The scoop on baptism ...

     We finished our lecture and discussion today in Church History on the practices of the early Church concerning baptism. I have to say, that it has been one of the most interesting discussions we have had and I have learned quite a bit about baptism (or I should say, practices referred to as baptism). I can tell you now the answer to the quiz on my blog, is that all of them were practiced if you include the first couple hundred years after Christ's resurrection. As is all things (so it appears), with the early Church the practice of baptism was not always simple and straightforward. The earliest baptisms were of course by immersion (congrats to Carol A.), since the greek word for baptism means to "dip" or to "immerse" and this was the mode used by John the Baptist, Jesus, and his Apostle's.
     So how did infant baptism get started and who and why would anyone wait until their deathbed to be baptized? Actually, both of these stem from the same misunderstanding about baptism. It just shows us how careless interpretation of doctrines can turn into practice that is not correct or pleasing to God. The misunderstanding (a nicer word for heresy) is that the act of being baptized actually washed away sins. We know and understand that salvation is by grace though faith in Christ alone. The early Church new this as well, but it wasn't long before this became twisted. How? Imagine this scenario. A mother in the 3rd century has a child, say 8 years old who is sick. She calls all the doctors and nothing can be done for the child. This Christian mother, knowing that her son is of the race of Adam, under the the curse of sin, subject to the judgement if he dies, calls for the clergy and asks that he be baptized so that his sin might be washed away before he dies. Some clergy in the early church would deny this request, stating that the person must be a believer in order to be saved. Other clergy would capitulate and go ahead and baptize the child giving the mother a sense of peace that her son would be ok. This second scenario, became more and more prevalent, until even infants were being baptized. (All of these baptisms were by immersion by the way, no sprinkling yet.) In this way, infant baptism became more and more acceptable and eventually required as a means of salvation. This seems to have been the beginning of the belief (erroneous belief) that grace comes to us through the conduit of the sacraments. This belief of baptism washing sins away became so commonplace that the Emperor Constantine and other who might have to "torture someone" or "put someone to death" would wait until their deathbed to be baptized so that their sins would be washed away prior to judgement! By the way, our Presbyterian friends, do baptize infants, but for entirely different reasons, although they will cite these "baptisms" as proof of their case for infant baptism
     Churches in the eastern part of the Roman Empire would baptize each person 3 times. Once for the Father, once for the Son, and once for the Holy Spirit. They may have done this to combat the Arian heresy that Christ was a created being.
     Like I said, sprinkling came in at a later time or was only used in an "emergency" situation where the person was not able to be immersed. This brought up the question to my professor as to whether he would sprinkle someone to which he replied (not an exact quote), "to sprinkle would be a compromise of the Word of God, which we are not at liberty to make. If a person is providentially hindered from being baptized such as the thief on the cross, then he is not condemned for that. However, a person who is a believer must be scripturally baptized by immersion for him and the Church to be fully obedient to God". Some of you may think "that is harsh", my thought was "I'm in the right place" ...