Infant Baptism and the Early Church: An Introduction to a 5-Part Series

In 1990, David Bercot recorded a lecture defending infant baptism from both Scripture and the testimony of the pre-Nicene Church. The lecture is remarkable not simply because of the case it presents, but because of the man who presented it. Bercot had been raised in a tradition that regarded infant baptism as a serious departure from apostolic Christianity, believing it to be a later innovation introduced centuries after the apostles. Yet after immersing himself in the writings of the earliest Christian authors, he became convinced that the historical evidence overwhelmingly pointed in the opposite direction: infant baptism was not a medieval invention but the ordinary practice of the primitive Church. 

"On this tape, we're going to be looking at what the early Christians believed about baptizing infants.

"But before we talk about what they believed, I want to tell you just a little bit about my own prejudices and preconceived views on this subject. You see, I was raised to believe that infant baptism was a serious heresy, and that it was something introduced into the church by the Roman Catholics sometime after Constantine.

"I'd always, my whole life, held to the view that infant baptism is repugnant to scripture, and I was quite certain that the primitive church didn't practice it.

"So you can imagine my utter chagrin and shock when I read the early Christian writings for myself and discovered, lo and behold, the early Christians did baptize infants." 

Years later, Bercot would revise his own position and identify with the Anabaptist understanding of baptism. That later change has understandably drawn attention, but it also makes this earlier lecture especially valuable. Here we have Bercot at a time when he believed the historical evidence strongly supported infant baptism, carefully laying out the biblical and patristic arguments that had persuaded him to abandon his former convictions. Regardless of where one ultimately lands on the issue, this lecture remains one of the clearest presentations of the historical case from someone who had once been firmly opposed to the practice. It deserves careful consideration, not because it represents Bercot's final view, but because it compels readers to wrestle seriously with both Scripture and the earliest Christian sources before reaching their own conclusions.

For that reason, the first four articles in this series will intentionally follow the argument of Bercot's original 1990 lecture as faithfully as possible, presenting his historical and biblical case as he developed it. Only in the fifth and concluding article will we step back from the original lecture to examine Bercot's later embrace of believer's baptism, the reasons he has given for revising his position, and how his more recent interpretation compares with the arguments he made in 1990.

Video: "Anabaptist to Orthodox: What It REALLY Means to Be a Kingdom Christian"

"Sacred Life" YouTube channel creators are documenting their conversion from Kingdom Christianity Anabaptism to Orthodoxy. Formerly the "Bearded Mennonite," David Bahler believed Kingdom Christians couldn’t vote, serve in government, or bear arms. The state was “of the world” and outside of Christ’s perfection. Then he discovered Orthodoxy.

In this live stream, he explores:

• Two-Kingdom Theology – Anabaptist roots, Schleitheim Confession, and why it seems biblical
• Orthodox Response – The state as a wounded person, redeemable in Christ
• Scripture & Fathers – From Moses to Constantine, no rupture, only recapitulation
• Liturgical Procession – How the Divine Liturgy is the Kingdom now, drawing nations to the altar

"If you’re Anabaptist, Mennonite, Amish, or just wrestling with Christianity and politics, this is for you" says the description. Key topics covered are Two-Kingdom Theology, Kingdom Christian, Orthodox view on Government, Christian and State, Liturgical Theology, Symphonia, Eschatology, and Nonresistance.

The Early Fathers on the Church

Scroll Publishing features a series of audio messages about what the early Christians believed. Conspicuously absent from that series is a message about what the early Christians believed about the Church. David Bercot speaks on topics of church government and church discipline in early Christianity, but not ecclesiology. The implications of this major omission are obvious. 

What did the early Christians believe about the Church? Well, they believed in several attributes of the Church, such as its unity, sanctity, catholicity, and apostolicity. Hence the Symbol of Faith from the Nicene Creed: I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Within the writings of the early Christians is found this dogmatic teaching on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The appellation “Catholic” refers to the universality, orthodoxy, and fullness of the visible Church, whereas the separatists are designated by the leader of their schism or heresy. The Church is Catholic in the sense that each local assembly manifests the whole Christ and the fullness of the faith. 

The Church is eternal, and the gates of Hades will never prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). The Church is the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:23; Colossians 1:24), and the pillar and ground of truth (1 Timothy 3:15). The early Fathers also believed in the uninterruptedness of the episcopate and the three degrees of hierarchy: bishops, presbyters (priests), and deacons (see Acts 14:23; 15:2; 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:8-13; 4:13; 5:17-19; Titus 1:5; James 5:14). In contrast to the heretics and schismatics who have broken off from the Church founded by our Lord Jesus Christ and His Apostles, the Orthodox Church continues to preserve this dogma and unity of the Church. See the sample of quotes below:

Saint Hosius the "Last Voice of the Early Church"?

In 2021, David Bercot was interviewed by Austin Suggs on his Gospel Simplicity channel. The interview was called "Anabaptist Perspective on Church History (w/ David Bercot)." In the interview, Mr. Bercot expresses his views about how lifestyle trumps theology, how things went wrong with Emperor Constantine, and how Bishop Hosius of Cordova was the "last voice of the early Church." 

Answering a question about what would be a “more productive way” of solving the Arian controversy, David describes St. Hosius as the “last voice of the early Church.” Mr. Bercot says that St. Hosius’ advice to Emperor St. Constantine about solving the Arian controversy was: “They just need to drop it.” David would have St. Hosius say, “Quit arguing about it. Just drop it.” His narrative continues:

He [Constantine] sent Hosius there to talk to Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria. He said that very thing. He told them, ‘You should not have asked the questions you did. You started this thing by asking these questions about God that we don’t know the answer. And Arius, you shouldn’t have ever given the answers you did. You both need to just back off from it, and drop this.’ … Now, they’re not going to drop it, and it was a horrible feud. … What they came up with as the answer is certainly what the early Church taught. (See 44:00-50:00)

St. Hosius (c. 256-358) was a Spanish bishop of Córdova, Spain for more than sixty years during the fourth century, and a survivor of persecution under Maximian (303-305). He was also an adviser to Emperor St. Constantine the Great and one of the chief defenders of Orthodoxy in the West against the early Donatist schism and the Arian heresy. For the reasons below, Mr. Bercot's identification of St. Hosius as the "last voice of the early Church" is exceedingly problematic.

The Russians' Secret - Book Review (Part 6 of 6)

Leo Tolstoy - More to the Story

 

The Russians' Secret (hereafter TRS) spends a great deal of time on the Tolstoyan movement, based on the anarchist and extreme pacifist views of the novelist Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910). The authors note that Tolstoy was a harsh critic of the Russian Church, leading to his excommunication in 1901. But other important details were left out of TRS. 

Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)

In the late 1870's, after completing the two novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, Tolstoy underwent a profound spiritual crisis and emerged as a Christian anarchist, committed to nonviolent resistance as he interpreted the Sermon on the Mount, but denying Christ's resurrection and divinity. In 1881, Tolstoy produced his own translation of the Gospels wherein he, like the American Thomas Jefferson, eliminated Christ's miracles. For good reason St. John of Kronstadt (1829-1909) denounced Leo Tolstoy as “the worst heretic of our evil days, and surpassing in intellectual pride all former heretics” (“Count Tolstoi Denounced,” The New York Times, April 5, 1903).  In 1901, Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church (“Decree of Excommunication of Leo Tolstoy,” Russian Orthodox Church, February 22, 1901).

The Russians' Secret - Book Review (Part 5 of 6)

There is much to clarify and add when reading The Russians' Secret (hereafter TRS) narrative about Russian nonconformist religious sects. Hopefully a more complete historical overview which enumerates the heresies, incompatibilities, and divisions among Russian nonconformist groups will help TRS readers to abandon both their affinity for Russian nonconformity and aversion for Russian Orthodoxy inherited from the book by Hoover and Petrov. 

Khlysty and the Skoptsy

Both the Khlysty and the Skoptsy were among the nonconformist “People of God” religious sect in Russia. The Khlysts or Khlysty (in Russian literally “whips”) were an underground “Spirit Christian” sect which emerged in Russia in the 17th century. TRS notes some of the strange history of the Khlysts. They believed in direct communication with the Holy Spirit and practiced the ritual of “rejoicing”, which was accompanied with dancing and charismatic manifestations like “speaking in tongues” or uttering unintelligible gibberish. The sect's founder, Danilo Filippov, “proclaimed himself God Sabaoth” (Bulshakoff, 83) or was said to have become a “living god” after the Lord of Hosts descended upon him. He delivered twelve commandments to his disciples, which forbade (among other things) sexual intercourse, drinking and swearing. Thus, the followers' replaced the wine of Holy Communion with water. Filippov's successor acquired a following of twelve apostles, along with a woman who was given the appellation of “Mother of God.” TRS authors note  that upon conversion believers allegedly received the “Spirit of Christ” or the spirit of a Saint such as  the “Spirit of Mary” or the Spirit of Peter, of John, of Timothy (p. 99). 

Ecstatic ritual of Khlysts

The Russians' Secret - Book Review (Part 4 of 6)

Russian Nonconformity and “Unofficial” Religion in Russia

Chapter 8 of The Russians' Secret (hereafter TRS) is entitled “Nonconformity” and the theme itself is central to the book with the actual words “nonconformity” or “nonconformist(s)” appearing over 30 times throughout the book. The authors champion various Russian religious sects. For a more objective and impartial story of Russian nonconformity and “unofficial” religion in Russia, I recommend Russian Nonconformity (1950) by Serge Boshakoff, which proved to be a helpful resource for reviewing TRS (and it is ironically also found in the TRS bibliography). From an Orthodox perspective, schism from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church cannot be justified, but it is important to understand why most of these small religious sects began with their struggles for religious freedom and social justice in Russia. In the words of Bolshakoff:

The Nonconformists are those who refuse to conform to the State-prescribed pattern of religion, and they are by definition champions of religious freedom. . . . 

Russian Nonconformity, broadly speaking, was a protest against State intervention in the affairs of the Church. . . . 

Russian Nonconformity, however, is not merely a protest against State intervention in the affairs of the Church; it is also a protest against the secularization of the Church and the clerical support of social injustice. (Russian Nonconformity [Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1950], 13, 17, 18).

Strigolniki being thrown into the Volkhov River from a bridge in 1375

The Russians' Secret - Book Review (Part 3 of 6)

Russian Orthodox Saints and Sources 

In relation to the authors contentious thesis regarding the conversion of Rus' (discussed in Part 2 of this series), it is ironic that the book contains so many positive references to canonized Orthodox saints, although the authors almost never identify them as such. The Russians' Secret (hereafter TRS) begins with the early mission among the Slavs in 862 by Cyril (826-869) and Methodius (815-885), both Byzantine Orthodox Saints. With the help of Clement of Ohrid, a Bulgarian Orthodox saint, they created the alphabet now used by several hundred million Slavs. The authors observed, 

Without a doubt, two Greek Christians, John Chrysostom and Basil of Caesarea had much to do with the Russian’ feeling for the poor. The writings of both men, translated to Slavonic soon after the time of Cyril and Methodius, got widely circulated in Russia (p. 21). 

The uninformed reader would have no idea that these Christians are all canonized saints of the Orthodox Church. 

Martyrs and Passion-Bearers Saints Boris and Gleb

After Prince Vladimir accepted Orthodoxy as the official religion of Kievan Rus' was the murder of his younger sons, Boris and Gleb, in 1015-1019. Pacifism being so important to the Anabaptist/Quaker traditions, the authors call special attention to Boris and Gleb: “The fact that Christ never fought back deeply impressed Russian believers,” (p. 24) and “the murder of the two boys and their nonresistant response shook Russia to its foundations” (p. 26). To clarify, Boris and Gleb were not merely “Russian believers” but the first saints canonized in Kievan Rus' after the Orthodox Christianization of the country, being known as Strastoterptsy (Passion-Bearers) precisely because they did not resist evil. While the authors note the execution of Tsar Nicholas II (r. 1894-1917) and his family, it is not with the same admiration they expressed for Boris and Gleb earlier in the book, even though the Royal Family, like Boris and Gleb, are also canonized as Passion-Bearers. In TRS, “Christian” is always in quotation marks when referring to Orthodox emperors, Tsar Nicholas being the last Russian emperor.

The Russians' Secret - Book Review (Part 2 of 6)

The "Conversion" of Russia

“The 'Conversion' of Russia” is a subheading in chapter 3 of The Russians' Secret (hereafter TRS), “conversion” being inside quotation marks to convey the authors' skepticism. They cast doubt on the authenticity of faith among Christians having political power: the Kievan Prince Vladimir (r. 980-1015), Basil II (r. 976-1025), the emperor of Byzantium who asked Vladimir to help fight the Bulgars, and his sister Anna (963-1011) whom Vladimir had requested as a wife in marriage. 

The Baptism of Rus'

The Kievan Primary Chronicle (12th c.) recalls how Vladimir sent ambassadors to investigate the faiths of the Greeks, Latins, and Muslims. Upon their return, they told of their awe at the beauty of the Greek Orthodox service and the place where it was conducted, saying they did not know whether they had been in heaven or on earth. The prince and boyars then agreed to be baptized. Incredulous of the account, the authors of TRS write, “The legend is definitely fictitious” (p. 29). In favor of the event's plausibility, Marwazi, a late 11th-century Persian, affirmed that Vladimir sent emissaries to Khorezm, in Central Asia, asking for a teacher to instruct Rus' in Islam. For this reason, Franklin and Shepard conclude that “it is overwhelmingly probable that the story echoes Vladimir's soundings of the 980's, and if envoys were sent to a Moslem power, they were most probably also sent to the Germans and the Byzantines” (See Simon Franklin and Jonathan Shepard, The Emergence of Rus 750-1200 [London and New York: Longman, 1998], 161). 

The Russians' Secret - Book Review (Part 1 of 6)

Introduction 

Offered on Scroll Publishing is the book The Russians' Secret with the following description:

When most of us think of kingdom Christians, we think of groups like the Waldensians and Anabaptists—movements that sprang up in western Europe. But the work of the Holy Spirit has never been limited to western Europe and the Americas. No, the Spirit has raised up kingdom Christians at various times and in various places all over the world, including Russia and the East.

The story of the various Spirit-led groups of Christians in Old Russia is quite fascinating. Peter Hoover, author of the popular Secret of the Strength, brings their story to life in his book, The Russian Secret.

The Russians' Secret chronicles a thousand years of Christian life in Russia. Subtitles from two separate editions are descriptive: What Christians Today Would Survive Persecution? (1999) and The Survival of New Testament Christianity in Russia (2014). Having read the book years ago as a Protestant, and recently revisited it as an Orthodox Christian, the book elicited a few questions. First of all, what history of the Russian Church does the book include and exclude, and why? Secondly, is the authors' thesis about the conversion of Rus' valid in light of historical evidence? Thirdly, who are the book's “Russian believers” and how do they relate to the Russian Orthodox Church? Fourth, does the book give an objective and impartial story of Russian nonconformity and “unofficial” religion in Russia? Finally, why does the book focus so much on Leo Tolstoy and what was his relationship to the Orthodox Church? This essay seeks to provide an Orthodox analysis of these historical questions, while interacting with the book's own motifs of persecution, nonviolence, nonconformity, voluntary poverty, and church/state relations.

The Russians' Secret by Peter Hoover and Serguei V. Petrov 

Kingdom Christianity, an Anarchist Movement

 Anarchism – Secular and Christian

Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority. True anarchism is the alternative to governmental authority, and advocates for the replacement of the state with stateless societies and voluntary free associations. As a historically left-wing movement, anarchism is placed on the farthest left of the political spectrum, usually described as the libertarian wing of the socialist movement (libertarian socialism).

While secular anarchists reject belief in any authority including God, “Christian anarchists” claim anarchism is inherent in Christianity and the Gospels, particularly the Sermon on the Mount. Whereas some Kingdom Christians are overtly committed to “Christian anarchism,” others are influenced, perhaps unknowingly, by anarchist thinkers and cite them in their works. In any case, Kingdom Christian interpretations of Christ's teachings mirror the Anarchist ideology. Like Christian Anarchists, Kingdom Christians are generally against war, participation in government (i.e., serving as magistrates, policemen, or soldiers, and voting), and the use of violence (“non-resistance”). 

This article will demonstrate how Kingdom Christianity is influenced by anarchists like Dave Andrews (b. 1951), Adin Ballou (1803-1890), Vernard Eller (1927-2007), Jacques Ellul (1912-1944), William Lloyd Garrison (1805-1879), Peter Kropotkin (1842-1921), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865), Lysander Spooner (1808-1887), and, most importantly, Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910).

Constantine the Great: Eastern Orthodox Saint? - Part 2

The Council of Nicaea

In 325, the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical council, was convoked by Constantine in order to settle the Arian dispute. Constantine had personally written to St. Alexander (d. 326/328) and Arius (256 – 336), admonishing the bishops back into communion.

First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea with the condemned Arius in the bottom of the icon.

Constantine “appeared to be the only one on earth capable of being [God's] minister for this good end,” that is, the healing of the differences within the Church (Eusebius, The Life ..., 3.5). As Eusebius described, Constantine “proceeded through the midst of the assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious stones” (Ibid., 3.10). Not only was great reverence bestowed upon the Christian emperor who ended the persecution, but Constantine also exceedingly honored the Christians who survived the persecution. Fourteen years had passed since the final persecutions under the Emperor Galerius had ended, and many of the bishops who made up the Council of Nicaea in the year 325 bore in their bodies the scars of persecution. Among the writings of St. Maruthas, or Marutha of Martyropolis (d. c. 420), is History of the Council of Nicaea, in which he provides a brief account of the Council. Describing the assembly of the bishops, he says:

Constantine the Great: Eastern Orthodox Saint? - Part 1

Some historians call him “the Great,” and other historians consider him a tyrant, even reckoning him one of the most infamous villains of Church history. The Emperor Constantine (c. 272 – 337) was a Christian monarch of major importance and has always been a controversial figure. In the Orthodox Church, he is revered as St. Constantine the Great, Equal-to-the-Apostles. But in the Kingdom Christian movement, St. Constantine “was an unregenerated man of the world” (David Bercot, The Kingdom That Turned the World Upside Down [Amberson, PA: Scroll Publishing Company, 2003], 164).

Emperor St. Constantine the Great

His conversion before the battle at Milvian Bridge (312) is debated by historians. Doubts about the sincerity of his Christian faith are usually based on a number of questions. Why did Constantine continue to tolerate paganism intermingled with his Christian faith? How could a saintly Constantine execute his eldest son Crispus and his wife Fausta? Why did Constantine postpone his baptism until the end of his life? Nevertheless, Constantine's enormous legacy in Christianity is widely known. The Edict of Milan (313) gave Christianity legal status and a reprieve from persecution. After becoming emperor, Constantine bestowed numerous favors upon the Church. He also summoned the Council of Nicaea (325) to settle the Arian controversy. Additionally, Constantine founded Constantinople as a “New Rome,” which laid the foundations for the Christian civilization of the Byzantine or East Roman Empire. But even these great efforts on behalf of Christianity are scrutinized by some historians and theologians. With regard to these confusing and complicated controversies, this essay seeks to examine the tensions of the career and personality of Constantine the Great.

An Orthodox Response to Bercot's "Myth of the Seven Ecumenical Councils"

The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes seven ecumenical councils. The ecumenical councils formulated precise dogmatic definitions of the Christian Faith which are understood by the Orthodox Church to be inspired by God and infallible. They likewise formulated numerous canon laws which govern the life of the Orthodox Church. According to Mr. David Bercot, the assertions made by the Eastern Orthodox Church about the ecumenical councils are “glorified myths.”ⁱ Mr. Bercot is an author, church historian, and former Anglican priest. His special field of interest and study has been the early Church, particularly the Pre-Nicene Church. He has authored several books, notably A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, and recorded nearly seventy lectures, including “The Myth of the Seven Ecumenical Councils” (Scroll Publishing, 2002). Since Bercot speaks frequently on the subject of early Christianity, his message about the ecumenical councils will raise concerns to Orthodox Christians, and also to any potential converts to Orthodox Christianity. In the words of Bercot, “We can definitely say that the Seven Ecumenical Councils are a myth.”ⁱⁱ What is an Eastern Orthodox response?

Holy Fathers of the first six Ecumenical Councils

How do we determine whether or not a general council of the Church is genuinely ecumenical? Within the Orthodox Church, the validity of the Seven Ecumenical Councils is not disputed. Mr. Bercot doesn't deny the historicity of the seven ecumenical councils, but he does claim that they “were not ecumenical”, and he challenges their ecumenicity in various ways.

Intercession of Saints and Angels

In his audio teaching called “What the Early Christians Believed About Images and Prayers to Saints”, David Bercot disputes the Orthodox doctrine of intercession and invocation of saints and angels. He states:

But what about in the second and third centuries? Well again I’m just gonna tell you flatly, there is no record anywhere in the ante-Nicene writings of any Christian praying to a saint or to an angel, that is in the writings before the time of Constantine. There is not even an instant of any Christian who was part of the Church, I mean other than a heretic maybe, asking a deceased Christian to pray for them. There is not even a record, any instance of that happening. In fact, their beliefs show why they wouldn't have even considered such a thing. (David Bercot, "What the Early Christians Believed About Images and Prayers to Saints" YouTube video uploaded by "Scroll Publishing," 54:49, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh65VvPhJcY&t).

Mr. Bercot's claim is flatly incorrect; there are records in the ante-Nicene writings of Christians praying to saints and angels. In fact, several early Christians spoke of the intercession and invocation of the saints and angels, a doctrine also found in Old Testament Judaism. Although the doctrine is disputed by Protestants, there is ample Old Testament and early Christian evidence in favor of intercession of angels and departed saints for the living, as well as the intercession of the living for the dead. First, we will consider the biblical foundation for the doctrine. Secondly, we will consult the Holy Fathers on the subject.

Misuse of Canon 12 in Just War Debate

In the Followers of the Way (FOTW) presentation "'It's Just War' - Should Christians Fight? Debate," Mr. David Bercot cited Canon 12 of the Council of Nicaea, to support Christian non-resistance or pacifism. In his commentary on the canon, Bercot points out that the whole Church provides a uniform position against Christians use of the sword in the military. He says, "This is the whole Church speaking. I see a very uniform position. . . . Nicaea was the whole Church; it was an Ecumenical Council" (see 1:17:30).

It is interesting that Bercot appeals to a canon of an ecumenical council because the canons and councils, like the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers, are within the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.  Ecumenical Councils were synods of bishops which primarily decided upon dogmatic formulations, especially in the face of heresy. Secondarily, Ecumenical Councils issued canonical legislation which governs the administration of the Orthodox Church.