Vol. 36, No. 9 _ September 2005
by Charles W. Martin

James M. Renihan rightly observes in the forward of a recent book on baptism:

In theological debate, history should never be the final judge; that place is reserved for Scripture. History may, however, make a significant contribution to the discussion, shedding light on the practices of those living closest to the era of the

Bible. In the debate over the subject of baptism, historiography has had a long and fascinating part to play in determining the conclusions of many (James Renihan, in the forward to Baptism in the Early Church, by Hendrick Stander and Johan-nes Louw, Carey Publications, rev. ed., 1994, 7).

Of course, the practice of baptism has been a hotly debated issue for several centuries. In most Christian book-stores, or in the church library, a believer can pick up a book in which one of his church’s scholars uses early church practice as evidence for the correctness of that tradition’s views concerning baptism, regardless of what those views might be.

The average churchgoer makes a number of assumptions. One of the most crucial is that what his or her church says about the gospel is truly the gospel as Jesus, Paul, and the early church proclaimed it. However, we live in a time when some of the most popular pastors - who have the largest churches and the best-selling books - are known and famous for reducing the gospel in one way or another. Further, the message and church growth methodology of these pastors is closely followed by thousands of other pastors around the world who want to duplicate the "success" of these popular leaders.