There are a number of instances in the New Testament where inspired writers warn of an impending apostasy from the faith once delivered unto the saints. It was foretold that the time would come when men would no longer endure sound doctrine and hence, would depart from the faith (II Timothy 4:3; I Timothy 4:1). The fact is, such lawlessness as characterized that movement was beginning to work even at that early age (cf. II Timothy 2:7).
Before Christ ascended into heaven, He instructed His disciples to teach the gospel to all men. Those who believed that "good news" and who accordingly repented of their sins, were commanded to be immersed in water (cf. Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; John 3:5). The Lord's apostles carried out this sacred commission with precision (cf. Acts 2:38ff).
The Form
The word "baptize" is an anglicized Greek term, literally meaning "immerse." It never means to sprinkle or pour water upon the subject. In fact, the original term is clearly distinguished from those words in a passage found in the Septuagint. Note: "And the priest shall take of the log of oil, and pour (cheo) it into the palm of his own left hand; and the priest shall dip (baptizo) his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle (rantizo) of the oil with his finger seven times before Jehovah" (Leviticus 14:15-16). The difference in the verbs is clearly seen. New Testament baptism is thus a burial in water (cf. Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12).
By the middle of the second century however, conviction was giving way to convenience. The first historical references to sprinkling as a substitute for immersion is in a document known as the Didache (120-160 A.D.). A passage in chapter 7 reads: "Now as regards baptism, thus baptize ye: having first rehearsed all these things, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then warm. But if thou has neither, pour water upon the head thrice..."
A few years later, Cyprian made the first recorded defense of sprinkling when he wrote, "You have asked also, dearest son what I thought of those who obtain God's grace in sickness and weakness., whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for they are not to be washed but sprinkled with saving water...In the sacrament of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer whole benefits on believers; nor ought it to trouble anyone that sick people seemed to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's grace" (Epistle, LXXV). It will be readily observed that even at this point, sprinkling is advised only upon cautious grounds; "when necessity compels," and was thus not considered to be the normal practice. And of course, as in the previous quotation, the plea is too late to have the approval of apostolic authority.
The first actual known case of sprinkling involved one Novatian of Rome. Eusebius, the "father of church history," says that he was, "attacked with an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, was baptized by aspersion, in the bed on which he lay." But again, this was considered abnormal, for Eusebius shows that restrictions were put upon Novatian because, "...It was not lawful that one baptized in his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted to any order of the clergy..." (Ecclesiastical History, p. 266).
Even as late as the 8th century, Pope Stephen III, in France, authorized pouring water on infants' heads only, "in cases of necessity" (John Rowe, History of Reformatory Movements, p. 456). In fact, the Council of Nemours (1284 A.D.) limited, "sprinkling to cases of necessity" (Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, I, p. 201). Finally though, at the Council of Ravenna in 1311 A.D., it was officially made law (human law) that the candidate for baptism be given his choice between sprinkling and immersion. But what about God's choice?
By the middle of the second century however, conviction was giving way to convenience. The first historical references to sprinkling as a substitute for immersion is in a document known as the Didache (120-160 A.D.). A passage in chapter 7 reads: "Now as regards baptism, thus baptize ye: having first rehearsed all these things, baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if thou hast not running water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then warm. But if thou has neither, pour water upon the head thrice..."
A few years later, Cyprian made the first recorded defense of sprinkling when he wrote, "You have asked also, dearest son what I thought of those who obtain God's grace in sickness and weakness., whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for they are not to be washed but sprinkled with saving water...In the sacrament of salvation, when necessity compels, and God bestows His mercy, the divine methods confer whole benefits on believers; nor ought it to trouble anyone that sick people seemed to be sprinkled or affused, when they obtain the Lord's grace" (Epistle, LXXV). It will be readily observed that even at this point, sprinkling is advised only upon cautious grounds; "when necessity compels," and was thus not considered to be the normal practice. And of course, as in the previous quotation, the plea is too late to have the approval of apostolic authority.
The first actual known case of sprinkling involved one Novatian of Rome. Eusebius, the "father of church history," says that he was, "attacked with an obstinate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, was baptized by aspersion, in the bed on which he lay." But again, this was considered abnormal, for Eusebius shows that restrictions were put upon Novatian because, "...It was not lawful that one baptized in his sick bed by aspersion, as he was, should be promoted to any order of the clergy..." (Ecclesiastical History, p. 266).
Even as late as the 8th century, Pope Stephen III, in France, authorized pouring water on infants' heads only, "in cases of necessity" (John Rowe, History of Reformatory Movements, p. 456). In fact, the Council of Nemours (1284 A.D.) limited, "sprinkling to cases of necessity" (Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, I, p. 201). Finally though, at the Council of Ravenna in 1311 A.D., it was officially made law (human law) that the candidate for baptism be given his choice between sprinkling and immersion. But what about God's choice?
The Subjects
Since both faith and repentance are conditions leading to Bible baptism, naturally infants are excluded (cf. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Infants do not have the mental capacity to believe and they cannot repent (nor have they a need to) for they, "have no knowledge of good or evil" (Deuteronomy 1:39). Hence, the practice of infant baptism is unknown to the Word of God.
The first possible allusion to infant baptism is by the writer Irenaeus (140-203 A.D.). "He (Christ) came to save, through means of Himself, all who through Him are born again unto God, infants and children, boys and youths, and old men" (Against Heresies, 2:22:4). But a contemporary, Tertullian (150-222 A.D.) opposed the practice. "Let them come while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are being taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians when they are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste to procure the forgiveness of sins for the age of innocence! Let them first learn to feel their need of salvation; so it may appear that we have given to those that wanted" (On Baptism, XVIII).
Augustus Neander, who was a Lutheran historian comments, "Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolical institution; for otherwise, he hardly would have ventured to express himself so strongly against it" (Church History, Vol. I, p. 425).
Although Tertullian opposed infant baptism, he did lay the groundwork for its ready acceptance by others. He taught that the human spirit, like the body, is transmitted from parent to child. Thus, man inherits a blemished soul, according to this theory. Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) reasoned, "But, if even the chief of sinners, who have been exceedingly guilty before God, receive the forgiveness of sins on coming to the faith, and no one is precluded from baptism and from grace, how less should the child be kept back, which, as it is but just born, cannot have sinned, but has only brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death; and which may the more easily obtain the remission of sins because the sins which are forgiven it are not its own but those of another" (Epistle, LVIII). And Origin (185-254 A.D.), another writer, flatly declares, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense we mentioned even now, none is free from pollution, though the life be but the length of one day upon the earth. And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized" (Homil. in Luc., XIV).
It thus takes error to buttress error. The practice of infant baptism was invented as a corollary to the false concept of "inherited sin." Neither has the remotest sanction of the Bible. The practice of infant baptism did not become common until the 5th century after the writings of Augustine had popularized the notion of original sin. Even Philip Schaff, a vigorous pseudo-baptist, was forced to admit that, "adult baptism was the rule, infant baptism the exception" until the church was fairly established in the Roman Empire. He points out that Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom had "Christian" mothers, yet they were not baptized until they were in early manhood (Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, I, p. 210).
Augustus Neander, who was a Lutheran historian comments, "Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolical institution; for otherwise, he hardly would have ventured to express himself so strongly against it" (Church History, Vol. I, p. 425).
Although Tertullian opposed infant baptism, he did lay the groundwork for its ready acceptance by others. He taught that the human spirit, like the body, is transmitted from parent to child. Thus, man inherits a blemished soul, according to this theory. Cyprian (200-258 A.D.) reasoned, "But, if even the chief of sinners, who have been exceedingly guilty before God, receive the forgiveness of sins on coming to the faith, and no one is precluded from baptism and from grace, how less should the child be kept back, which, as it is but just born, cannot have sinned, but has only brought with it, by its descent from Adam, the infection of the old death; and which may the more easily obtain the remission of sins because the sins which are forgiven it are not its own but those of another" (Epistle, LVIII). And Origin (185-254 A.D.), another writer, flatly declares, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense we mentioned even now, none is free from pollution, though the life be but the length of one day upon the earth. And it is for that reason, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized" (Homil. in Luc., XIV).
It thus takes error to buttress error. The practice of infant baptism was invented as a corollary to the false concept of "inherited sin." Neither has the remotest sanction of the Bible. The practice of infant baptism did not become common until the 5th century after the writings of Augustine had popularized the notion of original sin. Even Philip Schaff, a vigorous pseudo-baptist, was forced to admit that, "adult baptism was the rule, infant baptism the exception" until the church was fairly established in the Roman Empire. He points out that Augustine, Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom had "Christian" mothers, yet they were not baptized until they were in early manhood (Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia, I, p. 210).
The Purpose
The divine connection between baptism and the remission of past sins was universally observed by writers of the post-apostolic age. They recognized the divine authority of the Scriptures for this (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Titus 3:5; I Peter 3:21). Professor George Fisher wrote, "Very early, baptism was so far identified with regeneration as to be designated by this term. This rite was considered essential to salvation" (History of the Christian Church, p. 83). Eventually however, a magical aura began to be associated with baptism, resulting finally in the doctrine of, "baptismal regeneration" (power in the water itself). It was but natural that a reaction against this erroneous idea would subsequently develop.
In 1512, Jacobus Faber, known as the, "father of the French reformation" published his Commentary on the Epistles of Paul in which he set forth his views that justification from sin is obtained through faith without works. A few years later, Martin Luther declared, "I, Doctor Martin Luther, unworthy herald of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, confess this article, that faith alone without works justifies before God" (D'Aubigne, Life and Times of Luther, p. 56). So convinced of this was Luther that he altered the text of Romans 3:28 to read, "a man is justified by faith only." He further rejected the inspiration of the book of James, because of its emphasis on works in addition to faith, calling it a , "right strawy epistle." Though Luther did see a connection between baptism and remission of sins, he nevertheless prepared the way for the modern denominational dogma which asserts that baptism is not essential to salvation.
Thus, because men have failed to acknowledge the Bible as the complete and final source of authority in religious matters, there has resulted an apostasy from the faith in the form, subjects and divine purpose in the New Testament command of baptism.
Every person genuinely interested in pleasing Almighty God should reexamine his baptism and make absolutely sure that it was in harmony with Biblical teaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment