Hi, I'm David Bercot. And this week we're having another session of ask me anything about the early Christians. And the question this week concerns rebaptism and particularly rebaptism because of doctrinal error. So this is what was asked. Some early Christians, particularly Clement of Alexandria and Cyprian of Carthage, seem to suggest that baptism offered by heretics was ineffective and needed to be redone for salvation.
Today, the Church of Christ teaches similarly to include members of any denomination, including the Anabaptists. That is, they say you have to be rebaptized. What was it the early Christians were actually saying on this issue? That's the question submitted. Very good question.
It's very hard to apply some of the things, some of the standards and positions of the early Christians when there was one physical church when they were writing to the situation today where the church is divided into 40,000 or more different sects and independent churches and that sort of thing. Even if you're someone who belongs, let's say, to the Orthodox Church or the Catholic Church, and you say, well, that's not the way it is for our church. You know There is one church and we are it.
You still have the same problem because at a minimum, you have the division between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox. They can't both be the one true church. But then you have other ancient churches like the Oriental Orthodox. And you have the Church of the East. You have the Coptic Church, et cetera. So even those ancient churches, you have division. There is no single one church today like there was, say, in the days of Clement of Alexandria when he wrote around the year 190.
So we have to be careful in applying what they said in their situation to what we have today. The other thing that's important to remember is that there were mixed opinions on this subject among the early church. They didn't all say the same thing. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Cyprian all took the position that baptism by heretics was invalid. Now, I do want to mention it's not clear in the case of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian who they included as heretics.
Back then, again, we didn't have this huge division like we do today. So like in the days of Clement of Alexandria, the main heresies were not the main heresy was Gnosticism. So that's probably what he's talking about. They were so far off. The apostle John calls them the Antichrist. They denied that Jesus came in the flesh. They did not believe in the incarnation. They did not believe the apostle's creed, the things that are in that very simple statement of faith. The Gnostics did not believe.
There was another group of Jewish, well, Jews who believed in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. But they did not believe in the incarnation. They did not believe in his deity. They simply believed that he was the fulfillment of who the Jews were looking forward to. OK, so those were two of the big or biggest heresies in the days of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian. All right. So it's one thing to say that people who don't even believe in the simple elements of the apostle's creed that their baptism is invalid.
And to say that someone who has a theological error about baptism or somewhere else, that they are barred by their baptism, that their baptism is invalid. Now, Cyprian, he took a much more extreme view. His view was that there is one church and that any baptism outside of the church, by then, he's around the year 250. So by then, the church is becoming more of a fixed institution. There was a little bit less autonomy among the separate churches.
It was no longer just a body of people, of autonomous churches that all worked together. It was becoming now more of a visible institution. And he said there is only one church. Any baptism outside of that church is invalid because there's no salvation outside of that one institutional church. And that later became a view of the Roman Catholics. And that's a little bit different because he also Cyprian included schismatics like the Novatianists.
They did not have any doctrinal errors, but they split from the main body over the issue of discipline. They saw that the church was becoming too lax in its discipline. Now, they were extreme in their discipline. So you know I'd say neither side was right. And he said that their baptisms were invalid. Now, I can't help but notice that the men we've mentioned, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian and Cyprian, they all lived in North Africa. And Tertullian and Cyprian both lived in Carthage.
And some of the other men who wrote on the subject and held a view like Cyprian, they also lived around Carthage. They had held a council in Carthage and discussed this issue. And they all came to the same conclusion, mainly because Cyprian was such a strong leader that people tended to follow whatever he thought. He was very influential the same way Augustine was later.
So we have to remember that people living outside of North Africa, particularly outside of the area of Carthage, tended to hold a more accepting view towards the baptism of heretics. Now, again, I don't know if they accepted Gnostic baptism or baptism by someone who did not believe in the incarnation. But there were other heretical groups who their errors were in different areas. And if you look up, go to the dictionary of early Christian beliefs and go to the topic of baptism, then you'll see certain subheadings.
And one of the subheadings is baptism by heretics. And if you look at the quotes there, then you'll see some of the differences of opinion. I'm going to read some of those quotes, just a few of them here. Okay, so Cyprian, first of all, since he's been mentioned, this is what he said, a lot of quotes from Cyprian. I'm going to just read a representative one.
" I know not by what presumption some of our colleagues are led to think that those who have been dipped that is immersed by heretics should not be baptized when they come to us. " The reason they give is that there is one baptism. Cyprian continues, " He who of his own authority grants this advantage to the heretics yields and consents to them that the enemies and adversaries of Christ have the power of washing, purifying, and sanctifying a man.
However, we say that those who come from them, that is the heretics, are not rebaptized by us, but are baptized. For indeed, they did not receive anything there where there is nothing. " Again, as I said, Cyprian believed there's no baptism outside of the institutional church back there when there was one such church. Although ironically, it became split because of his position. So it is kind of ironic how it worked out. But yeah, that was his view.
Like I say, I don't know that Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria held a view quite as rigid as Cyprian. I think they were talking about the baptism of Gnostics and people like that. Okay, now the other view, which seems to have been the majority view of the early Christians, was that someone could be validly baptized by heretics. Apparently, some of them thought even the Gnostics, although I don't know that they extended it to the Gnostics, because the real minister at any baptism is Jesus Christ.
It's not the person there in the water. It's not the bishop or elder or whoever it is who baptizes you. They're not the ones who give you forgiveness of sins or who grant you admission into the body of Christ. It is Jesus who does that. He's the real minister. That person is just a tool that he uses. And that person may be hold to theological errors. They may have personal sins. They maybe shouldn't even be a bishop or an elder. But they're not the ones who are the true minister of Jesus.
So that was the general view. Now, they had a council in Rome called by the bishop of Rome at that time. His name was Stephen. In response to Cyprian and the council that he called there in Carthage and where they made the ruling that we're not going to accept the baptism of anybody outside of the institutional church. So this was the decision of the council held in Rome. And I'm quoting. And this is being written up later on. This is not the minutes. This was written up after Stephen had been martyred.
Quote, " A divine and sacred provincial synod gathered together at Rome by Stephen, the blessed martyr and father, excommunicated those who in an African sentence had without reason concluded that those who came to the Catholic Church from any heresy should be rebaptized. So the Bishop of Rome, together in agreement with the surrounding bishops and elders, they ended up excommunicating Cyprian for what he did and the other churches in communion with him. So like I say, you ended up with a split church anyway.
So I don't know if Cyprian then had to hold that all of these others were in Schism and that their baptisms were invalid. I don't know because he got martyred shortly after that as well. But yeah, it did cause a problem. Now, what they did I didn't explain earlier is rather than rebaptizing you when you came over from heretics is they laid hands on you and prayed for you to receive the Holy Spirit.
They believed that you did get the benefits of water baptism, even though a heretic baptized you, but that a heretic could not lay on hands and that the Holy Spirit be imparted to you by the heretic. It seems to be a little bit inconsistent, but that tended to be the general view. And so they would lay hands on you and then admit you into the church, but they would not give you a second baptism or as Cyprian said. It's not a second one. It's the first real one. Okay?
Now, we don't know who this author was, but some bishop who was very articulate and I think very wise in what he said, and I tend to agree with him. We have the writing. It's called a treatise on rebaptism. I'm going to give you just a couple of quotes from it.
The writer says, " According to the most ancient custom and ecclesiastical tradition, okay, so he's saying the custom that's been handed down to us from ancient times is this, that it would suffice that after that baptism that they have received outside the church, but still in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for the reception of the Holy Spirit. And this imposition of hands affords them the renewed and perfected seal of faith.
So he's saying the tradition handed down is you only have to lay hands on them. You don't rebaptize them. Okay, another quote from that same work. And this is his argument for the position of the church. He says, " As far as concerns the disciples themselves prior to Pentecost, they are found to have had a faith that was neither sound nor complete as to the matters we've referred to. " So he's saying the apostles and other disciples.
Prior to Pentecost, they did not have a complete understanding of things, but they baptized people. And there's no indication in the book of Acts that any of those people were rebaptized who had been baptized prior to the day of Pentecost. So that their baptism was accepted even though it was done without perfect knowledge. And anyway, he continues this or the author of this treatise. He says, " And what is much more serious, they baptize others as it is written in the gospel according to John.
" Besides, what will you say of those who are, in many cases, baptized by bishops of very bad character, who are later deprived of their office, or barred from communion, or what will you say of those who may have been baptized by bishops whose opinions are unsound, or who are very ignorant? So it raises a good question. So first of all, you had the baptisms by the apostles before they had a complete understanding of the incarnation. And those baptisms were accepted.
And the people whose only baptism was of that, people like Stephen, for example, or Barnabas, those people went out and baptized other people. And those baptisms were also valid even after Pentecost, okay? And he says, what about someone who later is found guilty of sin and they baptized you? Does that mean your baptism is invalid? What if it's found out later that they had some heretical notions? I can think of, let's say, Arius. This, of course, came about a century later, or not quite a century.
He was an elder in the church there near Alexandria. He no doubt baptized a number of people. Were all of those baptisms invalid because he was later put out of the church? So yeah, you have a problem if you say someone who was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ that their baptism isn't valid if the one who baptized them held to theological errors. Because if it works that way, what if no one even knew that that person held to theological errors until much later?
If that invalidates the baptism, then you have a lot of people whose baptisms were invalid and they may have gone on to become bishops themselves or elders and they baptized people. And so you'd have to go and track all of this down, okay? So you do create quite a problem when you take that stance of baptisms not being valid if the one doing the baptizing did not have a complete understanding of the gospel if they held to theological errors.
And on that same work, again, the writer says, " What will you say against the person who hears the Word and has at once confessed Jesus and then been martyred before there was an opportunity for him to be baptized with water at all? If you say that he has eternally perished, you will be opposed by the statement of the Lord who says, " Whoever will confess me before men, I will confess him also before my Father who is in heaven. " So he's saying, and the early Christians did accept those people as being saved.
So he's saying, if you're going to say that someone who got baptized by a heretic, but they confessed Jesus Christ at the time of their baptism. But you're saying it's invalid because that baptizer was a heretic. Well, what are you going to say about the people who were intending to get baptized? They confessed Christ openly, but then they were martyred before they ever got baptized. You'd have to say that they're lost because they didn't even have a first baptism. And so they're lost.
You're saying that Jesus is so rigid that he can't grant salvation to people who confess his name if they didn't get baptized or if their baptism was invalid. So I think that writer made some very good points. OK, but there are limitations both on his position and on the hard position that Cyprian took. I'm saying that those men recognize their limitations. So let me just read to you one further quote from that treatise on rebaptism.
The writer says, now all of this is not meant to be taken too liberally as if it could be stretched to such a point that any heretic whatever can confess the name of Christ even though he denies Christ Himself, nor does it apply to the person who believes on a different Christ. So he's saying, now, look, I'm not saying this necessarily about the Gnostics who are denying that Christ even came in the flesh or the Christ that they teach is a totally different Christ than the Christ of the New Testament.
So even he isn't saying that he took it that far, nor was that a synod is a council that was held in Rome. They excommunicated Cyprian because he was saying that people who were coming from any heresy had to be rebaptized. And they were saying, yes, there are times when you have to rebaptize, but there are theological errors that people hold to. There are sects. Even at that time, there were small little sects that were not part of the church, but people had been baptized.
And they had a correct confession of Jesus Christ. They did believe in the incarnation. They did believe in the fundamentals of the apostles ' creed, but they held to other errors. So he's saying, " Hey, don't take what I'm saying too far. " And I would agree, okay? Now, Cyprian, even he said this. Now, someone might say, " What then becomes of those who were received into the church from one of the heresies, and they weren't rebaptized in times past, or they weren't given what he would call a first baptism?
" Well, this is Cyprian's answer. The Lord is able by His mercy to make allowances and not to separate from the gifts of His church, those who, through ignorance, were admitted into the church and have since fallen asleep in death, still being in communion in the church. He says, however, just because there was an error at one time, it doesn't mean that there must always be error. So Cyprian is saying, yes, in times past, we did that. We accepted these people in.
We did not rebaptize them or give them a first baptism, as he would say it. But those people aren't lost. The church was trying to do the right thing, and it accepted them into communion. It laid hands on them. And now it's too late to undo that because those people are dead. We can believe Christ is merciful and those people are in an okay position. So even he recognized that, okay, there are situations that even the principles I'm holding to that they don't always apply. So I'll just give you my own thoughts.
That's what the early church said. You can take there. I've given you both sides and the arguments on both sides and go with it from there. The position that I take, which seems to be in harmony with the majority view of the early Christians, I think it's also the view of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian.
And that is if somebody is baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is, they confess Jesus Christ, and they believe in the fundamentals of the Apostles ' Creed, then their baptism is valid. Even though they held to a lot of erroneous views, even if everything wasn't perfect in their life, but they got baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They believed in the basics of the faith. My own view is there is only one baptism. Those people should not be baptized.
I don't view that as a first baptism. I view it as a rebaptism. Now, I'm more comfortable if someone would believe in the Nicene Creed, maybe not in those exact words, but they believe in the true divinity of Christ. I'm a little bit more hesitant if someone at the time of their baptism did not believe in the divinity of Christ in the New Testament sense because the Apostles ' Creed doesn't go into a lot of detail. It does indicate the deity of Christ, but not as specific.
I would probably personally say, " Hey, you should get another baptism. " Now, one thing you can do if you have some legitimate reasons for doubting your baptism is to do a conditional baptism. And that is where the minister says at the beginning, " If you have not already been validly baptized as a Christian, I hereby baptize you in the name of the Father and so forth so that it's clear you're not trying to do this a second time, but that you do have legitimate doubts.
But if your baptism was valid, you are not repudiating it. I would not agree with the Church of Christ's position that just because someone does not have a correct view of baptism, based on the historic faith, based on the different New Testament verses, that that baptism is invalid. I think that as long as they believed in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, they believed in the divinity of Christ. They held to the principles set forth in the apostles ' creed. And they believed in the forgiveness of sins.
Now, they may have believed that those sins that that forgiveness came right before they got baptized. But they believe that Christ forgave their sins, and they believe that baptism now is a recognition that their sins have been forgiven by Christ, where the early Christians would have said, " No, the forgiveness happens in the water, not right before the water.
" Again, as long as they believe in Jesus Christ and they believe in the new birth, and they believe in the forgiveness of sins, then I think personally, that their baptism is valid. I myself would not rebaptize them if they came to me and asked me for one. So that is my take on that. You can look at, like I say, the different quotes in the early church and decide from there.
No materials available for this lesson.