Posted on 05/13/2008 11:37:09 PM PDT by Beloved Levinite
CHAPTER XV
Century One
The Primitive Churches
We now make the bold, yet almost universally admitted assertion, that the primitive churches were in every distinguishing characteristic Baptist churches. We affirm that at the time of the departure of the great Tertullian, their Baptistic features were as yet uneffaced; and that, though lost in the development of the Man of Sin, they have preserved those lineaments intact in the churches to this day. Where shall we seek the proof of this? Whom shall we introduce as witnesses? Shall we let Baptists speak? Will their testimony be received? No; with all their research, and learning, and candor, we shall dismiss them as witnesses in the case. Let Pedobaptists speak; let Presbyterians and Episcopalians testify; and if a jury of rational men can be found, who, guided by their report, can give a verdict against our affirmation, we shall acknowledge that there is no confidence to be placed in testimony.
Did They Baptize Infants?
M. De la Roque:
"The primitive churches did not baptize infants, and the learned Grotius proves it, in his annotations on the gospel." (In Stennett’s answer to Russen, p. 188).
Salmasius and Suicerus:
"In the two first centuries no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrines of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer; because of these words; ‘He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.’ " (Epist. ad Tustum Pacium. Thesaur. Eccles. sub voce Evrazis, tom. ii, p. 1136).
Curcelleus:
"The baptism of infants, in the two first centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown, but in the third and fourth was allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages it was generally received. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ was born in the former ages no trace of it appears, and it was introduced without the command of Christ." (Epistle to the Churches of Galatia, chap. iii, verse 27 (2.) Annotat. ad Rom., v. 14).
Venema:
"Tertullian has nowhere mentioned Pedobaptism among the traditions of the church, nor even among the customs of the church that were publicly received, and usually observed; nay, he plainly intimates that, in his time, it was yet a doubtful affair. Nothing can be affirmed with certainty concerning the custom of the church before Tertullian, seeing there is not anywhere, in more ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism. Justin Martyr, in his second apology, when describing baptism, mentions only that of adults. I conclude, therefore, that Pedobaptism can not be certainly proved to have been practiced before the times of Tertullian; and that there were persons in his age who desired their infants might be baptized, especially when they were afraid of their dying without baptism. Tertullian opposed, and by so doing he intimates that Pedobaptism began to prevail. These are the things that may be affirmed with apparent certainty concerning the antiquity of infant baptism, after the times of the apostles; for more are maintained without solid foundation." (Hist. Eccles., tom. iii, Secul. II, 108, 109).
Episcopius:
"Pedobaptism was not accounted a necessary rite till it was determined so to be in the Milevitan Council, held in the year 418." (Institut. Theology, 1. iv, c. xiv).
Bishop Taylor:
"There is no pretense of tradition, that the church in all ages did baptize all the infants of Christian parents. It is more certain that they did not always do it than that they did it in the first ages. St. Ambrose, St. Hierome, and St. Austin, were born of Christian parents, and yet not baptized until the full age of man or more." (Liberty of Prophesying, v, p. 84).
We might multiply evidence, every word of which is from those who, nevertheless, practiced infant baptism. But we close with the testimony of the greatest ecclesiastical historian that ever lived, i.e., Neander:
"Baptism was administered at first only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution, and the recognition of it which followed somewhat later, as an apostolical tradition, serves to confirm this hypothesis. Irenaeus is the first church teacher in whom we find any allusion to infant baptism, and in his mode of expressing himself on the subject, he leads us at the same time to recognize its connection with the essence of the Christian consciousness; he testifies of the profound Christian idea, out of which infant baptism arose, and which procured for it at length universal recognition." (Neander’s History, vol. I, p. 311).
Is there any possibility of denying this testimony? Is it not convincing, overwhelming, that the churches, previous to Tertullian, practiced but one baptism, and that it was adult baptism? So far, then, they were Baptists.
Immersion
We pause not now to argue the question of immersion. We simply wish to ascertain a fact. We ask historian, what did the churches of the first and second centuries do when they performed that ordinance called baptism? Again we call on the most renowned, the most distinguished Pedobaptists, to answer, men who practiced and apologized for sprinkling, yet dared not, as scholars, garble or misrepresent the truth of history.
Neander’s History of the Christian Religion:
"Baptism was originally administered by immersion; and many of the companions of St. Paul allude to this form of its administration. The immersion is a symbol of death, of being buried with Christ; the coming forth from the water is a symbol of a resurrection with Christ; and both, taken together, represent the second birth, the death of the old man, and a resurrection to a new life. An exception was made only in the case of sick persons, which was necessary, and they received baptism by sprinkling."
Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, first century:
"The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century without the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for the purpose, and was performed by immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font.
"The sacrament of baptism was administered publicly twice every year, at the festivals of Easter and Pentecost or Whitsuntide, either by the bishop or the presbyters, in consequence of his authorization and appointment. The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil and his pompous allurements, were immersed under water, and received into Christ’s kingdom by a solemn invocation of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express command of our blessed Lord. After baptism, they received the sign of the cross, were anointed, and, by prayers and imposition of hands, were solemnly commended to the mercy of God, and dedicated to his service; in consequence of which, they received the milk and honey, which concluded the ceremony. The reasons of this particular ritual coincide with what we have said in general concerning the origin and causes of the multiplied ceremonies that crept, from time to time, into the church."
History of the Church, by George Waddington, M. A.:
"The ceremony of immersion (the oldest form of baptism) was performed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity; it was believed to be attended by the remission of original sin, and the entire regeneration of the infant or convert, by the passage from the land of bondage into the kingdom of salvation."
Cave’s Primitive Christianity:
"The action having proceeded thus far, the party to be baptized was wholly immerged, or put under water, which was the almost constant and universal custom of those times, whereby they did more notably and significantly express the three great ends and effects of baptism. For, as in immersion there are, in a manner, three several acts, the putting the person into water, his abiding there for a little time, and his rising up again, so by these were represented Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; and, in conformity thereunto, our dying unto sin, the destruction of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life. By the person’s being put into water was lively represented the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, and being washed from the filth and pollution of them; by his abode under it, which was a kind of burial unto water, his entering into a state of death or mortification, like as Christ remained for some time under the state or power of death. Therefore, as many as are baptized into Christ, are said to be ‘baptized into his death, and to be buried with him by baptism into death, that, the old man being crucified with him, the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth he might not serve sin, for that he that is dead is freed from sin,’ as the apostle clearly explains the meaning of this rite. Then, by his immersion, or rising up out of the water, was signified is entering upon a new course of life, differing from that which he lived before, that, ‘like as Christ was raised up from the dead to the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.’ "
Bishop Taylor (Episcopalian):
"The custom of the ancient churches was not sprinkling, but immersion; in pursuance of the sense of the word (baptize) in the commandment and example of our blessed Savior. Now this was of so sacred account in their esteem that they did not think it lawful to receive him into the clergy who had been only sprinkled in his baptism, as we learn from the Epistle of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch."
Richard Baxter (Presbyterian):
"It is commonly confessed by us to the Anabaptists, as our commentators declare, that in the apostles’ time, the baptized were dipped over head in the water, and that this signified their profession, both of believing the burial and resurrection of Christ; and of their own present renouncing the world and flesh, or dying to sin and living to Christ, or rising again to newness of life, or being buried and risen again with Christ, as the apostle expoundeth, (Col. iii, and Rom. vi;) and though we have thought it lawful to disuse the manner of dipping, and to use less water, yet we presume not to change the use and signification of it."
Bossuet (Catholic Bishop):
"The baptism of John the Baptist, which served for a preparative to that of Jesus Christ, was performed by plunging. When Jesus Christ came to john, to raise baptism to a more marvelous efficacy in receiving it, the Scripture says, that he went up out of the water of Jordan, (Matt. iii : 16; Mark i : 10). In fine, we read not in the Scripture that baptism was otherwise administered; and we are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils, and by the ancient rituals, that for thirteen hundred years, baptism was thus administered throughout the whole church, as far as was possible." (In Mr. Stennett against Russen, p. 145-76).
Dr. Whitby (Episcopalian):
"It being so expressly declared here, (Rom. vi : 4, and Colos. ii : 12,) that we are buried with Christ in baptism by being buried under water; and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence; and this immersion being religiously observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by our church, and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the Author of this institution, or any license from any council of the church, being that which the Romanist still urgeth to justify his refusal of the cup to the laity." (Note on Rom. vi:4).
Dr. Wall (Episcopal):
"Their (the primitive Christians) general and ordinary way was to baptize by immersion, or dipping the person, whether it were an infant, or grown man or woman, into the water. This is so plain and clear by an infinite number of passages, that as one can not but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it, so also we ought to disown and show a dislike of the profane scoffs which some people give to the English Antipedobaptists, merely for their use of dipping. it was, in all probability, the way by which our blessed Savior, and for certain was the most usual and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did receive their baptism. ’Tis a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may be proved so. It creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. As for sprinkling, I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England, ‘Let them defend it who use it.’ They (who are inclined to Presbyterianism) are hardly prevailed on to leave off that scandalous custom of having their children, though never so well, baptized out of a basin, or porringer, in a bed-chamber, hardly persuaded to bring them to church, much further from having them dipped, though never so able to bear it." (History of Infant Baptism, Part II, chap. ii, p. 462).
"In the case of sickness, weakness, haste, want of quantity of water, or such like extraordinary occasions, baptism by affusion of water on the face, was by the ancients, counted sufficient baptism. France seems to have been the first country in the world where baptism, by affusion, was used ordinarily to persons in health, and in the public way of administering it. There has been some synods, in some dioceses of France, that had spoken of affusion, without mentioning immersion at all, that being the common practice; but for an office or liturgy of any church, this is, (Referring to Calvin’s "Form of administering the Sacraments) I believe, the first in the world that prescribes affusion absolutely; and for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was, at 1645, just then beginning, and used by very few. It must have begun in the disorderly times after 1641." "But then came The Directory, which says: ‘Baptism is to be administered, not in private places, or privately, but in the place of public worship, and in the face of the congregation,’ and so on. ‘And not in the places where fonts, in the time of Popery, were unfitly and superstitiously placed.’ So they reformed the font into a basin. This learned assembly could not remember that fonts to baptize in had been always used by the primitive Christians, long before the beginning of Popery, and ever since churches were built; but that sprinkling, for the common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then in the other Popish countries) in times of Popery; and that accordingly, all those countries in which the usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been, owned, have left off dipping of children in the font; but that all other countries in the world, which had never regarded his authority, do still use it; and that basins, except in case of necessity, were never used by Papists, or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves." "What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in the ordinary us of baptism, is to be understood only in reference to these western parts of Europe, for it is used ordinarily nowhere else." (History of Infant Baptism, Part II, chap. ix).
Mr. John Wesley:
"Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the Church of England, by immersion. The child was ill then, but recovered from that hour. (Extract of Mr. John Wesley’s Journal, from his embarking for Georgia, page 10). ’Buried with him,’ alluded to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." (Wesley’s Notes on Rom. vi: 4).
NEED WE ADD MORE? Is any other endeavor necessary to substantiate beyond a question that the churches of the first and second centuries were Baptist Churches, so far as baptism is concerned in subject and action? The testimony that might be produced would fill a volume; but the foregoing is sufficient for the candid. Certain it is as that the heavens are above us, that the primitive churches immersed all who joined them, and that none were received but professing believers. One other feature of Baptist Churches must be noticed.
Their Church Government
Were they Episcopal, Presbyterian, or monarchical? Again let history speak. Mosheim says:
"The churches in those early times were entirely independent on of another: none of them being subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each governed by its own rules and its own laws. For, though the churches founded by the apostles had this particular difference shown them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no judicial authority, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for them. Nothing, on the contrary, is more evident than the perfect equality of these primitive churches. Having witnessed, in the second century, that the custom of holding councils commenced in Greece, whence it soon spread through the other provinces."(Mosheim, first century, chap. 10, sec. xiv).
This evidence is conclusive that neither Episcopacy nor Presbyterianism was known in the first churches; their government was that now existing among Baptists. but further, Gibbon, the classic historian of Rome, says:
"Such was the mild and equal constitution by which the Christians were governed for more than a hundred years after the death of the apostles. Every society formed within itself a separate and independent republic, and although the most distant of those little states maintained a mutual, as well as friendly intercourse of letters and deputations, the Christian world was not yet connected by any supreme authority or legislative assembly. Toward the end of the second century the churches of Greece and Asia adopted the useful institutions of provincial Synods, and they are justly supposed to have borrowed the model of a representative council from the celebrated examples of their own country, the Amphictyons, the Achean league, and the assemblies of the Ionian cities."
We here pause again and review our course. We found, in the early part of the third century, ere one hundred years had transpired from the death of the apostles, Tertullian and the Montanists breaking away from the dominant parties in the churches, on the ground of the innovations, the formalities, and the corruptions, which had almost quenched their life and light. We found that these Tertullianists were Baptists, and that from the churches planted by them descended those persecuted and slandered in every age as Anabaptists. We have now found, by the light of impartial history, recorded by Pedobaptist scholars, that previous to Tertullian and the Montanist schism, that is, previous to the third century, none but adults were baptized. The action of baptism was immersion, universally; and each church was an independent little republic.
We have now found, by the glimmering and oftshaded lamp of history, relumed by Pedobaptist scholars, that, previous to Tertullian and the Montenses schism,
I. None but believers were baptized.
II. Baptism was immersion, and
III. Each Church was an independent little republic, knowing nothing of ecclesiastical conferences, synods, general assemblies, or authoritative councils, and, consequently,
IV. They were all Baptist Churches then.
For, if the baptism of none but professedly converted believers, and that by immersion, with independent and democratic church government, constitute Baptist churches, then the primitive churches were Baptist Churches.
Where, then, did the Baptists come from?
When the learned Mosheim, after tracing the origin of every sect, came to the Anabaptists, or Mennonites, that laborious investigator paused and said:
"The true origin of this sect is hidden in the depths of antiquity; and it is of consequence extremely difficult to be ascertained."
Never was truer statement penned. All up the stream of ecclesiastical history e had tracked them, up to its main spring he had gone, and found them there. Amid the scenes of apostolic labor, in the purest ages of the church, he traced their existence, but not their origin. Further up into the light of inspired history he would not pass. Their origin was hidden in those remote depths of antiquity. It could be found in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles, and in the testimony of Jesus. But here he would not seek for their origin, and so he proclaimed that it was lost. it is not hid in those remote depths. It stands forth in unadorned simplicity on the shores of the Jordan, amid the scenes of the Pentecost, and the cities of Greece, while the New Testament flings a flood of historic light over the whole subject. ere, then, is our ancestry, of whom we are proud, the origin of our denomination, for which we are grateful.
On the shores of the Jordan, thronged with the wondering citizens of Jerusalem, and the gathering multitudes of Judea, the harbinger of the Messiah announced the setting up of the kingdom of Jesus, the institution of the church of Christ. The last of the prophets, and the first of the heralds of the gospel, like the star of morning, shining clear and radiant from the bright sky, and then fading away in the cloudless splendor of the orb of day, in the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ came john, baptizing in the wilderness. That was the beginning.
Amid the multitudes stood Jesus. Behold the Lamb of God! exclaimed the enraptured herald of the kingdom. And then in those waters, consecrated by a thousand sacred associations, Jesus was baptized, while from the parting heavens came the approving voice of the Father, and the anointing symbol of the Holy Ghost. thus it was, and there it was, that our denomination had its origin. Nor can learning nor ingenuity fix another spot, nor another period.
Baptists! the flag that floats over you is that of Jesus only; the principles that govern you have the authority of Jesus only; the ordinances which distinguish you have the example of Jesus only; and the founder of your churches is Jesus only. Let deep devotion be yours. Let earnest zeal be yours. Let the spirit that animated to deeds of valor and endurance our noble and martyred ancestors be yours. Let us move in harmony, and fight on manfully and wear the armor constantly, and soon the songs of the angels will announce the advent of the era when "the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our God and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever."
THE END
The Beloved Levinite
I knew a guy who was a primitive baptist. All I know about it is the men didn’t wear neckties to church.
**FULL DISCLOSURE** I, The Beloved Levinite, like my entire immediate & extended family, was baptized as an infant in The Church of Rome.
I find it important & interesting to note (the above version of history being acceptable) that the term “Protestant” should not be applied to the original *independent* primitive Baptist churches. For these churches DID NOT grow out of the Reformation, as did the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcipalians, etc.
Good luck getting the FRCatholics to honor your request...I've been telling them this for years, and they still don't believe me.
I suggest Protestants - like Baptists - simply read the book written by the Protestant Church historian named James McGoldrick called Baptist Successionism. He shows that all of these Baptist claims that the early Church was a Baptist sect is just nutty.
Baptist sects grew out of the Reformation. That is simply an irrefutable fact. When one actually studies the origins of Baptist sects - early 17th century - with Helwys, Smyth, etc. he realizes that these sects are NEW, RECENT, PROTESTANT in origin and have no real connection with any group that existed before the 16th century. Those are the facts.
“Baptist sects grew out of the Reformation. That is simply an irrefutable fact.”
No they did not & it is not an irrefutable fact. You posted w/o even reading the book chapter posted above. Show me how the New Testament Church as recorded in the Bible differs with Baptistic practices. The author quotes early church fathers, including Catholic, proving that early church practices were Baptistic in nature. Show me your sources of refute, quote by quote, in regards to adult baptism & immersion. Are you claiming that infant baptism & sprinkling were methods adopted by the Church as described by Christ & His apostles in The New Testament Church. No...you can’t do it.
“I suggest Protestants - like Baptists - simply read the book written by the Protestant Church historian named James McGoldrick called Baptist Successionism.”
Well, I would suggest you read he inspired Word of God in the New Testament. And show me how Church practices as described in the New Testament differ from that of the independent Baptist churches. I don’t need know stinkin’ “theologian” to tell me about Baptist succession, when I can see it plain as day in the New Testament!
“I suggest Protestants - like Baptists - simply read the book written by the Protestant Church historian named James McGoldrick called Baptist Successionism.”
Well, I would suggest you read the *inspired* Word of God in the New Testament. And show me how Church practices as described in the New Testament differ from that of the independent Baptist churches. I don’t need know stinkin’ “theologian” to tell me about Baptist succession, when I can see it plain as day in the New Testament!
You wrote:
“No they did not & it is not an irrefutable fact.”
Yes, actually it is - as McGoldrick demonstrates in his book.
“You posted w/o even reading the book chapter posted above. Show me how the New Testament Church as recorded in the Bible differs with Baptistic practices.”
No. You will simply argue interpretation. Every group claims to be in line with the NT. The simple fact is Baptists started after 1600. McGoldrick proves it. Helwys and Smith and other early Baptists tacitly admitted it by claiming they had rediscovered (so to speak) early Christianity. They were admitting no group practiced their brand of it before them any time near them.
“The author quotes early church fathers, including Catholic, proving that early church practices were Baptistic in nature.”
If he’s citing people you identify as Catholic then you are admitting they were not Baptists. Thanks for the assist.
“Show me your sources of refute, quote by quote, in regards to adult baptism & immersion.”
Again, that is not even the issue. 1) Most early Christians were adults, hence most were baptized as adults. 2) immersion was the earliest for baptism, but was not used exclusively according to the evidence, and the Catholic Church used immersion as well as affusion. 3) Baptist sects started AFTER 1600 according to early Baptists like Helwys and Smyth and modern Baptist historians and OTHER Protestant historians.
“Are you claiming that infant baptism & sprinkling were methods adopted by the Church as described by Christ & His apostles in The New Testament Church. No...you can’t do it.”
I see no evidence against infant baptism or affusion as practices of the Church. There is also no evidence whatsoever - according to Baptists and Protestants - that Baptists existed before 1600. Only those Baptists desperate to create a false lineage for themselves have adopted this weird, phony history.
You wrote:
“Well, I would suggest you read the *inspired* Word of God in the New Testament.”
Already have, many times.
“And show me how Church practices as described in the New Testament differ from that of the independent Baptist churches.”
You just gave us an example right there: “independent Baptist churches” - didn’t exist until after 1600. This is admitted by Baptists themselves in their books, webpages, newsletters, etc.
“I don’t need know stinkin’ “theologian” to tell me about Baptist succession, when I can see it plain as day in the New Testament!”
McGoldrick is a historian, a Protestant like you, and he’s quite good at what he does. Even Protestants admit he is right: Look at the second review here: http://www.founders.org/journal/fj21/reviews.html
On the contrary, the earliest accounts we have regarding the treatment of children of Christian parents, we see infant baptism as the norm.
As far as immersion is concerned, there is not one account of baptism in the NT that requires an immersionist interpretation. In fact some accounts defy an immersionist interpretation, e.g.,
17 And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 Immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he received his sight at once; and he arose and was baptized. 19 So when he had received food, he was strengthened. Then Saul spent some days with the disciples at Damascus. 20 Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God. (Acts 9)Saul had been in the city of Damascus, blind and staying at the house of Judas. Houses of that day did not contain large tubs for bathing/immersion purposes. But according to the account, Saul received his sight, was baptized, and had a meal. No mention of him leaving the house (which would have been somewhat impossible in his weakened condition having gone at least three days without food, v. 9). So how and where did Paul get immersed?
Nonsense. There is no evidence of such in the scriptures.
The very word "bapto" in the Greek means "to dip, to get fully wet, to cover wholly with a fluid".
If you want to try to do that by sprinkling with water, then your sprinkling service will last all day long.
But, as we both know, that is not the Greek word used in the NT for Christian baptism. So, contrary to your implied claim, there is no account that requires an immersionist interpretation.
I completely agree our church is founded on Jesus Christ our Saviour and the teachings and practices he gave us. However, it is impossible to trace one line of Baptist churches from the Apostolic Era to today. It is our beliefs and practices that are consistent with the earliest Christian Church.
Just as there is no direct evidence of "believer's baptism" for the children of Christians.
I believe you have missed the critical point. Paul believed before he was Baptized. An infant doesn't have that capacity. The instruction we are given throughout Scripture is to first believe/repent (changed way of thinking) and then be baptized.
I don't get bent out of shape by other Christians baptizing infants because the act is not what saves the individual. We are only saved by Grace Alone through Faith Alone in Jesus Alone. The only clear explicit examples of baptism in Scripture involve adults who have already repented.
I have come to this conclusion as well.
Although I was baptized as an infant at a PC(USA) church and attended through my childhood, I didn't have "ears to hear" the Gospel until about a year and a half ago.
I now attend (and hope to become a member next year) a Bible-believing Baptist church and will be baptized (immersion) this Sunday!
Make that "next month"!
Could that be why so many inner city youth are raised in Baptist Churches :)
Actually, I was responding to the point in the article about the claim that all baptisms were by immersion in the NT and early church.
But, to your point, Paul as not coming from a "Christian home". His parents were not Christians and so he never had the opportunity to participate in a household baptism as an infant/child.
Thanks anyway, my friend.
God Bless you and Praise the LORD!
While I think believers baptism is the Scriptural model. I don't condemn infant baptism IF no claims of saving grace being imparted are made. I think the churches that believe baptizing a non believer is salvational is where the train has left the tracks.
Fair enough. I do believe the Didache does indicate a degree of flexibility about how Baptism can be done.
But, to your point, Paul as not coming from a "Christian home". His parents were not Christians and so he never had the opportunity to participate in a household baptism as an infant/child.
It's a nice twist on things, but we are still looking at Scripture as our guide and you do not see babies being baptized in Scripture.
As to the point of growing up in a "Christian home" that does not guarantee the child will be a Christian. It is in God's hands. We should do all we can, but we can't make it happen even if we baptize them before they know whats going on. Also, living in a large city and blessed to attend a church with a big outreach to kids in the ghetto it is truly inspiring to see some of them come to know the LORD and to then be baptized.
As long as one ignores those evidentiary words: "believe and be baptized".
My apologies!!! The word "baptizo" derived from "bapto" in the Greek also means "to dip, to whelm with water until fully wet, to wash, to baptize." Is that better!!!
The words are quite appropriate for those of age and who have not had the benefit of being raised in a covenant Christian home. But you cannot demonstrate that they are appropriate for every situation.
Indeed, the covenant promise to Abraham applies to us and to our children (Acts 2:39). And so we apply the universal, new covenant sign of inclusion to our children. The alternative is to treat them as being covenantally unholy, which is contrary to all we know from the Bible about God’s gracious faithfulness to families (cf. 1 Cor. 7:14).
No problem. Now, armed with that information can you find one instance in the NT someone was undeniably, categorically, totally submerged under water in the context of a baptizo?
You’re arguing dictionary definitions. But that is hardly conclusive. And, as I pointed out in the case of Paul, it is quite improbable that he was totally submerged in the home of Judas of Damascus.
Actually, it is not a twist since my point was that neither do we see any example in the NT of older children of Christian parents being baptized on profession of personal faith, ala the modern Baptist model. So the Baptist model with regard to the children of professing Christian is an argument from silence.
As to the point of growing up in a "Christian home" that does not guarantee the child will be a Christian. It is in God's hands.
I’m glad you brought that up. All I can say is "amen".
But, tell me, does participating in a "believer’s baptism" guarantee that the baptizee is be a Christian and will end up in heaven? (Or, for the Arminians, that they were really saved at the time of their baptism even though later they may have lost their salvation.)
Thus, the phrase "believer’s baptism" is a bit of a misnomer since no one can know with any certainty whether the person being baptized truly has eternal life. And so, in order to get around this thorny issue, believer-baptists have had to invent all sorts of categories of "Christians"; carnal Christians, backslidden Christians, Spirit-filed Christians, born-again Christian, etc, to explain why some baptized folks end up living immoral even blasphemous lives. The obvious conclusion is that they were not believers to begin with. Their faith started and ended at their mouth.
Paedobaptists to not presume that their baptized children are automatically saved, since, ultimately, that is dependent on God’s sovereign choice. We simply take seriously God’s promise to Abraham that He will be God to us and to our children. We are the true offspring of Abraham (Gal 3:28,29), and our children are no less entitled to the sign of the covenant than were the physical children of Abraham in the OT.
"The children of Christians are not less the children of God than their parents are, or than the children of Old Testament times were: but if they belong to God, who will refuse them baptism?" (Ulrich Zwingli)
And the words "believe and be baptized" apply not only to you [us] but also to your [our] children. Children too must "believe and be baptized".
No, Baptism does not save.
Thus, the phrase "believer’s baptism" is a bit of a misnomer since no one can know with any certainty whether the person being baptized truly has eternal life.
Not at all. Believer's Baptism is baptism done after a profession of FAITH (belief). A baby can't do this.
But still more probable that his home had a tub of water than a sprinkling system or a spritz bottle.
It is? In Damascus 2000 years ago, the common home had no appliance like a bathtub. On the other hand, enough water to pour or sprinkle a bit was readily available. No fixture was necessary.
In any event, you are left with the fact that there is no account in the NT that requires an immersionist interpretation.
There's no need to throw flames, but I would like to point out a few things. First of all, the above article does a cute little sidestep with its quotations. It doesn't quote Tertullian. It doesn't quote Justin Martyr. It quotes Venema and Episcopius quoting them. I dunno who Venema and Episcopius are, but they sure ain't original sources. And I've been around the block one too many times to just take people's word for what the Church Fathers said instead of reading myself.
A couple of other things. First, let's say it's the case that the early Church only baptized adults. I don't think that's historically defensible, but let's grant that point. Now...did they only baptize adults by *custom* or did they do it by *theological precept*? To prove the latter, you would have to show me which of the Church Fathers said you could *not* baptize infants. I don't know of a single one who did offhand.
Second of all, it is absolutely not enough for modern Baptist churches to claim historical continuity on the basis of one or a couple of beliefs like Baptism. That's really bad logic. It'd be like saying the modern Democratic party had its origins in the Republican party of 1860, because they both are anti-slavery.
That's not how it works. If you want to prove historical continuity, you have to prove continuity of the organization. You have to have a clear picture of the leadership of the thing passing down the torch from one generation to the other. We can do that pretty easily with the Catholic Church from Peter and Clement right on down. You absolutely cannot do that with Baptists from the early Church to the present. The most you can say is that...here, these guys were adult baptism people....and so were these guys...and so were these guys. In effect, drawing a chain down the ages through shared beliefs among different groups. But there is absolutely no historical evidence that these groups had anything to do with each other, that one gave rise to the other.
So I think the premise that this author is trying to refute is still correct. Baptist churches might say they go back to the early Church, but they don't....organizationally. They may have points of similarity with the early Church, but not total similarity, and certainly not organizational continuity. Because we know who the bishops and leaders of the Church were back then--Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus--and all of them were Catholic bishops who oversaw Catholic sees.
Can you say the same for your guys? If Tertullian was an adult baptism only, then who took up his mantle? What movement did Justin Martyr found, that survived for 1800 years?
Hmmm, and so if it is possible that the baptizee is not truly a Christian and destined for eternal life, then what does baptism symbolize in that case?
Water Baptism Doesn't Guarantee that the Person Receiving It Has Received or Will Receive the Spiritual Blessings It Symbolizes--Even When Adults Are Baptized after Confessing Faith!Just as the external act of circumcision could not guarantee that the recipient would prove to be a recipient of the spiritual reality it symbolized, so also the external act of water baptism does not guarantee that its recipient will prove to have received the spiritual reality it symbolizes. Simon of Samaria was baptized, but his later attitude toward the Holy Spirit showed that he was still "captive to sin" (Acts 8:12-13, 20-23). Peter emphasizes that the flood waters that "saved" Noah and his family were pointing ahead to baptism--not merely the "removal of dirt from the body" (external water baptism) but the inner spiritual reality it symbolizes: the pledge of a good conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21). Sadly, some churches have practiced infant baptism (and others have practiced adult "believer baptism") under the misunderstanding that the external ceremony automatically produces the New Birth it symbolizes, or guarantees that the New Birth is bound to follow eventually because of the outward ceremony. But the Bible shows that the purpose of the sacraments (circumcision, Passover and other animal sacrifices in the Old Testament; baptism and the Lord Supper in the New) is to show us our need for the spiritual blessings and to call us (as the Bible and preaching do) to receive these blessings by trusting in Christ himself.
Why Apply Circumcision/Baptism to Infants Before We "Know" Whether They Will Become Believers?
When I was a "Baptist", my biggest problem with infant baptism was that baptism symbolized the spiritual benefits of union with Christ, which are received only by faith; and parents and pastors couldnÂ’t know whether or not an infant had or would have this saving faith. But then I began to see that circumcision in the Old Testament symbolized the same blessings of union with Christ, which Old Testament believers received by faith and which unbelievers in Israel did not receive. So we face the same question for both the Old Testament sign and the New Testament sign: "Why apply a symbol before we know whether or not the reality is there?" I see three main reasons:
(1) To emphasize God's gracious initiative to us in our helplessness. Circumcision and baptism are not events in which the recipient acts, but in which someone else acts (in God's name) on or for us. …
(2) To emphasize the mysterious role of the family in the communication of God's covenant grace down through the generations. …
(3) To emphasize the life-or-death consequences of our response to the Gospel of Christ. …
except for the meaning of the word "baptism" and the way John the Baptist and those who followed his lead were baptized.
Alex, we don't believe you because it's really bad history. Just because a guy has the same voting record as you doesn't mean he's in your family tree. Likewise, even if Baptists today believe the same things as say, Lollards or Cathars or whoever doesn't mean they are the same organization. And I think the author even admits as such when he says "original independent" Baptist Churches. If they're independent, then how can they be the same organization? See the problem?
And that's even assuming the premise that Baptists today believe exactly what the early Church did on every score, which is not at all true....because I can think of two characteristics of the early Church: the episcopacy and the belief in the Real Presence which are not to my knowledge accepted by any Baptists today.
On the other hand, today's Baptists seem to accept an awful lot of theological tenents that came strictly out of the Reformation, like Sola Scriptura, sola fide, etc.
I think the author misrepresents the history of Tertullian on the subject. Tertullian’s position was that perhaps it would be better for infants/children to defer baptism until an older age. We must keep in mind that in Tertullian’s North Africa the belief was common that men who sinned after baptism could loose their salvation, so delayed baptism was not unreasonable under these circumstances.
The fact is that infant baptism was a common practice from the time that a generation of Christians could be raised up with children to baptize and catechize, even in 3rd century North Africa.
Running to a dictionary won’t nail your position.
As for John, please exegete one of these baptism passages to show conclusively that immersion was necessarily involved.
Thanks for the info on that. That jives with what I’ve always understood, and it would not surprise me if Tertullian’s position is being “massaged” by the above author. Certainly many of the Fathers of the 300s and 400s thought infant baptism was an Apostolic practice.
Seems to me they’d know better than we would.
I have a hard time believing this sentence can be squared with the Christian writings of the first two centuries.
Clement of RomeNo episcopacy is known in the first churches???"Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry...As for these, then, who were appointed by them, or who were afterwards appointed by other illustrious men with the consent of the whole Church, and who have ministered to the flock of Christ without blame . . . we consider it unjust that they be removed from the ministry" (Epistle to the Corinthians 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
Ignatius of Antioch
"Take care to do all things in harmony with God, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and with the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles, and with the deacons, who are most dear to me." (Epistle to the Magnesians 6:1 [A.D. 110]).
"Take care, therefore, to be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and soul, in faith and love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit, in beginning and in end, together with your most reverend bishop; and with that fittingly woven spiritual crown, the presbytery; and with the deacons, men of God. Be subject to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was subject to the Father, and the apostles were subject to Christ and to the Father, so that there may be unity in both body and spirit" (Epistle to the Magnesians 13:1-2 [A.D. 110]).
"Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore--and such is your practice--that you do nothing without the bishop and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found if we live with him" (Epistle to the Trallians 2:1-3 [A.D. 110]).
"You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop....Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 8:1-2 [A.D. 110]).
Didache
"Elect for yourselves, therefore, bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, humble men and not lovers of money, truthful and proven; for they also serve you in the ministry of the prophets and teachers. Do not, therefore, despise them for they are honorable men." (15:1 [A.D. 140, possibly as early at A.D. 70]).
Irenaeus
"It is necessary to obey those who are the presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion" (Against Heresies 4:26 [A.D. 180]).
Hippolytus
"Let the bishop be ordained after he has been chosen by all the people. When someone pleasing to all has been named, let the people assemble on the Lord's Day with the presbyters and with such bishops as may be present. All giving assent, the bishops shall impose hands on him and the presbyters shall stand by in silence. Indeed, all shall remain silent, praying in their hearts for the descent of the Spirit" (The Apostolic Tradition 2:1 [A.D. 215]).
Clement of Alexandria
"After the death of the tyrant, [the apostle John] came back again to Ephesus from the Island of Patmos; and, upon being invited, he went even to the neighboring cities of the pagans, here to appoint bishops, there to set in order whole churches, and there to ordain to the clerical state such as were designated by the Spirit" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 42:2 [A.D. 190]).
It sure doesn't help yours, does it???
As for John, please exegete one of these baptism passages to show conclusively that immersion was necessarily involved.
Whether they got dunked in the water or had the water poured over them, or a combination of both, the point is that they got fully wet all over -- not sprinkled. Otherwise we would know him as John the Sprinkler.
I'm not the one with the problem since I view as valid all baptismal forms; immersion, sprinkling, pouring, as long as water is involved and it's done in Jehovah's triune name.
Whether they got dunked in the water or had the water poured over them, or a combination of both, the point is that they got fully wet all over -- not sprinkled. Otherwise we would know him as John the Sprinkler.
Neither is he known as John the Immersionist. There is no indication in the text that they got “fully wet”. Again, perhaps you would like to exegete a particular passage to make your case.
The meaning of the word "baptizo" is exegesis enough.
I don't know what "early church fathers" he's quoting. They all look like secondary sources to me.
The only authentic ECF I know of to oppose infant baptism is Tertullian. His rationale for doing so is that he thinks children will inevitably fall away in adolescence, and that their sinfulness will reflect badly on their godparents. That's hardly an argument that a Baptist would make.
You see babies being brought into the Old Covenant by circumcision on the eighth day. You see Peter on the day of Pentecost saying that the New Covenant is "to you and to your children".
That alone means the burden of proof is entirely on the side of those who oppose paedobaptism, since the presumption among Jews would be that covenant initiation would take place in infancy.
But the meaning is defined by the Bible, which means you actually need to do some real exegesis, otherwise all you have is proof by assertion. That's not a very strong approach in anyone's book.
I look forward to a careful review of some text.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.