Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism?

[Walter]

I posted this on another thread but I think it might be better addressed here?

I think you will find that some of the Baptists on this board admit that there is no evidence of their position in the Early Church. Some believe that the Catholic Church destroyed all historical evidence of the 'True Believers'. Others admit that there is evidence that baptismal regeneration was believed at the earliest of times but that is because it was one of the first 'heresies' to crop up. I have always wondered if it were thought to be a heresy and a controversy, why no evidence of any debate about it. There sure is evidence of heresies (Against Heresies-St. Iraneus) and I just don't understand why 'baptismal regeneration' was never challenged. Maybe it was and I just haven't heard about it?

 

[Wittenberger]

There is plenty of historical evidence regarding other heresies, for instance the Arians.

If infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, were a new doctrine, introduced to the Christian faith, by "Catholic" heretics, then why isn't there any record of it? It would have created a huge controversy in the Church. But yet, no evidence exists of such a controversy.

I am still waiting for one shred of historical evidence that the Baptist position on Baptism existed in the first few centuries, or for that matter, the first 1,000 years, after Christ's death.

 

[saturneptune]

The O.P. calls for history outside of Scripture. Yet, at the risk of derailing the thread I will answer your question.

The answer is yes. Jesus is the author of the sacraments, and is not subject to them. He can take anyone to Heaven He wants to—even Attila the Hun. But His plan for us is to receive cleansing of all sins through baptism. He commands us to do it and if we do not obey Him we should not expect to enjoy everlasting life. John 3:36.

If a person did not enjoy everlasting life, it would be because there was no salvation experience in the first place. I cannot imagine why anyone who is saved would not obey the Lord and follow in Baptism. Anyone refusing to be baptised would be evidence they are still lost, however, the lack of a baptism itself does not condemn someone to eternal seperation. If a person is saved, and dies before baptism, he or she will be with the Lord. It all goes back to faith in Jesus Christ. It has nothing to do with getting or not getting baptised. A lost person can be baptised.

 

[saturneptune]

There is plenty of historical evidence regarding other heresies, for instance the Arians.

If infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, were a new doctrine, introduced to the Christian faith, by "Catholic" heretics, then why isn't there any record of it? It would have created a huge controversy in the Church. But yet, no evidence exists of such a controversy.

I am still waiting for one shred of historical evidence that the Baptist position on Baptism existed in the first few centuries, or for that matter, the first 1,000 years, after Christ's death.

So of all the many denominations today, which one do you think comes closest to what the Lord would have in a local New Testement Church? What church do you think preserved the church before the RCC, or about 500 years after the asscention? For that matter, which denomination preserved it after the founding of the RCC, since any reasonable person can figure out it is certainly not the RCC?

 

[Walter]

1. so that means you are not a Baptist
2. the Bible does contain church history; therefore are you saying that secular church history carries more weight than the Bible?

The bible contains Church history, but Church history by no means ends with the bible. Most Baptists I know have no interest in Early Church history beyond the book of Acts. We have already had Baptists on this thread say they don't care what is in the historical account and that all they are concerned about is how they think the bible should be interpreted. The absence of a history of the Early Church embracing or even debating the Baptist position tells me that it was never believed by Early Church, otherwise there would be at least a 'shred of evidence'.

 

[Walter]

So of all the many denominations today, which one do you think comes closest to what the Lord would have in a local New Testement Church? What church do you think preserved the church before the RCC, or about 500 years after the asscention? For that matter, which denomination preserved it after the founding of the RCC, since any reasonable person can figure out it is certainly not the RCC?

Let's take a look at the Church in India. Saint Thomas went to India in the year 52 and the Church he started had no western contact until the Portuguese came in the 1550's. There was a well established church for over 1500 years with no roman influence, no new testament and this church had. 7 sacraments, baptized babies, believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. Most of the church became the Saint Thomas Apostolic Catholic Eastern church in union with Rome in the 1600's.

 

[saturneptune]

The bible contains Church history, but Church history by no means ends with the bible. Most Baptists I know have no interest in Early Church history beyond the book of Acts. We have already had Baptists on this thread say they don't care what is in the historical account and that all they are concerned about is how they think the bible should be interpreted. The absence of a history of the Early Church embracing or even debating the Baptist position tells me that it was never believed by Early Church, otherwise there would be at least a 'shred of evidence'.

All one has to do is put Catholic dogma next to the Book of Acts to know it is the least likely candidate to have preserved the New Testement Church of Jesus Christ. Some denomination or group had to. The RCC did not even start until 500 AD and the date is really immaterial. Apostate is apostate regardless of date. So who was preserving the church?

 

[saturneptune]

Let's take a look at the Church in India. Saint Thomas went to India in the year 52 and the Church he started had no western contact until the Portuguese came in the 1550's. There was a well established church for over 1500 years with no roman influence, no new testament and this church had. 7 sacraments, baptized babies, believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. Most of the church became the Saint Thomas Apostolic Catholic Eastern church in union with Rome in the 1600's.

How do we know Thomas went to India? If he did start that church, what gives you the idea that seven sacraments, baptising babies, and believing in the Eucharist are evidence of the true New Testement Church?

 

[Fred's Wife]

How do we know Thomas went to India? If he did start that church, what gives you the idea that seven sacraments, baptising babies, and believing in the Eucharist are evidence of the true New Testement Church?

Exactly!

Tradition says Thomas preached in India but I would seriously doubt that he introduced 7 sacraments and infant baptism to any church he may have started. I don't believe that Thomas would have been preaching the gospel of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until way after Thomas was dead and gone.

 

[Zenas]

Exactly!

Tradition says Thomas preached in India but I would seriously doubt that he introduced 7 sacraments and infant baptism to any church he may have started. I don't believe that Thomas would have been preaching the gospel of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until way after Thomas was dead and gone.

Doesn't it seem unlikely that two churches with no contact with each other for 1,500 years would each have 7 sacraments and infant baptism unless there was a common source that directed them to?

As for the Catholic Church, it came into existence on the day of Pentecost. This is a truth that Baptists must distort or their doctrine collapses.

 

[Fred's Wife]

Doesn't it seem unlikely that two churches with no contact with each other for 1,500 years would each have 7 sacraments and infant baptism unless there was a common source that directed them to?

Where is your source for all this information?

As for the Catholic Church, it came into existence on the day of Pentecost. This is a truth that Baptists must distort or their doctrine collapses.

It was NOT the Catholic Church that came into existence at Pentecost. That truth has been distorted by the Roman Catholicism, not the Baptists. Otherwise there is no way for the RCC to "proof text" Matthew 16:18-19 to make the claim that it is the one true church.

 

[Zenas]

Where is your source for all this information?

I don't have a source. I'm just going by what Walter said in Post #26. You'd better ask him. But if this is true, it follows that these churches had to have a common source that existed before 52 A.D. that told them to have 7 sacraments and to baptize their babies.

It was NOT the Catholic Church that came into existence at Pentecost. That truth has been distorted by the Roman Catholicism, not the Baptists. Otherwise there is no way for the RCC to "proof text" Matthew 16:18-19 to make the claim that it is the one true church.

That's just incredible. There is no way you can do a straight reading of Matthew 16:18-19 and not come up with the concept of Petrine authority. Anyone who does otherwise is not being honest.

 

[Fred's Wife]

I don't have a source. I'm just going by what Walter said in Post #26. You'd better ask him. But if this is true, it follows that these churches had to have a common source that existed before 52 A.D. that told them to have 7 sacraments and to baptize their babies.

So you believe what Walter said.....and IF this is true? That reads "I believe what somebody else said, but I'm not sure it's actually true"

That's just incredible. There is no way you can do a straight reading of Matthew 16:18-19 and not come up with the concept of Petrine authority. Anyone who does otherwise is not being honest.

Petrine authority???? Peter was NOT the first pope!

Jesus said "upon this Petra I will build my Church." Had He said, 'upon this Petros I will build my Church', you might have valid cause to say that the Church was built on Peter, but He did not.

Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,(Petros) and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

[Wittenberger]

Before we get too far off topic let's remember what the question is in this thread: Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism? If the "true" Christians have always believed the same as the Baptists on this issue, there should be some letter, some document, some tombstone, some catacomb inscription which gives historical support.

As for which denomination I believe holds the true doctrines of the Faith: of course I believe it is the Lutheran Church or else I would be attending somewhere else.

Martin Luther was not trying to create a new denomination when he posted the 95 Thesis on the door of his Wittenberg church. He just wanted to correct some of the abuses in the Church. Pope Leo X excommunicated him, so he was forced to start his own denomination.

Luther's beliefs were not new. They were based on the Bible and on the teachings of the early Church fathers: salvation is by faith alone, in Christ alone. Good works such as being a monk, flogging yourself, crawling on bloody knees up church steps do not earn you God's favor. Salvation is a free gift. Salvation comes through the power of the Word of God alone.

Neither does salvation come by a sinner making a free will "decision for Christ", "accepting Christ", or asking Christ "into your heart".

God's does all the action of salvation: "Believe, repent, be baptized." None of those actions save the sinner. God alone saves the sinner.

For more details go to: http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com

 

[plain_n_simple]

"Is there any historical evidence for the Baptist position on Baptism? If the "true" Christians have always believed the same as the Baptists on this issue, there should be some letter, some document, some tombstone, some catacomb inscription which gives historical support."

There is no need for a historical evidence to believe in, or try to rely on. The evidence can be found in the words of Jesus. It is a spiritual evidence, His word is spirit.

 

[Fred's Wife]

The only "historical" evidence for the Baptist position on baptism IS Scripture. Check out Matthew 3:13-17 and Mark 1:9-10.

Baptism has never, nor will it ever, save anyone.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Baptizing in the New Testament was immersion in the water. The Greek word used is 'baptizo', which means 'immersion, submerging".

There is an entirely different Greek word used for sprinkling, the word 'rhantizo'

Jesus was not sprinkled, He was immersed.
John had need of immersion.
Paul immersed the few he baptized.

 

[plain_n_simple]

That is the point, you do not need historical, you need spiritual.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What does CAC stand for? Are you Eastern Orthodox??

Short point: Credo-baptizers and paedo-baptizers have been arguing this issue from the times of Luther and the Ana-baptists (the ancestors of the Mennonites, not the Baptists).

Bottom line: neither side can prove it's position strictly from Scripture. The Bible doesn't specifically mention infant baptism but neither does it prohibit it. Baptists say that an infant cannot believe, but how do you know that?

Salvation is 100% God. Salvation is not a transaction where you bring your free will decision to accept Christ, your belief, your faith, and your repentance and your adult maturity and intellect. That is a doctrine of works.

God provides the belief, faith, and repentance. He doesn't need your assistance to save you. That is why orthodox Christians believe that God can save the infants of believers (as he promised in Acts 2:38) because the belief and repenting are gifts of God. God doesn't have to wait until you reach (a completely unbiblical concept) the Age of Accountability to make the decision to believe.

Your Calvinist and Arminian forefathers have you completed confused as to Who does the work of salvation and who does not.

a Lutheran Christian
www.LutherWasNotBornAgain.com

Very amusing, being that neither the Calvinists nor Arminians were my forefathers.

The CAC is the communion I founded. People try to pigeonhole me into this group or that, but it doesn't work. http://celtic-anabaptist-ministries.com/

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I don't have a source. I'm just going by what Walter said in Post #26. You'd better ask him. But if this is true, it follows that these churches had to have a common source that existed before 52 A.D. that told them to have 7 sacraments and to baptize their babies.
That's just incredible. There is no way you can do a straight reading of Matthew 16:18-19 and not come up with the concept of Petrine authority. Anyone who does otherwise is not being honest.

I resent that because it is not true. Those verses have been adequately explained elsewhere on this forum and your assertion adequately refuted.