 |
Historically, Baptists have rejected both the sacramental belief that the act of baptism itself imparts grace and the opposite extreme that considers it a trivial ritual with little real spiritual meaning, Sheila Klopfer, assistant professor in the religion department at Georgetown College in Kentucky, told the B.H. Carroll Theological Institute summer colloquy.
But in the 20th century, some influential Baptist theologians proposed what they called a “recovery” of a sacramental theology of baptism, and that belief has become common in many British Baptist churches, she noted.
An exploration of American Baptist theology between the Philadelphia Confession of 1742 and the New Hampshire Confession of 1833 offers an alternative path between the extremes for 21st century Baptists, Klofer asserted.
While the Philadelphia Confession was an adaptation of the Second London Confession of 1689 — which, in turn, was based on the Presbyterian Westminster Confession — the changes made reveal Baptists’ understanding of baptismal theology, she noted.
“First, where the Westminster Confession affirmed infant baptism by pouring or sprinkling, the Philadelphia Confession stated the proper subjects of baptism were believers, and the proper mode was immersion,” she said.
“Second, where the Presbyterians utilized such terms as ‘seal’ and ‘sacrament’ to emphasize the Holy Spirit’s conference of God’s grace in baptism, the Baptists substituted ‘ordinance,’ ‘sign of fellowship’ and ‘positive command.’”
Those terms drew a sharp distinction between Baptist insistence on baptism as a voluntary, conscious act by a believer and infant baptism that was intended by parents and church to impart grace to a child who was incapable of a faith response, she observed.
These 18th-century Baptists understood baptism as an act of obedience to Christ’s command, but in their view, baptism also possessed a relational dimension with ethical expression.
“In subjection to the ordinances, the saints-by-calling visibly manifested and evidenced their willingness to walk together as a church,” Klopfer said. “Baptism was a relational reality. It was a walking together with other Christians.”
For Baptists in that time, baptismal services were interactive congregational experiences where members could lay hands on the newly baptized believers, she added.
During the Second Great Awakening, camp meetings often provided a forum for Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian evangelists to offer their views on the proper mode and subject of baptism — further strengthening Baptist resolve about believer’s baptism by immersion, in contrast to infant baptism.
Later, Alexander Campbell’s Restorationist movement — out of which the Churches of Christ and the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) developed — promoted immersion for the remission of sins. Andrew Broaddus presented a Baptist response to Campbell, refuting the saving power of baptism.
“Broaddus rejected baptismal regeneration and set forth a baptism theology that took a position squarely between sacramentalism and mere symbolism,” Klopfer said. “He called baptism a figurative ordinance, a symbol, a visible and declarative act that one’s sins had been remitted, a liquid emblematic grave and an open avowal of allegiance to Christ. And although baptism was symbolic, it was not merely symbolic. In baptism, a living faith acted obediently — and obedience was no trivial matter.”
The New Hampshire Confession followed a similar approach, stressing immersion as the proper mode of baptism and believers as the proper subject, and emphasizing baptism as an “emblem” that demonstrated the believer’s faith in Christ.
“Baptism was not salvific, but emblematic of the purifying power of the cross’s victory over sin,” she said. “Likewise, it was an ecclesiological act that made visible the baptismal candidate’s church membership and served as prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper.”
Baptists in the 21st century can benefit from the baptismal conversations that took place in America between 1742 and 1833 — particularly the relational understanding of baptism as an act of obedience, Klopfer insisted.
“Obedience was not legalism, but a relational reality because it is done in Christ. Baptism was the believer’s act of freedom and obedience made possible by grace through faith,” she said. “It was not a sacrament in which grace was objectively mediated in the act itself. But certainly, grace makes obedience possible, and in this way alone can we include grace in our baptismal conversations.”
-30-
Ken Camp is managing editor of the Texas Baptist Standard.