THE HISTORICAL PERVERSION[1] OF BAPTISM
A person only needs to read the New Testament in order to see that as the church originally practiced water baptism, it was only believers who were being baptized. Those who claim to use Scripture alone as a guide to faith and doctrine and yet argue that the N.T. evidence is such that it also allows infants as being proper recipients of baptism try to prove their arguments by using uncertain Scriptural proofs combined with theological “justifications” that are not in accord with the Scriptural meaning or purpose of baptism. Lasting unity will never be achieved on this issue unless we are willing to put aside everything but the words of God to determine truth and cease to teach as doctrines the commandments of men. The practice of infant baptism cannot be established on the authority of Scripture alone, and as demonstrated in the footnote below, the case commonly made by appealing to the “household” texts (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16; 2 Tim 1:16; 4:19) does not stand up to an examination of the texts themselves[2] and neither does it stand up to the test of reason.[3]
But as we seek to discern baptism’s original purpose, when we examine both the N.T. and a few quotations from the 2nd century Christians dealing with baptism’s purpose, we see that both sources agree that originally, people were being baptized in order to have their sins washed away (Acts 22:16), to get into Christ (Rom 6:3), to put on Christ (Gal 3:27), to be added to the church (Acts 2:41) or to be placed into the one body (1 Cor 12:13), to receive initial salvation (Mark 16:16, 1 Pet 3:21, Tit 3:5), to be buried with Christ and raised with Him (Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12), to obtain initial forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38[4]), and it was closely linked with receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Tit 3:5, etc.) as well as initial justification and initial sanctification (1 Cor 6:11)—and that is just to mention a few of baptism’s more obvious Scriptural purposes. Paul did not minimize baptism[5] and neither did any of the other early Christians who were considered to be orthodox. In fact, the earliest Christians believed that, in the normal course of things, the salvation process was not complete without water baptism. And they often used very strong language in refuting those (like the Gnostics) who said differently—even going so far as to speak of them as being heretics, apostates, and unbelievers. Here are a couple examples taken from The Ante-Nicene Fathers collection[6]:
Irenaeus: “And this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith….For the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins… (c. 180 A.D., ANF Vol. 1, p. 345, Irenaeus Against Heresies)
Tertullian: “[A] viper of the Cainite heresy…has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism….Oh, miserable incredulity, which quite denies to God His own properties, simplicity and power! What then? Is it not wonderful, too, that death should be washed away by bathing?…. Incredulity…wonders, but does not believe: for the simple acts it wonders at, as if they were vain; the grand results, as if they were impossible.” (c. 195 A.D., ANF Vol. 3, p. 669)
But in this present day and age, many Christians have simply cut out water baptism from the salvation process altogether. For many Christians, baptism is not even worth mentioning because they think that it is merely symbolic—so why do it? Many Christians see water baptism as being virtually insignificant, and because it is such a divisive subject, it is thought best that we just avoid the subject altogether. But how did such a large portion of the Christian community come to adopt this viewpoint in light of what Scripture teaches and in light of the history of its interpretation? Why is it that all Christians agree that Matthew 26:28 teaches that Jesus blood is “for the forgiveness of sins”, but when that exact same phrase occurs in Acts 2:38 ascribing the same power to Christian baptism they claim that it means something different[7]?
I believe that the problems began with the practice of infant baptism. I am entirely convinced that the practice of infant baptism arose because of John 3:3 [8] and 3:5 [9] and the early Christian understanding of those verses. The early Christians universally understood the “water” mentioned in John 3:5 to be referring to water baptism and that water baptism was part of the new birth[10]. To illustrate, here are some 2nd century (all before 200 A.D.) quotations from some early Christian writers involving these verses or allusions to them:
Justin Martyr: “I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past—we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For in the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’….And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason: since at our [physical] birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe (he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone)…And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. (c.160 A.D., ANF Vol. 1, p. 183)
Irenaeus: “‘And dipped himself,’ says [Scripture], ‘seven times in Jordan.’ 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: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.'” (c.180 A.D., ANF Vol. 1, p. 574)
Theophilus: “Moreover, the things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of man’s being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration—as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God.” (c.180 A.D., ANF Vol. 2, p. 101)
Clement of Alexandria: “He [Jesus] thus wishes us to turn ourselves again and become as children who have come to know the true Father and are reborn through water by a generation different from birth in the created world.” (c.195 A.D., ANF Vol. 2, p. 397)
Tertullian: “…the prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none’ (chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless one be born of water, he hath not life’)…” (c.198 A.D., ANF Vol. 3, p. 674-675)
“For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: ‘Go,’ He saith, ‘teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.’ The comparison with this law of that definition, ‘Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens,’ has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.” (c.198 A.D., ANF Vol. 3, p. 676)
Now if a person had a young child or an infant that was about to die, and if they were entirely convinced that a person had to be baptized in water in order to go to heaven, can’t you see how they might be tempted to be “better safe than sorry” and to go ahead and baptize the child even though it is unable to have an intelligent faith? After all, we only have control over the water baptism part; we are dependent upon God to give us the gift of the Spirit. A person might reason that “If my child does not go to heaven, it is not going to be because of anything I failed to do. I will do my part and leave it to God to do His part. And if this ends up to have been of no value to the child, the child has only gotten wet and no harm has been done.” It seems as though people first began having their infants baptized and then, after the practice had already begun, church leaders then tried to justify the already existing practice by building a theology around it. We know that the practice of infant baptism began very early. The evidence shows that it was probably happening, at least in isolated cases, just a little before 200 A.D. and that it was a fairly common practice by the middle of the 3rd century (250 A.D.)[11] Here are a couple 2nd century quotations that are usually given to support this assertion:
Irenaeus: “He [Jesus] came to save all through means of Himself—all, I say, who through Him are born again to God—infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.” (c.180 A.D., ANF Vol. 1, p. 391, emphasis & comments in brackets mine. But see explanatory footnote below!)[12]
Tertullian: “And so according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary…that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, ‘Forbid them not to come unto me.’ Let them ‘come,’ then, while they are growing up; let them ‘come’ while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the ‘remission of sins?’….Let them know how to ‘ask’ for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given ‘to him that asketh.’….If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.” (c.198 A.D., ANF Vol. 3, p. 678, italics mine.)
More quotations could be given in order to illustrate that infant baptism was a fairly common (although not universal) practice among Christians by 250 A.D., and that it was being defended by some church leaders when disputes arose concerning the practice. However, as explained below in the footnote associated with the Irenaeus quote, he probably did not even have infant baptism in mind when he wrote that now famous line. And in the Tertullian quote that was given above, it should be noticed that he is advising against the practice of being in a hurry to baptize little children (and he does not specifically say “infants”). According to Tertullian’s logic and his order of baptism as seen above, it would seem he knew that baptizing infants effectively gutted the whole essence of what Christian baptism is supposed to be all about. Tertullian rightly foresaw the problems that would come if infant baptism were to become a widely accepted common practice. Obviously, his advice was eventually ignored by most Christian leaders. But just because the practice of infant baptism began very early in church history, this does not mean that it is an apostolic institution or a command of Christ. While the famous Anabaptist leader Menno Simons freely admitted that infant baptism was an ancient practice that began either shortly after the days of the apostles or even during their lifetimes[13], he also said:
Nevertheless, infant baptism was no apostolic institution nor practice, nor a divine command; for if Christ had commanded it, and the holy apostles had taught and practiced it, then the ancestors of Tertullian would not have baptized some infants, but all the infants of upright, believing parents, indiscriminately. (Complete Works of Menno Simons, Christian Baptism, p. 203, italics mine.)
Let us follow Menno’s reasoning. Not all church leaders and Christian parents living within the first five centuries of the church agreed with or adopted the practice of infant baptism; therefore they could not have believed it to be an apostolic institution.[14] But once church and state became united (the church being co-extensive with the state), state-wide infant baptism eventually did become an extremely common–if not the standard or majority practice. But as has been already stated, this does not necessarily mean that the practice of infant baptism was immediately and willingly followed by all the citizens of the Empire. It seems that early Christian families simply followed their conscience in this matter, because even in the 4th century, many notable individuals from both East and West—even those who had come from Christian families—received a believer’s baptism, not an infant baptism.
For example, according to the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, as well as online sources, a well-known deacon named Ephraem the Syrian (a hymnist & teacher; born c. 306-373) was born to Christian parents, yet he was not baptized until he was a young man.[15]
Likewise, Basil the Great of Caesarea (an ecclesiastical statesman from the East; born c.330 A.D.) “came from one of the outstanding Christian families of the region”[16], but yet, as notable church historian Everett Ferguson tells us, “Basil’s career as a rhetorician was short, for a spiritual awakening and a journey to Egypt and Palestine to meet ascetics led to his baptism. He divided his fortune among the poor and went into solitude….”[17]
Ferguson also tells us that Gregory of Nazianzus (an orator and theologian who was also from the East and about the same age as Basil of Caesarea)…
was born at Arianzum, near Nazianzus, where his father was later bishop. His mother, Nonna, was the daughter of Christian parents and was responsible for the conversion of her husband and the early religious training of her son, as we learn from Gregory’s tribute to her many abilities.
Gregory studied at Cappadocian Caesarea, Caesarea in Palestine, Alexandria, and Athens. After his studies, he returned to Cappadocia and was baptized [when he was about thirty years of age].[18]
We are also told about the case of John Chrysostom, who is considered to be the greatest of Christian preachers and expositors from the East. Ferguson writes that…
John was born about 347 at Antioch. His mother, Anthusa, lost her husband when she was twenty and John was an infant. She renounced another marriage and devoted herself to her son. She provided him with the best education possible, both in Scripture and in the classics. For the latter, John studied under the most famous pagan rhetorician of the time, Libanus, who paid Anthusa the complement, “God, what women these Christians have!”
Baptized at the age of eighteen, John became a reader in the church.[19]
Notable Christians from the West who obviously were not baptized as infants simply because they were born in a “Christian realm” and from Christian families include the man known as Ambrose of Milan (an ecclesiastical statesman who was born in 339 A.D.).
Born in Trier, Ambrose was the son of the praetorian prefect of Gaul. He studied law and was appointed governor of Aemilea-Liguria at Milan. In 374 he was elected bishop of Milan, although an unbaptized catechumen, through an unprecedented set of circumstances.
At the time there was a sharp dispute between the Arian and Catholic factions over the election of a new bishop. The story goes that when Ambrose stepped into the pulpit to restore order, a young child, seeing him in the position usually occupied by the bishop, called out, “Ambrose, bishop!” The congregation, remembering that “A little child shall lead them,” took the voice as the will of God. Ambrose took some persuading, but finally he too acknowledged the call of God, received baptism from the Catholic clergy, and a week later ordination as bishop.[20]
Another example of a notable Western Christian that received a believer’s baptism is Jerome (a famous translator who was born in 347 A.D.). Ferguson writes that “Jerome was born in Dalmatia to Christian parents, who gave him a good education. He was baptized in Rome toward the end of his student days.”[21]
Closely associated with Jerome is another well-known Christian named Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 345-411 A.D.) who, according to a scholar named Joachim Jeremias in his book Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries (p. 89) was also born to Christian parents, and yet Rufinus was not baptized until 370 A.D.—when he was in his twenties. Quoting from a short biography of Rufinus found online, we read that…
Rufinus made elementary studies in his native Concordia [in Italy], and his parents, who were Christians, sent him, at age 15, to Rome, where he was associated with Jerome in school. He returned to Aquileia (c. 369), became a catechumen under the direction of Chromatius, future bishop of Aquileia, and was baptized c. 370 (Apol. contra Hier. 1.4).[22]
Another prominent Western Christian mentioned in the book by Joachim Jeremias is a man named Paulinus of Nola (c. 354-431 A.D.). Originally from what is now France, Paulinus came from a noble Roman family that appears to have been at least nominally Catholic and was very wealthy. However, Paulinus is reported not to have been baptized until 390 A.D., when he would have been about 35 or 36 years old!
There is also the famous (or infamous) Pelagius, after whom “Pelagianism” is named. Although both of his parents were Christians, Pelagius was not baptized until he was somewhere around forty years old. Ferguson writes that:
Pelagius was born c. 350 in Britain. His father was a physician who had accompanied the bureaucrats there and had married a Celt. Both were Christians and had high ambitions for their son, who was a commanding figure.
By 390 Pelagius was in Rome, where he had come to study law and where he was baptized.[23]
And even the most influential Western theologian of them all—Augustine of Hippo (born 354 A.D.)—received a believer’s baptism at 33 years of age. As Ferguson tells us…
Augustine was born in Tagaste, a minor commercial city in North Africa. His mother was a Christian and later a saint, pious but superstitious and ambitious for her son. His father, Patricius, was a member of the local ruling class, a pagan but baptized just before his death. Augustine received an elementary Christian education, but was not baptized as a youth.[24]
Augustine’s “conversion experience” occurred in 386. While agonizing in the garden of his house over his moral failures, he heard a child in a nearby house repeat in a sing-song voice the refrain, Tolle, lege (“Pick up and read”).
There was a book of the letters of Paul on a bench, and Augustine picked it up and read, “Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature” (Romans 13:13-14).
It was as if the Lord had spoken directly to Augustine. He retired to a country estate to contemplate Christianity seriously. Augustine then enrolled for baptism, which he received from Ambrose on Easter Sunday 387.[25]
But the fact remains that eventually infant baptism became a very common practice and because baptism was still linked to salvation, this meant that virtually all the people living within the Christian state (the Jews were not forced to have their babies baptized) were supposedly born again. Being a citizen of the state and being a “born-again” Christian were, for all practical purposes, synonymous. All good citizens had their babies baptized—no faith needed on the part of the one being baptized; the sacrament of baptism supposedly worked ex opere operato (literally “by the very fact of the action’s being performed). And this is the way things went for a very long time[26], even into the time of the magisterial Protestant Reformation. The great theologian Dr. Martin Luther retained this same practice. The Lutherans rightly kept baptism linked to salvation in their theology, but they also continued the perverted practice of state-wide infant baptism and they still seemed to think that baptism required no faith or repentance on the part of the one being baptized.
Martin Luther: “Perhaps someone will oppose what I have said [about the necessity of faith] by pointing to the baptism of infants. [Someone may say,] ‘Infants do not understand God’s promise and cannot have baptismal faith. So either faith is not necessary or else infant baptism is useless.’ Here I say what everyone says: the faith of others, namely, the faith of those who bring them to baptism aids infants. For the word of God is powerful, when it is uttered. It can change even a godless heart, which is no less unresponsive and helpless than any infant. Even so the infant is changed, cleansed and renewed by faith poured into it, through the prayer of the Church that presents it for baptism and believes….Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult might be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same Church prayed and presented him. We read in the Gospel of the paralytic, who was healed through the faith of others. I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law [the N.T.] confer grace effectively, not only to those who do not resist, but even to those who do resist it very obstinately….The question remains, whether it is proper to baptize an infant not yet born, with only a hand or a foot outside the womb. Here I will decide nothing hastily, and confess my ignorance. I am not sure whether the reason given by some is sufficient—that the soul resides in its entirety in every part of the body. After all, it is not the soul but the body that is externally baptized with water. Nor do I share the view of others, that he who is not yet born cannot be born again, even though it [the argument] has considerable force.” (1520 A.D., A Prelude on the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 3:33, 34. Comments in brackets are mine.)
“In these words [of Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:16] you must note, in the first place, that here stand God’s commandment and institution, lest we doubt that Baptism is divine…[moreover] it is most solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved, lest any one regard it as a trifling matter, like putting on a new red coat. For it is of the greatest importance that we esteem Baptism excellent, glorious, and exalted, for which we contend and fight chiefly, because the world is now so full of sects clamoring that Baptism is an external thing, and that external things are of no benefit…But what God institutes and commands cannot be a vain, but must be a most precious thing, though in appearance it were of less value than a straw.” (c. 1530 A.D., Luther’s Larger Catechism: Part Forth. Of Baptism. Comments in brackets are mine.)
So, from the above quote it is fairly evident that even though Martin Luther should be commended for not separating baptism from salvation, he obviously still held to this twisted concept that baptism worked on the recipient regardless of their faith or their inner condition. Even though infant baptism had a very early beginning, the Tertullian quote given above shows that not all the early Christians agreed with the practice or the theology that was used to justify the practice. As can be seen from the quote given below, even Origen (who was not opposed to infant baptism) knew that water baptism does not automatically regenerate people.
Origen: “…Matthew alone adds the words ‘to repentance,’ teaching that the benefit of baptism is connected with the intention of the baptized person; to him who repents, it is salutary; but to him who comes to it without repentance, it will turn to greater condemnation….Regeneration did not take place with John, but with Jesus…and what is called the laver of regeneration takes place with renewal of the Spirit; for the Spirit now comes in addition since it comes from God and is over and above the water and does not come to all after the water.” (c.228 A.D., ANF Vol. 9, p. 367, emphasis mine.)
Martin Luther was not the only leader of the Reformation that advocated the continuance of infant baptism. The Swiss Reformation leaders also defended and perpetrated the practice of infant baptism. While the Swiss Reformers (such as Zwingli and Calvin) tended to put more of an emphasis on the symbolic aspect of baptism, John Calvin, as can be seen by the quotes given below, at least when writing on the theology of baptism, did not go to the extreme that we see in modern Christianity of completely divorcing baptism from salvation and from the remission of sins or of making it out to be of no real practical value.
John Calvin: “Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. Moreover, the end for which God has given it…is, first, that it may be conducive to our faith in him; and, secondly, that it may serve the purpose of a confession among men….Baptism…is a kind of sealed instrument by which he assures us that all our sins are so deleted, covered, and effaced, that they will never come into his sight, never be mentioned, never imputed. For it is his will that all who have believed, be baptized for the remission of sins. Hence those who have thought that baptism is nothing else than the badge and mark by which we profess our religion before men, in the same way as soldiers attest their profession by bearing the insignia of their commander, have not attended to what was the principal thing in baptism; and this is, that we are to receive it in connection with the promise, ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved’ (Mark 16:16).”
“In this sense is to be understood the statement of Paul, that “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph 5:25, 26); and again, “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5). Peter also says that “baptism also doth now save us” (1 Peter 3:21). For he did not mean to intimate that our ablution and salvation are perfected by water, or that water possesses in itself the virtue of purifying, regenerating, and renewing; nor does he mean that it is the cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and certainty of such gifts are perceived in this sacrament. This the words themselves evidently show. For Paul connects together the word of life and baptism of water, as if he had said, ‘by the gospel the message of our ablution and sanctification is announced; by baptism this message is sealed.’ And Peter immediately subjoins, that that baptism is ‘not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which is of faith.’ Nay, the only purification which baptism promises is by means of the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, who is figured by water from the resemblance to cleansing and washing.” (1559 A.D., Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:15:1, 2)
The Anabaptists saw the union of church and state for the sham that it was. They knew that the church was supposed to be a voluntarily gathered group of committed believers who were honestly trying to follow Christ in life. They resurrected the practice of believer’s baptism (which was occasionally done by immersion, but usually by pouring) and rejected infant baptism altogether (which made them look like disloyal citizens). In doing this, they brought the practice of baptism and the concept of the church much closer towards what we see in the New Testament. These “rebaptizers” were hunted down and killed for the stand that they took on the issue of baptism. Due to their reacting against the sacramental application of baptism to infants, they strongly emphasized the symbolic aspect of baptism and down-played or denied any sacramental value to it.[27] However, this does not necessarily mean that they devalued baptism or made light of it.[28] They rightly believed that it was commanded by our Lord and that it was to be obeyed at all costs—and indeed, they paid with their lives![29] But regardless of what many of them said about the purpose of baptism, they, in effect, still had baptism closely tied to salvation (even though they denied its sacramental aspect) because they linked baptism to discipleship (following Jesus), and for the Anabaptists, when there is no discipleship, there is no salvation.
Balthasar Hubmaier (1480-1528) [Hubmaier here sounds a little like the famous Stone-Campbell Movement leader named Walter Scott!]: “The order runs thus: first, word; second, obedience; third, amendment of life, or recognition of sins; fourth, baptism; fifth, works.”
[Hubmaier says that the sequence of acts leading up to baptism is:] “…preaching, hearing, repentance, faith.”
“Where baptism in water does not exist, there is no Church, no brother, no sister, no fraternal discipline, exclusion [they practiced shunning or the ban as a form of church discipline], or restoration.”[30]
Menno Simons (1496-1561): “…it is evident that infant baptism is become an accursed abomination and idol. For all those who receive it—even though their whole life is so completely pagan, undisciplined, reckless, and nothing but dissipation, drinking, fornication, cursings, swearing, etc.—are called Christians…as though the natural water in baptism could beget them and keep them in Christ. Oh no! Paul declares, He that hath not the Spirit of Christ, is none of His.”
“…But the learned ones [the Magisterial Reformers and the Catholics] say, he who does not have his children baptized, and is himself baptized upon his faith (the thing Christ has commanded) is a fanatic, Anabaptist, and a heretic….
Observe all of you who persecute the word of the Lord and His people: this is our doctrine, position, and belief concerning baptism according to the instruction of the words of Christ: namely, that we must first hear the word of God, believe it, and then upon our faith be baptized.”[31]
Dietrich Philip (1504-1568): “…teaching the gospel must precede baptism: for from instruction in the gospel or the word of God come repentance and faith, but the true, penitent faith must be confessed and proven and sealed, so to speak, by Christian baptism. Moreover after baptism must follow a consistent, good, pious, Christian life.”
“Therefore we maintain that our Lord Jesus Christ’s ordinance of baptism is ever pleasing to him, and remains as a word and command of God, regardless of the fact that some so fearfully misuse baptism, or that some despise it, whereby they heap upon themselves the wrath of God and will not escape his judgment.”[32]
If I had to pick a point in time when the majority of Bible-believing Protestants really began to disassociate baptism from initial salvation or from initial forgiveness of sins, an approximate date (and a nice round and even number) would be around A.D. 1700[33]. The influences that gave rise to this new way of thinking were certainly from an earlier date, but these earlier influences (see explanatory footnote[34]) all came together in the early 1700’s to stir up a number of key religious leaders (and therefore the Protestant religious scene in general). In the 1700’s, many adults, who had been baptized when they were infants, experienced dramatic spiritual awakenings (which they considered as their real conversion or their “effectual calling”) and most felt no need to receive believer’s baptism because, in their mind, there is to be but one baptism (Eph 4:5). This upsurge of piety became known as the Evangelical Revival in Britain and the first Great Awakening in America. Religious leaders such as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley, Isaac Watts, Count Zinzendorf and many others began emphasizing the need for the “conversion experience,” nearly to the exclusion of baptism. Because infant baptism was such a common practice, many evangelists just assumed that most of those who needed what was now being called the “new birth” (the “born again conversion experience”) had already been baptized as infants. But this new type of revival preaching did not just take place in spiritually stagnant Paedobaptist churches. The evangelists took this same message to the non-church goers and therefore to the utterly pagan non-infant baptized as well. They took to preaching in the streets and in the fields—wherever someone would listen they would preach the necessity of the mysterious new birth. So it was around this point in time (the early 1700’s) that the mystical, inward conversion experience alone—without water baptism—began to be commonly known as “the new birth” or as being “born again.” Formal religion (along with its traditions and rituals) was criticized in order to emphasize the distinction between nominal and real Christianity. These spiritual movements that people refer to as the Evangelical Revival or the Great Awakening developed into what we now know as modern Evangelicalism.[35]
Because infant baptism had so distorted the Biblical picture of initial salvation, people who did not really “feel saved,” but who had been baptized as infants, instinctively felt as if they needed to step over some kind of spiritual threshold in order to make their faith their own and hopefully find assurance of salvation. Case-in-point is the infant baptized Calvinist. The Calvinistic Paedobaptist is in a strange position, theologically speaking. All of the babies in their congregations are baptized at birth even though, according to the Calvinistic mind, some of them may not turn out to be among God’s Elect. So once these infants come to the age of understanding and some of them begin to have doubts as to whether or not he or she is really among the chosen few, they naturally seek to alleviate their anxiety. But because their theology is deterministic, they can only wait on God to regenerate them. They are told that all they can do is to beg and plead for God to give them the gracious gift from above—to give them the “born-again” experience so as to confirm their “effectual calling.” They seek the “assurance of the Elect.”
When the Puritans went on “spiritual journeys,” seeking an assurance of grace (the inner experience that would confirm that they were a child of God, when they would feel the Holy Spirit bear witness with their spirit), many of them would document their inner spiritual journey; they would descriptively write about their spiritual struggles and how they reached the coveted “spiritual breakthrough.” They would keep “self-examination/self-accusation” diaries and transcribe their complex spiritual exercises. They would even make detailed charts of their spiritual experiences. Given below is a description of this type of thing taken from a tertiary source. It is not the best example that could be given, but it is the shortest example that I could find[36].
[besides possessing proper intellectual belief], One must next renounce and repent of every known sin. He must study God’s requirements as set forth in the Bible, realize his shortcomings, and “rip up” his heart in genuine penitence. Not only the present mode of life but all the past must be dragged into the white light of conscience, dissected, and examined with a determination to overlook no slightest failing or secret desire. When the depth of his iniquity became apparent, it was to be contrasted with the height of God’s standard, and one could then realize the hopelessness of his situation….Thus the penitent reached a state of “holy desperation.” Convinced of his extreme sinfulness and inability to help himself, he cast himself wholly on the mercy of God. Then came the peace that passeth all understanding, the definite assurance of salvation as the Holy Spirit convinced him that by justifying faith he was numbered among the elect. This experience was extremely important and was to be carefully scrutinized, for there were false feelings of repentance and counterfeit assurances of salvation which might deceive even the subject himself. These were, of course, worse than none at all, because they lulled the unregenerate into a false sense of security, which precluded further striving.[37]
The Puritans would chart the path or the spiritual exercises that they went through in order to arrive at this supernatural conversion experience. This somewhat mystical and highly subjective process began to be accepted as the normative conversion experience, because those who documented their experience did so in order that their experience would hopefully be imitated by others. These spiritual exercises or this inner spiritual journey could be morbidly introspective and mentally torturous. It was certainly no simple baptism.
Jonathan Edwards did exactly the same thing as his Puritan predecessors. He wrote about the “conversion experience” not only for the edification of others, but also so that it might be imitated. Samples of “conversion experiences” were written about and described by many other people and these descriptions served as a model, a pattern, an example of the “normative” spiritual journey and conversion experience. These descriptions or examples of the “new birth” were published and distributed throughout the colonies and also back across the sea in mother England.
The Puritans had a great influence on the Continental European Pietists. And the Pietists, in turn, had a great influence on many serious-minded Christians of the 1700’s who were seeking a more personal walk with God. The Moravian Pietists had a great influence on John Wesley and other leaders of the Great Awakening period. And the leaders of the Evangelical Revival or The Great Awakening are the immediate spiritual forefathers of modern-day Evangelicals.
Because this mystical concept of conversion became so widespread, baptism came to be seen as being simply for admission to a church or as a mere public testimony of a new birth that had already taken place. And it would probably not be an over-statement to say that this has now become the dominant view, even though it is only a few hundred years old. This is why, nowadays, presentations of salvation usually conclude with an invitation for people to come forward and pray. It used to be that those who responded to these invitations would come forward to “the mourner’s bench.” They would be encouraged to “pray through”—to pray until they felt the Holy Spirit witness with their spirit that they were children of God; to pray until the reached a “spiritual breakthrough”; to pray until they received the assurance of grace. But what used to be a long, protracted, time of intense prayer, has now been shortened to an invitation to come forward to “invite Jesus into your heart;” or to “pray this ‘sinner’s prayer’ with me from wherever you are right now”—no water baptism required.
Baptism has been down-played and denied to have any connection to salvation for so long that even those Christians who argue against the necessity of baptism out of one side of their mouth will then turn right around and complain out of the other side of their mouth about the fact that nowadays, many people who have believed on Christ do not feel like it is very important to be baptized! Popular Calvinistic Independent Baptist radio preacher John MacArthur writes that:
Baptism is not a condition of salvation but an initial step of obedience for the Christian. Conversion is complete before baptism occurs; baptism is only an external sign that testifies to what has occurred in the sinner’s heart. Baptism is a ritual, and is precisely the kind of “work” Paul states cannot be meritorious (cf. Rom. 4:10-11).
Nevertheless, one can hardly read the New Testament without noticing the heavy stress the early church placed on baptism. They simply assumed that every genuine believer would embark on a life of obedience and discipleship. That was nonnegotiable. Therefore they viewed baptism as the turning point. Only those who were baptized were considered Christians. That is why the Ethiopian eunuch was so eager to be baptized (Acts 8:36-39).
Unfortunately, the church today takes baptism more casually. It is not unusual to meet people who have been professing Christians for years but have never been baptized.[38]
Gee, I wonder why?
NOTES:
[1] So as not to unnecessarily offend the reader with my choice of words, let me say that I am using the word “perversion” here to refer to the action or process of perverting something from its original form, purpose or intent. This article is an attempt to describe how Christian baptism became perverted (corrupted, twisted, misdirected, diverted, turned aside) from its original purpose over the course of time—hence the title “The Historical Perversion of Baptism.”
[2] Concerning the household of Cornelius (Acts 11:14)—when we look at 10:1-2 and 10:44ff, did all (including the infants) fear God, hear, receive the Spirit, speak with tongues, and so were baptized? Concerning the household of Crispus (Acts 18:8)—did the infants also believe? In the case of the household of the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:32-34)—did Paul and Silas preach to the infants at such an early hour of the morning? And having heard, did the infants also believe? Did they rejoice and join in the meal too? In the case of the household of Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16)—when we look at what is written about this household in 1 Cor 16:15-16, are we to believe that the infants had also devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints? Was Paul urging the Corinthians to submit to the infants because these spectacular babies were leading by example and therefore to be submitted to, emulated and admired by the Corinthians? Concerning the household of Lydia (Acts 16:15), we should never formulate doctrine and practice upon presumption, especially when such presumptions conflict with the express teachings and clear examples of Christ and the apostles in Scripture, which show that it is the believing who should be baptized. Therefore, while infant baptism is not “heresy,” it is an unwise, unbiblical, nonsensical practice.
[3] Applying the practice of the baptismal pledge/profession/confession (that is envisioned in 1 Pet 3:21) to the case of an infant not only presents a ridiculous picture to mind, it also perverts the original intent and place of Christian baptism in the journey of faith.
[4] Many Christians will argue that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins, but that only Jesus’ blood is for the forgiveness of sins. But when we consider both that Matt 26:28 teaches that Jesus’ blood is “for the forgiveness of sins” and that this same exact phrase occurs at Acts 2:38 when speaking of baptism, it seems obvious that in the act of baptism is where and when the believer comes into initial spiritual contact with the cleansing blood of Christ.
[5] People often use 1 Cor 1:12-17 as a proof text to try to show that water baptism is either not essential to the Christian faith or is not a necessary component of the gospel. But Paul is not degrading or down-playing baptism in this passage. He is simply expressing his thankfulness that he did not personally baptize any more of the Corinthians than the handful that he did. He did not want to do anything that might encourage misplaced devotion—as the baptized sometimes have towards their baptizer. Paul is saying that as an apostle, his primary job was to preach the gospel. He preached and taught those who made commitments to Christ to be baptized into Him, but Paul himself did not have to be the one who actually did the baptizing—he had people helping him who could do that. In any case, the converts’ loyalty was to be Christ, not to Paul or Apollos or to Cephas.
[6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; repr. 10 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994).
[7] It is common to hear people say that the phrase “for the forgiveness of sins” in Acts 2:38 would be better translated as “because of the forgiveness of sins.” But if that is the case, then why is it never translated that way? And even if some dishonest translator were to translate the phrase that way, then they should at least be consistent in their dishonest translating and translate it the same way in Matt 26:28.
[8] John 3:3: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [or ‘from above’] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
[9] John 3:5: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
[10] Another verse that shows how closely baptism was tied to being born again or regenerated is Titus 3:5
[11] For proof that both the baptism of infants and the communion of infants were generally accepted by c.250 A.D., see Cyprian’s comments in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; repr. 10 vols. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 5:353, 354, 439, 444.
[12] On p. 59 of his book Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? (originally published in 1961), Kurt Aland, a pedobaptist scholar who is academically honest, makes the following statement regarding the use of this Irenaeus quote as a proof-text for infant baptism: “It does not seem apparent to me [when the Irenaeus quote is read in context] that Irenaeus has baptism in view here, and certainly there is no thought of infant baptism; he is concerned solely with the fact that Jesus sanctified all humanity in that he was made like all, lived through all ages of life and was an example to all (‘not merely as respects the setting forth of the truth, but also as regards age’!). Nothing more than this is presupposed; nothing more than this is stated; therefore nothing more than this should be sought from it.” (I.e., this Irenaeus quote is no evidence for infant baptism in the 2nd century; and the comments in brackets are mine)
[13] Menno may have been willing to admit that infant baptism may have begun during the lifetime of the apostles because of the limited amount of evidence he had concerning the case of Polycarp. Supporters of infant baptism usually give Polycarp’s life span as being from 69-155 A.D., and quote from The Martyrdom of Polycarp (chapter 9) where Polycarp says “Eighty and six years have I served Him [Christ]”—and then they conclude that Polycarp was infant baptized in 69 A.D. and was killed in 155, when he was 86 years old.
But the evidence is not as black and white as some would like. Polycarp’s lifespan and age of death is debated. Some scholars say that he was born c. 65 and that he died c. 167 (and if they are correct, this would mean that he could have been around 102 years old at his death). After all, Polycarp is not necessarily giving his age in The Martyrdom of Polycarp, he is only saying how long he has been serving Christ. No record has been found that states exactly what age Polycarp was when he was baptized. But even if Polycarp was dating his period of serving Christ from the day of his baptism, if the evidence contained in a “new” ancient text referred to as The Harris Fragments (which states that Polycarp was 104 years old at the time of his death) is accurate, then it is possible that he was baptized when he was 18 years old. Concerning the evidence of Polycarp’s age of death contained in the Harris Fragments, see the book by Frederick W. Weidmann, Polycarp & John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to the Literary Traditions (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1999), 44, 84.
[14] Kurt Aland, an academically honest pedobaptist scholar, discusses “emergency baptisms” (i.e., performed just prior to death) and mentions a “Marcianus” grave/tombstone inscription dated at 268 A.D. that was discovered in Rome which is unambiguously Christian—that is, the content of the inscription is such that no pagan parent would approve of having it engraved on their child’s tombstone. According to the inscription, Aland says: “This particular child of Christian parents in Rome was not baptized till he was over twelve years old! The inscription actually shatters the thesis that infant baptism was administered to Christian children, and at the same time it tears a very large hole in the idea that infant baptism was obligatory in the third century; it further demonstrates that, despite the evidence provided by the Church Order of Hippolytus and Cyprian, the custom of baptizing very little children was not observed without exception in Italy at that time (correspondingly the same might have applied in Africa and other provinces).” See his book, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, p. 78-79.
[15] K. McVey, “Ephraem the Syrian,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. Everett Ferguson (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997), 376.
[16] Everett Ferguson, Church History: Volume One, From Christ to Pre-Reformation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 214.
[17] Ibid., 214.
[18] Ibid., 215. Comments in brackets are mine.
[19] Ibid., 217, 218
[20] Ibid., 220.
[21] Ibid., 223.
[22] See: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/rufinus-aquileia (comments in brackets and bolding is mine).
[23] Ibid., 279, 280.
[24] Ibid., 269
[25] Ibid., 270, 271.
[26] However, there is evidence that there was always a small remnant of believers who did not agree with or go along with many of the practices and beliefs (such as baptismal regeneration or “Christening” with no faith-repentance required) that became such integral components of and identifying features of the Constantinian Hybrid. These groups had to be very secretive and discreet while gathering together and doing evangelism due to the persecution they received from the state-church.
[27] However, Anabaptist leader Pilgram Marpeck did use the term “sacrament” and held that baptism was more than a public confession of one’s faith before men and more than a sign of repentance. He saw baptism as a means of grace and that (when faith, repentance, and confession were present in the person being baptized) it actually brought the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, Marpeck believed that water baptism was necessary and was not a matter of indifference.
[28] Although Anabaptist leader Menno Simons did not believe that baptism was a means of grace he did say that believers receive remission of sins in baptism, but not through baptism, (although Titus 3:5 has “through” and not “in”) and Menno certainly did not regard this God-given ordinance as being unimportant. According to Menno, he who despises the ceremonies commanded by God and regards their performance as useless and trivial excludes himself from the covenant by disobedience (see p. 213 in his Christian Baptism in The Complete Works of Menno Simons).
[29] Anabaptist leader Balthasar Hubmaier was aware that when baptism is interpreted as being simply a sign or as being merely a testimony to faith, that this understanding may lead some to say, “What need have I of baptism? I already have the Holy Spirit.” Hubmaier finds support for it on the basis that it was the command of Christ. “He who sees the command of Christ before his eyes does not dispute further.” Only where water and a baptizer are not available may baptism be omitted. But in most cases, such situations will soon be remedied.
[30] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism (Grand Rapids, MI.: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996 Edition), 208-209, 211. Comments in brackets and emphasis mine.
[31] Samuel Byrnes, ed., Foundation of Christian Doctrine: Excerpts from the Writings of Menno Simons and Dietrich Philip (Moundridge, KS.: Gospel Publishers, 1983), 67-69.
[32] Ibid., 76, 81.
[33] Although, to be even more exact, we could say that it was at least as early as 1640 (and probably earlier), which is when we know for a fact that the Puritan “conversion narrative” began to be used a test for church membership. The conversion narrative test consisted of the potential church member (who, in most cases, had already been baptized as an infant) telling the story about his or her conversion “experience” to the congregation, and if the congregation was sufficiently convinced by their story that the person had truly been regenerated or born again (giving proof that they were among the Elect), then the congregation would then vote them in as a member.
[34] The earlier influences included: 1. Calvinistic English Puritanism; 2. Continental European (mostly German speaking) Pietism; 3. High-Church Anglican religious societies that stressed “primitive Christianity,” personal piety, and good works in a search for real Christianity.
[35] And thus, the “Puritan conversion narrative” now became the “Evangelical conversion narrative.”
[36] A lengthier example is given by Alan Simpson, in Puritanism in Old and New England, Phoenix ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, reprint 1964), 2-5. He summarizes the personal conversion experience of Thomas Goodwin.
[37] M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism, revised Phoenix ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1965), 393. Comments within the brackets are mine.
[38] John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2000), 207, 208, Italics are his and bolded emphasis and underlining is mine.