Does the fact that Some Early Christians Affirmed Baptism of Blood (and Desire) Mean they Did not Believe Water Baptism was Essential?

In an attempt to respond to John Tvedtnes' article Baptism for the Dead: The Coptic Rationale (cf. his lengthier Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity), Matthew Paulson, a Reformed Protestant and critic of Latter-day Saint theology and scripture, wrote:

Tvedtnes does bring to light the Ethiopic or Coptic baptism for the dead, although it has not been practiced in recent times. However, Tvedtnes often fails to tell his reads that along with this ritual, the Coptic Church includes a martyr’s baptism of blood. He knows that this doctrine further undermines the idea that water baptism is a required ordinance for salvation. (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006, 2009], 119)

While Paulson believes that such undercuts the salvific efficacy of water baptism in early Christianity (a belief that was the unanimous belief in early Christianity, admitted by critics of the doctrine[!] such as William Webster), the opposite is true—some early Christians who believed in baptism of blood (and/or baptism of desire) believed such as they believed that water baptism was necessary for salvation and had to get around the a priori assumption of baptismal regeneration and answer the question of those who died without baptism (usually those who were catechumens who died in an unbaptized state).

As one critic of both baptism of blood and baptism for desire, Peter Dimond, a Sedevacantist who holds to a “Feeney-ite” understanding of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, wrote the following:

A small number of fathers—approximately 8 out of a total of hundreds—are quoted in favor of what is called “baptism of blood,” the idea that a catechumen (that is, one preparing to receive Catholic Baptism) who shed his blood for Christ could be saved without having received Baptism . . . And, only 1 father out of hundreds, St. Augustine, can be quoted as clearly teaching what is today called “baptism of desire”: the idea that a catechumen could be saved by his explicit desire for water baptism . . . Take St. Cyril of Jerusalem, for example:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.: “If any man does not receive baptism, he does not receive salvation. The only exception is the martyrs . . . “ (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:811)

Here we see that St. Cyril of Jerusalem believed in baptism of blood, but rejected baptism of desire. St. Fulgence expressed the same.

St. Fulgence, 523: “From that time at which Our Savior said: “If anyone is not reborn of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven,” no one can, without the sacrament of baptism, except those who, in the Catholic Church, without Baptism, pour out their blood for Christ . . .” (Jurgens, 3:2269)

Here we see that St. Fulgence believed in baptism of blood . . .  It is also important to point out that some of the fathers who use the term “baptism of blood” to describe the Catholic martyrdom of one already baptized, not as a possible replacement for water baptism. This is the only legitimate use of the term.

St. John Chrysostom, Panegyric on St. Lucian, 4^th Century AD:
“Do not be surprised that I call martyrdom a Baptism; for here too the Spirit comes in great haste and there is a taking away of sins and a wonderful and marvelous cleaning of the soul; and just as those being baptized are washed in water, so too those being martyred are washed in their own blood.” (Jurgens, 2:1139)

St. John is here describing the martyrdom of a priest St. Lucian, a person already baptized. He is not saying that martyrdom replaces baptism. St. John Damascene describes it the same way:

St. John Damascene:

“These things were well understood by our holy and inspired fathers—thus they strove, after Holy Baptism, to keep . . . spotless and undefiled. Whence some of them also thought fit to receive another Baptism. I mean that which is by blood and martyrdom.” (Barlam and Josaphat, Woodward & Heineman, trans., pp. 169-171)

 . . . Out of the few fathers that can be quoted in favor of baptism of blood as being a possible replacement to actual Baptism, two of the very earliest statements supporting the idea come from St. Cyprian and Tertullian.

St. Cyprian, To Jubaianus (254): “Catechumens who suffer martyrdom before they have received Baptism with water are not deprived of the Sacrament of Baptism. Rather, they are baptized with the most glorious and greatest Baptism of Blood . . . “ (Jurgens, 1:598)

. . . Another early father who is frequently quoted in favor of baptism of blood is Tertullian. His statement is the earliest recorded statement teaching baptism of blood.

Tertullian, On Baptism, 203 A.D.: “If they might be washed in water, they must necessarily be so by blood. This is the Baptism which replaces that of the foundation, when it has not been received, and restores it when it has been lost.” (Jurgens, 1:309) (Peter Dimond, Outside the Catholic Church There is Absolutely No Salvation [2d ed.; Fillmore, N.Y.: Most Holy Family Monastery, 2006], 51-53, 55-56, emphasis in original)

In session 6 chapter 4 of the Council of Trent (January 13, 1547), we read the following:

By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,--as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Ada, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, can not be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written: unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God (John 3:5).

The underlying Latin of the section in bold is:

Sine lavacro regenerationis, aut ejus voto, fieri non potest;

Here, Trent clearly affirms baptismal regeneration and yet, through the use of “aut” (which, in context, means “or," not "and") affirms, in some sense that is not further explicated and explained, baptism of desire.

Elsewhere in chapter 14 we read the following which also affirms the “desire” of penance (a “desire” which does not invalidate the salvific necessity of “proper” penance, if you will):

As regards those who, by sin, have fallen from the received grace of Justification, they may be again justified, when God exciting them, through the sacrament of Penance, they shall have attained to the recovery, by the merit of Christ, of the grace lost: for this manner of Justification is of the fallen the reparation: which the holy Fathers have aptly called a second plank after the shipwreck of grace lost. For, on behalf of those who fall into sins after baptism, Christ Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when he said, Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained (John 20:22, 23). Whence it is to be taught, that the penitence of a Christian, after his fall, is very different from that at (his) baptism; and that therein are included not only cessation from sins, and a detestation thereof, or a contrite and humble heart (Psa 1:19), but also the sacramental confession of the said sins,--at least in desire and to be made in its season,--and sacerdotal absolution; and likewise satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life; not indeed for eternal punishment,--which is, together with the guilt, remitted, either by the sacrament, or by the desire of the sacrament,-- . . . .

(for more, see Robert Sungenis, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus for a discussion of baptism of desire from a proponent of the doctrine)

While much more could be said, it is clear that when Paulson writes that baptism of blood (cf. baptism of desire) “undermines the idea that water baptism is a required ordinance for salvation,” he is only showing his gross ignorance of early (and even Medieval and Counter-Reformation era) theologies. The belief in the salvific necessity of water baptism in normal instances led to a belief, in some quarters, in baptism of blood and desire in extraordinary instances.

For previous responses to Paulson's Breaking the Mormon Code, see:


Listing of articles responding to "Breaking the Mormon Code"