I’m a baptist, so clearly I will struggle with this the most First of all, to baptize in Greek means to submerge, so a few water sprinklings to me is improper. The didache instructs to baptize in living water, and if you don’t have access to it to immerse in a pool, and if you don’t have that then you do the little sprinkle. Anyways, I take issue with baptismal regeneration. I’m not saying baptism can’t make you regenerate. I’m saying usually you are regenerate before baptism. Lutherans, for example, believe in baptismal regeneration. They say in veryyy rare cases, someone can be regenerate before baptism. But that’s the opposite of what I’ve seen. Most of the time, people who come to church have already had some sort of spiritual experience. Then they take a baptism class for like a month. You can see them completely turn their lives around and that is none other than the work of the Holy Spirit. I think it’s very rare (like very rare) that baptism and regeneration happen at the exact same millisecond. So do anglicans believe that it’s more common to be regenerate during baptism than before it ? I think this would go against all observable evidence of how people behave. My second issue is original sin and infants. Call me a heretic, but I don’t believe adams sin is directly imputed to us and we are personally guilty for what he did. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” Romans 5:12 So death passed to all men through adams sin. That’s why children can die. But I don’t believe any of us are personally guilty for Adams sin, we are guilty for our own sin. “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.” Ezekiel 18:20 This looks like to me that children will not be punished for the sin of their parent, so we cannot be guilty for the sin of Adam. We are guilty for our own sin. Children who don’t sin still die, however. But it is because we inherited a fallen nature from Adam (not his sin), so that all human beings are born separated from God, and inherit the temptation to sin. Now, as to Christ, we all are conceived in iniquity, all except him of course. So it’s impossible for death to be transferred to him, because he was conceived of a woman and the Holy Ghost. And yet he inherited the same infirmity of the flesh from Mary, was tempted, but without sin. Another thing “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.” Hebrews 7:9-10 So we are all in the loins of our ancestors. I believe this means that we were all in the loins of Adam when he sinned. So if any of us had been in the place of either Adam or eve, we would have done the same sin they did (clearly Mary being sinless is off the table here).I believe all of humanity was born with an inclination to rebel against God, not just Adam and Eve. So that is why death has passed even to infants. Christ is the only one who broke that vicious cycle for us, and has redeemed us with his blood. With all this being said, I don’t believe baptism washes away original sin, because to me original sin is a fallen nature, not actual sin imputed to you. No offense to all who believe this, but I think this whole baptismal regeneration original sin thing with infants gets way out of hand. Like nurses sprinkling water on a still born child with a needle to baptize it , or women baptizing their miscarried babies… I think it’s a little ridiculous and almost a belief that a work, baptism, can save you. Like if you’re a baby you get water sprinkled on you in the name of the trinity and you’re all good, but if you don’t then you may go to hell. I’d love to know where the Bible teaches such a concept, ex opere operato baptism. Baptism is the means which God has chosen to apply forgiveness of sins and bury us in Christ. That does not mean you need to needle sprinkle a half dead infant in the hospital. Christ repeatedly has said let the little children come to me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. He said we need to be born again of water and spirit, and to become like a child to enter the kingdom of heaven. It’s ridiculous to say unbaptized children go to hell when “theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” or when we need to become like a child to go to heaven. Why would we need to become like someone that’s going to hell unless they get sprinkled? Baptism is a great gift from god, and I feel often people take it to the extreme. Baptism saves us, it does not condemn us. Never does the Bible say baptism condemns. If in an adult the desire to get baptized is enough not be damned to hell if they die, as even the RCC teaches, then children who cannot possibly reject God can’t go to hell. This is not some issue of wether its unfair, so please don’t point that out. I firmly believe the Bible does not teach this. Also, hell is made by God to torture those who knowingly reject him. I would love to know how an infant can go to hell and be tortured, but they won’t even know why! The whole point of punishing is to know why we are being punished. Since infants don’t know this, they would suffer without purpose. And god has never ever made people suffer without purpose. If I take the Lutheran view of baptism, that children are given faith by the act of baptism, I don’t know where that leaves me with unbaptized children. But the Bible does say baptism makes us buried to sin and alive in Christ. So it is possible children can be given faith by baptism, I just find it so far fetched. I think If you did a study of children that get baptized vs ones that don’t get baptized, the outcome of them growing into adulthood and leaving the faith would be the same. It’s really hard for me to believe this infusion of faith if there’s no proof, and that’s what I’ve seen in my life. I know I’m being overly technical here but still. I think the reformed way makes more sense. It’s a sign and seal. So for children it would be a seal of a future promise they have to live up to, it wouldn’t actually give them saving faith. but I’ve seen most Anglican websites saying they do believe children are given faith so… I think we have to look at not the theology but the actual outcomes. It’s absolutely a fact that people become regenerate a lot of times before baptism, especially with adults. A lot of times it may happen after. I’ve never seen a person have that “turning point” from sin to death and have it be right after they come out the baptistery. It’s usually before their baptism, or maybe a longer process even months after they are baptized. For children, I don’t see kids baptized vs unbaptized behave differently, like the baptized ones start acting regenerate as they get older or something, or that if you’re a baptized child you have a higher chance of staying in the faith. I’m sorry to think of it so technically but I just examine the facts if I don’t see baptism having a life changing radical effect on people MOST of the time, how can I say that’s what happens? The only thing I’ve ever seen having a life changing radical effect on people is faith. Baptismal regeneration sounds nice on paper but it’s far from the typical experience of a person. This may be a case where people say I just need to “have faith” that it’s true, but I can’t have faith in something I see repeatedly being proven wrong. I do believe baptism on an adult regenerates them, In the sense that it’s the last step of regeneration, so that having faith, they are cleansed outwardly and inwardly God applies forgiveness of sins to them as a last seal, and they are grafted into the mystical body of Christ, the church. For infants, if they are given the promise of remission of sin through baptism, since they have not committed any sin, baptism regenerates them because again, God uses the water to outwardly cleanse them, and although they have no sin, they still have a fallen nature. And so they need to be washed of the iniquity they were born in. Baptism also grafts the infant into the body of Christ, the church. As to unbaptized infants, they are not grafted into the church by water physically, but spiritually, the kingdom of heaven belongs to children. So yes, baptism does give some sort of grace. Does it give faith? It can of course, but that’s not what I see happens in most cases. Would I be too out of line here with Anglican beliefs? The 39 articles seem more reformed on baptism but the BCP seems more inclined to baptismal regeneration. Don’t even get me started on infants receiving the Holy Spirit lol, I have never in my life seen a baptized child act regenerate in that way compared to an unbaptized one. The only thing that differentiates Christian parents kids from non Christian parents kids is the upbringing, not the physical water with baptism. Sometimes if the parents are careless with raising kids, you can’t even tell the difference. Really, children need to be old enough and carry their own cross for regeneration to truly take effect.
Although I am much in agreement with you, I'm going to point out some small details. First, does baptism mean immersion? I thought so too, until I joined this forum. But the word baptizo is used in some places in the NT to indicate things other than immersion, such as ritual hand-washing. Also, when it says Jesus went up straightway out of the water (Matt. 3:16), it doesn't really say whether He was fully immersed; it's possible that He stood in the river, had water poured over His head, and then He went up the riverbank and out of the water. We have this mental image of Jesus getting dunked, because that is how it has been preached, but the gospel doesn't really specify. Second, I take note of your statement, "...it is because we inherited a fallen nature from Adam (not his sin), so that all human beings are born separated from God, and inherit the temptation to sin." If a baby is born "separated from God," can you see why the parents would want to re-unite their child with God as quickly as possible? If a baby is born "separated from God" because of the fallen nature inherited from Adam, then the baby is not innocent before God, right? So my question is, do you believe that the baby is born separated from God, or not? My rector would say that even though the baby has not sinned yet, it has inherited the sin nature and will surely (inevitably) sin, and this is enough for the baby to be considered "in a state of original sin." It's the sin nature itself, not the act of sinning. This is why Anglican teaching emphasizes that Jesus' redemptive death and resurrection removes the stain and penalty of both original and actual sin. So the only possible ways around the whole 'original sin' issue are (1) if one can support the idea that being born with Adam's fallen nature does not equate to spiritual separation from God, or (2) if one can support the idea that one is not born with a fallen nature.
XXVII. Of Baptism. Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. I struggle a bit to read your post, partly because the paragraphs are not spaced. Baptism declares our membership in Christ. It is not an inoculation from sin. Your Greek exegesis is of course correct, yet the western tradition of pouring a smaller amount of water over the top of the head has been generally accepted for a very long time. Ultimately it is about principle and intention, rather than the mechanics of the action. I think we should make more of Baptism, and the matter should be taken more seriously. Baptism is the only sacrament that makes a mention on the Nicene Creed.
The issue here is with understanding what 'regeneration' means. Regeneration does not mean a spiritual experience. It doesn't mean becoming a believer. It doesn't mean repentance. In short, it doesn't mean any of the visible things which a baptist would look for. Before the invention of baptist theology, 100% of Christian history has not seen baptism as the 'experience' or something visible and tangible. Therefore we must say that baptists simply misunderstand what baptism is, what regeneration is/looks like. What baptists mean by 'baptism' is what we mean by something like Confirmation, namely that after that moment, the person is expected to have the presence of the holy ghost, and to evidence a greater sanctification and holiness. Thus both of our traditions use the same word 'baptism', but we understand radically different things by it. And since church history understood it in the Anglican sense, the baptist has a steep hill to travel to defend why theirs is the better understanding. One example of how the ancient understanding of baptism is different from the Baptists, is the Emperor Constantine. Did you know that he freed The Church from captivity, ended all persecutions; he fought against heathen armies for the Church, and even on the Milvian Bridge saw the cross in the sky and the letters, "Under this sign you will conquer". And yet he WAS NOT baptized. The man was not a Christian, even as he was doing all those Christian things. He probably even accepted Christ, before his baptism; hence the sign at the Milvian Bridge. The reason for his delay, was, that he understood that baptism (among other benefits) forgives all sins; so he reasoned that if he got baptized at the very end, he'd have the safest road. And that's what he did, get baptized on his deathbed. Now obviously the theologians cautioned him that he cannot delay his baptism because his soul is in danger, but he made that wager. And there we see a clear illustration of the ancient understanding of Baptism. Another window into the true nature of baptism is the Old Testament circumcision. Here was a physical act; which while it did not save, yet without it one could not be saved. And it was not itself expected to produce holiness and sanctification among the Jews. In short, what is baptism and regeneration? Baptism and regeneration is simply the engrafting of the person into the Body of Christ, into the Church. It is not something we do, even a little. It is 100% the sovereign work of God, and we are passive in it. God takes a dead tree trunk, and gives it the capacity for life. That doesn't mean the tree trunk will necessarily flower and flourish in visible ways (because it still needs the holy ghost), but at least it hypothetically can. Without baptism we still have a dead tree husk, and no amount of the holy ghost can make us spiritually alive. In short, Baptism and the regeneration gives us a new spiritual body (albeit without the holy ghost just yet), and with it, a slate clean of all sins.
And I would say that it was a patently un-Biblical, faulty understanding. Back then the Church was erroneously teaching that baptism forgives all sins; the proposition that a physical act or deed could merit forgiveness of sins is expressly disavowed in great detail by the letter to the Galatians. Only God knows if Constantine actually had faith unto salvation. But either he had it before baptism, or probably he never had it. Oh, really??? You're assuming the result (regeneration) in order to prove the result (regeneration) with circular reasoning. Baptism most certainly is something we do. It's a physical act which a non-infant person would have to consent to doing, then do it. It's as physical as giving alms or doing penances or any of a hundred other things human beings have sometimes performed in an attempt to obtain justification.
When one thinks about it, isn't it amazing that the Nicene Creed says nothing about repentance? Why doesn't it say we believe in repentance for the forgiveness of sins? I guess all we need is baptism! (But then, did Constantine have the right idea? One baptism to a customer, and he wanted those late-in-life sins forgiven, and baptism was the key, right?) I do have a problem with reciting that portion of the Creed. Anything that elevates performance of a ritual above a change in heart attitude, I have a problem with.
I am not at all sure why Constantine gets a mention here. This phrase in the Creed was not part of the Creed from the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325 where Constantine was present, and came to be part of the Creed at the 1st Council of Constantinople in 381 by which time Constantine was already baptised, dead and buried. Constantine is indeed a very complex character, who brought an end the the Diocletian persecution of the Church. The principle of One Baptism is about the unity of Christians despite our diversity. As a sign (sacrament) it points us to and declares Christ delivered through the deep waters of death to life in a new dimension. There is a foreshadowing of this through the Old Testament, where we see water and salvation inexorably linked, the the account of the Great Flood, Jacobs Well, The Crossing of the Red Sea. Jesus does not go on being crucified, it is once for all. Baptism in the same way is a once for all. And before you be too dismissive of the sacrament, I would remind you that it is a sacrament that is in response to the command of Jesus. Matthew 28:19-20 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. I have no intent to divorce believing from Baptism, however there is no doubt that Baptism was especially important in the Apostolic Church, in the sub-Apostolic Church, the early Church and in the Church of the Conciliar period. Trivialising the Holy Sacrament as merely ritual is a novelty and I suspect a modern error. Music is merely sound waves beating on the eardrum, yet music carried with it many things, memories, association, feelings and emotions, and we encounter in music many things which are not physical at all, and we simply let the music do it's work. So it is with the Sacrament of Baptism, we should be prepared to recognise that through this outward and Physical Act the Holy Spirit is at work in ways that we can only begin to imagine. so
I am not sure how that is elevating anything. God forgives sins. He forgives man of his sins, that he has committed, up to his Baptism through Baptism that requires the act of God to accomplish as God forgives him of his sins. The man only follows through with what God told him to do. It does not save him. Only saving faith can save him.
Constantine was brought up by @Stalwart, I replied to him, you replied to my reply to him, etc. Article 27 - Baptism Baptism is not only a sign of profession and mark of difference by which Christian men are discerned from other that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God, by the Holy Spirit are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God. The baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. I think it's important to note that baptism is said to be a sign of regeneration or new birth, not the moment or the event at which regeneration or new birth necessarily occurs. Nor is it said to be the event at which forgiveness necessarily occurs, but it is a sign that the baptized individual is forgiven. In the case of an adult, the new birth will (or certainly should!) have occurred prior to the baptism. However, it is conceivable that a person might coincidentally happen to come to true faith in Christ at the moment of his baptism. It is also possible for an adult to be insincere, and his baptism would amount to nothing (he did not "receive baptism rightly"). Obviously it is not the baptism per se that ushers in forgiveness and regeneration. In the case of an infant being baptized, the infant is being welcomed into the local church family, and that family (the parish) joins with the sponsors (parents, etc.) in making a commitment to bring up the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and to pray that the child might one day appropriate that which is being signified in the baptism ceremony. The parish and sponsors express their confidence that the Holy Spirit will do all that He can do, short of violating the child's free will, to enable that child to one day appropriate the promises. The greatest reservation and misgiving I have about infant baptism is that it encourages the gross error of viewing baptism as the event by which forgiveness and regeneration necessarily occur in the life of the person being baptized. I think this error crept into the church rather early, partly because human beings are so apt to look for physical reassurances of invisible, spiritual truths and partly because of the belief (which I think is false) that an unbaptized infant could die "in a state of sin" and be lost for eternity. (What of the stillborn? And what of the late-term aborted children?)
In infant Baptism original Sin is washed away. They will still have to repent of any future sins and it does mean that they are always going to be a Christian but in that specific moment in time God does the work and washes t hem of original sin and grafts them into the church.
In your view, what happens to a baby who dies without ever being baptized? (IOW, what is the consequence of dying in a state of Original Sin?)
Babies are given special grace. They are Baptized to be grafted in to the church and to have their original sin forgiven. It is expected that they will grow up to adults and make choices for themselves but since they are babies and incapable of anything really they are given a special grace. We worship a merciful God not a God bound by rules that he can't act out of.
Of course here I am not really defending what I think of original sin. I am just stating the typical traditional Western theology on the matter. I tend to agree with the Orthodox on Original Sin.
We can talk about sin and guilt in three ways. First there is primordial sin, the sin of Adam. We understand this not in terms of inherited guilt, but in terms of a fallen world. Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt. Second, there is generational sin, which we see in terms of specific propensities to sin. A child of alcoholics, for example, will inherit not the guilt of his parents but the tendency to sin as they did, or other sins associated with this generational heritage. Again, we do not have to submit to this sinful heritage, we do not have to carry it on ourselves. Finally, there is personal sin, the stuff we do ourselves, whether as perpetuation of the general fallenness of this world, the generational fallenness of our parents or surroundings, or as the invention of sins of our own. A person becomes guilty when they personally sin. A child is not guilty until they make sin a personal decision, either consciously or unconsciously. It is true that baptism is the washing away of sin, and one could say that it seems senseless to baptize a child if they have no inherited guilt to wash away. However, Christ’s sacrifice, in to which we are baptized, was a sacrifice of His whole life as a submission to God— “not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42)—and His death on the Cross not only washed away our sins, but also destroyed death itself. When we are baptized we are baptized into His life and death (Romans 6:4), and we become co-beneficiaries of a life which finally brought God and man into a union of love and a harmony of will. The infant is initiated into that union. This initiation will include the forgiveness of their sins, but is not limited to that forgiveness. The life and death of Christ, which reverses the primordial, generational, and personal falleness of this world, is what the child enters through baptism. http://ww1.antiochian.org/content/infant-baptism-what-church-believes When I read this it does tend to agree with the 39 articles, or at least the way I read them. This is also is the way I lean
IX. Of Original or Birth-Sin. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation. And this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated; whereby the lust of the flesh, called in Greek, φρονημα σαρκος, (which some do expound the wisdom, some sensuality, some the affection, some the desire, of the flesh), is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized; yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. When I read this and then read what I posted from the link from an EO church I feel like I read the same thing. "Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, (as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the Nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam; whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit; and therefore in every person born into this world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation." " Primordial sin introduced sickness, suffering, evil, and death into God’s perfect creation (1 John 5:19; Romans 5:12). We are born into Adam’s sin in that we are born into a fallen world. But without our participation, there is no guilt." I don't see a lot of light between the two quotes I just posted.
In the Rite of Baptism, it is indeed the moment: There are 2 problems I see here: 1. You're not willing to define the terms. What is regeneration? Is it something visible or invisible? How is it connected to the rest of the Christian's life? I have plentifully filled in those details, on the basis of Anglican divinity and patristic precedents. You're using the amorphous American evangelical meanings of those words which have no definitions (and no basis). So I am not surprised that you bristle against the definitions of baptism I've presented. But I simply ask you to question and critique your foundations, and if you do so, you'll see they're missing, and the orthodox Anglican one is right. 2. You should be willing to submit yourself to higher authorities, as should I. After all you're not your own Pope. And neither am I. The Reformation was not fought so as to turn one Pope into a million of them. The Christian Commonwealth stands above any individual Christian person, who is often misled by vanity, short-sightedness, and long-standing prejudices.
Regeneration is the new birth, salvation, the communication of a new life produced by the two operating powers of "the word of truth" (James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:23) and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5,6). All human 'authorities' must submit to the word of God, which is more authoritative than they. I'm not being "my own Pope" when I read in scripture over and over and over again that the new birth comes by God's grace and is received through the operation of faith; how, pray tell, is an infant going to have faith in Christ unto salvation? It's the scriptures on baptism, not the ones concerning faith, that take some interpretative skill; the scriptures concerning the new birth are as plain as day. "...[H]e gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Not "whosoever is baptized," but whosoever believeth.
One of the areas of concern I have here is that there is a lot of focus of the faith of the candidate, and not so much a focus on the faith of the community of faith, the great congregation of the faithful, the Church. The essence of the Baptismal rite, asks: Question Do you turn to Jesus Christ and confess him as your Lord and Savior? Answer I do. Question Do you joyfully receive the Christian Faith, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments? Answer I do. Question Will you obediently keep God’s holy will and commandments, and walk in them all the days of your life? Answer I will, the Lord being my helper. BCP 2019 This of course is somewhat less wordy than the 1661/2 BCP rite Minister. DOST thou, in the name of this Child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them? Answer. I renounce them all. Minister. DOST thou believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth? And in Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son our Lord? And that he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary; that he suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; that he went down into hell, and also did rise again the third day; that he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; and from thence shall come again at the end of the world, to judge the quick and the dead? And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy Catholick Church; the Communion of Saints; the Remission of sins; the Resurrection of the flesh; and everlasting life after death? Answer. All this I stedfastly believe. Minister. WILT thou be baptized in this faith? Answer. That is my desire. Minister. WILT thou then obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life? Answer. I will. Of course I do understand that the contemporary rites have relied on ancient tradition and early manuscripts that were probably not discovered at the time of the reformation. Some of these ancient rites of course predate the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, and indeed probably also the Roman Symbol. The essence of the rite at this point is turning, or in Greek metanoiya. Firstly this involves to turning to Christ. It is here in the person of Jesus I will look for salvation. Secondly is a turning away from evil, the vain pomp and glory of the world. Thirdly is the aligning of one's future direction in conformity with the revealed will and commandments of God. Baptism, Baptise or Baptised, occurs 82 times in the New Testament. It is not an insignificant part of the life of the early Church. It seems to me not unreasonable for the church to have some faith in this sacrament as an express command of our Saviour from the beginning. If the Church reacts as if it doesn't mean anything, it is just a sign or a symbol, then we make the sacrament a pale shadow. The effectiveness of the rite depends on both the faith of the candidate and the faith of the community of faith. If you don't think God works in and through Baptism, if you think it doesn't matter to God, then you have quite a few scriptures to explain, before you start working you way through the early church fathers. Tertullian, writing around ad 203: Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life … Baptism itself is a corporeal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins.