Expert: Dr Don Howe - 3/28/2008

Question
Pastor, I was reading some of the early church fathers back in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. They stated you should be immersed 3 times in the name of the triune God. Many bible scholars go to the early church fathers to try to prove we are to worship on Sunday and not Saturday. Why don't they accept what they teach on baptism? Thanks, Steve

Answer
Steve, thank you for your question. Baptism is another one of those doctrines that is discussed and no one agrees. The early church fathers could not agree on baptism (just like today) and  did baptize using 3 separate immersions in the name of the father (dunk you went), name of thSe Son (dunk you went), and the Holy Spirit (dunk). Then there  were first century churches that  baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit using one immersion. But for the most part, the early church consistently (no matter if 1 or 3 immersions were used) observed the ordinance of baptism.
Some theologians today would  care less which one you used and would say “what ever cocks your pistol do it.” Then there are some fundamentalist theologians today who would go to war over such differences. Lewis Cafer in his book Major Bible Themes states, “Regardless of mode of baptism, the ultimate meaning is that the believer is separated from what he was without Christ to what he is in Christ, partaking as he does in the benefits of the benefits of the death and resurrection of Christ.” In Acts 2:28 Peter tells us more about this correct order of events and states “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Repent is metanoeō  in the plural sense which means to change one's mind for better, heartily to amend with abhorrence of one's past sins, in other words to be born again. This is when all sinners (remember it is in the plural which  means everyone) asks Jesus to be their Savior and asks for forgiveness of their sins. Then Peter states “and be baptized” which is baptizō in the singular which sets off from the rest of the sentence and it means to  immerse or to cleanse by dipping or submerging. Peter states very specifically that this is two separate acts one must repent, change one’s mind, or be born again, and then be baptized or immersed in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of our sins, and then the third event takes place which is we receive the Holy Spirit and he lives in us.
Steve notice that it is repentance that results in the remission of sins, and not baptizing. That is exactly why God stated it in  this order, first repentance for remission of sins and then being baptized is a separate act. Some religions have placed the immersion in water (baptizing) as being a necessary part of the salvation experience and actually feels it does wash away your sins, but Peter strictly tells the correct order which repentance for the remission of sins (being born again) and then the public act of being immersed in water. In other words, the baptizing does not save you but the repentance for the remission of sins does. Any other teachings other that this order stated by Peter in Act 2:38 is false teaching. There are other verses that shows this also, but you can get the idea from Acts 2:38.
  With this criteria being established, it does not matter if you immerse a believer one time in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or three separate immersions in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So the early Church fathers could have  their on personal preference on the way of being immersed as mentioned, but the repentance still comes first for the forgiveness of sins and then the public act of baptizing. Then we shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
  Some churches differ on the manner of baptizing. One way of baptizing is by immersion of the entire body in water, which is the way most Baptist churches do it. Then there is aspersion which is when water is sprinkled on the head and then there is affusion which is pouring water over the head. Some religions such as Catholicism, Lutherans, and other denominations will use aspersion or affusion for infant baptism based on minister’s and/or parental preference or the situation. For example, a premature infant that weighs only a few ounces. has tubes running everywhere, and very fragile,  the priest or minister would only do a very little aspersion. Whereas, if the infant was healthy, he could do the affusion.
  Infant baptism brings up a whole new area of discussion and conflict. Some problems raised is the matter of baptism as a ritual for infant baptism as opposed to believers’ baptism. There is no clear case of infant baptism in the Bible. Chafer states “adherents usually regard infant baptism as the contemporary expression of setting aside an infant to God much as circumcision was in the nation Israel.” Remember Acts 2:38, one has to first repent for the remission of sins (become born again), and then a separate public act of baptism. One has to be of the age of accountability to recognize he is a sinner, separated from God, and to ask for repentance; an infant can not do this. So if a religion that does infant baptism or parents thinks that the ritual of infant baptism is going to save their infant and when he gets grown he will be going to Heaven as result of the infant baptism; is fooling themselves and it is false doctrine, false teaching, and is not biblical.
  Steve, I have actually seen Catholics and Lutherans who sinned like the devil and would state they are saved because they were baptized as an infant. They felt like their being baptized as an infant gave a free pass to sin as they wanted to. This is false belief.
  The evangelicals prefer to do an infant dedication in the which the parents are dedicating their child to God that they will raise him in a Christian home and according to the Word of God, and then water baptism is reserved for recognition of true faith in Christ on the part of those who can be of age of accountability and make such intelligent decisions.
  Infant baptism when practiced is no more than an expression of faith and hope of the parents that their child will ultimately be saved. Baptisms of children, who can be accountable, and adults should in every case follow evidence of true faith in Christ.
  Now Steve your next question was “many bible scholars go to the early church fathers to try to prove we are to worship on Sunday and not Saturday.” Steve you first have to keep your purpose of your days straight. The Sabbath day is viewed as a day of rest. Exodus 20:8-11, states “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day [is] the sabbath of the LORD thy God: [in it] thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that [is] within thy gates: For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.” This is the fourth commandment given by God to Moses. Notice we are to rest on the seventh day or Sabbath Day.
  Steve you are right that many early church fathers did teach universally that Sunday was for worship. In 364 A.D., the Council of Laodicea had taught this very doctrine. But authors of From Sabbath to the Lord’s Day shows that Sunday worship was a universal practice of all churches outside the land of Israel by the beginning of the second century. Even Pauline churches in the first century were observing the first day of the week a day of worship. This is apparent in Acts 20:7-8, 11: “And upon the first [day] of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together. When he therefore was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed.” It is clearly pointed out in the first and second century churches, Sunday was only referred as a day of worship, and was not viewed as a Sabbath, which is a day of rest. The New Testament never calls Sunday the Sabbath (a day of rest) but is always the first day of the week and this shown in Acts 20:7-8 as an example.
  But according to Church history, later church councils started applying Sabbath rules from the Old Testament to Sunday, and this has lead us to where we are today. The Old Testament  day of rest (Sabbath) has been applied to Sunday. Our way of life in America is a result of this in which we worship on Sunday and rest on Sunday. Look at the Blue Laws that were passed in the 1950’s and 1960’s in which stores had to close on Sunday because it was a day of rest and worship. It is incorrect to call Sunday the “Christian Sabbath” as some have called it. Steve, the Bible is very exact and does not change, Sunday is called the first day of the week for worship, and the seventh day of the week is called the Sabbath and a day of rest. Notice I said he bible calls the first day of week Sunday and the last day of the week the Sabbath, but the bible does not say WE HAVE TO WORSHIP ON SUNCAY, REST ON THE SEVENTH DAY OR VICE VERSA. But the bible tells us that we need to be not deceived by false doctrines concerning the day of worship, false teaching or philosophies concerning the day of worship or Sabbath, and do not follow the traditions of men. God gives us the freedom to worship what day we want but besure it is not according to the traditions of men, principalities of the world, but according to Christ.
  Look at Colossians 2:8 which states, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Paul is saying do not be spoiled or esomai which means deceived by things that are not real through strange philosophy and empty deceit. And do not follow empty philosophies which are based on the traditions of men, or elements of the world because they are not based on Christ. Next look at Col. 2:16 to put this all together which states, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days].” So we are not follow no false teaching, false religions, philosophies, empty deceit which are based on the traditions of men, but keep our focus on teaching based on Christ. Let no man judge you based what you eat, what you drink, festival, or of the new moon refers to a new Jewish holiday or could mean a new month, and do not let any man judge of the Sabbath days. No one is tell you that have to worship on first day week, or the last day of week (Sabbath), or that you have to rest on the last day of the week, and that you can not rest on the first day of the week. Because these are based on false religions, false teaching, philosophies, legalism, and traditions of men. But you do have to worship whatever day you want after and based on Christ, and not the traditions of men. For example,  according to this  verse you do not have to  follow the teaching of a strict diet like the teaching of the Seventh Day Adventist, or saying one has to worship only  on the Sabbath, because these are based on the traditions of men i.e. it does not come strictly from the teaching of Christ. But if one wanted to follow these teaching they can, but they still need to  worship Christ with a clean heart; and not just because it is based on the traditions of men or some false preacher having told you, you have to worship a certain way or on a certain day, just because he told you to.
  Steve, Church history shows that early church councils did start applying Sabbath rules from the Old Testament to Sunday, but this based on traditions of men.

May God Bless You Today.

Dr. Don Howe, RN, PhD, ThD.