It helps, I think, if we take a step back and consider the history of baptism. It gives some perspective.
It’s clear that the early church taught baptism by immersion of believers for remission of sins. However, it was very early that the church permitted baptism by pouring — as early as the late First Century (Didache III.5 circa 92 AD). But at this time, it was purely in case of emergency, where water deep enough for immersion was unavailable. Moreover, this may be a reference to the convert standing in water with water being poured over his head, which the Orthodox have long accepted as an acceptable alternative.
By the middle of the third century, exceptions to immersion were made in the case of emergency, such as when a convert was too ill to be immersed. Over time, the practice of pouring or sprinkling become more popular, likely due to the influence of these practices in baptizing infants.
Infant baptism goes back to Irenaeus (circa 185 AD). It’s not for another 50 or so years that Origen treats infant baptism as apostolic and proper. Surprisingly, infant baptism pre-dates the doctrine of original sin. Rather, the practice of infant baptism was later used as support for the idea that infants inherit Adam’s sin.
The argument seems to have been that under John 3:5 no one may enter the Kingdom of Heaven unless born of the water and of the Spirit. In an age of very high infant death rates, it’s easy to imagine parents begging the church to baptize their near-death children. And it’s easy to imagine the church’s officials yielding to grieving parents “just in case.” Why not?
Even in the 4th Century, infant baptism was not universally practiced. In fact, many converts delayed baptism until near the point of death, in hopes of being as pure before God as possible before death. Grace was not well understood.
Over time, the comfort of infant baptism prevailed over the idea of delaying baptism until death. After all, surely everyone knew someone who’d delayed baptism and died before it could be administered! Moreover, once the Roman government made Christianity essential for citizenship in the 4th Century, baptism became not only a means of salvation, but a means of gaining standing with the government. Few wanted to wait until near death to become a citizen!
Hence, by the 5th Century, infant baptism was nearly universally practiced and tightly connected with the joining of church and state, which happened after Constantine and continued until the American Revolution and the adoption of the First Amendment.
When the Reformation began, a group of Ulrich Zwingli’s disciples urged him to reject infant baptism, as unknown to the scriptures, and to re-baptize all upon a confession of their faith in Jesus. Zwingli refused, and these disciples became the first Anabaptists (there are other theories on the origins of the Anabaptists, but this one seems likely right).
This seems inexplicable today, as history is clear that baptism was originally for believers. But to Zwingli, this request was a request to separate the church from the kings who ruled the European nations, as baptism was tightly connected with citizenship. It was unthinkable to the Medieval mind that one could be a citizen and not have the same faith as the king.
As a result, the early Reformers persecuted the Anabaptists severely. Ironically, Martin Luther, who was a great student of church history and centered his teaching on grace, was very severe in his attacks on the Anabaptists. Luther believed them to be in violation of the commands in Rom 13 to submit to the authorities.
Meanwhile, the Lutherans taught, as did the Catholics and the Orthodox, that baptism was essential to remission of sins. Martin Luther denied that baptism should be considered a work, but rather held baptism to be a gift from God.
Calvin, however, considered baptism merely symbolic of a salvation that had already occurred. After all, Calvin taught that salvation came by unconditional election and irresistible grace — so that no one could voluntarily choose to be a Christian or to not be a Christian. Baptism is, of course, voluntary and so would otherwise contradict the teachings of Calvin.
Calvin’s teaching, thus, led to the view of many that baptism is an ordinance (law) that should be taught and obeyed but is not the point where sins are forgiven. As Calvin saw baptism as an ordinance, in his theology it became a work of law.
Due to Anabaptist influence, some English Calvinists began to teach the importance of believer baptism by immersion in the 17th Century, causing the Baptists to separate from the English Calvinists known as Puritans. However, as the early Baptists were strictly Calvinists, they taught that baptism does not save.
In the early 1800’s, Walter Scott introduced Alexander Campbell to some Baptist literature, which persuaded him and his father, Thomas, of the importance of baptism by immersion for believers. As a result, Thomas and Alexander submitted to baptism by a Baptist preacher. However, it was nearly a decade later that Campbell realized baptism is for remission of sins. He was not re-baptized.
Campbell began his work among the Baptists because of their agreement on baptism, although Campbell had rejected much of Calvinism by this time. The Baptists found him to be a heretic because he disagreed with them on the significance of the Old Testament and various points of Calvinism. This forced him into founding a separate denomination (this is how he expressed it).Campbell rarely declared any believer a heretic. Only three occasions are known to historians. Among these is his rejection of a man teaching that Baptists must be re-baptized once they learn that baptism is for remission of sins. Campbell taught that baptism is for remission of sins, but denied that the convert had to know this for it to happen. After all, our faith is in Jesus, not in baptism!
—– [new material begins here] ——
The historical record is clear that the Campbells did not realize baptism was for the remission of sins (that is, as Alexander Campbell liked to say, “in order to” the remission of sins) until a decade or so after they were immersed.
As Campbell’s close friend, Robert Richardson, wrote in the Memoirs of Alexander Campbell, regarding Campbell’s baptism, “The full import and meaning of the institution of baptism was, however, still reserved for future discovery” (vol. I, p. 404).
In fact, in his later 1823 debate with McCalla, Campbell argued,
The blood of Christ, then, really cleanses us who believe from all sin. Behold the goodness of God in giving us a formal token of it, by ordaining a baptism expressly ‘for the remission of sins.’ The water of baptism, then, formally washes away our sins. The blood of Christ really washes away our sins. Paul’s sins were really pardoned when he believed, yet he had no solemn pledge of the fact, no formal acquittal, no formal purgation of his sins until he washed them away in the water of baptism.
(vol. II, p. 81).
It wasn’t until 1830 that Campbell published his “Extra” on remission of sins where he finally reached the distinctive Restoration Movement position with regard to baptism (vol II, p. 325).
A very helpful summary of the evidence may be found at the Stoned-Campbell blog here.
Now, the reason I bring this is up is, well, I’m very disappointed in this month’s issue of the Gospel Advocate where we change agents are accused of re-writing Restoration Movement history by pointing out the truth on this matter.
It only takes half an hour on the Internet to read the material firsthand and confirm that Campbell was not baptized with the specific intent of having his sins remitted. Rather, he was submitting to an ordinance, that is, he was obeying God. And until he died, he taught that such baptisms were quite sufficient and considered those who rebaptized Baptists sectarians and heretics.
The Advocate‘s arguments are well refuted in the Stoned-Campbell post. It’s sad that my conservative brothers are trying to re-write history so they can honor Campbell while acting in ways he considered heretical.
—–[end of new material]—–
Tolbert Fanning and David Lipscomb also taught that Baptist baptism is sufficient, with Lipscomb contending for this view well into the 20th Century as editor of the Gospel Advocate. Fanning was a great missionary for the Restoration Movement, headquartered in Nashville. He traveled throughout the Southeast making converts for many years. In many towns in the Southeast, the first Church of Christ was planted by Fanning — which explains why the Churches in the Southeast are so much more uniform in their practices than the older churches in the Midwest, which were founded by many different men.
In Texas, Austin McGrary founded the Firm Foundation to combat Lipscomb’s views on baptism. After Lipscomb retired, H. Leo Boles and Foy Wallace, Jr. agreed with McGrary and largely stamped out Lipscomb’s views among the Churches of Christ. By the end of the 20th Century, the notion that Baptist baptism might be effective was unthinkable in most Churches of Christ.
More recently, in In the Grip of Grace, our most popular writer, Max Lucado, has declared baptism to be a mere symbol —
Please understand. Symbols are important. Some of them, like communion and baptism, illustrate the cross of Christ. They symbolize salvation, demonstrate salvation, even articulate salvation. But they do not impart salvation. … Do we honestly think that God would save his children based upon a symbol? … Please understand, it is not the act [of baptism] that saves us. But it is the act that symbolizes how we are saved!
And then, Wineskins published an April 21, 1996 sermon by Mike Cope concluding that we should not consider baptism as essential for salvation. Cope relied on quotations from Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell, both of whom plainly declared that baptism is not essential to salvation.
Jimmy Allen wrote Re-baptism essentially adopting Lipscomb’s views. Most recently, John Mark Hicks and Greg Taylor published Down in the River to Pray, re-arguing Campbell’s position from a deeply theological perspective.
It wouldn’t be fair to say that the progressive Churches of Christ have reached a consensus on the issue. However, I find that people are anxious to find scriptural support for the idea that those with faith outside the Churches of Christ are saved. Attitudes are changing, and today people are willing to hear the arguments.
Unfortunately, we progressives have generally done a very poor job of arguing for our views from a Biblical foundation. There’s been remarkably little work done in finding truly scriptural reasons to accept those improperly baptized as saved on purely scriptural grounds. We’ll see what the Bible tells us in future posts.
I just want to chime in on the anabaptists. The code of Justinian (A.D. 529) placed a death penalty on 'anabaptism' so it is clear that anabaptists pre-existed Zwingli by a long shot. Although persecuted and although seemingly silent on the pages of history from 529 to the Reformation, the anabaptists continued to exist. I argue that it was noticing them coming out of the wilderness that gave Luther enough spine to oppose Rome. Of course, Luther hated the anabaptists because he loved infant baptism like a God which is why he didn't join the anabaptists but chose to make his own church. Those anabaptists, I say, were the church of Christ that never did cease to exist. But the Anabaptists are not to be confused with the anabaptists. The Anabaptists are an unholy mixture of anabaptist and Lutheran teachings. And, it must also be observed that Reformation historians represent the anabaptists as believing many strange doctrines, but this is because it was an executable offense to be an anabaptist and thus the Reformers and the Catholics used the name easily in Salem-witch-trial-style to execute people who weren't really anabaptists at all.
"However, I find that people are anxious to find scriptural support for the idea that those with faith outside the Churches of Christ are saved."
Why not also be anxious to try and find scriptural support that those who don't beleive in Christ are saved? Over occupation with trying to justify the unjustifiable will be your undoing.
Josh,
Which anabaptists would you have associated with? The Waldensians, the Lollards, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the German Brethren? Whom?
You then use the term Anbaptist as if it were somehow indicative of who isn't an anabaptist, but your definition is most unclear. The anabaptists were indeed supportive of Luther and Zwingli at the beginning, until both abdicated church authority over doctrine to the secular magistrates. There was no real dissension over the meaning or purpose of baptism other than it was effectual only for a believer. In fact, many of the first anabaptists were re-baptized using milk pails! Full immersion did not occur until later and it was not at all common to hear that baptism was a sign of a pledge and did not save anyone. Luther complained about that in his short catechism because Luther to his dying day believed baptism did indeed save, but he based this belief on infant or first baptism of converts. So…was Luther right?