job answering the fella, but she missed one important step.  Before one begins talking about baptizing infants, you first have to be on the same page about the nature of baptism itself.

There are some Christians who practice what is called "believer's baptism".  This view proposes baptism as merely a public sign of one's conversion to Christ.  But of itself, baptism affects no change in the person, confers no graces, and does not change one's status before God.  It is just a sign.  And if one approaches baptism with that framework, it is impossible to understand why one would ever think to baptize an infant.  

So today I wanted to look at the data from Scripture regarding baptism, and then see how that was reflected in the writings of the early Church.






The Witness of Scripture:

Let's open up our Bibles...


Born Again:

Probably the most controverted passage regarding baptism comes from Jesus' midnight discourse with the rabbi Nicodemus.  He said:
"Jesus answered, ‘Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.  What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be astonished that I said to you, ‘You must be born from above.’” – John 3:5-7
Catholic interpreters see this as a very clear description of water baptism.  

However, some Evangelicals read it very differently.  They split apart the "born of water" from "and Spirit" in Jesus' first sentence.  Then they propose the phrase "born of water" is Jesus' way of referring to the amniotic fluid  of one's natural birth.

However, this interpretation faces an problem in verse 6.  There Jesus DOES refer to natural birth... and He calls it being "born of flesh".  Therefore, Jesus was not referring to natural birth when He said "born of water".  Rather, he was referring to one's new birth in Baptism.

This is reinforced by stuff Paul says in the letter to the Romans and the Colossians:
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.  For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.” – Romans 6:3-5
 “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in Baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” - Col 2:11-12
In these passages we see Paul making an analogy concerning the action of going into and coming out of the waters of baptism.  He compares the descent into the waters as joining one with the death of Christ.  And coming out of the water joins a person with the resurrection of Christ.  And that... is a theological description of being "born again of water and spirit".

Note also that Paul refers to baptism as the "circumcision of Christ".  Drawing from what the original circumcision was - (the ritual which brings Jewish boys into the Old Covenant) - we can conclude baptism does the same in the New Covenant.


Forgiven:

A second thing which Scripture ties to baptism is the forgiveness of sins.  We see this two times in the book of Acts.  The first is from the lips of Saint Peter:
“When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, ‘Brothers, what shall we do? 
Peter replied, ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.’” – Acts 2:37-41
The second one is from Ananias, the man who baptized Saint Paul.  He said:
 “And now why do you wait?  Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.” - Acts 22:16


Saved:

Lastly, we see Scripture tying baptism to our salvation.  The first instance of this comes from Jesus.  He said the following at the close of Mark's Gospel:
“And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel of the whole creation.  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.’” - Mark 16:15-16 
This lends itself to the interpretation that baptism is itself the means which God uses to convey to us the grace of salvation.  That would certainly cohere with this passage from Paul's letter to Titus:
“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit” - Titus 3:4-5
That passage is important because some Evangelicals reject the idea of tying salvation to baptism because they think baptism is a "work".  And since Scripture says we aren't saved by "works", therefore baptism cannot be a means of salvation.

However, in the above passage from the letter to Titus, Paul reiterates the fact that we're not saved by works... and concludes that we're saved through "the washing of regeneration"... aka, baptism.  This means Paul did not consider baptism to be a "work".

This leads us to the most direct passage on the question.  In Saint Peter's first letter he compares the waters of baptism to the waters of the great flood and concludes:
“God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is eight persons, were brought safely through water.  Baptism, which is alike in figure, now saves you - not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ.” - 1 Peter 3:20-21  
So there you have it.  Baptism saves you.  It isn't just a washing, it is an appeal to God for a clean conscience.



The Early Church:

Saint Justin Martyr:


Justin was a Christian philosopher and apologist who taught in both Ephesus and in Rome.  In 150AD, he wrote two essays to the Roman emperor Titus Augustus explaining who Christians were and defending them from various accusations.   At the close of the first essay, now called his “first apology”, he described Christian baptism detail:

"Whoever are convinced and believe that what they are taught and told by us is the truth, and professes to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to beseech God in fasting for the remission of their former sins, while we pray and fast with them. Then they are led by us to a place where there is water, and they are reborn in the same kind of rebirth in which we ourselves were reborn: ‘In the name of God, the Lord and Father of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit,’ they receive the washing of water. For Christ said, ‘Unless you be reborn, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven’"  - First Apology 61:14–17, 151 AD 


Irenaeus of Lyon:

Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyons, France at the close of the second century.  He has two surviving works.  One is a massive tome called “Against All Heresies”.  The other is a letter to a fella named Marcianus named, "The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching".  In it, he says the following about baptism:

“His disciples […] were sent forth by Him into all the world, and wrought the calling of the Gentiles, showing to mankind the way of life, to turn them from idols and fornication and covetousness, cleansing their souls and bodies by the baptism of water and of the Holy Spirit; which Holy Spirit they had received of the Lord, and they distributed and imparted It to them that believed; and thus they ordered and established the Churches. 
[…] For such is the state of those who have believed, since in them continually abides the Holy Spirit, who was given by Him in baptism, and is retained by the receiver, if he walks in truth and holiness and righteousness and patient endurance.” - Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching, 41-42, 180AD


Clement of Alexandria

Clement of Alexandria was a Christian convert the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria in the second century:

“The same also takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became. Being baptized, we are illuminated; illuminated, we become sons; being made sons, we are made perfect; being made perfect, we are made immortal. […] This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing: washing, by which we cleanse away our sins.” The Instructor, Book 1, Chapter 6, 191AD


Tertullian of Carthage

Tertullian was an early Christian philosopher who lived and wrote in ancient Carthage.  He produced many, many volumes in defense of the Christian faith.  He wrote a whole treatise on baptism.  It said the following:

"Thus, too, in our case, the unction runs carnally (on the body) but profits spiritually.  In the same way, baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins" - On Baptism 7:2, 203 AD 


Cyprian of Carthage

Cyprian was the bishop of Carthage from 248 till 258AD.  He wrote a letter about his wasted youth and how he found new birth in baptism:
“I used to indulge my sins as if they were actually parts of me, and indigenous to me. But after that, by the help of the water of new birth, the stain of former years had been washed away, and a light from above, serene and pure, had been infused into my reconciled heart—after that, by the agency of the Spirit breathed from heaven, a second birth had restored me to a new man.”Epistles 1:4, 246 AD


Cyril of Jerusalem

Cyril of Jerusalem was the bishop of Jerusalem from the year 350-386-AD.  He wrote a series of instructional lectures describing Christian practices.  He wrote the following:

“For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world, and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, art raised again walking in newness of life.”Catechetical Lectures, 3:12, 350 AD




To Conclude:

Well... what can even be said at this point?

Whenever the Bible speaks about baptism, it describes it as the means of new birth, the forgiveness of sins, the imparting of the Holy Spirit, adoption into Christ, and salvation.  Then you look at the witness of the early Church and you find the belief in sacramental baptism and baptismal regeneration was utterly unanimous.

And with that in mind, it becomes more clear about why people would want baptize their kids.

5 comments:

  1. Hey Bro! I'm a Protestant, but I think we've gotten it wrong by reducing baptism to a symbolic ritual. You've done a great job here of laying out the scriptural basis for understanding baptism as something essential and effective for salvation. But I still believe that baptizing infants is unscriptural and unnecessary. Despite the great respect we have for the early Church Fathers, I don't think that we should just swallow everything they taught without, like the Berean Jews, examining carefully the entire cannon of scripture to "see if these things are so". Where we've gotten off track I believe is in the doctrine of 'original sin'. As Peter pointed out, Paul's teaching is sometimes difficult to understand. I think his explanation of the consequences for us of Adam's transgression is poorly worded and gives the impression that the entire human race fell under God's judgement because of Adam's sin. However, scripture clearly refutes this idea in Ezekiel 18. Paul's intended meaning, I believe, (and what he clearly asserts in Romans 5:12) is that we all become sinners when, as a result of yielding to the bent towards sin that we've inherited from Adam, we actually knowingly commit sin. Babies are not born guilty of sin, but they are born with an inclination towards sin. This is the meaning in Exodus 34:7 where God says that he "will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation." 'Visit' does not mean 'punish' or 'condemn' as that would flatly contradict what God said in the Ezekiel passage referenced above. This also takes care of the problem that Catholics have addressed by devising a whole theology around Mary that has absolutely no basis in scripture to explain how Jesus was born without sin. What we inherited from Adam was not guilt for his sin, but rather a sinful nature. Otherwise the assertion in Hebrews 4:15 that Jesus was tempted like us in EVERY WAY would be untrue. Our temptation to sin is exponentially more difficult because of our inherited sinful nature. If Jesus didn't share this same condition with us he couldn't know experientially the power of that bent towards sin that makes it virtually impossible for us to resist temptation. I heard one of my Protestant brothers declare, in a sermon, that Jesus was born sinless because God just planted a fertilized egg in Mary that did not originate in one of her ovaries. So, in other words, it carried none of Mary's DNA. I love this brother and, in general, am in complete agreement with his theology. But on this point I have to protest. From Genesis to Revelation scripture clearly tells us that the Savior will be descended from Adam and Eve. God repeatedly speaks of the 'Seed' and the fact that through his grace and promises the Messiah and Savior of the world will be descended through Abraham's child of promise, Isaac. It's for this reason that God put it in the hearts of his people to carefully record their genealogies. For Jesus to share none of mankind's (and specifically Eve's and Abraham's) DNA would make all of that meaningless. I know we run into an issue with Psalm 51:5 but there is nothing there that irrefutably indicates that David was born guilty of sin. Again, the idea that we are charged with Adam's (or our immediate ancestor's) sin is contradicted by the passage in Ezekiel 18. David is merely emphasizing the fact that we are prone from birth to sin and born into a world where sinful role models and temptations to sin are ubiquitous.

    Whether we are vocational ministers or passionate lay leaders, it's so important that we know scripture thoroughly and think deeply, and don't merely accept and pass on everything that is handed down to us. We who teach will be held accountable to a higher standard than those we disciple.

    Thanks again for your excellent presentation on baptism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate your long comment and apologize for not seeing it sooner. I have not been blogging as much lately as I used to. I eventually got to a point were I looked at the body of work and said, "OK... I think that's roughly everything I know."

      In any event, you mention the immaculate conception of Mary. Among Catholics there is an argument for the immaculate conception which is exceedingly bad. It is the one you mention - that Mary had to be immaculate for Jesus to be immaculate. It is unfortunate that so many Catholics deploy that argument, because it is incoherent. You may take interest in my two posts on Catholic urban legends. This one is #4: http://actsapologist.blogspot.com/2016/05/7-harmful-catholic-urban-legends.html

      In short, the Church does not that it was necessary for Mary to be immaculately conceived. It is within the power of God's omnipotence to have the all-holy Jesus born to a sinful woman. God made Mary immaculately conceived as a singular grace, a gift given because He felt it would be a good idea. Not out of any necessity.

      Delete
    2. Now, in regard to the fall of man in Adam: You note that it is not correct to regard the sin of Adam as something we inherit the guilt of, but rather something which bent our nature. In this you are in complete agreement with the Catholic Church. In paragraph 405 of the Catechism, it says:

      "Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence."

      So what is done in Baptism for a baby is not the forgiveness of a sin, the guilt of which is inherited from Adam. Rather, what happens in Baptism for a baby is the imparting of God's grace, and the adoption of that child into the family of God.

      Delete
    3. Hey Brother...thanks for your thoughtful replies to my comments. I'm too stacked up right now to spend time carefully considering this new information and your points. But I will definitely come back to it and continue our conversation. Is there anyway we can cultivate our new friendship through another medium...email or something?

      Delete
    4. Not a problem. If you want, you can email me at OLMC.ACTS@gmail

      Delete