Why cite Irenaeus, when so many other church “fathers” (Didache, Epistle of Barnabus, Justin Martyr, etc.) strongly support the importance of water baptism? The reason is that though each of these may represent the views of the common Christian of the day, none of them was an official in the church. None of them, then, could claim significant authority. So even though they each spoke strongly in support of the necessity of baptism, only Irenaeus, the bishop, could claim to speak, in any official capacity, for the church body.

Irenaeus said:

And when we come to refute them, we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a  renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book One, Ch. 21)

For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: “Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Ibid., Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, Ch. 34)

            Any honest person must admit that Irenaeus taught the necessity of water baptism. He goes on to say:

Neither, for a like reason, would he have given them baptism so readily, had he not heard them prophesying when the Holy Ghost rested upon them. And therefore did he exclaim, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” He persuaded, at the same time, those that were with him, and pointed out that, unless the Holy Ghost had rested upon them, there might have been some one who would have raised objections to their baptism. (Ibid., Against Heresies, Book Three, Chapter 12)

             Irenaeus, while teaching the necessity of water baptism, taught that the purpose of the Holy Ghost outpouring on Cornelius’ household was to prove to the Jews that they (the Gentiles) were being accepted into the church and needed baptism.

            Now as I read the three quotes above, I  am forced to come to one of three conclusions:

1.   Conclusion #1: If I accept the premise that baptism is not necessary, then Irenaeus, the greatly respected bishop and elder of the second century, was a heretic. If this is true, then the entire church structure at that time was corrupt, invalidating any church councils (Nicea, etc.) from that time on. If the leadership of the church was so wrong on a subject as important as baptism in the second century, then why listen to anything they had to say from that point on? Yet many today hold most of the early councils in high esteem, apparently even though they were led by heretics (if this conclusion is accepted as the valid one).

2.  Or, Conclusion #2: I may reject the existing writings of Irenaeus as corrupt (not authentic). If this is true, without any supporting evidence, then all writings of the early church fathers, including the creeds and councils, are suspect.

3.  Or, Conclusion #3: Irenaeus’ writings are an accurate representation of what the Church believed and taught prior to changes initiated later by the various councils.

While the Bible itself must always take precedence over any creeds, councils, or extrabiblical writings, the views of early church officials can help us understand what they taught concerning salvation just a few years or decades after the apostles. If we are correct in our views, we should expect to see those views supported in the years immediately following the deaths of the apostles, at least by the bishops of the day.