I've been reading documents from antiquity close in time to when the apostles lived, mainly to see what the early church looked like, and how it changed. For example, some congregations have the "Lord's Supper" only once a month or so, yet the New Testament indicates that they "broke the bread" on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, for example). Since God also says, "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you, (John 6:53)" it seems a perilous thing to do infrequently.
My research led me to discover that early Christians took the Lord's Supper as part of a love feast every Sunday, which matches up with what Jude and 1 Corinthians discuss. There's a lot that can be learned from that: early Christians took the Lord's Supper as a part of an actual meal, and they were reverent, but also joyful. Does that seem much like your congregation? If not, does what your congregation practices match the principle of what the early church did? Of what the New Testament prescribes?
These are all thoughts that I've had on my mind.
As I've been examining these things, I've wanted to take a look at baptism. It seems that there is a large push against baptism. Often it's called an outward sign of an inward grace, or something along those lines. "A sign that you've been saved," it something else I've often heard. As I read through hundreds of pages of texts, I saw something interesting: the closer people were to the time of Jesus, the more important they saw baptism. Over time, men began changing it, or calling it unimportant. I'd like to examine baptism, but what the Bible says about it, and how early Christians felt about it.
BQ: When looking at baptism, it's important to note that God said, "My salvation will not delay," in Isaiah 46:13, and in Acts 22:16, He questioned Paul, saying, "Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name."
Genesis 17:10-14 describes the use of physical circumcision and its purpose, saying in part, "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among...shall be circumcised in the flesh...And the uncircumcised male child...shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant."(Genesis 17:10-14)
So, under the New Covenant, how does a person enter into the covenant of Christ? God explains circumcision was nothing more than a shadow of the spiritual reality of baptism. "In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead." (Col 2:11-12) We enter into a covernant relationship with Christ in immersion.
BQ:Looking at immersion, it was considered vital to early Christians. Around 110-165 AD, Justin Martyr, an early Christian, wrote,
"As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly...are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated."
...
"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.' Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers' wombs, is manifest to all...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."
Notice here that Martyr quotes John 3, where Jesus explained , and says that being born again occurs in baptism, and that baptism takes place in water. Lots of Christians don't believe that baptism is actually important, but here and early Christian did, and used God's Word as proof. Here, also, as soon as people believed, they were baptized, because it was so important. Ring any bells?
BQ: Yesterday we saw that Martyr, an early Christian, wrote about people wanting to be followers of Christ, " they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated."
...
"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.' "
God said that without immersion, one would not enter the Kingdom of heaven, and Martyr believed Him. But he also referred to this washing as a "regeneration." This matches up with Titus 3:5, which says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit." (Titus 3:5)
BQ: We saw that Martyr noted, as God also did, that immersion was critical if we want to see heaven, and that it regenerates us. Titus 3:5 says, "He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit."
Look how this syncs with Acts 2:38, which says, "Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
Here we have washing, in immersion, and renewing, by the Holy Spirit. Being born again truly occurs at immersion. But, like Martyr also noted, repentance is also necessary, or you're just getting wet.
BQ: Looking more at what early Christians wrote about baptism, we see that Martyr, in a letter on Christianity, wrote,
"There, the one who refuses to be baptized is to be condemned as an unbeliever, partially on the basis of what Jesus told Nicodemus....He that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish.
For the Lord says: 'Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven.' And again: 'He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.'" (Mark 16:16)
What is fascinating to me is that early Christians very solidly equated baptism with belief. To the, if you believed, you were immediately baptized. There was no delaying.
BQ: Just looking more at early Christians and how they understood immersion, between 120-205 AD, Irenaeus wrote, "
"As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, 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.'"
Often people these days think that baptism is silly, or weird. Why would God consider being dunked important? In 2nd Kings 5, a man named Naaman had the same unbelief, when God told him to immerse himself in a dirty river to be made clean again. Yet he finally did, and "his flesh was restored like the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." Baptism does this for our spirits, and makes us clean. It is like being born again.
BQ: Irenaeus, and early Christian, wrote shortly after the apostles died,
"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 faith."
That, to me, is incredibly fascinating, As early as 100-200 AD, Satan was already trying to convince people that baptism was pointless, and that when God says, "baptism now saves you," (1 Pet 3) it wasn't really true. Why would saying baptism isn't important be a renouncing of faith, though? It's because, as Colossians 2:12 points out, "having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
If we don't have faith in God raising us in baptism, we don't have faith in His work.
BQ: Although I am only providing a small sliver of the early Christian writings about baptism, many of them contain the exact same, Bible-based logic. Some people wonder why water would be important. Tertullian, between 140-230 AD, wrote of this,
"After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, 'the waters' were the first to receive the precept 'to bring forth living creatures.' Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life."
God has always used water: priests had to cleanse themselves with it first, he cleaned the world and saved Noah's family with it, He washed Naaman with it, and He used it to select soldiers. It would be stranger for us to believe that God suddenly saw no value in it.
BQ: A Catholic invention about baptism is that it can be by sprinkling, which doesn't fit the meaning of "baptizo," to immerse. The history of "immersion" without immersion was first absolutely confirmed around 324AD, but Tertullian wrote of it much earlier, saying,
"Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins." There was a reason he was called "John the Immerser," not "John the Sprinkler." :)
BQ: Today we take another look at what the early Christian Tertullian wrote on baptism, and we'll see that a very common argument Satan uses against it was well known by early Christians, but also easily dismissed as deceit.
"But they roll back an objection from that apostle himself, in that he said, 'For Christ sent me not to baptize;' [1 Cor 1:17] as if by this argument baptism were done away! For if so, why did he baptize Gaius, and Crispus, and the house of Stephanas?
However, even if Christ had not sent him to baptize, yet He had given other apostles the precept to baptize. But these words were written to the Corinthians in regard of the circumstances of that particular time; seeing that schisms and dissensions were agitated among them, while one attributes everything to Paul, another to Apollos.
For which reason the 'peacemaking' apostle, for fear he should seem to claim all gifts for himself, says that he had been sent 'not to baptize, but to preach.' For preaching is the prior thing, baptizing the posterior. Therefore the preaching came first: but I think baptizing withal was lawful to him to whom preaching was."
Yep, using 1 Cor as an argument against baptism isn't anything but inaccuracy and taking things out of context.
BQ: If baptism were not important, Satan wouldn't want to attack it. But because it's critical, he often goes at it first. Read this incredibly analogy by Tertullian, noting Satan's supernaturally evil attempt to undermine baptism:
"Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!
The consequence is, that a viper of the Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism. Which is quite in accordance with nature; for vipers and asps and serpents themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places.
But we, little fishes after the example of our ikhthus, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!"
I believe that stands for itself. : )
BQ: If water and baptism were important to God, they'd have shown up as important to Christ, too. Look what Tertullian pieces together from the Bible on how baptism and Christ are inextricably bound together, in life and in death:
"How mighty is the grace of water, in the sight of God and His Christ, for the confirmation of baptism! Never is Christ without water: if, that is, He is Himself baptized in water; inaugurates in water the first rudimentary displays of his power, when invited to the wedding; invites the thirsty, when He makes a discourse, to Himself being living water; approves, when teaching concerning love, among works of charity, the cup of water offered to a poor child; recruits His strength at a well; walks over the water; willingly crosses the sea; ministers water to his disciples."
"Onward even to the passion does the witness of baptism last: while He is being surrendered to the cross, water intervenes; witness Pilate's hands: when He is wounded, forth from His side bursts water; witness the soldier's lance!... True and stable faith is baptized with water, unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with fire, unto judgment."
In 1 John 5, God says, "the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree." When Christ died, the blood and water came out. We contact Christ's death, and thus his blood, in the waters of immersion.
BQ: Just to give you a little more than Tertullian, look what Clement wrote between 150-200AD:
"We are washed from all our sins, and are no longer entangled in evil. This is the one grace of illumination, that our characters are not the same as before our washing... In the same way, therefore, we also, repenting of our sins, renouncing our iniquities, purified by baptism, speed back to the eternal light, children to the Father."
Clement equated baptism with becoming a child of God. Why would this be? Galatians 3:26-27 explains, saying, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
BQ: Today, we look at another early Christian reasoning on the logic of immersion. In 181 AD, Theophilus of Antioch,
"Moreover, those things which were created from the waters were blessed by God, so that this might also be a sign that men would at a future time receive repentance and remission of sins through water and the bath of regeneration all who proceed to the truth and are born again and receive a blessing from God"
This is very similar to Tertullian's reasoning. Water=life.
BQ: Earlier I mentioned Naaman, but we'll see that Irenaeus of Lyons, around 200AD, made a beautiful connection between the Old and New Covenants, and why baptism is important. He said,
"Lyons "`And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan' [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this 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'." (John 3:5)
BQ: Also around 200AD, Cyprian wrote about being a son of God being tied in with immersion. He wrote,
"But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, 'He saved us by the washing of regeneration.' But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ?"
Although long, it behooves us to read Romans 6:3-11, since Cyprian mentions it, and it is the old way to have the old man die, and have a new man be born:
"Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be [b]in the likeness of His resurrection, 6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; 7 for he who has died is freed from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, 9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. 10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. 11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus."
BQ: Since I mentioned sprinkling before, I thought that I should give a couple of references to support that baptism (immersion) was not done that way until man decided to make it "more convenient."
“It is without controversy that baptism in the primitive church was administered by immersion into water and not by sprinkling; seeing that John is said to have baptized in Jordan, and where there was much water, as Christ also did by his disciples in the neighborhood of these places. Phillip also going down into the water baptized the eunuch.” (Ecclesiastical History, Chapter I, Sec. 138.)
“Immersion and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the words baptizo, baptisma, and baptismos, used to designate the rite.” (History of the Apostolic Church, Schaff, p. 488.)
BQ: I had mentioned before that we can see early deviation from baptism, and the earliest uncontested deviation is not the Didache, as the age of that is hard to determine, and may be much later, given how it is often very inconsistent with what the Bible teaches. What we do see, however, is that a mention of Novatian by Eusebius, between 250-350AD, says,
“He (Novatian) fell into a grievous distemper, and it being supposed that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being besprinkled with water on the bed whereon he lay, if that can be termed baptism.”
Notice here that they even expressed incredulity at calling sprinkling immersion, since it wasn't. It also seems that Novatian was using baptism as his last-ditch effort to express a change of heart, if he was even conscious at the time. Still, note that even that late, baptism was considered essential.
I hope this has been as interesting to you as it was to me. It's pretty scary to see that we so nebulously use terms like "born again," and ignore how God goes about making us born again! :)
