Faith and Baptism

Faith only before baptism is contrasted with faith only after baptism, it is the difference between anti-nomialist baptists and protestants. Protestants such as Luther did not use faith only to say baptism was not part of salvation, this occurred more during the rise of Wesleyan theology and Calvinism. Prior to those groups protestants continued the Catholic view of baptism.

Faith only was applied by earliest protestants after baptism, but this website will discuss both theories, faith only before or after.

As with the section on faith and holiness, we can show faith only isn't true either way.

We can conclude Wesleyan and Baptiist groups aren't properly protestant but form a separate schism. It is through the Baptist and Wesleyan groups that "faith Only" was applied to salvation without baptism. We do see some exceptions to baptism being theorized prior, such as in the 4th century, and in the 2nd century a Bishop said God could accept them (Those improperly Baptized) if he chose, but did not say God actually chose to. His idea was the church wouldn't accept improperly baptized or non-baptized. He just left room for God to make such choices but never concluded God had accepted anyone.

The first formal teaching on exceptions to baptism was the Catholic doctrine of "Baptism Of Desire", It held that Catechumens who had studied for baptism or desired it and died before receiving it were still saved. This was incorporated with "Baptism By Blood" for martyrs that died before receiving baptism.

This of course violated Ambroses teaching against exceptions.

"Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by some necessity." (Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 2,11,84 -- AD 387) 

Thus Catholics were not always consistent, but those teaching exceptions broke from earlier teaching in these two areas.

Both exceptions were made necessary because Catholics began to delay baptism for long periods instead of following the New Testament practice of same day baptism such as in Acts 2. All New Testament Baptism were same day without delay if the one being taught came to faith. , In later periods Men often delayed baptism until their death beds for various purposes, perhaps to avoid being associated with Christianity when there were social or political reasons to avoid identification. Perhaps in some cases a lack of water might delay baptism a few days or a short period of study was set aside. As delays became weeks, months, and even years exceptions were introduced.

Such doctrines had no direct statements from scripture to support them, but were based upon reason about God's mercy. Yet, the teaching of the apostles clearly marked baptism in Christ's name, and purposeful delays showed a lack of faith in these statements. Those procrastinating met the demise of several parables, such as the parable of the ten virgins who were unprepared when the bride groom visited at an odd hour.

The question is, can faith only be applied before baptism? Can we enter the body of Christ before baptism? I guess it depends upon how literally you take baptism passages.

1Co 12:13

For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Rom 6:3

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

As you can see the wording is that all entered the Body of Christ the same way, and there doesn't appear any direct exceptions, any exceptions taught would be theory and not of direct support.

Based upon this question groups arose and schisms broke out separating into three camps.

1. Faith without baptism.

2. Faith through baptism.

3. Faithless baptism {infant}

So which is the New Testament concept? One set of verses that helps clarify this are

Gal 3:26

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:27

For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

The word "For" in verse 27 ties the two verses together, vs 27 explains vs 26. Thus,

Faith thru baptism is the correct theology. Anywhere faith is mentioned all parts of the covenant are assumed. This includes baptism and anything Christ or the apostles enjoined in the covenant.

Faith is the enjoining of a covenant promise, and belief in that enjoined. Baptism is putting your faith in Christ and his work. It is a promise, thus it falls under the concept of faith. Baptism is through faith.

Baptists or Wesleyans who teach faith only apart from baptism are a false theology and they mis-represent faith. Catholics who taught exceptions, though few cases apply, have little support except theory.

In cases where baptism was delayed for social or other purposes we must question, those having time to fill their lamps but choose not too may not receive mercy from the groom. Christ can choose not to allow exceptions.

Mat 25:1

Mat 25:13

Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.