I’d like to first consider “Infant Baptism.” Afterwards I will quote from the Early Church Fathers. I will then look at "Adult" Baptism and the various arguments concerning Baptism, and then quote from the Early Church Fathers again. So, let's begin.
As we know, Protestants’ take great umbrage with the Catholic practice of baptizing infants. They argue that one must want to be baptized, and a child not even being self aware at the time of Baptism, makes a valid Baptism impossible because it is not capable of assenting to the Baptism.
What do Protestants’ believe happens to a baby if it were to die before it reaches the age of reason and consent for Baptism? Actually, many Protestants’ believe the baby is automatically saved.
Well, there is either a debt for Adam’s sin or there is not. There is no way to justify their position. The mere fact that a baby can "die" is evidence that Adam’s sin has touched the infant, and you cannot just disregard the need for a remedy. Either that, or the baby would not die because there is no sin that touches the child until it reaches the age of reason, and no one is going to argue that.
To paraphrase, the Church has said:
“We do not know definitively what happens in such a case … entrusting the child to God’s mercy.” We do know the Church teaches that an un-baptized infant cannot be damned because it could not commit personal sin, so, we must say the child is “technically saved” and in a “positive state of happiness” at a minimum. But, we also have to remember that no one has a right to the beatific vision. That is why the Church leaves this matter ultimately in the hands of God which we do not yet know.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:
“As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them ... all the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (No.1261)
However, we would be remiss if we did not state the Church’s position on this matter.
From the Canons of the Council of Orange held in 529 A.D. we read:
CANON 1 - If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezekiel. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Romans 6:16) and “For
whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved.” (2nd Peter 2:19)
So then, the body and soul of all people, including infants, died with the sin of Adam. Did the baby have to consent to the sin of Adam before it could die?
This reveals the foolishness in the Fundamentalists’ position on infant Baptism.
The Protestant argument against infant Baptism rests in the claim that the child is not self-aware at the time of Baptism and cannot possibly consent, thus rendering Baptism invalid.
Their argument rests on the claim that the child cannot make a “free will” decision. A free will decision is a choice, and a choice is an act, because an act requires the action of the will. Something that requires the action of the will, just like the exercise of a muscle, is a “work.”
Now, it is very convenient for Protestants’ when they appeal to the necessity of free will for a child.
If infant Baptism is valid, this would bring us to the faith and desire of the parents who wish their child to receive Baptism. Correct?
Fundamentalists’ do not accept the Catholic position that the faith of the parents "in behalf of the child" is sufficient for Baptism.
None of us had even been conceived when Adam sinned. Yet, we bear the consequences of his sin. So, the fact that we were not present when Adam sinned cannot stop the impact of what our first parents decided in our behalf, for good or for ill.
Now, if the action and sin of our first parents can kill us spiritually and bodily, even when we have not yet been conceived, on what basis does a Protestant make the claim that our own immediate parents cannot bring their child through the door of grace that Christ opened for us on Calvary? After all, our first parents opened the door of death?
Furthermore, if a child must wait to reach the age of reason before they can "decide to be baptized," why is it they don’t have to reach "the age of reason" to decide whether or not they want to inherit the consequences of Adam’s sin, and thereby become subject to "sickness and death?"
It is the faith and desire of our parents, or whoever represents the child, that stands in for the child who cannot yet decide for life in Baptism, just as our first parents stood in for all of us to bring us death when we had no say about it.
Later on in life, as is the case for us all, the child will need to exercise its own “free will” to repent for “personal sin” (different from "original sin") when it reaches the age of reason.
Is there anything in Scripture that is a precedent for this?
Yes, there is. Let us see what God has to say to Fundamentalists’ when it comes to a child that "has not yet reached the age of self-awareness, reason," and is incapable of making a free-will decision. Let us see if such a child can be held “personally responsible” for breaking God’s covenant.
If we find a child is personally responsible for breaking God's covenant it means the only remedy for the child is to be found in the “free will decision, desire, and action of the parents” in the child’s behalf that can bring about necessary Baptism.
In fact, it will mean that “it is not enough” for the parents to have “Faith Alone.” Since the child cannot act in its own behalf it means something must actually be done that will bring the child into the covenant with God. This is evidence that the action in behalf of the child (a work) is not merely a sign that speaks about a covenant with God, but that the action itself is what causes the child to enter into a covenant with God.
In Genesis17:12-14 we read:
12: “An infant of EIGHT DAYS OLD shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations: he that is born in the house, as well as the bought servant shall be circumcised, and whosoever is not of your stock.”
13: “And my covenant shall be in your flesh for a perpetual covenant.”
14: “The male, whose flesh of his foreskin shall not be circumcised, that soul shall be destroyed out of his people: because he has broken my covenant.”
We are talking about an 8 day old infant who will be personally guilty for breaking God’s covenant, and that the soul of this child will be destroyed.
Now, it is clear that an 8 day old infant is not going to take hold of a knife and circumcise itself to make sure it is not going to be destroyed, or be guilty of breaking God’s covenant. It is not even self-aware yet, as we know.
Now enter the parents in the drama of salvation. It is clear to any thinking person that the only remedy for this 8 day old child would be the parents, or someone who will circumcise the child, on the 8th day after its birth.
And I want to make note that verse 12 which I just read says these words:
“An infant of 8 day old child … every man child … that is born IN THE HOUSE.”
The reason I emphasize the words “in the house” is because this is a precedent in the New Testament when reference is made to entire households being baptized. It INCLUDES infants who have not yet reached the age of reason.
Baptism is the fulfillment of circumcision. An action (a work) was required in both cases to enter into the Covenant with God. The only thing that changed was the manner of entrance into that covenant. It was no longer required to cut flesh because the flesh of Christ was torn and bruised on Calvary that stands in, and fulfills circumcision which is no longer required.
In 2nd Colossians 2:11-12 we read:
11: “In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ.”
12: “Buried with him in Baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.”
And in Galatians 5:6 we read:
6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor in-circumcision: but faith that works by charity.”
Does St. Peter speak about children being baptized?
Indeed he does, but Fundamentalists’ add to Scripture and try to put an age limit on a child in order for it to be eligible to be baptized. St. Peter imposed no such limit.
In Acts 2:38-39 we read:
38: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
39: “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
And in Matthew 19:14 we read:
14: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”
And in Luke 18:15–16 we read:
15: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them.”
16: “But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’.”
The Greek word for children in this verse is “Brephos” which means “Infant”. So, what we have here are parents bringing infants who have not yet reached the age of reason so that Jesus might touch them. He would communicate something to them through the “material of his humanity” which is not a “symbol of His humanity.” It is the “stamp of divinity,” and so it is that He uses other material elements to confer his grace to men. In the case of Baptism, it is water.
And look at what else Christ said about these infants and younger children:
“… For to such belongs the kingdom of God”.
Christ didn’t impose some requirement upon them to make a conscious decision before they were allowed to come to Him.
Are there any verses in Scripture whatsoever that actually prohibit the Baptism of infants?
There are none.
Are there more Scriptural verses that indicate children should in fact be baptized?
Yes. This is why I mentioned ““Households” included “infants” just a few moments ago.
In Acts 16:33 we read:
33: “And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes, and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.”
And in 1st Corinthians 1:16 we read:
16: “And I baptized also the household of Stephanus; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.”
And what if only one of the parents is a believer? Nothing changes.
In 1st Corinthians 7:14 we read:
14: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: otherwise your children should be unclean; but now they are holy.”
In Acts 16:15 we read:
15: “And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.”
In Acts 18:8 we read:
8: “And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized.”
And in Acts 16:27-34 we read:
27: “And the keeper of the prison, awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the doors of the prison open, drawing his sword, would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.”
28: “But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying: Do thyself no harm, for we all are here.”
29: “Then calling for a light, he went in, and trembling, fell down at the feet of Paul and Silas.”
30: “And bringing them out, he said: Masters, what must I do, that I may be saved?”
31: “But they said: Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”
32: “And they preached (faith came to them through hearing what they are to believe) the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house.”
33: “And he, taking them the same hour of the night, washed their stripes (once he knew the object of his faith, he consented), and himself was baptized, and all his house immediately.
34: “And when he had brought them into his own house, he laid the table for them, and rejoiced with all his house, believing God.”
Christianity had to start somewhere. Obviously, He was not going to leave that task to an infant. If there WERE prohibitions against infant Baptism, would we expect to see such a prohibition in Scripture?
Not only in Scripture, but from the writings of the Early Church Fathers. But there are no such instructions to be found. In fact, the opposite is true. Evidence from the Church Fathers explicitly refutes those who reject infant Baptism.
Alright, I’d like to turn now to the Church Fathers to see what they had to say about infant Baptism.
From Irenaeus we read:
“He (Jesus) came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age … so that he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age.” (Against Heresies 2:22:4, 189 A.D)
“‘And Naaman dipped himself… seven times in the Jordan’ (2nd Kings 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 newborn 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) (Fragment 34” in 190 A.D)
From Hippolytus we read:
“Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16, 215 A.D.)
From Origen we read:
“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin … In the Church, Baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem superfluous.” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3, 248 A.D.)
“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine Sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of original sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit.” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9, 248 A.D.)
From Cyprian of Carthage we read:
“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You (Fidus) said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born.” (Letters 64:2, 253 A.D.)
“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he (an infant) approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another.” (Letters 64:5, 253 A.D.)
From Gregory of Nazianz we read:
“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of Baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7” in 388 A.D.)
“Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for Baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly (I respond), if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated.” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:28” in 388 A.D.)
From John Chrysostom, we read:
“You see how many are the benefits of Baptism, and some think its heavenly grace consists only in the remission of sins, but we have enumerated ten honors it bestows! For this reason we baptize even infants, though they are not defiled by personal sins, so that there may be given to them holiness, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, brotherhood with Christ, and that they may be his (Christ’s) members.” (Baptismal Catecheses in Augustine, Against Julian 1:6:21, in 388 A.D.)
From the “Council of Carthage V, Canon 7” in 401 A.D. we read:
“It seemed good that whenever there were not found reliable witnesses who could testify that without any doubt they (abandoned children) were baptized and when the children themselves were not, on account of their tender age, able to answer concerning the giving of the Sacraments to them, all such children should be baptized without scruple, lest a hesitation should deprive them of the cleansing of the Sacraments. This was urged by the (North African) legates, our brethren, since they redeem many such (abandoned children) from the barbarians.”
From Augustine we read:
“What the universal Church holds, not as instituted (invented) by councils, but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the Sacrament may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond.” “On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24:31” in 400 A.D.
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be scorned, nor is it to be regarded in any way as superfluous, nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except apostolic.” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39, 408 A.D.)
“It is this one Spirit who makes it possible for an infant to be regenerated … when that infant is brought to Baptism; and it is through this one Spirit that the infant so presented is reborn. For it is not written, ‘Unless a man be born again by the will of his parents’ or ‘by the faith of those presenting him or ministering to him,’ but, ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit.’ The water, therefore, manifesting exteriorly the Sacrament of grace, and the Spirit effecting interiorly the benefit of grace, both regenerate in one Christ that man who was generated in Adam.” (Letters 98:2, A.D. 412).
“Cyprian was not issuing a new decree but was keeping to the most solid belief of the Church in order to correct some who thought that infants ought not be baptized before the eighth day after their birth . . . He agreed with certain of his fellow bishops that a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born.” (Letters 166:8:23” in 412 A.D.)
“By this grace baptized infants too are ingrafted into his (Christ’s) body, infants who certainly are not yet able to imitate anyone. Christ, in whom all are made alive . . . gives also the most hidden grace of his Spirit to believers, grace which he secretly infuses even into infants … It is an excellent thing that the Punic [North African] Christians call Baptism salvation and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture, too … If anyone wonders why children born of the baptized should themselves be baptized, let him attend briefly to this … The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.” (Forgiveness … and the Baptism of Infants 1:9:10; 1:24:34; 2:27:43”, 412 A.D.)
From the “Council of Mileum II we read:
“Whoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration … let him be anathema (excommunicated). Since what the apostle (Paul) says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ (Rom. 5:12), must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration.” (Canon 3” 416 A.D.)
In John 3:5 we read:
5: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
In Matthew 28:19-20 we read:
19: “Go therefore, and teach all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
20: “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.”
And in Mark 16:16 we read:
16: “He that believes and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believes not shall be condemned.”
In these verses we see that Jesus Christ explicitly stated the necessity of faith AND Baptism.
The Church confirms the same.
From the 2nd Vatican Council we read:
“Jesus Himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence, they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.” (#14)
Christ Himself told us that Baptism is the only valid means of entrance into the New Covenant with God. In fact, it is the only one that He said assures salvation.
But what about those who have never heard of the Church, or in the case of infants?
For the moment, it suffices to say that a person must “desire” to live according to the degree of revealed truth which they possess in their lives, and that is what unites them to the grace of this Sacrament.
I would also point out that the Catholic Catechism reminds us that God is not bound by the Sacraments he gives us by way of external form.
From the Catechism we read:
“God has bound salvation to the Sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His Sacraments.” (1257)
In the matter of infant Baptism, the Church teaches that no one goes to hell unless they deserve it. A infant cannot be guilty of damnation because it could not committed the sin to deserve it. As to whether not an unbaptized child, or adult, for that matter, gets to see the beatific vision is a different matter. We know that minimally, an infant would know and love God so completely, that were we to experience a taste of it, our body would likely not survive the experience. In this regard, the Church states in the Catholic Catechism:
“The Church does not know with certainty the eternal destiny of infants who die without being baptized. She entrusts them to the great mercy of God.” (1261)
What about adults who have not yet been baptized and died while preparing for Baptism?
The Catechism teaches:
“The Church has always held the firm conviction that hose who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ.
This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a Sacrament.” (1258)
So, these two other forms of Baptism are not the Sacrament of Baptism, but the same grace is received by them.
Does Scripture say there is only one Baptism?
Yes, but there are different forms of this Baptism because Scripture also refers to “Baptisms” in the plural.
Could we show this in Scripture?
Yes. In Hebrews 6:2 we read:
2: “Of the doctrine of BAPTISMS, and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”
This is Scriptural evidence that supports Church teaching on this matter.
Additionally, the Church teaches that the necessity of water Baptism is “normative” rather than an “absolute” necessity.
Are there any examples in history that would show us where and why the Baptism of desire and blood would take place?
Yes. There are abundant examples.
Imagine what it was to live in the days of the early Church. Catholics were killed, their bodies soaked in oil to be used as torches by night. They were butchered and killed in the Coliseum and all manner of murder. There many who were preparing for entrance into the church through Baptism that were captured and killed before they could be baptized formally with water, and had they escaped death, they would have been required to be baptized with water. To be baptized by desire and blood is not a substitute of the Sacrament. It is a Baptism on condition that the formal Baptism was not possible. We are going to look extensively at what the Church Fathers had to say about this, and infant Baptism. But, consider what Christ said about those who died for their faith in Christ, even though they were not able to be formally baptized.
In Matthew 10:32 we read:
“Whoever acknowledges me before men I will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven.”
And in Luke 9:23-24 we read:
23: “And he said to all: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.”
24: “For whosoever will save his life, shall lose it; for he that shall lose his life for my sake, shall save it.”
Christ wills that all men be saved.
Does the Church speak to this matter?
Yes. The Catholic Catechism states:
“Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.’ Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.” (1260)
Salvation is open to all, provided they do not reject the Church knowing that Christ founded it as necessary. And for anyone who thinks it is easier for such people to be saved, they have not understood the darkness of life in the pagan world. Each person will be judged only on what they were obligated to know, and how they lived according to what they knew, but no one is ever without grace.
What about Protestants that say Paul spoke against formal Baptism with water?
Protestants would like to think Paul spoke against formal Baptism by water, but if they look closer, Paul was saying 2 things. He was glad he didn’t baptize people who missed the whole point of Baptism. It wasn’t about WHO baptized them that made Baptism necessary, it was about BEING baptized that mattered. And, in fact, Paul even confirms that he baptized certain individuals himself. He also said that he wanted to be given to the ministry of preaching, and that Baptism can be done by others who were not called to preach as he was.
In 1 Corinthians 1:17 we read:
17: “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void.”
And in 1 Corinthians 9:16 we read:
“For if I preach the gospel, it is no glory to me, for a necessity lays upon me: for woe is unto me if I preach not the gospel.”
It is a Protestant fantasy to say that Paul preached against the necessity of formal Baptism with water. Not only that, they say "water" Baptism is not necessary, and it is not required under any circumstances for a person to be justified. They want the “water ritual” to be only a sign that does not confer the grace of justification.
Then we have Protestants who ask Catholics if they are “born again.”
Let's look at what Christ said.
In John 3:3 we read:
3: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
When a Catholic talks about Baptism and being “born again” he is talking something that actually causes grace which enters into man to justify him.
For the Evangelicals, they think being “born again” is going to a revival meeting where people will make a note of the day, and that's it. They say, “I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and now I am saved”. They join with their “minister,” say a prayer, and voila, they are "saved." What they are saying, even though they don't realize it, is that free will has been taken from them. They are saved, and can never be lost no matter what they do from that point on.
This is not Scriptural Baptism.
They think they’ve been “regenerated”, that they’ve gone from death to life where sin is washed from them and that now they are justified, all without water Baptism because they don’t want justification to be tied to a work. They fail to see that to make a decision in itself is a “work.”
Protestants’ spin the other things that Paul to argue against Baptism by water.
In Romans 6:4 we read:
4: “For we are buried together with him by Baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.”
In Romans 2:29 we read:
29: “But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
In Colossians 2:11-12 we read:
11: “In whom also you are circumcised with circumcision not made by hand, in despoiling of the body of the flesh, but in the circumcision of Christ.”
12: “Buried with him in Baptism, in whom also you are risen again by the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him up from the dead.”
In 2nd Corinthians 5:17 we read:
17: “If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new.”
And in Galatians 6:15 we read:
15: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails any thing, nor in-circumcision, but a new creature.”
There is not a single instance where St. Paul spoke against formal Baptism by water. In fact, the word “water” does not even appear in these verses because St. Paul was teaching and dealing with those who thought God owed them something by doing the works of the Law.
Does St. Peter have something to say that points to the fact that the Apostles understood the use of water as a necessity in Baptism?
Yes. In sharp contrast to the fact that St. Paul never said water is not part of Baptism, St. Peter says that in fact water IS part of Baptism. And this is how the Apostles and the Church understood Baptism.
In 1st Peter 3:20-21 we read:
“God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”
So, unless Protestants now want to say there was no water involved in the Great Flood that lifted Noah aloft, they have to accept the fact that Peter tells us that water, is in fact, a necessity for Baptism. Here, the sinner becomes a new creation and is now in the state of grace because the Sacrament itself "causes grace to happen and confers it to man."
We carry St. Peter’s understanding of Baptism with water with his exhortation in Acts 2:38:
38: “But Peter said to them: Do Penance, AND BE BAPTZED every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the REMISSION OF YOUR SINS: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
And there is something else.
Jesus required that Baptism is to be done in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Where is this Triune formula pronounced, and by whom, when a Person claims to be baptized by the fire of the Holy Spirit alone? No! Each Person of the Trinity must be named at the Baptism.
What about the Greek text when speaking of being “born of water and spirit”? Have Protestants neglected what the Greek actually said in reference to Baptism?
Yes. The Greek says we are “born of water AND spirit” which is one birth that comes about from two things, namely, the water and spirit.
The verse does NOT say that we are “born of water AND OF the spirit." There are not two different births that take place by two different things, one being a birth by water and another being a birth by the Holy Spirit.
Now let us look at the words of Jesus in John 3:5:
5: “Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
Then let us take a look at what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19:
19: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
The Church is to bring to the world what Christ said about Baptism, not what Protestants say we are to bring.
Remember, Jesus went down into the water to sanctify it with His own Baptism so that water would be the instrument He would use to sanctify us. And when He came up out of the water he prepared the water to restore us to life.
In John 3:22 we read:
22: “Jesus and his disciples went into the land of Judea; there he remained with them and baptized.”
Note this verse says that Jesus “remained with them AND BAPTIZED.”
This verse does NOT say “Jesus remained with them AND THEY BAPTIZED.”
JESUS AND the Apostles baptized.
There was no repudiation of water in John’s Baptism. And this took place before the Paraclete was sent at Pentecost, and Pentecost was distinct from Baptism. Furthermore, it took place after Jesus left this world. So this poses yet another problem for those who claim we are baptized by fire and the Holy Spirit apart from water.
Now, let us go back to St. Paul who was baptized as well.
In Acts 9:18 we read:
18: And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and rising up, he was baptized.”
Now let us look again at what St. Paul said in Acts 22:16:
16: “And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.”
St. Paul even calls the faithful back to remember their own Baptisms in Romans 6:3 when he said:
3: “Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?”
There is nothing of a spiritual Baptism mentioned by Paul or anyone else that is set apart from the normative Baptism with water. There is no circumstance by which those who receive Baptism by desire or blood are exempted from being baptized by water given the opportunity to do so.
Is there anything else in Scripture to confirm this?
Yes. In Acts 10:47-48 we read:
47: “Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?”
48: “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.”
It really does not matter who we refer to in the Protestant world. If we talk about the Evangelical view of Baptism that is commonly held by the Baptists, or the Presbyterians who embrace Calvin, it is all the same. They deny man is born from above by WATER Baptism.
The only difference between the two is that Calvinists are deeper into pre-determinism where man does not have a choice in accepting Christ. In their minds, God “causes” men to place their faith in Christ in some secret or hidden way. Man is not aware of the “regeneration” that “caused” him to have faith in Christ. But this turns God into a tyrant once again. If God can move man without him being aware of it so that free will is not part of regeneration, then there should be no goats at judgment.
Protestants’ argue against the nature of the Sacraments claiming they are only signs, that there is no “hidden cause” of grace in them.
They always look for a way of man being justified without free will being part of the equation. Man is always predetermined to be one of the elect or one of the damned. In the case of Calvinists, regeneration comes first without man knowing it, and he ends up having justifying faith without having made any choice which is predetermination. It all leads to the same place at judgment, and it all makes out God to be a tyrant. If free will is not an obstacle to grace because free will is not employed in accepting regeneration, why then, does not God move all men in such a manner so that there are no goats at judgment?
We see, once again, Protestants make God into someone who made this person to be one of the elect and that person for damnation with them having no say whatsoever in the matter.
Protestantism goes even further in its machinations. It turns Calvary itself into the instrument of God as a tyrant because He does not use it to move all men to become sheep. In a hidden manner or not, no matter what lengths Protestants’ go to in their attempts to avoid the fact that the free will of man must be employed (a work) if any man is to be saved, they always make out God to be a tyrant. And this even turns the angels of God into demons who participate in the destruction of man because they didn’t help, either. Everything is inverted without the free will of man.
For all the evil that Martin Luther caused, is it not true that Evangelicals and Calvinists’ would be fighting with Martin Luther over whether water Baptism was required?
Protestants moved deeper into ruination over time, but that is the way of evil. It does not build up, it only tears apart.
Catholicism says water is the physical material that God uses to cause grace in man.
The Lutherans’ are guided by the “Large Catechism” which consists of Luther’s writings, and in this “Catechism 4:6” Luther wrote:
“Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard Baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted.”
If that does not cause Protestants to choke on their morning coffee, it is hard to imagine what would.
What about Protestants who argue against “water Baptism” by claiming the Church used to baptize in the name of Jesus alone, and not in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit?
Protestants are wrong, yet again. The Church always baptized in the name of the 3 persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
It is just one more example of the inconsistency and duplicity in Protestant theology. On one hand they argue that water Baptism does not confer grace, and that it is not even necessary because it is only a sign of regeneration that is not even required. But they will bicker with each other over the manner of how water Baptism must be administered if it is to be a valid water Baptism.
And they cannot make an argument that says if you are going to do a water Baptism as a “sign” of regeneration you at least have to do it properly. The New Testament never gave explicit instructions on how water Baptism is supposed to be administered. And as a result, we find Protestants, with their fetish and proclivity to tear at Scripture, arguing with each other over a manner of water Baptism that Scripture never described. And in their unwillingness to face each other any longer, the fact there is no way to conclude which way is a “valid” way to administer water Baptism, they turn their teeth on the Catholic Church.
Fundamentalists’ will argue that the only valid water Baptism is “total Immersion in water” because it symbolically represents being buried and rising with Christ in His death and resurrection.
In Romans 6:3-4 which reads:
3: “Know you not that all we, who are baptized in Christ Jesus, are baptized in his death?”
4: “For we are buried together with him by Baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.”
There is not a single word in these verses that speak about immersion, pouring, or sprinkling of water. And not only that, when we see what the Early Church Fathers had to say about this, Protestants in our day will be seen for what they are “not.”
Nevertheless, Fundamentalists’ will attack Catholicism arguing that Catholics have not been validly baptized for millennia because “Immersion” has not been normative for many centuries now.
Is that because Fundamentalists’ use the Greek word “baptizo” inappropriately to make their case?
Yes. The word “baptizo” can be used to speak of “Immersion,” but it is not always used in Scripture to speak of “immersion.”
In fact, “baptizo” is used to describe “PARTIAL WASHING.” Even the Greek Lexicon for the King James Version recognizes this fact.
In Luke 11:38 we read:
38: “And the Pharisee began to say, thinking within himself, why he was not washed (baptizo) before dinner.”
The Pharisee was not going after Jesus because He didn’t dunk Himself in a tub of water before He ate. Water was “POURED” on hands and feet. And you will not find any Protestant scholar fool enough to make the argument that everyone dove into a tub of water before they ate.
In Acts 16:33 we read:
33: “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed (baptizo) their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.”
Here we see their wounds being washed (baptizo), and afterwards they were baptized. And not only that, there is nothing in this verse that says they got up and went somewhere to be immersed in water for Baptism. But you’re not going to baptize these people while they are bleeding. You clean them up by washing (baptizo) and then you baptize them.
Even in the case of St. Paul’s Baptism, Scripture does not tell us that he was “Immersed”. He was laid up for 3 days and couldn’t even see. Scales fell off his eyes and he was then baptized.
In Acts 9:18 we read:
18: “And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.”
This verse does not say he “immediately got up and ran off somewhere to be baptized by immersion.” It says the “scales” fell immediately off, and HE GOT UP to be baptized.
And in 1st Corinthians 10:2 we read:
2: “And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.”
For those who argue that the word “baptizo” means total immersion with physical water, this verse refutes them.
In the case of Moses and the Israelites, to be “Immersed in Water” with the water as a “Wall to the left and a Wall to the right,” without actually being touched by the water, speaks about the internal reality of transformation that means the water cannot be merely a “sign.” The water became a “cause of liberation” rather than an obstacle that created an impasse. It was a necessary material element used in the liberation of the Jews, without which, there would have been no miracle, no liberation from slavery to freedom, no liberation from sin to grace in Baptism.
Is there other Scriptural evidence that tells us the same?
Yes. We find another Greek word, “nipto”, which means “to wash” or to “partially wash” used in the exact same way “baptizo” is used to describe a “partial washing” such as the hands or feet.
We find “nipto” used in Exodus 30:18-19, Deuteronomy 21:6, John 9:7, 11, and 15, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 15:2, and John 13:5-6.
In Mark 7:3-4 we read:
3: “For the Pharisees, and all the Jews eat not without often washing (nipto) their hands, holding the tradition of the ancients.”
4: “And when they come from the market, unless they be washed (baptizo), they eat not: and many other things there are that have been delivered to them to observe, the washings of cups and of pots, and of brazen vessels, and of beds.”
Is the word “baptizo” also used to mean something other than a “physical washing”?
Yes, but not always to designate “immersion” even when used as a “Metaphor.”
In Luke 12:50 we read:
50: “I have a Baptism to be baptized (baptizo) with; and how I am constrained until it is accomplished!”
One can argue that “baptizo” is used in this verse to mean “full immersion” because Christ would be fully immersed in suffering, but “baptizo” is ALSO used metaphorically regarding Baptism by the Holy Spirit. And in these cases it is not used to describe “full immersion” when used as a metaphor. In fact, Scripture itself tells us that the Holy Spirit was POURED on the Apostles and those with them at Pentecost. And Christ Himself spoke of this.
In Acts 1:4–5 we read:
4: “And eating together with them, he commanded them, that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but should wait for the promise of the Father, which you have heard (said he) by my mouth.”
5: “For John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence.”
And in Acts 2:17, 18, & 33 we read:
17: “And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (said the Lord,) I will POUR out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.”
18: “And upon my servants indeed, and upon my handmaids will I POUR out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy.”
33: “Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has POURED forth this which you see and hear.”
And in Acts 11:15
15: “And when I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost FELL UPON them, as UPON us also in the beginning.”
So, there is nothing in Scripture that says “water Baptism” must be full immersion.
And don’t forget, other Protestants will say “Pouring is sufficient” and attack Fundamentalists, as well as Catholics for saying the Sacraments cause grace. And others yet will say “Sprinkling is sufficient.” In the world of Protestantism, nothing can be agreed upon as absolute. It is systemic division that is inherent in the concept of “Sola Scriptura.”
The Catholic Church teaches that all three ways are valid. In the Latin-rite of the Catholic Church, Catholics are baptized by pouring (infusion) water over the head of the person. Latin-rite Catholics realize that sprinkling and immersion are valid water Baptisms as well.
In the Rites of the Eastern Catholic Church “Immersion” is the “normative way” of baptizing because it most fully represents our death and resurrection in the death and resurrection in Christ. Unlike Protestants, the Catholics in the Eastern Rite also recognized “Infusion” (pouring) as well as “Sprinkling” water as valid ways of Baptism. Correct?
Here we see the legitimate use of the various ways of Baptizing. You don’t see fighting over it like you do among Protestants.
In fact, though “immersion” speaks more directly to our death and resurrection in Christ, “Pouring” speaks more directly to the “infusion” of grace.
And common sense also tells us that “Immersion” is not always possible? Anyone with a scintilla of reasoning power can see “immersion” is not always possible.
What about people in hospitals who have a deathbed conversion, or people confined to wheelchairs? Are they supposed to be rolled down and immersed in water when they are on a ventilator?
The Protestant position on Baptism is just ridiculous. They make God into some kind of tyrant who makes it impossible to be baptized when conditions are just not there to be fully immersed.
In Acts 2:41 we read:
41: “They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.”
In just ONE DAY, 3,000 souls were added to the Church. They were “saved” through Baptism. This tells us that the Church, through the Sacraments, in this case, Baptism, does in fact save souls.
And what about archeological evidence?
The Catacombs depict Baptism by “POURING” water over the head of the one being baptized. And there is plenty or artwork that shows the same from the earliest days of the Church. Even when a person is depicted as standing in water, a clamshell is often being used to poor the water over the head of the recipient.
Go to Rome, go to the oldest Churches, and you will find water being “Poured” over the head in the mosaics in abundance. There is overwhelming evidence that from the earliest days of the Church, Baptism was not limited to “immersion,” but in each case water was necessary.
Alright, we are about to lead into what the Early Church Fathers said about Baptism.
As we start to look at Church history where do we find the earliest instructions on how to administer Baptism, extraneous to the Gospels?
The “Didache.”
It is a Syrian liturgical manual that is a compilation of the writings from the Apostles themselves, and those who lived immediately after them, written around 70 A.D. From these writings we find clear evidence of what had been established as acceptable regarding Baptism. It has been held since Jesus Christ founded His Church that Baptism is required to be justified and that each person of the Trinity must be named. And that it is not a mere “sign” of the seal of “justification." The Sacrament itself actually “causes grace” which it “confers to men.”
In the 7th Chapter of the Didache we read:
“Concerning Baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water (that is, in running water, as in a river). If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”
From The Letter of Barnabas we read:
“Regarding (Baptism), we have the evidence of Scripture that Israel would refuse to accept the washing which confers the remission of sins and would set up a substitution of their own instead (Ps. 1:3–6). Observe there how he describes both the water and the cross in the same figure. His meaning is, ‘Blessed are those who go down into the water with their hopes set on the cross.’ Here he is saying that after we have stepped down into the water, burdened with sin and defilement, we come up out of it bearing fruit, with reverence in our hearts and the hope of Jesus in our souls.” (Letter of Barnabas 11:1–10, A.D. 74)
This is evidence the early Church understood the merits of Calvary were applied to the one who is baptized via the Sacrament itself. And this tells us they understood the Sacrament was a “cause of grace” and not merely a sign.
From Hermas we read:
“‘I have heard, sir,’ said I (to the Shepherd), ‘from some teacher, that there is no other repentance except that which took place when we went down into the water and obtained the remission of our former sins.’ He said to me, ‘You have heard rightly, for so it is.” (The Shepherd 4:3:1–2, A.D. 80).
From Ignatius of Antioch we read:
“Let none of you turn deserter. Let your Baptism be your armor; your faith, your helmet; your love, your spear; your patient endurance, your panoply.” (Letter to Polycarp 6, A.D. 110).
From Second Clement we read:
“For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey his commandments…with what confidence shall we, if we keep not our Baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?” (Second Clement 6:7–9, A.D. 150).
From Justin Martyr we read:
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we Christians teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast 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 of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:3).” (First Apology 61, A.D. 151).
From Tatian the Syrian we read:
“Then said Jesus unto them, ‘I have been given all authority in heaven and earth; and as my Father has sent me, so I also send you. Go now into all the world, and preach my gospel in all the creation; and teach all the peoples, and baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; and teach them to keep all whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you all the days, unto the end of the world’(Matt. 28:18-20)" (The Diatesseron 55 (A.D. 170).
From Theophilus of Antioch we read:
“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.” (To Autolycus 12:16, A.D. 181).
From Irenaeus we read:
“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 newborn 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’" (Fragment 34, A.D. 190).
From Clement of Alexandria we read:
“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation.” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1, A.D. 191).
From Tertullian we read:
“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 … But a viper of the (Gnostic) 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 . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our (Great) Fish, 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!.” (Baptism 1, A.D. 203).
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.” ((Baptism 7:2, A.D. 203)
“No one can attain salvation without Baptism, especially in view of the declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless a man shall be born of water, he shall not have life.” (Baptism 12:1, A.D. 203).
From Hippolytus we read:
“When the one being baptized goes down into the water, the one baptizing him shall put his hand on him and speak thus: ‘Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty?’ And he that is being baptized shall say: ‘I believe.’ Then, having his hand imposed upon the head of the one to be baptized, he shall baptize him once. Then he shall say: ‘Do you believe in Christ Jesus . . . ?’ And when he says: ‘I believe,’ he is baptized again. Again shall he say: ‘Do you believe in the Holy Spirit and the holy Church and the resurrection of the flesh?’ The one being baptized then says: ‘I believe.’ And so he is baptized a third time.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21, A.D. 215).
From Tertullian we read:
“After his resurrection he promises in a pledge to his disciples that he will send them the promise of his Father; and lastly, he commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three persons, at each several mention of their names.” (Against Praxeas 26, A.D. 216).
From Hippolytus we read:
“Perhaps someone will ask, ‘What does it conduce unto piety to be baptized?’ In the first place, that you may do what has seemed good to God; in the next place, being born again by water unto God so that you change your first birth, which was from concupiscence, and are able to attain salvation, which would otherwise be impossible. For thus the prophet has sworn to us: ‘Amen, I say to you, unless you are born again with living water, into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.’ Therefore, fly to the water, for this alone can extinguish the fire. He who will not come to the water still carries around with him the spirit of insanity for the sake of which he will not come to the living water for his own salvation.” (Homilies 11:26, A.D. 217).
“The Father of immortality sent the immortal Son and Word into the world, who came to man in order to wash him with water and the Spirit; and he, begetting us again to incorruption of soul and body, breathed into us the Spirit of life, and endued us with an incorruptible panoply. If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. Wherefore I preach to this effect: Come, all ye kindreds of the nations, to the immortality of the Baptism.” (Discourse on the Holy Theophany 8, A.D. 217).
From The Recognitions of Clement we read:
“But you will perhaps say, ‘What does the Baptism of water contribute toward the worship of God?’ In the first place, because that which has pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so . . . you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus has the true prophet [Jesus] testified to us with an oath: ‘Verily, I say to you, that unless a man is born again of water . . . he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (The Recognitions of Clement 6:9, A.D. 221).
From Origen we read:
“It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without Baptism.” (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30, A.D. 235).
From Testimonies Concerning the Jews we read:
“That unless a man have been baptized and born again, he cannot attain unto the kingdom of God. In the Gospel according to John: ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God’ (John 3:5) . . . Also in the same place: ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you’ (John 6:53). That it is of small account to be baptized and to receive the Eucharist, unless one profit by it both in deeds and works.” (Testimonies Concerning the Jews 3:2:25–26, A.D. 240).
From Cyprian of Carthage we read:
“While I was lying in darkness . . . I thought it indeed difficult and hard to believe . . . that divine mercy was promised for my salvation, so that anyone might be born again and quickened unto a new life by the laver of the saving water, he might put off what he had been before, and, although the structure of the body remained, he might change himself in soul and mind . . . But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of rebirth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart; afterwards, through the Spirit which is breathed from heaven, a second birth made of me a new man.” (To Donatus 3 - 4, A.D. 246)
From Origen we read:
“The Lord himself told his disciples that they should baptize all peoples in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, for indeed, legitimate Baptism is had only in the name of the Trinity.” (Commentary on Romans 5:8, A.D. 248).
From the Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena we read:
“Then Probus . . . leapt into the water, saying, ‘Jesus Christ, Son of God, and everlasting God, let all my sins be taken away by this water.’ And Paul said, ‘We baptize thee in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost.’ After this he made him to receive the Eucharist of Christ.” (Acts of Xantippe and Polyxena 21, A.D. 250).
Christ tied his promise of resurrection to Eternal Life to the Eucharist for those who could receive it. For those who refused it, he let them go, and in the case of Judas, Christ called him a devil for rejecting the Eucharist. We covered this in detail in the 2nd trial, “Scripture Alone vs. the Catholic Mass.”
From Cyprian of Carthage we read:
“When they receive also the Baptism of the Church … then finally can they be fully sanctified and be the sons of God . . . since it is written, ‘Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (Letters 71, 72:1, A.D. 253).
“He (Jesus) commanded them to baptize the Gentiles in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. How then do some say that though a Gentile be baptized . . . never mind how or of whom, so long as it be done in the name of Jesus Christ, the remission of sins can follow—when Christ himself commands the nations to be baptized in the full and united Trinity?” (Letters 73:18, A.D. 253).
From Council of Carthage VII we read:
“And in the gospel our Lord Jesus Christ spoke with his divine voice, saying, ‘Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ … Unless therefore they receive saving Baptism in the Catholic Church, which is one, they cannot be saved, but will be condemned with the carnal in the judgment of the Lord Christ.” (Seventh Carthage, A.D. 256).
From Eusebius of Caesarea we read:
“We believe . . . each of these to be and to exist: the Father, truly Father, and the Son, truly Son, and the Holy Ghost, truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth his disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’ Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy.” (Letter to the People of His Diocese 3, A.D. 323).
From Aphraahat the Persian Sage we read:
“From Baptism we receive the Spirit of Christ. At that same moment in which the priests invoke the Spirit, heaven opens, and he descends and rests upon the waters, and those who are baptized are clothed in him. The Spirit is absent from all those who are born of the flesh, until they come to the water of rebirth, and then they receive the Holy Spirit. . . . In the second birth, that through Baptism, they receive the Holy Spirit.” (Treatises 6:14:4, A.D. 340).
From Cyril of Jerusalem we read:
“You were led by the hand to the holy pool of divine Baptism, as Christ was carried from the cross to this sepulcher here before us (the tomb of Jesus at Jerusalem). And each of you was asked if he believed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. And you confessed that saving confession, and descended three times into the water, and again ascended, and in this there was suggested by a symbol the three days of Christ’s burial.” (Catechetical Lectures 20:4, A.D. 350).
From Athanasius we read:
“And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go ye and baptize all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matt. 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity (On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia 2:28, A.D. 361).
From Basil the Great we read:
“The Holy Spirit, too, is numbered with the Father and the Son, because he is above creation, and is ranked as we are taught by the words of the Lord in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.’ He who, on the contrary, places the Spirit before the Son, or alleges him to be older than the Father, resists the ordinance of God, and is a stranger to the sound faith, since he fails to preserve the form of doxology which he has received, but adopts some newfangled device in order to be pleasing to men.” (Letters 52:4, A.D. 367.)
From Basil the Great we read:
"For prisoners, Baptism is ransom, forgiveness of debts, the death of sin, regeneration of the soul, a resplendent garment, an unbreakable seal, a chariot to heaven, a royal protector, a gift of adoption.” (Sermons on Moral and Practical Subjects 13:5, A.D. 379).
From Gregory of Nazianz we read:
“But not yet perhaps is there formed upon your soul any writing good or bad; and you want to be written upon today. . . . I will baptize you and make you a disciple in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; and these three have one common name, the Godhead. And you shall know, both by appearances and by words that you reject all ungodliness, and are united to all the Godhead.” (Orations 40:45, A.D. 380).
From Council of Constantinople I we read:
“We believe . . . in one Baptism for the remission of sins.” (Nicene Creed, A.D. 381).
From Jerome we read:
“Seeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?” (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6, A.D. 382).
From Gregory of Nyssa we read:
“And we, in receiving Baptism, conceal ourselves in (the water) as the Savior did in the earth: and by doing this thrice we represent for ourselves that grace of the resurrection which was wrought in three days. And this we do, not receiving the Sacrament in silence, but while there are spoken over us the names of the three sacred persons on whom we believed, in whom we also hope, from whom comes to us both the fact of our present and the fact of our future existence.” (Sermon For the Day of Lights, A.D. 383).
From Ambrose of Milan we read:
“The Lord was baptized, not to be cleansed himself but to cleanse the waters, so that those waters, cleansed by the flesh of Christ which knew no sin, might have the power of Baptism. Whoever comes, therefore, to the washing of Christ lays aside his sins.” (Commentary on Luke 2:83, A.D. 389).
From Cyril of Jerusalem we read:
“Since man is of a twofold nature, composed of body and soul, the purification also is twofold: the corporeal for the corporeal and the incorporeal for the incorporeal. The water cleanses the body, and the Spirit seals the soul … When you go down into the water, then, regard not simply the water, but look for salvation through the power of the Spirit. For without both you cannot attain to perfection. It is not I who says this, but the Lord Jesus Christ, who has the power in this matter. And he says, ‘Unless a man be born again,’ and he adds the words ‘of water and of the Spirit,’ ‘he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ He that is baptized with water, but is not found worthy of the Spirit, does not receive the grace in perfection. Nor, if a man be virtuous in his deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter the kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has declared it.” (Catechetical Lectures 3:4, A.D. 350).
From Athanasius we read:
“As we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened.” (Four Discourses Against the Arians 3:26, 33, A.D. 360).
From Basil the Great we read:
“This then is what it means to be ‘born again of water and Spirit’: Just as our dying is effected in the water (Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12–13), our living is wrought through the Spirit. In three immersions and an equal number of invocations the great mystery of Baptism is completed in such a way that the type of death may be shown figuratively, and that by the handing on of divine knowledge the souls of the baptized may be illuminated. If, therefore, there is any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the Spirit is presence there.” (The Holy Spirit 15:35, A.D. 375).
From Ambrose of Milan we read:
“Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God.” (The Holy Spirit 1:6, 75–76, A.D. 381).
From Gregory of Nyssa we read:
“In the birth by water and the Spirit, Jesus himself led the way in this birth, drawing down upon the water, by his own Baptism, the Holy Spirit; so that in all things he became the firstborn of those who are spiritually born again, and gave the name of brethren to those who partook in a birth like to his own by water and the Spirit.” (Against Eunomius 2:8, A.D. 382).
From Pope Siricius we read:
“It would tend to the ruin of our souls if, from our refusal of the saving font of Baptism to those who seek it, any of them should depart this life and lose the kingdom and eternal life.” (Letter to Himerius, 3, A.D. 385).
From Ambrose of Milan we read:
“The Church was redeemed at the price of Christ’s blood. Jew or Greek, it makes no difference; but if he has believed, he must circumcise himself from his sins in Baptism (Col. 2:11–12)] so that he can be saved … or no one ascends into the kingdom of heaven except through the Sacrament of Baptism … ‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’.” (Abraham 2:11:79–84, A.D. 387).
From John Chrysostom we read:
“No one can enter into the kingdom of heaven except he be regenerated through water and the Spirit, and he who does not eat the flesh of the Lord and drink his blood is excluded from eternal life, and if all these things are accomplished only by means of those holy hands, I mean the hands of the priest, how will any one, without these, be able to escape the fire of hell, or to win those crowns which are reserved for the victorious? These priests truly are they who are entrusted with the pangs of spiritual travail and the birth which comes through Baptism: by their means we put on Christ, and are buried with the Son of God, and become members of that blessed head, the Mystical Body of Christ" (The Priesthood 3:5–6, A.D. 387).
From Gregory of Nazianz we read:
“Such is the grace and power of Baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin. And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the Spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths" (Oration on Holy Baptism 7–8, A.D. 388).
From Ambrose of Milan we read:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water, blood, and the Spirit (1 John 5:8): And if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism is not valid. For what is the water without the cross of Christ? A common element with no Sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any mystery of regeneration without water, for ‘unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’.” (The Mysteries 4:20, A.D. 390).
From The Apostolic Constitutions we read:
“Be ye likewise contented with one Baptism alone, that which is into the death of the Lord (Romans 6:3; Colossians 2:12–13) … 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 believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes not shall be damned’.” (Mark 16:16) (Apostolic Constitutions 6:3:15, A.D. 400).
From Augustine we read:
“Baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost has Christ for its authority, not any man, whoever he may be; and Christ is the truth, not any man.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:24, 57, A.D. 400).
“O Lord our God, we believe in you, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the truth would not say, ‘Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ unless you were a Trinity.” (The Trinity 15:28, 51, A.D. 408).
“It is an excellent thing that the Punic (North African) Christians call Baptism salvation and the Sacrament of Christ’s body nothing else than life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal? This is the witness of Scripture too.”
“According to apostolic tradition … the churches of Christ hold inherently that without Baptism and participation at the table of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and life eternal. This is the witness of Scripture too.” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 1:24:34, A.D. 412).
“The Sacrament of Baptism is most assuredly the Sacrament of regeneration.” (Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sin, and the Baptism of Infants 2:27:43 A.D. 412).
“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:5), made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’ (Matthew 10:32)" (The City of God 13:7, A.D. 419).
From Augustine we read:
“Baptism washes away all, absolutely all our sins, whether of deed, word, or thought, whether sins original or added, whether knowingly or unknowingly contracted.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3:3:5, A.D. 420).
“This is the meaning of the great Sacrament of Baptism, which is celebrated among us: all who attain to this grace die thereby to sin, as he himself (Jesus) is said to have died to sin because he died in the flesh (that is, ‘in the likeness of sin’) and they are thereby alive by being reborn in the Baptismal font, just as he rose again from the sepulcher. This is the case no matter what the age of the body. For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man, since no one should be barred from Baptism, just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in Baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth.” (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love 13, 4, A.D. 421).
From Theodoret of Cyr we read:
“And what need is there of many words, when it is possible to refute falsehood in few? We provide that those who year by year come up for holy Baptism should carefully learn the faith set forth at Nicaea by the holy and blessed Fathers; and initiating them as we have been bidden, we baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, pronouncing each name singly.” (Letters 145, A.D. 444).
From Pope Leo I we read:
“And because of the transgression of the first man, the whole stock of the human race was tainted; no one can be set free from the state of the old Adam save through Christ’s Sacrament of Baptism, in which there are no distinctions between the reborn, as the apostle Paul says, ‘For as many of you as were baptized in Christ did put on Christ; there is neither Jew nor Greek.” (Galatians 3:27–28) (Letters 15:10, 11, A.D. 445)
From Fulgentius of Ruspe we read:
“From that time at which our Savior said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven’ (John 3:5), no one can, without the Sacrament of Baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism, pour out their blood for Christ, receive the kingdom of heaven and life eternal.” (The Rule of Faith 43, A.D. 524).
Do any of the Early Church Fathers’ speak about those who died and did not receive Baptism through no fault of their own?
Yes, absolutely.
From Cyprian of Carthage we read:
“The Baptism of public witness and of blood cannot profit a heretic unto salvation, because there is no salvation outside the Church.” (Letters 72, 73:21, A.D. 253).
"[Catechumens who suffer martyrdom] are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord said that he had another Baptism with which he himself was to be baptized (Luke 12:50)" (Letters, 72, 73:2, 253)
From Cyril of Jerusalem we read:
“If any man does not receive Baptism, he does not have salvation. The only exception is the martyrs, who even without water will receive the kingdom. . For the Savior calls martyrdom a Baptism, saying, ‘Can you drink the cup which I drink and be baptized with the Baptism with which I am to be baptized (Mark 10:38)?’ Indeed, the martyrs too confess, by being made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men (1st Corinthians. 4:9).” (Catechetical Lectures 3:10, A.D. 350).
From Gregory Nazianz we read:
“Besides the Baptisms associated with Moses, John, and Jesus, I know also a fourth Baptism, that by martyrdom and blood, by which also Christ himself was baptized. This one is far more august than the others, since it cannot be defiled by later sins.” (Oration on the Holy Lights 39:17, A.D. 381).
From John Chrysostom we read:
“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism, for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is the taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleansing of the soul, and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.” (Panegyric on St. Lucian, 2, A.D. 387).
From Ambrose of Milan we read:
“But I hear you lamenting because he (the Emperor Valentinian) had not received the Sacraments of Baptism. Tell me, what else could we have, except the will to it, the asking for it? He too had just now this desire, and after he came into Italy it was begun, and a short time ago he signified that he wished to be baptized by me. Did he, then, not have the grace which he desired? Did he not have what he eagerly sought? Certainly, because he sought it, he received it. What else does it mean: ‘Whatever just man shall be overtaken by death, his soul shall be at rest (Wisdom 4:7)?" (Sympathy at the Death of Valentinian, A.D. 392).
From Augustine we read:
“There are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in Baptism, in prayer, and in the greater humility of Penance; yet God does not forgive sins except to the baptized.” (Sermons to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, A.D. 395).
“I do not hesitate to put the Catholic catechumen, burning with divine love, before a baptized heretic. Even within the Catholic Church herself we put the good catechumen ahead of the wicked baptized person … For Cornelius, even before his Baptism, was filled up with the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44–48), while Simon Magus, even after his Baptism, was puffed up with an unclean spirit (Acts 8:13–19)" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:21:28, A.D. 400).
“That the place of Baptism is sometimes supplied by suffering is supported by a substantial argument which the same blessed Cyprian draws from the circumstance of the thief, to whom, although not baptized, it was said, ‘Today you shall be with me in paradise’ (Luke 23:43. Considering this over and over again, I find that not only suffering for the name of Christ can supply for that which is lacking by way of Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart (i.e., Baptism of desire) if, perhaps, because of the circumstances of the time, recourse cannot be had to the celebration of the mystery of Baptism.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4:22:29, A.D. 400).
“When we speak of within and without in relation to the Church, it is the position of the heart that we must consider, not that of the body … All who are within the Church in heart are saved in the unity of the ark by Baptism of desire.” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:28:39, A.D. 400)
From Augustine we read:
“Those who, though they have not received the washing of regeneration, die for the confession of Christ, it avails them just as much for the forgiveness of their sins as if they had been washed in the sacred font of Baptism. For he that said, ‘If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven,’ made an exception for them in that other statement in which he says no less generally, ‘Whoever confesses me before men, I too will confess him before my Father, who is in heaven’" (Matthew 10:32) (The City of God 13:7, A.D. 419).
Roger L.
No comments:
Post a Comment