The Early Christians Did Not All Teach Baptismal Regeneration

 Many assert that the earliest Christians universally taught baptismal regeneration, however this claim is something I wish to demonstrate false. Although the opinions of the early church fathers should not be our basis of doctrine, there are many people today who are disturbed by the claim that the early Christians all taught baptismal regeneration.

1: Apostolic silence

The so-called "apostolic fathers" were those early Christians who lived close to the apostolic era, this includes such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp and Ignatius. The issue for the baptismal regenerationist, is the fact that baptismal regeneration seems to be left out from their writings. Although arguments from silence cannot be pressed too far, one can still ask. Why does the Didache have an entire section for baptism, but never mention it as salvific? Why does Clement consistently mention salvation, but never add baptism as a condition of salvation? In fact, Clement (98ad) says that faith alone is a condition of salvation:

And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart;

but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Now, some groups such as the Lutherans have attempted to harmonize faith alone and baptismal regeneration, however the question still remains, why does Clement not mention baptism on his answer on how to be saved? Baptismal regeneration is neither mentioned by Ignatius, who wrote 7 different epistles, Polycarp nor Mathetes. 

2: Josephus (1st century)

Josephus was not a Christian, however he mentioned that Jewish Christians rejected baptismal regeneration, as he writes:

and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body (Antiquities of the Jews, Book XVIII, Chapter 5.2)

Thus, we know that the Jewish Christians in the 1st century, did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

3: Aristedes (2nd century)

Aristedes makes an interesting statement that implies both against baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, as he writes:

Further, if one or other of them have bondmen and bondwomen or children, through love towards them they persuade them to become Christians, and when they have done so, they call them brethren without distinction. (The Apology of Aristedes)

 Note how Aristedes did not say that infants become Christians by baptism, but that we are only Christians when we are persuaded to the gospel. This highly implies that Aristedes did not believe that baptism is tied to salvation. 

4: Treatise on rebaptism (250ad)

An anonymous treatise that deals on the issue of rebaptism was written somewhere around 250ad, here we find these words:

Even as Peter also subsequently most abundantly taught us about the same Gentiles, saying: And He put no difference between us and them, their hearts being purified by faith. Acts 15:9 And there will be no doubt that men may be baptized with the Holy Ghost without water — as you observe that these were baptized before they were baptized with water; that the announcements of both John and of our Lord Himself were satisfied — forasmuch as they received the grace of the promise both without the imposition of the apostle's hands and without the laver, which they attained afterwards. And their hearts being purified, God bestowed upon them at the same time, in virtue of their faith, remission of sins; so that the subsequent baptism conferred upon them this benefit alone, that they received also the invocation of the name of Jesus Christ, that nothing might appear to be wanting to the integrity of their service and faith.

In this treatise, baptism is said to be an "invocation of the name of Jesus Christ", meaning a public confession of Christ. This text explicitly says that water baptism is not tied to the event of salvation.

5: Jovinian (400ad)

Jovinian is an interesting figure in the early church, and he seems to have taught against baptismal regeneration. As Philip Schaff writes on Jovinian (History of the Christian Church): 

and makes a distinction between the mere baptism of water and the baptism of the Spirit, which involves also a distinction between the actual and the ideal church.

Thus it appears, that for Jovinian, the baptism of the Spirit is how one enters the invisible body of Christ, while water baptism is meant for entrance into the physical church.

6: Misunderstanding of the early Christians?

 Theologians such as Justin Martyr or Cyril are commonly cited as holding to baptismal regeneration, but they may have been misunderstood. The Baptist theologian Gavin Ortlund has argued that these theologians may have not taught baptismal regeneration, but instead used the figure of speech called metonomy, as he says in his debate with Trent Horn:

"So similarly when we say baptism saves, this doesn’t mean baptism per se, baptism as distinct from the prior parts of conversion that lead up to it. But baptism as representative of that entire process because baptism is the visible picture of salvation. "

Thus, Gavin's argument was that some early writers tied baptism to salvation "symbolically" or as a figure of speech, without literally trying to say that baptism regenerates. This can be seen for example can be seen in Justin Martyr (2nd century):

"as Isaiah cries, we have believed, and testify that that very baptism which he announced is alone able to purify those who have repented; and this is the water of life." (Dialogue with Trypho (Chapter 14)

Justin Martyr (AD 100 – c. AD 165)

Note the words "which he announced", yet he was commenting on Isaiah 53. Here however is the problem, is water baptism ever mentioned in Isaiah 53? This should be taken as indicative that Justin is not speaking of water baptism. In the context, Justin seems to use "baptism" as a figure for salvation through faith.

This same appears in Cyril of Jerusalem (313 - AD 386):

“Peter came, and the Spirit was poured out upon them that believed, and they spoke with other tongues, and prophesied: and after the grace of the Spirit the Scripture says that Peter commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ Acts 10:48; in order that, the soul having been born again by faith , the body also might by the water partake of the grace.” (Catechetical Lecture 3.4)

Noting the terms "Having been born again by faith", which is speaking of the past. The grammar means that the act of being born again preceded the act of baptism, thus it's impossible that he believed that being born again happened in the water itself. It is thus entirely possible that Cyril used these words figuratively, as Gavin Ortlund comments:

So Cyril, he really coordinates faith and baptism together. He sees them like as two parts of one thing really. People are going to go nuts and come up with all these other quotes in Cyril. I’ve read through the catechetical lectures very carefully, I’m aware there’s other passages where he talks about baptism in a very high way. My point is he does understand Cornelius to have been born again at the moment of faith, and yet he still speaks of baptism as regenerative for him. And again, this is drawing attention to the fact that baptism and salvation can have this profound relationship without it being a causative one.

The reason for such figures of speech being born may be due to the symbolism of baptism. Because baptism symbolized salvation, the word may have been connected figuratively to salvation itself by some early Christians. Now, some such as Cyril, though they might not have taught baptismal regeneration. if the arguments of Gavin are valid, they did still teach baptismal sanctification, where the act of baptism is where God gives you more grace to be able to live more holy lives. While this view is not that problematic, I do still deny that baptism is a means of grace, it is neither an instrument that gives us grace to live more holy, nor the means of salvation.

Now, it is clear that theologians such as Augustine or Tertullian, did not use these words figuratively at all, but it is very plausible that many theologians still did not believe that water baptism itself saves, but that water baptism is the symbol of salvation.

.

What Did The Waldensians Believe In?

Peter Waldo

 The Waldensians were a 12th century Christian sect, although some have argued that Peter Waldo did not start the sect, but just organize it. 

Despite that, there exists a lot of confusion on the beliefs of the Waldensians today, almost every Protestant groups sees the Waldensians as their spiritual ancestors, but what did they really believe in?
This post will do something that most haven't taken the time do, which is go to the actual sources themselves.

Firstly, we have a book written by early Waldensians called the "noble lesson", although it is not full of theology, some things are implicit. 

Firstly, it seems that baptism is implicitly affirmed to be for believers only, as it reads: "They preached to Jews and Greeks, working many Miracles; And baptized those who believed in the Name of Jesus Christ."

The Waldensians apparently separated the Mosaic law and the law of Christ as substantially distinct laws, as the book reads:

The second Law which God gave to Moses, Teacheth us to fear God, and to serve him with all our strength; For he condemneth and punisheth every one that offends.  But the third Law which is at this present time, Teacheth us to love God, and serve him purely: For he waiteth for the Sinner, and giveth him time, That he may repent in this present life. 

Although not exclusively dispensational, the view that the law of Christ is a substantially distinct law from the Mosaic, is clearly against the principles of covenant theology.

However, the Cathar convert to Catholicism, who lived close to the time of Peter Waldo, "Renerius Saccho" also wrote in detail on Waldensian beliefs. Saccho when listing Waldensian beliefs mentioned these (word by word quotations):

• That the Pope is the head of all errors
• they condemn all the Sacraments of the Church... also, that the ablution which is given to infants profits nothing
• also, they say that the doctrine of Christ and the Apostles is sufficient for salvation without the statures of the church - that the tradition of the church is the tradition of the Pharisees

This shows that the Waldensians objected to infant baptism, believed that scripture alone is infallible and they denied the papacy. However, they were not a Gnostic sect, as they clearly affirmed the trinity, the incarnation and such basic doctrines. The Waldensian book "noble lesson" even directly mentions the word trinity, as it says "These three (the holy Trinity) as being but one God, ought to be called upon,".

Thus, the Waldensians held to similar theology as such as Baptists, Anabaptists and many other Evangelicals, though not being exactly identical in every respect.