Tradition vs Scripture (Easter, Foot Washing, Canceling Church on Christmas, Purgatory +++)

So we're still on lesson number one, the Apostolic Age, in the book

Forerunners of the Faith, and this is actually lesson number one, the Biblical Framework.

So there's two lessons in the Apostolic Age. We ended in section two with the three doctrinal pillars.

So we're going to pick up in section A, the supremacy of the Word of God.

Does everybody see that? Okay, it says the true church embraces and submits to the

Word of God because Jesus is the head of the church. His word is the authority for his people.

Paul highlighted both the authority and sufficiency of Scripture when he told

Timothy in 2 Timothy 3, 16, and 17, for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

And I'm so used to saying that a different way, that the man of God may be what? Perfect or complete.

So 2 Timothy 3, 16 -17, that's one of the standard, classic verses on the subject of the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

Because not everybody believes in the authority of Scripture, right? But there are some people who believe in the authority, that yes, the

Bible is the Word of God, but they don't believe in the sufficiency of Scripture. What would it look like to not believe in the sufficiency?

That we need something else, right? That the Bible is good, we have the Bible, we need the

Bible, but we need more. Okay, so conversely, he says, false teachers seek to undermine the

Scriptures. For example, in the book of 2 Peter, Peter denounced those who deny the

Word of God by distorting its teaching or seeking to thwart its authority. So who would like to look up 2

Peter 3, 16 and 17? If we could get someone to look that up and read it.

Larry, okay. He continues in Mark 7, Jesus made it clear the

Word of God is authoritative over the traditions of men. When the

Pharisees confronted Jesus because of his disciples, or because they were not following the extra -biblical traditions of 1st century

Judaism, he rebuked them by saying, the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, this is

Mark 7, 5 -13, why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders?

But they eat bread with impure hands, or unwashed hands. And he said to them, rightly did

Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites. As it is written, this people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me.

But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts or commandments of men.

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the traditions of men.

And he was also saying to them, you are experts at setting aside the command of God in order to keep your tradition.

Thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down, and you do many things such as that.

So did the Jewish leaders, did the scribes and Pharisees believe in the

Torah? Did they believe in the Old Testament? Would they have said that they believed in the

Word of God? Yeah. And they did believe. It was that and all the other things. That and man -made tradition.

That and what the rabbis taught. And when that's the case, it's natural, this always happens, that in practice, tradition ends up getting elevated above the scripture.

Because I'm sure you maybe have said this, but you've talked to people and say, yes, well, we read the scripture and we agree that it's true.

But the issue is what? How you interpret it. So the rabbis would interpret it one way.

And obviously Jesus did not agree with their interpretations. Yes, Larry.

Well, there are some colleges that are teaching that, yes, the scripture is good and it's important.

But it was set, or the scripture, you know, this is not for us today.

It was written to that culture 2 ,000 years ago. Right. And so we don't have to, the mandates that Paul gives, that was for them, not for us.

Right. Yeah, it was a different time. And it was based on the culture. And, you know, today it's different.

So we don't need to obey this and do that. And, you know, there's a little element of truth in the sense that we're not offering animal sacrifices.

And there are things that are not for today. I mean, that's true. But you have that verse.

Can you read 2 Peter 3, 16 and 17? As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the scriptures.

You, therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware, lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with error of the wicked.

Okay. So untaught and unstable men, what do they do with the

Bible, according to Peter? They twist it. Now, what does it mean to twist the

Bible? Does that mean you take the leather -bound copy and just kind of turn it, twist it?

What does it mean? Make it mean what you want it to say. Yeah.

We're looking for just putting that in different terms. Taking it out of context is like the classic thing that people will bring up.

Put a different spin on it. Yep. Put a different spin on it. Yeah.

Aaron. Right.

Right. Yeah. Is the author of Scripture dead? Yeah. Right. Yeah.

No, he's alive, right? God is alive. But you can't exactly go and ask, hey,

God, can you settle this dispute for us? Well, it really has been settled.

It's settled in the word and for 1900 plus years. This is the thing about church history.

We said, and the author of this book said, that church history is not authoritative, right?

We all agree with that. The Scripture is the authority, not church history. But it is valuable to look at how the church has interpreted a

Scripture for the past 1950 years. If all

Christians agreed with something for nearly 2 ,000 years, and it's only this generation that has a new spin on it,

I mean, that's a pretty good indicator that, no, that's a wrong interpretation. That doesn't always work. But, yes,

Larry. Well, Satan uses Scripture and twists it or just the way he intonates, you know.

Well, like the first question in the Bible, did God really say, that was

Satan, you know, talking to Eve. Did God really say, don't touch it or don't eat it?

Right. Let's turn to Matthew 4 for a moment. Since you brought that up, and this is a good point that we need to remind people of, that even

Satan quoted the Bible. Satan and Jesus are talking, and the devil is quoting

Scripture, and then Jesus comes back and quotes Scripture. And Jesus is handling

Scripture correctly. Because, really, Jesus, in a sense, you can say Jesus is the author.

I mean, God is the author. It's the Holy Spirit who's the author. Maybe it's better put that Christ is really the subject matter, that it's all about him.

But look at Matthew 4. We'll just start in verse 1. Then Jesus was led up by the

Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, afterward he was hungry.

Now when the tempter came to him, he said, If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread.

Why? Because he says so? Because Satan says so? No. But he answered and said,

It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

And what I was getting at is the devil took him up. This is the second temptation.

If you are, verse 6, if you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. He shall give his angels charge over you.

And in their hands, they shall bear you up. So Jesus, you should jump.

You should throw yourself down from the pinnacle of the temple because of what the

Bible says. Now does the Bible say, yes, Jesus, you should jump from the, no.

But if you do, Satan's point is, according to scripture, the angels will have to catch you.

Now, is that true? See, once you enter into that dialogue, I feel like there are certain questions that people ask about the

Bible that that just immediately create chaos. You know, that's not even a worthy conversation.

So the devil will bring things up to twist or take the scripture out of context to support his agenda.

The devil wanted to get Jesus to do what? To sin.

And putting God to the test, tempting God is one way that you could sin.

So he tries to quote scripture out of context to get Jesus to sin. And people do that today and they take scripture out of context all the time.

Now, is it legitimate to just quote a verse? Is that legitimate?

If there's a situation and you say, well, I'm not going to do that because 2 Corinthians 5, whatever, says this.

Is that legitimate to do? Yeah. Now, are you taking it out of its context?

In a sense, you are quoting that one verse and you're not referencing the verses before or after.

So someone could say that that's proof texting or taking it out of context. But really, the term taking it out of context means you're leaving something out that changes the meaning.

So unless somebody can explain what was left out that changes it, it's really not a valid argument.

But there's all these different ways that people twist the word of God or put what Jesus is talking about, put tradition above scripture.

Can anyone think of a way that tradition is put above scripture now?

And by the way, if you think that this church puts tradition above scripture in any way, come talk to me privately.

Don't expose us in Sunday school. Honestly, though, if there was a way we were doing that, if somebody had that concern,

I would want to know and I would want to evaluate that. Because it's a danger and it can really happen.

It does happen to denominations all over the world. So no examples that you can think of?

Judge not. That's a classic taking it out of context.

Matthew 7 -1, right? Because what do they mean by that? When somebody says, hey, judge not, they're saying you should never pass judgment against personal behavior.

Well, is that what the Bible teaches? Well, no. And even they don't practice that. But yeah, that's a good example.

Yes, Stacy, you had a hand up? I was going to say Easter, appropriate

Easter. But biblically, that's not the meaning. Yeah. Yeah, Easter.

Tradition over scriptural. Right. So like Palm Sunday, there is something in scripture about palm branches.

And to me, there's no harm of handing out palm branches at the end of the service on Easter or Palm Sunday.

But can traditions surrounding Easter kind of overtake the biblical story?

Oh, yeah. Big time. So and that's true with Christmas, like the Easter bunny and Santa all of a sudden.

And I realize people do that. And, you know, people have a different view of whether you should or not.

But if you bring that into the church, though, to me, that's that's definitely what you don't want to do.

Where, you know, the Lord sort of gets the back seat and it's and it's about Santa or something.

So that is a tradition that in some ways nullifies the word of God.

I remember this past. I'm already going down a rabbit trail. No pun intended. But this this past Christmas, Easter or excuse me,

Christmas fell on a Sunday. Right. And there is a whole thing. Our church is going to close

Sunday morning and let people stay home and open presents. And a lot of churches did.

I don't know if it's the majority, but that was kind of a contentious issue between some Christians.

Because, yeah, it's the tradition to stay home under the tree, open presents.

That's a tradition. And then people say it's biblical to worship

God and come to church. But if you're canceling church to stay home with it, well, you know that.

But anyways, well, we'll start a fight over that probably. But yes.

Yeah, when the tradition becomes more important than what's what's stated in Scripture, as far as what we should do, that's one danger.

Or when it nullifies the teaching. I think the doctrine of purgatory, that is a tradition.

It's not in the Bible, but it's a tradition. And it would directly contradict some biblical teachings.

So there's a lot of things we could talk about. But back to the book. As Jesus explained, the word of God supersedes religious tradition.

Scripture is the authority over tradition. Not the other way around. This is an important principle for thinking biblically about church history.

As traditions begin to develop throughout the centuries, they must be evaluated through the lens of biblical truth.

I think we'd all agree with that. So here's the discussion question. Read John 1027.

And according to that verse, what is one of the defining marks of the followers of Jesus?

How should that reality apply to the church and its relationship to the word of Christ?

And then it has Colossians 3, 16 and 17. Okay, so John 1027.

Let's look at that. You probably already did this during the week. But just in case.

The Gospel of John, chapter 10, verse 27.

Okay. John 1027, Jesus speaking. He says,

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

So according to that verse, what is one of the defining marks of the followers of Christ?

They listen to Jesus. I mean, how much more basic can you get?

Okay. Now, I don't hear any Christian saying, no, you shouldn't listen to Jesus.

I've never heard anyone say that. But you have to somehow twist things or elevate tradition to get people not to listen to Jesus.

Without actually saying that's what you want to do. So how would people go about doing that? Here's one way

I've noticed that. There used to be this group called the Jesus Seminar.

Who's heard of the Jesus Seminar? This was like 15 years ago, 20 years ago, maybe.

So there's a group of scholars, and they got together, and we're going to examine the New Testament. And we're going to decide what

Jesus said and what he didn't say. So what parts of the New Testament are true, and what parts were added later on.

So if they read something that didn't fit their idea of who

Jesus was. If they read something they didn't like, guess what? Well, the historical

Jesus of Nazareth, he didn't actually say this. And they had all their scholarly arguments.

See, this passage of Scripture really isn't Scripture. So you don't have to listen.

So they're not saying you don't have to listen to Jesus. They're just attacking the authority of Scripture. Okay, so that's one way people who claim to follow

Christ, they sort of get around listening or following Jesus in that way. Any other examples,

Ray? Right, yeah, this is another great,

I think this is what you mean. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.

If I had a dollar for every time I heard somebody interpret it this way, where hearing the voice of Jesus is listening to the thoughts in my mind.

Jesus, God told me, Jesus told me this. And they're not really quoting

Scripture. It's their thoughts. It's what they feel. And they may feel that God really wants them to do this, or that they might think

God is actually speaking to them. But they're not actually following what Jesus said. They're sort of following their heart, but they're saying

God told me so. And they use this verse to support that. Okay, so that's a good point.

Anything else? Is that what you meant by that? Okay, good.

How should that reality apply to the church and its relationship to the Word of Christ?

Now let's turn to Colossians 3, 16 and 17. Did anyone have any thoughts to answer that or start a discussion?

Okay. Ideally, what we want to do during the week when you do this at home, you know, write something down.

Hey, this is something I'd like to discuss. Or here's a question or here's an answer I have. And that sort of can get the ball rolling with Sunday school because it shouldn't just be me reading the book.

Okay, it's me reading the book, and that generates discussion. That's sort of our goal.

Yeah. I had written down a few things, and it kind of jumps all over the place because they were my thoughts, so I will just read it.

Okay. The church body should be continuously learning and growing together, letting what is done and said outside of the church be as unto the

Lord, as a representation of God. Okay, good, good.

Anyone else? Let's read Colossians 3, 16 and 17.

It says, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the

Lord, and whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the

Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. So how should that reality, what we talked about, apply to the church and its relationship to the word of Christ?

Any final thoughts? If not, we'll move on. Okay, now it says,

What about apostolic tradition? Okay, so we have scripture and tradition.

Scripture, we all know what scripture is. It's the words written in the 66 books of the

Bible. Tradition is what? What's a good definition of tradition? What?

Yeah, we've always done it this way. I mean, that's just what we do with this church or, you know,

I'm Catholic or I'm Presbyterian or I'm a Baptist. This is just what Baptists do.

It's just, it's what the Catholic church teaches. Well, is it in the Bible? Well, no, but it doesn't have to be in the

Bible. It's just our tradition. See, now that's not necessarily bad. And I know

I stated this last time. I'll do it again. Tradition is not necessarily a bad thing.

And really, we all have our traditions, right? I mean, just about anything really can be a tradition.

The question is, does it detract or contradict or nullify the word of God or, you know, lead you away from Christ and the gospel?

Yeah, Larry. I heard a story a few years ago of this woman who, in preparing turkey for Thanksgiving, cut the turkey in half and put only half in the oven.

And her little girl said, Mom, put half of the turkey in the oven, to which she responded by, well, that's the way we've always done it.

And so it got her thinking. And so she went to her mother and asked,

Mom, why did you always cut the turkey in half just like we do now and only cook half of it?

Well, that's the way I was taught how to do it. And so she went to her grandmother and asked the question,

Grandma, why do you always cut the turkey in half and only cook half of it?

And she said, well, when your grandfather and I were first married, the oven was so small it only fit half of the turkey.

And so we have to be careful of how traditions get passed down and something so silly as that can become a way we always do things.

Yeah, that made perfect sense for that time. And, you know,

I'm struggling to think of an example, but I'm sure there are traditions that, yeah, 100 years ago when they started it made total sense.

But why we're doing it now, it's probably not good. So I really would love some examples if you can think of it.

Yeah. Amish with a blue door.

Really? Is it dark blue? Because I know they don't like bright colors. Okay. Interesting.

Okay. Yeah, yeah.

Any other thoughts, traditions that made sense back then? Foot washing.

Foot washing, okay. Back in the day they wore sandals, so obviously they had to wash.

They don't really want to be washing. No, that's a good – I'm glad you brought that up.

This will generate some discussion. Now, is that in the

Bible? Yes, it is. Foot washing is in the Bible.

Did Jesus tell his disciples to do it? Yes, he did. Now, like you said, it made all the sense in the world back then because they're in a desert climate.

They have sandals. You needed to wash your feet. You would have wanted to wash your feet when you went into someone's house and they greet you.

It made all the sense in the world. In 2023, living here, when we have sneakers, and just, yeah, that's the attitude that most people have that washing your feet now in a church service, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

Back then it did. Now it doesn't. But that's a tradition that some churches have continued with.

The Mennonites continue to do foot washing, some of them. There's at least one or two other churches.

I don't know if the Nazarenes do it. But there's a few denominations that continue foot washing. But they would say that, well, it's in the

Bible, and Jesus told his disciples to do it, and he said that in the context right next to the time where he told them to eat this bread and drink this cup.

So it's all like a package deal. Most modern Christians don't look at it that way, that that's a command, that we should be doing it today.

But I get their argument. So that's something, if a church wants to do that, let them do it.

I don't think they should be criticized. But if a church doesn't see that as a command,

I think there should be liberty probably on both ends. And people just don't want to do it today as well.

Yeah, Barb. Well, and too, as far as I can remember, foot washing in the rest of the

New Testament is only mentioned in relation to hospitality, where the communion service is talked about.

There's no mention of it. Yeah, it's pretty well established.

Like 1 Corinthians 11, Paul spends a lot of time talking about the

Lord's Supper. And that's the argument that foot washing was never meant to be a commandment for all time.

But obviously, there's people that disagree with that. Larry, you had a hand up. Would that be,

I mean, yeah, it says what I, Jesus said what I've done, you know,

I've served you in doing this. Would it be more of a service where not necessarily going and washing someone's foot or feet, but helping them in some other way as an act of service to them?

Like, hey, can I take your coat or something? Yeah. So kind of have to look at this in the context of who did it and who didn't do it.

So there is a context to the foot washing. That is, don't be full of yourself.

Yeah. You're not all that special. You're not any better. You need to humble yourself.

Right. And take on basic responsibility. So in context, when we don't really need foot washing exactly, we have staff to do that.

You have to think of the other things that you would normally, because you're above that, you need to humble yourself in that context.

Yeah, Jesus, when he, you remember when he tried to wash Peter's feet, Peter totally objected to it.

There's no way I'm letting you do this. So for Jesus to do that, he's setting the example that you need to be humble, serve one another.

That is very valid. Aaron. You touch my feet.

I don't really ask you to do that. So touch me. And then we get into the whole treat others as you would treat yourselves.

Yeah. There is that. I don't mind screaming. Yeah, it wouldn't be.

Mark. No. Okay. All right. Okay.

Greet one another with a holy kiss, Paul says in Romans. I mean that, but that was never understood to be a commandment that Christians follow throughout the ages.

But whether it's a tradition or not, you know, people say, well, it's in the Bible.

So how is it a tradition if it's in scripture? So, okay, good. Now we'll move on if there's no,

I saw a whole bunch of hands, but I guess they all went down. Aaron settled it. So, all right.

What about apostolic tradition? Certain segments of broader

Christendom, like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, elevate religious tradition to a level of authority equal to scripture.

Is this a surprise to any of you? Did you know this? Yeah. So the

Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church elevates religious tradition to an equal level, you know, same level as scripture.

This is because their systems include beliefs and practices not found in the

Bible. To justify their elevation of religious tradition, they point to verses in the

New Testament that speak of apostolic tradition. So there's a few verses here that it lists.

1 Corinthians 11 to Paul says, now I praise you because you remember me and everything and hold firmly to the traditions just as I delivered them to you.

Okay. So we have Paul's letters, two letters to the Corinthians, but did Paul say more to them than just what's in those two letters?

Well, we know there were two other letters that are lost to history, but yeah, Paul, I'm sure told them a lot of things.

These are traditions that are not found in the Bible. And he's saying, hey, remember these things. 2

Thessalonians 2 .15. So brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

And then 2 Thessalonians 3 .6, keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.

So while these verses mentioned the word tradition, do they really justify the non -biblical traditions that developed over the centuries in church history?

To answer that question, consider the following four points. The word tradition comes from a

Greek word that means what? Okay. Okay.

So this is, if you haven't filled it in yet, you need to fill it in. The word tradition comes from a

Greek word that means that which is given over. The Latin word traditio,

I may be mispronouncing that, means that which is handed down. And it is from the

Latin word that we get the English word tradition. Okay. That which is handed down.

I think that's probably how we would think of it. It's been handed down throughout the years, throughout the centuries.

So when we see the word tradition in the New Testament associated with the apostles, it is not referring to an elaborate liturgical system of non -biblical customs, like those found in Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy today.

Instead, it is referring to apostolic tradition that was given to the church either through the teaching and preaching or through writing.

Hence, we must not read later patristic and medieval customs back into the word tradition in the

New Testament. Is that what happens? There's a tradition that was formed in say the 13th century, 14th century.

And in order to support it, they try to go back and find some verse after the fact and say, oh, you see, the

Bible's talking about that right here. When actually nobody supported that until over a thousand years later.

Do they do that? Well, I mean, that's the claim that that's what the Catholic church does.

Okay. So number two, apostolic tradition has been preserved for us in the writings of what?

The New Testament. Okay. When we read the New Testament, we find exactly what the apostles taught.

We do not need to wonder about the content of apostolic tradition because it is recorded for us on the pages of scripture.

When we evaluate extra biblical tradition in light of the New Testament, we are bringing the authoritative instruction of Christ and the apostles to bear on that tradition.

Okay. And then number three, believers are instructed by the New Testament to evaluate all teachings and traditions in light of what?

God's word. The New Testament repeatedly warns the church about the threat of false teachers.

Okay. So there's some traditions that are good or neutral.

There's some traditions that are not very good. Number four, the early church viewed the writings of the apostles as inherently what?

Authoritative. They understood that any non -biblical tradition must be evaluated against the standard of scripture.

Okay. So we're gonna get into the early church fathers, probably,

I don't know, in the next lesson or two. So there were men who knew someone who knew someone who was a disciple of John and they wrote, are their writings authoritative?

Oh, they're interesting. They're worthy of consideration. When you hear a pastor preaching, you consider what he's saying.

When I read a commentary, I consider it, but none of that is authoritative like the scripture is.

So when Paul wrote, and even if it's a tradition that Paul is giving them, if it's in scripture now, all of a sudden it's binding.

It's a command. It's in the word of God. All right. So the apostles were, they had a level of authority, certainly in their writings.

Any questions or comments so far? Irenaeus who lived from 130 to 202 said, we have learned, is this in your book?

Okay. He says, we have learned from none other, from none others, the plan of our salvation than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us.

That's a reference to the apostles, which they did at one time proclaim in public and at a later period by the will of God, handed down to us a verb form from the word tradition and scriptures to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

And then there's other comments, but the discussion question, can you think of an example of a non -biblical religious tradition?

If you were to evaluate that tradition, belief or practice from a biblical perspective, what would you say about it?

Could you think of any tradition outside? Yeah. And prayers to Mary and the saints.

Okay. Do you ever see anyone in the Bible praying to Mary? Okay. Of course she was alive.

So I, they started praying after she died or was assumed into heaven.

So the Catholics say, praying to the saints. Do you see anything like that in scripture where the

Jews are praying to old Testament prophets or something like that? No. Matter of fact, you see things in scripture that would say, don't do that if anything, right?

Mark, you had, that's what she said.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, if you're talking to someone who's right here, you know, that I wouldn't consider that prayer.

If they're in heaven and you're trying to talk to them, you know, that's, that's a whole other matter.

So that's a good example. I think of Ash Wednesday. Okay. Now, there's nothing in the

Bible about Ash Wednesday at all, but there is something about Jesus when he said, when you fast, do not disfigure your face.

So before Lent starts and they Catholic church, people who follow that, they start fasting.

What do they do on Ash Wednesday? They disfigure their face by putting this big mark of ash on their forehead.

So not only is it not in the Bible, I would argue it directly contradicts what Jesus said.

Yeah. I always took, and this is an aside, disfiguring your face to be, to what sorrowful or painful.

Yeah. Not necessarily marketing. Not that I do that, but right. Right. And that, like an actual show.

Sure. That could be a Catholic argument. Say, see, we're not doing anything wrong, but it violates the principle that you're not supposed to let anyone know.

But the whole purpose of the ash is, Hey, it's visible to everybody that this is what

I'm doing. And I'm preparing for the fast. Aaron. Yeah.

Repent and sackcloth and ashes. See, there's something you can always, you know, is that twisting the scripture too?

I don't think that's a valid interpretation to justify it, but you know, that would be something you'd likely hear.

I would imagine. So let's see. We're just about out of time.

So anyone else have a, a tradition that goes against?

Yes. Linda. Infant baptism. she's really bringing it now.

This would be, you should have mentioned this 10 minutes ago. Yeah.

We'll pick up with that infant baptism, but are there any passages in the

Bible where it's explicit? It's clear in infant or a small child was baptized.

Is that in the Bible? No, it's not in the Bible. So that is argued that tradition developed sometime in the second, third, fourth century.