We hosted our second Biblical/Theological Conference Call on Labor Day.
Here is a summary of that call.

Outline:
Introduction
Baptism in First Century Jewish Circles
Emphasis on Baptism in Acts
Paul and Baptism
Applications

Introduction
Several people expressed amazement how we could discuss a topic like baptism without focusing on doctrine or becoming dogmatic. Of course, that is the whole point of our theological/biblical discusions - we want to push each other in our thinking, question the biblical text using historical data, and see if we can learn together.
This topic was brought up by John Gibson. He is currently writing an article (or a book) challenging the typical pentecostal perspective on speaking in tongues (Briefly, this position states that the "initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is speaking in tongues.")

John’s comment: "I am researching the reception of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, especially in the book of Acts. As I was doing so, I noticed how much water baptism was not only done immediately after conversions throughout Acts but how it appeared to be integral in the whole conversion process…I could see how groups could put so much emphasis on the act of baptism that they actually have it as a requirement to the born again experience. I knew that was going too far but we evangelicals, for the most part, do not put nearly the emphasis on it as they did in the book of Acts."

Baptism in First Century Jewish Circles
This introduction begged the question: where and how did the practice of water baptism begin?
Ed Gentry pointed out that, before the Christian era, it was standard practice for Gentile converts to Judaism to be baptized in addition to having the males circumcised. Nobody on the call knew when this practice first began.

Al Baker reminded the callers that ceremonial washing had been an important part of the Levitical ministry preparation in Temple worship and animal sacrifice. The clearest reference we have to first century, extrabiblical, pre-Christian baptism in the Jewish tradition is in the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Essenes. The Essenes had baptismal pools in their community facilities and practiced ceremonial baptismal cleansing as a consistent part of their spiritual rituals.
You can read a paper on the Essenes and water baptism ("The Essene Yearly Renewal Ceremony and the Baptism of Repentance," by Stephen Pfann, Ph.D.). This paper discusses the possible relationship and connection of water baptism in the Qumran community and the baptism of repentence offered by John the Baptist.

Emphasis on Baptism in Acts and in Paul
The baptism of John is another clear example of pre-Christian water baptism, and of course, Jesus participated in John’s baptism - a direct precursor to Christian baptism. In fact, more than one example in Acts refers to John’s baptism being a good thing, but also not being sufficient since Paul had them baptized again (see Acts 19).

Although nobody on the call intended to suggest that water baptism was presented as a salvivic requirement, it was pointed out that baptism was not listed as a requirement in the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council and also that concept went against the Pauline formula of "salvation by grace through faith alone." The retort to this statement was that Paul also placed importance on baptism via Romans 6 and Galatians 3:27. It could have been that water baptism was assumed.The focus of the discussion remained on the Jewish views of baptism for ritual purification. There was some discussion of whether the primitive church worried as much about multiple baptisms since it did appear in Acts 19 that Paul baptized these disciples again. The second century church would question the validity of rebaptism once certain groups were determined to be heterodox, but the idea was that perhaps this initial emphasis on water baptism was due to the Jewish origins of Christianity.

Culturally, does this mean that 21st century Gentiles Christians necessarily have to practice what was, in historical fact, a Jewish tradition? The response to this was the Great Commission injunction to "baptize them in the name of…" and Paul’s emphasis on the practice. In the end it was agreed by all that Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, continued to place a critical importance on water baptism. For the primitive church baptism was a way of "marking" the believer, a ritual that pointed to the relational association of being part of this community of the risen Messiah. It was at this point in the discussion that John Duncan introduced some thoughts that would point us in the direction of application and would be our concluding thoughts.

Applications
John told us about his involvement in some baptismal services in the Ukraine. Candidates for baptism dress in white robes (reminds me of the baptism scene in "O Brother, Where Art Thou?") and make a processional to the river. There is singing of hymns and prayers offered. Many of the candidates come up from the water weeping with joy while others embrace them and give them a "holy kiss" on the mouth - men, women, etc.

John commented, "It made me want to get baptized again." I was feeling that same thing as John told us this story. John went on to say that from his studies (and what he had heard on the call) water baptism in the primitive church had some cultural significance that we were apparently missing - and it is the role of the church pastor to be creative enough to restore the meaning that has been lost. He suggested that perhaps we need to put more emphasis on doing baptisms in the public arena rather than cloistered away behind our four walls. There was a general sense of agreement with this whole viewpoint.

It was a great conclusion to our discussion - a call for us to embrace the original strategic nature of baptism in the life of the church and the individual believer who has chosen to associate themself with the community of faith. We all agreed that it was rare for anyone to fully understand all the meaning of baptism - perhaps the strategic reason for it is more important at the outset. Not to say that we should not understand the biblical meaning, but that the ingrafting of the new believer into the family of God and the commitment of what that means MIGHT be more significant at the very beginning of the salvivic experience.

I hope others will add to this summary, fill in the gaps I have left out or just push the discussion forward.
My thanks to all who participated in the call.

This post is my answer to a question sent via e-mail and serves as a follow-up to “Water Baptism in the Early Church” which appears below this post.

I have a question about our church Fathers. I have read that some believed that baptism was needed for salvation and some believed that only faith in Christ saves. Do you know which one believed in faith alone for salvation?

Water baptism was a tricky issue in the early church. As usual, I will give my short, concise answer, then follow that with a bit more historical context which will illustrate why there is not an easy answer.

The short answer is that ALL the early fathers believed that part of the conversion experience was going under the water in baptism. At the same time NONE of the early fathers said faith without baptism was impossible - in other words, NO church father argued that salvation was impossible without water baptism. It was simply assumed that a believer would be baptized.

Now the longer answer:
Without knowing the historical context (especially of the second century) you could read the early fathers and come away thinking that most of them believed water baptism was essential in salvation. The danger with reading the early fathers is taking them literally without knowing the historical context.

1. The early church was not “monolithic.” Though the church claimed to be ”catholic” (universal), sects, or “schools” of thought always existed within the church that disagreed on many, many things. ”Denominations,” to use a contemporary term, have always existed. What does this mean in this discussion? Church fathers were rarely in 100% agreement on many things when it came to details, thus you find different slants and views when it comes to water baptism.

2. The record in the book of Acts seems to indicate that water baptism was done fairly quickly (even immediately) after conversion. Though universally seen as something the Christian must do upon conversion, by the second century baptism was typically not done immediately after conversion. This delay is probably due to the changing nature of the church, moving from a Jewish orientation to mainly a Gentile church. Jews practiced various forms of water baptism - Gentile converts needed some explanation. What you find in the records of the second century and following is a training periodfor a new convert to follow before he/she is allowed to celebrate the Lord’s Supper or be baptized in water.
[It is called “catechesis,” the Greek word that means “to sound” something. It carries the idea that “catechumens” (students) would be taught by “repeat after me,” or “sound this out: ‘I believe in God the Father Almighty…’.”]
This training period might last a few months, but most records from the few first centuries indicate it to be more than a year of training and learning. This is evidence that these early Christians did NOT think baptism was ”required” to be saved. In fact, there is mention in Origen (Contra Celsum) and in the Didascalia (both early third century) that should a catechumen meet a martyr’s death prior to being baptized, he/she would be saved through a ”baptism of blood.” This mention is made in defense of the necessity of baptism, yet is given to show that there is an exception - kind of like thethief on the cross for those who insist that water baptism is a necessity for salvation.

3. Another difficulty in reading statements by early fathers regarding water baptism is contention with heretical groups. The Marcionites, Gnostics, Montanists, and many others - all practiced their own form of baptism and all considered themselves to be “Christian.” There is a great amount of difference among church fathers as to whether “converts” from these unorthodox groups should be baptized again OR could their unorthodox baptism be considered sufficient. While some of these groups were certainly outside the boundaries (Gnostics and Marcionites for example), others should be seen more like a modern-day denomination (Montanists and Novatians for example) because their basic theology was not the problem. Whatever the case, dealing with unorthodox baptism muddies the water (please excuse the pun) in this discussion.

4. Finally, due to other issues in the early church, many people would postpone their baptism until they were near death. It was commonly believed in the early church that a Christian could not commit a “mortal” sin after being baptized and have assurance of salvation. This became known as the “Second Repentance” issue [you can read my paper on the topic:http://www.churchhistory101.com/docs/Hermas-2ndRepentance.pdf].

It is never insisted that these people were not Christian because they had not been baptized - they were just never considered fully installed in the Church…which was considered the only vehicle for obtaining the grace of Christ. You can see that this statement is kind of fuzzy - so was the position of the early church on this matter. Many people were afraid that they MIGHT commit a “mortal” sin [apostacy, adultery, fornication, and murder were the main mortal sins] and they wanted the assurance that they could repent, be forgiven, and then get baptized. Even this was a murky issue with somebishops saying that you could receive a “second” forgiveness after baptism and others (like Tertullian) saying that only God would know if you could obtain forgiveness for a mortal sin after having been baptized.

So you see, there is just not an easy answer. But if you insist, my easy answer is that NO, the early fathers did not believe water baptism was a requirement for salvation - they just assumed you would be baptized and if you were not they questioned your salvation. ;)