The Historical Record on Baptism

The historical and Biblical record on the purpose of water baptism is remarkably clear and simple.

An excellent example of the clarity was a comment I read in a book by David Bercot titled Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up. Bercot noted that most Evangelicals do not believe that John 3:5 is a reference to baptism. John 3:5 says that unless a person is “born of water and the Spirit” he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Since Evangelicals generally believe that water baptism is a public testimony having nothing to do with salvation, they usually see the water in that verse as referring to our physical birth. justin baptism

Bercot’s comment on this is notable.

“If Jesus,” he says, “didn’t mean water baptism in this verse, then he is a terrible communicator because everyone without exception for the next 1600 years thought he did.” 1

As I have studied on this topic, I have been surprised to see that this was not even an issue that was debated by the early church. From the earliest centuries it was believed that John 3:5 was a verse on the regeneration that God gives the believer at baptism. I wrote an article a while back touching on the teachings of the early church fathers on baptism. You can see that article by going here.

Another interesting point I have learned is if someone came about teaching that baptism wasn’t essential to salvation, it was considered heresy

In 140-230 AD, Tertullian wrote, “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! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed in the faith… The consequence is, that a viper of the 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 and serpents themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places.”

So the question must be raised, “If the early church leaders that were nearest to the time of the Apostles taught this doctrine, what does this mean for popular teaching today on baptism? Is it heresy, or not? Let me know your thoughts.


1. David W., Bercot. Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up. 3rd Ed. Amberson, PA: Scroll Pub Co, 1999. Print.

2. Tertullian. On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 669.

The Early Church’s Teaching on Baptism

With the popular teaching today that baptism is nothing more than an outward sign of the grace that has already happened within us, and the popular teaching of it not being essential for salvation, we should expect that the early church fathers would have taught the same thing, right? (I asked the same question about the reformers John Calvin and Martin Luther here). Let’s look at some quotes from the early church fathers while we ask this question, “Are the mainstream teachings that we hear about baptism correct, or those who sat at the feet of the Apostles, prophets, and those who learned from them?”

What should really be considered “Orthodox” teaching about baptism?

Barnabas wrote in 70 AD, “Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water; for, says He, they shall receive their reward in due time…we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit.” (The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1, The Epistle of Barnabas 11:114-16)

Irenaeus wrote in 120-205 AD, “As we are lepers in sin, we are made clean from our old transgressions by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord. We are thus spiritually regenerated as newborn infants, 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.’” (Irenaeus, “Fragments From Lost Writings”, no. 34, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 574)

The proof text that early Christians used for baptism was John 3:5!

 In 110-165 AD, Justin Martyr wrote “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 Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.‘ Now, that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into their mothers’ wombs, is manifest to all… And for this we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed” (Justin Martyr, “First Apology,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, pg. 183)

In 140-230 AD, Tertullian wrote, “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).

In 140-230 AD, Tertullian wrote, “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! A treatise on this matter will not be superfluous; instructing not only such as are just becoming formed in the faith… The consequence is, that a viper of the 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 and serpents themselves generally do affect arid and waterless places. (On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 669.)

Interesting in the prior quote is that there was a false teaching coming about that was denying baptism!

Tertullian also wrote, “The prescript is laid down that ‘without baptism, salvation is attainable by none’ chiefly on the ground of that declaration of the Lord, who says, ‘Unless one be born of water, he hath not life.’” (On Baptism, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, pg. 674-675)

In 150-200 AD, CLEMENT wrote, “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 at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet 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.’ Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning…Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation.” (Clement, “Recognitions of Clement,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 155)

The Christian leaders nearest to the time of the Apostles taught these things about baptism! Why is it that this teaching has changed so much in the last 1900 years? (mainly AFTER the time of Calvin and Luther)