Written by Robert Jones

Acworth, Georgia

Stained glass from the old Mars Hill sanctuary

Copyright 1998 by Robert C. Jones

"Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW
INTERNATIONAL VERSION. Copyright Ó 1973,
1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by
permission of Zondervan Publishing House."

Introduction

Timeline

Baptism in the Old Testament

Baptism in the New Testament

Baptism in the pre-Nicene Early Church

The baptism of Constantine

St. Augustine and the Donatist schism

St. Augustine and the Pelagian schism

The Protestant Reformation

Other Christian History & Theology courses

The term "baptism" comes from the Greek word baptizo, which means to “immerse, dip, submerge". Few Christians would argue the importance of Baptism - yet few topics have caused such controversy in the history of the Universal Church. Debates such as the following continue even today:

• Is baptism necessary to salvation?
• Is infant baptism supported by the Scriptures, or should only "believers" be baptized?
• If part of the reason for baptism is the remission of sins, what about sins committed after baptism?
• How should the baptism ceremony be conducted - should catechumens be immersed, or only "sprinkled"?
• What happens if someone is baptized by a priest or minister who is later excommunicated or who breaks away from the church? Is the baptism still "good"?
• Should people be "rebaptized" if they leave one denomination for another?

How different Christian groups respond to these and other questions can lead to situations, such as schisms (the Donatists and Pelagians with the Catholic Church) and persecution (the Anabaptists in the early days of the Protestant Reformation).

This booklet will attempt to give a brief history of Christian Baptism, using the historical panoply to introduce some of the theological arguments for and against various baptism practices and beliefs. Topics will include baptism in the Bible, baptism in the early church, the Donatist/Pelagian controversies of the 4th and 5th centuries (and the huge impact that St. Augustine of Hippo had on the views of the Catholic Church on baptism), and the Protestant battles regarding infant baptism that were to come a thousand years later.

As I am a Presbyterian Elder, my theological viewpoints tend to be Calvinist-oriented. However, I will attempt to maintain neutrality on the issues discussed herein.

There is no explicit reference in the Old Testament to baptism, although some commentaries point out that baptism was practiced during the end of the inter-testamental period by Jews initiating Gentile converts into Judaism.

While there is no explicit reference to baptism in the Old Testament as we understand it in the Christian sense, there are references to various elements that will eventually assert themselves in Christian baptism, such as the use of water for ceremonial purification, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on individuals, and (possibly)...circumcision.

Whether circumcision should be viewed as an Old Testament form of baptism is a theological choice primarily dictated by whether one believes in infant baptism or not. Those in favor of the circumcision/baptism linkage argue that, just as circumcision marked a child in the Old Testament as being part of the convenant of Abraham, so infant baptism in the Christian sense marks a child as being part of the new covenant of Jesus Christ. John Calvin, one of the founders of the Reformed Church, comments:

The Roman Catholic Church takes a similar view, believing that baptism is the Christian equivalent of circumcision. The Baptist and Anabaptist (Mennonite, Amish) view is, of course, somewhat different, and will be examined in due course.

Statue of John the Baptist at Mission Santa Clara
Photo by Robert Jones

We are first introduced to the subject of Baptism in the New Testament through John the Baptist, an (unspecified) relative of Christ. John's baptism, typically practiced by full immersion in the Jordan River, is defined as "a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins." This concept of a baptism of repentance, and for the forgiveness of sins later becomes an important element (although not, of course, the sole element) of Christian baptism.

John's baptism attracted enough attention in its time to have been recorded by Jewish historian Josephus 50 years later in his "Jewish Antiquities":

Of course John's baptism would have an especially important role in beginning the ministry of Jesus Christ on earth. Jesus, although without sin, is baptized in the Jordan River by his relative John. The event is marked as especially important by the presence of all three persons of the Trinity - Christ as an incarnate human, the voice of the Father, and the Holy Spirit "descending on him like a dove."

John also prepares us (without going into detail) that baptisms practiced by Christ in the future will be different from John's - John's baptism is by water, but Christ will baptize by fire.

It has long been a matter of debate among theologians as to why Christ needed to be baptized at all. After all, John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins, and Christ was without sin. 13^th century Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas suggests two reasons for the baptism of Christ:

The New Testament gives fascinating clues as to how Christ and the apostles viewed baptism. However, there is no “Handbook on Baptism” in the New Testament. We can only surmise the proper form and meaning of baptism based on various verses that mention the sacrament. The meaning of many of the verses referenced below would be disputed by numerous groups over the next 2,000 years, and remain in dispute today.

Through a number of Early Church sources, we have detailed accounts both of the form of baptisms in the pre-Nicene Church, as well as the meaning and liturgy of baptism.

The late 1st-century/early-second century Epistle of Barnabas (possibly written by the Apostle) contains the following description of Christian baptism:

The Shepherd of Hermas, a popular book in the 2nd and 3rd century Eastern Church, describes the meaning of baptism as follows:

Justin Martyr, in his c. 150 work "First Apology", describes baptism as follows:

The c. 3rd-century "Constitutions of the Holy Apostles" discusses the seriousness of baptism and the potential consequences if a Christian continues to sin after being initiated into the faith through baptism:

By the fourth century, many people (including, possibly, the Emperor Constantine) put off getting baptized until they were near death, so that they could continue to live a sinful life!

Events prior to a pre-Nicene baptism typically included a two to three year period of instruction into the Christian faith, and a period of fasting prior to the baptism.

Catechumens were expected to lead lives of purity, and to renounce Satan:

Baptisms were generally performed by church officials (bishops, presbyters, etc.) often in the period preceding Easter, or the period between Easter and Pentecost. The baptism itself included both an anointing with oil and/or ointment, as well as the dipping or immersion in water:

The meaning of the tri-part baptism (oil, water, ointment) is discussed:

The Constitutions describe the meaning of the immersion and rising up out of the water:

In a passage from Hippolytus (c. 215 A.D.), it appears that whole families might have been baptized together, including their children. Hippolytus also seems to infer that full immersion is not a requirement for baptism:

Hippolytus also preserves an early baptismal creed in his writings. Similarities to the Apostles Creed are to be expected, as the Apostles Creed probably started out as a baptismal creed:

Some baptismal creeds included, in addition to the affirmation of Christ as savior, the renunciation of Satan:

Constantine is sometimes referred to as the "Savior of Christianity", because prior to his conversion, Christianity was still a persecuted religion in the Roman Empire. As late as 303 A.D., the butcher Emperor Diocletian launched a massive persecution campaign against Christians. With the conversion of Constantine in 312 A.D., Christianity became not only respectable, but also ascendant.

In 312 A.D., Constantine marched on Rome, in an attempt to take over control of the Western Empire. Arrayed against him were the forces of Maxentius, four times as strong. Constantine’s battlefield conversion is described by Ecclesiastical Historian Eusebius, in his 4^th-century “The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine”:

After having a similar vision of Christ in his sleep, Constantine makes “the priests of God his counselors”, and:

Constantine, of course, goes on to defeat Maxentius, to assume total control of the Western Empire.

Constantine becomes a strong supporter and learned student of Christianity. However, he delays being baptized – a common practice in the fourth century. While it was well known among the Bishops of Christianity that their enthusiastic emperor was not baptized, he was, to say the least, “assigned some slack”:

It is not until near his death that Constantine agrees to be baptized. These “deathbed conversions” were common in the 4^th century. When catechumens were baptized in the early church, they were expected to live pure and chaste lives from that point on. There was a temptation to hold off on Christian baptism with its demands for purity, until one was old, or even nearing death, to avoid a lifetime requirement of right living. Constantine seems to have been one Christian with those views!

Whatever the reason for the delay, Constantine did finally agree to be baptized in 337 A.D, shortly before his death.  Surely, this was the most famous and significant baptism since Paul! It is described by Eusebius:

“Being at length convinced that his life was drawing to a close, he felt the time was come at which he should seek purification from sins of his past career, firmly believing that whatever errors he had committed as a mortal man, his soul would be purified from them through the efficacy of the mystical words and the salutary waters of baptism...After this he proceeded as far as the suburbs of Nicomedia, and there, having summoned the bishops to meet him, addressed them in the following words:

‘THE time is arrived which I have long hoped for, with an earnest desire and prayer that I might obtain the salvation of God. The hour is come in which I too may have the blessing of that seal which confers immortality; the hour in which I may receive the seal of salvation. I had thought to do this in the waters of the river Jordan, wherein our Savior, for our example, is recorded to have been baptized: but God, who knows what is expedient for us, is pleased that I should receive this blessing here...’” (Eusebius, p. 809/11)

Constantine was then baptized "in the usual manner". Finally, Eusebius reports the profound significance of this baptism (a significance that still resounds to this very day):

The long reign of terror and persecution against Christians was over!

More events significant to the history of Christian baptism were to occur throughout the end of the 4^th century, and into the 5^th. They involved two schismatic groups named the Donatists and Pelagians, and one Christian saint and theologian, St. Augustine of Hippo. Out of the battle between these two schismatic groups and the Catholic Church were to arise Augustinian tenets regarding baptism that are still followed by the Roman Catholic Church today:

• Baptisms are conferred by Christ, not by the priest or bishop doing the baptism. Therefore, baptisms conferred by impure or schismatic bishops could be accepted as “official”.
• Baptisms are necessary for salvation
• Children are tainted with the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. Therefore, not only are infant baptisms allowable, but are necessary, in case of an untimely death.

The roots of the Donatist schism, against which St. Augustine so eloquently argued in the late 4^th/early 5^th centuries, date back to an earlier era. In c. 250 A.D., Emperor Decius ordered the persecution of Christians. As a result of this persecution, the Bishop of Rome Fabianus was murdered, and Church Father Origen was jailed. Many Christians (including some priests and bishops) committed apostasy – denying Christ to save themselves from persecution. After the persecutions ebbed in 251 A.D., the question was asked “Should priests that committed apostasy be allowed back into the church?”

Roman churchman Novatian (c. 200–258 A.D.) argued against admitting those that committed apostasy back into the church.  Novatian cited such New Testament verses as:

After losing the election to fill the vacant position of Bishop of Rome in 251 A.D., Novatian and his followers split away from the Catholic Church. By 254 A.D., however, when it was clear that Novatian was not receiving support from outside his circle of followers, many of the followers of Novatian had fled, or desired (re)entry into the Catholic Church.

A great debate was waged between Bishop (254-56 A.D.) Stephen of Rome, who argued that those baptized by Novatianists could be accepted into the Catholic Church without being rebaptized, and Cyprian of Carthage (c. 195–258 A.D.), who argued that baptisms given by schismatics were not real baptisms at all. The following quote from Cyprian is representative of his views on the subject:

Stephen, whose view ultimately prevailed (and was later strongly seconded by Augustine), noted that baptism belongs to Christ, not the church, and the standing of the baptizer is not the relevant issue.

The cause of Novatian (against apostasy) and Cyprian (against validating baptisms by schismatics) would later be taken up by a group called the Donatists.

The situation in the early fourth century was similar to that of 50 years earlier. Emperor Diocletian had ordered the persecution of Christians throughout the empire (303 – 306), and many Christians (including some bishops and priests) had committed apostasy. After Constantine came into power, the question of the mid-third century remained – what to do about those that had committed apostasy? The situation boiled over at Carthage in 311 A.D. when an archdeacon named Caecilianus was ordained by a bishop that was suspected of having committed apostasy during the Diocletian persecution. In retaliation, the Donatists set up a rival Bishop of Carthage (Majorinus in 311 A.D.; Donatus in 315 A.D.).

In time, the Donatists became a schismatic sect, claiming that they were the only true Christians. The Donatists refused to accept baptisms performed in the Catholic Church, claiming they were invalid:

The Donatists also insisted that a baptism performed by an “impure” priest was not valid.

While Donatism was condemned at the Council of Arles in 314 A.D., it continued to flourish. Beginning in 393 A.D., St. Augustine, the great theologian of the early Catholic Church, turned his skills of eloquence and logic against the Donatists. Central to the debate was, once again, baptism. It has already been noted that the Donatists forced Catholic proselytes to be rebaptized. However, the Catholic Church did not force “reformed” Donatists that wished to (re)join the Catholic Church to be rebatized, following the logic of Bishop Stephen of Rome in 254 A.D. – baptism is of Christ, not of the baptizer.

It was against this backdrop (and also against the later Pelagian schism) that Augustine of Hippo began promulgating his theological views on baptism, which are still the standards of the Roman Catholic Church today.

One baptism

“It is true that Christ’s baptism is holy; and although it may exist among heretics or schismatics, yet it does not belong to the heresy or schism; and therefore even those who come from thence to the Catholic Church herself ought not to be baptized afresh.” (“The Seven Books Of Augustin, Bishop Of Hippo, On Baptism, Against The Donatists”, p. 780)

While St. Augustine established for all time some important tenets of baptism in his battle with the Donatists, his theological conclusions that resulted from his battle with the Pelagians were even more significant and far reaching.

Pelagius (c. 354 A.D. - after 418) was a British Monk who was horrified by the seeming lack of piety and purity practiced by Christians in Rome c. 380 A.D. He felt that the laxness of Roman Christians grew partly from the prevailing doctrine of Grace, which stated that humans on their own are incapable of purity, and can only be saved by God’s grace.

Pelagius and his followers (one student named Coelestius was especially influential) denied predestination, original sin, and the doctrine of Grace, maintaining the humans are not tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve, and that babies are born pure. As a result, humans have the free will to choose to live sinless lives. (In his somewhat confused theology, though, Pelagius still maintained that babies needed to be baptized.)

Augustine’s response to the Pelagian heresy was vociferous and voluminous – Augustine wrote at least thirteen works and letters against Pelagius, and firmly entrenched in Catholic theology the doctrines of:

1. Salvation through Grace
2. Original Sin
3. The necessity of baptism for salvation
4. The damnation of unbaptized infants

It should be noted that tenets three and four above are seemingly inconsistent with the doctrine of predestination, of which Augustine was a proponent. A thousand years later, John Calvin (as we shall see) would argue against the necessity of infant baptism for this very reason.

Original Sin/necessity for infant baptism

The basic views on baptism promulgated by St. Augustine in the late fourth and early fifth centuries remained the effective doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church for the next thousand years (with, perhaps, some refinement by Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologica"). Only with the coming of the Protestant Reformation in the 16^th century would millennium-old doctrines and theologies begin to be challenged, including:

• The necessity of baptism for salvation (challenged by the Reformed Church - John Calvin)
• The form of baptism - sprinkling vs. immersion (challenged by Baptists)
• Infant baptism (challenged by the Anabaptists & Baptists)
• Unbaptized infants that die are consigned to hell (challenged by Anabaptists, the Reformed Church)

Many people date the beginning of the Protestant Reformation to October 31, 1517, when Martin Luther tacked his 95 theses to the door of Wittenburg Castle. However, Luther strictly followed the status quo when it came to baptism – he supported infant baptism, and viewed that baptism was necessary to salvation:

The more revolutionary views on baptism would come from the Reformed Church, the Anabaptists, and the Baptists.

John Calvin, one of the founders of the Reformed Church, and perhaps the greatest theologian since Thomas Aquinas, agreed with the Augustinian (and thus, Roman Catholic) views on baptism in several areas, including the idea that people should only be baptized once, and that the purity of the person conferring the baptism was irrelevant:

John Calvin also agreed with Early Church Fathers such as Hippolytus that the form of baptism was not of consequence – both sprinkling and immersion are acceptable:

However, Calvin did not believe that baptism was either the cause of salvation, nor was it necessary to salvation:

Calvin viewed that a primary goal of baptism, rather than to confer salvation, was to make a public profession of faith, and to join the Universal Church of believers:

John Calvin also strongly believed in the practice of infant baptism:

While John Calvin was in favor of the practice of infant baptism, in a significant departure from Roman Catholic doctrine, he stated that unbaptized infants that die prematurely could still be saved. How? - through the doctrine of predestination. If, before the beginning of the world, God had pre-ordained that an infant was to be saved, the lack of baptism in the infant’s temporal life would not be an inhibitor to salvation. As was noted earlier in this work, Augustine also believed in predestination, but did not apply the doctrine to infant baptism. It could be said that John Calvin took the theology of predestination to its logical conclusion with infant baptism.

John Calvin’s (and, it should be noted, Ulrich Zwingli’s) views on baptism were to later be strongly echoed in the 1649 Westminster Confession, as the following excerpts demonstrate:

The emergence of the Anabaptist movement rose out of the belief that there is no Biblical basis for infant baptism. The Anabaptists broke away from the Reformed Church of Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli (1484-1531). Zwingli disagreed with them from both a theological point of view, and a secular one – infant baptism was used by the secular government for tax registration, and it was from the city government of Zurich that Zwingli had his authority.

On January 21, 1525, an event occurred in Zurich which still reverberates today, almost 500 years later. Several of Zwingli’s students (including Conrad Grebel, Feliz Manz and Georg Blaurock) “illegally” re-baptized each other, viewing that their baptism as infants was invalid. While the Anabaptist movement had other views that distinguished it from the Reformed Church of Zwingli (separation of church and state, for one), this event (and the theology that it stood for) became so strongly associated with the group that their very name reflects it:

The Anabaptist view on infant baptism is summarized in the following passage:

Compared to the Lutheran and Reformed Church successors, the Anabaptists are a comparably small group today, with the Amish, Mennonites, and Hutterites comprising about 600,000 members worldwide. However, while there is no unbroken line of succession between the Anabaptists and the modern day Baptists (over 32,000,000 strong in the U.S.A.), there is certainly great doctrinal similarity. The Anabaptists may be considered the spiritual predecessors of the American Baptist movement.

The Baptist movement grew out of the Puritan/Separatist movements in England in the 17^th century. The Puritans, generally Calvinists, wanted the Church of England to be more democratic in its governmental structure, and less Catholic in its trappings, liturgy, and rituals. (The Puritans were members of the Church of England, who wished to “purify” the church from within.) The Separatists were more radical, desiring a complete break from the Church of England. Out of the Separatist movement came both the Pilgrims and the Baptists.

The man often cited as the “first” Baptist is John Smyth (1570–1612), a former Anglican priest that became, in succession, a Puritan, a Separatist, and finally, a Baptist. In 1608, John Smyth (with the help of Thomas Helwys (?–1616)) took a group of Separatist followers to Amsterdam. During this period, Mennonites, descendents of the 16th century Anabaptists influenced Smyth and his followers.

In 1609, in a scene somewhat reminiscent of the Anabaptist “re-baptizing” ceremony in Zurich 90 years before, Smyth re-baptized himself and 40 followers, reasoning that their baptism as infants were invalid. What was soon to become the Baptist Church had begun.

In 1644, a group of Calvinist Particular Baptists published their “London Confession”, affirming believer’s baptism as a key tenet:

As noted in the bold text above, both believer’s baptism, and baptism by immersion were central to their beliefs - a final separation from Augustinian views on baptism.

The Great Debate – Infant Baptism vs. Believer’s Baptism

Perhaps the greatest continuing debate regarding baptism in the Universal Church is infant baptism vs. believer’s baptism. In this section, we examine some of the basic arguments on both sides of the issue.

In general, those that believe in believer’s baptism outline the following arguments in favor of their position:

• Infant baptism is not mentioned in the Bible, the sole authority for Christians

• Infant baptism doesn’t show up in the writings of the Early Church Fathers until Irenaeus c. 182/88, over 100 years after the writing of the Gospels
• Christ states in Mark 16:16 that “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (NIV), indicating that belief must precede baptism

Perhaps the strongest argument against infant baptism is that it is nowhere explicitly mentioned in the New Testament:

Those in favor of infant baptism typically refer to:

• The New Testament refers to household baptisms

• In Luke 18:16, Christ states “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.” (NIV)

• Acts 2:38-39 seems to connect baptism with children:

A standard argument in favor of infant baptism is that the Early Church Fathers, including Origen, Augustine, and Hippolytus almost universally accepted it:

The argument against this position usually points out that there is no record of infant baptism in the church until a possible reference by Irenaeus late in the second century (c. 182/88), 100+ years after the Synoptic Gospels were written.

It should be noted also that the passage from Irenaeus mentioned by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith above does not actually mention infant baptism by name:

John Calvin weighs in on the topic of whether there was a long period of time between the writing of the Gospels, and the general acceptance of infant baptism by the Church Fathers:

A key point in the arsenal of those who believe in believer’s baptism is the fact that Christ states in Mark 16:16 that “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned” (NIV). This would seem to set an order of belief first, then baptism:

John Smyth, perhaps the first Baptist, viewed that baptism of the Spirit is required for a baptism to be valid (a view which would later become a key part of 20^th century Pentecostalism):

John Calvin viewed that the Mark 16:16 passage regarding the belief/baptism order was referring specifically to adults, and should not be applied to infants:

The debate, of course, continues to rage to this day.

• All color photos by Robert C. Jones
• Black and white engravings from "The History of Protestantism" by J.A. Wylie (Ages Software, 1997)

Return to table of contents

Christian History & Theology Courses

The Search for the Pre-Incarnate Christ in the Old Testament	Click here to order PowerPoint presentations, teacher's guides, and printed booklets (Note: To order online through PayPal, click on the desired course on the left, and look for the "Would you like to teach this course" heading.)
A Brief History of the Celebration of the Lord’s Supper
A Brief History of the Inquisition
A Brief History of Christian Baptism
Joseph of Arimathea: Biblical & Legendary Sources
The Apocrypha and Christianity
Theological Roots of the Protestant Reformation: A Handbook
Angels: In the Bible, the Apocrypha & the Dead Sea Scrolls
The Crusades: A Brief History (1095-1291)
A Brief History of Western Monasticism
Evidence for the Gospel Accounts of Jesus Christ
Heresies and Schisms in the Early Church
Women as Leaders in the Church: From Miriam to Joan of Arc
Hell and the Devil: In the Bible, the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christianity
Angels: A Biblical View
Meet the Apostles - Biblical and Legendary Accounts: Part One - The Twelve
Origins of the Major Protestant Denominations in the United States
Heaven: In the Bible, the Apocrypha and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Revelation: Background and Commentary
Basic Christian Theology
Worship and Cultural Patterns of the Early Church
Jewish Religious Parties at the Time of Christ - Part Two: The Essenes
Origins of the New Testament
Meet the Apostles - Biblical and Legendary Accounts: Part Two - After the Twelve
The Messiah - In the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Jewish Religious Parties at the Time of Christ Part One: Pharisees and Sadducees
The Holy Spirit: In the Bible, the Apocrypha & the Dead Sea Scrolls