Must I Be Baptized In Order To Be Saved?

Greetings,

    This is an argument which has been raging - and I use that word purposely because there seems to be an utter lack of civility over the issue, call it zero tolerance if you will; on the part of those who call themselves 'born-again' Christians and who reject either Baptismal Regeneration or Infant Baptism or both. I may reject my 'born again' brothers and sisters view of baptism and conversion - but I do not reject them.

    The unfortunate line of reasoning (and amusingly contradictory and illogical) is that a person who believes in Baptismal Regeneration and/or has been baptized as an infant isn't saved! It is never explicitly stated altogether as a coherent thought. It usually comes out in name-calling accusations once Scriptural arguments have been set aside in favor of ad hominem attacks by those who believe in 'believer baptism.' They seem to be saying that if you have been baptized as an infant, your baptism is not valid - an idea only about 500 years old.

    This would seem to suggest (on the part of these 'born again' Christians) that only 'believer' baptisms are valid and you must be baptized after making a 'decision' for Christ in order to be saved.

    But if baptism has no role in salvation, does the order matter? If only belief matters than why get your knickers in a twist over the order? Why get baptized at all?

    I mean, if you take this logic to it's natural conclusion, there are all sorts of things I can avoid doing to be saved right?

    I mean, I suppose that I could avoid taking communion my whole Christian life and still just believe and be saved. I confess, I do believe that is Biblically possible. I could also avoid ever reading the Bible and just believe, I am sure all kinds of illiterate Christians in centuries past never picked up a Bible and read it and still just believed and were saved. I also imagine that you could never drop one red cent in the offering plate and just believe and be saved, after all, all those poor people in developing countries probably rarely or never do right?

    Do you see where this is going? I am sure if we REEEELY put on our thinking caps, we can come up with a laundry list of all kinds of things we can avoid doing and still be saved because all we need do is just believe right? Are we saved by Grace alone, through Faith alone by Christ alone? Yes. Do some people misunderstand this and turn it into Gospel reductionism, cheap grace and easy believism? You bet - and the Baptismal Regeneration deniers have neither Scripture, Church History or logic on their side. There are several passages that clearly teach that Baptism saves - not apart from faith in Christ, let us be clear about that. There is no such thing as 'sola baptisma.' BUT, baptism is used as a means of conveying grace, not by water alone and not by ritual alone but because the water is enjoined by the Word - the Word of God, and the Word of God has great supernatural power.

    Now, let's look at some of those passages:

Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ - 1 Peter 3:21

In Context:

¹⁸ For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, ¹⁹ in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, ²⁰ because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. ²¹ Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ²² who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him. - 1 Peter 3:18-22

    You really have to use a tortured interpretation to get away from the clear meaning of the text here which says, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you . . . through the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? ² By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? ³ Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.⁵ For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. - Romans 6:1-5

    So what does Baptism do? It unites us to the death and resurrection of Christ and Christ Himself. For Scripture also says:
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. - Galatians 3:27

Some translations such as the NIV say,

for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. - Galatians 3:27

So, you still believe Baptism is only symbolic and contains no supernatural power? 

⁸ See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. ⁹ For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, ¹⁰ and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. ¹¹ In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, ¹² having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. ¹³ And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, ¹⁴ by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. - Colossians 2:8-14

In Baptism, we:

1. 'Put on' or 'are clothed' with Christ, 
2. Filled in Him, 
3. Circumcised, 
4. Die with Him, 
5. Buried with Him, 
6. Raised with Him 
7. Our debt of sin is nailed to the Cross 
8. And we are set free from the Law.

Now as we see in Colossians 2:11, we are circumcised. When were Israelites/Jews circumcised?   

¹⁰ This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. ¹¹ You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. ¹² He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, ¹³ both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. - Genesis 17:10-13 

    The word offspring is זָרַע (Zaruh) which means seed in Hebrew, which makes sense as God is talking primarily about 8 day old male babies. Now obviously if an adult male back then was not yet circumcised, he was expected to be too - that was one of the terms of the Covenant. No awaiting a 'decision for Yahweh' here. Furthermore, God commanded Abraham here to circumcise all the males including 8 day old male infants and that became the custom.

And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God had commanded him. - Genesis 21:4

And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. - Leviticus 12:3

But it wasn't just about being cut with a knife:

And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. - Deuteronomy 30:6

Now notice the passive nature of the circumcisee, the action of being circumcised is being done unto the one receiving it.

It was done to John the Baptist:

⁵⁷ Now the time came for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. ⁵⁸ And her neighbors and relatives heard that the Lord had shown great mercy to her, and they rejoiced with her. ⁵⁹ And on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child. And they would have called him Zechariah after his father - Luke 1:57-59  

And Jesus:

²¹ And at the end of eight days, when he was circumcised, he was called Jesus, the name given by the angel before he was conceived in the womb.²² And when the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord ²³ (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every male who first opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”) - Luke 2:21-23

For review now, what does Colossians 2:11-14 say?

11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.

    If circumcision = baptism and God circumcised the heart (Deut 30:6) of 8 day old boys, then isn't it possible (Matt 19:6) that God who forbade His Apostles from allowing little children come to Him (Matt 19:14, Mark 10:14 & Luke 18:16) also circumcises the hearts of infant children now in baptism which now saves us (1 Peter 3:18-22) ?

    Now another objection I hear is a misuse of the Reformation Solas (a way that would be utterly foreign to Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Cranmer, et al), which is when the objector says, "We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone without Baptism."

    What we have here is a combination of bad hermeneutics (*WHY* would you pit Christ against Baptism given what all the verses above say?), a-historical logic (using the Reformation Solas in a way diametrically opposed to the their very creators).

    Now note there is not 1 alone but 3 (grace, faith & Christ). Are the mistaken interlocutors misunderstanding what 'alone' means here? You bet they are. Grace alone means apart from the Law (works). Faith alone means apart from reason (the devils know God exists), Christ alone means without the Pope or any other gods.

As the verses already given attest, God uses baptism as a vehicle to save us, water combined with God's Word creates faith in the heart of the one who receives it.

    Now baptism isn't magic and its efficacy is not absolute. Remember what I said at the beginning? There are all kinds of things you could hypothetically avoid participating in or doing and still be saved - but why would you if you are a sincere Christian?

And the Christian parent has much to do with this too, the Bible says,

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it. - Proverbs 22:6.

    It's not as if you can just baptize a baby and hope for the best. In Old Testament times, Jewish fathers were to train their sons from the Law of Moses and from literature such as the Book of Proverbs. Proverbs itself is one long discourse of advice given from father to son.

    At the time of the Reformation, Luther wrote the Large and Small Catechisms. The Small Catechism was for training the young basic Christian doctrine, the Large Catechism was so Fathers could know enough to employ the Small Catechism. This is how all modern Christian primary education began. Luther's closest friend and colleague, Philip Melanchthon is still called the 'Father of Germany' to this day for the role he played in establishing schools in Germany.

    In regards to how ancient the belief in baptismal regeneration is, I refer you to this short paper I wrote (and received an 'A' on at seminary) It addresses some other important points not discussed here.

    So must you baptized in order to be saved? No, you can be saved by grace, through faith in Christ all by itself, but baptism still does save as shown above.

+Peace+

Jim McGarigle
http://ilt.academia.edu/JamesMcGarigle

https://www.facebook.com/jim.mcgarigle

https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimmcgarigle

A Brief Paper Regarding The Papacy In Light Of The Early Church Fathers

THE PAPACY IN LIGHT OF THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS

THE ORIGINS

    In this paper I plan to examine the historical development of the Papacy but also to challenge its foundations according to the Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers. In the classic, Reformation tradition, I subscribe to the teaching that the Pope is, “. . . the man of lawlessness . . . the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”[1]

    The 1^st so-called foundational proof for the Papacy usually given is Matthew 16:18-19:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. ^[2]

    The problem is that the key words ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ do not agree in case, declension or gender in the original Greek text:

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς· ^[3]

    Peter = Πέτρος, is a 2^nd declension, nominative, masculine, singular noun. Pέτρᾳ, by contrast is a 1^st declension, dative, singular feminine noun.[4] You have to jump ahead about two centuries after Christ in the Church Fathers to the time of Tertullian (160-225 A.D.) before Matthew 16:18 becomes the basis for Petrine doctrine:

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”^[5]

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,” “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church;” and, “I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth.^[6]

    At the same approximate time in history there is some commentary on this passage by Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235 A.D.) but it is used to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit, not the basis for the Papacy:

This is the Spirit that at the beginning “moved upon the face of the waters;” by whom the world moves; by whom creation consists, and all things have life; who also wrought mightily in the prophets, (Acts 28:25) and descended in flight upon Christ. This is the Spirit that was given to the apostles in the form of fiery tongues (Matt. 3:16). This is the Spirit that David sought when he said, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me.” Of this Spirit Gabriel also spoke to the Virgin, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”(Luke 1:35) By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” By this Spirit the rock of the Church was stablished (Matt. 16:18). This is the Spirit, the Comforter, that is sent because of thee (John 16:26), that He may show thee to be the Son (τέκνον) of God.^[7]

    Cyprian of Carthage (Early 3^rd Century- 258 A.D.) had a different take of Matthew 16:18 as well:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”(Matt. 16:18, 19) Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.^[8] - Emphasis mine.

    So Cyprian viewed the Bishops as the plural rulers of the Church, not Peter as the singular head of all Christendom. Cyprian underlines his doctrine of a Church lead by an egalitarian school of bishops in De unit. eccl. = On The Unity Of The Church:

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”⁴ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”⁶ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.^[9] – Emphasis mine.

    So by the time of the Third Century A.D., there were at least two, possibly three opinions on the meaning of Matthew 16:18ff in the Church. I next investigated the various titles of the Papacy such as the ‘Vicar of Christ’. What In found in the Fathers was little:

Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ (John 14:26), and for this asked of the Father that He might be the teacher of truth (John 15:26); grant, also, that He, the Steward of God, the Vicar of Christ,^§ neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was preaching by the apostles,—is it likely that so many churches, and they so great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? ^[10]

    One passing mention by Tertullian – that’s it until you get to the last volume where it is brought up as an item of controversy between the churches of the East and the West:

Canon XXXIX

Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.^[11]

    It is worth noting that the translator comments, “I have translated the whole canon literally; the reader will judge of its antiquity.”^[12]Apparently, he didn’t trust the authenticity of the quote and in the Elucidations section following his work on Cyprian, he also wonders how much that is in the text regarding the authority of the Pope has been interpolated or “forced” into the text we now have:

How differently our Lord must have settled this inquiry had He given the supremacy to one of the Apostles, or had He designed the supremacy of any single pastor to be perpetual in His Church! “Who should be greatest?” ask this question of any Romanist theologian, and he answers, in the words of the Creed of Plus IV., “the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Christ.” But why was no such answer given by our Lord? And why does St. Peter know nothing of it when he says, “The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an eider … feed the flock of God, taking the oversight … not as being lords over God’s heritage,” etc. So also in the Council of Jerusalem, how humbly he sits under the presidency of James, and again how cheerfully he permits the apostles to send him forth, and “give him mission” to Samaria!² St. Paul, moreover, who was “not a whit behind the chiefest of the Apostles,” overrules him, and reforms his judgment.⁴

If I have forborne in these notes to refer frequently to the Treatise of Bishop Sage, who often elucidates our author in a very learned manner, it is because he is almost wholly a controvertist, and therefore not to my purpose in this work. For his Cyprian, however, I entertain a sincere respect; and, as it might seem otherwise should I omit all reference to that work, I place its title in the footnote. Profoundly do I feel what another Scottish Doctor⁶ has beautifully said, “It is a loss, even to those that oppose errors and divisions, that they are forced to be busied that way.”^[13]

    This got me intrigued about some of the other titles like Pontifex Maximus, the material just got worse. The 1^st reference to the title is in regards to the old Roman pagan religion and its priestly class:

To idols, at all events, both monogamy and widowhood serve as apparitors. On Fortuna Muliebris, as on Mother Matuta, none but a once wedded woman hangs the wreath. Once for all do the Pontifex Maximus and the wife of a Flamen marry. The priestesses of Ceres, even during the lifetime and with the consent of their husbands, are widowed by amicable separation.^[14]

    There is a rich irony in the fact that Rome would have us believe that Tertullian gives us support for the Petrine doctrine they find in Matthew 16:18ff but Tertullian was critical of the idolatrous Pontifex Maximus of his time! Tertullian (in another work of his) also goes after the ‘Christian’ Pontifex Maximus:

In opposition to this (modesty), could I not have acted the dissembler? I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and a peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the bishop of bishops§—issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged (the requirements of) repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. ^[15]

    Where someone came down on these issues (at least you would think) may have been colored by where they came down on controversies facing the Church – but that doesn’t seem to be a completely reliable indicator. Cyprian was part of the accepted Catholic Church and his view was that Bishops were equals (see above page 3). The strongest statement supporting the authority of the Papacy was by Tertullian (a Montanist, never canonized as a ‘Saint’ by Rome[16]). The writings of Cyprian do seem to leave the impression that the Novatianists valued the office of the Papacy though:

To these also it was not sufficient that they had withdrawn from the Gospel, that they had taken away from the lapsed the hope of satisfaction and repentance, that they had taken away those involved in frauds or stained with adulteries, or polluted with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, lest they should entreat God, or make confession of their crimes in the Church, from all feeling and fruit of repentance; that they had set up outside for themselves—outside the Church, and opposed to the Church, a conventicle of their abandoned faction, when there had flowed together a band of creatures with evil consciences, and unwilling to entreat and to satisfy God. After such things as these, moreover, they still dare—a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics—to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; § and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.^[17] – Emphasis mine.

    At the time Cyprian was being elected as the Catholic Bishop of Carthage, he was opposed by Fortunatus, a Presbyter of Carthage who was of the Novatianist party and who supported a rival candidate named Felicissimus.[18]

    I think it is here worthwhile to make a brief excursus and bring to mind the warnings regarding the Anti-Christ in Scripture:

1)    ³⁶ “Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done. ³⁷ He shall regard neither the God of his fathers nor the desire of women, nor regard any god; for he shall exalt himself above them all.^[19] – Emphasis mine.

2)     ²⁰ If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— ²¹ “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” ²² (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? ²³ These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh. ^[20] – Emphasis mine.

3)     ¹Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, ² through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, ³ who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.^[21] – Emphasis mine.

    It is well worth while to remember that the Novatianist sect was a rigorist sect while the Catholic Church at this time was more tolerant of human failings.[22]So Cyprian who has a more democratic (equality among Bishops) ideal of Church polity found himself at odds with a rigorist sect which wanted to install both an alternative Bishop (to Cyprian) and assume the “throne of Peter” to use Cyprian’s words. An interesting development here is that while Cyprian was more forgiving of the lapsed than the Novatianists were, Stephen, the present Bishop of Rome was more tolerant in regard to the Baptism received from heretics, etc.[23]It is also noteworthy that Stephen was the 1^st Bishop of Rome to lay claim to Matthew 16;18ff.[24]Cyprian did not like Stephen’s authoritarian view of his own importance and made no bones about his feelings:

And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter ^§, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity^§§. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice.^[25] – Emphasis mine.

    Cyprian probably saw Stephen as a power-hungry compromiser. The same schismatics who didn’t think Cyprian was strict enough over his tolerance of the lapsed had a positive view of Stephen because he accepted their baptisms as valid (they were Trinitarian after all and Stephen was opposed to rebaptism on principle) while Cyprian believed that only baptisms done by the true Church were valid. So Cyprian believed in a democratic polity of bishops within an authoritarian Church while Stephen believed in a single, authoritarian Bishop and democratic sacraments. Cyprian thought he was watching the rise of the Anti-Christ when Stephen was Bishop of Rome:

It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.⁴ But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.

Cæcilius of Bilta said: I know only one baptism in the Church, and none out of the Church. This one will be here, where there is the true hope and the certain faith. For thus it is written: “One faith, one hope, one baptism;”⁶ not among heretics, where there is no hope, and the faith is false, where all things are carried on by lying; where a demoniac exorcises; where one whose mouth and words send forth a cancer puts the sacramental interrogation;⁸ the faithless gives faith; the wicked bestows pardon of sins; and Antichrist baptizes in the name of Christ; he who is cursed of God blesses; he who is dead promises life; he who is unpeaceful gives peace; the blasphemer calls upon God; the profane person administers the office of the priesthood; the sacrilegious person establishes an altar. In addition to all these things, there is also this evil, that the priests of the devil dare to celebrate the Eucharist; or else let those who stand by them say that all these things concerning heretics are false. ^[26] - Emphasis mine.

    Was Cyprian correct in asserting that Stephen was an Anti-Christ? There are some things to be considered:

1. Stephen made himself the ‘rock’ of the Church when Scripture says that Christ is the Rock (Ps. 118:22, Isa. 28:16,1 Cor. 10:4, Eph. 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4-6).
2. The Papacy usurps the Trinity, Pope = Father, but we are to call no man ‘Father’ in the spiritual sense but God,[27] as Pontifex Maximus[28] and Vicar of Christ the Papacy puts itself between God and man, usurping the role of mediator[29] that the Son serves and the Pope’s role of ‘teacher of the whole Christian Church’ usurps the role of the Holy Spirit:

I write these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. ^[30]

EPILOGUE

    It would be to go after low hanging fruit to delve into the Avignon Popes, the crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the growth of the cult of the saints and Mariolatry especially but I decided going into this I was going to write a paper, not a tome. It is enough for me for the purposes of this paper to show that men of faith and good character saw that men who cared more about power than truth and who abused the Word of God in order to secure that power did so:

 . . . There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. ¹⁷ You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. ^[31]

---

[1] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (2 Th 2:3–4). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

^[2] The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. 2009 (Mt 16:18–19). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

^[3] Holmes, M. W. (2010). The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Mt 16:18). Logos Bible Software.

[4] Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon oh the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2^nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979, 654-655.

^[5] Tertullian. (1885). The Prescription against Heretics P. Holmes, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (253). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^[6] Tertullian. (1885). On Modesty S. Thelwall, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (99). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^[7] Hippolytus of Rome. (1886). The Discourse on the Holy Theophany S. D. F. Salmond, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (237). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

^[8] Cyprian of Carthage. The Epistles of Cyprian, ANF, Vol. V (305).

^[9] Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Church, ANF, Vol. V (422).

^[10] Tertullian. The Prescription against Heretics, ANF, Vol. III: 256.

§ [Tertullian knows no other Vicar of Christ than the Holy Spirit. They who attribute infallibility to any mortal man become Montanists; they attribute the Paraclete’s voice to their oracle.]

^[11] The Captions of the Arabic Canons Attributed to the Council of Nice H. R. Percival, Trans.). (1900). In P. Schaff & H. Wace (Eds.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils. 1900 (P. Schaff & H. Wace, Ed.) (48). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

^[12] Ibid.

^[13] ANF, Vol. V: 561–562.

^[14] Tertullian. On Monogamy, ANF, Vol. IV: 72.

^[15] Tertullian. On Modesty. ANF, Vol. IV, 74.

§ Zephyrinus or (his predecessor).

[16] He is not included in The Book Of Saints, a popular and very complete devotional reference compiled by the Benedictine Monks of St. Augustine’s Abbey.

^[17] Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian, ANF, Vol. V: 344.

§ [The Apostolic See of the West was necessarily all this in the eyes of an unambitious faithful Western co-bishop; but the letter itself proves that it was not the See of one who had any authority over or apart from his co-bishops. Let us not read into his expressions ideas which are an after-thought, and which conflict with the life and all the testimony of Cyprian.]

^[18] Smith, William and Henry Wace. A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines A to D Vol. 2. London: William Clowes and Sons, 1877, 555. Some authors used Novatianist and Donatist interchangeably or anachronistically.

^[19] The New King James Version. 1982 (Daniel 11:36–37). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

^[20] ESV, Colossians 2:20–23.

^[21] ESV (1 Ti 4:1–3).

[22] Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Nicene And Post-Nicene, Volume III. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910, 187.

[23] Kelly, J. N. D. and M. J. Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986, 16-17.

[24] Ibid.

^[25] Cyprian of Carthage. (1886). The Epistles of Cyprian R. E. Wallis, Trans.). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (394–395). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

§ [This place and succession are conceded in the argument; but Stephen himself does not appear to have claimed to be the Rock or to exercise the authority of Peter. Vol. iii. p. 266.]

§§ [Stephen abolishes the Rock, and “deserts unity;” here, then, is evidence that he was not the one, nor the criterion of the other.]

^[26] The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian R. E. Wallis, Trans.). (1886). In A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe (Eds.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. 1886 (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) (565–566). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.

[27] ESV, Matthew 23:8–10.

[28] Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Re 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. This handle was adopted by the Roman emperors, who used the Latin title Pontifex Maximus, which means “Major Keeper of the Bridge.” And the same title was later used by the bishop of Rome. The pope today is often called the pontiff, which comes from pontifex.

[29] ESV, 1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 9:15 & Hebrews 12:24.

^[30] ESV, 1 John 2:26–27.

^[31] ESV, 2 Peter 3:16–17.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English Lexicon oh the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 2^nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Holmes, M. W. The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition. Logos Bible Software. 2010.

Kelly, J. N. D. and M. J. Walsh, Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Schaff, Phillip & Henry Wace (Eds.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900.

Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church: Nicene And Post-Nicene, Volume III. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.

Smith, William and Henry Wace. A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Literature, Sects and Doctrines A to D Vol. 2. London: William Clowes and Sons, 1877.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume III: Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume IV: Fathers of the Third Century: Tertullian, Part Fourth; Minucius Felix; Commodian; Origen, Parts First and Second (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company. 1885.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume V: Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix (A. Roberts, J. Donaldson & A. C. Coxe, Ed.) Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.

The Book Of Saints: A Dictionary Of Servants Of God Canonized By The Catholic Church: Extracted From The Roman & OtherMartyrologies, Compiled by The Benedictine Monks Of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Ramsgate, 4^th Ed. Revised and Enlarged, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. Wheaton: Standard Bible Society, 2001.

The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009.

The New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.

Walvoord, J. F., Zuck, R. B., & Dallas Theological Seminary. (1985). The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures (Re 17:3–5). Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.