Believers of Acts 2:38 down through history?

[Aquila]

In recent discussions I've been hard on the position of absolute adherence to Acts 2:38 as we understand it on the grounds that it creates a "gap" leaving essentially no one saved down through the ages of human history. In my research on this I found an article that is rather provocative. I want to know if what is stated here is true or is it Apostolic revisionism? If true, I have found a significant answer to my questions. Here's the article:

Source: http://www.articleseen.com/Article_j...ory_87677.aspx

"Baptism in the name of Jesus has evidently existed throughout church history and is now enjoying a great revival. The early church history is explored to include Catholics and others who originally baptized in the name of Jesus. The middle ages also had groups who testified to this mode of baptism. Lastly, the modern groups who once baptized in the name of Jesus (Assemblies of God, Quakers, and many others) and those who continue to keep this practice of the Apostles."

"Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us. (Hebrews 12:1). Since all doctrine must be based on Scripture alone and not on man's traditions, creeds, or philosophies (Galatians 1:8-9; Colossians 2:8; 2 Timothy 3:16-17), we have based all conclusions in this book on the Bible. However, many people have never heard the doctrines we have presented, and some assume them to be modern inventions. Although history cannot alter or replace biblical truth, the study of these doctrines in church history is very enlightening.

Problems in Studying Church History
There are several difficulties that the student of church history, particularly ancient history, must consider:

(1) Doctrinal bias of church historians. Modern historians often interpret the statements of ancient writers from the perspective of their own beliefs, finding teachings that simply are not there. On the other hand, the doctrinal positions of historians can limit their understanding of doctrines that did exist.

(2) Doctrinal bias of ancient church writers. Consciously or unconsciously, ancient writers sometimes distorted or misrepresented the views of their doctrinal opponents. As a result, we do not always have an adequate presentation of certain ancient views, especially minority views. For example, what concept of Oneness would future generations have if their only source of information were articles written by trinitarians? Likewise, skeptical observers have often described worshipers in ways that made them appear ridiculous, absurd, ignorant, or mentally deranged. For example, what would someone think of Pentecostals if he read only the accounts of cynical opponents?

(3) Possibility of interpolations (additions to ancient manuscripts). Most of our information about church history comes from manuscripts that were copied hundreds of years after the original writings. In many cases the copyists changed or inserted certain lines to create support for particular doctrines. For example, a number of the epistles of the post-apostolic fathers exist in short and long versions. Obviously, one form (probably the longer one) is corrupt and reflects changes made by generations of editors and scribes. As another example, an ancient Christian writing called the Didache was apparently written in the 2nd century, but the only Greek manuscript we have of it dates from the 11th century. This means errors and deliberate changes could have accumulated over 900 years, and the document may reflect teachings from Roman Catholicism.

(4) Existing documents may not reflect the views of the average believer of that time period. In times when many people were not literate and books had to be handwritten, theological documents tended to be written and copied by the educated elite. Then, as now, theologians were frequently more liberal in their doctrines than were the majority of believers.

(5) History is written by the victors. Many who opposed officially accepted doctrines were persecuted so that they had little opportunity to leave an adequate written record of their beliefs. The documents they did write were usually destroyed and not recopied. For evidence of a minority doctrine to survive at all often means it must have been very prevalent in its day. Surviving records probably reveal only a fraction of those who actually held the belief.

(6) False doctrines existed from the earliest times. There is plenty of evidence in the biblical writings of Paul, Peter, John, and Jude that false doctrines abounded even in the days of the apostles and threatened to overwhelm the church. For this reason, the antiquity of a writer is no guarantee of his doctrinal purity.

Repentance and Water Baptism
The church leaders of the early post-apostolic era (A.D. 90-140) taught that baptism was for believers only and that repentance was necessary for baptism to be of any value. Lutheran Professor Otto Heick states, "Baptism, of course, was not meant to work magically. Without repentance and faith it would avail nothing." Lutheran Professor E. H. Klotsche says of the belief in this time: "In closest relation to baptism stands repentance. It is preparatory to baptism." However, when infant baptism began to gain acceptance, theologians began to teach that faith and repentance could follow baptism. This ultimately led to the Roman Catholic sacrament of penance. "When the original sequel of repentance and baptism became inverted by the practice of infant baptism, penance… acquired the status of a sacrament."

Water Baptism by Immersion
Church historians generally agree that the early post-apostolic church practiced immersion. Klotsche says, "The practice of immersion was undoubtedly universal in the early church." Kenneth Scott Latourette affirms this view: "Baptism seems to have been by immersion, at least normally." Some historians assert that other modes were practiced in these early times, but they agree that immersion was the predominant and preferred mode even when others began to develop.

Hermas (early 2nd century) described baptism by immersion and Irenaeus (died 202?) denounced baptism by pouring. Tertullian (died 220?) taught baptism by immersion and disapproved of infant baptism. Cyprian (died 258?) is the earliest apologist for sprinkling, but even he considered immersion to be the normal practice. He described baptism as a dipping but advised sprinkling for the sick. The Didache teaches baptism by immersion, but permits pouring if much water is not available. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (2nd or 3rd century), which contains a parallel passage to this portion of the Didache, teaches immersion but does not mention pouring.

The Eastern Orthodox still practice immersion even for infants, despite the fact that their counterparts in the West, the Roman Catholics, switched to sprinkling. Many Protestants continue in the Catholic tradition even though most early Protestant leaders recognized that immersion was the biblical method. Martin Luther expressed a preference for immersion based on the Greek word baptizo; John Calvin acknowledged immersion as the practice of the Early Church; and John Wesley interpreted Romans 6:3-5 to mean immersion.

Water Baptism as Part of Salvation
Early post-apostolic Christians affirmed baptism as part of salvation. Latourette remarked, "Baptism was believed to wash away all sins committed before it was administered. After baptism, the Christian was supposed not to sin." He also said, "Baptism seems to have been regarded as requisite for the remission of sins and for the new birth through which alone one could enter the Kingdom of God."

With respect to baptism in the first and second centuries the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states, "The dominant ideas were those of forgiveness of sin, regeneration, and the gift of the Holy Spirit… The change effected by baptism was attributed to the name and to the water, which were regarded as actually effective and not merely symbolic." According to Heick, the post-apostolic fathers (A.D. 90-140) taught that "baptism confers the forgiveness of sins." For example, this was the teaching in the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. For the Greek Apologists (A.D. 130-180) baptism was "a washing of forgiveness and a regeneration." They said it "brings pardon and the new life, and is therefore necessary to salvation."

Other early theologians who taught that God remits sins at water baptism were Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Cyprian specifically described water baptism as the birth of the water in John 3:5, and Hippolytus and Cyprian identified water baptism as the laver of regeneration in Titus 3:5. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles paraphrases John 3:5 as, "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven."

Tertullian taught that at water baptism the believer has his sins washed away, is born in water, and is prepared for the Holy Spirit. He believed that John's baptism pointed towards future remission of sins and that Christ's disciples continued John's baptism during Christ's earthly ministry. He described baptism as a seal of faith that is necessary to salvation, stating that John 3:5 "has tied faith to the necessity of baptism."

These men and writings represent many different theological factions, and we do not endorse all of their doctrines; nevertheless it is interesting to see that all agreed on the necessity of baptism. Third century controversies over heretic baptisms demonstrate that all Christendom of the time agreed that "there can be only one baptism, and that this baptism is essential to salvation."

Roman Catholics have always taught the essentiality of baptism, but have transformed it from an act of faith into a sacramental act by teaching the necessity and validity of infant baptism despite the lack of personal faith and repentance. This incorrectly presumes that regeneration comes by the power of the ceremony itself instead of by grace through faith.

Among Protestants, Martin Luther held that baptism is a necessary part of salvation. Article IX of the Augsburg Confession (an early Lutheran creed) states, "Baptism is necessary to salvation."

The Lutheran Catechism says, "Baptism is no trifle, but was instituted by God Himself, … it is most solemnly commanded that we must be baptized or we cannot be saved." In accordance with his emphasis on justification by faith, Luther taught that baptism was effective only through faith, but still held that God actually forgives sin at the moment of water baptism. Luther even taught the validity of infant baptism, based on the theory that God gives faith to infants. In our estimation, Luther was incorrect in teaching infant faith and infant baptism, but he was correct in simultaneously affirming justification by faith and the essentiality of water baptism.

Most Protestants after Luther began to teach that baptism is symbolic only, but this is a comparatively new doctrine in church history and not all Protestants accept it. In addition to Luther and his followers, the Churches of Christ teach that water baptism is necessary in order to obtain remission of sins. United Church of Christ theologian Donald Bloesch stated, "Baptism plays a prominent role in our conversion and is not just a symbol of our conversion." He also wrote, "The overall witness of the New Testament seems to be that baptism by itself is not indispensable for salvation, but baptism joined with repentance and faith becomes the means by which people receive the gift of regeneration."

TO BE CONTINUED...