Nearly five hundred years ago, the great reformers Zwingli
and Luther were meeting to attempt to work out the differences between their
two movements and create a united Protestant church. Unfortunately, despite the
great spiritual stature of both of these men, they could not work out a
suitable compromise on the issue of the Lord’s Supper. This led to the tragedy
of denominationalism that has plagued the church ever since.
The fact is, the central symbols of grace in the church,
seven of them according to the Roman designations, have long been a source of
dispute in church polity. Baptists earlier this century spent a great deal of
time arguing over what Baptism requirements would be necessary for people who
would partake in the Lord’s Supper. Quite a strange debate for a denomination
built on salvation by faith alone!
Clearly none of the sacraments, not even baptism or the
Eucharist, have any kind of redemptive power in the acts themselves. In fact,
while they make beautiful symbols of the
grace [MIR1]God has given us (both symbols
patterned after Jesus’ death[MIR2]), it is only by a faith commitment to Jesus that we receive the grace [MIR3]that they so eloquently symbolize.
This is not to say they are not important. As James states,
faith without works is dead. While he is specifically
referring to charitable ethical acts[MIR4], indeed much of the Mosaic law points out how important these types of
symbols of grace are to God. These actions should be done in obedience to God’s command [MIR5]as a result of the faith that we have placed in Jesus. While they carry
in their own actions no mystical salvific power, they demonstrate the
application of grace that the Spirit has made to our hearts. Indeed, in faith we are baptized in the Spirit [MIR6]and spiritually partake in Jesus’ body and blood. Our physical acts are
acts of obedience based on faith that demonstrate
this reality to the world [MIR7]around us.
Especially in a post-modern world, with all of its focus on
symbols and experience, these types of rituals take on an even deeper meaning.
In some ways, they help to confirm in
the individual’s heart their decision[MIR8], and they do this in the presence of the community who can help hold
them accountable. The problem with
internet sacraments as they are currently done (not to say this could not be
fixed) is not their lack of substance (though there may be something strangely
Gnostic about that tendency), but instead is the total absence of human contact
in community[MIR9].
Clearly, the mode can be altered. We use leavened bread and non-alcoholic grape juice in our ceremony due
to our culture[MIR10]. While the Greek term for Baptism does indeed mean to dunk, I have
postulated the use of squirt guns for baptism due to the representation of
death. The fact is, whatever mode is used in these symbols of grace, the church should be careful to keep as
much of the original biblical symbolism as possible[MIR11]. Now hear me carefully, none of this has absolutely anything to do
with salvation. We are saved by grace through faith, not ritual. These actions
merely physically demonstrate the faith inside of people’s hearts.
Our teaching is simply that those who make a commitment of
faith to Jesus should demonstrate that commitment by public water immersion.
Now clearly there are exceptions to immersion (I can think of handicapped
people who would be better served by sprinkling). While our faith can help others it is not sufficient for their personal
salvation.[MIR12] Therefore, our church does not baptize infants. Since baptism does not
save, but God’s grace does, an innocent
baby will be dealt with by God under God’s mercy[MIR13]. We need not baptize them [MIR14]at this point for a decision we
do not know if they will make or not[MIR15]. When they make their decision of faith, then it is wise to give them
a chance to respond symbolically through obedience in baptism and Eucharist. We
do not baptize for the dead. Again, baptism does not save, people’s decisions
in their lives (or perchance after their lives) is their own decision to make.
God will save them according to the faith of their own decision.
Baptism saves no one, but it becomes merely a mote and
worthless ritual if we do this for other people based on our faith. If this
were the case I would ask to be baptized 8 million times for everyone in
Chicago. It would be worth drowning if I thought it would save this city.
©2001 Jon Richard Pennington
[MIR1]I realized on reading this that the understanding of sacraments as mere symbols is crucial to these differences in perspective. See “The Real Appeal of Baptism.”
[MIR2]Paul was unique in this extension of the significance of baptism. And I’m pretty sure he would have denied it was just symbolic, but fundamental to a believer’s actions (Romans 6:2–5). Similarly, he saw communion as a union, not as a symbol of union, with tangible ramifications for one’s posture toward other believers.
[MIR3]I would have said “salvation” here. Grace is grace because God extends it without warrant and before any commitment on our part.
[MIR4]As I state in “The Real Appeal,” the difference between good works and religious observances is crucial.
[MIR5]This command is presumed in order to motivate believers to undertake an action whose only assumed worth is symbolic, but is in fact hors Biblica.
[MIR6]Interestingly enough, the ritual of baptism of the Spirit is not perfectly correlated with water baptism in the New Testament. If anything, there is strong evidence for a different ritual, laying on of hands, performed for baptism of the Spirit, works of the Spirit, gifts of the Spirit, and ordination by the Spirit.
[MIR7]The emphasis in the Bible seems to be on establishing a relationship with God, not providing evidence of that relationship for others.
[MIR8]Again, regarding symbolism, I would have said that baptism is part of the decision, not a demonstration of the decision. Otherwise, I totally agree with this statement, adding that different people require different levels of confirmation, according to their faith. As I wrote in “Baptism and Faith,” this can allow perhaps infinite variation on the elements and application of baptism, but a church setting practically limits these to the level of the person requiring most confirmation.
[MIR9]This is why I mentioned chat rooms rather than web pages in “Baptism and Faith.” Personally, I’ve experienced fairly intense relationships and community on the Internet.
[MIR10]Ironic, isn’t it, that we ban the alcohol from the wine only to introduce it in the bread?
[MIR11]This is hard to support explicitly from scripture. The most applicable principle would be the one from 1 Corinthians 9 (see comment 8), but that principle allows leeway of application.
[MIR12]Neither does baptism save, so this remark is beside the point in a discussion of baptism of infants.
[MIR13]But this is exactly the sort of faith statement under which I would say a baby can be baptized! If, by one’s trust in God’s character and power, one believes an infant shall be saved, then why not baptize that infant? Will that baptism save the infant? No, but neither does an adult’s own baptism save the adult. Only God will save them both, through faith. In the case of the adult, the operative faith is clear. But in the case of the infant, is there not faith likewise present? Or is infancy a void where faith cannot follow God’s grace (if I may postulate such a nonsensical statement)?
[MIR14]Precisely, because whether baptism is undertaken or not, it is faith that counts. If a parent has faith that God will save a dying infant, he or she need not worry that the infant is not baptized.
[MIR15]But neither baptism nor the decision saves. If their eventual life of faith is the only factor for their salvation, what difference if they make a decision and receive baptism or the parents they depend on make the decision for them and baptize them? What conceivable impact does this difference have on their future life of faith or salvation? The answer is: none, absolutely none, at all. In either case, an appeal was made and God will accept it based on faith. Waiting for the child to reason makes sense only if one sees baptism as a mere symbol—i.e. something that is meaningless unless one can comprehend the symbolism.