& BritishBaptist

Recovery of Baptismal
‘aSacramentalism
 Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2024

https://archive.org/details/morethansymbolbr0000stan
STUDIES IN BAPTIST HISTORY AND THOUGHT
VOLUME 2

More Than a Symbol

The British Baptist Recovery of

Baptismal Sacramentalism
STUDIES IN BAPTIST HISTORY AND THOUGHT

A full listing of all titles in this series

appears at the close of this book
STUDIES IN BAPTIST HISTORY AND THOUGHT
VOLUME 2

More Than a Symbol

The British Baptist Recovery of

Baptismal Sacramentalism

Stanley K. Fowler

Foreword by William H. Brackney

PATERNOSTER
 Copyright © Stanley K Fowler 2002

First published 2002 by Paternoster

Paternoster is an imprint of Authentic Media,

9 Holdom Avenue, Bletchley, Milton Keynes, MK1 1QR, U.K.
and
P.O.Box 1047, Waynesboro, GA 30830-2047, U.S.A.

08 07 06 05 040302 7654321

The right of Stanley K Fowler to be identified as the Author of this Work

has been asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without the prior permission of the publisher, or a license permitting restricted copying. In the UK such
licenses are issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
90 Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 1-84227-052-4

Printed and bound in Great Britain

for Paternoster
by Nottingham Alpha Graphics
To Donna, who never gave up
 CONTENTS

CI MCr I PEUACES, Atal Ramah «sss csie's sb oo 604s so 6 HOZRMIGR Seed xi

CE a rs es alate scove's 8x5 4 6 bas 00 66.8 0 vMncamolgnl Saint oes xiii
SamORERMERECLONING Soetoro dies a's W 4'0ie co ao & 6 «ow ere Ch oes XV

LESSEN I a a a Co 1
Le TENTESHN AUTESOS TT hin eee an 2 6

Chapter 1 The Historical Background: Baptist Views of

Sacramentalism from 1600 to 1900 ........ cc.....
cee cee ceeee 10
oe seventcenth Ceoniutyarc? any ads co auemced . veoh Aaielnceh. 10
DO PUSE COM CSSIONS OF FON Piet ¥sce Styne S 5 te cuveecndl «antes t) vl:l
PROIVICUOL-BADUST AINNOTS os. 4 eo Bree. Ieee .20
TOBE EATARMER (yn) fet ccates 5h, cet ES eek oueee Ap! .20
PIED Vu CAW RENCE ote Ae 6 oe ontBhie Geir d.! ck ieee 24
BeHORMAS SRA NERA eevee Bers oe NER cacy din Pants ok oS al,
IBENTAMING KG ACE Sires Sect OUR ee Bi oF oet ced keBe Dou oo
ETE AME NAPE CHI? ecco ctenitnn < seaeram tl deren eee oe .30
SLO Le Saved ok aN ee nee eee eg ke ON ae. ee Jil
PR TeRem CII ce Rl Adee semis anh: MA OR canna eye
POTTING Pee eas Fefatak so Aina. conin,ubene ta.coe Nt C8, bo ae wey 33
TANGLE 4BGG BLEU | er OR eit eS CE 42
PATILPC TE LONE Ceroiy-oe, Tie as RSE Regie A a a 46
PATE OMY FUE nao teotteay i,ootlass ee A Oi, eats as 48
HELE EES IEE A ea oe eTe ee eo ee Ze
DSTO meen autre t Maat re cine BEE a ne oo OR AREY ese ea B38
TELLUS NS Nat eooe ee en eee Ae Oe oe,Se ee a 3
PRC NCICCHUN COUT 9ok ooo oe hg Ko Sip a Matinee Hace og ceKls Peo Syl
iNGig1sPe)Ste 1A JOEgente AEOESING ee Maa ORE cuter Ea eeer aan Se ee 59
BIONIC) Me A) SOUP econ eo dadoicaie dbo, seeS/o) RPO) Oe SENS Ce ae .64
TICLECRTOPEN caes aes OO GE ees cig oe ote, BM as 5s he 65
AUIS) NOC pte a A kat Sas eit dee atte oe ee Page Ae Ae:
OF) ALUN OV at 2.0 cadence Stinks Faas eeicssoso ck epg Mig ake #6)
De ELOW
PTOICS PACOUOTSDULOCUM tots aie ake Aa a nba aoe vate Bega atl: ao
PACT aeI et awl ts tee a8 oie PRG de Fuk Cte ae 84
AY MEE Semone ca beans aisoohols<dina .86
Con CS ee aay Bie on Sine itt) os won ocala haw aes 86
Viii ( Contents

Chapter 2 The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism ....... 89

Ee Wheeler Robinson ss. «iseu sees 14 eee eee eek se eee 89
Alfred:Clair Underwood «= @t5..307 2 50 en et ne ee ere .98
Robert G.-Walton:: #02) 25444 25 Sea A ee ee ee «Oe ee eee eee 100
Henry Cook: 740.55 cc-2 se) tenon ae ee ae a ae 105
Neville-Clark: t.¢.0 082) de 2an MEPS ete 2s Se ee 107
Fhe Publication of Christian Baptism 24,3539. 5e 9 ‘PIS
Criticisms of the DOOk DY BODLUSIS 2. shes car See ee ee 124
Beasley-Murray 8response™ 1 SUP MIAN AB TE erin fees ne re 129
R. E. O. White, The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (V0.
220 02 133
G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament ........... ee,
Alec Gilmore, Bapusmiand Christian Unity"? te 145
Denominational Statements GaAnscnaeseo- e 150
Baptist Service Books® 0.70 bed Per cee eae eee 152
SUMMINSLY oeeae Nee A ae ec ae ae ee 154

Chapter 3 An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations ........... A506

BaptistiSacramental Pxegesis@? 5 Am 225 Sine ree ne AST
Baptisiexerectical Gntigisins 45255. 8 ee ee 164
MAN CW 268192208 28 eee tae ee 165
ACIS DESGta ites tN Sa Se 2s Sn eee ee 166
WeTEPRVETSUSISDITIUSS SAS Boies eee cea ee eee tre ee eee .170
Bapust, ermeneutical:Crticisins 2 5 05 ee 174
Karl Barth's Critique:of Sacramentalisin, 9s. st eee 178
Acts22s 16S Het R BO BOR Oe Oh ren Nate a ne ee oe 181
Hebrews 1022 Rea en a Pe coe ee ee a ee 181
Hphesians 725226 5.00 A ete nn eee 182
THUS SOP AS AS a et ee 184
Galatians’ 3227-7555 BO Aen en ee eet ea tener eee 185
ROMANS O:324. 22.25) AE SORES ee ae ee 186
Colossians 2012.) oe aT ee ee 188
JONM SIS 2S SG oe a ee .189
Mark lONG coe ee ee ee ee .190
1 Peter 3:20 & 2 ee ee 191
Conclusion oo. Pose ie ee a ee 193
SUMMAary “50. SR eee “195

Chapter 4 An Analysis of the Theological Formulation ........ 196

Creation, Incamation-and Baptism)... een 196
Baptism and Paith = 6.20.0 eee ee 90
Contents

eee ANU A TACC ME ee ety ed os 68 es She en RAIDS .209

OGTACE ANA PACAGUGPUSIN Lae FEED Tree ee A ee et oss VAG
Psapmcmand: tne: EON SPMEIl ce la eo es $k Ges eh wh ow 219
Reape MP ee ULEAD re 8 ear ck a eee ee ne kk ee ee 223
MeMNCCeSsitya apusin Geet ere. F TEM... Sk, us eee ess. 232
Baptists and Other Sacramental Traditions ................0... 234
RR OMIITE COIMONIC ATOGUION |srs Sra, oS 9 bits WO okey les Ula we 55
Pe TUIRETAN TT CAITONS S408 ON ID PU OUTOIMIES Sh TAS POE) eae ey oT
DERE ONIN CONVITISTIC ITAGHION Ln en ke ee ee 238
AVie WISCIDICS/ IRCSTOTOLIONIS IFGQUION .. ceeee te 240
SS TESTE Ma: sapien Ala at oe a ea a a a ae 246

Chapter 5 The Significance of Baptist Sacramentalism ........ 248

PEI
TO DY cofeteiceloieraia chcpa Wisig Ue store wis hiae sie sip ose seestee « 254

MORRO ore at raiehs siila Bikie BOE Seis «otindaws bvate sulci. See 273
 ae 6} hl hU a , A ap ve ae

We :
pee:

4 eT bat courgeH
»* : . e g = Vay AL Th all " Ach |

'
tee? we t Lage nt ee
fet > fc ioe
4
rhe eft he 7 a ont
ney
oi! (Ase qg 36? teife dam eae
aaa | A Pa OP a4 an ony”
Phe Pith yay yu / 4 Rows) Paypy a. 4 '
at,* . — 7.34 f \ J ySh'e fe ; ay rare * ai 6
"ke : #. brary tu 1D. ue) te lies Lee 5)
ot
» ‘ iS Al ' a
‘i rita = ppntil?
a MO a? Cegall% sonastbing
? fT & eetetD
won . \ ee so)

Ar ‘
| <a:

= a be’ Si e649<2428§<29 Gu .;
=e =
 STUDIES IN BAPTIST HISTORY AND THOUGHT

Series Preface

Baptists form one of the largest Christian communities in the world, and while they
hold the historic faith in common with other mainstream Christian traditions, they
nevertheless have important insights which they can offer to the worldwide church.
Studies in Baptist History and Thought will be one means towards this end. It is an
international series of academic studies which includes original monographs, revised
dissertations, collections of essays and conference papers, and aims to cover any
aspect of Baptist history and thought. While not all the authors are themselves
Baptists, they nevertheless share an interest in relating Baptist history and thought to
the other branches of the Christian church and to the wider life of the world.
The series includes studies in various aspects of Baptist history from the
seventeenth century down to the present day, including biographical works, and
Baptist thought is understood as covering the subject-matter of theology (including
interdisciplinary studies embracing biblical studies, philosophy, sociology, practical
theology, liturgy and women’s studies). The diverse streams of Baptist life
throughout the world are all within the scope of these volumes.
The series editors and consultants believe that the academic disciplines of history
and theology are of vital importance to the spiritual vitality of the churches of the
Baptist faith and order. The series sets out to discuss, examine and explore the many
dimensions of their tradition and so to contribute to their on-going intellectual
vigour.
A brief word of explanation is due for the series identifier on the front cover. The
fountains, taken from heraldry, represent the Baptist distinctive of believer’s baptism
and, at the same time, the source of the water of life. There are three of them because
they symbolize the Trinitarian basis of Baptist life and faith. Those who are
redeemed by the Lamb, the book of Revelation reminds us, will be led to ‘fountains
ofliving waters’ (Rev. 7.17).
 Series Editors

Anthony R. Cross, Fellow of the Centre for Baptist History and Heritage, Regent’s
Park College, Oxford, UK

Curtis W. Freeman, Research Professor of Theology and Director of the Baptist

House of Studies, Duke University, North Carolina, USA

Stephen R. Holmes, Lecturer in Theology, University of St Andrews, Scotland, UK

Elizabeth Newman, Professor of Theology and Ethics, Baptist Theological Seminary

at Richmond, Virginia, USA

Philip E. Thompson, Assistant Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian

Heritage, North American Baptist Seminary, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, USA

Series Consultant Editors

David Bebbington, Professor of History, University of Stirling, Scotland, UK

Paul S. Fiddes, Professor of Systematic Theology, University of Oxford, and

Principal of Regent’s Park College, Oxford, UK

Stanley J. Grenz, Pioneer McDonald Professor of Theology, Carey Theological

College, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Stanley E. Porter, President and Professor of New Testament, McMaster Divinity

College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
 FOREWORD

In their more or less four century history, Baptists have had more to say
about baptism than any other subject. Most of what they have written about
has to do with form and fitness of baptismal candidates, rather than
engaging the Early Church or Reformation discussions about theological
meanings. In fact, in order to avoid any seeming attachment to the
establishment churches, Baptists early moved away from sacramental
terminology to that of “ordinance.” Here is where the present study makes
a singular contribution.
Stanley Fowler examines a significant tradition among mainstream
British Baptists who favor a more sacramental perspective on believer
baptism. His thesis is that in the twentieth century leading British Baptist
pastors and theologians recovered an understanding of baptism that
connected experience with soteriology, and focused on the forgiveness of
sins rather than a witness of a completed experience of union with Christ.
It is Fowler’s contention that twentieth century Baptists were merely
recovering what many of their forebears had taught, though few of them
acknowledged dependence upon earlier Baptist writers. Rather, they were
more influenced by discussions in the ecumenical movement.
A primary value of this study is that the author surveys the entire scope
of British Baptist literature from the seventeenth century pioneers in both
the British General and Particular branches. He then covers those prolific
polemicists of the next two centuries from John Gill and Robert Hall to
Alexander Carson and C. H. Spurgeon. Fowler argues persuasively that
during this period the British Baptist community retreated from the question
of the effects of baptism to an emphasis upon discipleship and obedience.
He attributes this transition to a belief that sacramentalism was for most
Baptists simply “works righteousness.” He is correct in his assessment and
this has undoubtedly set the course for the vast majority of Baptist thinking
about baptism.
Secondly, Fowler provides the next analytical and historiographical step
in British Baptist baptismal studies. J. R. C. Perkin surveyed the problem
through 1920 in his thesis, “Baptism in Nonconformist Theology, With
Special Reference to the Baptists” (D.Phil., Oxford, 1955). Anthony R.
Cross in this Series has taken a different tack in his Baptism and the
Baptists: Theology and Practice in Twentieth Century Britain (2000), in
which he provides a theological history of baptism in the context of
influences of the ecumenical movement. Fowler now shows without doubt,
that it was the revival of sacramentalism that was the vivid feature of the last
XIV Foreword

century’s discussions.
But this study is more than an historical survey. Fowler demonstrates
his acumen as a biblical interpreter and theologian. He takes exception with
major Baptist thinkers such as A. T. Robertson and joins the arguments
connecting water-baptism and Spirit-baptism. He fully engages the critique
of G. R. Beasley-Murray, one of the outstanding proponents of the
sacramentalist school. Most intriguing, perhaps, is Fowler’s response to
Karl Barth’s critique of sacramentalism, where Fowler contends that Barth
avoided a natural interpretation of many baptismal texts.
Helpful to those in other traditions than the Baptists is Dr. Fowler’s
coverage of responses to British Baptist sacramental thought and his
comparison of the Baptists to contemporary Protestant and Catholic
thinkers. In so doing he has renewed the dialogue over baptism, the Holy
Spirit and ecclesiology. The Christian community in general will profit
from the contrasts he draws with other usages of sacramental terminology.
What is really important about this book is that it opens new
possibilities of serious theological dialogue for a Christian community that
values experience and symbol. It is to the credit of the British Baptist
sacramentalist movement that they have carried forth an understanding of
baptism as an act of powerful theological meaning. Along with a minority
of North American Baptist thinkers, British Baptists have succeeded in
providing an agenda to restore meaning to an ancient practice of the Church,
and to engage a movement known for its theological obscurantism and
radical individualism. Hopefully Fowler’s work on the British community
will inspire other such analyses, particularly in the North American context.
I commend this work among Baptists to awaken their thinking, and to
non-Baptists as a piece of solid scholarship in the Baptist tradition.

William H. Brackney
Department of Religion
Baylor University
Waco, Texas, U.S.A.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This book is a product of my studies for the Doctor of Theology degree at

Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, and I wish to acknowledge various
persons and institutions who facilitated those studies. Some of the material
in the book arose out of papers which I wrote for Prof. John B. Webster at
Wycliffe College, and I am grateful for his direction and insightful
criticisms. When I first selected this topic for my doctoral thesis, Prof.
Webster was to serve as my director, and I looked forward to that working
relationship. Due to the demands of my work at Central Baptist Seminary,
Toronto and later at Heritage Theological Seminary, Cambridge, Ontario,
I was unable to pursue the thesis research for several years. When I was
reinstated to the doctoral program to write the thesis in 1996, Prof. Webster
was named the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Oxford University,
and I was forced to look for another director. I am profoundly grateful that
Prof. William H. Brackney, then Principal of McMaster Divinity College,
Hamilton, Ontario was willing to work with me on this project and now has
graciously written the Foreword for this book. Few scholars in the world
can match Prof. Brackney’s knowledge of Baptist history and thought, and
I am grateful for his scholarly insight and his friendship.
The reinstatement to write my doctoral thesis was possible only because
the board of directors of Heritage Theological Seminary granted me a one-
year study leave from September 1996 through August 1997, and I am
grateful for their generosity. My colleagues at the seminary have been
consistently encouraging throughout the time in which I wrote and defended
the thesis, and also as I have revised it for publication, even when they had
difficulty accepting my conclusions. Special thanks go to Prof. Michael A.
G. Haykin, my colleague for 19 years, who shares my interest in the history
of Baptist thought on the sacraments. I am also grateful for the students
who have listened patiently and challenged thoughtfully.
Research for this project occurred at several libraries: our own library
at Heritage Seminary; the libraries of McMaster University, Wilfrid Laurier
University, University of Waterloo, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
and Christian Theological Seminary; and especially the American Baptist
Historical Society Library in Rochester, New York, where I was able to
work with the early English Baptist literature without crossing the Atlantic
Ocean.
I owe special thanks to Anthony Cross for many things. Just as I was
finishing the first complete draft of my thesis in the summer of 1997, I
discovered that Anthony had recently submitted his Ph.D. thesis at the
University of Keele on a subject very much like mine. My initial panic
XVi Acknowledgments

turned to joy when we began to correspond and I discovered that his work
was complementary to mine and in no way nullified my developing
contribution to the field. I have been grateful for Anthony’s comprehensive
treatment of baptism in the life of modern British Baptists (an earlier book
in this series), but more than that for our friendship which has grown out of
our common interests. He encouraged Paternoster to consider my work for
publication, and for that I will be forever grateful.
My thanks go to the editorial committee which accepted this book for
publication, and especially to Jeremy Mudditt for his encouragement and
help with all the details along the way.
Finally, Iwish to express my appreciation to my wife, Donna, for all that
she has done to make this book a reality. She encouraged me to pursue
doctoral studies and an academic career after thirteen years of pastoral
ministry; she went back to work full-time to make my full-time doctoral
studies possible; she continued to believe that the project could be
completed even when I was bogged down in seminary administration and
unable to pursue research in any serious way; and she has endured to the
end. I could never express my appreciation adequately for all that she has
meant to me.
 INTRODUCTION

One of the ironies of Christian history is that Baptists, in spite of their name,
have been slow to develop a theology of baptism. That is not to say that
Baptists have not spoken and written at great length about baptism, but it is
to say that such literature has normally dealt with questions about the proper
subjects and mode of baptism to the exclusion of a positive statement of
what is presumed to happen in baptism, especially from the divine side. As
William Brackney notes:

From their intense preoccupation over textual details in the New

Testament and a desire to re-create the primitive Church, Baptists have
spent their energies on the techniques, styles, and fitness of candidates
for participation in the sacraments, rather than the mystery of the divine-
human relationships. !

In other words, Baptists have generally been much more certain about what
does not happen in the sprinkling of infants than they are about what does
happen in the immersion of confessing believers. J. M. Ross, a British
Presbyterian lay scholar, has concluded that "the doctrine of baptism does
not occupy a central place in Baptist theology," and that "this is a fact which
always comes as a surprise to paedobaptists."” Although Ross's judgment
would be false if "doctrine" were interpreted broadly as inclusive of all
teaching about the practice of baptism, it is accurate if "doctrine" describes
the interpretation of the divine-human encounter which occurs in baptism.
Ross is not the only observer to express surprise at this paradoxical state
of affairs. Markus Barth, who is in many ways sympathetic to Baptist

1 William H. Brackney, 7he Baptists (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press, 1988), 69-70.
2 J.M. Ross, "The Theology of Baptism in Baptist History," Zhe Baptist Quarterly 15
(1953-54): 100.
2 More Than a Symbol

concerns, has written:

I have not only looked into the churches and the church history of the
Baptists. I have also searched in Baptist theological literature, and
have inquired from learned Baptist friends about a hidden mystery or
revelation that might lie in or behind the Baptist position. I have
perceived that most Baptist scholars have more or less convincing and
valid reasons for rejecting infant baptism; that they are quite sure
about the form of baptism (immersion), but that they are as vague or
narrow, as contradictory or embarrassed as divines of other
denominations when the nature and meaning of baptism is discussed.’

All this has caused G. R. Beasley-Murray, a Baptist scholar, to ask:

Now what is the explanation of this paradoxical situation, that

Baptists have been prepared to fight to the death about baptism, and
they continue to be divided from most of Christendom because of
baptism, and yet they have been and still are extraordinarily slow in
committing themselves to a theology of baptism? And when they do
take up the cudgels, why do they resist sacramental theology so
fiercely and retreat to the defence of a symbolic ordinance that
apparently effects nothing?“

His answer to the second question is that Baptists have wanted to avoid all
appearance of superstition in their use of sacred rituals and to preserve the
centrality of personal faith in religion, but as laudable as these concerns may
be, they do not justify the neglect of valid questions.
One result of this lack of a theology of baptism is seen in the tendency
to focus on narrative descriptions of baptism in the New Testament and to
treat didactic baptismal texts only in a superficial manner. For example,
although Romans 6:3-4 is often quoted by Baptists to justify immersion as
the proper mode, it is used in some very surprising ways. This text is
routinely interpreted as saying that baptism is a picture of burial and
resurrection. However, while the text may well assume the practice of
immersion (a whole host of non-Baptist commentators would agree), in
point of fact the text does not say in so many words that baptism pictures

3 Markus Barth, "Weakness or Value of the Baptist Position," /oundations 1 (1958): 66.
4 GeorgeR. Beasley-Murray, Baptism Today and Tomorrow (London: Macmillan, 1966),
83. This source will be noted hereafter as B77.
Introduction 3

pemaee ptism effects union with

arious suffering and resurre BiThisis,
Aoi contse ne ei
for a purely rabsila view hol veueian so that many Baptists resort to
interpreting this text as a reference to Spirit-baptism, while at the same time
wanting to retain it as a proof-text for immersion in water. For example, a
contemporary Baptist has written about this Romans text:

It is almost always the case in the epistles that "baptism" means

Spirit-baptism, with the word "baptism" being used pictorially.... So
while the direct reference of this passage is to Spirit-baptism, the
terms in which it is described make some reference to water-baptism.
.. Paul never speaks explicitly about baptism in his epistles and only
once about the Lord's Supper. But this does not mean these
ordinances are to be undervalued or neglected, for they are used as
illustrations of salvation. Undoubtedly that is the case in the passage
under review and, as long as the main subject is kept in view, we can
learn a lot about the meaning of baptism.°

This situation has been modified somewhat in the 20th century by the
work of some British Baptist sciclas: who have shifted dovrarth a
perennial tist in integral part vers n

The purpose of this eee is to mali ae ei Baptist aevelonmal ie

describing the process of reformulation, evaluating its foundational New
Testament exegesis, and assessing its theological meaning and coherence.
Perhaps the most basic contribution of this book will be to demonstrate that
traditional assumptions about the baptismal theology of Baptists are often
inaccurate. These are not simply assumptions made by those outside the
Baptist tradition, but are in fact the common assumptions of many Baptists
themselves. For example, one contemporary English Baptist has made this
sweeping statement about Baptists in general:

For Baptists the ordinance of baptism is not a sacrament in which

5 Eric Lane, J Want to Be Baptised (London: Grace Publications, 1986), 93-96.

6 Alec Gilmore, ed., Christian Baptism (London: Lutterworth Press, 1959) brings
together some of the developing thought of these Baptists. This book (hereafter noted
as CB) represents both a statement of the results of this shift and a stimulus to further
reflection. H. Wheeler Robinson and A. C. Underwood were influential pioneers in the
early part of this century. The major thinkers in the later development included Gilmore,
Beasley-Murray, Neville Clark, and R. E. O. White.
4 More Than a Symbol

grace is infused into the believer in any way, but rather the ordinance
is a testimony of what God has done in regeneration and is a
testimony by the believer of repentance and faith. It is a testimony of
one who can give a credible testimony of God’s grace in bringing him
into a union with Christ, a union symbolised in burial and rising again
to newness of life, as well as a symbol of discipleship.’

In contrast to such assertions, this book will demonstrate that in fact a

significant stream of recent Baptist thought moves along the lines of a
sacramentalism which is firmly rooted in the New Testament language
about baptism, which coherently relates baptismal theology to broader
questions of soteriology, and which may rightly be seen as a recovery and
elaboration of mainstream Baptist thought of the 17" century. Although this
reformulation of Baptist thought has been British in origin, there is nothing
uniquely British about its content, and it might well serve as a new
paradigm for Baptist thought on a wider scale.
It is clear in the literature under analysis that these scholars believed they
were breaking new ground and advancing ideas that had never been
common among Baptists. Beasley-Murray, who represented in many ways
the culmination of this sacramental shift, indicated that the major causative
factors were involvement in ecumenical discussions and fresh study of the
New Testament.® The evidence indicates that the contemporary Baptist
sacramentalists have never suggested that their view is actually a recovery
of a significant, and n. But given the
intensity of Baptist commitment to the authority of Scripture over against
tradition, if there is strong New Testament support for a sacramental view

7 Erroll Hulse, “The 1689 Confession—its history and role today,” in Our Baptist Heritage,
by Paul Clarke et al. (Leeds: Reformation Today Trust, 1993), 18. It should be noted
that the same author, in an earlier book, affirmed his preference for the term “sacrament”
over “ordinance” and asserted that one should expect a powerful work of the Holy Spirit
in the recipients of baptism. However, in his explanation of appropriate baptismal
practice, he argued that the candidate should give a testimony of the experience of
regeneration before the whole congregation, to be followed by a congregational vote on
the suitability of the candidate for baptism. Therefore, although he accepted the

hana means tc nce t! yene See Erroll Tiilse “The

Taipications of Bapleni in Pag C Eek PRaCHEe! Baruch Maoz et al. (Haywards
Heath, Sussex: Carey Publications, 1978), 47, 53, 55.
8 Beasley-Murray, BYT, 15.
Introduction 5

of baptism, then it would be surprising to find Baptists taking over three

centuries to discover it.
The first chapter of this book will survey British Baptist thought
concerning baptism as a sacrament during the period from 1600 to 1900,
and it will be demonstrated that when the earliest Baptists addressed the
question
Specifically, this chapter will argue that the dominant strain of early Baptist
thought conceptualized baptism as both a sign and a seal of saving union
with Christ, IVI S
ne 7 PC For a variety of reasons, this
aptismal theology was modified in a non-sacramental direction during the
18th and 19th centuries, so that by 1900 it was widely believed that Baptists
had always interpreted baptism as a purely symbolic act of obedience, an
ordinance as opposed to a sacrament.
Shifting patterns of Baptist thought about the meaning of baptism are
related to similar shifts in Baptist usage of the terms ordinance and
sacrament. Inrecent history the term ordinance has normally signified only
baptism and the Lord's Supper, the sense being that ordinances are “those
outward rites which Christ has appointed to be administered in his church
as visible signs of the saving truth of the gospel,” and as such an ordinance
5A SEARS UHUISOAiipanioniaidaOhrist® However,
for Baptists of the 17th century the term had a broader signification,
denoting (in addition to baptism and the Lord's Supper) at least the ministry
of the Word and prayer (The Baptist Catechism, 1689),'° and sometimes
disciplinary censures (John Smyth)'' or laying on of hands as a post-
baptismal empowering by the Holy Spirit (7he Standard Confession,
1660).'* Imposition of hands was affirmed as an ordinance of Christ by
much of the General Baptist tradition and by some in the Particular Baptist
tradition, notably the Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742). Although
it is practised in some Baptist churches today, it is affirmed formally as an

9 Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (1907, Valley Forge: Judson Press,
1967), 930. See also James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, &
Evangelical (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-1995), 2:503.
10 The Baptist Catechism: Commonly Called Keach's Catechism (Philadelphia: American
Baptist Publication Society, 1851), 23.
11 John Smyth, The Works of John Smyth, ed. W. T. Whitley (2 vols.; Cambridge:
University Press, 1915), 1:254.
12 William L. Lumpkin, Baptist Confessions of Faith (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1959),
229.
6 More Than a Symbol

ordinance by only a few.'* General Baptists, sometimes under Mennonite

influence, practised footwashing as an ordinance into the 19th century, but
this continues only in a few scattered congregations. '4
It will be shown below that the term sacrament was used widely by 17th-
century Baptists to denote baptism and the Lord's Supper as two ordinances
in a special category. For a variety of reasons, the term fell into disfavor
among Baptists, but some continued to use the term (although not always
with a clearly defined meaning). In early Baptist history, then, the
ordinances were inclusive of the sacraments, but over time the denotation
of both terms became identical (baptism and the Lord's Supper) while their
connotations became distinct (pure symbol versus means of grace). For the
VAN
AVL] :

The Limits of this Study

This study does not treat in any substantial way British Baptist literature on
baptism from the last third of the 20" century, and it is perhaps necessary to
justify this choice. In brief the reason is that the literature from about 1967
to the present, although sometimes exploring the meaning of
sacramentalism, does not manifest any felt need to argue at length that
baptism is a sacrament as opposed to a mere symbol. Anthony Cross, who
has written a comprehensive survey of British Baptist baptismal theology
and practice in the past century, has said this:

Mid-century witnessed the high point of Baptist writing on baptism,

the great majority of which explored the sacramental dimension of
baptism in some way. . . Baptists have now generally accepted the
word “sacrament,” whereas, for over half a century, the word was
regarded with suspicion and was frequently rejected. . . . Among
Baptists, “sacrament” is now widely used, though the accompanying
theology continues to be largely symbolic, and though a sacramental
theology is increasingly common, chiefly among the theologically
literate, ecumenically committed, and liturgically oriented. . . .

13 Brackney, Baptists, 67-69.

14 Ibid., 69.
Introduction 7

Further, it should be noted that over the last thirty to forty years anti-
sacramentalist writings have all but disappeared—though this is not to
say that such convictions are not held.°

Cross interprets this mid-century stream of literature as the consolidation of

Baptist sacramentalism, not in the sense that it represents a fixed and final
form of British Baptist thought, but in the sense that it established a
generally accepted framework for the ongoing reflection on the meaning of
baptism. From that point on, whatever opinions may have been held
privately or expressed orally, Baptist literature on baptism (at least that
produced within the Baptist Union of Great Britain) has no longer debated
the question of symbol versus sacrament to any significant degree. Cross
locates the terminus ad quem of this consolidated sacramentalism in 1966,
when Beasley-Murray published Baptism Today and Tomorrow, the second
of his books on baptism, and it was also in that year that Alec Gilmore
published his Baptism and Christian Unity.'° Those books are the final
pieces of literature surveyed in this study as well.
Much of the post-consolidation literature has been in the form of Baptist
response to ecumenical issues, which is to say that the literature is not so
much about baptismal theology per se as it is about baptism as one problem
in ecumenical relations.'’ The official Baptist Union of Great Britain
response to Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry was published in 1986.'* Ten
years later the Doctrine and Worship Committee of the Baptist Union
produced a discussion document, Believing and Being Baptized: Baptism,
So-Called Re-Baptism, and Children in the Church (Didcot: Baptist Union
of Great Britain, 1996). In 1997 three Baptists were part of a nine-person
task force which produced Baptism and Church Membership, with
particular reference to Local Ecumenical Partnerships. The latter two
documents assume a sacramental understanding of baptism but tend to see
baptism as one moment in a process of the experience of salvation, which
is a paradigm shift away from the focus on punctiliar conversion-baptism in
much of the earlier sacramental literature. This focus on process as opposed
to point supports the possibility of viewing credobaptism and paedobaptism

15 Anthony R. Cross, “Baptists and Baptism—A British Perspective,” Baptist History and
Heritage 35, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 107.
16 Anthony R. Cross, Baptism and the Baptists (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000), 243.
17 Cross, “Baptists and Baptism,” 108.
18 Max Thurian, ed., Churches Respond to BEM: Official Responses to the “Baptism,
Eucharist and Ministry” Text, Vol. 1 (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986), 70-
TT. .
8 More Than a Symbol

as alternative approaches to Christian initiation, which in turn facilitates the

participation of Baptists in union churches or other institutional forms of
ecumenism at the local level. While this is a different way of speaking
about the precise nature of sacramental action in baptism, it does not reopen
the question of whether baptism is in fact sacramental.
In 1996 six Baptist scholars contributed chapters to Reflections on the
Water, a book which views the baptism of believers from multiple angles,
and two of the chapters are particularly relevant for the discussion of
baptism as a sacrament. Christopher Ellis dealt with “Baptism and the
Sacramental Freedom of God,” and in doing so touched on the traditional
Baptist reluctance to speak of baptism in sacramental terms. He suggested
that this concern was rooted in various factors, not the least of which was
the perception that sacramentalism overstated both the necessity and
efficacy of baptism. Ellis sought to allay this concern by interpreting
baptism as one significant stage in the process of salvation, in his words, “a
medium of the Spirit who has already impinged on the person and led him
or her to a confession of faith and a life of discipleship,” which leads to “a
new stage of life in the Spirit.”!” Paul Fiddes edited the volume and wrote
the chapter on “Baptism and Creation,” in which he argued that the
sacramental nature of baptism is one specific manifestation of the general
truth that God relates to humans through the “stuff” of the material world.
Immersion in water is an action which is well suited to enable human
participation in God’s purposes, “evoking such experiences as birth,
cleansing, conflict, journey, and renewal.”*? The way in which Fiddes
frames his argument emphasizes baptism as a suitable vehicle for divine-
human encounter, as opposed to a necessary ritual operating in a
mechanistic manner.
Although the chapters by Ellis and Fiddes are both mildly apologetic in
nature, neither one engages any of the traditional, anti-sacramental literature
of earlier Baptists in an attempt to refute a purely symbolic view of the rite.
Each “defends” baptismal sacramentalism by a positive statement of the
meaning of the concept and an attempt to show how that is coherent with
broader themes of creation and redemption. There is material here worthy
of study, but it assumes the reformulation which is the focus of this book
and addresses a new set of issues. When Ellis raises the question of Baptist
uneasiness with sacramental language, his initial response is to refer to the

19 Christopher Ellis, “Baptism and the Sacramental Freedom of God,” in Reflections on the
Water, ed. Paul S. Fiddes (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 1996), 31.
20 Paul S. Fiddes, “Baptism and Creation,” in Reflections, 65.
Introduction 9

body of literature which is analysed in this book.?! Therefore, it seems

appropriate to focus this book on the Baptist movement which culminated
in the 1960's and to leave the analysis of later literature for another book.

21 Ellis, “Baptism;” 32-33.

 CHAPTER 1

The Historical Background: Baptist

Views of Sacramentalism from 1600 to 1900

The Seventeenth Century

When Baptist churches emerged from the English Separatist context in the
first decade of the 17" century, almost all English Christians were formally
committed to the understanding of baptism expressed in the Thirty-Nine
Articles of the Church of England. There the dominical sacraments were
described as “not only badges or tokens of Christian men’s profession,” but
also “effectual signs of grace, and God’s good will towards us, by the which
he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen
and confirm our Faith in him” (Art. XXV).’ Baptism was understood to be
“a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they
that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the
forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy
Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace
increased by virtue of prayer unto God” (Art. XXVII).2 Although
mainstream Anglicans and Puritans differed in their estimate of the relative
significance of sacraments compared to preaching, they agreed that the
sacraments both commemorated the work of Christ and communicated grace
to those who received them in faith.’ It would be clearly impossible to
affirm the baptismal definition of the Thirty-Nine Articles and at the same
time deny that baptism communicates grace, but the sense in which it is
“effectual” and the precise way in which it functions as an “instrument” are
subject to interpretation. Therefore, the English context included views that
tilted in the Roman Catholic direction (emphasizing baptism as an
instrument of regeneration) and views that tilted in the Calvinistic direction

1 John H. Leith, ed., Creeds of the Churches, 3" ed. (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982),
274.
2 Ibid., 275-276.
3 Horton Davies, Worship and Theology in England, Vol. 1, From Cranmer to Hooker,
1534-1603 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), 62-64.
The Historical Background 11

(emphasizing baptism as a seal of God’s promises).

The earliest leaders of those churches that would eventually be called
Baptist, men like John Smyth and Thomas Helwys, lived with their
congregations for some time in exile in Holland, where they were in
continuing contact with Dutch Mennonites. Although the extent of
Mennonite influence on the earliest Baptist churches is debatable, it can at
least be said that Smyth and Helwys, along with their followers, were
exposed to a non-sacramental kind of baptismal theology which may have
modified their thought. At the very least, this contact gave them another
option to consider as they began to formulate their own baptismal theology.
However, it would be a mistake to conclude that since Baptists shared the
Mennonite rejection of infant baptism, they therefore shared their non-
sacramental interpretation of the efficacy of baptism. Baptists rejected other
distinctive teachings of the Mennonites (e.g., pacifism), and they were
capable of formulating their own distinctive doctrine of the meaning of the
baptism of believers. This study will now proceed to examine this
formulation in the confessions and books of the 17"-century Baptists.

Baptist Confessions of Faith

It is important to remember that there is no single statement of faith which
functions normatively for Baptists in the same way as the Westminster
Confession for many Presbyterians or the Augsburg Confession for many
Lutherans. Most of the early confessions arose from local associations of
churches, resulting in significant diversity, although some of them were later
adopted by larger Baptist bodies and came to play a more dominant role.
From the earliest years Baptists have also been divided into an Arminian
stream going back to Smyth and Helwys in the years just prior to 1610
(General Baptist, Free Will Baptist, etc) and a Calvinistic stream going back
to the late 1630's (Particular Baptist, Strict Baptist, Regular Baptist, etc.).
There has also been a continuing ambivalence among Baptists about the
function of confessions of faith or creeds. Many Baptists emphasize that
Baptists are not a creedal people, so that confessions of faith are not binding
on the individual conscience or congregation--only Scripture has final
authority. At the same time, it is recognized that it 1s not possible to teach
any conceivable doctrine on the basis of the Bible and still be a
Baptist--there are some doctrinal limits, which find expression in
confessions of faith voluntarily affirmed by churches and individuals.
Although the following Baptist confessions of the 17th century were never
considered infallible or irreformable, they are expressions of what it meant
 12 More Than a Symbol

to be a Baptist in that era.

The Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles‘ may have been written in
1609 by John Smyth (ca. 1565-1612), General Baptist pioneer, while he was
living in exile in Holland, and was apparently directed to the Waterlander
Mennonites in Holland in an attempt to establish Smyth's doctrinal
soundness. He indicated that one task of the church is "administering the
sacraments" of baptism and the Lord's Supper (Art. 13). For him, "Baptism
is the external sign of the remission of sins, of dying and of being made
alive, and therefore does not belong to infants" (Art. 14). Baptism was thus
seen as a "sign" of salvation, but the exact relationship was not spelled out
in detail, except to deny that it is only a promise of salvation yet to come as
in infant baptism. The language of this confession, as it stands, might mean
that baptism is a sign of forgiveness and regeneration already experienced
or a sign of such benefits presently being received. This imprecision
regarding what exactly happens in baptism is characteristic of much Baptist
literature of the 17" century, because the writers were in most cases
concerned primarily about the question of paedobaptism, secondarily about
the mode of baptism, and only to a limited degree about the sacramental
issue.
A Short Confession of Faith’ was apparently affirmed in 1610 by
Smyth's English congregation who were living in Holland, and this too was
an attempt to satisfy the Waterlander Mennonites. The origin of this
confession has been debated by historians, but it appears to have been
written for the English congregation by Hans de Ries, a Dutch Mennonite
who had produced two earlier confessions in 1577 and 1578, and was later
signed by the English proto-Baptists.° In that confession, baptism is one of
"two sacraments appointed by Christ" (Art. 28) which are "outward visible
handlings and tokens" of both God's cleansing work in the individual and
the individual's obedience toward God. The conclusion of the baptismal
section reads:

Therefore, the baptism of water leadeth us to Christ, to his holy

office in glory and majesty; and admonisheth us not to hang only
upon the outward, but with holy prayer to mount upward, and to beg
of Christ the good thing signified.

4 Lumpkin, Confessions, 97-101. The text and background information for the
confessions treated here are taken from this standard source, unless otherwise noted.
5 Ibid., 102-113.
6 James Coggins, John Smyth’s Congregation: English Separatism, Mennonite Influence,
and the Elect Nation (Waterloo: Herald Press, 1991), 84-88.
The Historical Background 13

This early confession of the emerging Baptist movement interpreted baptism

as a visible sign of an invisible work of God, but the temporal and logical
connection between the visible and invisible was not stated explicitly.
Baptism was in some way a forward-looking acted prayer, a sign which
requests the thing signified. The language suggested that baptism is in some
way instrumental in the personal enjoyment of the benefits of Christ. There
was an explicit warning against the idea that there is power in baptism as an
act in itself ("the outward"), but it does in some way "lead us to Christ", in
whom saving power resides.
The Propositions and Conclusions concerning True Christian Religion’
were a lengthy elaboration (in 100 articles) of the 1610 confession above.
The confession was published in 1612 after Smyth’s death by his
congregation, apparently for English readers.* This document articulated in
some detail the way in which the sacraments work. Article 73 asserted:

That the outward baptism and supper do not confer, and convey
grace and regeneration to the participants or communicants: but as
the word preached, they serve only to support and stir up the
repentance and faith of the communicants till Christ come, till the
day dawn, and the day-star arise in their hearts.

Article 74 further explained:

That the sacraments have the same use that the word hath; that they
are a visible word, and that they teach to the eye of them that
understand as the word teacheth the ears of them that have ears to
hear (Prov. x.12), and therefore as the word pertaineth not to
infants, no more do the sacraments.

Article 75 related baptism to the ongoing work of Christ:

That the preaching of the word, and the ministry of the sacraments,
representeth the ministry of Christ in the spirit; who teacheth,
baptiseth, and feedeth the regenerate by the Holy Spirit inwardly
and invisibly.

This description of baptism as a "visible word" which functions in the

7 Lumpkin, Confessions, 123-142.

8 Coggins, Congregation, 109.
14 More Than a Symbol

same way as the preached word indicated that in some way the benefits
signified by baptism are given through it. The preached word both declares
the finished work of Christ for our salvation and offers a personal share in
it through faith; baptism as a visible word declares the same finished work
and offers a share in it through faith (which is evoked, supported and
expressed by baptism). There was an explicit rejection of any kind of
mechanical conveyance of grace through the ritual, but at the same time the
sacrament was thought of as a means through which Christ works by the
Holy Spirit to accomplish his saving work.
The First London Confession? was drafted in 1644 by seven Particular
(Calvinistic) Baptist Churches in London. It may have been modelled on
some earlier confessions, but it was the first confession to require immersion
as the mode of baptism. It described baptism as "an Ordinance of the new
Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed onely upon persons professing
faith" (Art. XX XIX). It is to be administered by immersion, in order that the
sign might correspond to the thing signified, namely, the cleansing of the
soul, the interest of the baptized person in the death, burial and resurrection
of Christ, and the future resurrection of the body (Art. XL). This confession
used the term "ordinance" instead of "sacrament" and spoke more modestly
than the earlier confessions of the Smyth group about the way in which
baptism functions. For example, there was no comparison stated between
baptism and the preached word, and nothing was said about the work of the
Holy Spirit in baptism. Later Particular Baptist statements tended to imitate
this choice of words, but hasty conclusions about its significance should be
avoided, since the terms "ordinance" and "sacrament" were often used
synonymously in the 17th century, as will be demonstrated below.
Ten years after the First London Confession, General (Arminian) Baptist
Churches in the London area drafted "The True Gospel-Faith Declared
According to the Scriptures".'° By that time the General Baptists had also
adopted immersion as the standard mode of baptism, and thus this
confession regularly used "dipped" to refer to baptism. It was a brief
confession, but asserted, "That God gives his Spirit to believers dipped
through the prayer of faith and laying on of hands, Acts 8.15; Acts 8.17;
Acts 5.32; Ephes. 1.13,14" (Art. XII). It is not clear whether this reference
to the gift of the Spirit denoted the initial baptism in the Spirit or some
further empowering of the Spirit, and it is puzzling that Acts 2:38 was not
used as a proof-text, but in any case some manifestation of the Spirit was

9 Lumpkin, Confessions, 144-171.

10 Ibid., 188-195.
The Historical Background 15

said to be conditioned upon baptism, which embodies or is connected to a

“prayer of faith."
The Midland Confession'' was adopted in 1655 at the beginning of the
Midland Association of Particular Baptist Churches. Article 13 asserted,
"That all those who profess Faith in Christ, and make the same appear by
their fruits, are the proper subjects of Baptism." This emphasis on Christian
works as prerequisite to baptism seems to separate baptism from conversion
by some distance and seems to indicate a non-sacramental understanding of
the ordinance. Atleast, baptism does not seem to be viewed as instrumental
in the entrance into Christian experience. Whether it may be instrumental
in some further work of grace (as some other confessions indicate) is an
open question.
The Somerset Confession'* dates from 1656 and a Particular Baptist
association in western England. It asserted the standard Baptist view of the
subjects, mode, and symbolism of baptism, and then stated:

That those that truly repent, and believe, and are baptized in the
name of the Lord Jesus, are in a fit capacity to exercise faith, in full
assurance to receive a greater measure of the gifts and graces of the
Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38,39; Eph. 1:13).

Thus this confession envisioned some sort of bestowal of the Spirit's activity
which is conditioned upon baptism, but it is not seen as the initial gift of the
Spirit (even though Acts 2.38, which does refer to the initial gift of the
Spirit, is used as a proof-text). Baptism, then, was interpreted as a condition
of sanctification, although not (explicitly, at least) a means of regeneration
or justification.
The Standard Confession"? was drafted by General Baptist Churches in
the greater London area in 1660, and was affirmed at the General Assembly
of General Baptists in 1663 and at various later assemblies. It revealed the
growing significance attached to the imposition of hands in some Baptist
circles when Article XII said:

That it is the duty of all such who are believers Baptized, to draw
nigh unto God in submission to that principle of Christs doctrine,
to wit, Prayer and Laying on of Hands, that they may receive the

11 Ibid., 195-200.
12 Ibid., 200-216.
13 Ibid., 220-235. -
16 More Than a Symbol

promise of the holy Spirit, ... whereby they may mortifie the deeds
of the body. ...

Here baptism was interpreted as a prerequisite to this work of the Spirit, but
not as an effective means. The effective sign is the laying on of hands,
which follows baptism. It is not clear what the temporal relationship would
be between baptism and imposition of hands, i.e., whether they are two parts
of one event (much like the Eastern conjunction of baptism and
confirmation) or two isolated events (much like the Western separation
between baptism and confirmation). In this case, then, baptism was seen as
a means of sanctification, but only in connection with another ritual.
The Second London Confession" was adopted by Particular Baptists in
the greater London area in 1677 and became the most widely accepted
Calvinistic Baptist confession. A second edition was produced in 1688, and
it was adopted in 1689 by a group of messengers from over 100 churches in
England and Wales. The confession was intended to show the unity that
existed between Particular Baptists and their Presbyterian and
Congregationalist counterparts, and so the confession is largely a
reproduction of the Westminster Confession with changes made where
necessary in the ecclesiological sections. Baptism and the Lord's Supper
were called "ordinances of positive and sovereign institution" (Chap.
XXVIII). The baptismal definition read:

Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus

Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his fellowship with
him, in his death, and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;
of remission of sins; and of his giving up unto God through Jesus
Christ, to live and walk in newness of Life.

Given the fact that this confession was essentially a reproduction of the
Westminster Confession, any changes made must be significant. At this
point, the confession used "ordinance" rather than Westminster's
"sacrament," and the Westminster definition of a sacrament was
omitted--indeed, there was no definition of a sacrament or ordinance as a
general category. This prompted J. M. Ross to say:

... From about the middle of the 17th century until quite recent
times the main tendency of Baptist thought has been to regard this

14 Ibid., 235-295.
The Historical Background 17

ordinance as having no more than a symbolic value. For instance,

the Confession of Faith of 1677, which was modelled on the
Westminster Confession of the Presbyterians, deliberately omitted
all reference to the efficacy of baptism, its conferring of grace by the
Holy Ghost, its being a seal of the Covenant, and its admission of
the party baptized into the visible Church; . . .’°

On the surface, then, it would seem that this confession indicated a

decidedly non-sacramental view of baptism, but several facts give reason to
think that this may be a premature judgment. First, the terms "sacrament"
and "ordinance" were often used synonymously by Baptists of that era,
including signatories of this confession. Given the use of "ordinance" in
earlier Particular Baptist statements of faith, one would expect the same
here, so that the choice of this terminology may be readily explained by
historical continuity with the authors' tradition without the assumption that
there is a conscious rejection of any sacramental idea. Second, Chapter
XXX of the Second London Confession interpreted the Lord's Supper in the
Westminster tradition along the lines of a "spiritual presence" of Christ
which is mediated through the Supper, i.e., the Calvinistic as opposed to the
Zwinglian view. The Second London term was "ordinance" in the
explanation of the Lord's Supper, but the content of the explanation was a
virtual duplication of the Westminster statement, which indicates that the
change in terminology does not imply a modification of the concept. This
shows that the thought of the signatories was still shaped by the broader
Calvinistic tradition out of which the Particular Baptists arose, and if the
purely memorialistic view of the Lord's Supper was rejected, then there is
no reason to think that an instrumental understanding of baptism would be
foreign to the mind-set of the confession. It should also be noted that there
was no explicit denial of sacramental terminology or concepts in this
confession. If such were the intent of the authors, it could easily have been
stated. Third, the brevity of the baptismal chapter ought to be a caution
against unjustified inferences. The stated intent of the confession was to
emphasize agreement with other Calvinistic Christians and to indicate
plainly disagreement where necessary. The most basic points of
disagreement were the questions of the subjects and mode of baptism, and
these points were stated clearly but concisely. To extrapolate beyond this is
to force the confession to address issues with which it was not concerned.
What was required with regard to baptism was a courteous statement of

15 Ross, "Theology of Baptism," 101.

18 More Than a Symbol

disagreement with Westminster, not a statement of possible agreement on

the meaning of baptism when applied to a mature person. As will be argued
in this study, there is abundant evidence to show that early Baptist authors
(including Benjamin Keach, a leading signatory of the Second London
Confession) thought of believer baptism along the lines of a Calvinistic
sacramentalism in which baptism "seals" the experience of saving union
with Christ, but this relationship to the typical Calvinistic view is almost
never stated explicitly. Therefore, it is not clear that the omissions of the
Second London Confession imply denial.
Fourth, it must also be remembered that this confession, like others,
stated the consensus of a large number of churches and pastors. Therefore,
whatever was stated in the text of the confession had to satisfy all of the
church representatives who approved it. By 1677 Baptists were virtually
unanimous in their rejection of infant baptism and modes other than
immersion, and in their affirmation of the basic symbolism of cleansing and
death-burial-resurrection. This level of agreement had been reached through
decades of misunderstanding and often persecution from the outside, and
the intensity of the debate about subject and mode left little time to work out
the nuances of what exactly happens in the immersion of believers. There
was, then, no developed consensus about the right kind of "sacramental"
language, and it comes as no surprise that a debate largely absent from the
Baptist literature of the time would be absent from this confession. It is
clear, however, that some of the signatories of the confession had thought
about the efficacy of baptism, as the next paragraph will show.
The Baptist Catechism was prepared to be used in conjunction with the
Second London Confession. It was commonly known as "Keach's
Catechism," although it was co-authored by Benjamin Keach (1640-1704)
and William Collins (d. 1702). In any case, it was used to interpret and
apply the Confession, and thus served as an elaboration of some of the
points of the Confession. Its treatment of the "ordinances" is especially
instructive:

Q.93. What are the outward Means whereby Christ communicates

to us the benefits of Redemption?
A. The outward and ordinary Means whereby Christ communicates
to us the benefits of redemption, are his Ordinances, especially the
Word, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and Prayer; all which Means are
made effectual to the Elect, through faith, for Salvation.

16 The Baptist Catechism, 23.

The Historical Background 19

This statement should make it perfectly clear that baptism was regarded as
instrumental in some sense in the personal experience of salvation. The fact
that it is parallel to the Word and prayer indicates that it somehow leads to
the benefits signified by it, rather than simply testifying to a prior possession
of those benefits. Furthermore, it was indicated here that it is Christ himself
who communicates the benefits of his saving work through the ordinances,
which is to say that baptism is a means of grace as well as an act of personal
confession.
The Orthodox Creed'’ was adopted by General Baptists in 1678.
Following the lead of the Particular Baptists, this confession was loosely
modelled on the Westminster Confession, but it modified the Calvinism as
well as the ecclesiology. Article XX VII declared, "Those two sacraments,
viz. Baptism, and the Lord's-supper, are ordinances of positive, sovereign,
and holy institution." This is one example of the interchangeability of
"sacrament" and "ordinance" in 1 7th-century thought, which should warn us
not to read modern distinctions back into the expressions of our
predecessors. Article XXVIII stated:

Baptism is... asign of our entrance into the covenant of grace, and
ingrafting into Christ, and into the body of Christ, which is his
church; and of remission of sin in the blood of Christ, and of our
fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection, and of our
living, or rising to newness of life.

This brief statement did not elaborate any definition of the relationship
between the sign and the thing signified, which is not surprising, in that the
burden of the baptismal article was to assert that the signification of baptism
is applicable only to professed believers as opposed to infants, not to discuss
the exact manner in which baptism works in such professed believers.
In summary: In the first century of Baptist life, the terms "sacrament"
and "ordinance" were both used by Baptist confessions to denote baptism.
General Baptists tended to use the former and Particular Baptists the latter,
but the two terms were not regarded as contradictory. Their relationship is
not that of opposites, but that of broader ("ordinance", which included at
least the Word and prayer in addition to baptism and the Lord's Supper) and
narrower ("sacrament", which described only baptism and the Lord's
Supper). There was a consistent rejection of any automatic bestowal of
grace through baptism, but there were various assertions in the confessions

17 Lumpkin, Confessions, 295-334.

20 More Than a Symbol

of some kind of instrumental value of baptism in the application of the

benefits of Christ. Given the Puritan-Separatist roots of Baptist churches,
it would appear that the Calvinistic concept of baptism as a "seal" of union
with Christ by faith continued to shape the way in which Baptists described
the efficacy of the baptism of professed believers. However, this
understanding was largely unelaborated, due to the necessity to focus their
baptismal debates on the points at which they departed from their historical
roots.

Individual Baptist Authors

Confessions of faith which speak for many churches at once do not and
cannot elaborate their underlying theology in the same way as the writings
of individuals, many of whom are the signatories who have shaped the
confessions. This is evident in a survey of early Baptist baptismal literature,
in that the language of individual writers was often much more strongly
sacramental than the brief statements of the official confessions. This study
will summarize the views of five representative authors who directly
addressed the question of the effects of baptism.

ROBERT GARNER (ACTIVE 1640-1650)

In 1645 Garner (a Particular Baptist) wrote A Treatise of Baptism, in which
he argued against the practice of infant baptism. In the midst of the book he
attempted to show that there are great benefits attached to the baptism of
believers. Specifically, he listed four privileges which are granted to
baptized believers.
The first privilege is that, "Believers (in submitting to this Ordinance)
have the name of the Father and of the Sonne, and of the holy Spirit called
upon them therein."'* This baptism into the divine name is more than a
verbal formula, for "to be baptized into Christ, or into the Name of Christ,
or in the Name of Christ, have one and the same sense and signification in
Scripture."'° Baptism conveys both an obligation and a benefit, since "his
Name holds forth unto believers, especially two things: Authority, and
Grace."*” Baptism thus involves a voluntary submission to the authority of
Christ, but also the reception of the benefits of Christ, for "in that the Lord
hath commanded his servants to baptize believers in his Name, to Put or

18 Robert Garner, A Treatise of Baptism (London: n.p., 1645), 10.

19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
The Historical Background 7h|

Call his Name upon them in baptisme he saith Amen to it, he confirmeth the
word of his servants, he performeth what he promiseth to them."*! Garner
thus saw baptism as a means by which grace is conferred in some form, at
least in the experiential enjoyment of union with Christ.
The second privilege is that "by baptisme they do enter into the
fellowship of his Body, that is his Church, with all the priviledges and
liberties of the same."”? This initiation into the church was not seen as a
purely formal and regulatory matter, because "we as members of One body,
are all made to drink into one spirituall benefit, or into one spirituall
Communion, which believers have from Christ in his Supper."** Many
Baptists would eventually make a sharp distinction between being in Christ
and being in Christ's church, but Garner described baptismal initiation thus:

Which sometimes is called an adding to his Church, and sometimes

an adding to the Lord; both which commeth to one and the same
thing: for to be added to the Church of the Lord, or the body of the
Lord, is to be added to the Lord himself, in a mysticall externall
union.”

The third privilege is a personal share in the saving effects of Christ's

death and resurrection:

Believers in baptisme, through the faith of the operation of God,

have fellowship with Christ, in his death and resurrection: by the
power of which the strength of the body of sinne is more subdued,
and they are more enabled to walk in newnesse of life. Rom
63457

From about 1640 on Baptists (especially the Particular tradition)

emphasized the connection of baptism to the death-burial-resurrection of the
Lord, utilizing the symbolism as an argument for immersion and the
obligation to demonstrate a newness of life. In applying the Romans 6 text,
Garner first gave two points of exhortation about the obligation of baptized
believers to submit to the authority of Christ, but his third point of
application was:

21 Ibid., 10-11.
22 = Ibid., 14.
23 = Ibid.
24 = Ibid., 15.
25° Ibid., 17.
2 More Than a Symbol

Thirdly, the Lord puts forth a glorious power to Believers

in baptisme, giving in unto their hearts (in what proportion he
pleaseth) the power of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ,
acting faith in them to receive the same, whereby they are in some
measure enabled to perform that which their baptisme doth engage
them unto.”°

This real manifestation of resurrection power in the baptismal event was

emphasized as he expounded Romans 6 and | Peter 3.21:

... like as the glory of the Father was put forth in raysing his Sonne
from the dead: even so, the glory of the Father is put forth unto
believers in baptisme, crucifying the power of sin in them, and
raysing up their heart and minde as it were into heaven to sit with
Christ, to walke with him in a holy and heavenly conversation, to
live a new life, which the Scripture, calleth a newnesse of life... .
Wherein, I observe, that the same operation of God which was put
forth in raysing Christ from the dead, is put forth unto believers, in
baptisme (in such proportion as the Lord pleaseth) acting faith in
them, through which they rise with Christ, or partake with him in
the power of his resurrection, in a glorious measure. And this is so
cleare a truth, that Peter is bold to say, (speaking unto believers)
Baptisme doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of
the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is the baptisme of believers must
not be looked upon with a fleshly and carnall eye, as a washing of
the flesh: but with a holy and spirituall eye, as a holy and pretious
Ordinance of Jesus Christ: in which Ordinance, he puts forth the
power of his resurrection unto believers, through faith saving them
more richly than before, from the power of an inward pollution or
filthynesse.”’

Some permanent spiritual benefit is introduced in baptism, for "this grace

and power of Christ in baptism, hath an influence into after times also, even
so long as they continue in the estate of mortality."** Baptism, then, not only

2 Opmbidee| 9}
27 Abid.20:
28 Jbid= 21;
The Historical Background

signifies what happened once for all in Christ and ought to happen in
Christians, but also serves as an occasion in which God effects spiritual
renewal in baptized believers.
The fourth privilege of baptism is the personal assurance of forgiveness,
that is, "In this Ordinance, the Lord Jesus by his Spirit acting in a believers
heart, doth more richly seal up or confirm to him the free and full remission
of all his sinnes, through the blood of Christ."’’ Acts 2:38 is perhaps the
most important scriptural text which relates baptism to forgiveness, and
Garner treated it with care:

He [Peter] doth not say, neither dare I say that baptisme is a remedy
to remit sinnes: for then I should run into the mistake of such, who
pleading for their infants baptisme, do say: Baptisme is a remedy
to take away that sinne, which they as the sons of Adam have
conveyed to them. But this Scripture, I conceive, holds forth to us
especially two things. First, that repentance and remission of sins
are preached & given only in the Name or through the Name of
Jesus Christ... . Secondly, that the Lord Jesus doth in baptisme
confirm or witnesse unto Believers, in some comfortable measure,
the forgivenesse of their sins in his Name. And therefore he
commands them to be baptized, partly for this end, that in baptisme
he may confirm to them in some measure, by his Spirit, acting faith
in them, the remission of their sinnes. For when a Believer is
baptized in the Name of Christ, and the Spirit of God acts faith in
him in his baptisme, then is his heart more sweetly assured, that
through this Name all his sins are remitted, and he is at peace with
God.*°

He commented similarly on Acts 22.16:

Not that baptisme doth wash away sinnes: for it is the bloud of
Christ onely, received by us through the faith of the operation of
God, that washeth or cleanseth us from all sinnes. But thus; Be
baptized, and in thy baptisme call on the Name of the Lord: that is,
act faith in the Lord Jesus, in whose Name thou art baptized, that
through faith in his Name in this Ordinance, thy heart may be
further confirmed in this assurance, that all thy sinnes are washed

29 Ibid., 24.
30 Ibid., 25.
24 More Than a Symbol

away in his pretious bloud.*!

Garner was explicit in his rejection of the notion that there is inherent
in baptism the power to forgive sins. Forgiveness is thus not connected in
any mechanical or necessary way to baptism; it is effected objectively in the
atoning work of Christ and individually through faith. However, he was
equally clear in his assertion that forgiveness becomes an experiential reality
through the confession of faith in baptism. This sealing and assuring
function of baptism is the essence of Calvin's view of baptism and the
Reformed sacramental tradition, and is seen here in a representative Baptist
author.

HENRY LAWRENCE (1600-1664)

One of the most systematic treatments of baptism in early Particular Baptist
literature was Lawrence's Of Baptism, which appeared in its third and final
edition in 1659. He began this work with a description of "the first and
great end" of baptism as "the Sealing up of our Union with Christ."** He
wrote:

The Scripture holds forth no point with more glory and certainty,
than the Oneness which we have with Jesus Christ; which Union is
the rise and ground of all that is good and happy in us: This
therefore is the first and great thing that is made ours by Baptism.”

Lawrence continued by drawing an extensive parallel between Christ's

sealing by his baptism and our sealing by baptism into Christ. The
implication of this sealing 1s:

Let us therefore put a value and a price upon this Ordinance, more
than we have done: and after being once baptized into Christ, let
us know and be assured, that we have a right to what he hath, and
to what he had, and to what he is.**

The second purpose of baptism was said to be "assuring us of our

31 Ibid.
32 Henry Lawrence, Of Baptism (London: F. Macock, 1659), 1.
33 Ibid.
34 Ibid., 7.
The Historical Background 25

Justification in the remission of all our sins."*° He explained:

It is safe giving Ordinances that notion the Scripture gives them,

which while you do, you will get the true use they afford, and you
shall be sure not to err from the true nature of them: This you have,
Acts 2.38. Repent, and be baptized every one of you for the
remission of sins.*°

This example of the Apostle Peter's speech to convicted sinners at Pentecost

readily supports the idea that we are baptized because we are sinners, not
because we are saints. Lawrence thus showed how baptism serves the needs
of such sinners:

What can be said more comfortably to a distressed soul than this?

That God hath set and instituted an Ordinance on purpose, that thou
maist be acquitted of every sin, to witness and seal up what is done
by faith: Therefore do not languish in this condition, Why tarriest
thou? Arise, and be Baptized, and wash away thy sins.*’

The question of whether baptism is a sacramental means of appropriating

Christ and his benefits or is a pure symbol pointing backward to a
completed conversion through faith might be put in this form: Are we
baptized because we are sinners or because we are saved? Accordingly, the
fact that Lawrence could point unbelievers to baptism as a remedy for their
consciousness of guilt showed his commitment to some kind of
sacramentalism.
It has been shown above that Lawrence, like Garner, interpreted baptism
as aseal" of personal salvation, thus utilizing the common terminology and
conceptualization of Calvinistic sacramentalism. Now if baptism "seals"
faith and its effects, then it points backward to faith as a prior reality, and
this view of baptism is easily distorted into a pure symbolism in which all
the benefits follow faith but precede baptism. Lawrence, however, meant
more than this when he spoke of a "seal":

For what Baptism finds, it seals; although it doth also exhibit more
of the same kinde; Baptism, and so all the Ordinances of Christ

35 Ibid,8.
36 Ibid,9.
37 Ibid., 9-10.
26 More Than a Symbol

those we call Sacraments, seal up what is already, else how could

it be a Seal, but doth also convey more of the same.**

One might say, then, that Lawrence understood faith as an attitude more
than an act, so that while baptism presupposes faith, it also creates a
strengthened and continuing faith. From this perspective, the only absolute
condition of salvation is the attitude of faith, but the point at which this faith
becomes definite, and thus saving union with Christ a concrete reality, is at
baptism.
Lawrence's sacramental understanding of baptism was further
developed when he listed and explained six ways in which the preached
word and the sacraments (both baptism and the Lord's Supper) work in the
same manner. Some of the agreements between Word and Sacrament are:

... They are both instruments in the hands of the holy Spirit for
edification and salvation, the word is a dead letter without the
Spirit, and so also is Baptism, it speaks no more than it is bid; . . .
Now if there be no vertue in the flesh of Christ, but by the personal
Union, how shall bodily actions about bodily Elements confer
grace, but by the mediation of the Spirit... . They agree in the
principal matter, for the same Christ with all his benefits is offered
and confirmed to us in the word and Sacraments, the same Union,
the same Communion in the death and the resurrection of Christ, .
.. They agree in the instrument, which renders both profitable to us,
both word and Sacrament are ineffectual without faith. . . They
agree in the effects, They are the savour of life unto life, or the
savour of death unto death, &c. So, He that believeth and is
Baptized shall be saved.*”

Having spelled out the instrumental value of both the word and the
sacraments, Lawrence pointed out that one of the differences between the
word and baptism is their degree of necessity:

The word is simply necessary to actual beleevers, and so to the

salvation of beleevers, and sufficient, as in Cornelius; for faith is by
hearing, and hearing by the word of God; but the Sacraments are
not absolutely necessary to all, nor without the word are they

38 Ibid., 10-11.
39 Ibid., 46-47.
The Historical Background 27

sufficient to salvation, for to what purpose are seals without the

writing.”

However, the truth that baptism has only a relative necessity does not
trivialize its significance, for he wrote just prior to the above:

They differ in the measure of their signification, the word especially

teacheth, the Sacraments especially seal and confirm: the word
indeed signifies and applyes spiritual things, but the Sacraments
more efficaciously represent and apply.*!

Therefore, Lawrence interpreted baptism as a "seal" of salvation in much the

same way as the Reformed tradition as applied to professed believers.
While baptism has only a relative necessity, and it is in any case useless
apart from the preached word, it is a valuable instrument by the work of the
Spirit in the application of salvation to the conscious life of the individual.
It is an expression of faith from the human side and a means of assurance
from the divine side.

THOMAS GRANTHAM (1634-1693)

In 1678 Grantham, a General Baptist, published his most influential book,
Christianismus Primitivus, which included an extended defence of the
Baptist understanding of baptism. But as is so often true, the book said
much more about what does not happen in the purported baptism of infants
than what does happen in the immersion of believers. There is, however,
one passage worth considering, where he wrote:

_.. And thus was our Lord himself the chief founder of the Gospel
in the Heavenly Doctrine of Faith, Repentance, and Baptism for the
remission of Sins. ... Now the necessity of this Sacred Ordinance
to a true church-state, is further evident from the Institution or first
delivery of it.
1. For that it is sent down from Heaven, as the first Doctrine
and Ministery, to take men off from a legal confidence, and to lay the
free remission of sin before them, through faith in the Gospel of God.
2. This Baptism is joyned with this Gospel Repentance, that as
repentance being now necessary to the admission of Sinners into the

40 Ibid., 50.
41 Ibid.
28 More Than a Symbol

Church of Christ, even so Baptism being joyned thereto, by the will of

God, is necessary to the same end.”

The relevant point here is that Grantham envisioned baptism as

designed to benefit those who presently are trusting in meritorious works
(sinners, not saints) by offering to them salvation through free forgiveness.
That is, conscious experience of the forgiveness of sins was viewed as an
effect rather than a condition of baptism. The impression given in this
passage is that repentance, faith, and baptism are all related to forgiveness
and church membership in the same way. This would surely make baptism
not merely a sign, but an effective sign.
In an earlier work, Grantham had argued that baptism is normally
instrumental in experiencing the grace which is offered in the gospel:

Baptism in the ordinary way of God’s communicating the grace of

the Gospel is antecedent to the reception thereof, & is propounded
as a means wherein not only the Remission of our sins shall be
granted to us, but as acondition whereupon we shall receive the gift
of the Holy Ghost . . . [It] was fore-ordained to signifie and
sacramentally to confer the grace of the pardon of sin, and the
inward washing of the Conscience by Faith in the Bloud of Jesus
Christ.*?

To say that baptism effects a purification of the conscience is to say that it

seals or assures the baptizand of forgiveness, and to say that it is effective
“by faith” is to deny that it functions ex opere operato or that it is applicable
to those who are not yet capable of faith. Furthermore, to say that it is the
“ordinary” means of conferring these benefits is to deny that it is an
absolutely necessary means of salvific union with Christ, as if the grace of
God were tied to the sacrament. All these qualifications simply tell us what
his sacramental language does not mean, but they in no way refute the idea
that his thought is sacramental in concept as well as in terminology. Philip
Thompson’s comment that, “A non- or anti-sacramental label attaches to
this view only with great difficulty,” is both accurate and understated.

42 Thomas Grantham, Christianismus Primitivus (London: Francis Smith, 1678), Book

2, Chapter 1, Sect. V.
43 Thomas Grantham, A Sigh for Peace: or The Cause of Division Discovered (London:
printed for the author, 1671), 87-88.
44 Philip E. Thompson, “A New Question in Baptist History: Seeking a Catholic Spirit
Among Early Baptists,” Pro Ecclesia 8, no. 1 (Winter 1999): 67.
The Historical Background 29

BENJAMIN KEACH (1640-1704)

Keach, who was at one time a General Baptist, later had a long and
influential ministry among the Particular Baptists. In a book published in
1689, he attempted to interpret baptism "in its primitive purity," and in so
doing provided modest but clear evidence for a sacramental understanding
of baptism. First of all, he referred to "the special ends of this holy
Sacrament,"*” showing that this leading signatory of the Second London
Confession did not assume that baptism was an "ordinance" as opposed to
a "sacrament." Second, he referred to baptism as "the Baptism of
Repentance for the Remission of Sins" (with reference to Acts 2:38) and
"the Washing of Regeneration" (with reference to Titus 3:5), without any
apparent nervousness about the language.”° Third, he indicated that baptism
looks forward to salvation as its goal:

Consider the great Promises made to those who are obedient to it,
amongst other things, Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the World. And again, He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be
saved. Ifa Prince shall offer a Rebel his Life in doing two things,
would he neglect one of them, and say this I will do, but the other
is a trivial thing, I'll not do that? Surely no, he would not run the
hazard of his Life so foolishly. ... And then in Acts 2.38. Repent,
and be baptized every one of you for Remission of Sin, and ye shall
receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit: See what great Promises are
made to Believers in Baptism.*’

Fourth, and most clearly, Keach quoted approvingly from Stephen

Charnock (1628-1680), a Puritan pastor who spoke "excellently" in Keach's
opinion on the connection between baptism and regeneration:

Outward Water cannot convey inward Life. How can Water, an

external thing, work upon the Soul in a physical manner? Neither
can it be proved, that ever the Spirit of God is ty'd by any Promise,
to apply himself to the Soul in a gracious Operation, when Water is
applyed to the Body. . . . Baptism is a means of conveying this

45 Benjamin Keach, Gold Refin'd; or Baptism in its Primitive Purity (London: Nathaniel
Crouch, 1689), 78.
46 Ibid., 82-83.
47 Ibid., 173.
30 More Than a Symbol

Grace, when the Spirit is pleased to operate with it; but it doth not
work as a physical Cause upon the Soul as a Purge doth upon the
Humours of the Body: for'tis the Sacrament of Regeneration, as the
Lord's Supper is of Nourishment. . . .Faith only is the Principle of
spiritual Life, and the Principle which draws Nourishment from the
Means of God's Appointments.”

The specific point at issue in this quotation is the practice of baptizing

infants who cannot confess faith, so that Keach's primary concern was to
argue that baptism does not accomplish regeneration in any mechanical way
and is thus of no value in the case of purely passive infants. However, he
argued this point, with Charnock's help, by asserting that the true way in
which baptism works is as an instrument of the Spirit who sovereignly
employs it in the regeneration of conscious believers. That is, although
baptism has no inherent power, it is by the work of the Holy Spirit an
effective sign, instrumentally conveying what it signifies. It is a sign, but
not merely a sign.

WILLIAM MITCHILL (1662-1705)

In the latter part of the 17th century and until his death in 1705, Mitchill
(sometimes spelled Mitchell) carried on an extensive church-planting
ministry in the West of Yorkshire and the East of Lancashire. At the end of
his life he wrote a work called Jachin and Boaz, which was designed to
guide the Particular Baptist churches which he had served. This work was
published in 1707 by his associate David Crosley. Included in the
document was a confession of faith for the use of the churches, in which
Chapter XXXI defined baptism as follows:

Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament instituted by Christ,

to be unto the Party baptized a Sign of his Fellowship with him in
his Death, Burial and Resurrection, of his ingrafting into him, of
remission of Sins, and of his giving up himself unto God through
Jesus Christ, to live and walk in Newness of Life.*”

This was followed by an affirmation that immersion is the only proper mode

48 Ibid., 128-129.
49 "William Mitchill's Jachin and Boaz", Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society 3
(1912-1913): 160.
The Historical Background 31

of baptism, and an affirmation that only confessing believers are appropriate

subjects. Although the wording was not exactly that of the Second London
Confession, it was very close, and the substance was identical.
There was no explicitly sacramental language in the above definition of
baptism, but this definition was preceded by a general definition of
sacraments in Chapter XXX of the confession, which read as follows:

Sacraments are holy Signs of the Covenant of Grace immediately

instituted by Christ, to represent him and his Benefits, and to
confirm our Interest in him, and solemnly to engage us to the
Service of God in Christ, according to his Word: There is in every
Sacrament a spiritual Relation, or aSacramental Union between the
Sign, and the thing signified: Whence it comes to pass that the
Names and Effects of the one is ascribed to the other: The Grace
which is exhibited in or by the Sacraments rightly used, is not
conferred by any power in them, neither doth the Efficacy of a
Sacrament depend upon the Piety or Intention of him that doth
administer it, but upon the Work of the Spirit, and the Word of
Institution, which contains, together with a Precept authorizing the
use thereof, a Promise of benefit to the worthy Receivers. There be
only two Sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel,
that is to say, Baptism and the Lord's Supper, neither of which
ought to be administered but by a Minister of the Word lawfully
called.*°

This explanation of sacraments was simply a slightly abridged form of

Chapter XXVII of the Westminster Confession. Its use by Mitchill in
connection with a typical Baptist statement about baptism as an "ordinance"
demonstrates the continuing impact of Calvinistic sacramentalism among
Particular Baptists, and also that those who adhered to the Second London
Confession did not necessarily (if ever) consider its statement on baptism to
be anti-sacramental.

SUMMARY
Early Baptist authors consistently argued against any kind of sacramentalism
which posits an automatic bestowal of grace through baptism, but they did
not deny that baptism has an instrumental function in the application of
redemption. It is crucial to note that Baptist refutations of baptismal

50 Ibid., 159.
32 More Than a Symbol

regeneration were almost always stated in reference to infant baptism. The

point which they insisted on is that regeneration is always connected to
active faith in the recipient, so that it is meaningless to speak of the
regeneration of passive infants by baptism or any other means. Therefore,
Baptist protests against baptismal regeneration did not necessarily deny that
baptism is instrumental in some way in the experience of spiritual rebirth by
confessing believers.
Some early Baptists spoke more strongly than others, but there was
among them a recurring affirmation that the reception of the benefits of
Christ is in some way mediated through baptism. Their theology of baptism
may not have been absolutely uniform, but they consistently asserted that
God, by his Spirit, bestows spiritual benefit through baptism. Christian
baptism was for them a human response to the gospel, but this human act
of obedience did not exhaust the content of the event. This Baptist
sacramentalism was somewhat unelaborated due to the demands of
controversy about baptismal subjects and mode, but it was undeniably
present. As Philip Thompson notes, interpreting early Baptists in terms of
the “symbolic minimalism” which dominates much of contemporary Baptist
thought is in fact a “serious misrepresentation.”°' In Thompson’s terms,
anti-sacramental Baptists rightly recognize that early Baptists affirmed
God’s “freedom from creaturely control,” but they fail to see that early
Baptists also affirmed God’s “freedom for the redemptive use of creation.”
oe

The Eighteenth Century

British Baptists in the 18th century were in many cases preoccupied with
concerns other than baptismal theology, concerns which were often much
more foundational than any baptismal issues. The General Baptists had
drifted strongly toward Unitarianism by the middle of the century, leading
to an orthodox renewal movement to form the New Connexion in the latter
part of the century.** Particular Baptists, on the other hand, were dominated

51 Thompson, “A New Question,” 66-67.

52 Philip E. Thompson, “People of the Free God: The Passion of Seventeenth-Century
Baptists,” American Baptist Quarterly 15, no. 3 (September 1996): 226, 231.
53 See A. C. Underwood, A History of the English Baptists (London: Carey Kingsgate
Press, 1947), 119-128; W. T. Whitley, A History of British Baptists, 2nd ed., (London:
Kingsgate Press, 1932), 167-174, 195-203, 211-217; H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist
Heritage (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987), 153-170.
The Historical Background 33

by a kind of High Calvinism™ which tended to mute any emphasis on

human religious action, baptismal or otherwise. Given the drift of the
General Baptists away from orthodoxy and their numerical decline, there
was virtually nothing in their literature of this period which addressed
baptismal theology. Particular Baptist literature on baptism was generally
devoted to a defence of the immersion of believers, but in some cases the
efficacy of baptism was addressed. There were no significant Baptist
confessions written during this century; therefore, the following analysis
will focus on the major Baptist authors of the period.

John Gill (1697-1771)

Gill was the first great Calvinistic Baptist theologian, dominating the British
context for some fifty years, during his tenure as pastor at Horsleydown,
Southwark, London.°*’ Indeed, his work is still seen as definitive by some
modern Calvinistic Baptists.°° His literary output included a commentary
on the Old and New Testaments and a Body of Doctrinal and Practical
Divinity, as well as many polemical tracts. His understanding of the
meaning of baptism can be found in his Body of Divinity and in his
commentary on the baptismal texts of the New Testament.
In his systematic treatment of baptism, Gill listed six "ends and uses for

54 The term "High Calvinism" is used here to denote what is sometimes called "Hyper-
Calvinism." The latter term is particularly susceptible to abuse as a pejorative label.
What is meant by High Calvinism is a kind of Calvinism which in some way denies the
free, universal offer of the gospel. Normative Calvinism has always affirmed that
humans are both spiritually unable to respond to the gospel and yet responsible to do so.
Arminianism resolves the paradox by positing some kind of prevenient grace which
restores to all the ability to respond, while High Calvinism resolves it by denying the
responsibility of unbelievers to repent and believe the gospel (and the related
responsibility of believers to offer indiscriminately the benefits of the gospel). A
negative account of Baptist High Calvinism in this period can be found in McBeth,
Baptist Heritage, 171-178, and a more appreciative, but still critical, appraisal in
Thomas J. Nettles, By His Grace and for His Glory (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1986), 73-107.
55 Fora survey of Gill’s theology, see the chapter on Gill by Timothy George in David
Dockery and Timothy George, eds., Baptist Theologians (Nashville: Broadman Press,
1990). See also Michael A. G. Haykin, ed., The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-
1771): A Tercentennial Appreciation (Leiden: Brill, 1997).
56 Gill's statement of systematic theology was republished in 1989 by a group known as
"Strict Old School Baptists" headquartered in Paris, Arkansas, with the purpose of
calling all Baptists back to the historically distinctive doctrines as stated by Gill. See
"Publisher's Foreword", in John Gill, ABody of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity (1769-
1770; reprint Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist Standard Bearer, 1989).
34 More Than a Symbol

which baptism is appointed." First, baptism is designed "to represent the

sufferings, burial, and resurrection of Christ," according to Romans 6:4-5
and Colossians 2:12.°’ This idea of the symbolism contained in the act of
immersion had rapidly become the dominant theme in the Particular Baptist
doctrine of baptism, and it stood first in Gill as well.
Second, both John's baptism and apostolic baptism were "for the
remission of sins, Mark i. 4. Acts ii. 38."°* Gill qualified this apparently
sacramental language as follows:

.. not that that is the procuring and meritorious cause of it, which
only is the blood of Christ; but they who submit unto it, may, by
means of it, be led, directed, and encouraged to expect it from
Christ.°?

Third, baptism is "for the washing away of sin, and cleansing from it",
quoting Ananias's words to Saul in Acts 22:16. It is not clear how this
cleansing is to be distinguished from remission of sins at a conceptual level,
but what is clear is that this biblical language demands the same sort of
qualification:

.. this only is really done by the blood of Christ, which cleanses

from all sin; baptism neither washes away original nor actual sin,
it has no such virtue in it: but it is a means of directing to Christ the
Lamb of God, who, by his atoning blood and sacrifice, has purged
and continues to take away the sins of men.°!

Fourth, "a salutary or saving use and effect is ascribed unto it", in that
there is very clear biblical language asserting that "baptism now saves us"
(1 Peter 3:21).°° But again the force of the biblical language is qualified, in
this case by the biblical text itself, indicating that this salvation is "by the
resurrection of Jesus Christ". In Gill's words, "that is, by leading the faith
of the person baptized to Christ, as delivered for his offences, and as risen
again for his justification."©

57 Gill, Divinity, 914.

58 Ibid.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
The Historical Background 315

Fifth, as an act of obedience to God, baptism "discharges a good

conscience, the consequence of which is joy and peace," with reference
again to | Peter 3:21. Here it is not the case that God rewards the baptized
for keeping his commands, but rather that there is benefit in keeping those
commands. The sense of having done what is right carries its own reward
of a clear conscience.
Sixth, obedience to this divine command is "an evidence of love to God
and Christ, 1 John v. 3", and those who love Christ in this way "may expect
according to his promise, to have fresh manifestations of his and his Father's
love, and to have communion with Father, Son, and Spirit."©
Gill's commentary on the baptismal references and possible allusions in
the New Testament actually provides more extensive evidence of his
thought than the above outline in his systematic theology. What follows
here is a summary of his comments on the New Testament texts which are
normally considered to be the strongest supports for a sacramental
understanding of baptism.
Mark 16:16 speaks of faith and baptism in a way that seems to indicate
that they are two elements of the human response to the gospel, and that
both are necessary conditions of salvation. Gill commented that faith is
necessarily present and baptism normally present in those who will be
saved, but neither is a cause of this salvation. He wrote:

. . .faith must precede baptism, as these words of Christ, and

scripture examples shew; and such as have it, ought to make a
profession of it, and be baptized; and in which way it is that faith
discovers itself, and works by love to Christ; namely in observing
his commands, and this among the rest. . . .not that either faith or
baptism are the procuring causes of salvation; not faith, for Christ
is the author of salvation: and faith 1s the grace that looks to him for
it, receives the assurance of it now, and that will be the end of it
hereafter: . . . and baptism, though it is said to save by the
resurrection of Christ, as it is a means of leading faith to Christ's
resurrection for justification, yet has no casual influence upon
salvation; it is not essential to it; the thief on the cross went to
heaven without it, and Simon Magus to hell with it; but it is the
duty of every one that believes, and he that truly believes, ought to
be baptized, and prove the truth of his faith, by his obedience to

64 = Ibid.
65 Ibid., 915.
36 More Than a Symbol

Chiristyasse

This text is one of several in which Gill relativized faith in the same way as
baptism. Within his Calvinistic system, faith is a gift bestowed by God on
all the elect and only the elect, so that for him faith ought not be called a
condition of salvation. Although faith identifies the elect who will be saved,
it is not the cause of their salvation. However, faith is instrumental in the
present experience of salvation, in that it conveys assurance that the one
who believes (by grace) is an object of God's saving purpose. Baptism is not
instrumental in exactly the same way, but as the event in which "faith
discovers itself," and as a means of leading faith to Christ, it is instrumental
in some way in relation to the present assurance of salvation.
John 3:5 refers to spiritual rebirth as a birth "of water and the Spirit" and
thus provides a basis for traditional references to baptism as the "sacrament
of regeneration". As was noted in the preceding chapter, 17th-century
Baptists often interpreted this as an allusion to baptism, although they did
not connect baptism and regeneration in the same way as did the Catholic
tradition. Gill, however, moved away from this traditional reading:

By water, is not meant material water, or baptismal water; for

water-baptism is never expressed by water only, without some
additional word, which shews that the ordinance of water-baptism
is intended: nor has baptism any regenerating influence in it; . . .
and it is so far from having any such virtue, that a person ought to
be born again, before he is admitted to that ordinance: and though
submission to it is necessary, in order to a person's entrance into a
Gospel church-state; yet it is not necessary to the kingdom of
heaven, or to eternal life and salvation: . .. whereas by water is
meant, in a figurative and metaphorical sense, the grace of God, as
it is elsewhere; see Ezek. xxxvi. 25. John iv. 14.7

He interpreted the phrase "water and the Spirit" as a hendiadys, so that the
two words signify one idea, namely, "the grace of the Spirit of God."®
Regeneration was interpreted as a condition of baptism, not as an effect of
baptism.

66 John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward,

1811), 1:505.
67 Ibid., 1:793.
68 Ibid.
The Historical Background 37

Acts 2:38 seems to indicate that baptism is a means to both the

forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Spirit. The text is so
forceful that some modern movements tracing their origin to Alexander
Campbell (1788-1866) in the mid-19th century take it as a summary of their
distinctive baptismal theology.” Gill commented:

for the remission of sins, not that forgiveness of sin could be

procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only
obtained by the blood of Christ; but the apostle advises these
awakened, sensible, repenting, and believing souls, to submit to
baptism, that by it their faith might be led to Christ, who suffered
and died for their sins, who left them buried in his grave, and who
rose again for their justification from them; all which is, in a most
lively manner, represented in the ordinance of baptism by
immersion:”

Here he relativized repentance in the same way that he treated faith in his
comments on Mark 16:16, which should again give one pause before
concluding that baptism was for Gill in no way instrumental in the
experience of forgiveness. Baptism, as an expression of repentance, is a
normal part of the human experience effected by the sovereign grace of God.
The text in question also promises the "gift of the Spirit" to those who
repent and are baptized. Although it would seem that this promise could be
handled in the same way as the promise of forgiveness, Gill took a different
approach:

and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost: not the grace of the
Spirit, as a regenerator and sanctifier; for that they had already; and
is necessary, as previous to baptism; unless it should mean
confirmation of that grace, and stability in it, as it appears from ver.
42. they afterwards had; but rather the extraordinary gifts of the
Spirit, particularly the gift of speaking with tongues, . . .”!

Acts 22:16, in the context of the conversion of Saul, connects cleansing

from sin to baptism. Gill's comment was predictable:

69 The origin of these movements is described by Errett Gates, The Early Relation and
Separation of Baptists and Disciples (Chicago: The Christian Century Company,
1904).
70 Gill, Exposition, 2:167.
71 Ibid.
38 More Than a Symbol

... not that it is in the power of man to cleanse himself from his
sins; ... nor is there any such efficacy in baptism as to remove the
filth of sin; ... but the ordinance of baptism may be, and sometimes
is, a means of leading the faith of God's children to the blood of
Christ, which cleanses from all sin;”

It is not clear why Gill at this point moderated his language, so that
baptism's work of pointing to Christ is only possible or occasional. His
language could mean that baptism only has this effect in the case of some
of the elect, with others perhaps coming to baptism with such a vivid sense
of the benefits of the death of Christ as to make baptism less powerful in
their experience. More likely he had in view the fact that some baptisms
occur among the reprobate, and thus without effect (as was true, for
example, in the case of Simon Magus [Acts 8], whom Gill mentioned in this
context).
Romans 6:3-5 was a very significant text virtually from the inception of
the Particular Baptist movement, in that it provides the strongest biblical
evidence for the symbolism of death-burial-resurrection in the act of
immersion. Although this text is obviously useful for this cherished Baptist
idea, the text also seems to say that baptism effects union with Christ, which
is an idea less at home in the Baptist tradition. Gill was not blind to this, but
rather than accepting the conclusion that baptism is an effective sign, he
suggested another way of interpreting the phrase "into Christ":

... baptized into Christ... by which is meant, not a being brought

by it into union with Christ, which is either secretly from eternity,
or openly at conversion, and both before the baptism of true
believers; nor a being brought by it into the mystical body of Christ
the church, for this also is before it; but rather it designs a being
baptized, or a being brought by baptism into more communion with
Christ, into a participation of his grace and benefits; or into the
doctrine of Christ, and a more distinct knowledge of it: ... though
rather the true meaning of the phrase, baptized into Christ, I take to
be, is to be baptized purely for the sake of Christ, in imitation of
him, who has set us an example, and because baptism is an
ordinance of his; it is to submit to it with a view to his glory, to
testify our affection for him, and subjection to him, without laying

2. Woid.; 23:73)
The Historical Background 39

any stress or dependence on it for salvation;”*

It would seem, then, that Gill was ultimately unsure what the phrase
"baptized into Christ" actually signifies. It might be a post-conversion,
higher-level communion with Christ, or a leap forward in understanding the
truth about Christ's work, or an act of imitation. But whatever it means, it
is clear what it does not mean--for Gill it could not mean that baptism brings
the sinner into union with Christ.
Galatians 3:27 is another Pauline text which uses the language of being
"baptized into Christ." Again Gill asserted that it is "not that by baptism
they are brought into union with Christ, but into communion with him."”4
Paul asserts that those baptized into Christ "have put on Christ", which Gill
interpreted as follows:

And such have put on Christ; both before and at baptism: before it,
they put him on as the Lord their righteousness; . . . so in baptism
they may also be said to put him on, as they thereby and therein
make a public profession of him, by deeds as well as words,
declaring him to be their Lord and King; and afresh exercise faith
upon him, as their Saviour and Redeemer, and imitate and follow
him in it, as their pattern;”

Thus baptism is not focused on Christ as the Saviour whose imputed

righteousness is appropriated by those being baptized, but on Christ as the
Lord who is the paradigm of obedience.
The baptismal statement of 3:27 follows a statement about faith in 3:26.
In fact, it seems that the two statements are fundamentally synonymous, the
one phrased in terms of the inner attitude and the other in terms of the event
in which that attitude is expressed. Concerning our becoming "children of
God by faith in Christ Jesus," Gill commented:

Not that faith makes any the children of God, or puts them into such
a relation; no, that is God's own act and deed; of his free rich grace
and goodness, God the Father has predestinated his chosen ones to
the adoption of children, and has secured and laid up this blessing
for them in the covenant of grace; . . . and faith receives it, as it

73 Ibid., 2:479.
74 Ibid., 3:26.
75 Ibid.
40 More Than a Symbol

does all other blessings of grace made ready to its hand; and so such
persons become evidently and manifestatively the children of God
by faith in Christ;’°

Once again Gill denied that faith is efficacious, just as he denied that
baptism is efficacious.
Colossians 2:12 is another Pauline text which employs the imagery of
being buried and raised with Christ in baptism. For some reason Gill
devoted more space at this point to an assertion that immersion is the mode
of baptism and an assertion that faith is a gift from God than to an
explanation of the strong language about the effects of baptism. He simply
noted that baptism is a "lively representation" of spiritual resurrection, and
thus it assists those who have true faith to visualize their new life in Christ.””
Titus 3:5 refers to God's saving work as being done by "the washing of
regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit." The reference to washing
(like the "water" of John 3:5) has traditionally been taken as an allusion to
baptism, even by many Baptists, but Gill denied the allusion. He argued
that the washing denotes "not the ordinance of water-baptism; . . . but
regenerating grace is meant, or a being born of water and of the Spirit; that
is, of the grace of the Spirit, comparable to water for its purity and cleansing
virtue."”* He suggested several reasons why this is not a reference to
baptism: it is obvious that one may be baptized but not regenerated (e.g.,
Simon Magus); other biblical texts indicate that the Spirit is the cause and
the Word the means of regeneration; and, perhaps most importantly, this
washing is contrasted with "works of righteousness", while baptism is itself
a work of righteousness, according to the words of Christ himself (Matthew
3c1S)e5
1 Peter 3:21 makes the assertion that "baptism now saves us," and thus
provides (at least superficially) some of the most direct evidence for baptism
as an efficacious means of grace. However, Gill declared that "it saves not
as a cause, for it has not causal influence on, nor is it essential to salvation."
The basis for this rejection of sacramental implications was found in the
phrases "answer of a good conscience" and "by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ." The former phrase indicates that the heart of baptism is human
obedience by one who is already committed to Jesus as Lord, and the latter

76 Ibid.
TibiGr SOD
78 Ibid., 3:365.
79 Ibid.
The Historical Background 4]

phrase indicates that baptism's task is simply "leading the faith of the
baptized person, as to the blood of Christ for pardon and cleansing, so to the
resurrection of Christ for justification."®°
In summary: The baptismal theology of John Gill seems to be a
significant step in a non-sacramental direction. He never used the term
"sacrament" to describe baptism, nor did he refer to it as a "seal" of saving
union with Christ. When confronted with biblical texts that refer to water
or washing, he interpreted them in a way that eliminated any references to
baptism. In all these ways he differed from leading Particular Baptists of
the 17th century.
His denial that baptism is a cause of regeneration or the forgiveness of
sins was not new in his tradition, but it did have a different focus. Whereas
the burden of his predecessors was to deny that baptism works in any kind
of mechanical way and thus is irrelevant to the salvation of passive infants,
Gill wanted to deny that there is any kind of objective benefit even for the
confessing believer. He appears to have rejected the typical Calvinistic
view which posited both a confirming/sealing work of God and a human
confession of faith in the baptismal event itself. In his view, the baptismal
event has been reduced to an act of obedience with subjective benefits, the
same sort of benefits which are present in any obedience to God's
commands.
All ofthis, of course, must be seen against the background of Gill's High
Calvinism, in which the significance of every human action is severely
modified. As noted above, the same things that were denied of baptism
were also denied of faith. Later Baptists would often contrast the (denied)
efficacy of baptism to the (affirmed) efficacy of faith as an instrumental
cause of salvation; however, for Gill the contrast was not between baptism
and faith, but between baptism/faith and the work of Christ.
In various places he spoke of baptism as something which "leads" the
faith of the elect to Christ and his work which procured their salvation, but
this seems to mean merely that baptism is one way in which faith is
confessed. Baptism is a sign pointing not to a divine act going on in the
event itself, but to the vicarious work of Christ which is the divine act that
procured the salvation of the elect. Some of Gill's statements quoted above
are sufficiently strong to provide a basis for criticism from paedobaptist
opponents who wanted to argue that Gill (like Baptists in general) elevated
baptism to an unbiblical level of significance. William Eltringham wrote a
polemical tract in which he argued that Gill was self-contradictory, in that

80 Ibid., 3:573.
42 More Than a Symbol

he taught both that no human work could be a means of justification and

that baptism "is of use to lead the faith of God's people to his blood and
righteousness, for pardon and justification."*' Eltringham's critique gives
the impression of being a disingenuous and tendentious reading of Gill, as
was pointed out by Gill's fellow High Calvinist, John Brine (1703-1765):

I will not multiply Words, on a Matter, which is so plain, that no

intelligent and attentive Person can mistake upon it, however this
Writer came so grossly to mistake herein. The Spirit leads, or
directs the Saints efficiently; Ministers direct them instrumentally;
and evangelical Institutions, as Means appointed, by Christ, unto
that important End, lead, or direct Believers to look unto his Blood
and Righteousness, for Pardon, and Justification. That is the Cause
of Justification, to which the Believer looks, not that by which he
is directed to the Act of looking, which 1s most easy to be conceived
of 2

The fact that some of Gill's language exposed him to such charges is a sign
that he was driven by the language of Scripture to speak of baptism as more
than simple obedience. However, the fact that he spoke of baptism as a
means of looking to Christ for salvation was not an indication of an elevated
significance for baptism as a means of grace, but only an indication that
baptism is a normal means by which God draws the elect, those redeemed
by the blood of Christ, to acknowledge the work of Christ.

Abraham Booth (1734-1806)

Booth served as Pastor of Prescott Street Baptist Church in London from
1769 to his death in 1806. He was once a General Baptist, but became a
major spokesman for the Particular Baptists after his adoption of Calvinism.
He wrote two major works dealing with baptism: A Vindication of the
Baptists and Paedobaptism Examined. The former defended the practice
of Booth and many Baptists called "close communion", i.e., the restriction
of the Lord's Supper to those who have been baptized as believers by
immersion; and the latter quoted and evaluated traditional paedobaptist

81 William Eltringham, The Baptist Against the Baptist: or a Display of Antipaedo-baptist

Self-Inconsistency (London: J. Waugh and W. Penner, 1755), 5.
82 John Brine, The Baptists Vindicated from Some Groundless Charges Brought against
Them by Mr. Eltringham (London: John Ward, 1756), 3.
The Historical Background 43

arguments. In the process, Booth devoted hundreds of pages to a defence

of believer baptism by immersion with only passing reference to what God
is presumed to do in the baptismal event. However, what he did say about
the effects of baptism moved strongly in an anti-sacramental direction.
One of the ironies of Paedobaptism Examined is the fact that Part I,
over half of this large work, was devoted to the question of the mode of
baptism, and it was in Chapter III of this section that Booth treated "the
design of baptism; or the facts and blessings represented by it." What
followed under that title was an emphasis on the symbolism of death-burial-
resurrection and its implication that immersion is the only appropriate mode
of baptism.**? Thus the design of baptism is fundamentally to picture the
death-burial-resurrection of Christ and the believer's share in the benefits
associated with the work of Christ, but little was said at that point about the
possibility that the experience of those benefits may occur through baptism.
For purposes of this discussion, the crucial part of Paedobaptism
Examined is Chapter III of Part I, in which Booth reflected on "the high
opinion of the Fathers, concerning the utility of baptism." One of the
biblical texts which provided the basis for a strong patristic doctrine of
baptismal regeneration is John 3:5, Christ's reference to a birth "of water and
the Spirit." Booth's treatment of this text revealed some of the depth of his
anti-sacramental opinion:

In regard to John iii. 5, it may be observed, that had our divine

Teacher, when he declared it absolutely necessary to be "born of
water and of the Spirit," intended the ordinance of baptism by the
term water; then indeed the necessity of that institution would have
unavoidably followed, as being placed on a level with the renewing
agency of the Holy Spirit. .. . But who can imagine that the Lord
should place our immortal interests on such a footing, as neither
tends to illustrate the grace of God, nor to promote the comfort of
man, on such a footing as is quite inimical to the spirit of that
maxim, BY GRACE YE ARE SAVED; and has no aptitude to
excite virtuous tempers in the human heart? A sentiment of this
kind is chiefly adapted to enhance the importance of the clerical
character, and to make mankind consider themselves as under
infinite obligations to a professional order of their fellow mortals,

83 Abraham Booth, Paedobaptism Examined, in The Baptist Library, eds. Charles G.

Sommers, William R. Williams, and Levi L. Hill (New York: Lewis Colby & Co., 1846),
1:378-392.
44 More Than a Symbol

for an interest in everlasting blessedness.™

Booth's antipathy toward the common patristic kind of sacramentalism

is easily understandable, but given his Calvinism, one might expect him to
feel greater attraction to the kind of sacramental view found in the Reformed
tradition and in many of his Baptist predecessors. However, after treating
the patristic evidence, he turned to the Reformers and some of his
contemporaries, and the "seal of the covenant" approach to baptism was
rejected by him with equal vehemence. After quoting a warning from a
Walter Marshall, who said, "Beware of making an idol of baptism, and
putting it in the place of Christ,"® he said:

The necessity of this caution will farther appear, by the following

extracts from Mr. Matthew Henry's Treatise on Baptism, lately
published. When speaking about the ordinance itself, its obligation,
and the privileges of baptized persons, he has the following
remarkable words: . . . "The gospel contains not only a doctrine but
a covenant, and by baptism we are brought into that covenant. . .
.We are baptized into Christ's death; 1.e., God doth in that
ordinance, seal, confirm, and make over to us, ai/ the benefits of the
death of Christ... .Baptism seals the promise of God's being to me
a God, and that is greatly encouraging; .. ."
Such are the language and sentiments of Mr. Henry,
respecting the utility of baptism! Upon which I would here
observe, that we should not have been much surprised, if after all
this he had asserted with the Council of Trent, that baptism "opens
to every one of us the gate of heaven, which before, through sin,
was shut;"®°

Booth recognized that he was probably guilty of overstatement at this point

in his assertion of a fundamental equivalence between Tridentine and
Reformed sacramental theology, and so he said:

Though I am far from considering Mr. Henry as avowing

the natural consequences of his own positions, and equally far from
charging them upon him; yet I cannot but view the positions

84 Ibid. 1:481.
85 Ibid., 1:485.
86 Ibid.
The Historical Background 45

themselves as unwarrantable, extravagant, and of a dangerous

tendency.*’

Moving from critique to positive statement, Booth wrote:

For no Baptist minister, without notoriously confronting the grand

principle on which he proceeds in administering the solemn rite,
can ever teach that baptism is a mean of producing those great
effects which Mr. Henry and a thousand others have mentioned. To
maintain, with a resolute perseverance, that the laws of Christ
relating to a positive institution should be strictly observed, is one
thing; to insist upon it, or to insinuate that baptism, to whomsoever
administered, is the medium of procuring those blessings to which
we advert, is another. The former is our indispensable duty; the
latter is pregnant with dangerous consequences.**

It seems clear, then, that Booth was unwilling to think of baptism as in any
sense an effective sign which leads to the things signified, and he
considered his view of the matter to be inherent in Baptist theology.
Booth's Vindication ofBaptists was an attempt to argue that Baptists are
not religious bigots when they limit the Lord's Supper to immersed
believers. The main thrust of his argument was quite simple: Virtually all
Christian traditions agree that participation in the Lord's Supper is limited
to baptized Christians, and that is the principle which is being followed by
close-communion Baptists, because they understand "baptized" to mean
"immersed in the name of the Trinity as a confessing believer."
One of the criticisms directed against close-communion Baptists was
that they were making far too much of baptism, even "putting baptism in the
place of our Lord's atoning blood and the sanctifying agency of the Divine
Spirit." To this charge Booth responded that it is the critics of Baptists
who invest baptism with saving power, while Baptists in fact deny such
power. He wrote:

For it is too notorious to admit a plea of ignorance in any of our

opponents, that we consider no one as a proper subject of that

87 Ibid., 1:486.
88 Ibid.
89 Abraham Booth, A Vindication of the Baptists from the Charge of Bigotry, in Refusing
Communion at the Lord's Table to Paedobaptists, in The Baptist Library, 1:41.
46 More Than a Symbol

institution, who does not profess repentance toward God, and faith
in our Lord Jesus Christ; who does not, in other words, appear to be
in a state of salvation. Nay, so far from making baptism a saving
ordinance, we do not, we cannot consider anyone as a proper
subject of it who looks upon it in that light.”°

Following this disavowal of a sacramental view of baptism, he went on to

show that a much higher view of baptism's significance was taught by the
Book of Common Prayer, George Whitefield (1714-1770), and John Wesley
(1703-1791), as representative of the views held by the critics of the
"bigoted" Baptists.?! It seems perfectly clear that Booth rejected all
sacramental views of baptism, whether Catholic or Protestant. One might
well argue that it is incongruous to take such a low view of the meaning of
baptism and at the same time exclude from Communion persons who are
recognized as genuine believers in Christ, merely because they were
baptized by a defective mode. Whatever may be the coherence, or lack
thereof, of such a position, what is clear is that Booth and other Baptists like
him held tenaciously to a high view of church order but a low view of the
efficacy of the ordinances of the church.

Anne Dutton (1692-1765)

Among Baptists in 18"-century England it was generally pastors who
shaped the faith and order of the church, but Anne Dutton exerted
significant influence without the benefit of such an office. Dutton's second
husband became the pastor of the Particular Baptists at Great Gransden in
1732, and from that base for about thirty years thereafter she produced a
stream of pamphlets, often in the form of letters to friends and signed only
with her initials. One of these pamphlets dealt with the "Subject, Mode, and
End" of baptism, and it provides evidence of a continuing kind of
Calvinistic sacramental theology among some Particular Baptists.
Dutton asserted that the end of baptism is threefold: "1. To Represent.
2. To Seal, or Assure. And, 3. To Initiate."** The first purpose, to represent,
denoted the standard Baptist symbolism of "the Death, Burial, and
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and of our Union and Communion with Him

90 Ibid., 1:42.
91 Ibid., 1:42-43.
92 Anne Dutton, Brief Hints Concerning Baptism: of the Subject, Mode, and End of this
Solemn Ordinance (London: J. Hart, 1746), 12.
The Historical Background 47

therein.""’ This first purpose was given the majority of space in her
pamphlet, but the second and third addressed the sacramental question
(without using the term sacrament).
The second purpose, to seal and assure, indicated the way in which
God is at work in baptism. Just as there is a pictorial representation via
immersion of the central facts of redemption, so also "the finish'd Work of
Redemption, and the Whole of our Salvation thereby, is seal'd up, and made
sure to Believers in their Baptism.""* Since baptism is done in the name of
the Trinity, it was argued that the Triune God is working through baptism:

All the three Persons in GOD, do, as it were, solemnly engage to

make good all the great Things represented therein, to a baptized
Believer. They hereby set their Seal, as it were, their Amen, to all
that Salvation represented in Baptism, and give the highest
Assurance thereof to baptized Believers. This the Lord always
gives to the Persons of Believers, in the due Administration of the
Ordinance; and very frequently He gives this Assurance to their
Spirits in their Submission to it. As God the Father honoured his
Son, with Testimonies of his infinite Favour, upon his baptism.
And as the Eunuch, after he was baptized, went on his Way
rejoicing. And as the Jaylor and his House, after their Baptism,
believing in God, rejoiced.--But when this is not experienced by
Believers upon their Baptism, they are not to think it null and void,
because, as was said, the Lord gives them a solemn Assurance in
the very Ordinance of all the great Things represented therein, as it
is his Appointment, and done by his Authority.”

It is important to note that this statement about the sealing function of

baptism argued that there is an objective work of God in the event, whether
or not it is experienced at the subjective level by the subject of baptism. It
ought to create feelings of joy in the one who is incorporated by baptism
into the people of God, the beneficiaries of Christ's redemptive work, but
whatever may happen at the level of feelings, the confessing believer
receives God's "Amen" in the ordinance itself.
The third purpose is to initiate, that is, "to enter Believers, into a true

93 Ibid., 12-13.
94 Ibid., 20.
95) Ibid., 210
48 More Than a Symbol

Gospel Profession of Christ."°° Referring to Galatians 3:27 and the

language of putting on Christ in baptism, she described what the subject of
baptism is doing in the event:

He hereby professeth himself to be a lost Sinner, that he believes

Christ to be the only Saviour, that he looks to Him as his Saviour,
and that all his Hope of Salvation stands alone in the CHRIST of
GOD. He likewise hereby professeth to take Christ in all his
Offices, as his Prophet, Priest and King; and to give up himself to
Him, to be His for ever, to follow the LAMB, even whithersoever
He goeth.”’

In view of the fact that baptism is in the name of the Trinity, the confessor
"professeth to take the Three-One GOD for his GOD.""* This language of
initiation was in the previous century a dominant motif in General Baptist
rhetoric, but less so in Particular Baptist thought. The crucial point in this
motif is that the subject of baptism is a sinner who is becoming a Christian
through this ordinance, not a confirmed Christian who is giving testimony
to past experience. As Dutton described this initiation, the language is
fundamentally about the human act of confessing faith in Christ, but it is the
human side of the initial entrance into union with Christ, not (as for Gill)
some kind of second-stage entrance into a deeper communion with Christ.

Andrew Fuller (1754-1815)

Fuller served as pastor at Kettering from 1782 to his death in 1815, but his
influence extended far beyond his pastorate. He was a leader in the
Northamptonshire Association and one of the founders of the Baptist
Missionary Society which sent William Carey (1761-1834) to India in 1793.
He provided much of the theological foundation for this aggressive
missionary activity with his book, The Gospel of Christ Worthy of All
Acceptation (1785), which dethroned John Gill's version of Calvinism as the
dominant outlook of Particular Baptists. His system was still very much
Calvinistic, but he affirmed human responsibility to respond to the gospel,
as well as the responsibility of believers to seek the response of others, thus
restating Calvinistic theology in a fresh and compelling way. In many ways,
then, he became the second great Calvinistic Baptist theologian. In spite of

967 Wbide 22;

97 Ibid.
98 Ibid.
The Historical Background 49

his stature as a Baptist thinker, very little of his extensive writing was
devoted to the topic of baptism. The most relevant piece of literature is his
circular letter written to the churches of the Northamptonshire Association
in 1802, entitled, "The Practical Uses of Christian Baptism."
This letter assumed without argument the traditional Baptist positions
on the subjects and mode of baptism, and proceeded to explore "the
influence of this ordinance, where it produces its proper effects, in
promoting piety in individuals, and purity in the church."*’ His summary
statement was that, "The principal design of it appears to be, A solemn and
practical profession of the Christian religion."'° This profession of
Christian faith was described in various ways, one of which is the Apostle
Paul's statement that, "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). Fuller explained it thus:

There is a putting on of Christ which is internal, and consists in

relinquishing the former lusts, and being of the mind of Christ; but
that which is here referred to appears to be an open profession of
his name, to the renouncing of everything that stood in competition
with him. It was therefore true of as many as had been baptized,
whether they abode in the truth or not. And even their being "the
children of God by faith in Christ Jesus" seems to express what they
were in profession, rather than what they were in fact.'°!

This understanding of baptism as an oath of allegiance is both an early

meaning of the Latin sacramentum and a partial description of the baptism
of adult converts as conceptualized by both sacramental and non-
sacramental traditions. The question that remains is whether there is an
action from the divine side in the event, i.e., whether the benefits of Christ
are conveyed to the elect through baptism.
As Fuller's argument unfolded, he considered the relationship between
baptism and the remission of sins, and his statement of the matter
communicated a common Baptist ambivalence, recognizing that Scripture
points to some kind of instrumental function of baptism, but feeling the
need for major qualifications. He wrote:

99 Andrew Fuller, "The Practical Uses of Christian Baptism," in Zhe Complete Works of
the Rev. Andrew Fuller: with a Memoir of His Life, by Andrew Gunton Fuller, 3rd ed.
(Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1845), 3:339.
100 Ibid.
101 Ibid., 3:340.
50 More Than a Symbol

Hence, baptism in the name of Christ is said to be for the remission

of sins. Not that there is any such virtue in the element, whatever
be the quantity; nor in the ceremony, though of Divine
appointment; but it contains a sign of the way in which we must be
saved. Sin is washed away in baptism in the same sense as Christ's
flesh is eaten, and his blood drank, in the Lord's supper: the sign,
when rightly used, leads to the thing signified. Remission of sins
is ascribed by Peter not properly to baptism, but to the name in
which the parties were to be baptized. Thus also Saul was directed
to WASH AWAY HIS SINS calling on THE NAME OF THE
LORD}?

The crux here is the phrase, "rightly used," which must mean something
like, "used as an outward and formal expression of genuine personal faith."
Whatever may be the precise sense of the phrase, Fuller did see baptism as
a sign which is received by a person who is seeking the benefits signified by
it, as was true for Saul who called on the name of Christ for the removal of
sin in the baptismal event. Remission of sins is "properly" ascribed to
Christ, but it is clear that in some sense it comes through baptism; otherwise
there would be nothing here to require clarification by the term "properly."
It should also be noted that for Fuller, as for Gill, the contrast was not
between baptism and faith, but between baptism and the work of Christ.
That is, the concern was not to define the human action(s) which function(s)
as the instrumental cause(s) of personal salvation, but to emphasize that any
human action is at best an instrumental cause, a means by which God acts
to apply the benefits of the work of Christ.
Fuller's statements indicate that there is some instrumental value in
baptism, some way in which baptism leads to reception of the benefits of
Christ, but the evidence is minimal and undeveloped. His thought seems to
fit well within the context of baptism as a "seal" of union with Christ, but
he did not use this language explicitly. Baptists of the 18th century
generally avoided this terminology, partly because of the perceived absence
of biblical precedents and partly to avoid the Reformed paedobaptist
application to infants, but at a conceptual level the idea of "seal" appears to
capture the essence of their thought whenever they affirm with Fuller that
"the sign, when rightly used, leads to the thing signified."

102 Ibid., 3:341.

The Historical Background 51

John Ryland, Jr. (1753-1825)

Ryland was the son of John C. Ryland (1723-1792), another noted Baptist
pastor. The junior Ryland was for over thirty years the pastor at Broadmead
Church, Bristol and the president of Bristol Baptist College, an influential
school for the training of Baptist pastors. His baptismal theology was
published in a small book, A Candid Statement of the Reasons Which
Induce the Baptists to Differ In Opinion and Practice from So Many of
Their Christian Brethren. The book was said to represent the substance of
asermon which he often preached at baptismal services, and although it was
published in 1814, it represents the baptismal theology which was being
taught by Ryland in the late 18th century and is thus included here.
It is abundantly clear that for Ryland, regeneration actually occurs prior
to baptism. He wrote:

With respect to those whom we baptize, we cannot search

the heart, and may be mistaken in our judgment, as PHILIP was
respecting SIMON, and as the strictest Independents may be
respecting those whom they admit to the Lord's Table; but we dare
not baptize any of whom we do not hope that they are already born
of God; or that they have been renewed in the temper of their
minds; that they are penitent believers, whom the love of Christ
constraineth to confess him before men, in the way which he hath
appointed.'”°

Later he responded to the charge that Baptists put an undue emphasis on

baptism by saying:

I know of no Baptist who ever said such strong things of the

necessity, much less of the efficacy of Baptism, as many
Paedobaptists have done. And let it be remembered that it is our
very principle, that a man must first be in a state of salvation before
he has a right to Baptism.’

In spite of this assertion that evident regeneration is a condition of

baptism, the way in which Ryland described the intention of baptismal

103 John Ryland, 4 Candid Statement of the Reasons Which Induce the Baptists to Differ
in Opinion and Practice from So Many of Their Christian Brethren (London: W.
Button, 1814), 34.
104 Ibid., "Notes," xxx.
52 More Than a Symbol

candidates pictured them as guilty sinners laying hold of Christ for

salvation. For example:

They mean hereby openly to confess their pollution and guilt. They
are about to be baptized with the Baptism of Repentance,
professing to be overwhelmed with shame for their inexcusable
revolt from God. They are come to a place where much water is,
that they may, by being washed all over, indicate a deep conviction
of their entire pollution, and need of universal cleansing.'”

In standard Baptist fashion, the baptismal candidates were "to avow their
faith in Christ's death and resurrection" by their immersion in water, and
thus to signify their communion in these realities.'°° Speaking to the
candidates, Ryland said, "In this ordinance, you hope for that communion
with him, of which infants are absolutely incapable."!°’ This share in the
benefits of Christ's vicarious work is hoped for in the ordinance, which is
to say that the candidates are baptized in order to experience this spiritual
death and resurrection, not simply as a testimony that it has been
experienced. Similarly, "The persons about to be baptized, wish to be
considered by all the spectators as hereby declaring their desire to die unto
sin, and live unto righteousness."'°* Granted that some sort of spiritual
reorientation has occurred in these persons to bring them to confess faith in
Christ, there is nevertheless a further spiritual transformation which is
anticipated through their baptism.
The same kind of dialectic which has been seen in other Baptists was
present in Ryland, i.e., although the persons admitted to baptism must make
a credible confession of repentance and faith, and are thus evidently in a
state of grace, the benefits of salvation are being sought via baptism. This
paradox is rooted in the Calvinistic theology of the Particular Baptists which
affirms: (1) that regeneration is a divine act which precedes (logically, not
temporally) and empowers faith; (2) that faith, therefore, is a means by
which salvation that is actual but invisible becomes visible and experiential;
and (3) that baptism is the divinely-ordained event in which the initial
confession of faith occurs, so that the effects of baptism are the effects of
faith.

105 Ibid., 35.

106 Ibid., 36.
107 Ibid., 37.
108 Ibid.
The Historical Background 53

Summary
The most significant characteristics of the baptismal theology of 18th-
century Baptists would include the following:
(1) The term sacrament was only occasionally used to describe baptism.
This had never been a common term in Particular Baptist confessions, but
it had been used freely in the writings of individual signatories of those
confessions. However, in the writings surveyed in this chapter, ordinance
was the consistent label for baptism and the Lord's Supper, and sacrament
was never the author's choice (although the term appears in some
quotations).
(2) Baptism was called a sign but very seldom a seal, contrary to the
usage of major 17th-century authors. There were exceptions to this rule,
e.g., Anne Dutton, but the absence of such references is striking.
(3) Baptists were in general preoccupied with questions about the
subjects and mode of baptism, and there was very little thought given to
questions about the sense in which baptism might be a means of grace.
Whereas the earliest Baptists were primarily concerned with the subjects of
baptism and secondarily (indeed, only at a later point in time) with the mode
of baptism, the order was often reversed in 18th-century treatments. Many
pages were devoted to studies of Greek lexicography, the history of
baptismal practice, and the imagery of death-burial-resurrection, but very
few pages to the divine side of baptism.
(4) Whenever the effects of baptism were discussed, there was a
tendency to minimize divine action in the event. There was still a
recognition that God's action in forgiving sins and bestowing the Holy Spirit
is in some way mediated through baptism, but the scriptural texts which
demand this recognition (e.g., Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Mark 16:16)
tended to be interpreted in a modest and defensive way. Other biblical texts
like John 3:5 and Titus 3:5, which were admitted as allusions to baptismal
water by earlier Baptists, were often reinterpreted in a way that stripped
them of any baptismal reference.

Analysis
There are some obvious differences between the 17th and 18th centuries
when one examines Baptist attempts to state a theology of baptism. A gap
ought not be turned into a chasm, but there are differences which demand
some explanation. One of the difficulties involved in analyzing the
54 More Than a Symbol

differences is the fact that the 18th-century authors seldom quoted their
Baptist predecessors or explicitly interacted with their literature; therefore,
the reasons for any conceptual shift may not be clear. Why did Baptists
seldom quote their Baptist ancestors? Part of the answer must lie in the
common Baptist assumption that each Christian can discern the meaning of
divine revelation by an inductive, direct approach to Scripture alone.
Another part of the answer lies in the polemical nature of so much of the
Baptist literature--it was an attempt to convince paedobaptists that the
Baptist practice of baptism was in fact correct, and the appeal to Baptist
literature was hardly an effective appeal to recognized authority. It would
be far more effective to show that illustrious paedobaptists admitted, for
example, that immersion was the typical mode of baptism for thirteen
centuries, or that there was no explicit reference to infant baptism prior to
Tertullian (who was himself against the practice). What follows here, then,
is a somewhat tentative description of some theological factors that were at
work in this developing tradition.
First of all, it would be a mistake to focus on the disuse of the term
sacrament, The terms sacrament and ordinance were never mutually
exclusive, nor were they regarded as contradictions. In 17th-century Baptist
usage, ordinance was the broader term and denoted at least prayer and the
ministry of the Word in addition to baptism and the Lord's Supper, while
sacrament was the narrower term denoting only the last two. The term
ordinance became the standard language of the Particular Baptist
confessions, but for reasons that are not entirely clear, inasmuch as leaders
in the writing of the confessions (e.g., Benjamin Keach) freely spoke of
baptism as a sacrament of the gospel.
One possible reason for the use of ordinance may well be that it better
captures the sense of being commanded by the Lord, while sacrament has
more of an ecclesiastical tone. A recurring theme in Baptist literature was
that baptism is a "positive institution," that disciples of Christ ultimately do
it simply because the Lord has ordained it, and that it must be done in the
way that he ordained.'” The fact that church tradition authorizes it was
virtually irrelevant for the Baptists.
This sense of baptism as a "positive institution" (i.e., a precept observed
simply because God has commanded it) functioned as a powerful argument
for the Baptist position. For example, both sides in the paedobaptist debate
generally admitted that a strong case can be made for baptizing only

109 For an emphatic statement of this principle, see Booth, Paedobaptism Examined, Part
I, Chapter I.
The Historical Background 55

confessing believers if the argument is based simply on the explicit

narratives of Scripture. The paedobaptist case was normally rooted in
inferences drawn from scriptural principles. Baptists, on the other hand,
declared that in the case of a positive institution, such inferences are
inappropriate; the absence of an explicit basis for baptizing infants amounts
to a prohibition of the practice.'!° Therefore, even for those Baptists who
were comfortable with the term sacrament, there was much to be gained in
theological debate by using the term ordinance.
Another possible reason was to avoid the need for continual clarification
of the term sacrament, in the face of the diverse usage of the term by the
various Christian traditions. The use of the weaker term, ordinance, would
not carry connotations in quite the way that sacrament would, and thus
would eliminate potential misunderstanding.
In the end, it must be noted that although the 1 8th-century writers did
not use the term sacrament, there was no explicit rejection of the term. For
that very reason, one ought not infer that the choice of other terms implies
that the thought patterns are anti-sacramental. That shift appears to be true
in some cases, but that judgment cannot be made on the basis of
terminology alone.
Second, the retreat from the designation of baptism as a seal is as
difficult to analyse as the retreat from sacrament. As noted above, the
retreat was not complete, for there were still some writers like Anne Dutton
who used the motif of sealing/assuring to describe the effects of baptism.
The most probable explanation lies in the need for Particular Baptists to
distinguish themselves from Presbyterians and Independents, both of whom
used the term sea/ to describe the function of baptism. However, in the case
of these other Calvinistic groups, the most popularly cherished use of the
term related to the incorporation of infant children of church members into
the "covenant people," and this was the crucial point at which the Baptists
disagreed. The other factor at work here is the attempt of Baptists to go
straight to the Bible, where they did not find baptism referred to as a seal.
It seems unfortunate, though, that this terminology dropped out of the
common Baptist vocabulary, because it seems well-suited to describe the
significance of baptism as the event in which "faith discovers itself" (to use
Gill's phrase) and conversion to Christ is ratified. It should not have been
difficult to argue that the idea of a seal is an apt description of baptism's

110 Benjamin Beddome, Baptism: Extract from a Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist
Catechism; by way of Question and Answer (London: Whittingham and Rowland,
1813), 7.
56 More Than a Symbol

function in the case of a confessing believer, and that the application of it

to infants is problematic. Both the Lutheran concept of baptism as a "visible
word" which evokes and strengthen's faith and the Calvinistic concept of
baptism as a "seal" which ratifies both human faith and the divine gift of
salvation can easily be related to the baptism of a confessing believer, but
the application to infants who cannot confess faith appears to be forced. It
is not clear why the Baptists did not affirm the terminology and claim to be
its rightful users, as opposed to paedobaptists.. The way in which baptism
functions according to Baptist theology, i.e., as a tangible confirmation of
faith and what faith receives, is precisely what the term seal is all about. It
is a fact that the term fell out of favour, but this does not prove that the
concept was no longer active at a conceptual level.
Third, the retreat from a more clearly sacramental view of baptism was
due more to neglect than to positive rejection of older ideas. Baptists were
involved in vigorous debate about the mode and subjects of baptism, so that
little energy was devoted to a positive development. It was increasingly true
that Baptists knew more about what did not happen in the sprinkling of
infants than they did about what does happen in the immersion of believers.
Fourth, the impact of High Calvinism was disastrous for the
development of any serious baptismal theology. Ata theoretical level, such
a theology minimized the significance of human acts in general, and thus of
baptism in particular. At a practical level, it minimized the practice of
evangelism and thus reduced the level of baptismal activity in the churches,
which would reduce the incentive to reflect on baptism at a theological
level.
Fifih, there are probably several reasons why Baptists tended to
minimize the effects of baptism when they did move beyond the issues of
subjects and mode, but none of these reasons are compelling. (1) They
wanted to avoid mechanistic views of baptism's efficacy that were
associated with traditional Catholic theology. They were, after all, orthodox
Protestants, and furthermore, they were part of a tradition which had
concluded that the magisterial Reformation had not gone far enough in its
reforms. Anything that looked like a move back toward Rome would be
viewed with extreme suspicion. (2) Baptists were convinced that the more
one talked about the necessity of baptism, the more one would be inclined
to paedobaptism and "rantism"''' (baptism by sprinkling, from the Greek
pavttc@). John Ryland's interpretation of history indicated that pouring or

111 This “rantism” is to be distinguished from the 17"-century antinomian movement in

England whose adherents were known as Ranters.
The Historical Background Si/

sprinkling as a baptismal mode was first accepted in the third century in the
case of sick persons, due to an excessive estimate of the necessity of
baptism for salvation.''? Furthermore, they argued that in the patristic era
the same doctrine of necessity was the basis for the baptism of infants, since
it was assumed that unbaptized infants could not be saved any more than
unbaptized adults.''? However one may assess their reading of the history
of baptismal practice, it is not hard to see the logic of their inference. (3)
They minimized the effects of baptism to refute the charge that they elevated
baptism to a level of undue importance. They generally practised closed
membership, i.e., they accepted as church members only those persons who
were immersed as confessing believers; and many of them practised close
communion, i.e., they welcomed to the Lord's Supper only immersed
believers. The practice of close communion was not a denial of the
salvation of the irregularly baptized, but it was easily interpreted in that way,
thus exacerbating the tension that already existed due to the disagreement
over the practice of baptism. Consequently, Baptists emphasized that
baptism was not necessary for salvation in a way that muted their Calvinistic
sacramental heritage.
On balance, it seems that it would have been more appropriate to
articulate carefully the kind of Baptist sacramentalism taught by Baptists
like Henry Lawrence and Benjamin Keach in the 17th century. In terms of
the inner logic, the Baptist practice is more understandable if there is a
relative necessity for the occurrence of confessional baptism. Ifthe baptism
of confessing believers is the normal means by which God seals the
individual's personal, saving union with Christ, then to neglect it is cause for
serious concern. If conversion is consciously completed apart from baptism,
and baptism is reduced to sheer obedience and pure symbolism, then the
narrow Baptist practice is indeed mystifying, especially in its close
communion form.

The Nineteenth Century

The preceding material has indicated that for the first two centuries of their
existence, Baptists had shaped their baptismal theology in the midst of
controversy. Usually those controversies had been focused on either the
subjects or the mode of baptism, and the question of the relationship
between baptism and the various aspects of salvation had been addressed for

112 Ryland, Candid Statement, 10.

113 Booth, Paedobaptism Examined, Part I, Chapter III.
58 More Than a Symbol

the most part only as it came up in discussions of paedobaptism. In the 19th

century, it continued to be true that Baptists shaped their doctrine of
baptism in the context of controversy, but in this case the controversy dealt
explicitly with baptism as a means of saving grace. In the early part of the
century, Anglo-Catholic sentiment within the Church of England was
powerfully expressed through what is called the Oxford Movement or
Tractarianism, a movement that began as a response to theological
liberalism but rapidly became a defence of Catholic views within
Anglicanism, including a strong statement of baptismal regeneration.
Although it was in one sense an internal debate within the Church of
England, it also set the agenda for theological discussion among the
dissenting churches, as Roger Hayden, a contemporary British Baptist
historian, notes:

It is almost impossible to exaggerate the impact of the Anglo-

Catholic Tractarian Movement in Nonconformist churches. The
word "sacrament" now became totally unacceptable in Baptist
circles. ... Baptists, in this period, tended to give a higher priority
to what the individual believer did than to God's action in baptism.
Baptists regarded this ordinance as primarily a testimony to
personal faith in Christ and a disciplined following of the example
of Jesus.''*

In his discussion of the developing theology of English Baptists of the 19th

century, J. H. Y. Briggs, another contemporary British Baptist historian,
says:

The context for the debate soon became that heightened

sacramentalism within the established church which mid-Victorian
Baptists perceived to be the fruit of the Oxford Movement, with its
accompanying secessions to Rome.'!°

Such a context would seem to be the ideal time for Baptists to state their
theology of baptism as a means of grace in a way that was much more
explicit than their earlier literature, which tended to address the sacramental

114 Roger Hayden, English Baptist History and Heritage (London: The Baptist Union of
Great Britain, 1990), 100.
115 J. H. Y. Briggs, The English Baptists of the Nineteenth Century (London: The Baptist
Historical Society, 1994), 46.
The Historical Background sy)

question only indirectly. It is true that the Baptist literature of this period
spoke more directly about baptism in relation to spiritual rebirth, but it was
usually written in reaction to Anglo-Catholicism, and this reactionary
process tended to formulate baptismal theology in a reductionistically non-
sacramental direction. J. R. C. Perkin, a former British Baptist and later
president of Acadia University, has noted that there was during this period
a"minority movement within the Baptist denomination which stood for a
sacramental view over against the nuda signa doctrine of its
contemporaries," but it was a definite minority and a "fluid body of
opinion."''® There was no confessional development during this period, but
there were extended treatments of baptism by individual authors, and the
rest of this chapter will survey some of the most influential of those.

Robert Hall, Jr. (1764-1831)

Hall was a second-generation Baptist pastor whose contribution to baptismal
theology was somewhat indirect, in that it was developed in the context of
the ongoing Baptist debate about the relationship between baptism and the
Lord's Supper. As noted in the previous chapter, many Baptists held to
"close (strict) communion" and thus admitted to the Lord's Supper only
those who had been in their opinion validly baptized. Although this view
was ably defended by Abraham Booth and was probably the majority view
among Particular Baptists, there was never unanimity on the point. Hall
entered the debate in 1815 with his book, On Terms of Communion, which
responded to Booth and defended "open (free) communion," in which
paedobaptist Christians were admitted to the communion table in Baptist
churches. This evoked a response from Joseph Kinghorn (1766-1832) in his
Baptism a Term of Communion at the Lord's Supper (1816), which Hall
countered with A Reply to the Revd Joseph Kinghorn, being a Further
Vindication of ree Communion (1818). Several years later Kinghorn
concluded the dialogue with A Defence of Baptism a Term of Communion
in Answer to the Revd Robert Hall's Reply (1840). This debate was not
explicitly about the efficacy of baptism, since debaters on both sides of the
question admitted that paedobaptist believers were genuine recipients of
God's saving grace, but Hall did address the sacramental question at various
points in this literature.
There was an enormous amount of ambivalence in Hall's references to

116 J.R.C. Perkin, "Baptism in Nonconformist Theology, 1820-1920, with special reference
to the Baptists" (D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1955), 10.
60 More Than a Symbol

the efficacy of baptism. On the one hand, he interpreted Christian baptism

within the New Testament as a rite with great significance and momentous
effects. The context in which this occurred was his assertion of a
fundamental distinction between John's baptism and the baptism instituted
by Christ. One of the standard arguments for strict communion was the
temporal priority of baptism relative to the Lord's Supper, given that John
and Christ's disciples were baptizing prior to the institution of the Lord's
Supper, which occurred only at the end of the earthly ministry of Jesus. But
if Christian baptism as expressed in the apostolic commission of Matthew
28 was something radically new and not simply the continuation of John's
baptism, then the temporal order of the institution of the sacraments is
reversed. Hall defended the discontinuity between the two baptisms by
asserting the vastly superior effects of Christian baptism:

The baptism instituted by our Lord is in Scripture distinguished

from that of the forerunner by the superior effects with which it was
accompanied; so that, instead of being confounded they are
contrasted in the sacred historians. . . . The rite administered by
John was a mere immersion in water, unaccompanied with that
effusion of the Spirit, that redundant supply of supernatural gifts
and graces which distinguished the subjects of the Christian
institute.'!”

Concerning the blessings inherent in the new covenant, and referring to the
frequently-quoted promise of Peter in Acts 2:38, he wrote:

The effusion of the Spirit, indeed, in the multifarious forms of his

miraculous and sanctifying operation, may be considered as
equivalent to them all; and this, we are distinctly told, was not
given (save in a very scanty manner) during our Lord's abode upon
earth, because he was not yet glorified. . . [Hall describes the
bestowal of the Spirit at Pentecost.| . . . In the subsequent history,
we perceive that this gift was, on all ordinary occasions, conferred
in connexion with baptism.''®

117 Robert Hall, On Terms of Communion, with a Particular View to the Case of the
Baptists and Paedobaptists, in The Works of Robert Hall, A.M., ed. Olinthus Gregory
(London: Henry G. Bohn, 1843), 1:297.
118 Ibid., 1:298.
The Historical Background 61

This relationship between baptism and the gift of the Holy Spirit is an
indication that, "The baptism of the Holy Ghost, or the copious effusion of
spiritual influences, in which primitive Christians were, so to speak,
immersed, was appointed to follow the sacramental use of water, under the
Christian economy."''?
This looks like a very high view of the efficacy of baptism: it is the
means by which one receives the Holy Spirit, the supreme benefit of the new
covenant; baptism in water in the name of Christ is the event in which
baptism in the Spirit occurs; indeed, baptism is necessary for salvation,
because through apostolic teaching it was understood that a refusal to be
baptized was a refusal to acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Christ, and thus
a rejection of saving grace.'”°
However, this was only one aspect of Hall's baptismal theology. There
was also a recurring theme which minimized the place of baptism as a
means of grace and rejected the developments within the Catholic tradition:
He wrote:

It is well known that from a very early period the most extravagant
notions prevailed in the Church with respect to the efficacy of
baptism, and its absolute necessity in order to attain salvation. The
descent of the human mind from the spirit to the letter, from what
is vital and intellectual to what is ritual and external in religion, is
the true source of idolatry and superstition in all the multifarious
forms they have assumed; and as it began early to corrupt the
religion of nature, or, more properly, of patriarchal tradition, so it
soon obscured the lustre, and destroyed the simplicity of the
Christian institute. '7!

There are, of course, biblical texts which suggest a high view of baptismal
efficacy, some of which Hall himself had used to support his argument, but
in his opinion these texts had been misused in the Catholic tradition:

From an erroneous interpretation of the figurative language of a few

passages in Scripture, in which the sign is identified with the thing
signified, very similar to the mistake which afterward led to
transubstantiation, it was universally supposed that baptism was

119 Ibid.
120 Ibid., 1:310-311.
121 Ibid., 1:317.
62 More Than a Symbol

invariably accompanied with a supernatural effect, which totally

changed the state and character of the candidate, and constituted
him a child of God and an heir of the kingdom of heaven. Hence it
was almost constantly denoted by the terms illumination,
regeneration, and others, expressive of the highest operations of the
Spirit; and as it was believed to obtain the plenary remission of all
past sins, it was often, in order to ensure that benefit, purposely
deferred to the latest period of life. !**

Hall rejected such a “superstitious” view of baptism, asserting that Baptists,

of all people, were unwilling to posit this kind of connection between
baptism and regeneration:

By orthodox Christians it is uniformly maintained that union to

Christ is formed by faith, and as the Baptists are distinguished by
demanding a profession of it at baptism, they at least are precluded
from asserting that rite to have any concern in effecting the spiritual
alliance in question. In their judgment at least, since faith precedes
the application of water, the only means of union are possessed by
the abetters of infant-sprinkling equally with themselves; who are
therefore equally of the "body of Christ, and members in
particular."!”°

The tension between what he asserted to be the purpose of baptism

"under the Christian economy" and what he later said about the relative
insignificance of baptism is evident, and a resolution of this tension is not
obvious. Apparently Hall sought to resolve this tension by limiting the high
view of baptismal efficacy to the apostolic age. For example, when
commenting on the Mark 16 account of the promise of miraculous gifts, he
said that such "supernatural endowments regularly accompanied the
imposition of the hands of the apostles on primitive converts, immediately
subsequent to their baptism."'* The account in Acts 8 of the Samaritans
who believed the gospel and were baptized, but did not receive the gift of
the Spirit until a later time, conflicts with other accounts of the gift of the
Spirit in the same book, and interpreters have suggested various reasons for
this difference. Hall suggested that the reason is that, "The apostles, to

122 Ibid., 1:318.

123elbidFales32;
124 Ibid., 1:298.
The Historical Background 63

whom alone the power of conferring it belonged, were not present."!*° The
result of all this was to posit a major distinction between the experience of
baptism in the apostolic age and the experience of baptism in the present.
Although this may have helped Hall to affirm the genuine Christian
experience of his paedobaptist contemporaries, it created huge problems for
his use of Scripture as a source for a doctrine of baptism. The New
Testament assertions about faith, baptism, and spiritual rebirth were, after
all, written during the apostolic age when baptism was, by his own
admission, functioning as a means of God's bestowal of the blessings of the
new covenant. The apostolic teaching about faith as the means of union
with Christ was being communicated at the same time that baptism was
mediating the experience of salvation, and indeed was being communicated
by the very persons who had power to convey these blessings in connection
with baptism. How is it, then, that the apostolic teaching about faith serves
to minimize the role of baptism? If Acts and the apostolic epistles do not
give us a Christian doctrine of baptism which is valid for the whole inter-
advent age, then where would we get such a doctrine? It does not appear
that Hall had the answers to these questions.
There was much in Hall's theology which pointed to a high view of
baptism as a means of grace: he freely called it a sacrament, even though
this term had fallen into relative disuse among his fellow Baptists; he also
described the Lord's Supper in sacramental terms along the lines of a
"spiritual presence" of Christ, as opposed to the purely memorialistic view
associated with Zwingli;'”° this sacramentalism seemed to be present in his
contrast between John's baptism (which effected none of the benefits of
salvation) and Christian baptism (which effects what John promised).
Nevertheless, in his attempt to affirm the presence of saving grace in
paedobaptist Christians and their consequent right to communion at the
Lord's Table in Baptist churches, he denied that the apostolic practice and
doctrine of baptism are paradigmatic for the entire inter-advent age.
It would seem that a more appropriate solution can be found. This
tension seems capable of resolution, if one assumes that baptism is the
normal, though not invariable, means by which union with Christ is
experientially sealed, and that faith alone is the indispensable instrument of
this saving union. Such an approach might properly defend the laudable
extension of communion at the Lord's Supper to all who give evidence of
their union with Christ by obeying the commands of Christ as they

125 Ibid., 1:385.

126 Ibid., 1:313.
64 More Than a Symbol

understand them, without grounding the defence in an incoherent baptismal

theology.

Alexander Carson (1779-1844)

Carson was initially an Irish Presbyterian minister, who went through a
change of mind about biblical teaching on church government and thus
became an Independent (Congregationalist). Later he experienced another
profound change of mind, this time on the subject of baptism, which led to
his becoming a Baptist, and eventually an apologist for Baptist views. His
Baptism in its Mode and Subjects, an influential polemic, was painstakingly
detailed in its arguments about mode and subjects, but it devoted little space
to the question of baptism as a means of grace. What he did say on the topic
is stated indirectly in a brief section defending the baptism of believers only.
In that section, Carson accepted as allusions to baptism some passages
which, due to their sacramental character, had been interpreted by other
Baptists as having no reference to baptism at all. In this category would be
John 3:5; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:26; and | Corinthians 12:13. However, he
argued that each of the New Testament allusions to baptism assumes that
the candidate has experienced the benefits of salvation prior to baptism.
His summary statement was this:

In general, it is quite apparent that baptism is not only a figure of

the washing away of sin, but that it is always supposed that the sins
of those who are baptized are already washed away. Now this can
be supposed of none but believers. Infants dying in infancy, if
saved, have their sins washed away. But millions of persons who
have their sins washed away, have not had them washed away in
infancy. With respect to such, then, baptism, that supposes sins
already washed away, could have no proper application in their
infancy.|?”

John 3:5 was accepted as a baptismal allusion, but he asserted that in this
text, "The ordinance exhibits the baptized person as at the time born
again."!** Whether this meant that the person was born again in connection
with baptism or was in a reborn condition at the time of baptism because of

127 Alexander Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Subjects, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: American
Baptist Publication Society, 1860), 211.
128 Ibid.
The Historical Background 65

a previous rebirth is not clear, but clarification came through his treatment
of Titus 3:5. He accepted the idea that baptism is the "bath of regeneration,"
but also said that, "The baptized person . . . is supposed to be already born,
or renewed by the Spirit."’"” With regard to Acts 22:16, he said, "Here we
see baptism figuratively washes away sins, and supposes that they are
previously truly washed away.""*° Concerning 1 Corinthians 12:13 he
wrote, "They who are baptized are supposed already to belong to the body
of Christ; and for this reason they are baptized into it."1*!
This can hardly be seen as anything other than a superficial and
tendentious reading of these biblical texts. Although it may be possible to
interpret these texts in a non-sacramental manner, this is anything but the
obvious conclusion that he suggested. It looks as if these texts are saying
that baptism is instrumental in the experience of salvation, i.e., that spiritual
rebirth, cleansing from sin, and union with Christ and his church are effects
of baptism. That this is the apparent meaning of the texts is evident from
the common Baptist attempt to evade this conclusion by interpreting these
passages in a non-baptismal sense.
The point that Carson was trying to make is that the New Testament
uniformly assumes that those who have been baptized have been spiritually
reborn through union with Christ, an assumption that could not be made
about infants, and therefore, infant baptism must not have been the apostolic
practice. This argument is meaningful and cogent as it stands, but Carson
went beyond it to say not simply that those who are baptized are assumed
to be saved, but also that they are assumed to have been saved prior to
baptism. To say that baptism and salvation are assumed to be coextensive
is not to specify the exact temporal or logical relationship between the two.

Charles Stovel (1799-1883)

Stovel was a pastor in various churches in England and was a respected
denominational leader, twice serving one-year terms as president of the
Baptist Union. In 1843 he responded to Tractarianism with a series of
lectures which were published as 7he Baptismal Regeneration Controversy
Considered, which is one of the most careful and thorough responses from
a Baptist perspective.
Stovel's book was written against the background of Tractarianism and

129 Ibid.
130 Ibid., 212.
131 Ibid.
66 More Than a Symbol

a renewed commitment to a high doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but his

concern was to refute every form of baptismal theology which affirms that
a spiritual gift is conferred through baptism, Tractarianism being just the
most conspicuous example at that time. As examples of the kind of doctrine
which he rejected, he articulated the teaching of the Canons of Trent, the
Prayer Book and Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, the
Lutheran confessions, and the Westminster Confession of Faith.'°* The
attack on the traditional Roman Catholic doctrine of conveyance of grace ex
opere operato is understandable, as is his treatment of the Anglican
tradition, given that he considered the Tractarians "to be the most full and
candid expositors of the doctrines of the Church of England."'** The
language of baptismal regeneration is deeply rooted in Lutheran theology as
well, although the emphasis on faith in connection with the "visible word"
of baptism distinguishes it from the Tridentine theology. The most
surprising aspect of Stovel's approach was his attack on the Westminster
Assembly at this point; he did not simply equate it with other doctrines of
baptismal regeneration, but he did argue that at the core there is a
fundamental point of equivalence which must be rejected. He wrote:

Baptismal Regeneration is only one form in which the error 1s

Stated. Where these words are rejected "with abhorrence," benefits
are ascribed to Infant Baptism, which are quite unscriptural, and the
supposition of which, have almost the same moral effect upon
mankind. With some, it is "a seal of the covenant," With others, it
is an "introduction into the visible Church." Some contend that
"grace" is always communicated in Baptism; others, that it is not
communicated invariably, but only sometimes. Some will have it
to be a "regeneration;" others will not admit that term. All,
however, urge the observance of this rite as a duty on parents, and
plead that the infant baptized has a claim to the privilege.'™’

With regard to the teaching expressed in the Westminster Confession and

Catechisms, he wrote:

It is quite plain. . . that their whole discussion with the

132 Charles Stovel, The Baptismal Regeneration Controversy Considered (London:

Houlston & Stoneman, and Dyer & Co., 1843), 72-80.
133 Ibid., 74.
134 Ibid., 17.
The Historical Background 67

Episcopalians on this statement, must turn on the questions

respecting an invariable regeneration in Baptism, and the right of
others to that sacrament, besides the children of Christians. Thus
much, also, ought, in justice to be said upon the case, that the
question of holding or rejecting the error of baptismal grace, was
never submitted to the Episcopalians in that Conference. Other
terms were preferred to that of "regeneration," but the idea was
retained by the objectors.'*°

On the surface, then, Stovel seemed to be resolutely non-sacramental and

opposed to any thought of being the beneficiary of divine action in baptism.
However, this statement that occurred early in his book must be carefully
assessed in light of later statements in the same book. The crucial qualifier
of this initial rhetoric is the fact that his basic target was the idea of
baptismal benefit apart from faith in the recipient, whether in the case of
infants or adults.
In his description of the varieties of baptismal regeneration doctrine
quoted above, he explicitly related this to parental duty to have their infant
children baptized. He was clearly against any idea of grace conveyed
through baptism per se which is performed on unsuspecting infants, but this
is not equivalent to saying that no benefit can be obtained in confessional
baptism, as he noted:

... you will be pleased to distinguish very carefully between the

moral effect which this Divine institution may have, when received
by a believer as his own act, from the effect which is here assigned
to it as a vicarious act, performed not by the wish or will of the
infant, but by some one else on his behalf. In the former case, like
all other acts of obedience, it may strengthen the habit of obeying.
It may solemnize his engagement, as in the case of matrimony; and
it may become a witness for God to all beholders.'°°

Admittedly, this statement only allowed for a benefit in baptism which is

like the benefit of any act of obedience, and it did not posit any directly
divine action in the event. That evidence will appear below.
Stovel refuted paedobaptism by both Scripture and experience. He
utilized the standard Baptist apologetic to demonstrate that the patterns of

135 Ibid., 76-77.

136 Ibid., 18.
68 More Than a Symbol

the New Testament consistently connect baptism to a confession of

repentance and faith by the persons baptized. What is surprising is the
extent to which he relied on experience in his argument. In his words:

But though the testimony of Scripture is necessary to complete the

evidence, I may yet observe here, that this is by no means the only
source of evidence to which you may appeal. Do you not see, from
the very nature of the case itself, that it must be necessarily
determined by experience? . . . If, therefore, grace, or the spiritual
gift of baptism, flow through the words or fingers of a priest, by
baptism, to the child baptized; that benefit must be seen in the
result. . . .--and what, after all, is the result? I answer, the
experience of all nations and of all ages pronounces it a delusion,
and nothing more.'*”

The experiential data invoked at this point would be obvious: baptized

persons are in some cases murderers, prostitutes, thieves, and other kinds of
perverse sinners. However, this argument is only valid if one assumes that
regeneration invariably leads to perseverance in godly living, and although
this assumption is held by Calvinistic Baptists, it would not be shared by
many of the Anglicans to whom he is responding, and certainly not by
Roman Catholics who would emphasize the necessity of cooperation with
the grace infused in baptism.
Stovel admitted that the refutation of infant baptism is not the end of the
argument. There is still the question of whether spiritual benefits are
conveyed to adults in baptism. On this question also his answer was
negative, but it is clear that what he was negating is the idea that baptism in
itself is capable of conveying spiritual benefit. In his words he was
attacking "promiscuous" baptism of adults, i.e., the baptism of every adult
who will accept it, apart from expression of personal commitment to Christ,
in the hope that grace will be imparted which will ultimately bring the
person to conversion. He responded to this by summarizing the assumptions
which the New Testament authors make about baptized persons:

Hence, there can be no doubt, that these were recognized as

converted persons. The change of heart necessary to salvation is,
therefore, recognized to have taken place in them all. This is a
simple, and an indisputable fact. The advocates of modern

137 Ibid., 36-37.

The Historical Background 69

Baptismal Regeneration, however, say, that there is no conversion

in baptism. . . . In this they are quite right. There is no such thing
as conversion by Baptism spoken of in Scripture. These two facts
decide our case; for, if there be no conversion by Baptism, or in
baptism, and yet every person has been converted when baptized;
then, every baptized person must have been converted before
Baptism; and, the evidence on which these apostolical affirmations
are made, must have been required and taken before the candidate
was admitted to the sacrament of baptism; and, therefore, instead
of supporting Baptismal Regeneration, these passages condemn the
practice of promiscuous Baptism altogether.'**

The argument, then, is this: In the New Testament, baptized persons are
assumed to be converted persons; conversion does not happen in baptism;
therefore, conversion must be complete prior to baptism. Stovel shared the
second premise with his opponents and sought to turn it against them, but
there was no necessity for him to accept this premise, and in fact it will be
argued below that he did not in reality accept it. His real concern at this
point was to reject the baptism of persons who make no confession of
personal conversion, in the hope that baptism may lead to their conversion
at some future point--in his words, the idea "that hypocrisy perpetrated in
this Sacramental act is a step towards conversion."'*’ But all that is required
for this argument is the first premise, i.e., that conversion does not follow
baptism. This could mean either that conversion is assumed to be complete
prior to baptism (as Stovel stated it above) or that conversion is assumed to
be completed in baptism (as he seems to have said later in the book). The
assumption that baptized persons are converted persons still allows for some
kind of work of grace in conversion-baptism, i.e., a divine work done in the
baptismal event which brings the individual into the experience of saving
union with Christ (as opposed to simply offering the hope of such salvation
in the future).
As Stovel articulated his own theology of baptism, he conceptualized
it in a way that would have to be called sacramental. At the level of
terminology he did repeatedly refer to the "sacrament of baptism," but
admittedly this does not settle the question at the conceptual level.
However, his explanation of conversion-baptism did indicate that the person
being baptized is entering into the benefits of salvation, not bearing witness

138 Ibid., 113.

139 Ibid., 115.
70 More Than a Symbol

to a consciously completed union with Christ as a prior reality. For

example, he interpreted the idea of being "baptized into Christ" in Galatians
3:27 in this way:

The phrase "into Christ" contains an ellipsis to be supplied by a

verb of motion; as in Galatians 111.27. "As many of you as
[entering] into Christ received Baptism, have put on Christ." This
distinguished the Baptism of Christ from all others... . But the
Christian Baptism, was an immersion, received by persons entering
into Christ.'“°

The most significant part of Stovel's baptismal theology was his

treatment of John 3:5 and the idea of rebirth through baptism. At the heart
of this theology was his distinction between regeneration and rebirth, the
former denoting the invisible work of the Holy Spirit and the latter denoting
the visible work of bringing new spiritual life to the level of conscious
experience. He wrote:

By some it has been disputed whether the case of Nicodemus,

related in John iii. 1-12, refers to the sacrament of Baptism at all;
but, in my opinion, the objection to this view of the passage cannot
be supported. Admitting, therefore, that it does refer to Baptism,
one or two points of great moment are determined by it... . There
are, therefore, we admit, two agencies employed in that new birth;
the water and the Spirit. By these, a converted man begins life
anew. Not by water without the Spirit, nor by the Spirit without the
water; but by the water and the Spirit. The visible action of the
water, or rather of the whole sacrament, of which it becomes the
instrument, is seen in the Church; where, as an authorized act of
discipline, it declares the character, and seals both the privilege and
obligation of every believer in the family of God. The action of the
Spirit takes place in the mind and heart; and, leading and sustaining
the believer, reveals itself in the effects produced upon the devoted
convert. Each is essential to the support of that new life, into which
a believing sinner rises and enters from the moment of his Baptism.
If he seek salvation by the Baptism, without conversion to God: he
acts the hypocrite, and the ceremony is reduced to a mere
heathenish form. If, knowingly, he seek salvation and Church

140 Ibid., 114.

The Historical Background 71

fellowship in the neglect of Baptism, he dispenses with the

ordinance of Christ, and is reminded, that faith without works is
dead.'*

He later elaborated as follows:

To be born and to be begotten, do not mean the same thing; . . . By

Generation, a creature is made to be; and, by birth, that creature is
brought forth into the world, to be recognized as a being, to be
nourished with tenderness, and to become a partaker in the
privileges and responsibilities of human society. So also by
Regeneration, a new creature is made to be; and, in being born
again, that new creature is brought forth into the Church; to be
received with affection, nourished with care, and to be a partaker in
all the privileges and responsibilities of Christian society. By his
Regeneration, a sinner passes from darkness to light, and from the
power of Satan unto God; but, by his new birth, he passes into
recognized existence, as one who, through the Spirit which hath
quickened him, aspires to the service and fellowship of his Saviour,
and, is destined to overcome the world, through the guidance, and
help of the Saviour to whom he is committed.'”

This distinction between regeneration and rebirth may or may not be an

accurate way to describe the use of the terms in Scripture, but it does show
that in the end Stovel's theology did include the reception of spiritual benefit
through conversion-baptism. In baptism, the awakened sinner seeks
salvation, and in that event the Spirit who has given new life in embryo
elevates that life to the level of conscious and recognized experience.
Therefore, in the end, Stovel's view of baptism was sacramental, both
verbally and conceptually.'*? It was fundamentally equivalent to the
Westminster understanding of baptism as a seal of union with Christ, as
applied to confessing believers. His work was a potent reminder that the
Baptist concern about baptismal grace is for the most part a concern about
infant baptism, and certainly about the automatic bestowal of grace through
the ritual apart from any faith-response on the part of the subject. He was

141 Ibid., 127.

142 Ibid., 129.
143 Perkin failed to see Stovel in this way, because he ignored Stovel's distinction between
regeneration and rebirth, and he failed to note that what Stovel denied was that baptism
is a means of grace apart from faith in the baptizand. See Perkin, "Baptism," 152-155.
2 More Than a Symbol

also an example of the significance of the Tractarian movement and the

extent to which 19th-century Baptist rhetoric was a reaction to Anglo-
Catholic thought. If the discussion were limited to a consideration of what
happens in the baptism of a repentant believer, then the rhetoric would be
quite different, affirming the sacramental sense which is often present in
spite of protests to the contrary.

Baptist W. Noel (1798-1873)

When Charles Stovel was arguing in 1843 that the Anglo-Catholics were the
trustworthy interpreters of the official Anglican statements on baptism, an
evangelical Anglican named Baptist Noel was preaching an extended series
of sermons on regeneration, two of which argued that baptismal
regeneration was not the doctrine of the Church of England.'“* By 1849,
Noel had adopted Baptist views and resigned from his ministry in the
Establishment, and shortly afterward he published his Essay on Christian
Baptism, which articulated his new convictions.
Although Noel had given up his paedobaptist views, the evidence
indicates that he retained his evangelical sacramentalism as applied to
confessing believers.'*° This sacramentalism views baptism as a "seal of
regeneration" in that it is the confession of faith which initiates the
individual into the experience of salvation. It is a dialectical theology which
seeks to affirm constantly both (1) that spiritual regeneration is a direct work
of God which is not dependent on baptism, and (2) that baptism is the
normal, divinely-ordained means by which spiritual regeneration is
experientially realized.
On the one hand, Noel emphasized that the benefits of salvation are
prior to baptism. For example:

All enlightened persons own the necessity of a great moral change

to be effected by the Spirit of God; but why is baptism a necessary
adjunct? The moral change is not effected by baptism, but before

144 Baptist W. Noel, Sermons on Regeneration, with Especial Reference to the Doctrine
of Baptismal Regeneration, 2nd ed. (London: "The Pulpit" Office, n.d.). Sermons VII
and VIII (72-134) argue that the Anglican formularies actually teach that whatever
regeneration means, it actually precedes baptism.
145 Perkin argued that this is one way in which "Noel was always an Anglican." See Perkin,
"Baptism," 333.
The Historical Background 73

it, as we know from Scripture and from indubitable facts.'“°

With regard to the idea of regeneration, he wrote:

But if baptism be the sign of regeneration, an unregenerate person

ought not to be baptized. If the rite is a public manifestation of
spiritual life, it should be withheld from those who afford no tokens
of that life. . Baptism can not be the baptism of regeneration
except with respect to those who are previously regenerate; and as
Christian baptism is the baptism of regeneration, according to the
text, regenerate believers alone ought to be baptized.!*’

In a prayer of "baptismal self-dedication to God," he said:

On the other hand, being so blessed and favored, I, as a redeemed

and pardoned transgressor, desire to make a public profession of
faith in thee, and publicly to dedicate myself to thy service,
according to Christ's appointment, by immersion. Before which
public act, I do now, therefore, first dedicate myself to thee in
secret.'**

On the other hand, there was a recurring theme in his book to the effect
that baptism is an entrance into the benefits of salvation, the event in which
the sinner turns to God through Christ for forgiveness and transformation.
In explaining spiritual rebirth, he echoed the thoughts of Stovel:

And when a person who has received spiritual life manifests it by

confessing Christ before men by immersion, then he is born of
water and of the Spirit--his new birth is complete. .. . baptism is the
profession of faith, the public confession of Christ, without which
confession there is no true faith and no salvation.'””

Commenting on Peter's response to his Jewish audience at Pentecost, he

said:

146 Baptist W. Noel, Essay on Christian Baptism (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1850),
97.
147 Ibid., 114.
148 Ibid., 303.
149 Ibid., 97.
74 More Than a Symbol

They were not to expect the remission of their sins through baptism
without previous repentance, nor through repentance without
baptism, but through repentance and baptism. . . .It is not enough
to believe in Christ, but we must also profess our Christianity,
which it is the will of Christ that we should do by baptism. He who
does these things is assured of the remission of his sins. Since,
then, baptism is thus necessary to remission of sins, and is so
closely connected with it as no mere acts of obedience ever are,
baptism must be a profession of faith, and none but believers ought
to be baptized.'*°

This description of baptism as "necessary" to the forgiveness of sins goes far

beyond the normal Baptist sense of baptism as a primary moral obligation,
and Noel appears to be the only Baptist of his era to put it in these terms.'*!
Concerning the allusion to the "washing of regeneration" in Titus 3:5, he
wrote:

Baptism is the washing of regeneration, or the washing which is the

manifestation and completion of regeneration. By these two things,
the washing and the renewing, the spiritual renovation and the
baptism which manifests it, God saves his people.!°”

The intent of the subject in baptism was expressed thus:

By faith, expressed in baptism, each sincere convert confesses

Christ so as to wash away his sins (Acts, xxil.,16), to receive pardon
(Acts, 11.,38), to put on the robe of Christ's righteousness
(Gal.,111.,27), and to secure salvation, 1 Pet.,1i1.,21. And as he
confesses Christ, he will be confessed by Christ at the last day,
Matt.,x.,32; Rom.,x.8-10.!°

In his baptismal prayer he said:

Repenting of all my sins, and being about to be baptized in token

of that repentance, may I have the assurance that my sins are

150 Ibid., 101-102.

151 Perkin, "Baptism," 329.
SZ elbid eels:
153 Ibid., 265.
The Historical Background TS:

remitted, and be sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise.'*4

Both aspects of this paradox, God's saving work as both assumed by and
sought in the act of Christian baptism, were present in his summary of the
biblical teaching concerning the nature and effects of baptism:

Baptism is a consecration to the Triune God, . . . and especially to

Christ... . It is a seeking after God with a good conscience. . . . It
must be preceded by true repentance. . . . It is the sign,
manifestation, and completion of regeneration. .. . It is adeath unto
sin and a new life of holiness. . . . Those rightly baptized are in
Christ. . . . Those rightly baptized have put on Christ... . True
baptism secures pardon. . . . True baptism secures the gift of the
Spirit. .. . Baptism is generally necessary to salvation. .. . True
baptism saves. '*°

The emphasis which Noel gave to the idea that regeneration is prior to
baptism was set in the context of his critique of paedobaptism, and was not
intended to argue that saving union with Christ is completed at the
experiential level apart from baptism. Indeed, he argued that baptism
manifests and completes regeneration. Baptism mediates, for him, both the
experience of forgiveness and the reception of the Holy Spirit as an
empowering presence. The concept of baptism as the "seal of regeneration"
conceptualizes the dialectic of biblical language about baptism, and the use
of this concept locates Noel in the tradition of Calvinistic sacramentalism.
It is a lamentable fact that Baptists have tended to devote their energy to a
refutation of the application of this concept of sealing to infants, rather than
an articulation of its suitability to describe conversion-baptism as seen in the
New Testament.

John Howard Hinton (1791-1873)

Hinton was a well-educated (M.A., Edinburgh) Baptist pastor and
denominational leader up to his retirement in 1868. He was a prolific
author, whose seven volumes of collected works include literature on
historical topics (including a history of the U.S.A.) as well as theological
matters. His literary contribution to the baptismal theology debate is found

154 Ibid., 307.

155 Ibid., 118.
76 More Than a Symbol

in The Ultimatum, a lecture-given in 1850 at his church, Devonshire Square

Chapel in London. In 1850 the Church of England was three years into a
four-year debate known as "the Gorham case."'*® The Bishop of Exeter had
refused to confirm the appointment of George Gorham, an evangelical
Anglican, to funded parish ministry in Devon, because Gorham did not
believe in baptismal regeneration. Ultimately the case was decided by the
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in favour of Gorham, accepting the
propriety of his views as one possible reading of the Anglican formularies.
Hinton used the occasion not to answer the question for the Anglicans (in
fact, he believed that the Anglican statements were incapable of
harmonization),!°’ but to state his own views on the doctrinal issue.
Hinton expressed his view in what would have to be considered a
radically non-sacramental way:

On this ground, then, I take up the assertion that baptism is the

means of conferring spiritual benefits. I totally dissent from this
view. I affirm, in the most unqualified terms, that baptism is not
the means of conferring any spiritual blessings whatever, and my
aim this evening will be to bring forward the scriptural arguments
in support of this affirmation.!”*

His basic biblical argument was a long list of texts which speak of
repentance and/or faith as the instrument(s) by which the benefits of
salvation are bestowed. These were seen as both necessary and sufficient,
since in many places they are described as effective means of receiving
salvation apart from any reference to baptism. A primary example would be
the conversion of Cornelius and his household in Acts 10, in which the Holy
Spirit is poured out on the members of the household while they are
listening to Peter's preaching, and it is only after this manifest display of
their salvation that they are baptized in water.'*? Hinton summarized:

Now from the fact thus copiously established, that spiritual benefits
are habitually spoken of in the New Testament as obtained by

156 Fora brief survey of the Gorham case and its significance for Victorian evangelicalism,
see David Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain (Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1992), 9, 148.
157 John Howard Hinton, "The Ultimatum," in The Theological Works of the Rey. John
Howard Hinton, M.A. (London: Houlston & Wright, 1865), 465.
158 Ibid., 466.
159 Ibid., 466-468.
The Historical Background TT

repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is

surely natural and just to infer that baptism is not one of the terms
of their possession. Here is a proper and sufficient instrumentality
fully declared. And, if baptism really be necessary to the enjoyment
of spiritual benefits, then is there a great deal in this language that
is incorrect and deceptive. The world thus instructed could hardly
fail to have been led astray.'®

Hinton recognized, of course, that his opponents could point to a list of

biblical texts which seem to attribute spiritual efficacy to baptism. Several
of those texts are references to water or washing which have traditionally
been taken as allusions to baptism, although the reference is not explicit.
His general treatment of these was as follows:

Nothing more is to be found in these passages than the use of a very

familiar and a very expressive metaphor, by which the "washing
with water" is made representative of "sanctification by the word,"
and the "renewing of the Holy Ghost." That baptism is intended is
a purely gratuitous assumption, without evidence, and without
probability.’

Historically, the most prominent of the above texts has been the saying of
Jesus in John 3:5, and Hinton's treatment of this text demonstrated why he
was unwilling to admit a baptismal reference in these places:

It is gratuitously assumed that this phrase, being "born of water,"

refers to baptism. I entertain a totally different view, but it would
lead me too far from my immediate subject to enter into a full
exposition; it will be sufficient for my present design to show that
the text cannot refer to baptism. ... The argument I employ for this
purpose is short and simple. It is this, that you cannot interpret this
passage of baptism without involving yourself in insuperable
difficulties. For it is manifest that the language employed by our
Lord is absolute, and that it stablishes a principle universal, and
without exception. . . . It is not doing justice to these words
(understanding them of baptism) to say (in the language of the
Church of England) that they make baptism "generally necessary to

160 Ibid., 468-469.

161 Ibid., 471.
78 More Than a Symbol

salvation." They make it absolutely necessary.’

There is, of course, another list of texts which refer explicitly to baptism
in connection with various spiritual benefits, but Hinton took up the
challenge there as well. His foundational assumption in approaching such
texts was "that all such passages must be ruled by those which I have
already quoted,"'® i.e., the texts about repentance and/or faith with no
reference to baptism. The apostolic commission texts (Matthew 28 and
Mark 16) were set aside by pointing out that each indicates that faith
precedes baptism, and thus the benefits associated with faith (salvation in
all its aspects) precede baptism.’ Acts 22:16 was handled by interpreting
the command to Saul to "wash away your sins" as a demand that he live a
holy life,'® and 1 Peter 3:21 was categorized as pure metaphor.'®° The most
troublesome text is Acts 2:38, which he treated thus:

The structure of the passage clearly requires the clauses to be

placed in the connexion following:--"Repent every one of you for
the remission of sins, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."
The remission of sins is evangelically connected with repentance;
a profession of repentance is required as preceding baptism. The
latter is merely a test of sincerity, an act of obedience then
becoming obligatory, not a term of forgiveness. . . .Upon the latter
part ofthis passage an attempt has been made to found the doctrine
that the Holy Spirit is imparted in baptism. This is clearly
unsustained, however, inasmuch as the promised communication
of the Spirit, whatever may be its nature, was to be after baptism,
and not init... . But, further, it is evident from the context that the
apostle is not here speaking of the regenerating or sanctifying
influence of the Spirit: first, because this must be presupposed in
the exercise of repentance, which preceded baptism, and secondly,
because an influence of a different kind is expressly named. . . . for
by the laying on of the apostles' hands after baptism the
supernatural gifts of the Spirit were conferred.!°

162 Ibid., 469.

163 Ibid., 471.
164 Ibid., 472.
165 Ibid., 473.
166 Ibid.
167 Ibid., 473-474.
The Historical Background 79

Hinton brought his lecture to a conclusion by arguing that if baptism is

interpreted as a means of grace, then the essence of Christian proclamation
is radically altered. The biblical picture is that the gospel is proclaimed to
sinful humans on the assumption that they are objects of God's wrath and in
need of deliverance from that condition. On the other hand:

Let it be supposed that there is introduced into the Gospel system

the element of baptismal regeneration, or the idea that baptism has
an efficacy to confer spiritual benefits, and the whole scene is
changed. Now the entire community is to be addressed from the
first in language totally different. Instead of being solemnly told
that they are sinners, and warned of the wrath to come, they must
be assured that in their baptism they were justified, and brought
graciously by God into his family, while at the same time that most
blessed change, spiritual regeneration, took place upon them.'®

This argument may well be applicable in relation to infant baptism within

a Christianized nation like England, but it avoided the question of whether
baptism might mediate the experience of regeneration in the case of
confessing believers.
The preceding quotation shows that the primary concern of Hinton was
to refute the concept of a necessary and automatic conveyance of grace in
baptism, especially infant baptism as practised in the Church of England.
Is it possible that Hinton, like Stovel, actually embraced a sacramental sense
of baptism in the end, and that his initial statement was limited by the
context? Probably not, because he radically reshaped the exegesis of key
biblical texts (e.g., Acts 2:38) so as to remove any sacramental implications,
and he divided conversion and baptism in a way that went far beyond
Baptists like Stovel or Noel.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)

Known for the last century as "the prince of preachers," Charles Spurgeon
was easily the most famous and influential Baptist of Victorian England. He
carried on a remarkable ministry as pastor of the Metropolitan Tabernacle
in London from 1854 to his death in 1892, and his sermons were sold
weekly around the world. Although he never functioned as a systematic
theologian, his doctrinally-oriented, Calvinistic, Puritan-inspired preaching

168 Ibid., 477-478.

80 More Than a Symbol

exerted a powerful influence around the world. His contribution to the

baptismal debate revolves around one sermon, entitled "Baptismal
Regeneration," which was preached June 5, 1864. This sermon, which
initiated a relatively brief but intense debate among Christians across the
theological spectrum, articulated in a powerful way the common Baptist
distaste for using the terms baptism and regeneration in close proximity.’
The sermon was connected to Mark 16:15-16, and Spurgeon asserted
that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration "is one in direct opposition to my
text."'” In response to the doctrine as he understood it, he asserted:

We will confront this dogma with the assertion, that BAPTISM

WITHOUT FAITH SAVES NO ONE. The text says, "He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved;" but whether a man be
baptized or not, it asserts that "he that believeth not shall be
damned:" so that baptism does not save the unbeliever, nay, it does
not in any degree exempt him from the common doom of all the
ungodly. He may have baptism, or he may not have baptism, but if
he believeth not, he shall be in any case most surely damned."”’

As he understood the situation, the only Protestant Church in England

which actually taught the doctrine was the Church of England (described as
a" powerful sect"!), and in his opinion, the doctrine was plainly taught in the
Prayer Book.'” He was aware that there were many evangelical clergy in
the Church of England who did not affirm baptismal regeneration, but he
questioned their morality, considering them guilty of duplicity by their
sworn allegiance to doctrines which they did not believe.'”
His attack was directed against the language of the Catechism and the
Rubric for infant baptism, which asserted that the baptized child is "made
a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of
heaven," and gave thanks that in baptism, "this child is regenerate." He
made it clear that he was not addressing the issue of infant baptism as such;
he was aware of the different theologies of infant baptism, and he was not
lumping them all together. What he was considering is "the question of

169 For a summary of this debate see Iain Murray, The Forgotten Spurgeon (London: The
Banner of Truth Trust, 1966), 123-142.
170 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, "Baptismal Regeneration," in Metropolitan Tabernacle
Pulpit, Vol. X (Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publications, 1981), 315.
171 Ibid.
172 Ibid.
173 Ibid., 316.
The Historical Background 81

baptismal regeneration, whether in adults or infants, or ascribed to

sprinkling, pouring, or immersion."!“
Spurgeon adduced three arguments against the doctrine that God
regenerates through baptism. (1) "It seems out of character with the
spiritual religion which Christ came to teach, that he should make salvation
depend upon mere ceremony."'” The argument here was that spiritual
needs must be met by spiritual means, and the application of water to the
physical body cannot, therefore, have any effect in the regeneration of the
soul. (2) Second was an argument from experience, namely, "that the
dogma is not supported by facts."'”° Baptized persons are "whoremongers,
drunkards, fornicators, and murderers," and "thousands of those who were
baptized in their infancy are now in our gaols."!”” In his inimitable style, he
declared, "Facts, brethren, are dead against this Popish doctrine; and facts
are stubborn things."'”* (3) He was convinced "that the performance styled
baptism by the Prayer Book is not at all likely to regenerate and save."!”
The reasoning at this point revolved around the nature of the promises made
by the sponsors in the name of the infant, 1.e., to renounce the devil and all
his works, and to obey constantly all of God's commands. If the sponsors
were godly, then they would know that they could not live up to this
themselves; and if they were ungodly, then they were clearly hypocrites. In
Spurgeon's view, it is not likely that God would regenerate through a
charade such as this!
Spurgeon recognized that his announced text (Mark 16:15-16) is
actually a problem, inasmuch as it appears to condition salvation upon faith
and baptism; accordingly, he imagined a listener saying, "Ah! but baptism
is in the text; where do you put that?" The heart of his reply was this:

Brethren, the baptism here meant is a baptism connected with faith,

and to this baptism I will admit there is very much ascribed in
Scripture. Into that question I am not going; but I do find some
very remarkable passages in which baptism is spoken of very
strongly... . I know that believer's baptism itself does not wash
away sin, yet it is so the outward sign and emblem of it to the
believer, that the thing visible may be described as the thing

174 Ibid.
175 Ibid., 317.
176 Ibid., 318.
177 Ibid.
178 Ibid., 319.
179 Ibid.
82 More Than a Symbol

signified. . . . And so, inasmuch as baptism to the believer

representeth the washing of sin--it may be called the washing of
sin--not that it is so, but that it is to saved souls the outward symbol
and representation of what is done by the power of the Holy Spirit,
in the man who believes in Christ. ... A man who knows that he is
saved by believing in Christ does not, when he is baptized, lift his
baptism into a saving ordinance. In fact, he is the very best
protester against that mistake, because he holds that he has no right
to be baptized until he is saved. He bears a testimony against
baptismal regeneration in his being baptized as professedly an
already regenerate person. '*°

It would be hard to imagine a more powerful rejection of baptismal

regeneration than is found in the words of this sermon, but it needs to be
carefully examined. It is crucial to note that the sermon is directed against
very mechanistic conceptions of baptism, in which baptism is thought of as
invariably effective and absolutely necessary for salvation. It is also clear
that, in spite of his statement that he was dealing with both infant and adult
baptism, the issue for him was fundamentally about the conveyance of grace
to infants. At the outset, he assumed that the doctrine which he was
opposing teaches regeneration in the absence of faith, and his illustrations
throughout the sermon were all about infant baptism. Therefore, one should
not draw hasty inferences concerning Spurgeon's attitude toward something
like the baptismal theology expressed by Baptist Noel. His rhetoric does not
sound as if he would feel comfortable with a concept like baptism as the
"seal of regeneration," but he did not directly address the issue.
He did admit in the sermon that there are several biblical texts which
posit a very close relationship between baptism and the things signified by
it, sufficiently close to give the appearance of teaching the doctrine which
he opposed, but these texts do not seem to have shaped his theology in any
way. He approached a higher view of baptismal efficacy early in the sermon
when he said:

Used by faith, had God commanded it, miracles might be wrought;

but without faith or even consciousness, as in the case of babes,
how can spiritual benefits be connected necessarily with the
sprinkling of water?'*!

180 Ibid., 326.

181 Ibid., 318.
The Historical Background 83

He needed to look no farther than his announced text for the sermon to find
a biblical statement which seemed to indicate that God had, in fact,
established a connection between baptism and salvation. This would seem
to call for more attention than Spurgeon gave it.
Within the sermon Spurgeon implicitly recognized that even though
regeneration is a direct and invisible work of God, the experience of
salvation is mediated through human response to God's grace. Addressing
listeners who were moving toward conversion, he said:

Whoever among you can believe in the great love of God towards
man in Christ Jesus, you shall be saved. If you can believe that our
great Father desireth us to come to him--that he panteth for us--that
he calleth us every day with the loud voice of his Son's wounds; if
you can believe now that in Christ there is pardon for transgressions
past, and cleansing for years to come; if you can trust him to save
you, you have already the marks of regeneration. The work of
salvation is commenced in you, so far as the Spirit's work is
concerned; it is finished in you so far as Christ's work is concerned.
O, I would plead with you--lay hold on Jesus Christ.'*”

The persons in view here were thought of as apparently (or at least,

possibly) regenerate, in that they would give assent to the facts about God's
love and salvation through Christ and were inclined to trust in that love; and
yet, they were still exhorted to "lay hold on Jesus Christ," that is, to respond
to Christ in some way so as to make this salvation a personal, experiential
reality. Implicit in all this is the recognition that some kind of definite
human response is instrumental in the application of redemption, and it
should not be hard to see (even in the text for the sermon) that baptism
admirably serves this purpose.
Spurgeon was trying to hold together all the New Testament data about
the meaning of baptism, but his abhorrence of the Prayer Book doctrine (as
he understood it) pushed virtually all his rhetoric to one side of the dialectic,
the side which asserts that regenerating grace is not inseparably tied to
baptism. In a less polemical context, Spurgeon might have provided a
positive baptismal theology which affirmed both sides of the dialectic.
There are brief evidences of a fuller view in the sermon, but they are
relatively insignificant in the overall argument.

182 Ibid., 325.

84 More Than a Symbol

Richard Ingham (1810-1873)

Ingham was a pastor in several churches of the New Connexion of General
Baptists, the continuation of the Arminian Baptist tradition. Late in his life
he produced a large Hand-Book on Christian Baptism, Part II of which dealt
with the subjects of baptism, and it was in this context that he indicated his
sentiments on baptism as a means of grace. The book itself was largely a
collection of quotations from paedobaptists in which they make major
concessions about the historic practice of the Church with regard to both
mode and subjects, thus representing a literary genre widely used by
Baptists throughout their history. His statements about the sacramental
question were neither numerous nor lengthy, but they were reasonably clear.
Baptists have often been accused by paedobaptists of making too much
of the rite, since they demand rebaptism of those baptized in infancy, which
has often provided the context for a Baptist disavowal of any salvific intent
in the ordinance. Ingham was one example, as he wrote:

And, respecting those views in which they feel obliged to differ

from so many whom they esteem, they wish explicitly to state,--that
they do not conceive baptism to be essential to salvation, any more
than they consider the Lord's Supper as essential to that end. They
do not consider that men are made Christians by it, or cannot be
Christians without it, for this manifest reason, that they think it
ought not to be administered to any, but such as are Christians or
sincere believers in Christ first. They do not consider it as
regeneration, which they believe is a renewal of the heart by the
power of the Holy Ghost, and which they believe ought to precede
the administration of baptism.’

He attributed the doctrine of baptismal regeneration to the fact that, "It is

easy to attribute to the sign the thing signified,"'*™ and he asserted that this
was an error into which the Church fell early on, leading to (among other
things) the baptism of infants in hope that they would experience the
benefits conveyed by baptism.
The denial of baptismal regeneration does not, of course, imply the
denial of a sacramental view of baptism--there are other ways to describe a

183 Richard Ingham, Christian Baptism: Its Subjects (London: E. Stock, 1871), 11-12.
184 Ibid., 14.
The Historical Background 85

divine activity in the event. But as Ingham's argument unfolded, he

indicated his rejection of sacramentalism in general, when he wrote:

We believe and emphatically maintain, with Paedobaptists

generally, that baptism is symbolical, and with Dr. Halley, that it is
symbolical only, that is, that it neither seals nor conveys the
blessings that are symbolized. It symbolizes the washing away of
sin, or a cleansing from its defilement and guilt. It symbolizes in its
action a burial and resurrection. .. . The immersion, which may be
called a burial, supposes death to have taken place, and the
emersion symbolizes the rising again to newness of life, which
newness of life is the precursor of a resurrection to eternal life when
the risen Lord and Saviour shall return in the clouds of heaven and
in his Father's glory.'*®

Later in his book he gave an extensive list of quotations from notable

paedobaptists with regard to the "essence of baptism."'*° The language of
the quotations is often sacramental in character, and Ingham did not express
any rejection of these ideas, but there is no reason to doubt his commitment
to the purely symbolic function of baptism expressed above. The purpose
of his book was to refute paedobaptism, and the function of the quotations
pertaining to the essence of baptism was to argue that paedobaptists ought
to reject infant baptism even on the basis of their own theology of baptism.
For example, the Lutheran concept of baptism as a "visible word" which
evokes faith in the person baptized, and in this way effects regeneration, is
meaningful in the case of confessing believers, but it is difficult to relate to
infants. The difficulty is seen in Luther's suggestion that infants do in fact
exercise faith in some sense. In the Calvinistic tradition, the concept of
baptism as a "seal" seems meaningful and coherent in the case of a believer
who has a faith to validate, but in the case of infants there is presumably no
personal faith to confirm. According to Calvin and his followers, baptism
confirms both God's promise and human faith, but in the case of infant
baptism, only God's promise can be confirmed. The point, then, of this use
of paedobaptist literature was to argue that their own premises imply the
restriction of baptism to believers, not to affirm all of their premises.
Ingham himself affirmed a purely symbolic view of baptism, and in so
doing, spoke for many others of his day.

185 Ibid., 318.

186 Ibid., 354-378.
86 More Than a Symbol

Summary
The formulation of a Baptist theology of baptism had from the beginning
been articulated in reaction to the perceived errors of other churches, and
this was indeed the case in the 19th century. Discussion of baptism in
Victorian England was largely shaped by the context of the Tractarian
movement and related Anglo-Catholic expressions. The Baptist literature,
at least up to Spurgeon's time, revealed continual allusions to the 7racts for
the Times, to J. H.Newman (1801-1890) and E. B. Pusey (1800-1882), to
the "men of Oxford," to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and in many
cases to the fear of "Popery" as a growing force in England. In Spurgeon's
famous sermon, he confessed that he had been previously naive about the
growth of Roman Catholicism in England, but he had come to feel great
concern, and "Puseyism" was to be condemned because it was laying the
foundation for "Popery."'®’ As a result of this context, a large proportion of
the Baptist literature was reactionary, focussing on what does not happen in
the baptism of infants and attacking the idea of the automatic conveyance
of grace through baptism. The controversies of the century exacerbated the
Baptist tendency to define baptism negatively, and thus to affirm a
minimalist understanding of what actually happens in the baptismal event.
Some Baptists continued to use the term sacrament to describe baptism,
but in some cases this was purely semantic or was meant only in the ancient
sense of an "oath of allegiance." Some others were comfortable with some
sort of sacramentalism at the conceptual level (e.g., Baptist Noel), but they
appear to have been a minority. The concept of baptism as a sacramental
"seal" in which baptism mediates the experience (if not the fact) of saving
union with Christ is largely absent from the literature. This was a departure
from the foundational Baptist thought of the 17th century, and seems to
have been a missed opportunity to contribute in a positive way to the
debates of the century.

Conclusion
This book began by noting that paedobaptists are often surprised to find that
baptismal theology is not nearly as central in Baptist thought as they would
have expected. In the same way, many Baptists would be surprised to
discover that earlier Baptists conceptualized baptism in a much more

187 Spurgeon, "Baptismal Regeneration," 322.

The Historical Background 87

sacramental way than they would have anticipated. The traditional

assumption that Baptists have always interpreted baptism in a purely
symbolic way must be challenged and significantly modified. In the 17th
century in England, the foundational period of Baptist life and thought,
those Baptists who directly addressed the question often spoke of baptism
in a way that was both verbally and conceptually sacramental. In the words
of the Baptist Catechism, it was a "means whereby Christ communicates to
us the benefits of redemption." The Baptist confessions were essentially
silent concerning the sense in which baptism might be a means of grace, in
most cases denoting it as a "sign" without specifying the exact relationship
between the sign and the things signified. However, individual Baptist
authors who were involved in shaping these confessions, when they spoke
of the "ends" of baptism, often spoke of it as both "sign" and "seal," thus
indicating that baptism mediates the conscious experience of the benefits
which it signifies.
Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, Baptist literature tended to
retreat from such sacramental language. There were exceptions, to be sure,
but even the moderate sacramentalism of the Calvinistic tradition, in which
baptism functions as a seal of union with Christ, receded into the
background and was sometimes consciously rejected. By the end of the
19th century, it was widely assumed by Baptists that baptism is an
"ordinance" as opposed to a "sacrament," an act of human obedience as
opposed to a means of grace. Isolating the factors which effected this shift
is not a simple matter, but they would include the following.
(1) To some extent, it was simply due to neglect of the issue of meaning,
as a consequence of the ongoing debate about paedobaptism and the
increasing focus on the question of mode. Sacramental concepts easily
came to be identified with the idea of conveyance of grace to passive
infants, so that sacramentalism came to be dismissed along with
paedobaptism.
(2) The emphasis on confession of faith as a condition of baptism
focused Baptist thought on what precedes baptism and diverted attention
away from the effects of baptism. This became an especially potent factor
as the condition came to be not simply a credible confession of faith, but a
faith evidenced by marks of obedience and articulated in a public testimony
of one's experience of grace. Thus there were other means of "sealing" one's
union with Christ apart from baptism, the result being a disconnection
between conversion and baptism.
(3) A sacramental understanding of baptism was perceived by many as
a threat to the Protestant commitment to justification "by faith alone." Many
Baptist writers have interpreted baptism as a "work of righteousness," and
88 More Than a Symbol

have thus inferred that any instrumental value of baptism in the experience
of forgiveness would be in opposition to the teaching of Romans and
Galatians.
(4) In the Particular Baptist tradition, the development of High
Calvinism in the 18th century tended to devalue human religious action in
general, and thus baptismal action in particular.
(5) The Evangelical Revival in 1 8th-century England demonstrated with
clarity and force that God's saving grace is not tied to believer baptism.
Revival did not begin among the Baptists or other Nonconformists, but
within the Church of England, and Baptists were forced to admit the
presence ofa vast number of wholehearted disciples among those converted
under the ministries of the Wesleys and Whitefield. This obvious
experience of grace apart from adult baptism, when combined with the
concern to preserve the "faith alone" character of salvation, provided a
context in which the significance of confessional baptism was readily
questioned.
(6) Most Baptist attempts to define a theology of baptism during the
period in view were reactions to perceived errors on the part of other
traditions. Given the fact that some of those “errors” posited a seemingly
excessive sense of baptism's efficacy, the Baptist reaction resulted in a
negative description of baptism, i.e., what it does not effect. This was
particularly the case in the Victorian era, when a revived Anglo-Catholicism
was the opponent.
By the end of the 19th century, there were still British Baptists who
affirmed that baptism is a sacrament (i.e., that baptism in some way
mediates salvific union with Christ), but they were definitely a minority.
This began to change in the early part of the 20th century, when some
influential Baptist leaders articulated the view that baptism is both an
ordinance to obey and a sacrament of grace. The following chapter will
analyse this recovery and further development of Baptist sacramentalism,
tracing it from its origin in the years surrounding 1920 to its fullest
statement in the 1960's.
 CHAPTER 2

The Reformulation
of Baptist Sacramentalism

H. Wheeler Robinson (1872-1945)!

The first Baptist leader of the 20th century who challenged openly the anti-
sacramental consensus on baptism was Henry Wheeler Robinson, a biblical
scholar and theological educator. After serving two pastorates, he began in
1906 a teaching career at Rawdon College, which lasted for fourteen years.
From 1920 to 1942 he served as the principal of Regent's Park College, first
in London and later in Oxford. Although he was an Old Testament
specialist, his concerns were broadly theological, and he stimulated a new
approach to baptismal theology through his teaching, his writing, and his
denominational activities.
The major recurring theme in Robinson's writings on baptism was the
connection between water-baptism and Spirit-baptism.* The idea of a
bestowal of the Holy Spirit in a sacramental manner was rooted not only in
his biblical study, but also by his own account in a profound personal
experience, which he described in a third-person narrative:

In 1913, in the course of a serious illness, he was led to ask himself

why the truths of "evangelical" Christianity which he had often
preached to others now failed to bring him personal strength. They
remained true to him, but they seemed to lack vitality. They
seemed to demand an active effort of faith, for which the physical
energy was lacking. The figure that presented itself at the time was
that of a great balloon, with ample lifting power,--if only one had
the strength to grasp the rope that trailed down from it! He
contrasted with this presentation of Christian truth that of a more
"sacramental" religion, as he rightly or wrongly conceived it, in

1. Thecontribution of Robinson and the other authors considered in this chapter to British
Baptist thought and practice is detailed in Anthony Cross’s Baptism and the Baptists.
For Robinson’s contribution to the sacramental question, see Cross, Baptism, 103-104,
108-126.
2 Foradiscussion of Robinson’s treatment of this theme and some of the Baptist response,
see Cross, Baptism, 108-118.
90 More Than a Symbol

which the priest would bring the sacred elements to the bedside,
and with them the needed grace. The result of this experience was
not to change a "Protestant" into a "Catholic", but to lead him to
seek for the lacuna in his own conception of evangelical truth. He
found it in his relative neglect of those conceptions of the Holy
Spirit in which the New Testament is so rich.

Thus began his quest to interpret a kind of Christian religious experience

which goes beyond a purely internal, intellectualized response to the gospel
to embrace the use of material means by the Spirit of God.
The application of this to baptism was declared in an address which he
gave to the ministers of the London Baptist Association on June 27, 1922,
which was later published in The Baptist Quarterly as “The Place of
Baptism in Baptist Churches of To-day." Some of the concerns of the
address were amplified in his later writing, but all the essential aspects of
his renewal of baptismal theology were present in this earlier work.
Robinson asserted that there were serious deficiencies in the typical
Baptist approach to baptism in his day. The lack of a positive baptismal
theology noted in the first chapter of this book was seen in his observation
that most Baptist treatments are "more concerned with showing what New
Testament baptism is not, rather than what it is."* Most Baptists focus on
baptism as an act of obedience, but he argued that as a summary of the
meaning of baptism this is seriously reductionistic and easily degenerates
into a kind of legalism. If others are going to be convinced that baptism 1s
still a moral and religious obligation, then "it must be by showing that it is
still intrinsically worth while."® Many Baptists have conceptually
disconnected baptism from conversion and have seen it as simply the visible
sign of entrance into formal church membership, and while it is such a sign,
he suggested that any attempt to interpret New Testament baptism must set
it in the context of the church of the apostolic age, which was primarily a
"spiritual community, whose life-breath is the Spirit of Christ." In that
context "water-baptism is the outward and visible sign of an inward and
spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirit."°

3H. Wheeler Robinson, 7he Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit (London: Nisbet &
Co., 1928), 4. For another description of the same experience see Ernest A. Payne,
Henry Wheeler Robinson: Scholar, Teacher, Principal--A Memoir (London: Nisbet 4&
Co., 1946), 56-57.
4H. Wheeler Robinson, "The Place of Baptism in Baptist Churches of To-Day," The
Baptist Quarterly n.s. 1 (1922-1923): 209,
Nn Ibid., 215.
6 Ibid., 210.
 The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 91

For many British Baptists, both then and now, believer baptism’ is not
even the invariable sign of entrance into church membership, because they
practise "open membership" and accept persons into membership on the
basis of a verbal confession of faith alone. The practice began as an act of
Christian charity toward believers whose personal faith ratified their
baptism as infants, but in many cases it has been extended to those who
have grown up in Baptist families. Robinson was ambivalent about the
practice of open membership, not really favouring it but not fearing that it
would be catastrophic, as long as the pastors of Baptist churches are
convinced Baptists. But he was fearful that in fact the pastors were not
convinced of the significance of believer baptism:

Iam convinced that we are reaching a point at which we must make

more of baptism, if much less is not to be made of it. The chief
point, indeed, of what I want to say is that baptism is not
maintaining its importance in the eyes of many among us, because
Baptists are not proclaiming with sufficient clearness the full
doctrine of the New Testament Baptism.*

His practical concern was clear: if Baptists do not recover a more biblical
estimate of baptism and understand it as much more than a "positive
institution" and arbitrary test of obedience, then it will continue to decline
in importance, and the rationale for the existence of Baptists as a distinct
denomination will disappear.’
This concern for Baptist existence is not a sign of narrow
| denominationalism, but a firm belief that the Baptist doctrine of believer
baptism is a valuable contribution to the universal Church. Robinson
articulated three benefits of this doctrine: (1) Repentance and faith need to
be embodied in a memorable act which is psychologically powerful;
otherwise, these fundamental realities are less than fully conscious and
personal. (2) The practice of believer baptism provides a continual
reminder of the essence of the gospel, especially when done by immersion,

7 The practice of restricting baptism to those who are sufficiently mature to make a
personal confession of faith is sometimes called "believer's baptism" and sometimes
"believers' baptism." In order to avoid the confusion over the possessive form, and in
order to provide an appropriate parallel to "infant baptism," this book consistently
employs the term "believer baptism." Paedobaptists often refer to this practice as "adult
baptism," but this misses the point of the doctrine and is not the normal term used by
Baptists.
8 = Ibid., 214.
oF foid.,.215.
 4) A (\\ 7
A re 3 } eel
Jehb"
More Than a Symbol
1 (\.4
\ 0 Y K¥
92 FE NEON | on
thus facilitating loyalty to the essence of the faith without an emphasis on
the traditional language of the creeds (Robinson's liberal attitude toward
traditional statements of orthodoxy being evident here). (3) Most important,
the demand that baptism be connected to personal confession of faith
enables us to give baptism its full meaning as a vehicle of the Holy Spirit
without falling into exaggerated, "sacramentarian" estimates of the rite.'°
Robinson recognized that paedobaptist churches have a firmer grasp on
some biblical truths than many Baptists, including the idea that baptism is
a divinely-appointed means of grace, in which God is at work in the
experience of the baptizand. For him, then, Baptists needed to learn from
others these truths, but those same truths ought to be expressed in the
context of believer baptism:

The uniquely ethical character of our baptism safeguards us from

the risk of misunderstanding, and leaves full room for the
evangelical sacramentalism of the New Testament. The moral and
religious experience of repentance and faith becomes the channel
of the Spirit, and is psychologically reinforced by the definite
expression of this experience in water-baptism. If we teach men
that water-baptism is of real value on the human side--if it is not,
we have no right to practice it--may we not teach that it is in the
same way of value on the divine, possibly a real occasion, always
a powerful declaration, of that baptism of the Spirit which is the
true secret of Christian sanctification?"!

His indication that baptism is "possibly" the point in time at which the Spirit
is bestowed shows that he was not arguing for an invariable or automatic
cause-effect relationship between baptism and the gift of the Spirit. He was
not arguing for faith in the power of baptism, but for baptism as the rite in
which faith in Christ comes to definite personal expression. The gift of the
Spirit is God's work, and thus is not controlled by human activity, but at the
experiential level, baptism is seen as the event which mediates the
gift/reception of the Holy Spirit. A rite which is reduced to sheer obedience
will not survive, but a rite with this kind of meaning deserves to be
perpetuated, even if it implies a distinct denominational existence.!
These early concerns were stated again in his small but influential book,
Baptist Principles, first published as a book in 1925 but reissued in several

10 Ibid., 215-216.
11 “Tid: 217.
12 Ibid.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 93

editions and printings.’’ In it he argued that a right attitude toward baptism

"implies much more than the conservative retention of an ancient ceremony;
it implies that baptism is a sacrament of grace."'* Anti-sacramentalists are
prone to ask just what it is that is supposedly conveyed through such a
sacrament that has not already been conveyed through faith alone. If by
faith one is forgiven, regenerated and brought into union with Christ, what
can be added by baptism? Robinson's reply was that this is a fundamentally
unbiblical question, because "the New Testament never considers them
[faith and baptism] apart in this detached manner."'? The disjunction
between faith and baptism is what has allowed both a false kind of
"sacramentarianism" (in which baptism conveys benefits apart from
personal, moral action) and "the entire rejection of sacraments" (in which
the full experience of conversion occurs apart from physical-sacramental
action).!°
Robinson was very far from affirming that there is power in the
baptismal water per se. The concept of consecrated water as a material
means which the Spirit uses to convey grace is the essence of what he
considered a false sacramentarianism.'’ What he asserted is that the
baptismal event (the use of water in dominically-established action) is the
tangible expression of the work of the Spirit which is going on in the life of
the baptizand, a work which has evoked this expression of conversion and
gives assurance of a new filial relationship to God.
Robinson's view of the sacramental meaning of baptism was not so
much that the benefits are given as a result of baptism, as that the benefits
are being conveyed by the Spirit in a process which includes baptism as the
event in which the spiritual transformation becomes a conscious reality.
Thus baptism does not mediate salvation per se in any sort of mechanical
way, but it does mediate the experience of salvation as a conscious reality.
It would, in his opinion, be false both to Scripture and to experience to
assume that the normal experience of moral transformation through the gift
of the Holy Spirit occurs through faith in isolation from action. Although
this may be the experience of many persons (in many cases because they are

13.This work first appeared in 1912 as a chapter in Zhe Baptists of Yorkshire, ed. C. E.
Shipley, a volume celebrating the centenary of the Yorkshire Baptist Association.
14H. Wheeler Robinson, Baptist Principles, 4th ed. (London: Kingsgate Press, 1945), 3.
15 Ibid., 15.
16 Ibid. Robinson’s language here shows that even Baptists who are comfortable with the
term “sacramentalism” will often use the term “sacramentarianism” pejoratively to
describe what they perceive to be an overemphasis on the physical action of the
sacrament as opposed to the faith-response embodied in it.
17 Ibid., 24.
94 More Than a Symbol

taught to expect this), this is not to be considered normative, and such a

separation between the inner life and its outer expression (soul versus body)
represents an unbiblical kind of dualism.
These same ideas about Baptist principles were taken up into
Robinson's larger book, The Life and Faith of the Baptists, which was first
published in 1927 but went through many printings. In his opinion, the
primary contribution of Baptists to the catholic Church was "the essential
and primary place of the moral within the religious."'* Within the context
of baptismal theology, this implied a firm connection between baptism and
personal commitment, the denial of which is the cause of a false
"sacramentarianism," which is in turn the cause of the typical Baptist
reduction of baptism to a pure symbol:

Baptists have been reluctant to recognize this "baptismal grace",

just because, in their judgment, it is utterly misrepresented and
distorted when ascribed to unconscious infants. The reaction from
a false doctrine of divine grace in baptism has made them
suspicious even of the genuine sacramentalism of the New
Testament.’

His contention was that Baptists need to emphasize their doctrine of baptism
for the benefit of the whole Church, but along the lines of a "greater spiritual
content" and not simply a "literalistic appeal to the Bible."”°
In this book he further developed the contention that baptism as a
confessional act is psychologically powerful as a defining moment in
discipleship. Paedobaptist churches recognize the need for some such
defining moment, and for them the need must be met by confirmation or
some similar vehicle for a personal confession of faith. His contention was
that the need is met adequately only by believer baptism, which is the "most
impressive and memorable register of the birth of a new purpose."”!
For Robinson, then, baptism provided an identifiable and memorable
declaration of conversion (from the human side) and spiritual empowering
(from the diyineside). Although he did not explicitly use the Reformed
concept of "seat describe what is happening in baptism, this concept
seems to be the most accurate way to summarize his baptismal theology. In

18 H. Wheeler Robinson, The Life and Faith of the Baptists (London: Kingsgate Press,
1946), 175.
WS) Morrah. W797.
20 Ibid., 179.
21 Ibid., 88-89. See also Cross, Baptism, 123.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 95

contrast to the Reformed tradition, he confined the seal to those who can
personally declare their faith, and although the sealing is related to both the
human and the divine aspects of the event, it is probably fair to say that for
him the focus fell on the confirmation of human commitment to a degree
that is different from the Reformed tradition.
Perhaps the most significant statement by Robinson is his 1939 article,
"Believers' Baptism and the Holy Spirit," which was first given as an
address to the London Baptist Association and subsequently published in
The Baptist Quarterly. His earlier statements defended a sacramental
understanding of baptism largely on the basis of general theological themes
and psychological considerations, but this article developed the biblical
Support in a much more specific way.
The argument began with the baptism of Jesus as a paradigm for
disciples of Jesus. The baptism of Jesus in water was also a Spirit-baptism,
as is seen in the Gospel accounts of the descent of the Spirit on that
occasion and the use of the words of Isaiah 42, "I have put my spirit upon
him." Jesus was admittedly unique, but his uniqueness did not lie in any
lack of genuine humanity. Therefore, he submitted to water-baptism as a
believer, and that experience of believer baptism was also an experience of
Spirit-baptism. We, then, as followers of the Lord may expect that our
baptism in water will facilitate "a humbler, yet related, experience of the
Holy Spirit" to empower us for a life of discipleship.”
Given the fact that the primitive church is viewed as a Spirit-filled
community, it would be very strange if the rite of entrance into that
community were not itself an experience of the Spirit. In fact, this is the
normative expectation of the New Testament, along the lines of Peter's
declaration at Pentecost that baptism is the means of both forgiveness and
the gift of the Spirit (Acts 2:38). Admittedly, there are exceptions to this
rule in the Book of Acts; in fact, there is no consistent pattern of cause and
effect at all. However, the exceptional cases are there precisely because they
are exceptions (e.g., Samaritans, Gentiles, distant disciples of John).”’
The most important authority on this question was held to be Paul, who
was believed to emphasize the connection between baptism and the Spirit.
His comments in 1 Corinthians 12:13 indicate that "the ideal beginning of
the Spirit-filled life is at the water-baptism of the believer."** The passage
in Romans 6:1-6 shows Paul's assumption that by baptism "his readers have

22 H. Wheeler Robinson, "Believers' Baptism and the Holy Spirit," 7he Baptist Quarterly
n.s. 9 (1938-1939): 390.
23 _ Ibid 391:
24 = Ibid., 392.
 \ LA a wb. pl ve

96 ee ys gn yr More Than
a Symbol

entered into such mystical union with Christ .. . that the new life to which
he is calling them is already in some sense theirs.” Although the Spirit is
not explicitly mentioned in Romans 6, the elaboration of the new life in
Romans 7-8 makes it clear that the dynamic of the transformed life is the
Spirit.
The connection present in Paul is even more explicit in John 3:3-8, in
particular the reference to a birth "of water and the Spirit." Robinson
recognized that Baptists have in many cases denied the allusion to baptism
here, on the grounds that such a reference would make baptism absolutely
necessary for salvation. He replied:

If a good Baptist is troubled--as many have been--by this apparent

inculcation of baptismal regeneration through water, he may
comfort himself with the not unimportant fact that "born of the
Spirit" in verse 6 replaces "born of water and the Spirit" in verse 5.
The higher element is thus made inclusive of the lower. But this
does not warrant us in trying to evade the natural meaning of the
_ whole phrase, that a man is born of water and the Spirit. Water-
baptism was in the New Testament times the natural language and
|occasion and experienced means of the Spirit-baptism of
believers.”°

This use of water by the Spirit was interpreted as just one example of the
general principle that the spiritual is mediated by lower (physical) forms of
reality, a principle demonstrated supremely in the Incarnation.”’ The key is
to remember that the Spirit is the sovereign agent in the event, and the water
is only an instrument utilized by the Spirit. Sacramentarian errors occur
when the means is severed from the agent's control and placed in the hands
of a priestly caste, resulting in a "quasi-magical control of the higher by the
lower."?8
The true paradigm for the function of water-baptism was found neither
in pagan magic nor in the rituals of mystery religions, but in what Robinson
called "prophetic symbolism." This was his way of denoting the connection
between the prophetic word and prophetic action in some biblical accounts:

The prophets of the Old Testament did not simply proclaim a word

25 Sibids 393:
26 Ibid.
27 = Ibid., 394.
28 = Ibid.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 97

of the Lord; they sometimes began to put it into operation by

identifying themselves with it in a personal act, which was already
a fragment, as it were, of the whole act of God which they
proclaimed.”

An Old Testament example would be Jeremiah's breaking a flask as a

symbol of God's "breaking" of Judah and Jerusalem (Jer. 19:1-15), and a
New Testament example would be Agabus's binding himself as a prophecy
of the binding of Paul (Acts 21:11). Inherent in this notion is the idea that
the prophetic action is more than "a mere accompaniment" of the prophetic
word--in some sense the prophet "is beginning what the Lord will Himself
complete."*°
Near his retirement, in an address on Baptist distinctives given in 1941,
Robinson again articulated his concern that the Baptist theology of baptism
needed reformulation:

Other communions have rightly emphasized the doctrine of grace

in relation to baptism, though, as we Baptists think, in a wrong and
dangerous form. It should be for us, with the safeguard of personal
faith, to follow the truth, avoiding the error. I believe that the future
of the Baptist Church in this country does largely depend on the
recovery of a lost sacramental emphasis; on our making more, not
less, of believers' baptism.*!

It is not clear whether for Robinson this "lost sacramental emphasis" was to
be found in earlier Baptist thought or only in primitive Christianity. Given
the absence of any references by him to specific Baptist ancestors with a
high view of baptismal efficacy, he was probably thinking of his
interpretation of apostolic teaching. As shown in the preceding chapter,
there was in fact a Baptist tradition to which he could have appealed, but
even if he wrongly assumed that Baptists had always been anti-sacramental,
he was accurate in his recognition that he was proposing a baptismal
theology which seriously modified that which he inherited from the 19th
century.

29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 H. Wheeler Robinson, "The Five Points of a Baptist's Faith," 7he Baptist Quarterly 11
(1942-1945): 9.
98 More Than a Symbol

Alfred Clair Underwood (1885-1948)?

Principal A. C. Underwood of Rawdon College was asked to write a chapter
on the Baptist view of the ministry and the sacraments for a volume related
to the Faith and Order Movement and its conference at Edinburgh in 1937.
It is actually the book's second chapter on Baptist views, and it was written
to demonstrate that some Baptists held sacramental views that differed from
what many assumed to be the only Baptist view. The first chapter, by Prof.
Isaac. G. Matthews (1871-1959) of Crozer Seminary in the U.S.A. (formerly
of McMaster University), asserted that for Baptists, "Baptism is considered
only an outward sign of an inner experience, a symbol in which the
individual pledges himself to a newness of life."**
Underwood responded as follows:

While many Baptists would regard Professor I. G. Matthews' paper

as an adequate exposition of their opinions on the Ministry and the
Sacraments, there is an increasing number of Baptists in both
England and America who could not give their assent to Professor
Matthews' virtual reduction of the Sacraments to nuda signa.**

He then referred to another chapter in the book, that by Prof. J. S. Whale (b.
1896) delineating the Congregationalist view, and he affirmed that Whale's
general sacramental perspective was his own, except for the Baptist
distinctives about the subjects and mode of baptism.*° This would locate
Underwood's conceptual scheme within the orbit of Calvinistic
sacramentalism, in which the key word is that baptism is not only a sign but
also a seal of union with Christ. That is, baptism confirms and applies at
the level of conscious experience what is done invisibly in the soul by the
work of the Spirit.
In his elaboration of this framework, baptism was indeed viewed as a
significant means of grace, but in the end it was still a second, post-
conversion work of grace. He argued that Baptists are "sacramentalists
though they reject sacerdotalism."*° He affirmed that the sacraments are
"efficacious symbols which mediate the grace of God," but not in any ex

32 See also Cross, Baptism, 105, 123-125.

33 I. G. Matthews, "Views of Modern Churches: (g) Baptist (1)," in The Ministry and the
Sacraments, ed. Roderic Dunkerley (London: SCM Press, 1937), 221.
34 A. C. Underwood, "Views of Modern Churches: (g) Baptists (2)," in Dunkerley, ed.,
Ministry and Sacraments, 223.
35 Ibid.
36. Ibid. 225.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 99

opere operato sense.*’ Baptism is thus "a definite religious experience, a

genuine Sacrament, but only to those who submit to it in penitence and
faith."** While he wanted to say that baptism is "not a bare symbol as of
something already complete," this was in conflict with his description of
the relation between conversion and baptism:

All who proceed to baptism do so in virtue of their faith which has

already welcomed the divine message of forgiveness and of new
life in Christ. Apart from this faith their baptism would effect
nothing. They are not baptised in order to be regenerated, for their
conversion was their regeneration. Baptists adhere strictly to the
New Testament doctrine of regeneration and do not, therefore,
regard regeneration and conversion as separate experiences.*°

By defining conversion in this way, the sacramental nature of baptism

is severely reduced, and what is mediated through it is "a present and deeper
experience of divine grace, already embraced by faith."*’ Comparing the
baptisms of the New Testament to those done among Baptists today, he
wrote:

Now, as then, they surrendered to Christ at the time of their

conversion, but in consciously submitting to baptism they make
their surrender more complete and their consecration more absolute,
and, therefore, they receive further divine power to walk in newness
of life. At their conversion they received the gift of the Holy Spirit,
but at their baptism they receive a further accession of the Spirit in
response to their faith.’

In the end, then, although Underwood was compelled by the baptismal

language of Scripture to interpret it as an occasion of a divine work of grace,
he still severed baptism from conversion and regarded it as a testimony to
a past experience of regeneration, rather than the defining moment when
faith comes to tangible expression and regeneration becomes an experiential
reality. He was moving tentatively away from the "mere symbol" approach

37 Ibid.
38 = Ibid.
39. Ibid. 227;
40 Ibid., 226.
41 Ibid., 227.
42 Ibid., 228.
100 More Than a Symbol

to baptism, but he was not far removed from it. In fact, it is probably fair to
say that those who affirm that baptism is a purely symbolic testimony to a
completed conversion generally agree that there is in it (as in every act of
obedient discipleship) some kind of spiritual benefit along the lines of
strengthened commitment. That was not explicit in the "pure symbol" view
of Matthews, but neither was it denied; and it is instructive to note that
Matthews did refer to renewal of commitment through the Lord's Supper,
which occasioned the comment, "Only thus do Baptists consider it a
Sacrament."** Therefore, although Underwood's rhetoric was different from
that of Matthews, it is open to question whether this kind of "sacramental"
view was an alternative to the other or merely an elaboration.

Robert C. Walton (1905-1985)"

In 1941 a group of younger Baptist ministers began meeting for corporate
theological study with an ecclesiological focus. Ultimately the group
numbered thirteen, and by 1944 they had arrived at certain conclusions
which they desired to publish for discussion by the wider Baptist family.
Robert Walton, who was serving at that time as the General Secretary of the
Student Christian Movement in Schools, was commissioned to articulate
these conclusions in print, and after his draft was revised by his colleagues,
his statement of the matter was published as The Gathered Community
(1946). In one sense the book was by an individual, for Walton took
responsibility for its final form, but in another sense it was a group project
that indicated growing ferment among Baptists about ecclesiology in general
and sacramentalism in particular.”
There were at least three distinctive contributions which Walton made
to the formulation of baptismal theology: (1) In his approach the church as
a corporate entity was very important as a mediating factor in the personal
experience of redemption, much more so than in Robinson's approach. (2)
The sacramental view of baptism was rooted in a broader principle of
sacramental action, of which the Incarnation is the supreme example. (3)
In spite of a high view of the efficacy of believer baptism and the assertion
of the irregularity of infant baptism, he denied the propriety of "rebaptism"
for those who were baptized as infants and confessed personal faith at a
later time.

43 Matthews, 222.
44 See also Cross, Baptism, 186-187.
45 Robert C. Walton, The Gathered Community (London: Carey Press, 1946), 8-9. This
source will hereafter be noted as GC.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 101

His strong sense of the church as a channel of grace can be seen in his
treatment of the gift of the Holy Spirit. He argued that in the New
Testament there are three essential features of Christian baptism: it is first
"an act of penitence"; it is closely connected to the gift of the Holy Spirit;
and it is "the door of entrance into the redeemed community."“° Of these
three elements, it would seem to be the gift of the Spirit which is nearest to
the heart of the sacramental question.
Walton rejected the idea that there is any sort of invariable cause-effect
relation between baptism and the personal possession of the Spirit, both on
the basis of the diverse evidence of the data in Acts and on the basis of
Christian experience. He admitted, though, that there is "an intimate
relationship between the gift and the sacrament to which the New Testament
bears witness."*’ When this new experience of the Spirit that is connected
to baptism was articulated, it was in terms of initiation into the community
which is corporately indwelt by the Spirit. In his words, it is "the gift of the
Spirit to the Christian community, in which a man shares because he has
entered that community through baptism."“* The same sort of inner logic is
seen in his treatment of the classic text in John 3:

In this same circle of ideas is the Johannine teaching on the new

birth. When a man enters the Christian community he needs the
promise of a new life, lived with a new purpose, at a new pitch of
intensity, with new and finer motives. This new life is the gift of
the Spirit; no man can achieve it by himself. To be born again "of
water and of the Spirit" is to enter the community which lives by the
forthflowing of power from God.”

It appears, then, that this baptismal theology lacked any sense of a direct
conveyance of the Spirit to the individual--it is rather the case that initiation
into the church of the Spirit is the cause of the individual's empowering by
the Spirit.
It is universally admitted that in the act of Christian baptism, the church
is active alongside of the baptizand and God, but for Walton the role of the
church is fundamental and is in fact one aspect of God's action in the event.
The church is "the extension of the Incarnation" which is brought into being

46 Ibid., 27-31.
47 Ibid., 30.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid., 31.
102 More Than a Symbol

"to continue Word and Sacrament among men."*? Both of the gospel
sacraments are "acts of God through the Church," and this implied for him
the rejection of the statement by Arthur Dakin (1884-1969) that "Christ is
thought of in the ordinances as related not primarily to the Church as a body,
but first to each believing individual, and so to the church."*! There was
clearly, then, a shift by Walton away from a more traditional Baptist
individualism (in which the church is created by bringing together redeemed
individuals) toward a corporate focus (in which incorporation into the
redeemed community facilitates the individual's experience).
Traditionally, Protestant theology has tended to emphasize the
uniqueness of baptism and the Lord's Supper as sacraments, in opposition
to the Roman Catholic expansion of the sacraments, but Walton argued that
sacramental action in baptism is merely one manifestation of God's use of
material means to convey benefit to humans. He said:

Christianity is a supernatural religion which yet has its roots in

history. . . . Christianity thus affirms that the spiritual operates
through the medium of the material... . So God is revealed and His
grace is given through things seen and temporal. . . .Of this truth the
Incarnation is the supreme example. ... The Incarnation, however,
is not the only example of a principle which lies at the root of
reality as Christians see it... . The material universe is pregnant
with spiritual meaning and there is reality hidden within the "real"
objects of earth and sky and sea, of man's physical body and mental
life.*?

These sweeping assertions may or may not be justifiable inferences from

Christianity's rootedness in the Incarnation, but at the very least it is
imperative to distinguish among the various ways in which the invisible
God works through the visible creation. For example, God works through
water to sustain human life, but this is different from the way in which God
works through baptismal water, however one may explain the latter. To
assert that God works through baptism could mean simply that God
communicates spiritual truths in symbolic form through the event, but
Walton and other sacramentalists want to say much more than this. The
issue is not whether God is at work in some way in the event, but whether

50 Ibid., 156.
S51 Ibid., 161. The quoted material is from Arthur Dakin, The Baptist View of the Church
and Ministry (London: Kingsgate Press, 1944), 34.
52 Ibid., 155-156.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 103

God is conveying to the baptizand in baptism (at some level) the benefits
symbolized by baptism. It is the nature of God's work, not the fact of God's
work, that is at issue.
Walton was conscious that he was advancing views that were not in the
centre of his Baptist tradition, but he overstated the difference when he
chose John Smyth as a representative Baptist patriarch. Smyth defended
"spiritual worship" to such an extent that he rejected the use of any printed
matter before the eyes in worship, thus severing worship not only from the
Prayer Book, but also from hymn books and even from Bibles (though not
from biblical statements recalled from memory).** But this kind of extreme
position was never a standard Baptist view, and as Walton admitted, Smyth
in fact affirmed that Christ was at work through physical elements in both
baptism and the Lord's Supper. As shown in the preceding chapter, Walton
could easily have found early Baptist interpretations of the sacraments
which were very similar to his own. It was his sense of a "sacramental
universe" which was more distinctive, and more debatable. On that point,
he could have invoked H. Wheeler Robinson's concept of the action of the
divine Spirit through lower, material means, but there was no reference to
Robinson's work. This is another example of the Baptist tendency to ignore
the Baptist tradition.
Although Walton defended a higher view of baptism's efficacy than was
common in his inherited tradition, he affirmed the Baptist refusal to baptize
infants. The point at which this becomes a profoundly practical issue is the
request for membership in a Baptist church by one who was baptized as an
infant. If infant baptism is rejected as an unbiblical baptism, and if believer
baptism is a significant means of grace as Walton passionately asserted, can
it be right to admit such persons to membership without believer baptism?
Walton answered in the affirmative:

Ought we, in such circumstances, to insist upon re-baptism by

immersion? . . . To insist upon re-baptism is, in our view, to
unchurch everybody but ourselves, and to deny to all except
Baptists the title of Christian. . . . Thus, because Christendom is
divided, we could accept as members those, who, baptised as
infants, have, in Confirmation, expressed in another though less
scriptural form, the essential requirement of personal acceptance
and personal faith in Christ and His benefits which is sacramentally

53 Ibid., 156.
104 More Than a Symbol

expressed in Believers' Baptism.”

This is a strange piece of argumentation in two ways. First, to introduce the

issue of "immersion" is to miss the point of the question, which concerns the
subjects of baptism, not the mode. Second, it has never been true that
Baptists who demanded believer baptism in such cases denied the
genuineness of Christian faith in all those not baptized as believers, and
many Baptists have accepted paedobaptist churches as genuine churches
with some irregularities of practice.»
The difficulty of correlating a high view of baptism as a sacrament with
an "open membership" policy was stated by Walton himself in relation to the
practice of admission to membership on the basis of verbal confession of
faith apart from any baptism (whether as an infant or as a believer). He
noted that this is rooted in the idea that baptism is a "mere symbol" which
is thus optional, and he replied:

If, on the other hand, Believers' Baptism is a sacrament in which

God acts, and an ordinance we are bound by our allegiance to obey,
then to make it an optional extra means that the Baptist community
sins grievously, misleading the flock committed to its charge, and
by its neglect stops up one channel through which the divine
blessing is mediated.*°

Now, admittedly, the person baptized as an infant who later makes a

personal confession of faith and the person who has never been baptized at
all and now confesses faith are not in exactly the same situation. The former
has been accepted as a member by a Christian church, though perhaps in an
inappropriate way, while the latter is seeking initial acceptance in the

54 Ibid., 166-167.
5S For example, Chap. XXVI of the Second London Confession ("Of the Church") defines
"visible saints" as "all persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel,
and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession
by any errors perverting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation," and asserts that
"of all such persons ought all particular congregations to be constituted." Thus the
visible church is defined without reference to baptism. Furthermore, the same chapter
says, "The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error." Other
chapters in the confession define the right practice of baptism, but there is no statement
conjoining baptism and the church in such a way that baptismal irregularities would
invalidate a church's profession to be a genuine church of Christ. This attitude is also
implicit in the fact that this Baptist confession is just a slightly modified form of the
Westminster Confession.
56 Walton, 166.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 105

church. Nevertheless, the repair of an inadequate baptism is still possible,

and the situation in view is one in which the individual desires to be a
sincere member of a church which is committed to the practice of believer
baptism. Both the integrity of church membership and the value of a
sacramentally-expressed confession of faith seem to demand that Baptist
churches practice closed membership. This is not the way in which the
reformulation of Baptist sacramentalism has unfolded--for the most part,
Walton's conclusion has been affirmed, and Baptist sacramentalists have
supported open membership. However, this seems to have stronger roots in
the sociology of British ecclesiastical life than in the theology of Baptist
sacramentalism.
There are several aspects of Baptist life in 20th-century Great Britain
which have predisposed them to the practice of open membership, even
though the practice is in tension with their theology. Historically, Baptists
in Great Britain (especially England) have had very close relations with
other Nonconformists, especially the Congregationalists. The sense of being
a minority group over against the established Church of England has helped
to create a desire for numerical significance, and given the serious numerical
decline of the Baptist Union over much of this century, the desire to make
church membership as inclusive as possible is understandable.*’
Furthermore, some of the notable leaders of the Baptist Union have been
strongly committed to ecumenism, thus inclining the churches toward a less
sectarian ecclesiology. In particular, the office of General Secretary was
filled by J. H. Shakespeare (1898-1924) and Ernest A. Payne (1951-1967),
both of whom were vigorous participants in the modern ecumenical
movement.”

Henry Cook (1886-1970)

According to Roger Hayden, Henry Cook’s attempt to articulate Baptist
distinctives, What Baptists Stand For (1947), was written as a reply to
Walton, and Cook "attacked very strongly the use of the word 'sacrament'
and pleaded for a return to ‘ordinance'."©’ Hayden indicates that the book
was widely used in the denomination for twenty years, and it may well be
that the book was used by others as an antidote to a resurgent

57 For a description and interpretation of this numerical decline, see McBeth, Baptist
Heritage, 507-510.
58 Ibid., 499-504.
59 See also Cross, Baptism, 186-187.
60 Hayden, English Baptist History, 163.
106 More Than a Symbol

sacramentalism, but to do so is to overstate the contrast between Walton and

Cook.
Cook did indeed explain the typical Baptist uneasiness about the term
"sacrament," pointing out that it is "associated in their minds with semi-
magical ideas that are utterly foreign to the New Testament."*' This
connection with sacerdotalism and traditional Roman Catholic ideas of
grace, indeed the tendency among both Catholics and Protestants to
associate the term with conveyance of grace in the absence of personal faith,
not to mention the extension of the term to cover five other rituals in the
Catholic and Orthodox traditions, has made Baptists wary of the term.
Baptists, therefore, have come to prefer the term "ordinances" to
describe the two rituals of the gospel, thus emphasizing their dominical
origin and binding character. However, the debate is not ultimately about
terminology, and Cook was quick to note this:

The Baptist reason for avoiding the word sacraments is thus

quite intelligible, but it is at the same time unfortunate, since the
word Ordinances hardly does justice to all that is involved in
Baptism and the Lord's Supper. These are Ordinances undoubtedly,
but they are surely very much more, and their significance lies not
merely in the fact that they were enjoined upon us by Christ but that
they become to the man of faith an actual means of grace.

This was hardly a plea for one term over another. Cook's concern as it
relates to baptismal doctrine was to argue that baptism becomes sacramental
only as it is "laid hold of by the believing soul." In baptism there is "a
vitalizing and enriching experience of His grace and power," but there is "no
magic in the sacraments, no conferring of grace independently of the will of
the recipient."* To apply baptism to infants (or, for that matter, to anyone
apart from explicit faith) is "to make a sacrament of grace into something
that savours of magic."
The sacramental theologies of Walton and Cook were not antithetical,
but it would be accurate to say that their emphases were different, as can be
seen in Cook's treatment of "the value of baptism." He treated its value by
listing nine aspects of the meaning of baptism, and the focus clearly fell on

61 Henry Cook, What Baptists Stand For (London: Kingsgate Press, 1947), 87.
62 Ibid., 89.
63 Ibid., 90.
64 Ibid, 91.
65 Ibid.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 107

the human side, the seventh aspect being the only one that implied some
kind of sacramental action. Baptism was interpreted as:

(1)... an act of obedience... . (2)... the acceptance of a definite

challenge... . (3)... awitness for Christ, and experience suggests
that no witness is more effective... . (4)... the evidence of a
morally cleansing experience through the gift of Christ in the
Gospel... .(5)... an act of initiation. . . . the door of entrance into
the Christian Church, ... (6)... an expression in symbolic form of
basic Gospel fact... . (7) . . .[one of the ordinances in which] the
believer appropriates for himself the truths symbolized in them, and
in that way enables them to become, as we say, sacramental; media,
that is, through which God in saving grace is able to come to the
soul... .(8)...a forward reference [to the future consummation of
salvation]... . (9)... an act of dedication.

This explanation of the meaning of baptism certainly put the focus on the
human action in the event; even the explicitly sacramental reference was
phrased in terms of the believer's act of appropriation, and this rhetoric does
sound different from Walton's assertion that God is the first and primary
actor in baptism. However, both Walton and Cook emphatically asserted
that the operation of God's grace is such that it evokes the free response of
the individual as an absolutely necessary component in the bestowal of the
benefits of Christ. Grace is free and sovereign but not coercive, and baptism
embodies according to each of them both divine and human action, and the
grace in view both elicits and responds to the human faith. Cook's
explanation may have been tilted more toward the human side, but he said
of baptism that, "It is a 'high' moment of believing confession, and it is
therefore a ‘high' moment of experienced grace."*”

Neville Clark (b. 1926)®

The years after World War II were marked by ferment in baptismal theology,
much of it sparked by Karl Barth's 1943 lecture, Die Kirkliche Lehre von
der Taufe, which was translated into English in 1948 by Ernest Payne
(1902-1980), a British Baptist. One of the first Baptist contributions to this
discussion was An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments (1956) by

66 Ibid., 146-153.
67 Ibid., 153.
68 See also Cross, Baptism, 225-228.
108 More Than a Symbol

Neville Clark, who was serving as a Baptist pastor in England at the time
and later served as a theological educator at the South Wales Baptist
College. Three years later he contributed a chapter on the theology of
baptism in Christian Baptism, a watershed volume for British Baptists,
which will be discussed below. Certain themes in his first book were
further developed in a 1965 article in Studia Liturgica, and this discussion
at this point will focus on these two pieces of literature.
Clark stated emphatically that baptism is conceptualized in the New
Testament as a sacrament in which God achieves what is there symbolized.
He wrote:

There is little doubt that the New Testament view of baptism is of

a rite that is effective rather than merely symbolic. It brings the
disciple into a union with Christ too deep and realistic for words
adequately to describe it; it has objective significance.”

The significance revolves around union with Christ and his vicarious action,
so that, "In baptism the disciple enters into the whole redemptive action of
his Lord, so that what was once done representatively for him may now be
done in actuality in him."”° On the basis of Pauline teaching in Romans 6
and Galatians 3, he asserted, "The New Testament is no less clear that the
point at which redemption becomes effective for us is at baptism."”!
Contrary to most Baptist theologians, he was prepared to posit a form of
baptismal regeneration:

Baptism and new birth are inseparably bound together, for the gift
of the Holy Spirit involves a radical change at the centre of man's
being. The divine promises attached to the sacraments are not
empty promises; what God says, "goes."

In contradistinction to Robinson and Walton, Clark did not ground his

sense of baptism as a sacrament in some kind of broader sacramental
principle. He argued in his early book that, "The sacraments stem from
historical roots; they are not adequately to be defined by means of general

69 Neville Clark, An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments (London: SCM Press,
1956), 32. This source will hereafter be noted as 47'S.
70 Ibid., 31.
71 ~ Ibid., 81.
72 Ibid., 82.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 109

concepts."”* In his later article he described such general definitions as

"misleading traditional understandings," to which he replied:

We have to abandon the treatment of "sacrament" as a generic

category, susceptible of abstract and a priori definition, which may
then be regulatively imposed upon baptismal exposition. This is to
liberate baptismal understanding from confining mould and
unbiblical restrictive strait-jacket.“4

This appears to have been a positive step forward that was generally
followed by later Baptist formulations; it avoided an unfruitful attempt to
give precise definition to a term which is in fact never employed in
Scripture, and it preserved the uniqueness of baptism and the Lord's Supper
as signs connecting the work of Christ to human experience.
If, then, the meaning of baptism is to be determined by the biblical
witness, what is the biblical evidence that supports his vigorous assertion
above that there is "little doubt" that baptism is an effective sign? For Clark,
the evidence is present in latent form in the Book of Acts, it is stated in an
oblique way in The Gospel of John, but it is found in a clear and developed
way only in Paul's epistles.
He recognized that it is necessary to look for clues in Acts as to the
theology of baptism taught or assumed in the primitive preaching of the
gospel, but he argued that "the picture is curiously confused," and he
therefore questioned whether Luke's account will bear the weight that many
want to put on it.’ The variations within Acts in the description of the
relation between baptism and the Spirit are well known (and will be treated
in the following chapter), and Clark also argued that Luke "is still working
with a somewhat impersonal conception of holy spirit."”° But even though
Acts does not provide the kind of system which we might desire, two
general statements may be made:

In the first place, baptism was the outward manifestation of a

believing response to the proclamation of the gospel message; as
such it was the appointed rite of initiation into the Church, the
Spirit-filled community. Secondly, it was connected with cleansing

7s” Noid, <72.

74 Neville Clark, "Christian Initiation: A Baptist Point of View," Studia Liturgica 4 (1965):
156.
75 Clark, ATS, 19-20.
76 Ibid., 20.
110 More Than a Symbol

and forgiveness of sins, and, as the obverse of this, with the

reception of the Holy Spirit.””

Some have argued that the Gospel of John is designed to teach a high
sacramental doctrine by means of multiple figures of speech and allusions.
Clark was only prepared to use the Gospel in a very limited way:

Some reference to the fourth Gospel is however appropriate, even

though the difficulties of interpretation entitle us to use it only for
the illustration and confirmation of conclusions already firmly
grounded. .. . [Concerning John 3] The evangelist looks back to the
baptism of Jesus himself, when water and Spirit were conjoined;
but he also points forward to Christian baptism as rebirth through
the operation of the Holy Spirit, the means of entrance into the
Kingdom.”

The heart of the matter for Clark was the Pauline treatment of baptism,
notably a text like Romans 6, in which Paul interprets baptism as the event
in which the believer is salvifically united with Christ, or perhaps more
accurately, with the whole Christ-event from Incarnation to Ascension.
Baptism is "a sacrament of inaugurated eschatology," effecting the believer's
entrance into the benefits presently attached to the Kingdom of God and
giving hope of the consummation of this salvation at the Parousia.”
When Clark sought to interpret the "how" of such Pauline assertions, the
Church became a major factor. He wrote:

How is this union with Christ accomplished; how does baptism

effect it? The answer is given in terms of initiation into the Church.
Baptism accomplishes union with Christ because it gives entry into
the Church which is his resurrection body. Into that body the
baptized are incorporated as "members."®°

With regard to the gift of the Spirit he said, "In baptism the Holy Spirit is
given, for baptism is into Christ upon whom the Spirit abided, into the body
of Christ which is the /ocus of the Spirit."*! He argued that Christ is neither

Timid
78 Ibid., 27.
79 Ibid., 26.
80 Ibid., 33.
81 Ibid., 34.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 111

to be identified with the Body nor to be separated from the Body, so that to
be united with the one is to be united with the other, the Totus Christus of
Head and members. However, although there is no separation between "in
Christ" and "in the Church", there was clearly for him a logical order such
that we are "in Christ" because we are "in the Church."*? Union with the
ascended Christ and possession of the Holy Spirit bestowed by Christ are
realities mediated through the Church which is indwelt by Christ through
the Spirit. This account of the logical order was similar to Walton's
treatment, but it would later be challenged by G. R. Beasley-Murray.
Traditionally Baptists have judged faith in Christ on the part of the
baptizand to be an essential part of Christian baptism, so that infant baptism
has been considered invalid. Even those Baptist churches which practised
"open membership" did so on the basis of Christian charity and the
assumption that baptism is not essential to salvation, not on the basis that
infant baptism is in some sense valid. It would seem, then, that a
heightened sense of the efficacy of baptism within a Baptist theology would
strengthen this conclusion that infant baptism is invalid. If baptism is
understood as an effective sign which unites the baptizand to Christ and all
the present benefits of redemption, then it would seem that the only way to
relate this kind of baptism to infants would be along the lines of traditional
Catholic thought. However, Clark argued for the acceptance of infant
baptism as valid, although irregular. He wrote:

It would be arrogant, grievous, and wholly unjustifiable for any to

suggest that infant baptism is no baptism. It is true baptism. The
question that must constantly be posed, humbly yet searchingly, is
whether it is not impaired baptism, baptism which distorts the
sacramental reality, and whether with the partial disappearance of
its critical assurances relative to original guilt and eternal destiny it
is not increasingly a baptism in search of a theology.**

It is not clear what there is in Clark's baptismal theology that would

justify his categorical defence of the validity of infant baptism. There may
be a way to support validity in spite of irregularity, but to call the denial of
this claim "wholly" unjustifiable seems to go far beyond the evidence.
There are two factors in his theology which may be at work here: (1) the
logical order of "in the Church" and "in Christ"; and (2) the eschatological
dimension of baptism.

82 Ibid., 33.
83 Clark, "Initiation," 165.
112 More Than a Symbol

With regard to the first factor, one might argue that the children of
church members are in some sense "in the Church" and thus in the sphere
of the Spirit's activity. If personal possession of the Spirit is a logical result
of being introduced into the corporate locus of the Spirit (i.e., the Church),
then it may make sense to speak of small children in Christian families as
those who are "in the Spirit." In paedobaptist churches this life in the sphere
of the Spirit is sacramentally signified by infant baptism. If one adds to this
Clark's strong assertion of the unrepeatability of baptism, corresponding to
the éoéna& of redemption, then the inference of accepting a de facto infant
baptism may make sense. However, this leaves some major questions about
the correlation between Clark's view of baptismal efficacy and the
experience of infants, not to mention the problem of interpreting the relation
of unbaptized infants to the Church.
With regard to the second factor, baptism as an eschatological sign
embodies both an "already" and a "not yet." Just as the first advent of Christ
inaugurated the kingdom of God without its immediate consummation, so
it is true that our incorporation into Christ and his work has immediate
effects, but the full effects await the Parousia. In Clark's words:

In one sense, baptism effects what it signifies. In another sense, the

effective realisation of its significance is the whole of life lived in
the Body, that working out of union with Christ crucified and risen,
in the flesh and blood of temporal existence, in corporate and
corporal fashion, which is the life of eucharistic man.**

Christians die and rise with Christ in baptism, but the full experience of this
spiritual death and resurrection is a future reality. This proleptic element in
baptism is in fact a common argument for the practice of paedobaptism, as
Clark noted. It may be possible to argue that since baptism effects spiritual
rebirth in principle though not in its fullness, then those baptized as infants
and those baptized as believers are not in totally different categories--in both
cases the baptized persons are called to progressive actualization of what is
true in principle.
These attempts to fill out the argumentation are admittedly speculative,
because Clark asserted his position on the acceptance of de facto infant
baptism without developing his case. If these factors are the relevant ones,
and if there is validity to such arguments, then it is difficult to see why they
would not imply the practice of infant baptism, not simply the acceptance

84 Ibid., 162.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 113

of such baptism after the fact. There appears to be an incoherence in Clark's

baptismal theology at this point.

The Publication of Christian Baptism (1959)*°

In the summer of 1955 four Baptist ministers in London began meeting to
discuss baptism, aware that the topic was near the top of the ecumenical
agenda but also that Baptists had contributed very little to the discussion.
They solicited the involvement of other Baptists, and ultimately ten scholars,
pastors and theological educators, formed a working group in which the
individuals researched specific parts of the question and submitted their
conclusions for evaluation by the group. The results were published in
1959, edited by Alec Gilmore (b. 1928), under the title of Christian
Baptism: A Fresh Attempt to Understand the Rite in terms of Scripture,
History, and Theology. Ernest A. Payne, who was then the General
Secretary of the Baptist Union, wrote an introductory chapter describing
"Baptism in Recent Discussion" to set the historical context, but he was not
a member of the working group and did not commit himself to the positions
of the group. The book proved to be the watershed in the reformulation of
baptismal doctrine, providing for public scrutiny the relatively advanced
sacramentalism of a group of younger Baptist leaders and thus provoking
public criticism from those who lamented this new departure. In Anthony
Cross’s words, the book proved to be “one of the most important Baptist
works on baptism, and without doubt the most controversial’®® in this
process of reformulation. What follows is a summary of the sacramental
contribution of the book and the criticism directed toward it. This summary
is not of the book as a whole, but only of those aspects of it which argued
that baptism is an efficacious sign (1.e., a sacrament) and attempted to define
the benefits of baptism or the mode of their conveyance.
Stephen F. Winward (1911-1986, Baptist Minister, London--the one
person who was also a member of the group that produced Walton's earlier
book) launched the book with a discussion of "Scripture, Tradition, and
Baptism." This chapter did not deal explicitly with the sacramental
question, but it did argue for a view of the Bible and tradition which was
significantly~different from the typical Baptist approach. He rejected a
simple biblicism which functions on the assumption that the Bible is a level
collection of-fully adequate insights and proof-texts, and argued that

85 See also Cross, Baptism, 196-198, 228-239.

86 Cross, Baptism, 196.
 114 More Than a Symbol

apostolic practice is normative only when it reflects what is essential to the

gospel.*” He accepted the idea that apostolic tradition has been perpetuated
not only through the New Testament writings, but also through successive
generations of the Church (although this latter transmission always stands
under the judgment of the uniquely valuable apostolic deposit in the
Scriptures).** This allows for the possible adoption of theological constructs
which are legitimate developments of apostolic teaching, although not
explicitly present in the New Testament, but this has more relevance for
issues of subject and mode of baptism than for the sacramental question. A
high view of baptismal efficacy can in fact be argued on the basis of a
primitive biblicism--the long-standing Baptist reduction of baptism to a
mere symbol of a completed conversion requires the assertion that key New
Testament texts do not mean what they seem to mean when they speak, for
example, of being "baptized into Christ."
Alec Gilmore (Baptist Minister, Northampton, and editor of the volume)
analysed "Jewish Antecedents." In treating the relation of baptism to
circumcision, which has always been at the heart of the debate, he suggested
a kind of confirmatory significance for baptism:

Under the new covenant, union with Christ did away with the need
for circumcision, and created the need for something to bring home
to a man his union with Christ and the realization that he was
possessed by Christ's spirit. It was this need which was filled by
baptism.*?

(Here the point of "bring home" seems to be that baptism mediates the
' conscious experience of entrance into the sphere of redemption; in other
words, he interpreted baptism along the lines of a "seal" that has no efficacy
in itself but does by virtue of its connection to a recognized authority or
benefactor have an efficacy at the level of assurance.
At the heart of the book is the exegesis of the New Testament evidence,
and R. E. O. White (b. 1914, Baptist Minister, Birkenhead) treated both
"The Baptism of Jesus" and "Baptism in the Synoptic Gospels." White
provided a balanced and carefully nuanced interpretation of baptism as an
event embodying both ahuman act of obedience to the gospel and a divine

87 Stephen F. Winward, "Scripture, Tradition, and Baptism," in Christian Baptism: A

Fresh Attempt to Understand the Rite in Terms of Scripture, History and Theology, ed.
Alec Gilmore (London: Lutterworth Press, 1959), 51.
88 Ibid., 49.
89 Alec Gilmore, "Jewish Antecedents," in CB, 65.
 ALY\,. \
E LA) wa ee ne AE X
: : Id UMAN / eee OY x AC ‘2 ime
es NE AoTv or ae > 8 7

The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism B he 115

act of grace conveying the benefits of the gospel. |He posited a strong
connection of this sacramental sense to the baptism of Jesus, in that the
bestowal of the Spirit at the baptism of Jesus indicated that the focus of the
rite was shifting from an act of obedience to a divine empowering of
obedience. Although the baptism of Jesus is unique in some ways, he
argued (like Robinson before him) that there is "ample suggestion and
warrant for a new and vastly enriched conception of what baptism could
mean also for those who followed in His steps."””
White expanded the significance of the baptism of Jesus along at least
five lines: (1) "It lends to the practice his personal authority." (2) "It lends
a note of positive enrichment, rather than of negative renunciation, to
baptism." (3) It provides as a motive for baptism "personal dedication and
obedience," in that this is the meaning of a baptism of "repentance" for the
one sinless human. (4) It connects the rite to personal assurance of being a
child of God, i.e., it has "filial overtones." (5) It links baptism to the
reception of the Spirit, the promise of the Hebrew prophets for the last days,
and thus "baptism becomes the sacrament for the transmission of the
Spirit."°! The last two points of this reorientation of baptism indicate
something of its sacramental significance for those who "follow the Lord"
in baptism. In some sense the Spirit is conveyed to the baptizand in the
event, and the presence of the Spirit is an experiential reality which gives
assurance that the individual is indeed accepted by grace as a child of God
(not a Son of God in the same sense as Jesus, but in a related sense).
White argued that Jesus provided two kinds of warnings which relate
to baptism, one against the temptation to disparage baptism as a mere
ceremony that is an optional extra, and the other against the attempt to make
baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. In his words:

Unquestionably Jesus opposed any reliance upon the

performance of religious acts as efficacious in themselves apart
from the state of the heart which they express. . . .
Nowhere does Jesus suggest that religion can consist in wholly
inward states of soul that seek and find no expression in appropriate
acts of devotion and commitment, such as baptism might provide.”

S. I. Buse (1913-1971, Lecturer in New Testament Studies, University

College of North Wales) treated "Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles" and

90 R.E.O. White, "The Baptism of Jesus," in CB, 93.

91 Ibid., 96-97.
92 R.E.O. White, "Baptism in the Synoptic Gospels," in CB, 111.
116 More Than a Symbol

"Baptism in Other New Testament Writings." In his treatment of Acts he

was very hesitant to dogmatize, and he posited a very moderate kind of
sacramentalism. He was only prepared to say that baptism may have been
the normal rite of initiation into the primitive church, but "it can hardly be
described as either universal or necessary for salvation."”’ He attempted to
steer a middle course between Cullmann, who considered the baptizand as
a passive person, and Markus Barth, who considered baptism to be a purely
human act. He denied that the human activity in baptism is the whole
essence of the event, thus parting company with a sizable part of Baptist
tradition. The two sides of baptism are seen in the fact that the individual
chooses to be baptized, but baptism is done by an administrator (not by self-
baptism). Therefore, "Only when the two sides of baptism, the human and
the divine, are seen together is Luke's picture viewed whole."™
Central to the treatment of Acts is the issue of the relation between
baptism and the gift of the Spirit. Buse recognized that there is no standard
description of this in Acts, and the challenge is to identify the norm (if there
is one) and the exceptions. He summarized his modest conclusions thus:

"a) There is no indication that Spirit-baptism at any stage

superseded water-baptism, (11) to assert that baptism and the gift of
the Spirit always go together in Acts is to go beyond the evidence,
(111) in part of Acts there is a close connection between the gift of
the Spirit and the laying-on of hands, but there are signs that this
was a development later than the primitive Jerusalem church.”°

In the end, he saw too much diversity of experience represented in Acts to

draw any firm conclusions about the exact relation between baptism and the
benefits signified by it.
Buse found more explicit indications of the efficacy of baptism in other
New Testament texts. For example, he asserted concerning | Peter 3:21:

Once more we have an approximation to the kind of teaching we

find in the Pauline letters: the Christian dies with Christ in the
waters of baptism, and in that experience he finds salvation {italics
his]

93 S.I. Buse, "Baptism in the Acts of the Apostles," in CB, 116.

94 Ibid., 126-127.
OS bid 122)
96 S. I. Buse, "Baptism in Other New Testament Writings," in CB, 179.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 117

Concerning the Epistle to the Hebrews he argued:

In 10:22 the tense of the participles, "sprinkled" and "washed",

justifies us in regarding them as references to baptism. Christian
initiation is pictured as succeeding where the older Levitical rites
failed: it gives the cleansing essential for men's approach to God. .
.. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews thus regards baptism as
the point in Christian experience where the results of the death of
Christ are made effective by entry into that close fellowship with
God which is represented as the Holy of Holies {italics his].°”

This inference from the combination of washing imagery and an aorist

participle to a baptismal reference is quite common” but questionable. In
particular, the grammatical significance of the aorist tense is not sufficiently
precise to justify the inference that these participles must refer to one
specific event.
George R. Beasley-Murray (b. 1916, Principal, Spurgeon's College,
London) dealt with "Baptism in the Epistles of Paul," which was in many
ways the most crucial part of the book, given the dominance of Paul in the
formulation of Christian theology. He began his chapter with Romans 10:9-
10, which does not explicitly refer to baptism but has been interpreted as an
allusion to confession of faith in Jesus in baptism. Even though the text is
not explicitly baptismal, it does clearly show that Paul can treat some
outward human action (verbal confession that Jesus is Lord) that goes
beyond faith as instrumental in the reception of salvation, thus
demonstrating that great care must be taken in drawing inferences from his
sola fide teaching. As Beasley-Murray said:

Since faith in Jesus as the risen Lord brings justification, and

confession of His name deliverance from this world and the life of
the age to come (verse 10), the baptismal act in which both are
expressed is the supreme moment in the believer's experience of
salvation. The enigma of the relation of the Pauline teaching on
salvation by faith and his high estimate of the value of baptism
come most nearly to solution in this verse. For Paul the inner and
outer acts of the decision of faith and its expression in baptism form

97 Ibid., 183.
98 For other examples see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism in the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), 163, 173. This source is hereafter noted as BNT.
 118 More Than a Symbol

one indissoluble event.”

[ He then proceeded to accumulate the evidence of Paul's explicit

statements about baptism, the consistent tendency of which is to see it as the
event in which sinners are salvifically united to Christ by faith. For
example, on Galatians 3:27:

The union was realized in baptism. It is evident that baptism into

Christ results in being in Christ, which is a putting on Christ. . . .
Baptism brings unity with Christ and His church. And in that order
of precedence {italics his].!°°

He recognized that there is a social dimension to being in Christ, but he

vigorously argued that union with Christ is the logical foundation of union
with his Body. It is, he asserted, Christ who redeems, not the church.'"' In
this logical order he was countering the order defended by both Walton and
Clark, although without naming them.
Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 both express Paul's conviction that
what happened for our benefit objectively in the death and resurrection of
Christ also happens in us subjectively at conversion, which is to say at
baptism. Romans 6 is the more frequently quoted text, but Colossians 2
brings certain elements of Romans 6 to clearer expression, in particular the
experience of resurrection with Christ in the baptismal event and the fact
that what happens in baptism does so "through faith.""”
Titus 3:5 has been interpreted in various ways by Baptists, some
accepting the "washing" terminology as an allusion to baptism, while others
have argued that it is a reference to spiritual cleansing and not to baptism.
The underlying theological concern of the latter group has been to avoid
traditional concepts of baptismal regeneration. Beasley-Murray said:

Its central conception is that in baptism the corresponding event

occurs in the life of the individual as happened to the church at
Pentecost: the Spirit is "poured out" through the risen Christ--an
idea in direct line with the earliest interpretation of baptism, Acts
2:33, 38. Certainly the saying implies a realistic rather than
symbolic understanding of baptism, but that applies to most of the

99 G.R. Beasley-Murray, "Baptism in the Epistles of Paul," in CB, 129-130.

100 Ibid., 138.
101 Ibid., 139.
102 Ibid., 136, 140.
 THE DECISWE EXPRESSION OF Fairy
IS BAPTISM
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 119

Pauline utterances on baptism.!%

He described the effect of the gospel in an individual life, according to

Paul, as a "radical influence" when it is received in faith, but the "decisive
expression" of faith is baptism.’ To say that baptism is "decisive" in
salvation is to say that whatever may be true invisibly of the relation of the
individual to God (and only God knows this), baptism is the means by
which faith is translated from attitude into action, and thus the means by
which salvation becomes visible and an assured personal reality. Baptism
is, for Paul, an effective sign precisely because it is tied to faith. To assert
that baptism saves apart from faith is to sever baptismal doctrine from Paul's
teaching, but to assert that baptism saves by virtue of being the vehicle of
faith is to take seriously what Paul says about both faith and baptism.
D. R. Griffiths (1915-1990, Lecturer in Biblical Studies, University
College, Cardiff) treated "Baptism in the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle
of John." He recognized that there is great diversity in scholarly opinion
about the extent to which sacramentalism is taught by, or even congruous
with, the Johannine literature, and he concluded that the only safe path is to
treat every text on its own, rather than assuming a comprehensive
sacramental grid.'°? He was prepared to admit the presence of allusions to
baptism in various texts about water: probably in John 13:1-11 and 19:31-
37; and possibly in 1 John 5:5-8.'°° However, the important text in John is
the reference to a birth "of water and Spirit" in John 3:5. Many Baptists
(and others) have argued that this does not refer to baptism at all, but instead
is a figurative reference to something else, perhaps the spiritual cleansing
wrought by the Spirit. But Griffiths considered it impossible to imagine an
early Christian writer using "water" in this way without thinking of baptism,
concluding that it is both a positive statement about the significance of
Christian baptism and "an underlying polemical allusion to John's
baptism."'°’ He summarized:

The positive teaching of 3:5 is thus, very briefly, that entrance into
the kingdom of God is impossible except by means of the rebirth in
baptism which is both a water-baptism and a bestowal of the

103 Ibid., 143-144.

104 Ibid., 148.
105 D.R. Griffiths, "Baptism in the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle of John," in CB, 150-
ile
106 Ibid., 162, 164, 167.
107 Ibid., 156.
120 More Than a Symbol

Spirit; [italics his] the very form of the construction suggests their
indissoluble connection.'*

This concept of spiritual rebirth (or birth from above) is the Johannine
parallel to the Pauline concept of spiritual death and resurrection, and in
both cases it is connected to baptism. Why does John not speak explicitly
of baptism here? Griffiths followed C. H. Dodd (1884-1973) on this point,
concluding that John's audience included pagans whom he wanted to bring
to Christian faith, and this kind of allusive language conveys an appropriate
kind of sacramentalism without misleading his readers in magical or
superstitious directions with which they would be familiar.'°’ As will be
noted below, his relatively modest sacramental interpretation of John 3:5
was severely criticized by some fellow Baptists as a capitulation to magical
ideas of baptismal regeneration.
Turning to the historical development of baptismal doctrine and
practice, A. W. Argyle (b. 1910, Tutor, Regent's Park College, Oxford)
surveyed "Baptism in the Early Christian Centuries." He chronicled what
he interpreted as the descent of the early church into superstitious views of
baptismal efficacy which depart from the New Testament, and he traced the
rise of infant baptism as a corollary of this shift. He vigorously denied "the
superstitious notion that water-baptism itself was regenerative."!!° For many
Baptists this is equivalent to denying the sacramental character of baptism,
but that was not his point. His comment was that, "The growth of infant
baptism inevitably obscured the New Testament significance of baptism as
a sacrament of penitence and faith in which the Holy Spirit is received."!!!
Therefore, he was defending the idea that baptism is sacramental, and
specifically that it mediates the gift of the Spirit, which gift is in fact at the
heart of the benefits of the new covenant. What he was attacking was the
idea that baptism per se regenerates apart from faith in the baptizand. In
this regard he was like early Baptists noted in the preceding chapter who,
when they denied baptismal regeneration, were not rejecting the idea that
God conveys spiritual benefits (indeed, the Spirit himself) through baptism,
only the idea that he conveys such benefits to infants or others who have not
believed the gospel.
W. M.S. West (b. 1922, Tutor, Regent's Park College, Oxford, and later
president of Bristol Baptist College) wrote on "The Anabaptists and the Rise

108 Ibid., 158.

109 Ibid., 156-157.
110 A. W. Argyle, "Baptism in the Early Christian Centuries," in CB, 217.
111 Ibid., 205.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 121

of the Baptist Movement." There was little in this chapter that related to the
sacramental issue; the material was focused on the rise of the "believers'
church" among the Anabaptists and ultimately the origin of Baptists through
the application of the same ecclesiology among English Separatists in the
first decade of the 17th century. The major burden of the chapter was to
show the link between believer baptism and the concept of the church as a
company of confessing believers voluntarily associated with one another.
Unfortunately, West did not seek to interpret in any detail the baptismal
language of early Baptists like John Smyth, who spoke of baptism as a
"sacrament" and a "visible word" offering Christ to believing recipients.
"Baptismal Controversies, 1640-1900" were surveyed by D. M.
Himbury (b. 1922, Principal, The Baptist College of Victoria, Melbourne),
with a focus on Baptist debates about the subjects of baptism, the mode of
baptism, and the relation of baptism to communion. The only significant
reference to the sacramental question was in his suggestion that near the end
of the period surveyed, 1.e., in the latter part of the 19th century, some
Baptists articulated a more sacramental view of baptism in the sense that,
"God really acts; by it the believer enters the church and receives new power
by the gift of the Spirit."''? This assertion is a bit mystifying, because he
gave no examples of this supposed trend, and in the preceding chapter it
was noted that Baptist thought at that time was largely in revolt against
sacramentalism, due in great measure to a reaction against Tractarianism.
He indicated that he was following J. R. C. Perkin on this point, but as noted
in the preceding chapter, Perkin suggested that this Baptist sacramentalism
was relatively insignificant numerically. Earlier Baptists had sometimes
posited an empowering work of the Spirit through baptism, often as a kind
of second, post-conversion, crisis,''* but this is not true of later Baptist
thought. This chapter accurately focused on the baptismal debates that
consumed the energy of Baptists, but for that very reason it did little to
advance the understanding of Baptist sacramentalism.
The final chapter, "The Theology of Baptism," was authored by Neville
Clark (then a Baptist Minister in Rochester) and was generally considered
to be the most controversial chapter. This chapter covered much of the
same ground as his earlier book (1956) which was surveyed above, but
perhaps in a more aggressive tone. There is no doubt about his affirmation

112 D. M. Himbury, "Baptismal Controversies, 1640-1900," in CB, 274.

113 As noted in Chapter One above, both the Somerset Confession (1656) and the Standard
Confession (1660) posit the idea of a post-conversion gift of the Spirit conditioned
partly on baptism. See also the commentary on Acts 2:38 in Gill, Exposition of the New
Testament, 2:167.
122 More Than a Symbol

of the sacramental nature of baptism. For example:

Grounded in the atoning work of Christ, which it applies and

extends, its theology must always be an inference from Christology
transposed into its true eschatological key. . . . Baptism, in this
normative period, implies, embodies and effects forgiveness of sin,
initiation into the church and the gift of the Holy Spirit.''

Again he wrote:

Baptism effects initiation into the life of the blessed Trinity and all
the blessings of the new "age," and so embodies the wholeness of
redemption. It is "into Christ," into the crucified, risen and
ascended Lord, into the whole drama of His redemption
achievement.''°

In fact, he was emphatic in his assertion that the divine action in baptism is
the fundamental aspect of the event:

Baptism is a sacrament of the Gospel, not of our experience of it; of

God's faithfulness, not of our faithful response to Him; and any
theological formulation which lends itself so readily to an
interpretation of the rite primarily in terms ofa public confession of
faith must at once be suspect.'!®

The most significant advance beyond his earlier treatment of the

sacraments was his development of the analogy between the Christ-event
and the baptism-into-Christ-event. The basic point was, "Since baptism
initiates into the fulness of redemption, into the crucified and glorified
humanity of the Lord, the pattern of the Christ event must be interpretively
decisive."''’ If baptism into Christ means a share in the vicarious work of
Christ (cf. Romans 6), then the pattern of divine and human action in the
work of Christ is presumed to be operative in the event of baptism into that
work. One implication is that the governing action in baptism is the divine
work:

114 Neville Clark, "The Theology of Baptism," in CB, 308.

115 Ibid., 309.
116 Ibid., 316.
bid esi
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 123

The priority is always with God, for the incarnation is rightly to be

understood not in terms of Adoptionist Christology but of the
assumptio carnis; and this principle remains regulative for the
theology of baptism.''®

However, just as the divine and human in Christ are distinguishable but not
separable, this governing nature of the divine action in baptism does not
imply the irrelevance of human response and thus paedobaptism:

What is, however, demanded of us is a reading of baptism in terms

of the redemptive work of the God-man which fits uneasily with the
Paedo-Baptist position. Salvation is not to be effected outside of,
apart from, over the head of man. To deny this would be to deny
both the principle of incarnation and the pattern of the life and
death of the incarnate Son. But just as the baptism unto death of
the Lord is constituted by the conjunction of divine action and
human response, so the baptism into His death of His followers
demands for its reality their ratification of His response, in
obedience to the word proclaimed to them.''®

In spite of this critique of paedobaptism, Clark argued emphatically

against the rebaptism as believers of those who were baptized in infancy.
He was not simply saying that rebaptism should not be demanded as a
condition of church membership--he was asserting that any such rebaptism
is "a blow at the heart of the Christian faith."'*° As noted above, his
argument here was rooted in the once-for-allness of redemption which is
reflected in baptism, the proleptic nature of every baptism (infant or
believer), and the assumption that to reject the validity of infant baptism is
to deny the validity of paedobaptist churches.'*' It should come as no
surprise to note that this argument was widely rejected by his fellow
Baptists. Many other Baptists who would defend the principle of "open
membership" would at the same time allow for (and perhaps encourage)
rebaptism of those whose conscience called for it, which is a reminder that
"open membership" is more a practical policy than a theology of baptism.
Reviews of Christian Baptism show that Clark's chapter rated the

118 Ibid.
119 Ibid., 313-314.
120 Ibid., 326.
121 Ibid.
124 More Than a Symbol

highest praise of all the chapters from paedobaptist critics'* and the
strongest protest from Baptists.'** His own explanation of this was that he
was writing with non-Baptists in mind and thus using conceptual categories
that were much more intelligible in the ecumenical discussion of "biblical
theology" than in typical Baptist circles.'** While this may make sense at
one level, concern to bring fellow Baptists along with him ought to have had
some impact on the shape of his argument. It may be that his choice of
rhetorical style was simply an unfortunate tactical error which diluted the
potential impact of his argument among Baptists, but it may also be true, as
H. H. Rowley (1890-1969) noted, that Clark was just more acute as a
thinker than he was lucid as a writer.'”°

Criticisms of the Book by Baptists

Within a very short time after the publication of Christian Baptism, it was
under attack as an unbiblical and unbaptistic capitulation to alien theologies.
For several months there was a sustained flow of critical letters to The
Baptist Times, a weekly newspaper published in London, and ultimately a
critical article in that publication by J. D. Hughey (1914-1984) of the Baptist
Theological Seminary in Rischlikon, Switzerland. There was also a
strongly critical review of the book by Ernest Kevan (1903-1965, Principal
of London Bible College) in The Fraternal (July 1959). G. R. Beasley-
Murray wrote two articles in The Baptist Times (10 December 1959 and 11
February 1960) clarifying and defending the general perspective of the
book, but the critical letters continued. R. L. Child (1891-1971, Principal-
Emeritus of Regent's Park College, Oxford) also contributed an article in
The Baptist Times (4 February 1960) defending a moderate sacramentalism
which posits some kind of divine action in baptism, although he was
reluctant to define it very precisely. The following material is an
explanation of five lines of criticism which continually recurred in the
letters and articles, followed by a summary of the response by Beasley-
Murray. The chief criticisms were these:

122 See for example John Heron, Review of Christian Baptism, ed. Alec Gilmore, in
Scottish Journal of Theology 13 (1960): 102-103.
123 For a mild criticism see Norman Maring, Review of Christian Baptism, ed. Alec
Gilmore, in Koundations 3 (January 1960): 91; for a strong criticism see Ernest F.
Kevan, "Christian Baptism II," 7he Fraternal, no. 113 (July 1959): 10-12.
124 Neville Clark, "Christian Baptism Under Fire," The Fraternal, no. 114 (October 1959):
17-18.
125 H.H. Rowley, Review of Christian Baptism, ed. Alec Gilmore, in The Expository Times
70 (July 1959): 302.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 125

First, that the sacramental view denies the "faith alone" character of
salvation so clearly taught in the New Testament. Hughey, along with many
others, emphasized the Pauline texts which affirm the reality of justification
by faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8; Romans; Galatians).'*° Others
pointed to Acts 16 and Paul's answer to the Philippian jailor's question,
which promised salvation through faith with no reference to baptism.!”’
Still others pointed to Acts 10 and the salvation of Cornelius and his
household, when the Spirit was bestowed on them as they received the
gospel with a believing attitude, prior to any outward response. '* One letter
pointed out that if one assumes that faith is a condition of baptism (as do all
Baptists, even the authors of the book in question), then there is posited
some interval (short or long) between faith and baptism, so that if salvation
comes to all who believe, then it must come prior to baptism.'”? One
referred to Neville Clark's chapter and his three tenses of redemption
(cross/resurrection, baptism, parousia) and noted that conversion is
omitted.'°° This was by far the most common criticism of the book, which
is understandable in view of the Baptist commitment to the Reformation
principle of sola fide.
Second, that the book teaches baptismal regeneration in a way that is
equivalent to traditional Catholic doctrine, thus viewing baptism as a kind
of magical ceremony. In particular, this criticism was directed at the
treatment of John 3:5 by D. R. Griffiths (quoted above). One writer asserted
that this was clearly an affirmation of baptismal regeneration,'*' and another
writer concurred with this judgment, adding that it was an example of an ex
opere operato view and as such it constituted "heresy."'** Griffiths wrote
one letter to Zhe Baptist Times admitting that his words, if read
superficially, might be taken in that sense, but emphasizing that his
assertion of the role of the Spirit in baptism safeguards his interpretation
from "the materialistic and the magical," and so, "most readers would agree
that this is hardly the way in which a writer arguing in favour of baptismal
regeneration would put things."!*? Others phrased the criticism more
generally, noting that the book betrayed an unbiblical focus on ceremony

126 J. D. Hughey, Jr., "The New Trend in Baptism," 7he Baptist Times, 18 February 1960,
ae
127 S. F. Carter, Letter to The Baptist Times, 28 January 1960, 6.
128 L. S. Jaeger, Letter to The Baptist Times, 24 September 1959, 6.
129 L. J. Stones, Letter to 7he Baptist Times, 10 September 1959, 6.
130 Robert Clarke, Letter to The Baptist Times, 8 October 1959, 6.
131 Ibid.
132 S.B. John, Letter to The Baptist Times, 25 February 1960, 6.
133 D. R. Griffiths, Letter to The Baptist Times, 10 December 1959, 6.
126 More Than a Symbol

which is seriously at variance with the spiritual/moral tone of New

Testament teaching.’*4 Hughey took issue with Clark's statement that
baptism not only "implies" and "embodies" the benefits of salvation, but also
"effects" them. He was prepared to admit a close relation between the sign
and the benefits signified, "but not one of cause and effect."'* Thus he
concluded that Clark's language was at best misleading and unfortunate, and
probably fallacious.
Third, that the writers of the book misinterpret key scripture texts which
are capable ofnon-sacramental readings. One text that looms large in any
attempt to understand the role of baptism in primitive Christian preaching
is Acts 2:38, which on the surface seems to clearly view baptism as a means
to both forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. However, Hughey
and others utilized A. T. Robertson (1863-1934, the noted Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary professor and Greek scholar) to argue that the
preposition sic in that passage should be translated "because of" or "on the
basis of", thus reversing the logical/temporal order of baptism and
forgiveness.'*° Robertson admitted that "for" in the sense of aim or purpose
would be a possible rendering of eic, but argued that in a few places it
means "because of" (Matthew 10:41; 12:41), and the analogy of faith calls
for that meaning in Acts 2:38. Hughey quoted Robertson as follows:

One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism
is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly
against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament
taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of
securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging
baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for
it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the
forgiveness of sins which they had already received.'°’

What tends to go unnoticed by those who suggest this retranslation is that

even if it be accepted, the words of Peter still suggest that the gift of the
Spirit is dependent on both repentance and baptism, and the "problem" of
sacramental language remains.
The apparent teaching of baptismal regeneration in John 3:5 is often

134 S.B. John, Letter to The Baptist Times, 8 October 1959, 6.

135 Hughey, "New Trend," 7.
136 Hughey, "New Trend," 7; Robert Clarke, Letter to The Baptist Times, 7 January 1960,
6.
137 Hughey, "New Trend," 7.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 127,

dealt with by an exegesis which denies that "water" in this text refers to
baptism. One writer argued, following Calvin and some others, that the kat
in the statement is epexegetical, giving the sense, "of water, that is, of the
Spirit.""** Another writer suggested that "Water" denotes natural birth,
making the statement a declaration of the need for those who have been
born physically to be born again spiritually.'*”
Romans 6:1-4 is a classic text which has always been central to any
discussion of the baptismal theology of Paul, and it has played a crucial role
from the beginning in the Baptist defence of immersion as the appropriate
mode of baptism. However, at least one critic alleged that the text is
actually a reference to Spirit-baptism, not to water-baptism at all, claiming
to follow the lead of "many Spirit-filled expositors of the Word."“° As
Beasley-Murray noted, the application of this approach to Paul's epistles as
a whole might well leave us with virtually no Pauline references to water-
baptism at all. It should also be noted that if this reading of Romans 6 (and
presumably the parallel in Colossians 2:12) is accurate, then the idea of
baptism as a symbol of death and resurrection appears to be unfounded.
Kevan took the authors to task for seeing a baptismal reference in
various texts which do not refer to it explicitly but do use images like
"water" or "washing". Included in this list would be texts like 1 Corinthians
6:11, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5, which he argued "no one would ever
have dreamed of interpreting sacramentally unless the dilemma of Paedo-
Baptists had brought them into the discussion.""*' He concluded that "it is
astonishing, therefore, to find that the authors are willing to concede a
reference to Baptism in these passages."!"* It is difficult to understand his
connecting the sacramental use of these texts to the issue of paedobaptism--
each of the texts looks more like a description of sacramental action in the
case of adult converts, especially in | Corinthians and Titus, where in both
cases the previously pagan lifestyle of the readers is assumed. Even if none
of these texts is an allusion to baptism, it is still not difficult to understand
why allusions to washing with water might be read that way.
Fourth, that the authors' sacramental view of baptism excludes the
unbaptized from salvation and the Church. This particular criticism was
rooted in an alleged inference from the basic principle of Baptist
sacramentalism. One writer phrased it as a "defective definition of the

138 Clarke, Letter, 7 January 1960, 6.

139 John, Letter, 25 February 1960, 6.
140 Clarke, Letter, 7 January 1960, 6.
141 Kevan, "Christian Baptism II," 9.
142 Ibid.
128 More Than a Symbol

Church as including only baptized believers and not the whole body of
believing people."'** Another argued that if baptism "results in being in
Christ" (to quote from Christian Baptism), "then it follows that all the fine
Christians who are unbaptized are still out of Christ."'"" These unbaptized
Christians would include Quakers, members of the Salvation Army, and
(from a Baptist viewpoint) those baptized in infancy. Hughey emphasized
that experience, not to mention Scripture, makes it undeniably clear that
saving grace is experienced by huge numbers of persons who have not been
baptized as believers.'*? The critics recognized that the Baptist
sacramentalists did not draw this inference about the unbaptized, but they
argued that this simply represented an incoherence in their theology.
Fifth, that the teaching of the book is contrary to historic Baptist
theology, so that whatever else may be said about it, it does not deserve the
label "Baptist." None of the critics who made this point were saying that
Baptist tradition is infallible, only that the label is not sufficiently elastic to
include this kind of baptismal theology. One writer pointed out that he
became a Baptist because he was assured that Baptists think of baptism as
a symbol rather than a sacrament.'“° Another writer argued that the view
was ostensibly rooted in ecumenical concerns, but it would in fact cause
division within the Baptist family where no division presently existed.'“’
Hughey suggested that the debate was actually a repetition of that between
the Baptists and Disciples of Christ in North America over a century earlier,
thus equating the "new view" with the Disciples' view.'** Kevan was
perhaps the most forceful critic on this point, especially in his response to
Clark's chapter on the theology of baptism:

It was an editorial blunder of the highest kind to assign this

important chapter to a man who, apart from his pastoral
inexperience, is an individualist in his views and does not realise
how completely out of step he is with his fellow Baptists. Anything
less Baptist written by an avowedly Baptist minister it will be hard
to find. It is difficult indeed to recognise a Baptist in this chapter,
for the magic wand of ecumenicity has been laid on his thinking. .
.. The historical sense of every Baptist will rise up within him and

143 Stones, Letter, 10 September 1960, 6.

144 Clarke, Letter, 7 January 1960, 6; also John, Letter, 14 January 1960, 6.
145 Hughey, "New Trend," 7.
146 Stones, Letter, 10 September 1959, 6.
147 John, Letter, 8 October 1959, 6.
148 Hughey, "New Trend," 7.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 129

say, "John Smythe I know, and Thomas Helwys I know, but who are
you"?!

The "Preface" to Christian Baptism indicated that one purpose of the book
was to clarify for the broader Christian world what Baptists think about
baptismal issues, but according to Kevan, "No Paedo-Baptist enquirer could
gather from this chapter even the remotest idea of what is normally in the
mind of the Baptist minister and the believer at the time of Baptism."!°°
Kevan's words were probably accurate as a description of most Baptist
thinking about baptism in his day--the book in question was probably more
idiosyncratic than representative.'°' However, as demonstrated in the
preceding chapter, the kind of Baptist thinking represented by Kevan differs
significantly from the first century of Baptist thought.
Among other things, this interchange about what can properly be called
"Baptist" theology illustrates the distressing and ongoing Baptist tendency
to ignore the work of previous Baptists as if there were no Baptist tradition
at all. Thus John Gill wrote about baptism as if his influential predecessor,
Benjamin Keach, never existed; Robert Walton wrote about baptism as one
example of a broader sacramental principle with references to various
Catholic and Anglican scholars, but never referred to Wheeler Robinson,
even though Robinson did not retire from academic duties until after
Walton's study group began their discussions; and the authors of Christian
Baptism almost never included Baptist sources in their footnotes, except in
historical chapters devoted to Baptist debates, and even there they failed to
note precursors of their own viewpoint.

Beasley-Murray's Response

After a series of very critical letters about Christian Baptism, G. R. Beasley-

Murray wrote an article in 7he Baptist Times (10 December 1959) to
respond to the major criticisms. He began by dealing with the charge of
teaching baptismal regeneration, noting that the phrase is "a slogan with an
unpleasant odour about it," inasmuch as it tends to mean (among Baptists,
at least) “automatic production of spiritual and moral ends by going through

149 Kevan, "Christian Baptism II," 10-11.

150 Ibid., 11.
151 This is candidly admitted by Beasley-Murray, BNT, vi, who refers to his thinking as "a"
Baptist view with the emphasis on the indefinite article.
 130 More Than a Symbol

external motions according to prescription."!°* He vigorously denied that he

and his colleagues meant anything like this in their interpretation of
| baptism, but he did assert that baptism is a significant means of grace as
"the climax of God's dealing with the penitent seeker and of the convert's
return to God."'®
This high view of baptism was defended by showing that it is the
natural way to read the actual baptismal texts of the New Testament. The
baptismal commission in Matthew 28:19, by its use of cig To 6vopa,
conceives of baptism as the event in which the baptizand hands himself over
to and is appropriated by the Triune God. The "plain import" of Peter's
statement in Acts 2:38 is that repentance and baptism are answered by God's
bestowal of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit. Paul's account of his own
baptism in Acts 22:16 does not mean that there is morally cleansing power
in the water of baptism, "but it does mean that Paul and the Lord are going
to have dealings on that occasion with the stated result."""* Texts like
Romans 6:1-4, Colossians 2:12, and Galatians 3:26-27 indicate that saving
union with Christ, which includes a spiritual death and resurrection, is
‘mediated through baptism. Peter's statement that "baptism now saves you"
(1 Peter 3:21) indicates that through the commitment expressed in baptism
God saves penitent sinners. The point of this list of texts is to show that the
common Baptist idea of baptism as a mere symbol pointing backward to a
completed conversion has to be read into the actual baptismal references of
the New Testament.
He then emphasized that the point of the book was to articulate baptism
in the "Church of the Apostles," while recognizing that it may be impossible
to replicate it thoroughly today. When viewed in the light of that kind of
baptismal experience and theology, current Baptist practice and theology are
judged to represent a reduced and impoverished baptism. As he put it:

This teaching relates to baptism in the apostolic Church [italics

his], not to baptism in the average modern Baptist church. Where
baptism is sundered from conversion on the one hand, and from
entry into the Church on the other, this language cannot be applied
to it; such a baptism is a reduced baptism. . . . My concern, along
with my colleagues, is to put before Baptists the picture of ideal
baptism, as it is portrayed in the apostolic writings, in the hope that
we may strive to recover it or get somewhere near it. To insist on

152 G.R. Beasley-Murray, "The Spirit Is There," 7he Baptist Times, 10 December 1959, 8.
153 Ibid.
154 Ibid.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 131

keeping our impoverished version of baptism would be a tragedy

among a people who pride themselves on being the people of the
New Testament.'*

The authors of the book acknowledged that God's grace touches many
persons today in patterns that do not correspond to the patterns assumed in
the apostolic writings, but this is just to say that God is not bound to
sacraments.
He concluded the article by noting that the Baptist tradition needs to be
seriously examined before anyone makes sweeping statements as to who are
the faithful heirs of that tradition, if in fact there is a consistent tradition.
After several more critical letters to The Baptist Times in response to
this article, Beasley-Murray penned a second article (11 February 1960) to
provide further clarification. His first, and most crucial, point was to argue
that in the New Testament baptism is normatively an integral part of
conversion, the climax of entrance into the Christian life. If that be the case,
then the idea of being baptized in order to enjoy the benefits of Christ ought
not seem strange to Baptists, because to be baptized for salvation is
essentially another way to describe being converted for salvation. He wrote:

We are not contending that God justifies by faith but gives the
Spirit and unites to Christ by baptism, as though baptism was a
"work" alongside faith. That would be a perversion of the Gospel.
Our plea has been that in the New Testament baptism is inseparable
from the turning to God in faith, on the basis of which God justifies,
gives the Spirit, and unites to Christ.'°°

With regard to the exegesis of key texts like Romans 6:1-4 and Acts
2:38, he countered the arguments for anon-sacramental reading of them. He
pointed out that the view that Romans 6 is talking about Spirit-baptism is
"an eccentric interpretation of a few earlier commentators that will not be
found in any of the great contemporary expositions of Romans."'*’ This
resort to an unnatural exegesis of Romans 6 is actually an admission that the
passage is talking about baptism as the door to profound spiritual
experience, not about baptism as a mere symbol. A similar response was
given to A. T. Robertson's suggestion that cic in Acts 2:38 be translated

155 Ibid.
156 G. R. Beasley-Murray, "Baptism and the Sacramental View," Zhe Baptist Times, 11
February 1960, 9.
157 Ibid.
 BAPTOM ED ricLe O} ‘ re
132 CONE ING ) aml More Tha n
a Symbol

"because of". Even if such a translation were possible (which he denied),

it would hardly fit the context in which Peter is replying to "conscience
stricken men, convicted of their part in the murder of the Messiah and
seeking forgiveness". His assessment was that if Robertson were able to
speak posthumously, he would admit that when he wrote his commentary
on Acts 2:38, "he must have had his tongue in his cheek and his conscience
locked up."'*8
Concerning the charge of "magic" in his sacramentalism, he was
"amazed at the suggestion." He had never suggested that there is power in
the rite as such, only that baptism is the vehicle of confessing faith in Christ
and surrendering to him as Lord. It is because of its connection to this inner
attitude that it becomes an effective symbol. This idea should not have been
foreign to his critics, because such symbolic acts are common in human
experience. Two examples that are readily understood are the waving of a
white flag which can end hostilities, and a wedding ceremony in which
saying "I will" and giving a ring can unite a man and woman in marriage.
Such signs are effective symbols which by their performance say, "This here
and now becomes true," (as in sacramentalism) rather than, "This has
already become true" (as in mere symbolism).'*?
funFinally he dealt with the charge that he made baptism necessary for
salvation and thus excluded from salvation all those not baptized as
believers. His essential response was to say that his baptismal doctrine was
an attempt to state "what God has willed baptism to be," but this implies
nothing about what happens when baptism is misunderstood or misapplied.
He was prepared to recognize people of faith among paedobaptists and even
among those who reject the use of sacraments entirely, but he insisted that
this is not helpful in formulating a positive baptismal theology, for "we get
nowhere by discussing what God can do without." In point of fact, God has
given us sacraments, and "our task is not to make the least of them but to
receive in gratitude whatever God has to give through them."’®° What the
critics failed to note was that the Baptist sacramentalists never drew
negative inferences about the spiritual condition of anyone from their
baptismal theology. Although that has been true of some theological
traditions historically, it was not true of the Baptists in question. This
should have been perfectly clear to the critics, because it was inherent in
Neville Clark's rejection of the rebaptism of those baptized in infancy--if he

158 Ibid.
159 For an extended treatment of this kind of symbolic act, see James W. McClendon,
"Baptism as a Performative Sign," Theology Today 23 (1966-1967): 403-416.
160 Beasley-Murray, "Sacramental View," 10.
 ane
IX’
eis
ce
A
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism a 133

considered believer baptism to be1

necessary for salvation, then he certainly
would have urged rebaptism in these cases.

R. E. O. White, The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (1960)!

White, who later became the Principal of the Baptist Theological College
of Scotland, was still in pastoral ministry when he published this magnum
opus. As the title indicates, it explored the entirety of the Bible on the
question of the means by which individuals enter into a right relationship
with God. He argued for a significant degree of continuity between Old
Testament prophetic religion and New Testament teaching in this area, but
the bulk of the work was in reality a New Testament theology of baptism
and evangelism. He interacted with a wide range of British sources, in
particular the work done in the Church of Scotland in the 1950's concerning
the doctrine of baptism. Some reviewers criticized the book for its lack of
interaction with Continental sources,'® its purported failure to understand
contemporary Catholic thought,'®’ and what seemed to some its excessively
confident rejection of infant baptism. '°* However, it was widely recognized
as a major contribution to the baptismal debate, a book that could not be
ignored. Its long-term influence would have been greater if Beasley-Murray
had not published his Baptismin the New Testament itD1962. This latter
work interacted with a wider array of sources and demonstrated convincing
exegetical judgment, and it rapidly came to be acknowledged as the
crowning achievement of the Baptist contribution to the discussion of
baptismal theology. Nevertheless, White's work was vigorously argued and
worthy of note.
As one of the authors of Christian Baptism, White was well aware of
the Baptist resistance to sacramentalism, but he mounted a vigorous and
unapologetic counter-attack in this book. He referred to the common, purely
symbolic Baptist kind of baptism as "an attenuated parable-rite in which
nothing vital is even expected to happen."’® He made a powerful plea for
what he termed a "dynamic sacramentalism" which affirms baptism as the

161 See also Cross, Baptism, 198-201.

162 William E. Hull, Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White, in
Review and Expositor 59 (July 1962): 403.
163 W. A. Van Roo, Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White, in
Gregorianum 42 (1961): 150.
164 J. K. S. Reid, Review of Zhe Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White, in The
Baptist Quarterly 19 (January 1961): 46-47.
165 R.E. O. White, Zhe Biblical Doctrine of Initiation (London: Hodder and Stoughton,
1960), 305. This source will hereafter be noted as BDI.
134 More Than a Symbol

meeting-place of human acceptance of the gospel and divine regenerative

power, arguing that standard concerns about baptismal regeneration are
inapplicable in the context of faith-baptism.'® One of his summaries of
primitive Christian baptism was this:

Faith-obedience in response to the kerygma's announcement

remains the precondition: it is still the word heard and believed that
is the operative power, and not the rite. But in the total human act
of repentance-belief-baptism divine things happen; the blessings
offered in the gospel are not merely assured but given to
whomsoever would respond in penitence and faith to the kerygma
message, and the appointed response was baptism upon confession
of faith, calling upon the name of the Lord.'®

His explanation of the fully-developed New Testament doctrine was as

follows:

The dynamic, or existential, sacramentalism of the New Testament

seizes upon the fact that divine activity and human response meet
in sacramental action. The sacramental effect--enduement, gift,
remission, reception, incorporation, death-resurrection--occurs
within the personal relationship which the act expresses. Thus
efficacy belongs strictly neither to the element, nor to the rite, but
to the action of God within the soul of the baptised who at that
time, in that way, is making his response to the grace offered to him
in the gospel. The sacrament consists not in the thing done, but in
the doing of that which gives expression to faith in appointed ways.
On the one side, the faith of the person doing the appointed things
invests the rite at that moment, for himself, with sacramental
meaning; on the other side, God, accepting this response, in
fulfilment of His promise in the gospel invests the rite at that
moment, for that convert, with sacramental power.'®

Such assertions were a recurring theme throughout White's book, and they
were exegetically grounded in the New Testament along the lines followed
by him and his co-authors in Christian Baptism. There were, however,
certain emphases in White which made their own special contribution to this

166 Ibid., 308.

167 Ibid., 274.
168 Ibid., 308.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 135

process of reformulation.
First, he argued that this approach to initiation has firm roots in the
Old Testament prophets. Many Baptists emphasize that Christian baptism
is a post-Pentecost phenomenon, inasmuch as its function is to unite
believers to the accomplished work of the whole Christ-event, and few want
to draw bold connecting lines to anything earlier than the baptism of Jesus.
Clearly the baptism of John has some relevance as a precursor, and to a
lesser degree Jewish proselyte baptism and perhaps Qumran lustrations, but
White saw significance in the prophetic interpretation of the covenant motif.
The significance lay in the fact that although God's covenant relation to
Israel was unilaterally defined from God's side, it was ineffectual apart from
faithful response from the human side. The prophets recognized this and
declared that the covenant was a saving reality not for Israel as a whole, but
only for the believing remnant, and ultimately it was revealed that a new
covenant would be established which internalized the Torah. In White's
words, "Inwardness and individualism go together,"'® which has relevance
for the debate about the subjects of baptism.
Second, he emphasized the pivotal and paradigmatic nature of the
baptism of Jesus. Here he expanded his argument noted above in the
treatment of Christian Baptism, arguing that Jesus transformed the rite of
baptism from a negative and candidate-centred focus into a positive and
God-centred vehicle of grace and power. "Here, at any rate, the rite
becomes sacramental."'”° As he later said, "Never, with Jesus' baptismal
experience before us, can we reverently say that ‘nothing happens' in
baptism.""7’
He was, of course, not oblivious to the fact that Jesus is unique in some
ways, but as was true for Robinson before him, he argued that in other
respects he is imitable and paradigmatic. He summarized it thus:

That according to our Lord's own testimony such a wealth of

meaning and spiritual enrichment attended His own baptism with
water at the hands of John, could not but have the most far-reaching
influence upon the thoughts and expectations of all who would
follow Him in undergoing the rite. Unique in many ways though
His experience must be, it set the pattern for Christian baptism as
the medium of spiritual confidence in divine acceptance and
approval, and as the concomitant of the gift of the Spirit of truth

169 Ibid., 31.

170 Ibid., 96.
171 Ibid., 98.
136 More Than a Symbol

and power. Christ's example and experience have charged the rite
of baptism with immense authority and promise.'”

The support of this assertion demands an explanation of the apparent silence

of apostolic teaching about Christ's example in being baptized. White
suggested that this silence is not as strange as it may seem, being grounded
partly in the lack of any opposition to the rite among Christians (making
such an exhortation unnecessary) and partly in the perceived distance
between Jesus and those saved by him. He indicated that there may be an
allusion to such imitation of Christ in Matthew's account of Jesus' saying
that "it is proper for us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt. 3:15).'”°
Third, he cautioned against the application of "prophetic symbolism"
to Christian baptism. This attempt to explain the way in which baptism
works was a contribution of Wheeler Robinson to the discussion, and
although White recognized that it was attractive to those who perceive in
baptism a means of great spiritual benefit, he argued that there are some
major difficulties in using the analogy. First, in the Old Testament,
prophetic symbolism is basically predictive of future realities, whereas
Christian baptism is about present experience of the benefits signified by it.
Second, the prophetic acts were never performed on persons whose
cooperation was necessary to fulfill the prophecy--comparing baptism to
those acts might make sense in terms of an ex opere operato model, but not
in terms of believer baptism. Third, the normative character of such action
is open to question, because "even with H. Wheeler Robinson's caveat as to
its transcendence of mimetic magic, prophetic symbolism is perilously near
to superstition."!”*
Fourth, he argued forcefully that faith as a precondition of baptism is
compatible with baptism as a means of divine grace. All Baptist
sacramentalists must agree with this statement, but some of them have
tended to minimize the human action in baptism as a way of maximizing the
divine side of baptism and deflecting a common paedobaptist criticism that
says to make faith a condition of baptism is in effect to turn faith into a
meritorious work. White, however, argued without apology that there is in
baptism a work of grace which is a response to human faith. This does not
deny the reality of a prevenient grace which draws the human to faith and
baptism--it merely denies that the prevenient grace is conveyed through
baptism.

172 Ibid., 100.

173 Ibid. ot
174 Ibid., 82.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 137

For example, in his treatment of the Lukan development of doctrine, he

argued that although Luke goes out of his way to make it clear that it is the
Lord who adds to the church those who are being saved, displaying the
divine initiative in a variety of conversions, "Even so, God's will to save
waits upon man's acceptance of salvation in penitent faith, of which baptism
is the dramatic and appropriate expression."'’? Even though the divine
initiative is sometimes expressed in predestinarian ways (Acts 13:48--"...
as many as were ordained to eternal life believed"), it is clear that in those
cases the actual bestowal of salvation was an effect of human response.
One of his criticisms of paedobaptism was that it "deserts the covenantal
pattern of biblical thought, the two-sidedness of spiritual initiation which is
one of the constant features of scriptural religion," and in doing so it
sacrifices "the truly personal nature of grace."'”° Following Emil Brunner
(1889-1966) and John Oman (1860-1939), he emphasized that at the heart
of human salvation is a divine-human encounter in which God, because he
is a perfectly holy Person, "respects personal action above all else."'”’ He
inferred from the personal character of both God and humans that "man,
being a person, can maintain his separateness from God, and God's relation
to us being personal, He cannot overcome it merely by a grace which
"irresistibly" removes it."'”* The last statement makes it reasonably clear
where White stood in the Calvinist-Arminian debate, but it does not follow
that his assertion of a responding grace in conversion-baptism demands an
Arminian structure. The distinctive view of Calvinistic theology at this
point would not lie in a denial that human response precedes justification,
but in an affirmation that the grace which evokes this response is ultimately
a special work of "irresistible" or "efficacious" grace done only in the elect.
Whether this concept is consistent with responsible human agency in
conversion is an issue that Calvinists and Arminians will continue to debate,
but in any case it concerns the relation between prevenient grace and faith
(i.e., the prelude to conversion), and in no way does it nullify White's
assertion concerning the relation between faith and justifying grace (i.e., the
effect of conversion).
White's contribution at this point serves to clarify the debate between
Baptists and paedobaptists with regard to the implications of the
prevenience of grace. There is no difference of opinion as to the reality of
prevenient grace. There are essentially two questions at issue: (1) whether

175 Ibid., 181.

176 Ibid., 302.
177 Ibid.
178 Ibid., 303.
138 More Than a Symbol

prevenient grace is mediated through baptism; and (2) whether divine grace
is ever a response to human action. Paedobaptists answer Yes to the first
question and in some cases seem to say No to the second one. White
answers No to the first question, and Yes to the second one.
Fifth, he interpreted baptism as an objectification of repentance and
faith, so that it mediates the fully personal experience of salvation. Both
Hebrew prophetic religion and its fulfillment in the new covenant make it
clear that initiation into and maintenance of a right relationship with God
are ultimately about the attitude of the heart, not outward acts. But neither
the old nor the new covenant supports a "gnostic idealism" (White's term)'”
which treats persons as disembodied entities and ritual acts as if they were
of no value at all. Applied to baptism this means:

The rite of water-baptism, objectifying for proselytes, for John's

disciples, and for Christians, both self-cleansing repentance and
divine forgiveness, does in fact create and express precisely that
attitude, of penitence towards the past and faith towards God's
grace and power in the future, which God answers with the gift of
His Spirit.'®°

In his interpretation of Johannine sacramentalism, White followed C. K.

Barrett (b. 1917) in his view that for John the sacraments are "extensions of
the fundamental sacramental fact of the incarnate life of the Son of God.""*!
Just as the Word became "flesh" (i.e., fully human), so the salvation that
comes through the Incarnation touches the whole person, and adherence to
this truth will help to deliver us from a kind of mystical experience which
is disconnected from the historical realities of the Christ-event. In White's
words:

Men are saved by faith: but faith too can degenerate into a transient
mood of the soul unless it be given body, substance, objectivity, in
the overt acts of believing men. Faith needs to be "objectified" in
the sacramental experience of the believer, and this involves no
inconsistency, because for John, as for the whole New Testament,
"sacrament" means "faith-sacrament".!®2

179 Ibid., 263.

180 Ibid., 256.
181 Ibid., 263.
182 Ibid., 263-264.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 139

If the absolutely essential thing is the inward attitude of penitent faith,

then one can talk about the possibility, indeed the reality, that individuals
do enter into a right relationship with God apart from baptism. Clearly
White would affirm this much, because he quite obviously affirmed the
genuine Christian experience of paedobaptists who, according to his
conceptual structure, entered into that relationship at some point distinct
from their baptism as infants. If so, then it may be accurate to say that what
baptism mediates is not the fact of salvation, but the experience of salvation,
which is to say that baptism "objectifies" both the human and the divine
action. But this is not to reduce in any way the significance of baptism for
us, because all that we know is the visible evidence of the Spirit who "blows
where he pleases," so that for us baptism mediates whatever we know about
salvation.

G. R. Beasley-Murray, Baptism
in the New Testament (1962)'*°
ee
If the publication of Christian Baptiste Grenent Baptist sacramentalism into
the public view, then the publication of
raised it to its highest level of visibility and provided its most articulate
defence. Beasley-Murray has been in many ways a major influence in this
movement being reviewed by this thesis: he defended the concept of
sacraments in the Baptist context as early as 1948;'** his literary
contributions to the movement are far more numerous than those of anyone
else, as the bibliography of this book will attest; when Christian Baptism
was under attack, it was he who defended it in the Baptist press; he taught
Baptist pastors not only at Spurgeon's College in London, but also at the
Baptist Theological Seminary in Rtschlikon, Switzerland and at Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary in the U.S.A.; he wrestled with baptismal
issues as a Baptist participant in the European section of the Faith and Order
Commission;'*° and finally he wrote this book, “the single most important
and lasting contribution made by any Baptist this century to the baptismal
debate,”!*° which has been widely quoted and respected by scholars of all
traditions, as well as the smaller Baptism Today and Tomorrow (1966).
The major contribution of this book to sacramental theology was the
thoroughness of its exegetical detail. Christian Baptism treated every facet

183 See also Cross, Baptism, 201-202.

184 G. R. Beasley-Murray, "The Sacraments," Zhe Fraternal, no. 70 (October 1948): 3-7.
185 His appreciative comments on this ecumenical experience can be found in Beasley-
Murray, BN7, vi.
186 Cross, Baptism, 202.
140 More Than a Symbol

of its content (biblical, historical, and theological) in summary fashion, and

The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation was strong on synthesis of biblical
materials and the broad strokes of baptismal theology, and each approach
had its value. But if anyone pressed the question as to whether this kind of
theology is firmly rooted in the exegesis of the New Testament, then
Beasley-Murray's book provided the answer. Every biblical reference or
apparent allusion to baptism was studied in detail, and this was done while
interacting with a wide range of sources in several languages.
After 262 pages of painstaking exegesis, he began his synthesis of
baptismal doctrine in this way:

nony with stamel e arnitisae seh a

sudementrruns counter to theRee radition of the Denomination
to which the writer belongs. ... But the New Testament belongs to
us all and we all stand judged by it... . The Apostolic writers make
free use of the symbolism of the baptismal action; but they go
further and view the act as a
sacrament. "Whoever says sacrament says grace," wrote H. J.
Wotherspoon, "for grace is the differentia of the sacrament, by
which it is more than a symbol." The extent and nature of the grace
which the New Testament writers declare to be present in baptism
is astonishing for any who come to the study freshly with an open
mind.'*”

The chapter which followed these words developed this thought in its
various facets and related baptism to other soteriological realities. The
thought was similar to White's book in many ways, but the following aspects
were particularly important or distinctive contributions to the ongoing
Baptist discussion.
First, he emphasized that baptism is fundamentally an occasion for an
individual divine-human encounter. \n other words, the heart of baptism,
its modus operandi, is not the power of sanctified water, nor even the power
of doing appropriate actions in the name of the Lord, but the acted prayer of
. This emphasis was
very similar to that of White which was noted above, but whereas White's

187 Ibid., 263.

The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 141

concern was to argue that both human and divine action are embodied in
baptism in that order, Beasley-Murray's concern was to assert emphatically
that this conjunction of puayet ia
and Sanne fundamentally exhausts ie
content of a event. icac ( e sen

i his een of baptism in Acts he argued, "Just as baptism 1s an

occasion of confessing faith in Christ and is itself a confession, so it is the
occasion of prayer by the baptizand and is itself an act of prayer."!** Later
he asserted, "Baptism saves, not because water washes dirt from the body,
but as the occasion when a man is met by the Risen Christ.""® He rejected
the idea that there is "any decisive significance imputed to water, in the
sense of its possessing magical sacramental power."!”° Contrary to at least
the superficial sense of much in the Catholic tradition, the grace offered in
baptism is "no impersonal influence, injected through material substances,
but the gracious action of God himself [italics his]."!°' He concluded his
chapter of doctrinal synthesis with these words:

This emphasis was not entirely absent from earlier literature in this
movement, but he seemed to articulate it with a unique passion and an acute
sensitivity to the concerns of his fellow Baptists.
Second, he dealt directly with the issue of the necessity of baptism in an
attempt to answer honest Baptist questions. As noted above, one of the
major concerns of the critics of Christian Baptism was their claim that a
sacramental understanding of baptism excluded all the unbaptized from
salvation. This was a major issue for Baptists for a variety of reasons, but
the earlier Baptist sacramental literature tended to ignore the concern.
Whatever the reasons may have been for that apparently cavalier attitude
toward the question, it should be obvious that it cannot rightly be ignored.
Beasley-Murray's treatment of it was carefully nuanced. He began by noting

188 Ibid., 101.

189 Ibid., 265.
190 Ibid.
191 Ibid.
192 Ibid., 305.
142 More Than a Symbol

that in the apostolic ee the esis peu have sounded Seuss Stee ae
assumption that a WI rist | } ion
baptism. Paul, for Seno. could aelide roliebate” (Eph. if5)in iis
list of commonalities of the Body of Christ, and he could assume that all
those who believed in Christ were baptized into Christ (Gal. 3:26-27). But
is this assumption grounded in a necessity for baptism that is the same as the
necessity for penitent faith? He argued that the evidence indicates a "margin
of ambiguity that exists in the New Testament with regard to baptism."!°
One of the powerful indicators of this margin of ambiguity is the
account given in the Acts of the Apostles concerning the gift of the Spirit in
the apostolic age. He noted:

The complex phenomena of the Spirit in relation to baptism in Acts

compel a dual recognition: first that baptism is closely linked with
the reception of the Spirit, howsoever it may be received; secondly
that allowance must be made for the freedom of God in bestowing
the Spirit, since God exercises that freedom.'™*

John 3:5 has been a text commonly used to argue for the absolute (or
virtually absolute) necessity of baptism for regeneration, which has led
many Baptists to deny that "water" here denotes baptism. Beasley-Murray,
PINE argued that vis this text relates biases to ate itis

the "Spirit" sa givesaifel not "the waterean Spirit!m195 Rie ermore, the
Spirit is said to be as unfathomable in his working as the air is in its
movement, and if this is so, how can his regenerating activity be invariably
tied to baptism? Both John 3:5 and Titus 3:5 refer to a conjunction of
baptism and the Spirit's work of regeneration, neither
but text argues that
salvation cannot happen apart from baptism.!°°
To this list could be added Paul's treatment of justification by faith in
Romans, especially the extended argument of chapter 4. There Paul argues
that Abraham's experience is paradigmatic for all believers, and the
assertion of Paul is that "this pattern-faith of Abraham's was wholly
independent of an external rite."""’ Although Paul values baptism highly
(Romans 6), it is clear that for him it is the faith expressed in baptism that

193 Ibid., 301.

194 Ibid.
195 Ibid., 303.
196 Ibid.
197 Ibid.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 143

is absolutely necessary, 2
category. |
In the end Beasley-Murray concluded that "it is desirable to avoid the
term 'necessary' when considering the meaning of baptism,"'”’ given the
amount of misunderstanding and equivocation which occurs in connection
yal pe term. It pond oc pee 4 } ha

baptism eon only positively ("be baptized in order to be saved by

Christ"), not negatively ("if you are not baptized, then you cannot be
saved"), is acrucial point which could have been emphatically stated much
earlier in the reformulation of baptismal theology.
Third, he argued that we are in the Church because we are in Christ,
not vice versa. In making this plea to avoid what he considered an
unbiblical elevation of the role of the Church, he was responding not only
to some outside his own tradition, but also to writers like Walton and Clark
within the Baptist tradition. As MOY aboys. both Walton and Gets
accepted the premise that st i ental log
formula
for Paul, implying that "the convert is in the Church an
consequently is in Christ."*°° Beasley-Murray dissented from this view of
the matter, arguing that, "The only control over baptism that the Church or
its representatives has is to grant it or withhold it, but its spiritual
significance first and last is from the Lord."”°' He elaborated thus:

Against all tendencies to a misplaced stress on the Church it must

be insisted that baptism takes place in the name of the Lord Jesus,
not in the name of the Church. The believer is ingrafted into the
Body because he is united with the Christ in his saving work by the
Spirit; the reverse is never contemplated in the New Testament.
Not even the richness of the symbol of the Body must be permitted
to minimize the fact that there is a Redeemer and there are the
redeemed, there is a Lord and there are his servants, there is a King
and there are his subjects, there is a Judge and there are those to be
judged--and judgment begins at the house of God! In every symbol
representing the relationship of Christ and his people, including

198 Ibid., 304.

199 Ibid.
200 Ibid., 280.
201 Ibid.
144 More Than a Symbol

that of the Body, Christ dominates the scene.*”

Fourth, he rejected the validity of infant baptism, even though he

defended the practice of "open membership." In his treatment of
"Baptismal Reform and Church Relationships," he raised the question as to
whether Baptists should change their traditional practice and accept the
validity of infant baptism in spite of its perceived irregularity. Many of the
Baptists who had adopted a higher view of the significance of baptism also
felt a heightened sensitivity about the rebaptism of those baptized in
infancy, believing that such action was a functional denial of the ebanaé of
redemption. As noted above, both Walton and Clark had earlier made this
argument, and in 1966 Alec Gilmore would adopt the same position in his
Baptism and Christian Unity. Beasley-Murray responded:

I confess my inability to concur with them. For the reasons earlier

made known, | find myself unable to recognize in infant baptism
the baptism of the New Testament Church and nothing that my
fellows have written has helped to mitigate this difficulty for me.
Moreover I think it right to disabuse the minds of any who have
been led by the utterances of some of my Baptist colleagues to
imagine that a change of view on this matter is taking place in
Baptist circles; there is strong resistance to any such change among
British Baptists and the mere voicing of it is looked on with
astonishment among Baptists in the rest of the world, who form the
bulk of our people.?”

His own position was that Baptist churches should admit to membership
those who are already members of other churches, even if they were
pace as pas
11 i ptism. He admitted that "this policy is open to
criticism nd is often msindersieds by Baptists outside England (where
it was widely accepted) and by paedobaptists, but he defended it as an
appropriate "compromise in a complex ecclesiastical situation."*** He
would suggest in general that Baptists abstain from rebaptizing those who
were baptized in infancy, although he argued that it should be allowed
"where there is a strong plea for it from the applicant."

202 Ibid., 281-282.

203 Ibid., 392.
204 Ibid.
205 Ibid.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 145

This question of "open membership" and its correlation with a

sacramental view of believer baptism is indeed a difficult one and will
require further exploration below in Chapter Four. What is crucial here is
to recognize that the theological support for the policy is not uniform.
Beasley-Murray's argument would be rejected by many Baptists, but it is
important to note that it is a very different kind of argument from that of
Neville Clark or Robert Walton.

Alec Gilmore, Baptism and Christian Unity (1966)

When Gilmore edited Christian Baptism in 1959, he had very little chance
to develop his own theology of baptism, because his chapter was devoted to
"Jewish Antecedents." However, in this 1966 volume he formulated his
variety of sacramentalism in his continuing attempt to move Baptists beyond
their cherished traditions. He was well aware that many Baptists were
resistant to the "body of younger Baptist opinion"’”’ which he represented,
and he characterized them thus:

Behind this self-defence there obviously lies a fear. It is the fear

that Catholic and sacramentarian teaching might be accepted by the
growing generation of Baptists. It is more than that: it is the fear
that some Baptists might run away with the idea that in the
sacraments something happens. It is more even than that: deep
down, it is the fear that in the sacraments God might do
something.”

He cited two examples of what he considered an excessively defensive

attitude toward sacramentalism: First, he referred to Henry Cook's 1947
volume and his criticism of both Roman Catholic and Lutheran doctrines of
the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, in which he accused them of
"trying to materialize something that is and must be essentially spiritual" and
affirmed that the bread and wine are "merely symbolic." Second, he referred
to a statement on the Eucharist by the Baptist Union Council in 1948 which
said, "We hold that . . . Christ is really and truly present, not in the material

206 See also Cross, Baptism, 208.

207 Alec Gilmore, Baptism and Christian Unity (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1966), 40.
This source will hereafter be noted as BCU.
208 Ibid., 41.
146 More Than a Symbol

elements, but in the heart and mind and soul of the believer."*”
Over against this typical Baptist kind of affirmation, Gilmore asked
"whether in the light of modern scholarship it is both right and profitable to
keep trying to drive this wedge between the spiritual world and the material
world."?!° The modern scholarship which he adduced to affirm a correlation
of the material and the spiritual worlds was both scientific and biblical.
There are several ways in which science and medicine were invoked as
witnesses. He began with the observation that, contrary to the antagonistic
relation between science and religion around the turn of this century, it had
become increasingly true that for scientists "the worlds of matter and spirit
are not nearly so clearly distinguished the one from the other as used to be
imagined."*'' In the realm of medicine, especially psychiatry, "the old
dichotomy of mind and spirit has at least begun finally to be resolved by an
acceptance of the interdependence of the one upon the other,"”'” leading to
a body of knowledge about psychosomatic medicine. The resultant
assumption was that neither psychiatric illness nor physical illness could be
studied in isolation from the other. Modern psychology bears witness to the
power of physical actions as symbols, for example the power of parental
hugs to communicate love and a sense of security to their children.?!* Both
the material and the spiritual are at work in such displays of affection--a
caress is more than just a certain amount of pressure being applied to the
body, because a robot could not communicate the same concern even if the
physical action were identical. So in the end, "The whole trend of our age
is against dividing man up into body and soul, and dividing his values up
into material and spiritual."?"
Alongside this evidence from the sciences, Gilmore also noted various
trends in biblical-theological scholarship. First of all, modern Old
Testament scholarship "has come to see a unity in the priest-prophet
controversy."*'> For some time much of Old Testament scholarship posited
a contradiction between the priestly-ritualistic and prophetic-ethical kinds
of religion evidenced in the history of Israel, but scholars increasingly were
admitting that this distinction is about "priorities rather than alternatives."?!°
Similarly, one does not have to choose between sacraments on the one hand

209 Ibid., 42.

210 Ibid.
211 Ibid., 45.
212 Ibid.
213 Ibid., 47.
214 Ibid.
215 Ibid., 49.
216 Ibid., 50.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 147

and evangelical faith on the other. Some would set Jesus over against this
conjunction of ritual and ethics, but this was considered misguided,
inasmuch as the sacrificial system of the old covenant came to an end not
because of Jesus' prophetic teaching, but because of his death. Jesus'
attitude toward the temple and its cultic activity may be prophetic, but it is
not anti-priestly.7!”
But what about Paul and the early church? There is indeed some
tension between the "institutional" apostolate of the twelve and the
"charismatic" apostolate of Paul, but the two are not in conflict. They are
complementary rather than contradictory, as modern scholarship
increasingly asserts. Neither the Catholic nor the Protestant style of
churchmanship can lay exclusive claim to biblical roots; each needs to be
modified by the other in a search for the complete picture.*"*
With regard to Paul himself, the articulate defender of justification by
faith, "Modern biblical scholarship finds much of the sacramental in
Paul."?!° Gilmore referred here to the work of A. Wikenhauser (1883-1960),
a German Catholic New Testament scholar, on Pauline mysticism, in which
he argued for baptism as the crucial objective component in Paul's concept
of religious experience. Gilmore said of Wikenhauser, apparently with
approval:

He examines the relevant passages to discover what role, if any, is

played by faith in the process, and concludes that though faith does
not establish union with Christ, it is the indispensable condition for
the establishment of this union. ".. . without faith there is no union
with Christ . . . faith is the necessary condition for receiving
baptism, which establishes union with Christ."””°

If indeed he was affirming Wikenhauser's perspective, then he was

expressing a relationship between faith and baptism which is significantly
different from that which was present in White and Beasley-Murray. For
both White and Beasley-Murray, it was the faith which is objectified in
baptism that establishes union with Christ; this did not disparage the
importance of baptism, but it did view baptism as important specifically
because it is the definite confession of personal repentance and faith--faith
is the "soul" which animates the "body" of baptism. For Wikenhauser, and

217 Ibid., 51.

218 Ibid., 53-54.
219 Ibid., 55.
220 Ibid., 55-56.
148 More Than a Symbol

apparently Gilmore, faith is not the invisible content of baptism, but merely
the precondition of baptism.
The final example of contemporary biblical theology which he invoked
was the contribution of H. Wheeler Robinson, specifically his development
of the ideas of "corporate personality" and "prophetic symbolism."””’ It is
easy enough to see the significance of the latter idea, as noted above in the
summary of Robinson's baptismal theology, but it is more difficult to see
the point of corporate personality as a support for sacramentalism. The only
illustration which Gilmore gave is the Pauline tendency to switch freely
from "in Christ" to "in the Church," but while this may be relevant for
certain aspects of baptismal theology, it does not seem to be relevant for the
"symbol versus sacrament" question. The one possible point of relevance
may be to support the idea that when the Church acts in baptizing, Christ is
also acting, so that baptism embodies a "spiritual" work of grace along with
the "physical" work of obedience. But if this is the inference to be drawn
from corporate personality, Gilmore did not explicitly state it.
As has already become clear, one of the perplexing questions for Baptist
sacramentalists, recognizing that they refuse to practise infant baptism, is
whether to accept the validity of de facto infant baptism. The early Baptists
refused to do so, but they resented being called "Anabaptists," for in their
opinion infant baptism, whatever positive intentions it may express, was
simply not Christian baptism. Some modern Baptists (e.g., Walton and
Clark) have argued vigorously that infant baptism is genuine (though
unwise) baptism, while others (e.g., Beasley-Murray) have rejected this
conclusion, even though they may affirm open membership as a policy.
Gilmore came down on the side of Walton and Clark, on the basis that, "if
infant baptism is 'no baptism,' then the Church that practises it is 'no
church.""**? Few Baptists affirm that narrow view at a theoretical level, and
fewer still at a practical level; therefore:

It is better to acknowledge that infant baptism, though partial in its

expression of the truth and though involving serious theological
distortion, is nevertheless baptism, and cannot therefore be
followed by believers' baptism being administered to the same
person.?”

Thus in Baptism and Christian Unity Gilmore articulated a Baptist

221 Ibid., 56-57.

222 Ibid., 81.
223 Ibid.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 149

sacramentalism which pressed the case for the reformulation initiated by

Robinson and applied it to questions of Christian unity, but there are
indications that his conceptual scheme went beyond the parameters of
earlier statements. Specifically, it appears that he defended a more Catholic
kind of sacramentalism in which the operations of divine grace are more
localized in material elements and physical actions. The evidence for this
is found in his critical appraisal of previous Baptist statements by Henry
Cook and the Baptist Union Council, as quoted above. Both of these
statements dealt directly with the Eucharist and the relation of Christ to the
material elements; however, it was in the context of an attempt to articulate
the nature of sacraments in general, so that explicit statements about the
bread and wine of the Eucharist carry implicit meaning for the water of
baptism.
His use of Cook revolved around Cook's criticism of the doctrines of
transubstantiation and consubstantiation as explanations of the presence of
Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. He took issue with Cook's
assertion that both doctrines are illegitimately translating spiritual realities
into the material realm, which implies that he was prepared to accept a
genuinely material presence of Christ in the elements. Ifhe were unwilling
to accept this, then what would be the point of his criticism of Cook? As
shown above in the summary of Cook's thought, he was open to the term
"sacrament" when carefully explained, and he viewed both baptism and the
Lord's Supper as means of grace to those who receive them in faith;
therefore, his assertion that the elements are "merely symbolic" does not
imply aZwinglian, purely memorialistic, view of the Eucharist, only that the
elements are vehicles of a work of the Holy Spirit rather than carriers of the
physical body and blood of Christ. As applied to baptism, Gilmore's
approach would seem to imply that God acts through the water per se, rather
than in a direct personal encounter occasioned by the water-based ritual.
Similarly, Gilmore suggested that the Baptist Union Council was
driving a "wedge between the spiritual world and the material world" in its
statement that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is "not in the material
elements." But if this qualification was objectionable to him, it can only be
because he affirmed what the statement denied, which would be the actual
physical presence of Christ in the elements. The historical referent of the
Council statement is not really in question, given that the intent of the
statement was to position British Baptists in relation to the ecumenical
Church. The statement affirmed that Christ is "really and truly present" (and
presumably active) in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, so that the only
thing lacking (from Gilmore's standpoint) would be activity in the elements
themselves.
150 More Than a Symbol

It is one thing to affirm that God is actively conveying the benefits of

redemption to the believing person in the baptismal event, but quite another
thing to say that God conveys this benefit through the water as such.
Although Gilmore may not explicitly say the latter, it seems to be implicit
in his thought.

Denominational Statements
The Baptist Union of Great Britain has been from its inception a relatively
non-credal body, but there have been periodic statements adopted by either
an annual Assembly as a whole or by the Council elected to govern the
Union. Some of these statements have discussed the doctrine of baptism
and thus illustrate the shape and direction of Baptist thought. The relevant
statements for this century indicate that the Union is willing (despite the
reservations of some of its members) to use the term "sacrament" to describe
baptism, that baptism is thought of as a means by which God's grace affects
human experience, but that the grace which is mediated is perhaps only a
"second" kind of grace connected to post-conversion experience.
In April 1918, the Baptist Union Assembly, under the influence of its
ecumenically oriented Secretary, J. H. Shakespeare, approved a doctrinal
basis for a projected Free Church Federal Council, which included the
following paragraph:

The Sacraments--Baptism and the Lord's Supper--are instituted

by Christ, Who is Himself certainly and really present in His own
ordinances (though not bodily in the elements thereof), and are
signs and seals of His Gospel not to be separated therefrom. They
confirm the promises and gifts of salvation, and, when rightly used
by believers with faith and prayer, are, through the operation of the
Holy Spirit, true means of grace.*4

Although this statement did not originate with the Baptist Union, its
approval by the Assembly indicated that it qualified as a Baptist assertion.
It was highly general in tone, using the term "sacrament" in the sense of a
"means of grace," but without defining the precise sense in which grace is
at work in the event. It was, no doubt, this lack of precision that allowed the

224 Ernest A. Payne, he Baptist Union: A Short History (London: Carey Kingsgate Press,
1958), 276. The full text of the doctrinal statement is "Appendix VIII" of this book.
See Cross, Baptism, 42-52 for a commentary on the Baptist discussion concerning
membership in the Free Church Council.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 151

approval of the statement.

In 1920 the Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Communion issued
an "Appeal to all Christian People" concerning Christian unity. After a
delay to allow for clarifying conversations between Anglican bishops and
Free Church leaders, a Baptist Union reply was adopted unanimously by the
Assembly in May 1926, which said at one point:

Christian Baptism and the Communion of the Lord's Supper are

duly received by us not only as rites instituted and hallowed by our
Lord Himself, but as means of grace to all who receive them in
faith.??°

The paragraph following the above explained the continuing Baptist refusal
to practise infant baptism and the normative role of immersion as the mode
of baptism, and in so doing it used the terminology of "the ordinance of
baptism." Later it dissented from "the place given to Sacraments by the
Lambeth Appeal," but it did not reject the term "sacrament."”°
The most explicit affirmations are found in a statement called "The
Baptist Doctrine of the Church," which was approved by the Council of the
Baptist Union in March 1948 as a part of their involvement in the founding
of the World Council of Churches.’ The statement asserted, "We
recognize the two sacraments of Believers' Baptism and the Lord's Supper
as being of the Lord's ordaining," and it affirmed that "both are 'means of
grace’ to those who receive them in faith."”’* It expressed a belief "that
Christ is really and truly present" in the sacramental action of the believing
community, although not in the material elements.*”” The manner in which
baptism functions sacramentally was stated thus:

As a means of grace to the believer and to the church and as an act

of obedience to our Lord's command, we treasure this sacrament.
The New Testament clearly indicates a connection of the gift of the
Holy Spirit with the experience of baptism which, without making
the rite the necessary or inevitable channel of that gift, yet makes it

225 Payne, Baptist Union, 280. See also Cross, Baptism, 52-67 for a discussion of the
Baptist response to the Lambeth Appeal.
226 Payne, Baptist Union, 281.
227 See Cross, Baptism, 152-158 for a commentary on Baptist response to Faith and Order
and the World Council of Churches.
228 Ibid., 288.
229 Ibid.
152 More Than a Symbol

the appropriate occasion of a new and deeper reception of it.”°

This concept of baptism as a means of a "deeper" experience of the Spirit

echoed the comments of Underwood a decade earlier and still posited an
experience of conversion and the Spirit which is completed prior to baptism.
This was even more explicit in their statement about the conditions of
church membership:

The basis of our membership in the church is a conscious and

deliberate acceptance of Christ as Saviour and Lord by each
individual. There is, we hold, a personal crisis in the soul's life
when a man stands alone in God's presence, responds to God's
gracious activity, accepts His forgiveness and commits himself to
the Christian way of life. Such a crisis may be swift and emotional
or slow-developing and undramatic, and is normally experienced
within and because of our life in the Christian community, but it is
always a personal experience wherein God offers His salvation in
Christ, and the individual, responding by faith, receives the
assurance of the Spirit that by grace he is the child of God. It is this
vital evangelical experience which underlies the Baptist conception
of the Church and is both expressed and safeguarded by the
sacrament of Believers’ Baptism.7*!

Given the later admission that they were divided on the question of whether
baptism is a precondition of church membership, this "vital evangelical
experience" was clearly thought of as occurring apart from and prior to
baptism; 1.e., this experience is "expressed" by baptism as something which
has already occurred, not as something which happens in the act of baptism
itself. Later developments in Baptist sacramentalism argued that although
personal experience cannot be made uniform, the normative expectation is
that this response to the offer of grace occurs in baptism, rather than prior
to it, i.e., that the "personal crisis" occurs in baptism.

Baptist Service Books

Since the theology of baptism is expressed in the practice of baptism, one
evidence of a shift in theology might be found in printed liturgies of

230 Ibid., 289.

231 Ibid., 285.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 153

baptism. Although there is no uniform "Prayer Book" in the British Baptist

tradition, there have been various outlines for the conduct of worship and
the sacraments that have been widely used. For most of the period in view
the most widely used service book was The Minister's Manual, published
in 1927 by M. E. Aubrey (1885-1957), who later became the General
Secretary of the Baptist Union, but it was eclipsed by the publication in
1960 of Orders and Prayers for Church Worship by Ernest Payne and
Stephen Winward. The developing Baptist theology is reflected in the
differences between the two books.
In Aubrey's book there were guidelines for a pastoral homily which
clarifies what is presumed to happen in the baptismal event. Baptism is
interpreted as (1) an act of obedience to the command of Christ and his
apostles; (2) an open confession of faith in God and devotion to the service
of Christ; (3) the act by which the individual joins himself to the community
of believers; and (4) an imitation of Christ. Only after this four-fold focus
on the human expression of commitment is there a stated recognition that
the act symbolizes God's work in Christ, and that there is some experience
of grace to be anticipated.**
In the later book by Payne and Winward, published just one year after
Christian Baptism and in the same year as The Biblical Doctrine of
Initiation, the emphasis was decidedly reversed. After reading selected
baptismal texts from the New Testament, the minister says, "Let us now set
forth the great benefits which we are to receive from the Lord, according to
his word and promise, in this holy sacrament." The benefits are then
declared as follows:

In baptism we are united with Christ through faith, dying with him
unto sin and rising with him unto newness of life.

The washing of our bodies with water is the outward and visible
sign of the cleansing of our souls from sin through the sacrifice of
our Saviour.

The Holy spirit, the Lord and giver of life, by whose unseen
operation we have already been brought to repentance and faith, is
given and sealed to us in this sacrament of grace.

By this same Holy Spirit, we are baptized into one body and made

232 Cited by Michael J. Walker, "Baptism: Doctrine and Practice among Baptists in the
United Kingdom," Foundations 22, no. 1 (1979): 75-76.
154 More Than a Symbol

members of the holy catholic and apostolic Church, the blessed

company of all Christ's faithful people.

These great benefits are promised and pledged to those who profess
repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.”**

This attitude of repentance and faith is then described as coming to

expression in baptism, and prior to the act of immersion the minister prays
that the baptizands "may by faith be united with Christ in his Church, and
receive according to thy promise the forgiveness of their sins, and the gift
of the Holy Spirit."?*4
The earlier and later service books were not contradictory in any explicit
way, but the focus of the later book was clearly on God's action in a way that
was not true of the earlier book. This is reflective of the growing sense that
baptism is not merely a means of some sort of "second" work of the Spirit
that strengthens an assurance of salvation which has already been
experienced, but instead the normative means by which entrance into the
benefits of Christ becomes an assured, experiential reality. To put it another
way, the earlier and milder form of sacramentalism conceived of baptism as
an act of an obedient disciple by which she is empowered for further steps
in the Christian life, but the later and stronger form thought of baptism as
an act of a penitent sinner by which she consciously responds to the offer of
grace in the gospel and becomes a disciple of Christ.

Summary
Ata descriptive-historical level, the 20th-century reformulation of a Baptist-
sacramental view of baptism would be characterized as follows: (1) It
originated in a context of concern for denominational identity. Baptists in
England had always existed as an uncomfortable minority over against a
state Church and paedobaptist Free Churches, and it was not clear that a
purely symbolic view of baptism was sufficient to undergird a distinct
denominational existence. (2) It was marked by collegiality. Two of the
major books, The Gathered Community (1946) and Christian Baptism
(1959), were products of group discussion with a view to consensus. (3) It
was rooted in ecumenical concern. Much of the literature was a conscious
attempt to be involved meaningfully in the baptismal debates which marked

233 Ernest A. Payne and Stephen F. Winward, Orders and Prayers for Church Worship
(London: Kingsgate Press, 1960), 171-172.
234 Ibid., 173.
The Reformulation of Baptist Sacramentalism 155

most denominations after World War II. Several of the major contributors
participated in Faith and Order Commission discussions of baptism, notably
Ernest Payne, G. R. Beasley-Murray, and Morris West; and Neville Clark
was involved in the Joint Liturgical Group in Great Britain. (4) The
contributors were aware that they were seeking to reform Baptist thought
and practice, but they showed only a limited knowledge of the Baptist
tradition. They were in general much more concerned to interact with
scholars of other traditions than to interact with earlier Baptist literature.

(5) The movement was very much

rooted in biblical theology, to the neglect of systematic theology. Their
interaction with scholars of other traditions was generally in the area of New
Testament exegesis (where there was a high degree of ecumenical
consensus), not the area of systematic formulations.
At a theological level, there were two key principles at work: (1)
Whatever may be the Seestradition, an accurate oe aS of Hie
Bible demands that ba , e., asacrame
At the heart of the movement was a cherished BEpuet Src ie unique
authority of Scripture and the corresponding possibility of error in all creeds
and extra-biblical traditions. It was assumed that the Church is semper
d the reshaping of baptismal theology is part of the process.
(2) As human beings we function holistically; therefore, it is important that
an attitude of commitment to Christ be objectified in personal action.

action. Although many persons enter into genuine Christian discipleship

apart from believer baptism, this is in biblical terms an anomaly, and
something is missing when conversion is not sacramentally sealed.
There was in general a high degree of consensus in this collegial
modification of Baptist theology, but there were some internal points of
tension and lingering questions. (1) To what extent is this understanding of
baptism rooted in a general principle of sacramental action? (2) What is the
exact significance of the baptismal water and action? Is the divine bestowal
of grace mediated through the water or the action as such, or is the water-
based action simply the occasion for a direct divine-human encounter? (3)
What is the significance of the Church in baptism? Is it simply the
community entered as the result of baptism into Christ, or is it a related
means by which the individual is united with Christ?
In what follows, Chapter Three will examine the biblical exegesis which
has informed this conceptual shift, and Chapter Four will analyse the
theological meaning and coherence of this new Baptist paradigm.
 CHAPTER 3

An Analysis of
The Biblical Foundations

As George Beasley-Murray has noted, the reformulation of British Baptist

sacramentalism has been rooted to a great degree in a fresh exegesis ofNew
Testament baptismal texts. This is not to say that the system is grounded in
a naive, proof-texting biblicism which ignores issues of historical criticism
and assumes a priori that all the biblical data constitute a fully unified
picture.' It is to say that at the heart of the movement is the conclusion that
the New Testament statements about baptism, in spite of their diversity of
expression l
. Indeed, it would not be an overstatement
to say that the validity of this baptismal theology depends ultimately on the
accuracy of the exegesis which informs it. For these Baptists, as for Baptists
in general, no ultimate appeal can be made to ecclesiastical tradition—only
Scripture can be the basis for such an appeal. Accordingly, an analysis of
this Baptist sacramentalism demands above all else an assessment of this
exegetical foundation.
The Baptist sacramental exegesis represents an alignment of this Baptist
thought with the consensus of the historic churches. Although other
denominations have articulated their sacramentalism in divergent ways, they
have agreed that the biblical statements about baptism imply that baptism —

Historically, the idea that baptism is merely a symbol giving

testimony to a conversion already completed has been formally accepted
only in the Anabaptist and Baptist traditions. Therefore, it would be of little

1 The British Baptist authors examined in this book held divergent views concerning some
of the critical issues about the date and authorship of the New Testament books.
However, this made no significant difference in their theological conclusions, because
they were all attempting to discover the meaning of baptism in the canonical New
Testament as it has come to us, on the assumption that this is at least the starting point
for any genuinely Christian theology. Accordingly, this book is concerned with the
meaning of the biblical text, not with critical questions about how it came to exist in its
present form. References to authorship are normally phrased in traditional terms, but
these are not intended as answers to critical questions.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 157

value in this chapter to compare Baptist exegesis to that of the historic

churches--the two are fundamentally equivalent. What is relevant is to
assess this exegesis in relation to the non-sacramental interpretations of
other Baptists (and "baptists" who share the basic theology without the
denominational label). The balance of this chapter, then, will take the
following form: first, a summary of the exegetical foundations of Baptist
sacramentalism; second, asummary and evaluation of the Baptist challenge
to this exegesis; third, a summary and evaluation of a Baptist hermeneutical
critique which accepts most of the exegetical details but challenges the
sacramental synthesis; and fourth, an analysis of the critique of
sacramentalism put forward by Karl Barth (1886-1968) in his Church
Dogmatics 1V/4. Although he never became a Baptist in terms of
denominational affiliation, Barth adopted a “baptist” view of the subjects of
‘baptism inhis provocative lecture of1943: therefore, his rejection in 1967
of the sacramental character of baptism may be seen as a criticism of Baptist
sacramentalism from within its tradition, theologically ifnot ecclesiastically.
In any case, given Barth’s status as arguably the most significant Protestant
theologian of the 20" century, his critique can hardly be ignored.

Baptist Sacramental Exegesis

The biblical texts which speak of John's baptism are of limited value here,
inasmuch as Christian baptism is assumed to be distinct from John's
baptism, but the two are related if not equivalent. Therefore, it is significant
that John's baptism is an act of repentance which is done "for the
forgiveness of sins" (ic &beow c&uaptim@v--Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). This
forgiveness of sins is sought as a way of avoiding the eschatological wrath
associated with the inauguration of the kingdom of God (Luke 3:7).
Although there is no power in the rite apart from genuine repentance (Luke
3:7-14), the act of baptism is done as a plea for eschatological salvation,
which is to say that the rite is in some way sacramental.
The baptism of Jesus has traditionally played a large part in Baptist
rhetoric about baptism, as in the typical language about "following the Lord
in baptism." However, the exact relationship between the baptism of Jesus
and Christian baptism is a matter of ongoing debate; it is therefore
impossible to define confidently the nature of Christian baptism on the basis
of the Gospels' witness to the baptism of Jesus. Some Baptists, notably R
E. O. White, have seen great significance in the experience of Jesus, arguing
that the description of his baptism is an indication that what had been a
sacrament of anticipation is becoming through him a sacrament of
158 More Than a Symbol

realization.? In his baptism Jesus received an assurance of his divine

sonship and the empowering gift of the Holy Spirit, and the vicarious
character of his se ae acs to the inference that there is some
sort of le b n his baptism and ours. Other Baptists have been
more reluctant to Ray inferences from Ane baptism of Jesus, noting both the
uniqueness of his baptism and the fact that no New Testament writer uses
the baptism of Jesus as a basis for exhortation.* What can be said is that if
the Lord's baptism is paradigmatic, then Christian baptism should be
thought of as ining both a human act of commitment and a divine
seccatal Stsata BTEE™
The baptismal commission of Matthew 28:19 was discussed by these
Baptist writers mostly to assess the genuineness of the saying and its
relevance for the dominical institution of baptism. There was significant
variety of opinion among them about the extent to which the saying comes
from the mouth of Christ, but there was general agreement that the text
represents a valid Christian inference that baptism is to be done in
obedience to Christ. They did not emphasize this text as a support for the
sacramental sense of baptism, but it may in fact be useful in that regard.
There is general agreement that the idea of baptism "into the name" (eic tO
6voua) of the Trinity signifies being brought into the possession or
ownership of the Triune God,” and thus into the sphere of salvation wrought
by God. But if baptism establishes this sort of relationship between the
individual and God, then it can hardly be thought of as a mere symbol.
One of the crucial issues in interpreting the significance of baptism in
this commission 1s that of the syntactical connection between the imperative
"make disciples" (uaOntevoatse) and the participles "baptizing" and
"teaching" (BanttCovtec and 6isaoKovtec). Although many Baptists have
assumed a chronological relationship (make disciples, then baptize the
disciples, then continue to teach them), this is not a self-evident
interpretation.° It may well be that the participles are instrumental or modal

2 White, BDI, 90-109.

3 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 63-67.
4 Fora negative assessment of the authenticity of the saying, see Clark, ATS, 16, 19. For
a positive assessment, see White, BD/, 338-345 and Beasley-Murray, BN7, 87-88.
5S Beasley-Murray, BNT, 90-91; D. A. Carson, Matthew, in The Expositor's Bible
Commentary, Vol. 8, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 597;
Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas:
Word Books, 1995), 888; Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew, Vol. 22, The New American
Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1992), 432.
6 Beasley-Murray, BN7, 88.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations Ss

in force, describing the way in which the nations are to be brought into
Christian discipleship (make disciples by baptizing them and teaching
them).’ In that case, a disciple of Christ would be one who has signified
commitment by baptism and entered into the process of learning and
obeying the commands of Christ, which is to say that baptism makes one a
disciple of Christ rather than testifying that one has already become a
disciple. The instrumental sense of BamttCovtec and the reference to
baptism prior to teaching have sometimes been combined as a support for
infant baptism, but this is not a necessary inference.®
The book of Acts is a source of sacramental teaching about baptism,
although the evidence is not as consistent as one might like. When the text
gives an account of what might be called didactic baptismal language, the
sacramental sense is strong. For example, Acts 2:38 records Peter's
instructions to Jews who have come to recognize their rejection of the
Messiah, and the apparent sense of his instructions is that repentance (and
the implied faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ
s by God and the
estowal of the Holy Spirit upon them. Acts 22:16 records Ananias'
exhortation to Saul to "wash away" his sins as he calls on the name of the
Lord in baptism. While the reference to invoking the name of the Lord
indicates that the power at work is that of the Lord, and not baptism per se,
it is equally clear that this spiritually cleansing power of God is conceived
as operative in the context of baptism. The enigmatic account of the twelve
"disciples" in Ephesus (Acts 19:1-7) provides both narrative and didactic
evidence for sacramentalism. At the narrative level, it is at the time of their
Christian baptism that these men receive the gift of the Spirit (vss. 5-6); and
at the didactic level, Paul's probing question about their reception of the
Holy Spirit (vs. 2) is rooted in his assumption that they ought to have
received the Spirit through their faith-baptism (vs. 3).
The narratives of Acts, however, make it clear that there is no simple
cause-effect relation between baptism and the gift of the Spirit. In the

7 Foraconfident assertion of this exegesis, see R. C. H. Lenski, 7he Interpretation of St.

Matthew's Gospel (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1943), 1173. For the
acceptance of a loosely-defined modal interpretation, see Beasley-Murray, BNT, 89;
Carson, Matthew, 597, Blomberg, Matthew, 431; Hagner, Matthew 14-28, 886, R. T.
France, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), 414; Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His
Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 597.
8 For a paedobaptist rejection of this particular argument, see William Hendriksen,
Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1973),
1000-1001.
 160 More Than a Symbol

Cornelius episode of Acts 10, the Spirit is poured out on the Gentile
household as they are listening to Peter's preaching, thus prior to any visible
response on their part. But even here it is clear that baptism in the Spirit
does not nullify the significance of baptism in water, for Peter calls for the
immediate baptism in water of those who have received the Spirit, thus
affirming Metuaainaalieaaah "Woon baptism and the benefits of Christ. It
is assumed that in the normal pattern of God's sal vific work, baptism and the
gift of the Spirit occur together, although the precise linkage is a function
of activity
God's free and not of human manipulation.
The Samaritan episode of Acts 8 provides an example of another way
in which baptism and the Spirit may be experienced, and in this case it
involves a post-baptismal delay in the gift of the Spirit. Although this
narrative clearly implies that there is no power inherent in baptism such that
baptism automatically conveys the Spirit, it would be unwarranted to
construct a baptismal paradigm from such an exceptional
case. The
narrative itself appears to assume the exceptional character of the events in
Samaria. For example, vs. 16 indicates that the Samaritans had "not yet"
(ovd6€n@) received the Spirit; they had "only" (udvov) been baptized "into
the name of the Lord Jesus." The use of obdé7@ here, rather than the
simple negative ov indicates that there is an expected connection between
two things (in this case, Christian baptism and the bestowal of the Spirit),
which for some reason are disconnected.’
The evidence of Acts does not allow for easy harmonization, but the
data do not support in any way a non-sacramental reading which posits a
normative bestowal of the benefits of salvation through a calling on the
name of the Lord prior to and apart from baptism. The only evidence in the
book for the bestowal of salvation prior to Christian baptism is in Acts 10,
and in that case the Spirit comes prior to any kind of outward response,
including prayer, which is not the paradigm of non-sacramental Baptist
{thought. The initial movement of the gospel into the Gentile world can
' hardly be a timeless paradigm; its revolutionary character is the reason for
its unusual form, and even in that case it is clear that baptism and the Spirit
go together. In the end it seems clear that if there is a normative
understanding of the relation between baptism and the Spirit in Acts, then
it is to be found, not in narrative accounts of what did happen in diverse
experiences, but in statements declaring what is expected to occur. A
statement like Acts 2:38 would then acquire special significance, as noted

\9 Frederick Dale Bruner,A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970),
177-178. 4 dN AUK
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 161

by Richard Longenecker:

We should understand Peter’s preaching at Pentecost as being

theologically normative for the relation in Acts between conversion,
, and baptism
the of the Holy Spirit, with the
situations having to do with the Samaritan converts, Cornelius, and
the twelve whom Paul met at Ephesus (which is something of a
case all to itself) to be more historically conditioned and
circumstantially understood.'°

The evidence of the narratives of Acts may be ambiguous, but the

references to baptism in the Pauline epistles seem to give clear support for
a sacramental sense of baptism. The /ocus classicus is Paul's reference to
baptism sic Xpiotov in Romans 6:3-4. Baptism is there viewed as the
event in which believers were effectively united to Christ and thus to the
benefits of his redemptive work--baptism sic Xptiotov results in the
condition of being €v Xptota. For centuries Baptists have relied on this
text as a support for the mode of immersion, but while the imagery of
immersion may underlie Paul's words, the text itself seems to assert much
more than a pictorial SIignificance for baptism.
, Where Paul clarifies that
this occurs "through faith" and not simply through a ritual act, and where he
explicitly refers to being "raised" with Christ in baptism (as opposed to the
more guarded language about resurrection in Romans 6). The language of
baptism gic Xptotov appears also in Galatians 3:27, where it explains the
condition of being €v Xpiota@ ‘Inood (vss. 26, 28). The conjunction of etc
Xptotov and év Xptot@ seems to indicate that the former phrase means
something more than simply "with reference to Christ"--it 1s indicative of

If Romans 6 is the crucial Pauline reference to baptism as a means of

union with Christ, it might also be said that the crucial reference to the
Spirit and the Church is 1 Corinthians 12:13. Baptist sacramentalists almost
ree havepe eereied itny as aa reference to water-
SNe —

ere initiates raarviduals into a with the body of Christ, which is to say
into union with Christ himself (vs. 12).

10 Richard N. Longenecker, Zhe Acts of the Apostles, in The Expositor’s Bible

Commentary, Vol. 9, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981), 285.
 162 More Than a Symbol

Pauline texts such as | Corinthians 6:11, Ephesians 5:25-27, and Titus

3:5 may allude to baptism via metaphors related to washing. If so, then
justification, sanctification, and regeneration are all connected in Pauline
thought to the baptismal event, although these texts give little help in
defining the precise causal relation between baptism and these concepts.
On the surface 1 Corinthians 1:10-17 seems to contradict this Pauline
respect for the significance of baptism. There Paul draws a sharp distinction
between baptism and the preaching of the gospel, indicates that his
commission is to preach rather than to baptize, and gives thanks that he
baptized so few of the Corinthian converts. Although some use this text to
modify the force of the other baptismal references in Paul's epistles, this is
not the only SDL
theconte a

Benen Part of the caninepci to ae division isi ree in the

rhetorical question, "Were you baptized in /eic/ the name of Paul?", which
of course demands a negative answer. The fact that baptism is brought into
the discussion at this point indicates that the rite was the common
experience of all to whom Paul wrote and that in some way it was central to
Christian identity. Baptists have argued that although it may appear that
Paul was indifferent to the rite, this is a false inference.'' At most the text
is areminder that the gospel embodied in baptism is the heart of the matter,
not baptism per se. Paul's thanksgiving that he personally baptized so few
Corinthians simply points to a division of ministry among Paul and his
colleagues, and his concern that those baptized by him might make too
much of this may point precisely to the great significance attached to
baptism.
Interpreters of the Gospel of John hold widely varying views of the
Johannine attitude toward sacraments, some seeing in the Gospel a
pronounced sacramentalism couched in references to water, flesh and blood,
while others see in it a corrective to excessive sacramentalism.'* Baptist
sacramentalists have been generally reluctant to base their theology on any
of these general schemes, given the uncertainty of their assumptions.!? At
the heart of the Johannine contribution is the reference to spiritual rebirth

11 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 180-181.

12 Griffiths, in CB, 150 refers to Albert Schweitzer and Oscar Cullmann as proponents of
a high sacramentalism in John, and to Rudolf Bultmann and Amos N. Wilder as
defenders of the anti-sacramental view of John.
13. Clark, ATS, 27; Griffiths, in CB, 151; White, BDI, 247-264; Beasley-Murray, BNT, 216-
226.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 163

as a birth "of water and Spirit" (John 3:5). Although several alternatives
have been suggested, Christian interpreters have traditionally understood
this "water" as a reference to baptism, and Baptist sacramentalists normally
have shared this opinion. Suggestions that the saying is actually about two
births, one €§ Udatoc and the other €k mveUpatoc are not compelling,
because in fact the two nouns are governed by one preposition
(€& bSatoc
KOU MVEUVLATOG), pointing to one birth which iisrelated to both water and the
Spirit. Some have suggested that" , denoting
the spiritual cleansing and transformation wrought by the Spirit, as promised
by the prophets (Ezek 36:25-27). Although this is possible, it is difficult to
read John 3:5 in its context without thinking of baptism (cf. 1:24-34; 3:22-
23; 4:1-2).
However, even if it is assumed that "water" in this saying refers to
baptism, there are various ways of interpreting the systematic implications
of this reading of the text. Some see in it a polemical reference to John's
baptism, an emphasis that John's baptism is inadequate in itself to effect
entrance into the kingdom of God. Others see a reference to Christian
baptism, an indication that through the work of Jesus Christ baptism will
become not simply an expression of repentance but an occasion for the
transforming gift of the Holy Spirit. Given this Gospel's frequent use of
terms that are pregnant with meaning, it may well be that there is both a
backward and a forward reference in the word." It is crucial to note that the
emphasis in John 3 is on the fact that this birth is x tob mvEebUaTOG (vss.
6 and 8, as well as 5), which is to say that although this birth is related to
both water and the Spirit, it is not related to both in the same way. Water
has a role to play, but its significance is found not in itself but in its
connection to the Spirit. Nevertheless, in a real (though secondary) sense
water (baptism) is a vehicle of spiritual rebirth, which is to say that baptism
is sacramental in character.
In the rest of the New Testament, the most significant text is 1 Peter
3:21 and its reference to "baptism which now saves you." If, as several
interpreters have suggested, all or most of 1 Peter is a baptismal sermon,
then all the references within the book to God's salvific work can be related
in some way to baptism. Baptist writers generally have agreed (with various
degrees of confidence) that much of the epistle is rooted in a baptismal
context,'° but this cannot be dogmatically asserted. Therefore, the focus

14 This idea of a double allusion to John's baptism and to Christian baptism is suggested by
Griffiths, in CB, 156; White, BDI, 253-255; and Beasley-Murray, BNT, 229-230.
15 Buse, in CB, 171-175; White, BDI, 228; Beasely-Murray, BNT, 251-258.
164 More Than a Symbol

must remain on the one explicit statement about baptism within the epistle.
This statement occurs in a passage with all sorts of exegetical difficulties,
but it clearly asserts that baptism effects salvation now in some way which
is to the ancient deliverance of Noah and his family from divine
analogous
wrath. Peter's language emphasizes that the salvific role of baptism is not
due to any power inherent in the physical act of baptism--instead it saves
ultimately "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" and proximately by or a
This last phrase is translated in
various ways, depending on whether énepwtnua is taken to denote a
"request" or a "pledge," and whether the genitive opvetdnoews &yaO7¢ is
taken to be subjective or objective. In any case, the attitude toward God
which comes to expression in baptism is the fundamentai concern and the
basic instrumental cause of salvation from the human side. Nevertheless,
it is assumed that this attitude comes to expression in baptism, and thus
baptism is instrumental in the application of salvation to the individual.
In summary, although there is diversity of expression, and some of the
exegetical details do not allow for dogmatism in interpretation, the New
Testament consistently views baptism as a means of entrance into the
eschatological salvation wrought by Jesus Christ. Although the crucial
factor from the human side is penitent faith in Christ, this faith is not
normally thought of as fully formed apart from baptism.

Baptist Exegetical Criticisms

The sacramental exegesis summarized above is challenged at every point by
some within the Baptist tradition. This book will not investigate every detail
of this dispute, but instead will focus on the three major aspects of it: (1) the
assertion that Matthew 28:19-20 teaches that entrance into Christian
ise ea Peccue baptism, thus refuting the claim
i rough baptism; (2) the assertion that Acts 2:38 does not view
the eT cneee of sisins as the result of baptism; and (3) the assertion that the
key Pauline texts about baptism are actually talking about Spirit-baptism
and not water-baptism.
 An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 165

Matthew 28: 19-20

A dominant stream of Baptist thought has interpreted the Great Commission
along these lines: "Go (to all the world) and make disciples of all the
nations, then baptize (these who have become disciples) as a sign of their
(previous) entrance into union with the Triune God, and then go on teaching
them how to live in obedience to the commands of Christ." Interpreters
going back to John Gill have argued on the basis of the Greek text that the
objects of this baptizing and teaching must be disciples, not the nations.
The object of the discipling, n&vta t& €8vN, is neuter in gender, while the
object of both BantiCovtec and didéo0KovtEes is avtovcs, which is
masculine in gender. Thus it is argued that the two objects cannot be the
same, and it is concluded that abtovc must denote the disciples (uaOntat)
who are the implied result of the discipling (evangelizing) of the nations.’
Within this interpretation, a "disciple" is one who has indicated a positive
response to the gospel, and this response is confirmed prior to baptism.
Although this conceptual structure may not be impossible, the switch
from the neuter €8vn to the masculine abtovc does not prove the point.
The same switch occurs in Matthew 25:32, where in a description of final
judgment by Christ it is said that m&vta ta €Ovy will be assembled before
him, and he will separate them (abtovc) into two groups, and it is quite
clear that the two terms denote the same persons. The distinction 1s that of
people-groups (€0vn) versus the individuals who constitute those groups
Our. not that ofthe woe versus theeinsae:

The syntactical relation between the imperative (uw8ntEevoate) and the

participles (BamttCovtecg and d1déo0Kovtec) in this text cannot be
dogmatically defined. Such adverbial participles modify the action of the
main verb (in this case the imperative), but the exact force is determined by
the context. Whatever may be the exact relation between the imperative and
the participles, it seems clear that the verbs for baptizing and teaching are
not grammatically coordinate with the verb for discipling, making it very
unlikely that the statement means, "Make disciples, then baptize them, and
then teach them." Rather the actions of baptizing and teaching are
‘subordinate tothat ofdiscipling, andthe natural conclusion isthat interms
of thistext, aChristian disciple isonewho has signified faith inChrist by

16 Gill, Divinity, 901. Carson, Matthew, 597 sees this as a possibility but does not commit
himself to it.
 But this implies that baptism isdnstrumental in
the entrance into discipleship, not that it bears witness to a previous
entrance into discipleship.

Acts 2:38
On the surface, it would seem that Peter's exhortation recorded here plainly
indicates that baptism is done for the purpose of personal salvation, but
there are two distinct ways in which baptistic interpreters have sought to
deny this inference. The first is the assertion that cic &bEeow TOV
&LAPTI@v budv means "on the basis of the forgiveness of your sins," rather
than "for the purpose of the forgiveness of your sins," and the second is the
assertion that the entire baptismal clause is parenthetical, so that forgiveness
of sins is connected to repentance and not to baptism."*
Defenders of the first approach tend to rely on the argument of A. T.
Robertson, a Southern Baptist scholar and author of a widely used grammar
of New Testament Greek. With regard to this key phrase he wrote:

This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it

from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In
themselves the words can expres
does exist as in I Cor. 2:7 eis doxan hemon (for our glory). But then
another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis
for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples eis
onoma prophetou, dikaiou, mathetou where it cannot be purpose or
aim, but rather tee on the basis of the name of
prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen
again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kerugma
Iona). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah..
. One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism
isussenee togine essa of sins or not.s, iiiiliaionial

and Peter to be urging

o had — turned (repented) and for

17 Carson, Matthew, 597; Gundry, Matthew, 596; Hendriksen, Matthew, 1000.

18 Both approaches are suggested by B. H. Carroll, An Interpretation of the English Bible:
Acts (1948; reprint Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 76-77, 89-93.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 167

it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the

forgiveness of sins which they had already received."

Robertson's argument, then, takes this form: the Greek preposition cic may
indicate either cause or purpose; its meaning here must be determined by
theological principles; therefore, biblical soteriology demands that it
indicate cause here. Given Robertson's stature as a Greek scholar, it is not
surprising that his reasoning has commanded wide assent among Baptists,
but in the end his case is not convincing.
TI seofhi | anenarnatat

sputed by lexicographers and grammarians. The

contemporary lexicon of Arndt and Gingrich lists it only as a possible but
disputed meaning,”’ and although J. R. Mantey tried to establish such a
meaning in Hellenistic Greek,”' Nigel Turner stated that "hardly any of the
Hellenistic parallels brought forward by Mantey are convincing."”
Robertson listed as New Testament examples only Matthew 10:41 and
12:41 (parallel in Luke 11:32), but each is capable of more than one sense.

| Similarly Matthew
-41 may mean "repented because of the preaching of Jonah," but it may
also mean "changed their mind in the direction of what Jonah preached" or
"repented when Jonah preached" (again if gic 1s equivalent to év). There is
no unanimity among interpreters concerning the precise use of ic in these
texts, and there is doubt about the causal use of sicinHellenistic literature,
which indicates the doubtful character of this major premise of Robertson's
argument.
One recent writer has defended Robertson’s argument by pointing to

19 A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville: Broadman Press,

1930), 3:35-36.
20 William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
and Other Early Christian Literature, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1979), 230.
21 J. R. Mantey, "The Causal Use of eis in the New Testament," Journal of Biblical
Literature 70 (1951): 45-48.
22 Nigel Turner and James Hope Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek
(Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963), 3: 266.
23 A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical
Research (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934), 593; Lenski, Matthew, 421-422.
168 More Than a Symbol

Matthew 3:11, which describes John’s baptism as one done gic Weta VOLAV
as further evidence for thecausal
use of sic.** The context narrates John’s
rebuke of Pharisees and Sadducees as they presented themselves for baptism
and his demand that they must “bring forth fruit in keeping with
repentance.” It is argued, then, that “John demanded repentance as a
prerequisite for his baptism,” implying that “one could not undergo John’s
baptism without first showing evidence of repentance.”” It would seem,
then, that John’s baptism cic pet&voiav is a baptism based on a prior
repentance, which amounts to a causal use of cic.
Although this may be plausible, it is not convincing. This reading of
John’s words would demand that he personally examine the life of every
person coming to him for baptism prior to enacting the ritual, and given the
contextual indications that large numbers were coming to him, this seems
humanly impossible. Furthermore, the context (Matt 3:6) indicates that
those coming to him for baptism were not declaring the evidence of their
moral transformation, but were instead “confessing their sins,” the intent of
which is surely to experience forgiveness. It seems, then, that the demand
placed on the religious leaders is not to prove moral transformation prior to
baptism, but to be aware that their baptism will demand that they live
differently afterward. That would mean that sic looks forward to a
repentant way of life, not backward to a previous transformation.
A more profitable study of cic would consider other occurrences of the
preposition in connection with the forgiveness of sins. There are only four
occurrences of eic KEOV K&LAPTLdV in the New Testament apart from Acts
2:38. Matthew 26:28 uses the phrase to modify Christ's blood of the
covenant, indicating that it is poured out "for the forgiveness of sins," clearly
denotin . Luke 24:47 (in a variant reading) refers to the preaching
of the gospel to all nations "for the forgiveness of sins," and this forgiveness
is clearly the result (not the condition) of the preaching. Both Mark 1:4 and
Luke 3:3 describe John's baptism as a B&mtioua pEtavotac sic kbEoiv
Kuapti@v, and given Luke's statement that the baptizands are seeking
deliverance from eschatological wrath, the forgiveness of sins here is
something experienced through baptism rather than a condition of baptism.
In the end, then, Robertson's reconstruction of Peter's comments is
flawed in several ways: (1) The causal use of etc is very rare at best and
perhapsunsubstantiated, (2) When the phrase cic &deow c&uaptidv occurs

24 R. Bruce Compton, “Water Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38,” Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal 4 (Fall 1999): 30-31.
Zoe bideesie
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 169

elsewhere in the New Testamentittindicatesiipurpose)

not cause.» (3)
Robertson himself admitted that his conclusion was determined by theology
and not grammar, and his theology failed to note that other baptismal texts
are in fact very similar to Acts 2:38 and demand a similarly strained
explanation if they are to fit hisana wea if the ae use of ao be
ee xt would still appear to say that th 1

The e60HA way to minimize the force of Acts 2:38 recognizes the
improbability of a causal sic but still sees in the text a threat to the idea of
salvation by grace through faith alone. The proposed solution is to connect
the purposive €ic to repentance (uetavoroate) rather than baptism, thus
making the baptismal clause a parent is.
is found within
Support hes the text
7 A = | | JONCTY Ay the sine 7 tYetinal me

orm of this amen ecusee onte pina DUG@V Pahich modifies the sins
which are to be forgiven, inferring that, “The concord between verb and
pronoun requires that the remission of sins be connected with repentance,
not with baptism.”
Although this exegesis may be possible, there are several weaknesses
in the argument: (1) The shift from plural to singular is explicable without
disconnecting baptism from forgiveness. The plural imperative for
repentance is appropriate in view of the fact that all the members of the
crowd could change their mind about Jesus simultaneously, but their
baptisms could only occur individually and sequentially. ‘In any case, the

(2) As the narrative continues, it is baptism which is noted in describing the

conversion of 3,000 persons (vs. 41), thus indicating its crucial character.

26 For anextended critique of this approach to Acts 2:38, see J. C. Davis, "Another Look
at the Relationship Between Baptism and Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38," Restoration
Quarterly 24 (1981): 80-88.
27 Stanley D. Toussaint, "Acts," in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament,
eds. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983), 359.
28 LutherB. McIntyre, Jr., “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38,” Bibliotheca Sacra 153
(January-March 1996): 55.
29 Compton, “Water Baptism,” 26.
170 More Than a Symbol

(3) Even if this parenthetical interpretation be accepted, repentance and

baptism are coordinated in a way that seems to view both as means to the
reception of the Spirit, Vanscunneiine. thespekenrenipl-peiuie 0°banism.
(4) This exegesis is rooted in the same sort of theological concerns as those
in Robertson's approach, but these concerns are phrased in a way that fails
to account for the actual baptismal language of the New Testament and thus
draws a false contrast between the "sacramental" and the "evangelical."
In the case of those who seek to explain away the obvious sense of Acts
2:38, there is a persistent inability to see or accept the distinction between
baptism as th j f the experience of personal salvation a
papers as the — ofsuch salvation.

anentance ang

heyri anita refrain

from Tate if ieee ies because the biblical text in question
does not envision an unbaptized but repentant person and St

Water versus Spirit

Traditional Christian exegesis has assumed that Pauline references to being
"baptized into Christ" (Rom 6:3; er to water-baptism as the
event in hich SOSA, and that Paul links
possession of the Holy Spirit and membership in the Church to water-
baptism (1 Cor 12:13), but some modern interpreters have argued that each
of these texts is actually a reference to baptism in the Spirit.
Many baptistic interpreters argue that the language of baptism "into
Christ" (etc Xptotov) is simply too strong to be referred to water-baptism,
their assumption being that such language would teach baptismal
regeneration, which is believed to be impossible.*” Some see a reference to
a symbolic water-baptism in Romans 6:4 (and the parallel Col 2:12) as the
element of personal experience which corresponds to the burial of Christ,
so that baptism confirms the person's previous (spiritual) "death with Christ"
at conversion, just as the burial of Christ confirmed his previous (physical)
death, even though the language of Romans 6:3 about baptism into Christ

30 John A. Witmer, "Romans," in Bible Knowledge Commentary, 461; Donald K.

Campbell, "Galatians," in Bible Knowledge Commentary, 600; Norman L. Geisler,
"Colossians," in Bible Knowledge Commentary, 677.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 171

and thus into his death is limited by them to Spirit-baptism.*!

Some interpreters outside the Baptist tradition have argued that Romans
6:3-4 implies nothing at all about any pictorial significance of water-baptism
and speaks exclusively of Spirit-baptism. The argument can be easily
developed: Paul speaks in Romans 6 of union with Christ and a baptism
which effects this; Paul elsewhere minimizes the significance of water-
baptism (1 Cor 1), but he affirms explicitly that believers are baptized by the
Spirit into Christ and his Body (1 Cor 12:13); therefore, “To argue that the
Apostle has water baptism in his mind in any shape or form here is to give
a prominence to baptism that the Apostle Paul never gives to it.”*?
Although he does not disconnect baptism from conversion in exactly the
same way as much of the Baptist tradition (in fact he criticizes the
Pentecostal type of baptistic thought at this very point), James Dunn (b.
1939) has argued that BantiCetv sic Xptotov should be read as a
metaphorical reference to Spirit-baptism as the means of incorporation into
Christ, while B&ntiopa denotes only the water ritual.*’
Although this interpretation is argued skillfully, especially by Dunn, it
is less than convincing. First, given the compressed nature of Paul's
argument in Romans 6, it seems highly unlikely that "baptized into his
death" in vs. 3 would denote only baptism in the Spirit, while "baptism into
death" in the next sentence would denote only baptism in water. Granted
that the spiritual realities in view may demand that more than water-baptism
is in view in vs. 3, it is still unlikely that water-baptism is absent from view
there if it is admittedly present in vs. 4. Since about 1640, Baptists have
wanted to see in Romans 6 a basis for the mode of immersion, due to the
symbol of burial and resurrection, while at the same time they have often
been nervous about the apparent indication that baptism actually unites the
individual to Christ, but they cannot have it both ways. water
If isin view
Rabiner he SEATS
Second, the imagery of baptism in the Spirit, as found in the Gospels
and in Acts 1:5, points to Christ as the baptizer who brings his people into
the sphere of the Spirit, but in both Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27 Christ
is the goal of the baptism rather than the baptizer. Although some fluidity

31 Witmer, 462; Geisler, 678.

32 D.M. Lloyd Jones, Romans: The New Man (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972), 34. See
also James Montgomery Boice, Romans, Vol. 2: The Reign of Grace, Romans 5-8
(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 660.
33 James D. G. Dunn, Baptism in the Holy Spirit (London: SCM Press, 1970), 109-112,
140-141; idem, Romans 1-8, Vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word
Books, 1988), 311-313, 327-330.
N72 More Than a Symbol

of language is allowable in the use of metaphors, the use of cic Xptotov

appears to connect Romans 6 to Matthew 28:19 (cic tO 6vopa) more
naturally than to the language about baptism év mvebpatt.
Third, the connection between baptism in water and baptism in the
Spirit is sufficiently close to question this bifurcationofwater and Spirit
which is being suggested. Although Christ's baptizing in the Holy Spirit is
contrasted to John's baptism, it is never contrasted to Christian baptism. In
fact, both Acts 2:38 and Acts 19:1-6 seem to assume that the norm is that
Christ would baptize in the Spirit in connection with baptism in water. If
this is true, then ius ai toSe peu inn Romans 6 or Galatians 3

The use oe l Corian 12:13, on the anes hand, presents more

problems, and the critique at this point may be well-founded. In that text
Paul explicitly names the Spirit as the in which Christians are
baptized, and the goal of the baptism is incorporation into the body of
Christ, the Church. Going back to the ministry of John, when the Holy
Spirit is named in relation to baptism it is by the phrase év mvebpatt, which
corresponds to év bdatt in the water-baptism of John. The text in question
uses the phrase év évi nvetUuatt, emphasizing that there is only one Spirit
shared by all Christians, but apart from the numerical adjective, the
language is precisely that of the Johannine promise about the work of the
Messiah. What Paul affirms here as the experience of all Christians is what
was promised through John, and that experience is phrased in language that
Aisplacesa ay, the medium of baptism.
It should be noted that the dominant theme of 1 Corinthians 12 is the
Holy Spirit. The entire context of the debated verse focuses on the Spirit,
both in terms of the unity located in the common possession of the same
Spirit and the appropriate diversity located in the manifestations of the
Spirit. Even if there is an allusion to water-baptism in vs. 13, the locus of
unity in this passage is the Spirit, not baptism.** Accordingly, in vs. 13 év
éVvl TvEevuaTt stands first for emphasis, and the verb éBanttoOnpev comes
only at the end of the clause. Paul's point in this passage does not depend
on any reference to water-baptism.
It might be argued that even though the primary reference in this text is
to baptism in the Spirit, the very use of the term "baptize" points to a
in which
case this text would affirm that water-baptism is also the occasion for the

34 As argued convincingly by Gordon D. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy

Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994), 179-180.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 173

gift of the Spirit. However, this connection between water and Spirit cannot
successfully be established simply on the basis of the term "baptize,"
because there is evidence for a purely metaphorical use of the term going
back to Jesus (Mark 10:38; Luke 12:50). Dunn's point here is well-taken:
the terminology is sometimes metaphorical, and 1 Corinthians 12:13 may
well be one example, especially in
i view of the fact that the medium of the
baptis irit. It should also be noted
that the verse in question refers to the gift of the Spirit in two ways: the first
in terms of baptism, and the second in terms of drinking (émottoO@npev).
The second manner of description clearly does not arise from baptism and
is thoroughly metaphorical, which lends support to the metaphorical sense
of the first description as well.*°
Some have argued that if Paul is to achieve his purpose of teaching the
unity of the body of Christ,

eer er ne aie assumes a water-

nai mes a
tangible, public sign of unity in contrast to the invisible and somewhat
nebulous Spirit-baptism, but this would be an anachronistic approach to
Paul's argument. Dunn is accurate when he asserts that within the New
Testament the gift of the Spirit is viewed as essential evidence of being a
Christian and an experienced reality which can be known as a fact.*° For
example, it was recognized as a fact that the Samaritans had not received the
Spirit at their baptism and that they did later receive him (Acts 8), and Paul
asked the Ephesian "disciples" whether they had received the Spirit when
they believed, assuming that they knew the answer (Acts 19). However
strange it may seem to modern Christiani exPericn c+(ia eee

Therefore, although it appears that Paul believed that there was a normative
connection between baptism and the Holy Spirit (Acts 19), he also seemed
to believe that baptism in the Spirit was just as definite an experience as
baptism in water, so that his appeal to baptism in the Spirit in this text may
be perfectly meaningful apart from baptism in water.
Although Baptist sacramentalists have referred repeatedly to 1
Corinthians 12:13 as support for their theology of baptism, the same
conclusions can be reached without this support. It may be that this Pauline

35 Ibid., 180.
36 Dunn, Baptism in Spirit, 229.
174 More Than a Symbol

statement links water and the Spirit in a way that was clear to his original
readers, but at this distance in time this is not self-evident.

Baptist Hermeneutical Criticisms

Most Baptist criticisms of a sacramental view of baptism lie in the
exegetical areas as noted above, but at least one Baptist scholar has accepted
the exegetical conclusions without affirming the theological synthesis. In
1968 William E. Hull (b. 1920), a Southern Baptist scholar, wrote a critique
of Beasley-Murray's Baptism in the New Testament which was intended to
be a response to "a significant new development in the study of New
Testament baptism," as seen in "the findings put forth recently by a group
of British Baptists," of which Beasley-Murray's work is taken to be the
outstanding statement.*’ Accordingly, Hull's critique, although focused on
Beasley-Murray, was directed at the entire reformulation of baptismal
theology which is being analysed in this study.
Hull summarized the recent British view in terms of three fundamental
contentions: that baptism is a confessional act of the baptizand; that baptism
is an integral part of conversion; and that baptism is sacramental, an
effective symbol embodying God's gracious action. His initial response was
this:

We may begin with a surprising concession: most of the exegesis of

the relevant passages is thorough and accurate. Beasley-Murray is
at his best as an interpreter of the Greek text and I doubt if his
findings at this level should be seriously modified.**

Although this would be the final word for some interpreters (especially
Baptists), he asserted that "exegetical findings are but the indispensable raw
materials out of which the house of meaning must be built."*° Beyond the
details of exegesis of particular texts, there are broader issues to be
addressed which "raise the very questions which Beasley-Murray must
answer before we can accept his exalted claims for the place of baptism in
the New Testament."“° There were three crucial issues to be considered.
(1) The relation between the Old Testament and the New Testament.

37 William E. Hull, "Baptism in the New Testament: a Hermeneutical Critique," Review

and Expositor 65, no. 1 (Winter 1968): 3.
38 Ibid., 4.
39° bids:
40 Ibid.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 175

Any genuinely Christian perspective must recognize both continuity and

discontinuity between the Testaments, but Hull claimed that Beasley-
Murray overstated the discontinuity between the Testaments and was able
to exalt baptism only by questioning the reality of religious experience under
the old covenant. To refer as Beasley-Murray does to the old covenant in
terms of "death. . .flesh. . .old creation. . . and life of this age" seemed to be
seriously out of balance, given that these realities are also present in new
covenant experience, and their opposites are present within the Old
Testament. Hull argued:

From a unified biblical perspective, the normative elements in.

Thus Tamaiiacouionable raeee Belicralication’s to the

effect that baptism is a unique vehicle of the divine encounter,
because this emphasis minimizes, or may even radically call into
question, the quality of religious experience in the Old Testament.*!

Hull concluded this criticism by noting Beasley-Murray's concession that

Paul's classic description of faith in Romans 4 is that of Abraham's faith
prior to circumcision, that is, faith which is "wholly independent of an
external rite."*”
In response to Hull, it should be noted that the locus of continuity
between the covenants lies not calsin certain
IDeess elements of religious
experience, yf pr > an: fillmen
attempted to demonstrate that Nee Tastanient eNes like "life, Spirit, new
creation, and age to come" occur in the Old Testament as well, all but one
of his proof-texts came from the latter part of Isaiah and looked forward to
these as anticipated rather than realized, and the other text (Deut 30:15)
envisioned only the possibility of "life" through obedience to the covenant
stipulations. By the time of the exile the prophets had concluded that a
radically new, internalized pots of Ged mould be necessary if Israel would

;sh continuity between the covenants may in fact support

41 Ibid., 6.
42 Ibid., 6-7, quoting Beasley-Murray, BNT, 303.
176 More Than a Symbol

sacramentalism as much as it seems to question it. While Paul's exposition

of Abraham's faith does indicate that no ritual act is ultimately decisive in
a person's acceptance before God, it is equally true that the patterns of the
aecovenant show ae ee acts a ET ERR Der RESTS

sacramentalisism tries en “nite enlaces PE that great effects

are predicated of baptism in the New Testament not because baptism is
more powerful than Old Testament rituals, but because the benefits
experienced by the new covenant community (to which baptism unites
believers in Christ) are greater than those of the old covenant.
(2) The historical Jesus and the kerygmatic Christ. As far as one can
tell from the Gospel accounts, Jesus had very little to say about baptism, and
he and his disciples practised baptism only briefly in an early Judean
ministry. If the message and mission of the historical Jesus are to be
determinative for Christian thought, then it would appear that baptism's
significance may be minimal. To magnify its significance, then, as Beasley-
Murray did, was in Hull's view to exaggerate the discontinuity between
Jesus and the Church and "to suggest the inferior situation of the disciples
during the earthly ministry, when Christian baptism was not yet available,
as compared with their superior situation following the earthly ministry,
when baptism was freely administered."** This is not simply an argument
from silence, because Jesus' attitude toward baptism is seen not only in his
virtual silence on the subject, but also in "the way in which he offered
forgiveness without recourse to any cultic apparatus (e.g., Mk. 2:5; Lk.
7:47; 8:48). He was the visible organ of mediation; neither sacrificial
animals nor Jordan waters were needed."“* How, then, can baptism take on
the significance which Beasley-Murray gave to it?
In response, it may be said that there are various factors which might
account for the (apparently) minimal practice of baptism during Jesus'
a se iy aaah with,Eee baptism was eae by Jesus

Ifa wiaiotpurpose oface Finale isto aiovids a bncible siafi

of God's presence and action, then such rituals can hardly have their normal
significance when the Incarnate Lord is visibly present. To take an analogy,

43 Ibid., 7.
44 Ibid., 8.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations WET,

the spiritual discipline of fasting wasrelativizedby the personal presence

of Christ, even though he recognized that after his earthly ministry the
practice would again be relevant (Mark 2:18-20).
Hull was accurate in his claim that Beasley-Murray asserted the
superiority of the post-Pentecostal experience of Christ's disciples, but this
agrees with the Fourth Gospel's account of Jesus' teaching, in which he
indicates ee hispeereddelgeanwill Bs to eseiibeaes of his ees Cohn

39). In New Testamentsterms, those ae ecu disciples

during Jesus' Sibls ministry were at that time in transition toward the new
covenant, but their experience was not equivalent to what it became after
Easter and Pentecost. It is true that Beasley-Murray asserted that baptism
"assumed a transformed meaning" after Pentecost,” but this was not an
en Aenew eee in baptism as lr er

(3) Unity and diversity in the New Testament church. Hull argued that
Beasley-Murray was excessively confident about his ability to speak of the
doctrine of Christian baptism in the New Testament, as if there were a
consistent emphasis on baptism throughout the apostolic witness. He noted:

When I read Beasley-Murray's cumulative exegesis of baptismal

passages lifted out of their original settings and strung together, the
effect is very different from a reading of each New Testament
document separately with an eye to the importance which baptism
has within it.“°

For example, it may be true that Colossians 2:11-12 is Paul's commentary

on his treatment of baptism in Romans 6:1-4, but neither the Colossians nor
the Romans were able to read Paul's teaching in this canonical fashion. It
is also true that more than half of the Pauline epistles do not mention
baptism, and that the subject is missing from most of the General Epistles
and the Apocalypse as well. One is forced, therefore, to ask whether
baptism is so important after all. Perhaps it is only a flat, simplistic reading
of the New Testament which will support this exalted view of baptism.

45 Ibid., 7, quoting Beasley-Murray, BN7, 280.

46 Ibid., 9-10.
178 More Than a Symbol

This criticism has some merit, especially in view of the fact that most
of the New Testament references to baptism occur only as subordinate
propositions used to teach other truths. For example, Romans 6 and
Colossians 2 are fundamentally about the present ethical impact of union
with Christ, and Galatians 3 is focused on the equality of Jews and Gentiles
in the people a
9 God. At titeage eat this iisto serve asa reminder that

As Hull noted, TEE STE fouits HERE upon suc Actors as grace
and faith, but grace and faith do not depend on baptism."*”
But having accepted this valuable caution against magnifying baptism
out of biblical proportion, it is still necessary to interpret the baptismal texts
which we do have, and they do seem to speak of baptism as
Given the relative paucity and
brevity of the baptismal texts, but given also the strength of these texts, one
possible inference is that they imply the existence of a widely taught and
well understood doctrine of baptismal efficacy which needed little
explanation. Perhaps the words with which Paul begins his baptismal
statement in OES .a7) wee ‘Or are you ignorant ..oni

HIGH iS natwevideibed heath in ite biblical canon. In the ana our

understanding of the apostolic doctrine of baptism must be derived from
apostolic aplefetiee toOK pees those be many or few, and the

At the ond aehis STO Hull admit that his assessment of Beasley-
Murray's work was much more positive than negative, and his differences
with the British reformulation were "of degree rather than kind," although
he was convinced that this British spokesman "has overstated his case for
the centrality of baptism in the canon, in conversion, and in the church."**
However, to say that baptism is not as central to biblical religion as Beasley-
Murray nee! it to Beis not to aaythat pee is notcram enes:_—

Karl Barth's Critique of Sacramentalism

When Karl Barth attacked infant baptism in 1943, he still held to an
essentially Calvinistic conception of baptism as a means of cognitio salutis,

47 Ibid., 10.
48 Ibid., 11.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 179

steering a middle course between the Catholic tradition and the purely
symbolic view of Zwingli and the Anabaptists.“” But in 1951 his son,
Markus, published his book Die Taufe--ein Sakrament?, which gave a
negative answer to the question of the title. The elder Barth was persuaded
by his son's research and lamented the fact that his arguments had been
largely ignored.°° Therefore, in the final part-volume of the Church
Dogmatics (1V/4), which appeared in 1967 in German and in 1969 in
English, this exegesis was summarized and restated in support of a non-
GAGIBIRGRIA NUE Denise In view of Barth's shift to a baptistic view of
the subjects of baptism, his critique of sacramentalism may have special
relevance for Baptists. Although he did not interact directly with the British
Baptists, his treatment of the subject is one of the most sustained arguments
against sacramentalism in print, and its exegetical focus makes it especially
relevant as a critique of the Baptist position.
Barth argued in his final statement on baptism that it is the foundation
Mieieiaeupiabedienneeniiachasian It is "the first step of the life
of faithfulness to God, . . . the binding confession of his obedience,
conversion and hope, made in prayer for God's grace, wherein he honours
the freedom of this grace."°' Baptism with water bears witness to the divine
work in Jesus Christ, but it is not itself a divine work. Although a
sacramental view of baptism purportedly affirms the significance of the rite,
Barth argued otherwise:

The praise of baptism is not served but fatefully damaged if the

sanctity of this action issought, not inthetrue and distinctive thing
ut in a supposedly
immanent divine work.*

He recognized that the label "sacramental" covers a wide range of concepts

from the ex opere operato view of the Catholic tradition to the Reformed
view of baptism as a means of conveying the knowledge and assurance of
Prmanalealaligy (Barth's earlier view), but he rejected this entire spectrum
of views. As he saw it, the common error of all these concepts was the
assumption that there must be a divine work concealed in the humanly-

49 Karl Barth, Zhe Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism, trans. Ernest A. Payne
(London: SCM Press, 1948), 25-30.
50 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics IV/4, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark,
1969), x.
Sie bide?)
52 Ibid., 101.
180 More Than a Symbol

administered event.”?
This rejection of sacramentalism and the description of baptism as the
initial step of obedience in the Christian life superficially looks like just one
more statement of the traditional (non- Saale ec view,ut Barth
emphasized that sb is not iescase. is t u tiv

ofIseexperience,shanti occurs as a testimony not oly to the objective

work of Christ, but also to a prior experience in which the gospel has been
assuredly appropriated. With regard to such views Barth said:

There is a certain similarity in so far as this understanding, too,

carries with it an explicit criticism of the sacramental interpretation.
On closer examination, however, it will not be overlooked that this
is the only point of agreement, and that the context and meaning of
this criticism are obviously very different from ours. If in this
understanding the sacramental view of water baptism 1s rejected or
avoided--often far too hastily and critically... eas

This work as such is then invested with the sacramental

interpretation denied to water baptism, and it is thus identified with
the baptism
oftheSpirit.
Accordingly, Barth's criticism of sacramentalist exegesis must be considered
separately here. This book will examine his treatment of New Testament
texts normally used to support sacramentalism, and seek to isolate the
crucial theological factors which are inherent in his exegesis. It should be
noted that there are some surprising omissions from the list of texts
considered. For example, although he alluded at various points to both Acts
2:38 and | Corinthians 12:13 (the latter accepted as a reference to water-
baptism), neither text was treated in the list of proof-texts for
sacramentalism. 1 Corinthians 6:11, which connects a "washing" to both
justification and sanctification and is commonly taken as an allusion to
baptism, was ignored even though some more obscure references were

53 Ibid., 102-107.
54 Ibid., 106.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 181

considered (e.g., | John 5:5-8; John 19:33-37). But having pointed out
these omissions (which are not insignificant), this study will now consider
the texts which Barth does discuss, using his own order for this analysis.

Acts 22:16
Paul's account of his own conversion, in which Ananias exhorted him to
"wash away" his sins by "calling on the Lord" in the act of baptism seems
to represent baptism as a vehicle of the forgiveness of sins. Barth's reply to
this inference was centred on the fact that a resolute human act is demanded
of Saul: "This appeal and the use of the middle Bamticat show that no
wonderful experience of grace is held out to Saul."*’ The central issue here
is the petition ("calling on his name"), Saul's active prayer that God will
forgive him for his sins. Such a petition presupposes an acknowledgment
of the truth about Jesus Christ, so that Saul "has already experienced the
grace" of the Lord, "the One by whom his sins are already washed away."”°
It is difficult to feel the force of Barth's reading of this text. First, the
reminder that a human act is in view here is accurate but beside the point.
All would agree that the baptism of a confessing believer is a human act of
the baptized person, but the question is whether a divine act is thought to
occur also in the event. Second, Barth recognized that the forgiveness
which is in view is in some sense the "goal" of Saul's action, the object of
his prayer. When Barth said that Saul had already experienced the grace of
forgiveness, he must have been using "experienced" in an abnormal way to
describe the objective reconciliation achieved in the work of Christ. The
forgiveness here to be prayed for must be a subjective cleansing not yet
accomplished. But this is connected to baptism, which is another way of
saying that the baptism is sacramental, a means by which the divine act of
forgiveness is mediated. In Beasley-Murray's words, baptism here is "the
supreme occasion and even vehicle of his yielding to the Lord Christ,"”” and
the conscious appropriation of Christ's vicarious work.

Hebrews 10:22
This text uses Old Testament imagery to describe believers under the new
covenant as those whose hearts are "sprinkled" and whose bodies are

55 Ibid., 112.
56 Ibid.
57 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 102.
182 More Than a Symbol

"washed with pure water." Although there is no explicit reference to

baptism, Barth agreed that the reference to water is so vivid "that there is
actual allusion to water baptism."°* But all this must be related to the major
theme of the epistle, i.e., the uniqueness and finality of the priestly work of
Christ. Barth wrote:

According to the whole tenor of Hebrews there are no cleansings

apart from that which took place in the death of Jesus Christ;
neither that of the old covenant nor any new ones which might
replace it.°°

Granted the finality and perfection of the death of Jesus Christ, it was
argued that baptism can be nothing more than a reminder of the once-for-all
cleansing effected in the atonement, not a means of cleansing itself.
The allusion to baptism is difficult to deny, not only because of the
references to water, but also because the exhortation of vs. 23 is "almost
certainly an appeal to maintain the confession made in baptism."® But there
is no reason to limit the force of the allusion as Barth did. It is true that a
major theme of the epistle is the truth that the death of Christ was the
sufficient and final cleansing sacrifice, but the question remains: how does
that sacrifice become operative in the individual? How does one enter into
the "full assurance of faith" noted in vs. 22? Apparently this occurs through
the event indicated in the last clause of the verse, 1.e., baptism. To quote
Beasley-Murray, "The meeting place of the sanctifying power of Christ's
death and the individual is the baptism wherein the believer turns to God in
faith for cleansing through Christ."°' As Barth noted in his treatment of
Acts 22:16, there is both an objective cleansing which occurred in the past
in the atoning death of Christ and a subjective cleansing for which the
believer prays in the act of baptism. Baptism is indeed a reminder of the
objective cleansing, but the allusion in this text seems to say what other
texts say more explicitly, that baptism is not merely a reminder.

Ephesians 5:25-56
Jesus Christ's sanctification of the church is here said to occur "by the

58 Barth, /V/4, 112.

SOM bidealiss
60 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 250.
61 Ibid.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 183

washing with water through the word." Barth conceded that the reference
to water makes it impossible not to think of baptism when reading the text.
But did the readers think of baptism as the occasion of their cleansing or as
the vivid reminder of the death of Christ which was their real cleansing?
Barth argued that the crux of this interpretive question is whether there are
two acts of Christ in view (his sacrificial death and a subsequent cleansing
of the church) or only one (his death which effectively cleansed the church).
He concluded that if these are two distinct things, then "this sentence or
clause undoubtedly ascribes a sacramental character to the cleansing and
thus to the act of baptism."®’ Having admitted that the Aovtpdév tod
tdatoc clearly brings baptism to mind, he conceded that the sacramental
interpretation is possible and understandable, but he denied that it is
necessary. He suggested instead that this sanctification-cleansing is simply
arestatement of what happened in the love and self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
The sacrifice of Christ is the "true cleansing of the community . . . the goal
of water baptism, which is reflected in its technical administration, but
which naturally does not take place in and with this."°? But why should this
reading be accepted rather than the sacramental one? The one reason that
Barth gave is that this interpretation construes the "word" (67juc) as the
work of Christ which is a "living and present" word still at work, and this is
supposedly a "much more natural and fruitful interpretation" of év pryuati
than any of the interpretations connected with the baptismal confession.“
In reply it may be said that Barth has simply suggested an alternative
exegesis of this text, but his alternative is not compelling. His exegesis
pointed in two directions, in that he wanted to read the cleansing of the text
as areference to the objective work of Golgotha, but at the same time to see
it as the "goal of water baptism." Now to say that the cleansing is the goal
of baptism is surely to say that we are talking about the application of the
atonement to individuals, but this is what Barth needed to avoid to sustain
his exegesis. It is also not clear that 67jua most naturally refers to the work
of Christ; it is generally conceded that 67ji1a, as opposed to Ayoc, tends to
denote a spoken word, indicating the natural connection between this term
and the verbal confession and invocation of the Lord in baptism. In the end,
it seems that Barth was straining to avoid the obvious in this passage. If this
reference to water points to baptism, but without implying a sacramental
significance, then the language of the text can only be called confusing.

62 Barth, /V/4, 113.

63 Ibid., 114.
64 Ibid.
184 More Than a Symbol

Tiniss®:

This text refers to a "washing" or "bath" (Aovtpd6v) which is related to

"regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit," and Barth admitted that this
is probably an allusion to baptism. He added, "If this Aovtpov is identical
with the act of baptism, then, since it can be taken only instrumentally and
causatively, a sacramental meaning has uncontestably to be ascribed to
baptism."® He argued that a direct reference to baptism here faces at least
five serious difficulties: (1) This would make the two words 61a AOVTPOD
the focus of the whole extended statement about God's saving grace. (2)
This would make baptism as such the primary goal of the epiphany of Jesus
Christ. (3) This posits a second cleansing distinct from the cleansing death
of Christ referred to in Titus 2:14. (4) This gives to maAiyyeveota an
individualistic meaning different from its cosmic reference in its other New
Testament occurrence (Matt 19:28). (5) This makes the baptism with the
Spirit identical to or coincident with baptism with water, contrary to the
Gospels and Acts.°°
What, then, is this Aovtpd6v? Based on Old Testament prophetic
language about eschatological purification and the Spirit, Barth asserted:

The cleansing bath. . . is the purifying and renewing outpouring of

the Holy Spirit which has taken place on the basis of the new
creation ushered in by the Saviour God in the history of Jesus
Christ.°’

This exegesis allows "regeneration" to be understood as cosmic renewal as

in Matthew 19:28, interprets the "cleansing" in the spiritual sense clearly
present in the prophets, and thus reduces baptism to no more than a vague
allusion here. Although this is a possible interpretation of the text, it is
necessary to ask whether the allusion might be more than a glance in the
direction of baptism. Specifically, one needs to examine each of Barth's five
reasons for denying the direct reference to baptism.
(1) Identifying the Aovtpév as baptism does not make 81& AOvTPOD
the central point of the passage any more than any other interpretation. The
fact of God's saving mercy toward foolish sinners is clearly the point of the
passage, whatever the means may be. (2) The second argument is open to
the same criticism as the first; in fact it is essentially a restatement of the

65 Ibid., 114.
66 Ibid., 114-115.
67 Ibid., 115.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 185

first argument. It may well be true that some sacramentalists exalt baptism
unduly, allowing it to usurp the role of Christ himself, but this is not
inherent in the baptismal exegesis of this text as long as baptism is merely
an instrument utilized as a vehicle of God's action. (3) Concerning Titus
2:14 two points may be made. First, that statement indicates that Christ's
self-sacrifice was for the purpose of cleansing sinners, but this does not in
itself indicate the temporal relationship between the two, i.e., whether the
cleansing follows immediately or at some length. Second, there is no real
problem with the idea of two cleansings related to the atonement, one an
objective fact provided once-for-all and the other an individual-subjective
cleansing appropriated by faith. Barth himself accepted this duality in his
treatment of Acts 22:16, as noted above. Furthermore, even if the Aovtpév
of Titus 3:5 is, as Barth asserted, the objective and cosmic outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, this is still a second reality dependent on, but different from, the
self-sacrifice of Christ. (4) There is no reason why the idea of
"regeneration" could not have both an individual and a cosmic application.
The text to which Barth pointed (Matt 19:28) is the only other occurrence
of this word in the New Testament, and this is hardly enough evidence to
establish a pattern which would govern Titus 3:5. (5) The radical
disjunction which Barth posited between baptism with water and baptism
with the Spirit is not supported by the New Testament evidence. The
contrast which he noted in the Gospels and Acts is between John's baptism
with water and Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is a contrast
between preparation and fulfillment, but whether the contrast still applies
in the case of post-Pentecostal water-baptism is another matter and must be
decided on the basis of post-Pentecostal apostolic witness. As argued
above, the evidence seems to point to a normative, though not invariable,
connection between water and the Spirit.

Galatians 3:27

This passage serves to illustrate the general New Testament truth that the
effects ascribed to faith and those ascribed to baptism are the same. A
statement about the readers! faith (vs. 26) is explained in terms of their
baptism (vs. 27), which is the basis for Beasley-Murray's representative
conclusion:

Baptism is the baptism of faith and grace, so that in it faith receives

what grace gives. Above all grace gives Christ, for Christ is the
186 More Than a Symbol

fullness of grace; faith therefore receives Christ in baptism.

Barth saw this text as more than an allusion; it is rather a statement about
the fundamental meaning of baptism. As such, "It could lend support to a
sacramental view of baptism,"”’ but this was rejected as out of harmony with
the general argument of the epistle. Barth argued that if baptism is the
initiation into salvation (as opposed to circumcision), then one would expect
more than this one isolated reference to it in an epistle devoted to the
refutation of Judaizing tendencies. But rather than emphasizing baptism as
the alternative to circumcision, Paul grounds human salvation in the work
of Christ with only faith and the work of the Spirit "as the condition of its
subjective actualization."”°
This minimal reference to baptism in Galatians, as opposed to the focus
on faith, does make it clear that baptism has no independent power to
convey the benefits provided in Christ, but its relative importance cannot be
so easily refuted. The fact that Paul can so naturally shift from faith in 3:26
to baptism in 3:27 should warn us not to drive a wedge between them.
Similarly, Paul does not mention repentance at all in Galatians (and only a
few times in any of his epistles), but surely this does not negate the essential
place of repentance in Christian conversion, and indeed in Paul's preaching
(Acts 17:30; 20:21; 26:20). Faith is opposed to circumcision as interpreted
by the Judaizers, but faith is not opposed to baptism, and Galatians 3:27
seems to clearly indicate that for Paul baptism is the event in which faith 1s
expressed and Christ is consciously appropriated, which is to say that
baptism is in some sense sacramental.

Romans 6:3-4

This Pauline text may well be the /ocus classicus for a sacramental
conception of baptism, but Barth denied that this passage teaches a spiritual
dying and rising with Christ as aresult of baptism. He noted that what Paul
does say is that we were buried with Christ through baptism. "This verse
does not say, however, that baptism was the change in which this dying (not
to speak of their entry into new life) took place."”! For Jesus his burial was
"the final confirmation that he truly died."”* This confirmatory function

68 Beasley-Murray, BNT7, 151.

69 Barth, /V/4, 116.
70 Ibid.
Tl eibids 117.
72 ibid:
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 187

applies also to Christian baptism:

This burial with him, their baptism . . . is the regular confirmation

of the fact that they have died with Him and in Him. It is not the
actual conclusion of their existence as sinners, but the dramatic
concluding line which denotes it.”

Baptism, according to this reading of the text, confirms and signifies that we
died with Christ when he died and looks forward to our resurrection at the
Parousia. Baptism, like the burial of Christ, stands between death and
resurrection. What saves us is the once-for-all vicarious work of Jesus
Christ. "Baptism cannot be--as though this were necessary--a repetition,
extension, re-presentation or actualisation of the saving event which is the
true theme of the argument in v. 2-10."”*
There are two major problems with Barth's reading of this important
text. First, it is impossible to evade the reference of the text to a present,
experiential entrance into new life which is rooted in the prior, historical
death and resurrection of Christ. Vs. 11 exhorts Christians to consider
themselves already "dead to sin but alive to God," which assumes that they
have not only "died" with Christ but also have been "raised" with him.
There is to be sure a future share in the resurrection of Christ at the Parousia
(vs. 5), and the language of resurrection is not explicitly applied to the
present in vs. 4, but the connection there between Christ's being "raised
from the dead" and the Christian's "walk in newness of life" points to a kind
of "resurrection" now in anticipation of the eschaton. Vss. 15-23 describe
this present transformation of human existence in terms of release from
slavery to sin and entrance into slavery to God and righteousness, and the
transformation is linked to the time when the readers “became obedient
from the heart to the form of teaching” embodied in the gospel (vs. 17).
This memorable response to the gospel which marks the transfer from the
sphere of sin/death to that of righteousness/life must be included in the
event to which the readers have already been recalled (vss. 3-4), 1.e., their
baptism. What baptism into Christ signifies, then, is not merely what
happened at the first advent and will happen at the Parousia, but also the
present manifestation of salvation.
Second, Barth’s denial that baptism is viewed in this text as a means of
grace does not follow from his assertion that baptism is viewed there as a

73 Ibid.
74 Ibid., 118.
188 More Than a Symbol

human Yes to God’s work in Christ. His understanding of baptism as a

genuinely human, and thus morally significant, act is fully compatible with
a doctrine of baptism in which the divine work in baptism includes a
response to the human obedience of faith. In fact, if the human faith
expressed in baptism is answered by a work of grace in baptism that makes
the vicarious obedience of Christ effective in individual experience, then the
human act of baptism is clearly significant in its effects. Therefore, it may
be argued that Barth’s denial of a divine act mediated through baptism
serves to reduce the significance of the human response embodied in the
event, in spite of his protests to the contrary.

Colossians 2:12
This text echoes Romans 6 in its assertion of a link between baptism and the
entrance into new life in Christ, but all this 1s here subordinate to a
description of salvation in terms of a "circumcision of Christ" which is "not
a circumcision done by human hands." This is commonly interpreted as an
equation between baptism and the circumcision of Christ (or "Christian
circumcision"), thus making baptism the means of "putting off the body of
flesh" (i.e., moral renewal), but Barth challenged this view. He pointed out
that baptism can hardly be called an act which is done without human
hands, and beyond this it would be strange to put this kind of emphasis on
any ritual in an epistle which is largely devoted to a refutation of Jewish-
Gnostic ritualism.” He proposed instead that the "circumcision of Christ"
is not a circumcision done by Christ, but a circumcision done to Christ by
putting off his "body of flesh" in his crucifixion.’° This is admittedly an
unusual way to describe the crucifixion, but it is very appropriate in this
epistle which is an attack on a heresy in which false ideas of circumcision
were significant.
This is an interesting and plausible exegesis of this text, but it fails to
refute the sacramental character of baptism, because sacramentalism does
not depend on identifying baptism with "the circumcision of Christ."
Beasley-Murray, for example, agreed with Barth's equation of "circumcision
of Christ" with the crucifixion, but still inferred sacramentalism from the
text.’” Barth's exegesis put the focus on the objective work of Christ, but the
text also seems to denote the subjective realization of this work with the

75 Ibid., 119.
76 Ibid.
77 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 152-153.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 189

statement, "In him you were also circumcised" (vs. 1 1), an experience which
is explained by the words, "having been buried with him in baptism" (vs.
12). The most natural way to read the passage seems to be that baptism is
the event in which this "circumcision of Christ" affects the individual
"through faith."

John 3:5

Jesus' declaration to Nicodemus that personal "rebirth" is £&€ bSatoc Kai

mvevuatoc has served as a classic proof-text for a sacramental view of
baptism, but Barth turned it into a refutation of sacramentalism. He
admitted that this reference to water must denote baptism, given that this
chapter is part of the story of John's baptism and its relationship to Jesus
(and his baptism--4:1-2). Other meanings have been suggested for this
"water," but as Barth noted, the reference to baptism can be denied only by
disconnecting it from its immediate literary context.’ But how exactly is
baptism treated here?

Might it not turn out that there is here a protest against the idea of
a work or revelation of salvation in baptism and thus against the
baptismal belief which was held in the surrounding world and
which was perhaps widespread, or was just arising, in certain
circles in the community itself?”

Barth supported this inference by comparing "water and Spirit" to other

"pairs-in-tension" in the Gospel of John, such as "grace and truth" (1:17),
"spirit and truth" (4:23), "resurrection and life" (11:25). He interpreted this
form as follows:

The second word, connected by a xat, certainly refers to the same

thing as the first. Hence it does not set a second thing alongside
that first mentioned. The accent, however, is always on the second,
so that the order is not reversible. In this irreversible order a step
is taken, a critical synthesis made, in which the second member
totally explains the first, absorbs it, and thus completely replaces
ic

78 Barth, /V/4, 120.

79 Ibid., 121.
80 Ibid.
190 More Than a Symbol

When this methodology is applied to John 3:5, the "Spirit" absorbs the
"water," which is attested by the Gospel's reference to the Spirit as the
"living water" (4:10-11; 7:38). The Spirit's baptism is thus the only truly
effective baptism, the only one that regenerates. The Gospel thus lodges a
protest against any tendency to slip into a magical view of baptism, a
Christianized form of Hellenistic religion. All this is intimated in John 3 in
that when the new birth is referred to again in vss. 6 and 8, it is simply é«
mvevpatoc, the water having disappeared.*'
This may well be an insightful look at this text in some ways, but Barth
seems not to have proved all that he wanted to prove. In the first place, he
seems to have overstated the degree to which the second member of a
Johannine pair-in-tension absorbs the first. Does truth really replace grace
(1:17) or minimize the importance of spirit (4:23)? Does the water from the
Lord's side nullify the blood (19:34)? His description of such pairs does not
really seem adequate to explain the data. Second, while the focus on
"Spirit" rather than "water" in John 3 does seem to indicate that the former
is necessary and effective in a way that the latter is not, virtually all
sacramentalists would agree. But the fact remains that "water" is
mentioned, although in a way that denotes a kind of necessity which is
admittedly secondary and not absolute. The text may well be a polemic
against magical, pagan views of baptism, emphasizing the ultimate necessity
of the sovereign work of the Spirit of God, but this does not rule out a
carefully nuanced sacramentalism, certainly nota Reformed sacramentalism
which was once Barth's view.

Mark 16:16
Although the consensus of textual critics would deny the originality of Mark
16:9-20, Barth ignored this detail and considered it as a possible
sacramental proof-text. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved"
clearly lends itself to such use. Barth first noted that when the New
Testament refers to "salvation" in either nominal or verbal form, both the
meaning and the subject are ambiguous and must be determined by the
context. The salvation in view may be either eschatological liberation from
death or a present manifestation of liberation. The subject is in most cases
God, but in other cases it 1s the gospel, the preacher, faith, or the recipient.
Now the meaning is quite clear here; it is a reference to eschatological
acceptance by God, since the alternative in this text is to disbelieve and be

81 Ibid.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 191

condemned (the verb is kataxptv@). This leaves baptism in view as a

means to final salvation, but Barth argued that baptism's connection with
faith diminishes the sacramental force:

Baptism saves because, like faith and with it, it is an element in the
action God has entrusted to and enjoined upon those who will be
saved by God and who are saved already in hope in Him. It is a
human work which is, like faith, wholly appropriate and
indispensably proper to their position.®

If Barth was right in his suggestion that faith and baptism stand in
essentially the same relation to salvation, then he conceded the case for
sacramentalism.,1f anything is clear in the New Testament, surely it is that
faith is a means by which salvation is individually received, not a
meritorious basis of salvation, to be sure, but a means of entrance into
salvation nevertheless. If this is also the case with baptism, then baptism
seeks salvation as its goal, and this is sacramentalism.

I Peter.3:21

This text is even more explicit than Mark 16:16, in that it straightforwardly
says that "baptism now saves you." Barth treated the text in two places, first
as a parallel to Mark 16:16 and later at the end of his volume in his positive
development of the meaning of baptism. The first stage of his treatment is
open to the same objection as above for Mark 16:16. In the second stage he
suggested that this is the clearest definition of baptism in the New
Testament. Baptism is here described as a prayer, assuming that the
positive part of the statement should be rendered "request to God for a good
conscience." The significant thing about baptism, then, is not the
administration of the ritual, but the human act of prayer (énepdtnuc)
embodied in it. Barth found support for his anti-sacramentalism in the
negative part of the description, "not the removal of the filth of the flesh":

Baptism is not their cleansing and renewal, their justification and

sanctification, their regeneration, their endowment with the Holy
Spirit. All this takes place through God's work and word in Jesus

82 Ibid., 122.
192 More Than a Symbol

Christ, not through any work of man, even though the man be a
Christian and the work baptism. What takes place in baptism is
neither the work of salvation nor the revelation of salvation. There
could be no clearer rejection of every sacramental understanding of
baptism than that given here.*’

If Barth was right in his exegesis of the positive part of Peter's

statement, i.e., if baptism is an acted prayer for salvation, then it is difficult
to understand the sense in which this is non-sacramental. From that
perspective salvation is at least conveyed through baptism, although not
necessarily in the very act of baptism, but this is simply to affirm that God
is not manipulated by human action (even divinely-mandated human
action). Any denial of sacramentalism in this text would have to be located
in its negative aspect concerning the "removal of the filth of the flesh."
Barth defended the exegesis which reads this as a reference to the moral
renewal of human nature under the conditions of this age, which 1s based on
one possible meaning of o&p&.** Although this would be its common
meaning in Pauline literature, it is not at all clear that it means this here.
The word oapé is used five other times in | Peter 3:18-4:6, and there it
consistently seems to mean simply "body," especially when it refers to the
sufferings of Christ as "in the flesh" (capxi—3:18; 4:1). It seems clear that
Peter is not referring to Jesus Christ as one who would in any way need
moral renewal. Now if oap& here means simply "body," then the meaning
of the negative phrase in vs. 21 would be "not the removal of dirt from the
body," and the point would be to deny that the crux of baptism is the
physical ritual itself.* Thus the effect of the baptismal definition would be
to emphasize that there is no power in the rite per se, but that spiritual
renewal is mediated through the commitment (prayer) expressed in baptism.
In the end, however one interprets the negative phrase, the positive thrust
of the text indicates that "through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" there is
salvation for those who call on him, and this calling on him is assumed to
occur in baptism.

83 Ibid., 212.
84 For another defense of this exegesis, see J. Ramsey Michaels, / Peter, Vol. 49, Word
Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1988), 216.
85 See, for example, Dunn, Baptism in Spirit, 218.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 193

Conclusion

The most that can be said for Barth's exegesis of New Testament baptismal
texts is that he provided a possible exegetical basis for a non-sacramental
view of baptism. However, it cannot be said that he offered a natural
interpretation of these texts, and it must be said that his failure to interpret
Acts 2:38 and 1 Corinthians 12:13 left two of the most significant texts
without extended comment. Repeatedly in his exegesis he admitted that a
sacramental reading of a text would be very natural, after which he
proceeded to offer an alternative reading; although this is allowable when
dealing with obscure texts in light of clear texts, it was for him a consistent
pattern applicable to all kinds of texts.
Barth was unable to let the baptismal texts speak naturally, because his
interpretation was controlled by certain theological concerns which, though
in some cases valid in their own way, were inaccurately applied to the
baptismal statements of the New Testament. Three concerns are paramount:
(1) the objectivity and finality of the work of Christ in his death and
resurrection; (2) the significance of human moral action; and (3) the
distinction between baptism with water and baptism with the Spirit.
The objectivity of the death and resurrection of Christ is indeed a
legitimate concern. It is helpful to be reminded that whatever it may mean
to say that baptism (or faith) "saves," it is still the case that only the
vicarious work of Christ saves in the ultimate sense. But having said this,
it is important to note that this is a false issue, because no form of
sacramentalism asserts that baptism saves apart from, or in the same sense
as, the events of the gospel. The debate over sacramentalism is not about
the ultimate cause of human salvation; it is about the instrumental cause(s),
specifically the role of baptism as an instrument. It is not clear that Barth
took seriously the whole question of applying the saving work of Christ in
personal experience, because he appeared to relativize the response of faith
in much the same way as he relativized baptism.
In the multi-faceted debate about the relation between divine action and
human action, there is always the danger of an extreme view which
completely envelops the human act in the divine, and Barth directed this
concern toward baptism in order to preserve the integrity of the human
decision which it embodies. He was jealous for the dignity of this
foundational human response, and he denied that baptism's significance has
to be located in a divine act. However, to say that God acts in baptism is not
to say that the human person does not act, especially if the context is
conversion-baptism and it is assumed that there is a divine act which
responds to penitent faith in the human. If it is the human who repents, and
194 More Than a Symbol

it is God who forgives and bestows the Spirit, then baptism may serve as an
event in which there is action from both sides.
Barth's concern to separate baptism with water from baptism with the
Spirit was grounded in the freedom and sovereignty of God, with its
corollary that God's work of salvation is not manipulated by any human
action. He inferred from this that the assertion of a temporal coincidence of
water and Spirit is disallowed--baptism is a prayer for the gift of the Spirit,
but not a means to achieve it, for the gift of the Spirit is God's prerogative.
Although this is an appropriate warning, it is a warning that is articulated by
sacramentalists themselves, especially in their treatment of the narratives in
Acts. Nevertheless, to deny the propriety ofa declaration that the gift of the
Spirit occurs invariably in water-baptism is not to deny that there is a
normal connection between the two. If the Spirit is given to all those who
believe, as both Jesus (John 7:37-39) and Paul (Rom 8:9) affirm, and
baptism is the vehicle by which faith comes to expression, then it is
appropriate to think in terms of the bestowal of the Spirit through baptism.
In spite of his statements to the contrary, it appears that in the end Barth
was unable to escape the sacramental significance of baptism in the New
Testament witness.*° As opposed to all kinds of "enthusiasts" who locate
their assurance of God's grace in some subjective religious experience, Barth
recognized that baptism adds a necessary objectivity to this awakening to
grace. He thus wrote at the end ofhis part-volume on baptism:

In the light of their baptism Christians can regard themselves as

saved, and they can be comforted and admonished thereby, since
baptism is an asking and praying which is empowered and set in
motion by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and as such it is the
proper counteravouchment of Christians to the avouchment of the
Lord that He will be their God.*’

In view of his comments about assurance of grace coming through baptism,

it seems that Barth was still very close to the cognitively-oriented
sacramentalism of the Reformed tradition. His disavowal of sacramentalism
was fundamentally a rejection of certain kinds of sacramentalism, in
particular those which stress the divine act in baptism to the virtual
exclusion of any human act and those which posit an invariable connection

86 As argued by Herbert Hartwell, "Karl Barth on Baptism," Scottish Journal of Theology

22 (1969): 29.
87 Barth, /V/4, 212-213.
An Analysis of the Biblical Foundations 195

between the sign and the thing signified. Sacramentalism is a spectrum of

views, and Barth's critique was in fact directed only at part of the spectrum,
certainly not consciously or effectively at Baptist sacramentalism.

Summary
This chapter has demonstrated that a Baptist-sacramental exegesis of the
New Testament references to baptism is readily defensible. Baptists who
reject sacramentalism admit that these New Testament texts do seem to say
that baptism is instrumental in the application of the work of Christ to
individuals, but they argue that broader theological principles demand
another interpretation of the texts. This would be acceptable, ifthe broader
principles do in fact clearly (though implicitly) address the issue of baptism,
and if there are plausible ways to read the baptismal texts in a non-
sacramental manner. However, neither of these conditions seems to be true.
If, as argued in this chapter, it is true that Baptist sacramentalism can be
defended on an exegetical basis, there are still questions to be answered
about the precise meaning of this sacramentalism and its relation to other
theological themes. Chapter Four will be devoted to an examination of the
connections between this baptismal theology and the related themes of
systematic theology.
 al
A\
\
| 4 TE . : WI A

Ait
\ fi be L

Ay 7(v a
Ny
: P ih

2 1 ~CHAPTER4
ne | JV | An Analysis of
A|\/

NS Hl the Theological Formulation

As the previous chapter indicates, there is in the exegetical area a high

degree of agreement among sacramentalists, whether Baptists or others, as
to the teaching of the biblical texts. However, this agreement that the
biblical texts, taken as a whole, give an essentially consistent affirmation
that the saving union with Christ signified by Christian baptism is in some
way conveyed through the rite does not eliminate the fact of disagreement
in the context of systematic theological formulation. To say that baptism is
instrumental in the application of redemption to the individual is not to say
exactly how baptism conveys grace or what may be the nature of that grace,
nor does itdefine the precise relationship between baptism and the faith of
the individual. Sacramentalists draw various inferences about the
connection between water-baptism and Spirit-baptism, the relationship
between baptism and communicant church membership, and the status of
the unbaptized. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to articulate
further the ways in which Baptist sacramentalists answer these systematic
questions and to assess the coherence of their system(s). In particular, this
will involve an attempt to demonstrate that "Baptist sacramentalism" is not
an oxymoron, but instead is a valid synthesis of the necessity of divine
initiative in redemption and the related necessity of human response.

Creation, Incarnation and Baptism

Although the Baptist case for a sacramental view of baptism is grounded
fundamentally in the New Testament references and allusions to baptism,
some Baptists claim that there are valid sacramental inferences to be drawn
from the doctrines of the Incarnation and/or creation. For Robinson the
ultimate principle was found in the nature of the created order, specifically
in the divinely-established role of the physical world as a vehicle of the
spiritual realm. In his words, "In all our life and thought the spiritual is
 VS Dat ee Dhan oe
An Analysis of the Theological F ormulation 197

directly or indirectly mediated by that which is lower than itself."! This

function of the physical order is "the very principle of the Incarnation, when
the Word became flesh."* Thus the Incarnation, far from being a thoroughly
unique event, becomes the supreme manifestation of an even more basic
principle. Walton followed the same line of thought, arguing on the basis
of Romans | that Christian theology "affirms that the spiritual operates
through the medium of the material," and that "God is revealed and His
grace is given through things seen and temporal."" This is one aspect of the
biblically rooted combination of transcendence and immanence in the
Christian view of God, which distinguishes Christianity from other religions
which are grounded in abstract speculation and from materialistic
philosophies like Marxism which fail to rise above history. The Incarnation
was interpreted as the supreme, but not the only, example of "a principle
which lies at the root of reality as Christianssee it,"and "the sacraments are
another example of this principle."’
Clark's approach did not rely on any assumed relation between the
physical world and a general realm of "spirit," but he did argue that God's
action in history follows a pattern which supports sacramentalism. In
response to Baptist criticism of his alleged overestimate of baptism's
efficacy, he wrote:

We are persuaded that, in accordance with the whole principle of

divine dealing with humanity in creation, incarnation, resurrection,
the spiritual gift and reality is ° "embodied" (in this case,
sacramentally); that it is reality for us only as embodied reality; that
fidelity to scriptural witness forbids any separation of sign and
signification.°

Similarly, Gilmore accepted as a valid insight the emphasis by many modern

theologians on the conjunction of "word" and "flesh," arguing that Baptists
have been prone to focus on "word" apart from "flesh," thus illegitimately
positing a conversion experience divorced from sacramental expression.°
This sort of general principle was largely insignificant in the arguments
of Beasley-Murray, but he did write, "The sacramental principle is rooted in

1 Robinson, "Believers' Baptism and the Holy Spirit," 394. a

2 ~~ Ibid. eo
3. Walton, GC, 155. n x5
4 Ibid., 156. cat, ey
5 Clark, "Christian Baptism Under Fire," 17. oul teal c )
Gilmore, BCU, 11. BS \ aad “f B.
»
6
 ier asay Wh a7

198 ? \ 4Vi yon”

WA Rf ale ) WO AA!
as APN
Rr a yymbo
Than Symbol

life as God has created it."” He argued that ‘due to our existence as
embodied creatures we "need baptism," not in any absolute sense, but in the
sense that a tangible, physical action like baptism is an appropriate
\. provision of divine grace which seals and assures us of our reconciliation to
God through Christ. This reference to creation as a basis for sacramentalism
was merely a brief part of his treatment of the necessity of baptism, and its
significance for him seemed to be limited to the embodied nature of human
existence and the consequent relevance of physical action for spiritual
experience.
White affirmed a connection between the Incarnation and the
sacraments, but the logical order in his conceptual scheme is from
Incarnation to sacraments, not from sacramental principle to Incarnation.
Following C. K. Barrett in his treatment of Johannine sacramentalism, he
argued that the sacraments are "extensions of the fundamental sacramental
fact of the incarnate life of the Son."* Whereas both Robinson and Walton
interpreted the Incarnation and baptism as two examples of a more
fundamental principle, White argued that both the Gospel of John and the
First Epistle of John were calling their readers away from a dangerous
reliance upon "spiritual experience" in general to the message about "the
historic life and words of the divine Master."’ Therefore, there was for him
no sacramental principle more ultimate than the Incarnation--baptism 1s
effective not because it is one example of a sacramental universe, but
because it objectifies the faith-response to the historical action of God in
Christ. ) eat
Although the doctrines of creation and Incarnation may have some
relevance for sacramentalism, there are various reasons for caution in
drawing inferences. First, it should be noted that the Johannine declaration
that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) is not simply an assertion about
the physical nature of Christ, but rather is an affirmation of his full
humanity. John 1:13 refers to "the will of the flesh," and this attribution of
"will" to "flesh" indicates that the author thinks of o&pé as inclusive of the
total human person. To limit the assertion to his physical nature would be
to fall into the ancient error of Apollinarianism, which denied the presence
of a human, rational soul in the person of Christ’. Therefore, one may not

Beasley-Murray, BNT, 304-305.

White, BDJ, 263.
Ibid.
eK0 For a translation of the extant writings of Apollinaris of Laodicea and a description of
OONA

his teaching, see Richard A. Norris, Jr., trans. and ed., The Christological Controversy
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 21-23, 103-111.
 teee: 4 ahe -
are
S raa Pi eee )
Ht Ye
¢
e7 ‘er KA =
(~*~ A

%
tr p
4 i f Vy yy
FA t A
pM me
YX F
AP~s ;
[PL F'% POPE im Y/
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation we ty) 199
WA of” Wo

safely generalize about the significance of the Incarnation for the physical
world as a whole, because it is specifically oriented toward the redemptive
assumption of complete humanity by the Logos.
Second, even if one accepts the general principle that God works in us
through the material world and physical action, this does not explain
precisely how he works in baptism. Baptists who resist sacramentalism do
not in general deny that there is some kind of spiritual benefit connected to
the event, but they argue that it is the same kind of benefit which is
contained in other acts of obedience to divine commands. The debate
concerns whether baptism should be thought of as an event which mediates
salvific union with Christ, and this question is not answered by a general
assertion that God relates to humans through the material world. There is
nothing incoherent in the non-sacramentalist interpretation of baptism as a
means of strengthening commitment through testimony to an already
completed conversion, and this interpretation does not deny the presence of
spiritual benefit in the physical act of baptism. The problem with such a
view is that it does not seem to give an adequate account of the biblical
witness tothe nature of the spiritual benefit attached to baptism.
Tihird, iftheterm "sacramental" is applied to the entire material world,
then the assertion that baptism is a "sacrament" is emptied of distinctive
content. The intra-denominational debate among Baptists would then
concern only the mode of baptism's sacramental function, not the fact of it.
To speak of a sacramental universe in no way settles the baptismal debate--it
merely shifts the terms of the debate.
Baptist sacramentalists have generally utilized inferences from creation
and the Incarnation only to support and explain what they have already
formulated on the basis of the explicit biblical witness to baptism. There
may be some value in such support, but it is far from clear.

Baptism and Faith

Baptist sacramentalists generally have affirmed that baptism is a "symbol
with power" precisely because of their understanding of the connection
between baptism and faith.'' True to their Baptist heritage and what they
consider to be a proper kind of individualism, they have affirmed that the
crucial factor in the divine-human relationship is moral, not ritual.
Robinson, for example, argued that the primary contribution of Baptists to
the Church is "the essential and primary place of the moral within the

11 White, BDJ, 274, 308; Beasley-Murray, BN7, 272-273.

 200 a), “4 hy 5 ees r sry More Than
a Symbol

religious."'? One biblical way to state this is to say that the instrumental
cause of personal salvation is personal faith in Christ, inasmuch as all the
benefits of salvation are promised to those who believe in Jesus as Lord.
The biblical texts which are invoked here may use terms other than "faith"
to describe this reality (repentance, confession of sins, turning to the Lord,
etc.), but in each case the reference is to a positive response to the gospel
which might be subsumed under the label of "faith." In various ways the
witness of the New Testament is that God promises to all who believe in
Jesus Christ all the benefits of salvation, specifically forgiveness of sins (1
John 1:9; Acts 15:9); union with Christ (Eph 3:18; Gal 2:20; 3:26);
possession of the Holy Spirit (Gal 3:2,14; Acts 5:32); membership in the
Church (Acts 4:32 ["the group of those who believed"]; Acts 5:14
[believers were added to the Lord"]); eternal life or inheritance of the
kingdom of God (John 3:14,16,36); and justification (Rom 3-4; Gal 2-3).
Alongside this list of biblical texts about faith can be placed another list
of texts ale indicate that the same benefits are seen as the effects of
baptism.'? For example, forgiveness of sins is promised to baptism in Acts
2:38, and the related metaphor of cleansing from sin is1 a baptismal effect in
Acts 22:16. Saving union with Christ is the result of baptism in the classic
text of Romans 6:1-11 and the parallel in Colossians 2:1 1-12, and the union
with Christ of believers mentioned in Galatians 3:26 is explained as the
result of baptism in Galatians 3:27. The possession of the Holy Spirit is
promised along with forgiveness of sins in Acts 2:38, and the spiritual
rebirth which the Spirit effects is located in the context of baptism in Titus
3:5 and John 3:5. Membership in the Church is mediated through baptism,
whether the imagery is that of the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13) or the seed
of Abraham (Gal 3:27-29). Eternal life or entrance into the kingdom of God
is related to baptism according to John 3:5, and the same can be said for the
eschatological dimension of salvation according to Mark 16:16, if the long
ending of Mark's Gospel is a genuine witness to the mind of Christ.
\° Justification occurs in the baptismal context if the washing imagery of |
Corinthians 6:11 is in fact an allusion to baptism.
There is, then, an essential equivalence between the things promised to
faith and the things promised to baptism in the New Testament texts, and in
some cases these two kinds of promises exist within the same text. For
‘example, Paul's sustained argument in Galatians for justification by faith

ope {)
12 Robinson, 1 FBATS. :
13. This parallelism between faith and bapetentis developed at length in Beasley-Murray,
BTT, 27-37.
 Va A ae.
An Analysis of the Theological ey mtetion 201

apart from works leads to his statement that all who believe in Christ are by
that fact the children of God, but this is immediately explained in terms of
baptism as the instrument of union with Christ (3:26-27). In 1 Peter 3:21
we read that "baptism now saves us," although the instrument of this
salvation is not the physical act itself, but the "appeal to God for a good
conscience" which is expressed by the act. stm
Baptists have always insisted that the natural inference from such
biblical data is the equation between the baptized and confessing believers,
1.e., the restriction of baptism to those who can confess faith for themselves;
but the same data also imply that baptism is related to the benefits of Christ
in the same way as faith, i.e., that baptism looks toward saving union with
Christ as its goal. This is not to say that faith seeks some benefits, and
baptism seeks a further complement of benefits, but rather that faith and
baptism seek the same benefits.
Thus Baptist sacramentalism is generally rooted in the concept of
baptism as the vehicle of faith, the means by which faith becomes a
conscious, tangible reality. Faith per se is an internal attitude by definition,
whether one thinks of mere belief of the truth (assensus) or trusting
commitment (fiducia). The consistent biblical picture 1s that genuine faith
in Christ is marked by external action. This is perhaps stated most
forcefully in James 2:14-26, with its assertion that we are justified by faith
and works. Although at a superficial and purely verbal level this contradicts
the Pauline argument of Romans and Galatians, Paul himself makes the
similar assertion that what is crucial is "faith working through love," and he
does so in the Galatian epistle (5:6) which is focused on justification by
faith apart from works of the Law. Therefore, for Paul as for James and
other New Testament writers, genuine faith always shows itself and
demands ongoing witness in a life of love for God and others. Just as true
faith which brings justification demands ongoing evidence of good works,
so also true faith demands initial expression in baptism. To ask whether
salvation is promised to faith or to baptism is, in New Testament terms, a
meaningless question, since the former is initially expressed in the latter.
Baptist sacramentalists have not located the connection between faith
and baptism simply in an arbitrary divine command to that effect, but rather
in a holistic view of the human person.'* This is not to say that God could
not have chosen some other act to serve as the embodiment of faith, but it
is to say that some act is needed if response to the gospel is to be fully

14 See for example G. R. Beasley-Murray, "Baptism in the New Testament," /oundations

3 (1960): 17, 27-29; Gilmore, BCU, 43-48. =H
r
\ 4
~ ‘ vj 4Y \ 4 :
Vw ae 4 \

N jv AY / ig Uh
\y ee
AJ x f
aie \
202 Ver \W f ry, ofl More Than
a Symbol
\

personal, inasmuch as we do not act simply as "souls" apart from bodies. At

a theoretical level, Wheeler Robinson asserted that a biblical-Hebraic view
of the person is not dualistic, and this provided the context for his view of
baptism as integral to conversion.' Neville Clark argued that the doctrines
of creation and Incarnation both imply that God's encounter with human
beings occurs in the realm of the physical as well as the spiritual.’° R. E. O.
White emphasized the need for an objectification of faith in baptism, and
rejected the disconnection between faith and baptism as "gnostic
idealism.""”
If conversion were to be marked as a definite reality apart from baptism,
what could serve as an adequate marker? Some might argue for
supernatural phenomena (e.g., glossolalia) which accompany the gift of the
Spirit in Acts, but to look for such signs as standard markers of conversion
would contradict the Pauline perspective in 1 Corinthians 12-14, which
interprets such signs as occasional rather than universal. Some would
suggest the evidence of good works, but while this is relevant as an ongoing
evidence of convertedness (James 2), the demand for works that are
sufficiently specific to serve as evidence of the point of entrance into
salvation tilts toward a legalism that is perilously similar to what Paul
rejects in his battle with Judaizers. Some would argue for a relatively
standard kind of religious feeling or interior experience which serves as a
sign of salvation, but this is as difficult to correlate with 1 Corinthians 12-14
as is the demand for external phenomena. Commonly in Baptist and other
evangelical contexts, faith comes to focus in a definite act of prayer, in
which repentance and faith are expressed and God is asked to provide the
benefits of salvation. At one level this is theologically apprepriate, in that
prayer is at the heart of human movement toward God, but the New
Testament evidence indicates that this prayer (calling on the Lord) inheres
in the event of baptism (Acts 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21), which is itself an acted
prayer. Within the New Testament it seems to be assumed that those who
believe in Christ are an identifiable group, which implies the existence of
some definitive mark of identification, and baptism is apparently that mark.
That explains why the apostle Paul, in the process of stating the
commonalities of the members of the body of Christ, mentions "one Lord,
one faith, one [expression of this faith in] baptism" (Eph 4:5).

15 Robinson, LFB, 85. This is developed at length in his The Christian Doctrine of Man,
3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1926).
16 Clark, "Christian Baptism Under Fire," 17.
17. White, BDI, 263-264.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 203

This construction of the relation between faith and baptism is criticized

from two sides: non-sacramental Baptists allege that it compromises the sola
fide character of justification/salvation, and some paedobaptists argue that
to make personal faith a condition of baptism is to transform faith into a
meritorious work. Each criticism is concerned to apply the insights of
Romans and Galatians to this question, and it is assumed that those insights
are threatened by the assumption that faith and baptism (in that order) are
normatively inseparable.
The Baptist critique is quite straightforward, although it may be
expressed in several ways.'* One form would be: Romans and Galatians
teach that justification is by faith alone, apart from good works; baptism is
a work of righteousness (as seen in the example of Jesus, Matt 3:15);
therefore, justification does not occur through baptism.'? Alternatively it
could be phrased: faith is demanded prior to baptism; justification is by faith
alone; therefore, justification occurs before baptism.*° The paradigm for
justification by faith, according to Paul in Romans 4, is Abraham, and
Abraham was justified by bare faith in the divine promise, and only later
was this sealed by circumcision--although Baptists reject a simple

18 Arepresentative sample of such Baptist statements would include the following: James
Robinson Graves, Zhe Relation of Baptism to Salvation (Texarkana: Baptist Sunday
School Committee, 1881), 8; Jeremiah B. Jeter, Campbellism Examined (New York:
Sheldon, Lamport, & Blakeman, 1855), 230-237; Walter T. Conner, Christian Doctrine
(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1937), 276-278; idem, The Gospel of Redemption
(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1945), 208-209; Dallas M. Roark, The Christian Faith
(Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969), 293-294; J. M. Cramp, A Catechism on Baptism
(Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1865), 71; August Hopkins Strong,
Systematic Theology (Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1967 [orig. pub. 1907]), 821;
Herschel H. Hobbs, Fundamentals of our Faith (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1960),
117-119; Ralph E. Knudsen, Christian Beliefs (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960), 124-
125; Thomas Polhill Stafford, A Study of Christian Doctrines (Kansas City: Western
Baptist Publishing Company, 1936), 533-534; Edgar Young Mullins, The Christian
Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression (Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1917), 382-384; B. H.
Carroll, Baptists and Their Doctrines (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1913), 20-23;
Edward Charles Dargan, Zhe Doctrines of Our Faith, rev. ed. (Nashville: Sunday
School Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1920), 151; George Duncan,
Baptism and the Baptists (London: Baptist Tract and Book Society, 1882), 73.
19 For an example of this use of Matt 3:15 see Gill, Commentary on the New Testament,
3:365.
20 This focus on temporal succession can be seen in Stones, Letter to 7he Baptist Times,
6. The chronological/theological argument is summarized by Christopher Ellis,
"Baptism and the Sacramental Freedom of God," in Reflections on the Water, ed. Paul
S. Fiddes (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys Publishing, 1996), 30-31, although Ellis
rejects the anti-sacramental inference.
204 More Than a Symbol

equivalence between circumcision and baptism, there is a sufficiently

analogous relation to infer that baptism is no more than a backward-looking
witness to an assured justification.*! There are many examples of this
Baptist critique of a sacramental view of baptism, one of which is the
following statement by W. T. Conner (1877-1952) about the apparently
sacramental biblical texts:

Moreover, to interpret these passages literally, i.e., in such a

way as to make baptism a condition of salvation, is to make the
New Testament fundamentally a self-contradictory book. This
would introduce an inconsistency into the very heart of its doctrine
of salvation. This is evident if we look at the numerous passages in
the New Testament where it is plainly taught that the only
conditions of salvation are spiritual. It is abundantly set forth in the
New Testament that repentance and faith are the only conditions of
salvation--conditions that are primarily and only spiritual.
Salvation is a spiritual transaction and depends on spiritual
conditions alone.”

Historically, the assertion that a sacramental view of baptism threatens

or denies the sola fide character of justification (or salvation, to use the more
comprehensive term favoured by Baptists) must be blind to the facts of the
magisterial Reformation. Some Baptists recognize that virtually every other
Protestant denomination affirms in its confessional documents that baptism
in some way conveys or seals what it signifies,” but this affirmation stands
alongside the confession of justification by faith alone. It could easily be
argued that among the Reformation traditions, Lutheran theology has taught
both the strongest form of justification by faith alone and the highest view
of baptismal efficacy. The idea that salvation by faithaloneis incompatible
with sacramentalism issat leasthistorical nonsense.
Exegetically, this Baptistcritique failsto interpret Pauline thought
within the parameters of the first-century context and thus draws
unwarranted inferences. One cannot read Romans and Galatians without
seeing the contrast drawn there between faith in Christ and trust in the
works of the Mosaic Law, but nowhere in Paul does one find the same sort
of contrast drawn between faith and baptism. One might just as well argue

21 See, for example, Cramp, Catechism, 72-73; Conner, Christian Doctrine, 277.
22 Conner, Christian Doctrine, 276.
23 Carroll, Baptists, 20; Graves, Relation of Baptism, 10-19.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 205

that Paul denies the crucial character of repentance (since repentance is

distinct from faith, and faith is the only condition for salvation) as to argue
the same sort of thing concerning baptism. "Faith alone" for Paul means
faith as opposed to meritorious works, not faith as opposed to baptism. In
point of fact, when Paul does refer to baptism (e.g., Rom 6; Col 2; Gal
3:27), his language seems to indicate that baptism is instrumental in
effecting saving union with Christ, and the statements are sufficiently strong
to cause some Baptists to deny that such texts refer to water-baptism at all.
According to Luke's account (Acts 22:16), Paul submitted to baptism in
order to be cleansed from his guilt. Paul's theology of baptism ought to be
derived from an exegesis of his references to baptism, not from his
references to the works of the Law.
Theologically, the Baptist critique tends to misinterpret the intention of
Baptist sacramentalism. As can be seen in the quotation from Conner above
and in other Baptist literature, it is assumed that sacramentalists understand
baptism as a rite which is fundamentally a sine qua non of salvation, a kind
of human achievement which is absolutely necessary to secure divine
favour.“ This, however, is not the way in which baptism was
conceptualized by the Baptists being analysed in this book. As was shown
in Chapter 2,they interpreted baptism as the normal, though not invariable
(and certainly not absolutely necessary), vehicle by which faith in Christ
comes totangible expression and God meets the penitent sinner in grace.
Baptism was for them nomore an extra "condition" for salvation than is the
prayer for salvation which other Baptists would ask of a convert. It is the
separation of baptism from conversion by many Baptists which creates the
impression of multiple conditions of salvation.
A common paedobaptist critique accepts the idea that baptism is the
sacrament of justification but argues that justification is to be thought of as
preceding faith rather than following it as in the Baptist construction. Such
critics allege that to posit personal faith as a condition of baptism is to turn
"faith" into a "work," a human achievement which merits justification, and
thus to invert the biblical order of the gospel. John Heron (b. 1928), a
Scottish theologian, went so far as to suggest that the Baptist order of faith
and baptism "springs from a Pelagian view of human nature, which
imagines that unregenerate man can choose whether to sin or not," and he
suggested that the Baptist anthropology is the same as that which "underlies

24 Dargan, Doctrines, 151; Carroll, Doctrines, 21-22; Conner, Redemption, 208; Hobbs,
Fundamentals, 117-118; Stafford, Doctrines, 532-534.
206 More Than a Symbol

theological liberalism,"” namely, a naively optimistic estimate of human

potential.
This perspective of faith-by-justification over against justification-by-
faith was stated with clarity by Alan Richardson (1905-1975), a New
Testament scholar at the University of Nottingham:

The central truth of the Gospel which infant baptism enshrines is

that faith is the response to God's saving act, not the condition of it.
I am not baptized because I have decided to believe; I believe
because I have come to know that I have already been admitted to
the sphere of Christ's redemption. . . . This is the NT doctrine of
baptismal justification: I am not justified by my faith: I believe
because I have been justified. ... Our faith is not the condition of
our baptism but the response to it, made possible by our having
already received the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Cor. 12.3)... . Baptism is the
sacrament and effective symbol of justification . . .*°

Justification, then, for Richardson denotes what God has done for all
humankind objectively in the Christ-event, in particular in the death of
Christ which was "the baptism of the whole human race."*’ The objectivity
and priority of God's act in Christ, his "baptism" for all on the cross which
was prefigured by his literal baptism in the Jordan, find their answer in
individual human experience in the baptism of humans before they are
capable of personal response. Personal faith as a response to one's prior
baptism parallels the fact that individual faith is a response to the prior work
of Christ declared in the gospel.
T. F. Torrance (b. 1913) of the University of Edinburgh has been one of
the most forceful critics of the idea that faith is a condition of justification.
Although he recognized (as all must) that the thought of justification by
faith is indeed biblical, and that the faith in view is in some sense our faith
in response to the gospel, he was concerned to maintain that faith is an
empty vessel with no value in itself, not a human contribution to our
redemption. In his words, "We do not rely, then, upon our act of faith, but
upon the faith of Christ which undergirds and upholds our faith." He

25 John Heron, "The Theology of Baptism," Scottish Journal of Theology 8 (1955): 44.
26 Alan Richardson, An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament (New York:
Harper & Row, 1958), 362-363.
27 Ibid., 363.
28 Thomas F. Torrance, Theology in Reconstruction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965),
58).
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 207

expanded this as follows:

Therefore when we are justified by faith, this does not mean that it
is our faith that justifies us, far from it--it is the faith of Christ alone
that justifies us, but we in faith flee from our own acts even of
repentance, confession, trust and response, and take refuge in the
obedience and faithfulness of Christ -- "Lord I believe, help thou
mine unbelief." That is what it means to be justified by faith.?°

Torrance argued that any emphasis on the nature of the human response to
Christ as the instrumental cause of justification easily leads to a subtle form
of self-justification and tends to turn faith into a kind of work which merits
human salvation, a condition capable of being met by autonomous human
action.*°
Torrance was unsparing in his criticism of what he called "conditional
grace," 1.e., the idea that individuals are justified ifand only ifthey believe
the gospel. He judged that this idea has "permeated Protestantism, Lutheran
pietism, and the Federal Theology of the Calvinists, Puritanism and
Anglicanism alike," and that this effectively denies the ultimacy and finality
of the vicarious work of Christ and introduces "a new legalism."*! Although
he did not mention Baptists specifically at this point, his treatment of
baptismal doctrine makes it clear that he considered the doctrine of faith as
a condition of baptism to be a particularly flagrant example of "conditional
grace." But what of the urgency of gospel preaching? He admitted that the
apostolic kerygma is: Christ has lived, died, and been raised for you;
therefore, repent and believe in him; but according to Torrance, "Never does
it say: This is what God in Christ has done for you, and you can be saved on
condition that you repent and believe."*”
To say, as these critics do, that humans believe because they are
justified, rather than believing in order to be justified, may superficially
magnify the objectivity of the work of God in Christ, but it does so by
nullifying the significance of the imperative which accompanies the
declarative in the apostolic kerygma. In the case of Baptist sacramentalism,
baptism is the context in which the individual sinner confesses something
like this: "I repent of my sins against God and others, and I acknowledge in

29 Ibid., 159-160.
30 Thomas F. Torrance, God and Rationality (London: Oxford University Press, 1971),
56.
31 Ibides57!
32 Ibid., 58.
208 More Than a Symbol

Jesus Christ the answer to my need for forgiveness and transformation; I

confess that he died and was raised from the dead for me; in this act of
baptism I say 'Yes' to the good news about him, and I appeal to him for
forgiveness and the gift of his Spirit, on the basis of his finished work."
Now, assuming that such an attitude toward Christ is a condition of
salvation, in what sense does this sort of faith become a work? Such a
confession affirms the lack of any personal claim on God's grace; it affirms
the priorityof God's action in Christ; and it locates the source of salvation
outside the baptizand. The only apparent basis for interpreting such faith
as a "work" is the fact that it is the faith of this individual. But to say that
myfaith is my faith is not to say that it is meritorious, nor to say that it is
possible apart from divine grace.
To discuss the biblical doctrine of the justification of the individual
sinner is essentially to discuss the Pauline doctrine of justification,
inasmuch as it is Paul alone for whom this terminology represents a
regulative concept. At the purely verbal level, at least, Paul consistently
refers to justification by faith (Rom 3:22,28,30; 4:11; 5:1; 10:10; Gal 2:16;
3:8,11,24), not to faith by justification. It may be theologically appropriate
to speak of an objective justification wrought in the work of Christ, in that
the vicarious obedience of Christ is called a dukatm@ua (Rom 5:18), but
when Paul speaks explicitly of the justification of sinners, what is in view
is the application of the objective obedience of Christ to the individual
condition of believers, and in that context faith is logically prior to
justification. The issue, then, concerning faith and baptism is not whether
there is some kind of objective justification inherent in the Christ-event, or
whether our faith terminates on that fact which is prior to our response, but
instead is whether baptism functions only to declare that objective
justification (Richardson, Torrance) or both to declare that objective reality
and to seal the personal acceptance of it (Baptists).
Speaking from within a Reformed context, G. C. Berkouwer (b. 1903)
of the Free University of Amsterdam commented:

We must not allow ourselves, in reaction to the doctrine of faith's

meritoriousness, to become too timid to speak of its necessity. This
is a very real hazard. It would be possible for us, upon
consideration of sola gratia in its truly exclusive and radical sense,
to conclude that an emphasis on the singular necessity of faith tends
to relativize grace. The Holy Scriptures point with weighted
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 209

decisiveness to this necessity.**

Although he did not accept a Baptist doctrine of baptism, Berkouwer was

prepared to admit that the rejection of Baptist doctrine could not be based
on a denial that faith is a condition of saving grace. According to him, the
implication of the necessity of faith is this:

Let it be written in capitals, put in italics that salvation is God's

salvation, coming to us in the miracle of redemption, God's
salvation which has been devised by no human mind and has risen
from no human heart. None of this changes a letter of the fact that
this sovereign grace must be accepted in faith.“

Apart from the desire to defend paedobaptism, it would be difficult to

imagine the idea that a Baptist theology of baptism is essentially Pelagian
and compromises the sacramental character of baptism. Paedobaptists also
posit a personal confession of faith as a condition of baptism in the case of
adult converts, and if there are no Pelagian assumptions in such practice,
then it can hardly be said that the Baptist restriction of baptism to such cases
is a Pelagian denial of Pauline teaching about faith and baptism.

Baptism and Grace

To say that baptism is a sacrament'is to say that it is a "means of grace," but
this is an assertion that demands definition, for all "means" do not function
in exactly the same way, and "grace" is asomewhat elastic concept. In many
cases Roman Catholic theology has spoken of grace almost as if it were a
kind of substance which is physically infused into the recipient. Although
this reification of grace has not been an explicit assertion, it has been argued
that there are differing amounts of grace conveyed in the sacraments
corresponding to the degree of receptivity in the individual,” and all such
rhetoric is at least substantialist in tone. At least since Vatican II, Catholic
theologians have sought to clarify the issue by describing grace as the
personal action of God, whose action is in some cases mediated through

33. G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and Justification, trans. Lewis E. Smedes (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1954), 185.
34 Ibid.
35 Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 2nd ed., trans. Patrick Lynch, ed. James
Bastible (Cork: Mercier Press, 1957), 330.
210 oY yp a 14 More Than
a Symbol

sacraments just as it is always mediated through Christ who is the

fundamental sacrament, the Word become flesh.*° The recent Catechism of
the Catholic Church (1994) teaches that the primary content of grace is the
gift of the Holy Spirit himself, along with his work of empowering
individuals for service to God and others.*” It would appear, then, that the
traditional Catholic language about grace ought to be interpreted in light of
these modern clarifications, but the need for clarity remains.
Baptists who interpret baptism as a means of grace tend to emphasize
that grace is one way of describing the personal action of God as he shows
unmerited favour to sinful humans through Jesus Christ.** In the context of
baptism, their argument is that according to the apostolic witness God has
connected various divine gifts (e.g., forgiveness, adoption, the Holy Spirit)
to baptism, which amounts to a pledge by God that he will be active in the
baptismal event, conveying these gifts to penitent sinners who seal their
turning to Christ in confessional baptism. Ultimately, then, it is not that
baptism conveys any benefits through any power inherent in itself, but that
God, by the Holy Spirit, effects a genuine encounter with the baptizand in
which he unites the baptized believer with Christ and thus with the benefits
of Christ.
This concept of faith, baptism and grace implies that baptism is the
normal venue for the introduction of the individual into the sphere of
redemption, although this is neither invariably nor automatically true. But
this is just to say that the gospel proclaimed sacramentally functions as does
the gospel proclaimed verbally. The verbal proclamation of the gospel is the
normal means by which individuals are brought into the sphere of salvation,
but this does not mean that everyone who hears the gospel receives its
benefits, nor does it mean that everyone who affirms a positive response is
thereby saved, for some professions of faith are spurious or short-lived. It
is also true that some are saved apart from any proclamation by a
contemporary (e.g., by reading the gospel in Scripture), and many would
argue that some are saved through the work of Christ though they have not
heard the gospel and had the opportunity to come to explicit faith in Christ.
Similarly, some who are baptized are not in fact saved, and some are saved
apart from baptism, but the normal way in which grace meets faith is in a
believer's baptism.

36 For example, Edward Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God,
trans. Paul Barrett, Mark Schoof and Laurence Bright (New York: Sheed and Ward,
1963), 76-78.
37 The Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 538-540.
38 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 265.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 211

Is this baptismal grace a grace of justification and sanctification, or is

it merely a grace of confirmation-assurance? That is to say, are the benefits
of Christ actually bestowed by God through baptism, or are they
symbolically ratified as benefits given to faith? The language of Baptist
sacramentalists has been varied on this point, depending on what facet of
theology they wanted to emphasize at any given time. However, assuming
that we can never know with certainty the invisible work of God, these two
approaches are in the end functionally equivalent. To say that these benefits
of Christ are actually bestowed in baptism is to say that as far as our
perception of them is concerned, they are bestowed in this context. As R.
E. O. White put it, "Where the kerygma is presented and faith is awakened,
cognitio salutis and causa salutis coincide."*” What differentiates between
Baptist sacramentalism and the anti-sacramental Baptist tradition is the fact
that for sacramentalists the confirming/assuring/sealing function of baptism
concerns the confirmation that saving union with Christ is here and now a
reality, not that such union with Christ has become a reality at some earlier
time through some other means.

Grace and paedobaptism

If God acts in baptism, so that the event is more than a human confession of
faith and discipleship, then the human response may be relativized in a way
that questions the traditional Baptist refusal to baptize infants. If the most
fundamental reality in baptism is God's gracious action of uniting the
individual to Christ (as some Baptist sacramentalists emphasize), and if, as
Walton said, "It is God who first acts in Christian baptism,"*° then there may
well be a solid case for paedobaptism. If baptism as a means of grace
follows the contours of divine grace, then it may be that it should precede
the individual's confession of faith. The argument from the priority of grace
to the baptism of infants has become perhaps the most popularly cherished
argument for paedobaptism in the latter half of this century, and its
challenge needs to be considered. Is it perhaps true that a strong sense of
divine action in baptism relativizes the human response to such an extent
that Baptist sacramentalism becomes incoherent? Does genuine
sacramentalism demand paedobaptism?
Much of the contemporary paedobaptist argument from the priority of
grace depends on the work of Oscar Cullmann (b. 1902), a professor at both

39 White, BDJ, 293.

40 Walton, GC, 31. See also Clark, in CB, 316.
 Way
Ne Nie

212 Gy say More Than a Symbol

vm 0 Nod
the a, of Basel and the seiboinia who responded to Karl Barth's
1943 lecture on baptism. His thought focused on the "baptism" of Christ
accomplished in his vicarious death and resurrection (Mark 10:38-39 and
Luke 12:50 record this use of baptismal imagery), an act to which Jesus was
committed by his baptism at the hands of John .\and which is recalled at
every occurrence of Christian baptism. This vicarious baptism of Christ was
provided independently of (indeed, in spite of) human response, and thus it
is argued that Christian baptism which corresponds to this ought to signify
the priority of the grace of baptism. Cullmann wrote:

Everything that the New Testament implicitly teaches concerning

a gratia praeveniens (Romans 5:8-10; John 15:16; 1 John 4:10 and
19) applies in heightened measure to Baptism as reception into the
Body of Christ. The Grace of Baptism is not only a "picture" of
gratia praeveniens which God has applied to us at Golgotha. It is
more; a once-for-all event entirely dependent on Golgotha, and also
a new and special manifestation of the same gratia praeveniens.
The divine act of salvation advances into the time of the Church.“!

But how does all this correlate with the New Testament passages which call
for faith prior to baptism? Cullmann understood baptism as an act which,
among other things, places one into the Church, the "inner circle" of the
kingdom of God, and indicates that the one baptized is "commissioned for
special duty."** That is, what is demanded by baptism is subsequent faith,
the performance of the duty to which one is committed by baptism. In the
case of adults, the sign that such obedience will occur is the faith confessed
by the baptizand, but in the case of infants, the requisite sign is the birth of
the child in a Christian family.” In this way Cullmann sought to apply
consistently his understanding of faith as a response to divine grace which
has been manifested primarily at the Cross and secondarily in baptism. The
faith which ultimately matters is thus the continuing post-baptismal faith,
as Paul wrote to the Corinthians on the basis of Israel's example (1 Cor 10:1-
13).
Pierre Marcel (1910-1992), a French Reformed theologian, grounded
infant baptism primarily in the unity of the covenant of grace, but one aspect

41 Oscar Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, trans. J. K. S. Reid (London: SCM
Press, 1950), 33-34.
42 Ibid., 36.
43 Ibid., 50-51.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 213

of this covenant is its sovereign and unilateral character; it is a gracious

promise given and an obligation imposed by God alone, not a contract
between equals. "God's decision and the offer of the blessings of the
covenant precede the faith of the child. . . . It is because he is taken hold of
by God that the child is able to believe."** He argued that the sequence of
God's action followed by human response is operative in both adult and
infant baptism. "In both cases faith is the response of man to the initiative
of God."* In adult baptism the human response is included in the baptismal
event, while in infant baptism the individual response is anticipated and
demanded by the baptismal event; each points to the prior grace of God, but
infant baptism does so in a more striking way.
To the objection that infant baptism fails to respect the freedom of the
baptizand and affirm the human side of the covenant, Marcel responded:

We reply that such a requirement, which at first sight manifests

such a concern for the child's heart and his liberty and personal
decision, is stamped with the mark of philosophical idealism, of the
individualism and subjectivism which we have already so often
unmasked; and that it does not sufficiently take into account what
the Bible teaches us concerning our personal corruption from birth,
nor its manner of regarding children and Christian education.“°

He contended that, "In the history of the Church every attack against
paedobaptism has involved either implicit or explicit alterations of the
biblical notion of grace,"*’ alterations which are allegedly rooted in a priori
individualistic assumptions without biblical foundations.
The British Methodist W. F. Flemington (b. 1901) wrote a significant
study of baptism in the New Testament which said nothing about infant
baptism in the mostly exegetical body of the work, but devoted a brief
excursus at the end to justify the practice on theological grounds, primarily
on the basis of the prevenience of grace. Assuming that "the sacraments of
the Gospel should exhibit that which is characteristic of the Gospel itself,"**
and that the essence of the Gospel is that God has acted for us in Christ prior

44 Pierre Ch. Marcel, The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism, trans. Philip Edgcumbe
Hughes (London: James Clarke & Co., 1953), 191, 204.
45 Ibid., 203.
46 Ibid., 204.
47 Ibid., 247.
48 W.F. Flemington, 7he New Testament Doctrine of Baptism (London: S.P.C.K., 1953),
136.
214 \ Ak ay po More Than
a Symbol

to any faith-response on our part, he wrote:

Here surely is something which forms part of the meaning of infant

baptism no less than of believers' baptism. The validity of the
Gospel does not depend on human faith. The Church's practice of
infant baptism witnesses to this "objective givenness" of the
Gospel. The primary significance of such a baptism is not that we
dedicate the child to God, but that God has done something for the
child.”

If the priority of grace is the primary thing to be emphasized by baptism,

then infants are not only suitable subjects for baptism, but especially
suitable subjects, in that their helplessness is "eloquent of man's universal
need for the divine grace."*°
Although he admitted that it is impossible to ground paedobaptism in
a directly exegetical approach to biblical texts on baptism, he argued that
there is a proleptic aspect to all baptisms, whether of adults or infants, in
that baptism promises more than it immediately effects in all cases. Infant
baptism simply says in a more extreme way that Christians must
paradoxically "become what they are."°! He thus concluded that infant
baptism embodies all that is essential in baptism, indeed, that it does so in
a Superior manner:

Infant baptism, so far from being less evangelical than believers'

baptism, is in reality more so, because it even more unmistakably
embodies the primary truth of the Christian gospel, namely that the
grace of God comes before everything else, and that man's only
hope of salvation rests upon that act of God in Jesus Christ, from
which (as the chief writers of the New Testament so clearly and so
unanimously demonstrate) this sacrament of the gospel draws all its
meaning and efficacy.”

It has been common for Baptists to criticize paedobaptists for their alleged
departure from evangelical truth to ritualism, but by this focus on the
priority of grace Flemington and others have turned the argument around.

49 Ibid., 137.
50 Ibid., 138-139.
51 Ibid., 143.
52 Ibid., 146-147.
 ~y
XN
SANS)

ae ae ay ‘-
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation AG taoime #19) 215

The Lutheran Edmund Schlink (1903-1984) displayed an awareness that

Baptists have in many cases begun to recover a sense of baptism as a means
of grace, but he argued that, "The more the New Testament witness to God's
saving action in Baptism is again perceived, the more difficult it becomes
to maintain a rejection of infant Baptism as valid Baptism."°* For him
baptism is not merely a symbol pointing to the priority of grace; it is also a
means by which God, through the church, acts graciously toward the
baptizands, "helping them attain to the freedom of faith."°* He argued that
a biblical estimate of the human condition and the grace of God leads to the
conclusion that, "Just as the resurrection of the dead occurs without the
assistance of the dead, so also the new creation of man whose life is forfeit
to sin and death is accomplished through Baptism."*? If the new creation
and resurrection motifs concerning salvation are to be pressed in the
baptismal context, then it is not difficult to appreciate the inference that
infant baptism is an appropriate vehicle of grace.
In summary: many contemporary paedobaptists have argued that Baptist
sacramentalism is incapable of giving grace its proper place in baptism,
because the pattern of God's grace is one in which grace precedes faith,
rather than following it. Even in the case of adult baptism, the promises
made by the baptizand are essentially concerned with the faith that will
follow baptism, not with a demonstration that there is already a faith of
sufficient quality to justify baptism. The conclusion is that if Baptists are
going to take seriously the divine action in baptism, then they will have to
surrender their opposition to the baptism of infants.
Baptist sacramentalists have not rejected this paedobaptist criticism as
if it were totally lacking in substance. There has been a widespread
admission that traditional Baptist attitudes need a major adjustment in the
direction of a focus on God's grace in baptism, thus giving up the common
Baptist focus on human commitment as if it were the only word to be
spoken about baptism.*° However, it is one thing to recover the awareness
of God's action in the event, and quite another to infer that the sacramental
character of baptism validates its application in the absence of any action
from the side of the baptizand.
Neville Clark agreed with Cullmann that there is an inner logic

53. Edmund Schlink, Zhe Doctrine of Baptism, trans. Herbert J. A. Bouman (St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1972), 149.
54 Ibid., 160.
55 Ibid.
56 Fora direct acknowledgment of valid insights in this particular paedobaptist argument,
see White, BDI, 280, 292, 295 and Beasley-Murray, BN7, 379.
216 More Than a Symbol

connecting the "baptism" of Christ in his passion and the baptism of

individuals, but he came to the opposite conclusion about the application of
baptism to infants. Whereas Cullmann interpreted the death of Christ as a
"general baptism" offered for all humans prior to their turning toward God,
and drew the inference that this finds its echo in the baptism of individuals
prior to their own faith, Clark argued on the basis of Chalcedonian
Christology that "the baptism unto death of the Lord is constituted by the
conjunction of divine action and human response," with the consequence
that our baptism demands both God's grace and our ratification of Christ's
vicarious human response.”’
The most fundamental weakness of the paedobaptist argument on this
point is the logical leap from the fact of prevenient grace to the conclusion
that this is what baptism is intended to signify. In one sense all baptisms
signify the prevenience of grace, in that they visibly proclaim the gospel and
testify to the death and resurrection of Christ, which occurred long before
we were even alive, but to recognize this still leaves us with the question
whether baptism is intended to signify a divine work of prevenient grace in
the life of the individual baptizand. Granting that such a work of prevenient
grace 1s a reality, it is also true that a personal faith-response to God's offer
of grace is crucial in the teaching of the apostles. Although infant baptism
might admirably signify the truth of prevenient grace, the restriction of
baptism to confessing believers would better signify the necessity of
personal faith. The question, then, revolves around the divine intention for
the signification of baptism, and this must be answered by an appeal to the
apostolic witness.
The New Testament evidence seems to point consistently to baptism as
the locus for the actual, personal experience of Messianic salvation, not
merely the hope that such salvation may someday be experienced. Thus, as
the occasion for faith in the gospel from the human side and grace from the
divine side, baptism serves to signify both the priority of grace (in the work
of Christ) and the necessity of faith for a personal interest in the benefits of
Christ's work. As Paul Jewett (1919-1991), of Fuller Theological Seminary,
put it:

While granting the Paedobaptists' emphasis on the primacy of God's

action over that of man's, and while acknowledging the corrective
sought for infant baptism in the rite of confirmation, it must be
affirmed that for the writers of the New Testament the new age has

57 Clark, in CB, 313-314.

An Analysis of the Theological Formulation PAV

begun. The Christian knows that his sins are forgiven and that he
has received the Spirit; in the New Testament baptism is always
linked with this knowledge. Hence apostolic baptism is a
sacrament of eschatological realization. He who is baptized is one
who has received the good news, acknowledged Christ as Lord, and
begun the Christian life. To baptize one as a sign of things hoped
for (and only hoped for) is to make it a sacrament of anticipation,
whereas in the New Testament it is always the sacrament of
fulfillment.*8

Among paedobaptists, G. C. Berkouwer was prepared to admit that the

argument from prevenient grace to infant baptism is a faulty argument to
prove what was for him a valid point. He argued that the Reformers
defended infant baptism on the basis of the unity of the covenant of grace,
not on the basis of the priority of grace, and at a much more fundamental
level, he argued that Scripture does not support the modern argument.
Concerning the relevant biblical texts (e.g., Romans 6) he wrote:

The prevenient aspect of the grace of God lies not in the temporal
priority of the acts of God in baptism in comparison with the
conscious acceptance of the divine promise, but in the temporal
priority of the cross of Christ with respect to the baptized person,
whether child or adult. Therein--and certainly not in infant baptism
only--we see the predestinational motif which undoubtedly is of
great significance in baptism.”

As Berkouwer noted, if prevenient grace in the life of the baptizand is at the

heart of baptism, then "less value would have to be attached to the baptism
of adults, with whom baptism follows upon faith,"°° which ironically
amounts to a devaluation of the only kind of baptism explicitly described in
Scripture.
Another major problem with the modern paedobaptist argument from
prevenient grace is its implication of indiscriminate baptism. An illustration
of this can be found in a dialogue between two German New Testament
scholars: Kurt Aland (b. 1915), whose work on infant baptism has been

58 Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1978), 158.
59 G. C. Berkouwer, Zhe Sacraments, trans. Hugo Bekker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1969), 176.
60 Ibid.
218 More Than a Symbol

mostly of an historical nature, has argued (against Joachim Jeremias [1900-

1979]) that the early church did not baptize infants.°' In spite of his
historical conclusions, he argued in the end that the delayed commitment of
the church to infant baptism was in fact a theologically accurate deduction.”
The spiritual renewal associated with infant baptism is a purely divine work
in the infant and thus reminds us of the priority of grace, and from his
perspective the demand for conscious faith prior to baptism turns faith into
a work which displaces God's promise as the basis of trust. He further
argued that the priority of grace and the universality of the gospel demand
that we baptize all who do not explicitly reject it, which would certainly
include all infants whose parents are willing to allow their baptism.™ This
is admittedly a more indiscriminate approach to baptism than is common
among paedobaptists (at least principially), but it is a logical inference. If
the death of Christ was in fact a "general baptism" for all humans, and the
essence of Christian baptism is to translate this into an offer of grace to
those for whom Christ died, then why would we not give visible witness to
the gospel by baptizing in a manner as indiscriminate as the death of Christ?
Although many paedobaptists utilize both the "priority of grace"
argument and the "seal of the covenant" argument, it appears that these two
arguments are in fact contradictory. The former logically leads to baptizing
everyone in the world as an offer of the gospel to all for whom Christ died,
while the latter leads to the restriction of baptism to those who are called out
from the mass of humanity as the holy, covenant people. In terms of infants,
the former would imply the baptism of all infants whose parents would
allow it, while the second would restrict baptism to the infant children of
professed believers. It is possible that one of these arguments might be
valid, but not both simultaneously.
It is not true that the restriction of baptism to confessing believers is a
functional denial of the priority of divine grace. That would be true only if
every work of divine grace were prevenient, but such is not the testimony of
Scripture. For example, the grace of forgiveness follows confession of sins
(1 John 1:9), and the grace of justification follows faith in Christ (Rom 5:1).
As important as the reality of prevenient grace may be, the testimony of
Scripture is that there are other kinds of grace as well. The objective

61 Kurt Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants?, trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray
(London: SCM Press, 1963). Cf. Joachim Jeremias, The Origins of Infant Baptism,
trans. David Cairns (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960).
62arIbide Tis:
63 Ibid., 115.
64 Ibid.
 CRAKE
RE
FAITH \
“toe
G4 2

— ae alr
£K 6C5° OVE Ss

An Analysis of the Theological Formulation r / RE BW a ZNO

manifestation of grace in the Christ-event and the subjective manifestation

of grace in the application of redemption to the individual do not stand in
the samerelation to the faith of the individual. Faith looks back to the one
in order to experience the other. Baptist sacramentalists are neither
unbiblical nor incoherent in their assertion that the grace which is active in
baptism is the grace ofapplied-redemption,-a grace which has effects that
cannot realistically be posited of any but confessing believers.

Baptism and the Holy Spirit

Baptist sacramentalists have recognized that there is some kind of normative
connection between baptism and the reception of the Holy Spirit, although
they have placed varying degrees of emphasis on this linkage and have seen
varying degrees of consistency in the New Testament witness. The
connection could hardly be denied, for for if
if baptism unites the individual to
Christ and thus totthe benefits ofChrist's redemptive work, and ifthe gift of
the Holy Spirit is. central to the benefits of the Messianic salvation (as
envisioned by the Hebrew prophets and John the Baptist), then any act
which
which accomplishes union with Christ must be presumed to mediate the
presence of the Spirit. As noted in Chapter 2, this connection between
baptism in water and baptism in the Spirit was central to the concerns of
Robinson in his pioneering efforts to rejuvenate a dynamic, Baptist
sacramentalism; for White the bestowal of the Spirit via baptism was
implied in the paradigmatic experience of Jesus in his baptism; and for
Beasley-Murray one of the ways in which the sacramental significance of
baptism could be expressed was, "The Spirit is there." Some Baptists have
argued for the laying on of hands as an integral part of the baptismal rite, in
order to signify this aspect of initiation into Christ,® but it should be noted
that the incorporation of this act into the baptismal event and the affirmation
that the Spirit is given in baptism are logically distinct.
Some Baptists have seen great significance in the bestowal of the Spirit
at the baptism of Jesus, but others have emphasized the discontinuity
between Jesus and those who believe in him.°’ Varying degrees of
significance have been attached to the conjunction between water and the

65 For a brief survey of Baptist attitudes toward the laying on of hands, see Ernest A.
Payne, "Baptism and Christian Initiation," Baptist Quarterly 26, no. 4 (October 1975):
150-153.
66 White, BDI, 98.
67 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 63-64.
220 More Than a Symbol

Spirit in John 3:5--the saying is too cryptic to serve as any kind of regulative
text. The major support for the conjunction of baptism and the bestowal of
the Spirit has been found in the theology of Paul. On the assumption that
1 Corinthians 12:13 refers to baptism in water, this text indicates that
baptism is an event in which the individual is brought within the sphere of
the Holy Spirit. Similarly, on the assumption that the Aovtpdv of Titus 3:5
denotes baptism, the sacrament is interpreted as an event that is instrumental
in the regenerating/renewing work of the Spirit. The classic text in Romans
6 views baptism as the event in which the baptizand is united to Christ, and
thus as the point at which the saving work of Christ becomes effective in the
individual and inaugurates in a proleptic way the life of the resurrection.
This present experience of "resurrection" implies a deliverance from
destructive slavery to sin through a constructive slavery to God and
righteousness. As the argument unfolds it becomes clear that the dynamic
of this transformed present existence is the empowering presence of the
Holy Spirit (Rom 7:6), and this is the experience of all who belong to Christ-
-to belong to Christ is to have the Spirit of Christ (8:9). Therefore, it is
baptism in the Spirit, an act of the risen Christ, which makes the redemptive
work of Christ transformative in the individual, and this encounter with
Christ and the Spirit is assumed to occur in baptism.
Relating this systematic perspective to the narratives of Acts is
admittedly problematic, but this is true for every systematic perspective,
given the obvious diversity of the narratives. However, the diversity is not
inexplicable, given the special character of the narrated receptions of the
Spirit, and the narratives are compatible with the view that baptism is the
normal context for the gift of the Spirit. At the "Gentile Pentecost" in Acts
10, the Spirit is poured out prior to baptism, but the account records Peter's
insistence on immediate baptism, based on his assumption that the Spirit
and the water belong together. In the Acts 19 account of the enigmatic
"disciples" at Ephesus, the point at which the Spirit is given is in fact their
Christian baptism at the hands of Paul. The only context in which there
appears to be a genuine disjunction between Christian conversion-baptism
and the gift of the Spirit is in the Acts 8 account of the Samaritan mission,
and even there the "not yet" (8:16) language of the narrative seems to imply
that the disjunction is exceptional rather than paradigmatic. Luke's

68 Bruner, A Theology of the Holy Spirit, 177-178. For the view that Luke represents the
Samaritans as lacking genuine, saving faith prior to the descent of the Spirit, see Dunn,
Baptism in the Holy Spirit, 63-68. Either approach concludes that Acts 8 is exceptional
in some way.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 221

account of apostolic teaching about baptism is to be found in atext like Acts

2:38, which views baptism as instrumental in both forgiveness and the
bestowal of the Spirit. Narratives of what occurred on specific occasions are
descriptive of the freedom of the grace of God, who is not bound to his
appointed means, but Acts 2:38 is prescriptive of the assumed effects of
conversion-baptism. The narratives of Acts indicate that we are mistaken
if we think that there is some sort of automatic cause-effect relation between
baptism and the Spirit, but taken as a whole the book is compatible with
Pauline theology. Both affirm that entrance into the life of the kingdom of
God includes repentance, faith and baptism from the human side, and
forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Spirit from the divine side, and that
baptism is the normal point at which the action of each side is focused.
Sacramentalists with a high doctrine of Confirmation often deny the
normativity of this connection between baptism and the gift of the Spirit,
arguing instead that the crucial factor in the gift of the Spirit is the ministry
of apostles or their successors.®° Much of the support for this perspective
comes from patristic teaching, but it is argued that this patristic thought is
grounded in the patterns of the Acts of the Apostles, specifically the
significance attributed to the laying on of apostolic hands. It is recorded in
Acts 8 that the Spirit came upon the Samaritans when Peter and John
prayed for them with the laying on of their hands, and likewise in Acts 19
the Spirit was bestowed upon the twelve men at Ephesus when Paul laid
hands on them.
The ongoing relevance of such apostolic ministry would depend on
some sort of doctrine of apostolic succession, which is a large question
outside the parameters of this study. But even if such succession were
granted, Baptists (and others) have rightly argued that the Acts of the
Apostles will not bear the weight of this doctrine of apostolic hands. For
example, in the Acts 19 episode, the laying on of Paul's hands occurs in the
context of the Christian baptism of the twelve men, and the account of
Paul's dialogue with the men indicates that the fundamental reason for their
lack of the Spirit has everything to do with the nature of their baptism and
nothing to do with the laying on of hands. Acts 8 does indeed indicate that
it was the ministry of the apostles Peter and John that brought about the gift
of the Spirit, but to infer a doctrine of apostolic/episcopal confirmation from

69 For example, see Arthur James Mason, Zhe Relation of Confirmation to Baptism: As
Taught in Holy Scripture and The Fathers (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1891)
and Dom Gregory Dix, Zhe Theology of Confirmation in Relation to Baptism (London:
Dacre Press, 1946). For a critique of this approach by a fellow Anglican, see G. W. H.
Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1951).
 AN
P Ry a) Pe ad
\ }pw .
702 7 4 wh P< ov More Than a Symbol

this one text is an unwarranted extrapolation. Acts 9 points to the bestowal

of the Holy Spirit in the conversion of Saul through the hands of Ananias,
who is not an apostle, and Acts 10 shows the pouring out of the Spirit prior
to Peter's imposition of hands and indeed prior to the baptism of Cornelius
and his household. When all this evidence is considered, it seems that Acts
8 is included in the Lukan account precisely because it is exceptional, not
because it is normative.
None of this is to deny that many Christians have in fact experienced a
filling/empowering of the Holy Spirit in connection with their confirmation,
episcopal or otherwise. But this is easily explained on the basis of Baptist
assumptions, inasmuch as confirmation embodies a personal confession of
commitment to Jesus Christ, and it is that kind of pet&voie to which the
gift of the Spirit is promised (Acts 2:38). On Baptist assumptions the
normative context for that confession is baptism, but the crucial factor is the
confession and not the context. The narratives of Acts demonstrate that God
exercises his freedom in the granting of the Spirit, and the present gift of the
Spirit outside the baptismal context would be a continuing display of that
freedom.
Non-sacramentalist evangelicals (as well as some who interpret baptism
as a Sacramental means of grace in some sense) challenge this link between
the Spirit and baptism by affirming as normative an experienced indwelling
of the Spirit connected to conversion prior to baptism.” This is
understandable within the Baptist context, in which faith is considered to be
a condition of baptism and the Spirit is considered to be given to all who
believe in Christ. However, it is simply another variation on the theme of
conversion apart from baptism, and it is subject to all the criticisms
expressed above in the discussion about faith and baptism. To posit the
bestowal of the Spirit prior to baptism may be true to the experience of
many Baptists, but the view that this is normative is rooted in a conscious
distinction between conversion and baptism and the consequent provision
of some other vehicle to confirm conversion (perhaps a verbal confession,
even a ritualized one). There is no need to deny the reality of such
experience, but what can be denied is that this is the theologically normative
construction of the matter.

70H. Clarkson, "The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments," Baptist Quarterly 14 (1951-1952):
269; D. S. Russell, "Ministry and Sacraments," Baptist Quarterly 17 (1957-1958): 72.
Russell is an example of those who affirm a sacramental view of baptism but deny that
it normatively mediates the personal experience of the initial gift of the Spirit. He argued
that baptism is an experience in which “The Spirit, who was given to us at our
conversion, deepens still further our experience of God’s grace.”
 |ap sd
yo,
faery ts
Rs onde ee: J
\_
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation a 223

The truth in the non-sacramentalist perspective is the affirmation that

the gift of theSpirit is God's answer to faith in Christ, but the error lies in
the disjunctionbetween faith and baptism. The biblical norm is not simply
that there is some fresh experience of the Spirit in baptism, but rather that
this is in fact the initiation into the life of the Spirit, inasmuch as it is
initiation into Christ. But God's bestowal of the Spirit is not limited by
human misperception of sacramental purposes, and the witness to the gift
of the Spirit apart from and prior to baptism is simply a witness to the
freedom and richness of the grace of God, whose normal instruments of
grace are not the only venues in which he is prepared to meet penitent
sinners.
sa Ct 44 aay OA x \
3 = fp Ane ee eae rs ad ta
wy, ga A rah ger f ope: ake VS

- 5 pO Acer
ynenes
sates ‘and the Church CON’
In Pauline terms, to be baptized into Christ is to be baptized into the Body
of Christ, the Church as a universal entity (1 Cor 12:12-13). However, the
equation of "in Christ" and "in the Church" does not specify the logical
order between the two concepts: are we in the Church because we are in
Christ, or are we in Christ because we have been introduced into the Church
which is the Body of Christ? As noted in Chapter Two, Baptist
sacramentalists have opted for each of these logical orders. Both Walton
and Clark interpreted "in Christ" as primarily an ecclesiological formula,
and they argued that incorporation into the Church is the means by which
union with Christ is achieved.’ Beasley-Murray, on the other hand, took
issue with this logical order and emphatically argued that it is union with
Christ which effects entrance into the Church.” The view of Walton and
Clark appears to be driven by a desire to avoid an excessive individualism
for which Baptists have often been criticized, the kind of perspective which
views individual discipleship as the heart of salvation in a way that makes
the Church necessary only insofar as it supports individual concerns. The
view of Beasley-Murray seems to be shaped by his concern for the headship
of Christ relative to the Body and his desire to avoid an undue exaltation of
the Church as an instrument of salvation.
It is not clear that either of these valid concerns about a false theological
emphasis actually settles this question. As long as it is assumed that all who
are in Christ are also in the Church, and that vital participation in the life of
the Church is an essential part of Christian discipleship, it is theologically

71 Walton, GC, 30-31, 161; Clark, ATS, 33-34.

72 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 281-282.
224 More Than a Symbol

illegitimate to relativize the Church to support an excessive individualism.

There is a genuine, biblically-grounded, individualism which Baptist
theology has always sought to articulate, which asserts that entrance into the
Church presupposes a voluntary commitment of the individual to Christ.
On the other hand, as long as it is assumed that the Church is merely an
instrument utilized by God, and that the salvific work of God is not bound
to or controlled by the Church, there is no basis for exalting the Body above
the Head. Positing the Church as an instrument which God uses to effect
union with Christ does not necessarily diminish the glory of Christ any more
than does the concept of baptism as an instrument of union with Christ.
Although it may be impossible to settle this debate with finality, it
would appear that the general tenor of both Scripture and Baptist theology
would point toward the logical priority of union with Christ. For example,
Paul's flow of thought in Galatians 3 seems to assume that it is union with
Christ (the individual "seed of Abraham") by faith-baptism which effects
union with the people of God (the corporate "seed of Abraham"). Within the
parameters of Baptist ecclesiology (or in a broader sense what is sometimes
called "believers' church" ecclesiology), which assumes that individual
confession of commitment to Christ is a condition of church membership,
visible union with Christ is logically prior to visible union with the Body of
Christ.
Although the debate about the logical order of Christ and the Church
may be interesting and may carry certain implications, insofar as the debate
is carried on within the Baptist context, it is only about logical order, and
not about temporal order. The debaters on both sides agree that all those
who are in Christ are in the Church (universal), and vice versa, and both
agree that in biblical terms baptism is the context in which the individual is
joined to both Christ and the community of Christ.
The more perplexing question for Baptist sacramentalists is that of the
relation between baptism and membership in the church (local), and this
question is the most difficult test for the coherence of the system. This
question has always been a point of contention among Baptists in general,
even among those who hold a lower view of the efficacy of baptism. There
are essentially three views among Baptists as to the precise relation between
baptism and church membership: First, some have argued that individuals
become members of the local church by the act of baptism, so that there is
no distinction between those who are being baptized and those who are
being received as formal members of the church. This view was dominant
among the early General Baptists, for whom initiation into the church was
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 225

perhaps the primary meaning of baptism,” it has also been widely held by
Particular Baptists; and it lies at the heart of Landmarkism, a radical view
formulated in the southern United States in the 19th century affirming that
the only true church is a local Baptist church, and the only valid baptism is
one administered by such a church.” Second, some have argued that
baptism is prerequisite to, but not constitutive of, church membership.”°
This approach emphasizes the connection between conversion and baptism
and may allow for baptism on the basis of approval by the administrator,
while church membership requires approval by the church meeting as a
whole. Third, some have argued that although all believers ought to be
baptized, church membership is for all who credibly profess conversion, and
baptism may precede or follow church membership.” At the heart of this
option is the assumption that membership in the church is for all who give
evidence of being in the Church, and that such evidence is located in visible
discipleship, i.e., a lifestyle which is oriented toward obedience to Christ
according to one's understanding ofhis commands.
Generally Baptist sacramentalists have affirmed at a theoretical level the
first option, i.e., that initiation into the church ought to coincide with
initiation into the Church, both being mediated through the same act of
believer baptism. Several of the major participants in this movement have
argued that baptism, official reception into membership, and _ first
communion ought to be integrated not only theoretically but practically into
one service of worship.”* However, this Baptist sacramentalism has for the
most part arisen among English Baptists who affirmed the practice of "open
membership," accepting as church members both those baptized as believers
and those who profess faith after being baptized as infants, and in some
cases admitting persons into membership on the basis of verbal confession

73 See The Standard Confession, Article XIV in Lumpkin, Confessions, 229, where
baptism is described as the "order of constituting Churches." See also Michael Walker,
"Baptism: Doctrine and Practice among Baptists in the United Kingdom," Foundations
22, no. 1 (January-March, 1979): 73-74.
74 For example, Garner, Baptism, 14.
75 James Robinson Graves, The Act of Christian Baptism (Texarkana: Baptist Sunday
School Committee, 1881), 6.
76 Gill, Body of Divinity, 896.
71 This approach is defended at length in John Bunyan, "A Reason of My Practice in
Worship," and "Differences About Water Baptism, No Bar to Communion," in The
Whole Works of John Bunyan, ed. George Offor (Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 1863),
4:602-647.
78 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 394-395; Gilmore, BCU, 58-74; Clark, in CB, 324; Payne,
"Baptists and Christian Initiation," 154-156.
226 More Than a Symbol

of faith apart from any baptism. For some this practice of open membership
is simply an act of Christian charity toward those who are clearly disciples
of Christ but are not convinced of the invalidity of their infant baptism,”
while for others the refusal to rebaptize those who were baptized in infancy
is a matter of theological principle.*°
The question is, therefore, whether a Baptist-sacramental view of
baptism can be reconciled with the practice of open membership. In this
theological context baptism is understood to be the divinely-ordained way
to say "Yes" to the gospel; baptism is conceptualized as the normal means
of entrance into saving union with Jesus Christ; the view that baptism is
merely symbolic and declaratory is rejected; and infant baptism is
considered to be incapable of bearing the weight of a New Testament
theology of baptism, and therefore ought not be practised. All of this is
equivalent to saying that the idea of conversion and discipleship apart from
believer baptism is highly anomalous, and it thus comes as no surprise that
the vast majority of Baptists have been committed to closed membership
restricted to those baptized as believers. For many Baptists this closed
membership is rooted only in concepts of church order and baptism as mere
obedience, but for Baptists committed to a sacramental view of baptism the
significance of the rite is elevated into the soteriological realm. Is it
logically possible to accept this heightened significance of believer baptism
but declare such baptism optional for church membership?
There are only two ways to justify open membership in the Baptist
context: (1) to admit persons to membership on the basis of confession of
faith, even though they have not been validly baptized; or (2) to accept
infant baptism as valid, although irregular. These approaches will now be
examined in turn.
The first approach, which has roots as far back as John Bunyan (1628-
1688) in the 17th century, draws a sharp distinction between conversion and
baptism, arguing that verbal confession of repentance and faith which is
corroborated by lifestyle is all that is required to be considered as a Christian
and therefore all that is required for church membership. Some would see
a closer connection between conversion and baptism, but they would argue
that although baptism is the normal means of formally expressing faith and

79 Beasley-Murray, BNT, 392-393. More recently Beasley-Murray has signified an

openness to affirming the validity of at least some forms of infant baptism; see his article,
"The Problem of Infant Baptism: an Exercise in Possibilities," in Festschrift Gunter
Wagner, ed. Faculty of Baptist Theological Seminary, Rischlikon/Switzerland (Bern:
Peter lang, 1994), 1-14.
80 Walton, GC, 166; Clark, in CB, 325; Gilmore, BCU, 76-78.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 227

entering into Christian discipleship,

due to the confusion which has arisen
in the Church about baptism, many persons have entered Christian
experience in what the New Testament would judge to be an abnormal way.
Nevertheless, they give evidence of the possession of the Holy Spirit, and
their Christian status cannot be denied. Christian charity, therefore, would
accept those whom Christ has accepted, recognizing that the solution to this
anomaly is baptismal reform, not closed membership which functionally
denies the unity of all believers in Christ. This latter approach was affirmed
by H. W. Robinson at the beginning of the movement under consideration
and by Beasley-Murray at the culmination of it in the 1960's.
Although this approach may be meaningful within a non-sacramental
Baptist theology, it is hard to see it as anything other than a functional denial
of a sacramental view of baptism. Granted that such "rebaptisms" which
may be severely disconnected from conversion are not true to the full New
Testament picture, it would seem to be less anomalous to repair an invalid
attempt at Christian baptism than to admit to full membership in the church
apart from valid baptism. In no case can one infallibly identify the precise
temporal relation between the attitude of faith and the act of confessional
baptism, because no one is capable of knowing the mind of another--but in
any case baptism serves to seal and focus the meeting of faith and grace.
Accordingly, however short or long the time between the first awareness of
faith and its sacramental expression in baptism, the ritual act can still serve
its purpose of translating faith into act. Baptist sacramentalists from
Robinson to Beasley-Murray have lamented the large number of persons
who grow up in Baptist families and churches and request church
membership apart from baptism, but as long as others are admitted to
membership without a valid baptism, it is hard to avoid the extension of the
principle to these persons.
The second approach assumes that valid baptism is a condition of
church membership, but argues that a de facto infant baptism should be
accepted as valid in spite of its irregularity. Accordingly, those who were
baptized as infants and have subsequently confessed faith in Christ and been
accepted as members of some church are accepted into Baptist church
membership on that basis. Baptism and faith are seen as the essential
conditions of church membership, and as long as both are present the
conditions are considered to be met, even though they may have occurred
in an irregular order. There are two standard principles employed to defend
the validity of such infant baptisms: (1) the once-for-all character of
Christian baptism; and (2) the validity of paedobaptist churches.
The “once-for-all” argument. The work of Christ is &pama€, a once-
228 More Than a Symbol

for-all redemptive event, never to be repeated. Furthermore, the Pauline

understanding of baptism, stated most fully in Romans 6, indicates that
baptism decisively unites the individual to that redemptive activity of the
death and resurrection of Christ, so that what happened in the Christ-event
happens in an analogous and derivative way in individual experience
through baptism into Christ. Therefore, what happens in baptism is of the
same nature as the work of Christ. Since Christ died once for all (€¢a&70€--
Rom 6:10), never to die again (6:9), it is also the case that we are united
with Christ by baptism once only.
Baptist theologians in general have agreed with the principle that
baptism ought not be repeated in the life of any individual, even though in
some circles pastoral practice has allowed for multiple experiences of
believer baptism due to doubts about the genuineness of faith expressed in
an earlier baptism.*' But the meaning of the principle that baptism is
épanaé depends on the definition of baptism, and traditionally most
Baptists have argued that personal confession by the baptizand is essential
to baptism, so that the baptism as a believer of one "baptized" in infancy is
not arebaptism at all. Therefore, from their beginning in the first decade of
the 17th century in England, Baptists have normally rejected the label
"Anabaptists."
Contrary to this tradition, some Baptist sacramentalists have argued that
although baptism ought not be applied to infants, when in fact it has been
done, this is a real baptism, however tenuous its connection to biblical
baptism. But what factors might constitute the validity of such (irregular)
baptisms? (1) Is it simply the fact that it is called "baptism" and is intended
to fulfill the demands of Christian baptism? If so, would absolutely
anything that is called "baptism" qualify? What if the rite were performed
without water or anything like water, say, by means of a dipping or
sprinkling motion without substance? What if it were done with no
reference to the Godhead? Few theologians would be prepared to accept the
mere label as a basis for validity. (2) Is it the fact that such baptism
incorporates the infant into the Christian community for spiritual nurture?
If so, would not the same thing be true of a service of infant blessing and
dedication in a baptistic context? (3) Is it the fact that it declares the gospel
and signifies the work of Christ? That may well be true, but to say that this
is the heart of Christian baptism is to reduce baptism to a purely declaratory
or kerygmatic function, which is the very thing that Baptist sacramentalists

81 Timothy George, "The Southern Baptists," in Baptism & Church: A Believers' Church
Vision, ed. Merle D. Strege (Grand Rapids: Sagamore Books, 1986), 48.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 229

have been seeking to refute within their own ecclesiastical context. The
éhanag argument in Romans 6 assumes that baptism is the point at which
the work of Christ becomes effective in the individual, not that baptism
merely proclaims what may happen in the individual. Therefore, to apply
the argument of Romans 6 to an event which is merely declaratory and
hopeful is to confuse categories.
The burden of Baptist sacramentalism has been to assert that baptism
is an event in which God truly acts and effects spiritual change in the
baptizand, and that this is so because it is the event in which there is a
genuine and conscious divine-human encounter, a meeting of grace and
faith. To ridicule fellow Baptists for their "attenuated parable-rite in which
nothing is even expected to happen"** while defending infant baptism as
valid baptism is at least problematic if not contradictory.
The valid church argument. For some Baptists, to deny the validity of
infant baptism is to "unchurch" paedobaptists, and it is assumed that this
cannot be done. These Baptist sacramentalists share with (non-
sacramentalist) Landmark Baptists the view that the validity of a church and
the validity of the baptism practised by that church stand or fall together.
In the Landmark tradition, what is assumed to be clearly true is that the
baptism practised by paedobaptist churches is not valid baptism, and
consequently such "churches" are such in name only--they may be
"societies" of sincere but misguided Christians, but they are not valid
churches.®? For the Baptist sacramentalists, on the other hand, the argument
assumes that paedobaptist churches are true churches, and infers from this
that the baptism practised by such churches must be valid baptism.™
Now this assumption that a church is a valid church if and only if its
baptismal practice is valid is by no means shared by the whole Baptist
tradition. Both of these perspectives differ from a major stream of Baptist
thought, which affirms that valid churches exist in spite of serious
irregularities, even in the practice of baptism. This other stream of Baptist
thought may be seen in the influential Second London Confession (1677
and 1689), in which the lengthy Chapter XXVI ("Of the Church") makes no
reference to the practice of baptism at all. Churches are defined as
communities of "visible saints," that is, persons who make a credible
profession of faith in the gospel and obedience to Christ. It is admitted that,

82 White, BDI, 305.

83 Graves, Act of Baptism, 54-56. See also Robert George Torbet, “Landmarkism,” in
Baptist Concepts of the Church, ed. Winthrop Still Hudson (Chicago: Judson Press,
1959), 170-195.
84 Walton, GC, 166; Clark, in CB, 326; Gilmore, BCU, 81.
230 More Than a Symbol

"The purest Churches under heaven are subject to mixture, and error." It is
true that the church members are said to covenant with one another "in
professed subjection to the Ordinances of the Gospel," and baptism would
be comprehended under the label of "Ordinances," but no specific pattern
of baptismal practice is indicated at that point. The statement of the
distinctively Baptist doctrine of baptism is reserved for Chapters XX VIII
and XXIX.®> The logic of the confession, then, is this: a visible Church is
defined as a community of visible saints, an organized congregation made
up of individuals who evidently belong to Christ by faith; following this
definition of a Church, there is a statement of the way in which baptism
ought to function in this Church. But there is no assertion that errors in
baptismal practice render invalid the claim to be a Church--indeed that
could hardly be the mindset of the authors of the confession, because the
confession is a virtual replica of the Westminster Confession. In the preface
to the Second London Confession (1677), the authors state that by using the
very words of the Westminster Confession (1646) and its Congregational
modification, the Savoy Confession (1658), as far as possible, they intend
to "manifest our consent with both, in all the fundamental articles of the
Christian religion."*° The Baptist confession quite clearly asserts that the
only valid baptism 1s believer baptism by immersion, but this assertion 1s
not used as a litmus test to determine the validity of a church.
It is true, of course, that some other Baptist confessions do define a
church as a community of baptized believers. Such is true of the First
London Confession, Chapter XXXIII (Particular Baptist-1644),*’ the
Standard Confession, Chapter XI (General Baptist-1660),8* and the
Orthodox Creed, Chapter XXX (General Baptist, 1678).*° In some cases,
notably the Standard Confession which denies Christian fellowship with
paedobaptists ("the unfruitful works of darkness"), this is clearly an
intentional assertion that paedobaptist churches are not valid churches, but
it is not clear that the same is true in other cases. It may well be that
definitions of the church which include baptism are simply statements of the
biblical pattern as the authors understand it, and inferences concerning the
extent to which the pattern must be followed in order to qualify as a valid
church must be done with care. Whatever may be the intent of the First

85 Lumpkin, Confessions, 285-291.

86 Ibid., 245.
87 Ibid., 165.
88 Ibid., 228.
89 Ibid., 319.
90 Ibid., 228-229.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 231

London Confession in this regard, the developing thought of the Particular

Baptists moved in the direction of affirming their close ties with
Presbyterian and Congregational churches even as they denied the validity
of their sprinkling of infants.
The foundational assumption of Baptist sacramentalists in this argument
is that paedobaptist churches are valid churches, but on what basis can this
assumption be made? It cannot be assumed on the basis of a valid baptism
which constitutes the church, because that is the very point in question. The
assumption must be based on some demonstrable Christian commitment,
some visible evidence of spiritual life, what Paul would call the "fruit of the
Spirit." But the same thing can be said for other churches that do not
practise baptism at all (the Friends and the Salvation Army) and for
individuals in various churches (including many Baptist churches) who have
never been baptized in any form. The logical inference from these facts is
that while baptism is the biblically normative means of joining the Church
and its local manifestation, it is not the invariable means or the sine qua non
of a valid church. The irreducible constitutive factor is the presence of the
Holy Spirit, the giver of new life, the one who joins the members of the
Body to the Head, the one whose presence makes the community of
believers the temple of God. Accordingly, a congregation of disciples of
Christ, indwelt by the Spirit and committed to the manifestation of the
kingdom of God may be considered a valid church, even though that
congregation's practice may be highly irregular in certain ways.
In the end, then, a Baptist church which is committed to the theology
and practice of believer baptism may demand the "rebaptism" of those not
baptized as believers, on the basis of its sealing the conversion which is
already apparent in other ways. This in no way denies the work of the Spirit
which has occurred apart from baptism, nor does it deny the validity of the
church in which infant baptism occurred. Liturgically, such "rebaptism"
could be constructed in such a way that it formally affirms what was started
in an irregular manner and repairs a discipleship which lacks its appropriate
sacramental expression.”
The failure to connect theory to practice on this point is the major
deficiency of modern Baptist sacramentalism. If (as this theology asserts)
the only theologically justifiable practice of baptism is that of a confessing
believer, and believer baptism has the kind of sacramental character
affirmed in this theology, then it seems that to counsel willful neglect of this

91 This concept of baptismal "repair" is elucidated by James McClendon in his Systematic

Theology, Vol. 2, Doctrine (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 395-397.
232 More Than a Symbol

sacrament is to contradict the theology that is affirmed and to withhold from

many Christians the conscious experience associated with believer baptism.
On the basis of Christian charity, the effect of open membership may be to
attenuate the Christian experience of many disciples of Christ.
The Baptist debate about open versus closed membership is mullti-
faceted and complex. Baptismal theology is only one of several
ecclesiological issues which must be elucidated and prioritized in the
process of this debate. Perhaps it is possible to construct an argument for
open membership which is based on giving a higher priority to the biblical
principle of the visible unity of Christians than to the biblical principle of
baptism as the normative means of union with Christ and the Church. Such
an approach, if it seeks to preserve the sincerity and integrity of church
membership, would call into question any church confession of faith which
exceeds minimal content, but perhaps such could be defended (especially
by Baptists, who have always displayed some ambivalence about creeds and
confessions). However, even if some such approach may be possible, what
seems impossible is to claim that open membership logically follows from
a Baptist-sacramental understanding of baptism. It may be defensible in
spite of such a baptismal theology, but the British practice of open
membership appears to be grounded in the complexities of the British
ecclesiastical context and in other ecclesiological principles, not in a logical
inference from Baptist sacramentalism.

The Necessity of Baptism

One of the common criticisms of Baptist sacramentalism from within the
Baptist tradition has been that it makes baptism necessary for personal
salvation, which elevates baptism to an unbiblical and unbaptistic level of
significance and disqualifies the unbaptized from salvation. As noted in
Chapter Two, this criticism was especially directed toward Christian
Baptism when it was published in 1959. It is surprising that the authors of
that volume did not anticipate the force of this criticism and attempt to deal
with it preemptively, but in any case satisfactory answers have been given
after the fact.
The most basic point is to note that Baptist sacramentalists have been
trying to interpret the doctrine of baptism which underlies the New
Testament writings, without any illusions that present reality always
matches biblical theory or that we can readily duplicate the experience of
the apostolic age in all its details. It might be said that this Baptist
reformulation was an exposition of "ideal baptism," not in an idealistic
 4G tL.
Lapin Co ncept (i ) Be CIUL Ve wie
Ro LAW mito i,
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 233

manner assuming that the paradigm can easily be translated into the present,
but in the hope that the biblical paradigm will function as a norm to be
approximated to the greatest possible degree.”
Baptist sacramentalists have also emphasized that baptism is
conversion-baptism, so that to ask whether baptism is necessary for
salvation is at one level to ask whether conversion is necessary for salvation.
Baptists in general would argue that the latter is a meaningless question in
biblical terms. However, Baptist experience has in various ways
disconnected baptism from conversion, leading to the assumption that a
completed and assured conversion must occur prior to baptism, and this has
created a pre-understanding which makes a sacramental view of baptism
sound like an come to multiply the conditions of salvation. When baptism
is conceptually reconnected to conversion as the way in which a penitent
sinner says “Yes” to the gospel, the question of necessity ceases to be so
problematic.
Baptist sacramentalists have clearly affirmed the salvation of
paedobaptist believers, and indeed of all believers, even those not baptized
in any form. This has been demonstrated in their affirmation of open
membership as well as their ecumenical involvement in the Faith and Order
Commission, the British Council of Churches, the Joint Liturgical Group,
etc. When pressed to explain the status of the Friends or The Salvation
Army, they have affirmed the presence of the Spirit in those contexts,
although they have lamented the impoverished nature of churches without
sacraments.”?
At the heart of this particular issue is the distinction between normal
and necessary means of conveying the benefits of redemption. To say that
baptism is the normal means of bringing individuals into a redemptive
encounter with Christ is to say that it is relatively necessary in two ways: (1)
It is a preceptive necessity in that it is the dominically-appointed way to
express the response of faith in relation to the kerygma.™' In any case in
which the individual understands the gospel and perceives that baptism is
the appropriate way to affirm the gospel, the refusal to be baptized would
take on great significance, not because of the mere absence of baptism, but
because of the rejection of what is embodied in baptism. (2) It is what
might be termed a holistic necessity, in that we exist as embodied persons

92 Beasley-Murray, Baptist Times, 10 December 1959, 8.

93 Beasley-Murray, Baptist Times, 11 February 1960, 10.
94 Beasley-Murray, BN7, 304. Earlier examples may be found in Keach, Gold Refin'd,
173; and Hall, Works, 1:310-311.
234 More Than a Symbol

and therefore respond as more than minds or "souls."”? It would be an

overstatement to assert with Alan Richardson that salvation apart from
baptism is, due to its disjunction between body and spirit, "sheer Christian
Science"”° when judged by biblical standards, but it would be closer to the
truth to say that a non-sacramental norm of conversion would be grounded
in an unbiblical dualism. Just as we need actions and symbols to convey
truth adequately, so also we need them to facilitate human response to
Christ who confronts us in the gospel. Ifit is true that "the body without the
spirit is dead," it may also be said that "the spirit without the body" is at best
an anomaly.
Baptist sacramentalists would contend that to ask whether baptism is
necessary is to ask the wrong question. If the question is pursued to the end
and the answer is that baptism is not absolutely necessary, then what is
gained by the discovery? To assert that spiritual benefit can be obtained
apart from baptism is not to say that there is no spiritual benefit in baptism.
Baptist sacramentalists would not assert that God is gracious to sinners only
in baptism, but rather that one may expect him to be gracious in baptism.
Their theology represents a positive statement of what may be normatively
expected in baptism, not a negative statement of what may not be obtained
in any other way. If this is not comprehended, then the whole discussion of
baptismal necessity will be misdirected and fruitless.

Baptists and Other Sacramental Traditions

Although Baptist sacramentalists have interacted with the broader world of
Christian scholarship in their reformulation of baptismal theology, they have
not explicitly identified their views with any other traditions. There are
several reasons for this lack of explicit connection to the historic baptismal
doctrine of other denominations: (1) Most of this Baptist reformulation has
been focused on New Testament exegesis and biblical theology, rather than
systematic theology. Although the larger systematic questions have been
addressed in some ways in ecumenical discussion, notably in the work
leading up to the Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document (1982), the
scholarly literature which was contemporary with the Baptist reformulation
generally focused on biblical theology and was marked by a lack of
denominational content. Thus Beasley-Murray was able to say in the

95 White, BDI, 263; Beasley-Murray, BNT, 138, 305; Gilmore, BCU, 43-47; Clark, "Under
Fire," 17.
96 Richardson, Theology of the New Testament, 348.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 235

preface to his magnum opus that the bulk of it could have been written by
a scholar of any denomination.”’” (2) Most of the other traditions are
paedobaptist, thus ruling out any strict equivalence between those systems
and the developing Baptist thought. (3) The other traditions have been in
flux as well, making it difficult to identify the precise character of the
baptismal theology of whole denominations. Nevertheless, it is appropriate
to compare Baptist sacramentalism with the interpretation of the baptism of
confessing believers in other streams of sacramentalism, in order to describe
more precisely the systematic structure of the Baptist thought. Although the
practice of the historic churches has been predominantly the baptism of
infants, the stated paradigms have often been constructed in terms of
believer baptism, thus facilitating comparison with Baptists at the
theological level.”

The Roman Catholic Tradition

Although there are superficial similarities to traditional Catholic categories
of baptismal theology, even to the point of viewing baptism as the context
in which regeneration occurs, there are major differences between the
traditions.
First, there are different understandings of the nature of the grace
conveyed in baptism. Although modern Catholic scholars have clarified
older language which seemed to reify grace and have conceptualized grace
as fundamentally gracious action by God, and have thus agreed with Baptist
conceptions, there remains the question as to the precise nature of this
gracious action in baptism. Both traditions affirm that this grace includes
the gift of the Holy Spirit to empower moral transformation (1.e.,
sanctification), but most Baptists also affirm that this grace includes a
radical declaration of forgiveness (i.e., justification) along traditional
Protestant lines. This traditional difference has never been finally resolved,

97 Beasley-Murray, BNT, vi.

98 In the years since the period of reformulation being examined in this book, various
groups of Baptists have engaged in formal dialogue about baptism with other traditions,
and in some cases entire issues of Baptist journals have been devoted to the topic.
Baptist-Roman Catholic dialogues are displayed in Foundations 12, no. 3 (July-
September 1969) and Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no. 2 (Spring 1986).
Baptist-Lutheran dialogue can be found in American Baptist Quarterly 1, no, 2
(December 1982). Unfortunately, these dialogues postdate the British reformulation era
being considered here, and most of the Baptists involved are not strongly sacramental
in orientation.
236 More Than a Symbol

although some Roman Catholic theologians have made major concessions

in a Protestant direction,” and some Baptists have suggested that the
Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification requires major
revision if not rejection. '°°
Second, and perhaps most important, there are different views of the
nature of the faith expressed in baptism. In the Baptist system the faith in
view is active and fiducial, it is consciously directed toward Christ and his
work in death and resurrection, and this fiducial faith is the heart of the
baptismal event from the human side. However, Catholic theologians make
it clear that the faith expressed in baptism may be merely predispositive and
not yet fiducial.'°’ It appears that this predispositive faith may be directed
simply toward the assumed power which will be at work in the baptismal
event, and the heart of the event is doing the right action with the right
intentions.’ One contemporary Roman Catholic theologian has argued that
both White and Beasley-Murray have responded to outdated notions of the
meaning of ex opere operato,'®’ but although modern Catholics may have
clarified the concept in a way that avoids crassly mechanistic notions, there
is still a significant distinction between faith in divine action pledged to
accompany baptism (Catholic) and faith in Christ which is met by divine
grace as that faith is expressed in baptism (Baptist). Christ is the object of
faith directly in the Baptist approach, but much more indirectly in the
Catholic approach.
Third, there remains a major difference in the degree of necessity which
is attributed to baptism. In the Baptist approach, baptism is "necessary"
only in the preceptive sense as the divinely-ordained event which focuses
and objectifies the faith-response to the gospel, but the absence or even

99 See, for example, Salvation and the Church: An Agreed Statement by the Second
Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (London: Church House
Publishing, 1987).
100 This is apparently asserted by Robert G. Torbet, "The Nature and Communication of
Grace: The Baptist Perspective," /oundations 12, no. 3 (July-September, 1969): 222.
Torbet cites as a major Baptist proponent of this revision Arthur B. Crabtree, Zhe
Restored Relationship: A Study in Justification and Reconciliation (Valley Forge:
Judson Press, 1963).
101 Joseph Pohle, The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise, trans. Arthur Preuss (St. Louis:
B. Herder, 1915), 1:123; Ott, Catholic Dogma, 329; Schillebeeckx, Christ the
Sacrament, 109.
102 Ott, Catholic Dogma, 329, Schillebeeckx, Christ the Sacrament, 89, 109.
103 W. A. Van Roo, Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White, in
Gregorianum 42 (1961): 150; idem., Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G.
R. Beasley-Murray, in Gregorianum 44 (1963): 134.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 237

neglect of baptism in the case of one who is a evidently a disciple of Christ

is not interpreted as a sign that saving grace has not been conveyed. In the
Catholic view, there are to be sure exceptions to the normative necessity of
baptism, but these exceptions are for cases in which there is in fact a desire
for baptism which has not yet been fulfilled.'°* In Baptist thought faith is
the fundamental reality and baptism the normal vehicle of expression, but
in Catholic thought baptism is the fundamental reality, and the idea of a
fully-formed faith apart from baptism is essentially untenable.

The Lutheran Tradition

At the heart of Lutheran baptismal theology is the idea of baptism as a

verbum visibile, a visible and tangible proclamation of the Word of the
Gospel. As a proclamation of the gospel in dramatic form, baptism both
offers and conveys the benefits of Christ to those who receive it. It serves
to evoke and strengthen faith which lays hold of Christ for spiritual rebirth,
and in this sense (as a facilitator of fiducial faith) it is a means of
regeneration.’ The terminology of "visible word" has not been as central
in Baptist thought as in Lutheranism, but it was used (under the influence
of John Smyth) in the 1612 confession of the emerging General Baptist
movement. '°°
Perhaps the crux of the Lutheran-Baptist comparison is the sense in
which baptism "evokes" faith in the baptizand. If "evoke" here means to
bring an existing though undeveloped faith to a definite, focused expression
in the sacramental ritual, then the two views appear very similar. If,
however, "evoke" means to create faith where none presently exists, then
there is a significant difference between the two. The question that must be
answered, then, concerns the nature of the faith that is presupposed in the
baptism of a mature person.
Baptists assume that the baptizand is prepared to confess faith in Christ
in a way that embodies both assensus andfiducia. Baptist sacramentalists
recognize that this faith may be relatively undeveloped, and they do not
assume that a conscious assurance of grace has already occurred, but they
do posit a genuine faith to be concretely expressed in baptism. Lutherans,
on the other hand, exhibit great diversity on this question. Francis Pieper

104 Ott, Catholic Dogma, 340-341.

105 Francis Pieper, Christian Dogmatics, 3 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1953), 3:264.
106 Lumpkin, Confessions, 138.
238 More Than a Symbol

(1852-1931), a conservative and traditional theologian of the Lutheran

Church—Missouri Synod, interpreted baptismal faith as strongly cognitive
in character, arguing that an adult baptism presupposes conscious awareness
of the content of the gospel and honest (though immature) commitment to
Christ and the gospel.'”” Indeed, he recognized that in some cases of adult
conversion, this faith may be sufficiently formed to lead to regeneration
prior to baptism, in which case baptism (though it always possesses
regenerative power) may in fact confirm or strengthen an existing
regeneration.'°* Regin Prenter (b. 1907), a Scandinavian Lutheran, agreed
that baptismal faith contains some sort of cognitive element, but he argued
that we must allow for a minimal amount of cognition. This is a concern
especially in the case of infants, but even in the case of adult baptism, he
argued that the priority of grace minimizes the need for concern regarding
the precise nature or content of the faith of the baptizand.'°” Gustaf Aulen
(1879-1978), aSwedish Lutheran, stood at the opposite end of the spectrum
from Pieper, arguing that there is no need to posit any kind of faith at the
point of baptism, because baptism is fundamentally a symbol and means of
prevenient grace, the vehicle by which the grace that appeared in history in
Christ advances into the history of the individual.'’°
Baptist formulations of the relationships among faith, baptism and
regeneration are quite similar to the conceptual scheme of Pieper. Both
approaches posit a genuinely cognitive though immature faith as the
condition of adult baptism; both interpret baptism as the event in which
regeneration becomes a confirmed reality; and both agree that regeneration
may very well be a reality prior to baptism, even though our perception of
this reality is normatively mediated through baptism. However, when
Baptist interpretations are compared to the schemes like those of Prenter and
Aulen, the differences are prominent. Those Lutheran views interpret faith
as fundamentally the effect of baptism, and whatever differences there may
be among Baptist sacramentalists, that is to them a foreign concept.

The Reformed/Calvinistic Tradition

The heart of the Reformed view of baptism is that it is not only a "sign," but

107 Pieper, Dogmatics, 3:277.

108 Ibid., 3:264.
109 Regin Prenter, Creation and Redemption, trans. Theodor I. Jensen (Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1967), 465-470.
110 Gustaf Aulen, The Faith of the Christian Church, trans. Eric M. Wahlstrom
(Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 341.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 239

also & "seal" of personal incorporation in the covenant of grace. In the

language of the Westminster Confession, baptism is for the baptizand "a
sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of
regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through
Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life."''' In this conceptual scheme,
therefore, baptism ratifies both the human confession that Jesus is Lord (the
"giving up" to a new life of discipleship) and the divine work of remission
and regeneration (effecting both justification and sanctification). Baptism
is conceptualized as a symbol, but more than a symbol, in that "by the right
use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really
exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost"''” to the elect.
In many ways, the concept of baptism as a "seal" appears to be the ideal
way to describe the Baptist idea of baptism as a sacrament, and it has been
shown earlier in this book that this language is explicitly used by some early
Baptists. In this view baptism is both secondary (pointing beyond itself to
the divine promise which it confirms and apart from which it has no power)
and effective (applying the promise of the gospel to the realm of holistic
personal experience). Indeed, this concept of baptism as aseal appears to
be more applicable in the Baptist framework than it is in a paedobaptist
Reformed context, in that the ratification of the divine establishment of the
covenant is present in both systems, but the ratification of the human side
of the covenant (faith as the evidence of the divine call) is consistently
present only in the Baptist context.
It may be, then, that the Baptist sacramental view is equivalent to the
traditional Reformed view as applied to confessing believers. The one
qualification of this equation may be that the Baptist view seems to tie the
assurance which is effected by this "sealing" more closely to the baptismal
event itself than is true in the Reformed tradition. For example, the
Westminster Confession states, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that
moment of time wherein it is administered." Instead, the grace which is
"conferred" through baptism is actually given to the elect "in his appointed
time."!!? Now while this may have special relevance for the baptism of
infants, this explanation is given in reference to baptism as such, not simply
the baptism of infants. Both the Baptist and the Reformed sacramental
traditions affirm that baptism is both declaratory and effective, but in terms
of what is presumed to happen in the baptismal event itself, Baptist

111 Westminster Confession of Faith, XXVIII, I.

112 Ibid., XXVIII, VI.
113 Ibid.
240 More Than a Symbol

sacramentalism tends to emphasize its effective character and Reformed

sacramentalism the declaratory aspect. This difference may, of course, be
due to the reactive nature of each system: the Baptists reacting against the
dominant non-sacramental stream of their denominational tradition, and the
Reformed confessions reacting against medieval Catholic sacramentalism.
Both the Lutheran sense of baptism as a "visible Word" and the
Calvinistic sense of baptism as a "seal" have been utilized by some Baptists
in their verbalization of sacramental theology. These two concepts are not
mutually exclusive, both emphasizing the inherent connection between the
Word of the gospel and the sacrament which dramatizes it, and both
asserting that the sacrament is effective only in those who receive it in faith.
The description of the baptism of confessing believers in each system fits
easily into the Baptist conceptual scheme. Perhaps the best way to describe
the relationship is to say that the Baptist approach is like the traditional
Lutheran approach, but with a somewhat weaker sense of necessity, and that
the Baptist approach is like the traditional Reformed approach, but with a
somewhat stronger sense of grace conferred in the baptismal event itself.

The Disciples/Restorationist Tradition

The tradition which is closest to Baptist sacramentalism is that which was
developed by Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) and others in the first half
of the 19th century, primarily on the North American frontier but also in
Great Britain.''* Although Campbell was largely responsible for the mature
baptismal theology of this tradition, some aspects of his thought were
derived from the work of John Glas (1695-1773) and Robert Sandeman
(1718-1771) in Great Britain. In particular, Glas contributed an anti-creedal
mentality, and Sandeman developed a reductionistic interpretation of faith
as mere assent.''’?. Some have claimed that this tradition and Baptist

114 Campbell's writings are voluminous, but his mature thought on baptism can be found in
his Christian Baptism (Bethany, VA: by author, 1853). Relevant excerpts from his
many articles and books can be found in Royal Humbert, ed., A Compend of Alexander
Campbell's Theology (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1961). The relationship of this tradition
to Baptist thought is assessed by Errett Gates, Zhe Early Relation and Separation of
Baptists and Disciples (Chicago: The Christian Century Company, 1904) and E.
Roberts-Thomson, Baptists and Disciples of Christ (London: Carey Kingsgate Press,
1948).
115 See the articles on Glas and Sandeman by R. E. D. Clark in The New International
Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2" ed., gen. ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1978), 415, 877. See also Melvin Breakenridge, “The Scottish Connection:
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 241

sacramentalism are indistinguishable, in that both baptismal theologies

restrict baptism to confessing believers and embody a high view of
baptismal efficacy.
The American form of this movement originated among Presbyterians
(Barton Stone [1772-1844] and Thomas Campbell [1763-1854], Alexander's
father), then existed briefly within the Baptist context, but soon became
ecclesiastically distinct, largely due to disputes over baptismal theology.''®
Its institutional form is called (pejoratively) "Campbellism" by its
opponents, due to Alexander Campbell's role as the dominant theologian of
the movement, while its proponents refer to it as Restorationism, the Stone-
Campbell tradition, or the Disciples movement. The related movement in
Great Britain had diverse origins among small groups known as Glasites,
Sandemanians, and Scotch Baptists, but since their first annual conference
in 1842 they have existed as an organized body with explicit ties to the
American movement.''’ The vast majority of such churches are found in
North America, but the British Churches of Christ, although quite small,
have played a significant role in ecumenical discussions of this century,
notably through William Robinson (1888-1963), their leading theologian.!"*
Campbell and his associates in the early years of the movement affirmed
both the unity of the Church and the restoration of primitive Christianity (as
they saw it), with primitivism conceived as the means to unity, but it was
not long before the tension between the two principles was obvious. The
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and the British Churches of Christ
emphasize the unity principle and are committed to ecumenism, while the
American congregations called Churches of Christ or independent Christian
Churches emphasize the restoration principle and remain apart from most

John Glas, 1695-1773,” in The Campbell-Stone Movement in Ontario, ed. Claude E.

Cox (Lewiston: Edwin Mellon Press, 1995), 43-59.
116 For examples of the intensity of the Baptist reaction to Campbell, see Graves, Relation
of Baptism to Salvation, 16-56; idem., Act of Baptism, 44, 56; Jeter, Campbellism, 191-
281.
117 William Robinson, What Churches of Christ Stand For (Birmingham: Berean Press,
1959), 21-24.
118 The previously cited work by Roberts-Thomson deals with the issue in the British
context. Relevant works by William Robinson include The Biblical Doctrine of the
Church, rev. ed. (St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1955); The Shattered Cross (Birmingham:
Berean Press, 1948); and What Churches of Christ Stand For (Birmingham: Berean
Press, 1959). See also his contribution to Faith and Order discussion, "The View of
Disciples or Churches of Christ," in 7he Ministry and the Sacraments, ed. Roderic
Dunkerley, 253-268.
242 More Than a Symbol

ecumenical relationships.'!”
The baptismal doctrine of the Disciples/Restorationist tradition includes
the following elements: (1) Baptism is the act of a confessing believer in
Christ, and represents the culmination of the conversion of a sinner to
discipleship. Repentance and faith precede baptism, which is undergone for
the purpose of the remission of sins. (2) There is a concern for objectivity
in religious experience, and baptism provides the objective action through
which one enters into an assured relationship with Christ, as opposed to the
subjectivity of other religious traditions which locate assurance of salvation
in some kind of internal awareness. (3) Within the movement there are
varying views of the necessity of baptism: some see it only as the normal
means by which individuals express repentance and faith, and thus receive
the "formal" remission of sins, but some argue that both "formal" and
"actual" remission of sins come only through baptism. This difference has
existed since the early years of the movement. '”°
The similarities between the Baptist-sacramental and Disciple doctrines
are obvious. Each tradition asserts that baptism is properly restricted to
confessing believers, those who can affirm for themselves their repentance
and faith. Each tradition thinks of baptism as the act of a penitent sinner
who is turning to Jesus Christ for forgiveness, not as the act of a confirmed
disciple--i.e., baptism is integral to conversion and initiates the baptizand
into the visible community of believers. Each tradition also teaches that in
some way God conveys through baptism the benefits which are signified by

The two traditions are clearly very similar to one another, and it is no
doubt true that the baptismal theologies of individual theologians from the
two sides would in many cases be judged essentially equivalent. However,
when the two traditions are assessed as a whole, there are differences,
among which are the following.
(1) Human condition versus concursive action. The Disciples tradition
has from the beginning interpreted baptism as the final human condition
which must be met before entrance into salvation, as part of the terms of
surrender which evoke divine acceptance, but Baptists have placed a greater
emphasis on the grace of God which has been at work in the individual
evoking the faith-response and is at work in the baptismal event itself. The

119 William D. Carpe, "Baptismal Theology in the Disciples of Christ," Review and
Expositor 77 (1980): 90-91.
120 For a chart which surveys the range of views in the Disciples tradition, see Joseph
Belcastro, The Relationship of Baptism to Church Membership (St. Louis: Bethany
Press, 1963), 215-216.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 243

precise relation between grace and human action varies among Baptists
according to their Calvinistic or Arminian orientation, but in either case
there is a sense of a continuing stream of concursive action which differs
from most Disciples thought. Robinson claims that in the tradition going
back to Campbell, "They proclaimed, against both Calvinism and
Arminianism, that man was a free agent in accepting Christ as his
Saviour."!*! This difference manifests itself in the significance attached to
the term "sacrament" in the two traditions. The term is very important.for
Baptists \who have recovered a high view ofeee efficacy, because of

termmay
m y bbee accepted, but itis nota crucial concept. 122
wef?) The nature of baptismal faith. From its beginning the Disciples
tradition has been concerned with the formulation of a rational approach to
religion which is able to make "faith" easily understandable and readily
identifiable. Believing the gospel has in some cases been reduced to mere
assent "that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" (based at least partially on Acts
8:37 in the Latin manuscripts and the Textus Receptus). Faith has been
interpreted as believing revealed facts and obeying revealed commands, so
that theconditions of divine acceptance-are assent to the facts of the gospel
and obedience to the baptismal command.' Baptists, on the other hand,
have consistently emphasized that the apostolic sense of faith involves both
assensus and fiducia, so that the faith confessed in baptism is both belief in
the facts about Christ and an attitude of trust and commitment.
(3) Objectivity versus subjectivity. The early Disciples movement was
driven to a large extent by a desire for objectivity in religious experience, as
opposed to the search for subjective signs of grace which prevailed on the
American frontier.!** This subjectivity had roots in the Puritan search for
assurance of personal election and in the revivalism of the 18th and 19th
centuries. In the Baptist context, the acceptance of the individual for
baptism was conditioned on the baptizand's ability to articulate a personal
experience of grace and give tangible evidence of prior regeneration, but the
Disciples reacted to this both because of the personal despair which many

121 Robinson, Churches of Christ, 57.

122 Ibid., 81.
123 Richard T. Hughes, "Are Restorationists Evangelicals?", in 7 he Variety of American
Evangelicalism, ed. Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston (Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1991), 116, 124.
124 L. Edward Hicks, "Rational Religion in the Ohio Western Reserve (1827-1830): Walter
Scott and the Restoration Appeal of Baptism for the Remission of Sin," Restoration
Quarterly 34 (1992): 211-212, 215, 217, Robinson, Churches of Christ, 56-57.
244 More Than a Symbol

experienced in this search for signs of grace and because the New
Testament did not seem to support this approach to baptismal conditions.
Early Disciples argued that the biblical doctrine of baptism indicated
that God had provided the rite as the objective confirmation of human faith
and the divine act of forgiveness. The assurance of divine acceptance
comes in the external event of baptism, not in some sort of internal
experience, which implies that there is no necessary recitation of religious
experience which must come prior to baptism--all that is necessary is belief
in the facts of the gospel and willingness to submit to the command of
baptism.
Baptist sacramentalists grant a kernel of truth in this Disciples
perspective, in that they recognize that baptism is in biblical terms the
defining moment in conversion, the objectification of the human response
to the gospel. However, they have still retained the concept of some sort of
subjective experience of grace prior to baptism, although this experience
will be heightened and intensified via baptism. As noted in Chapter 2, the
1948 statement of the Baptist Union, although referring to baptism as a
sacrament and a means of grace, still posited a prior "personal crisis in the
soul's life."'*° In some cases they have retained the demand for a personal
testimony of the experience of grace and approval by the church meeting
prior to baptism, which posits a level of subjectivity in conversion that
differs markedly from the Disciples tradition.'”°
(4) The degree of necessity. As demonstrated above, Baptist
sacramentalists do not teach an absolute necessity of baptism for personal
salvation. Instead, they argue that the link between baptism and salvation
is normal and experiential, but not strictly necessary. What is absolutely
necessary is the personal response to God in Christ that is termed
"repentance" or "faith" in the New Testament. Baptism is conceptualized
as a means by which God works in grace to confirm in us the reality of a
saving encounter with Christ, but it is not thought of as a sine qua non of
salvation. This is a corollary of the distinction between baptism as final
human condition (Disciples) and baptism as a divine-human act (Baptist).
For Baptists, then, the absence or even the neglect of baptism does not in
itself imply that the unbaptized person is in a state of damnation, although
willful neglect may be symptomatic of a deeper problem.
The history of Disciples/Restorationists on this point is marked by

125 Cited in Payne, Baptist Union, 285.

126 For a brief account of the various ways of conducting this assessment of religious
experience, see Gilmore, BCU, 65-69.
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 245

significant diversity, but in any case the degree of necessity attached to

baptism by early Disciples was a major cause of the division between them
and the Baptists. Alexander Campbell's treatment of the question was
perhaps inconsistent, as even his followers admit, sometimes asserting that
both the "formal" and the "actual" remission of sins come only in baptism,
but on other occasions apparently asserting that baptism mediates the
"formal" as opposed to the "actual" remission.'?’ An early and ongoing
debate within the conservative wing of Restorationism concerns the status
of Baptists (and others) who have been baptized by immersion as believers,
but as a testimony to prior conversion and not intentionally for the remission
of sins. Some have gone so far as to render a negative judgment on the
status as Christians of those baptized in this way, while others have been
more charitable.'** Some anti-sacramental Baptists have reciprocated by
rejecting the validity of "Campbellite" baptism due to its erroneous
intention,'*’ but sacramental Baptists have never taken this approach.
In many cases Baptist sacramentalists and those in the Disciples
tradition seem to affirm indistinguishable theologies of baptism. In
particular, British Baptists and those in the British Churches of Christ hold
very similar views, the distinctions probably lying more in emphasis than in
substance. Such was the judgment almost fifty years ago of Robinson from
the Disciples side and Roberts-Thomson from the Baptist side.'*” Another
Baptist, R. L. Child, was prepared to concede a large measure of truth in this
conclusion, but he also noted that "differences of emphasis can be extremely
important."'*' In particular, distinctive emphases concerning the nature of
baptismal faith and the place of subjective experience in conversion may
affect the proclamation of the gospel and the practice of baptism far beyond
what might be expected on the basis of the subtle differences at the
theoretical level.
However one may assess the relation between Baptists and the
ecumenically-inclined Disciples tradition, in the self-styled Restorationist
part of the tradition there is a widespread view of baptismal necessity which
is radically different from Baptist sacramentalism. In terms of a positive
statement of what happens in baptism, Baptist sacramentalism and the

127 Humbert, ed., Compend, 196-197; Earl West, "The Churches of Christ," in Baptism &
Church, ed. Strege, 35-88.
128 West, "Churches of Christ," 92-96.
129 For example, Graves, Act of Christian Baptism, 56.
130 Robinson, Shattered Cross, 41; Roberts-Thomson, Baptists and Disciples, 123.
131 R.L. Child, "Baptists and Disciples of Christ," 7he Baptist Quarterly 14 (1951-1952):
189.
246 More Than a Symbol

Restorationist tradition may seem very close, but any negative implication
("no valid baptism" implies "no salvation") is at home only within the
Restorationist movement.

Summary
The Baptist variety of sacramentalism which has been developed in this
century by British Baptists is not only defensible as an explanation of the
biblical statements about baptism, but is also coherent as a system of
baptismal theology. Although it is similar in various ways to the baptismal
theologies affirmed by Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists and
Disciples in their explanations of the baptism of confessing believers, it
cannot be identified completely with any of those constructions of
baptismal theology. The Baptist paradigm does not arise from any
contradictory imposition of an alien theology onto Baptist practice. On the
contrary, traditional Baptist emphases can be correlated readily with this
kind of sacramentalism. Specifically, the traditional Baptist emphasis on the
centrality of personal, fiducial faith is retained, in that such penitent faith 1s
conceived as the absolutely necessary content of baptism, and apart from
such faith (evoked by prevenient grace) there is no grace conveyed in
baptism. The Baptist restriction of baptism to confessing believers is not
threatened by the idea that God conveys grace through baptism, because a
biblical theology of grace implies that while there is such a thing as
prevenient grace, it 1s also true that some operations of grace are conditioned
onahuman faith-response. The traditional Baptist affirmation that salvation
is not tied to ceremonies is retained, even though the reformulation affirms
a higher relative necessity of baptism than is true in most Baptist theology,
because the necessity is only relative and not absolute. The traditional
assertion that all who have faith in Christ aiso have the Spirit of Christ is
affirmed as well, the only modification being the assertion that baptism is
the normative event in which faith receives both Christ and the Spirit at the
level of conscious experience.
The one aspect of this theology which seems incoherent is the tendency
of some to accept de facto infant baptism as valid baptism, which stands in
opposition to historic Baptist theology and does not seem to follow from the
premises inherent in the sacramental theology of baptism. If believer
baptism has the kind of significance which is affirmed in this theology, then
it is difficult to see how infant baptism can be accepted as its equivalent
without affirming either that there is power in the ritual apart from personal
faith or that baptism is purely declaratory-symbolic. The former alternative
An Analysis of the Theological Formulation 247

would make this theology something other than Baptist, and the latter would
make it something other than sacramental. This tendency to affirm infant
baptism after the fact appears to be inconsistent with the general theology
being affirmed, but this calls into question only this one inference from the
theology, not the theology itself.
 CHAPTER 5

The Significance of
Baptist Sacramentalism

A promising new model for baptismal theology in the Baptist tradition has
been developed by British Baptists in the 20" century. Grounded in the
exegesis of the New Testament and stimulated by ecumenical discussions,
these Baptists have formulated a theology of baptism which is both Baptist
and sacramental, emphasizing that baptism in biblical terms is a divine-
human encounter in which there is significant action from both sides, a
conjunction of grace and faith. It has been widely assumed by Baptists that
the New Testament teaching about salvation by grace through faith demands
a rejection of all sacramental views of baptism, and it has been widely
assumed by those of other Christian traditions as well as Baptists that such
anti-sacramental theology has always been the norm for Baptists. A study
of both the biblical theology of baptism and of Baptist history indicates that
both assumptions are false.
Baptist churches arose in the first decade of the 17th century when some
English Separatists came to a revised view of the church and baptism.
Baptist theology departed from its Puritan-Calvinist heritage in its assertion
that Christian baptism must be restricted to those who can personally
confess faith in Christ for themselves. After some three decades of Baptist
life, some Particular Baptists concluded that baptism must be done by
immersion, and this rapidly became the viewpoint of the whole Baptist
tradition. The demands of controversy over these two issues of subject and
mode of baptism consumed most of the literary energy of the Baptists, so
much so that the early Baptist literature devoted little space to developing
a doctrine of baptism as a means of grace. However, some early Baptist
literature did address this question, and the dominant view was very much
like the Puritan-Calvinist understanding of baptism as both sign and seal of
entrance into salvific union with Christ, the only difference being the
The Significance of Baptist Sacramentalism 249

Baptist application of the concept to confessing believers alone. At both

verbal and conceptual levels, Reformed sacramentalism was the essence of
the mainstream baptismal theology of 17th-century English Baptists.
Although this Reformed sacramentalism was still evident in major
Baptist writers at the end of the 17th century, it was either ignored or
rejected by most Baptists in the following two centuries. Although there
were some exceptions, the idea that baptism is a sacrament, a means of
grace, came to be associated with high doctrines of baptismal regeneration
or at least with paedobaptism. As a result, by the beginning of the 20th
century, British Baptists (indeed, Baptists everywhere) commonly thought
of baptism as a purely symbolic ritual bearing witness to a previously
confirmed union with Christ, and sacramentalism was rejected both verbally
and conceptually.
However, some Baptists were convinced that such a reduced theology
of baptism did not adequately interpret either Scripture or experience.
Starting with H. Wheeler Robinson in the years surrounding 1920 and
culminating in the extensive work of G. R. Beasley-Murray in the 1960's,
British Baptists formulated a Baptist-sacramental theology of baptism which
(unconsciously) built upon and advanced the foundational Baptist thought
of the 17th century and modified the one-sided view inherited from the 19th
century. Without surrendering the distinctive doctrine of believer baptism,
this theology also postulated a divine work ofgrace within the event. This
Baptist variety of sacramentalism is defensible as anexegesis
and synthesis
of the New Testament baptismal texts, and it coherently relates baptism to
the broader themes of soteriology and ecclesiology. The one point at which
the movement falters is its tendency to deny the necessity of believer
baptism for local church membership, but this appears to be a failure to
draw a logical inference, not a deficiency in the foundational theology of
baptism.
This ferment among British Baptists is only one example of the general
rethinking of baptism which has characterized most denominations in the
20th century, especially in the era since Emil Brunner's (1938) and Karl
Barth's (1943) pointed attacks on infant baptism. The theologians and
doctrinal commissions of various traditions have admitted that infant
baptism has been a practice _in search of a theology, and some of the
concessions made by them in the process of fresh study have been quite
significant. Even the Roman Catholic Church in the post-Vatican II era has
refocused its baptismal theology in the direction of an adult paradigm with
the publication of its revised Rite for the Christian Initiation of Adults
(1972), and some Roman Catholics have argued that infant baptism ought
250 More Than a Symbol

to be terminated.'
In spite of these changes in paedobaptist churches and the trans-
denominational respect for the work of Beasley-Murray in particular, there
has been no widespread defection in the Baptist direction. One major
factor, as noted at the beginning of this book, is the apparent lack of a
coherent Baptist theology of baptism to undergird the Baptist practice that
is so vigorously defended. In particular, the common Baptist assertion that
baptism is a nudum signum is difficult to correlate with the actual biblical
language about baptism, and it seems to be an inadequate basis for the
typical Baptist willingness to perpetuate division from other Christians on
the basis of baptismal practice. Perhaps Baptist sacramentalism would offer
a more compelling alternative.
Whatever may be the significance of this British Baptist sacramentalism
for inter-denominational dialogue, the greater significance would lie in its
potential to reshape Baptist thought on a wider scale. Although the British
reformulation has some parallels among Baptists in continental Europe,’
there is only minimal evidence of it in North America. For example, in a
recent book analysing shifts in Southern Baptist thought over the 150 years
from 1845 to 1995, there is no chapter devoted to baptism and only a few
passing references to baptism in the entire book.? There is some evidence
in recent Baptist discussions of baptism that the "act of obedience/pure
symbol" concept of baptism is perceived to be less than adequate as a
synthesis of biblical theology, but the conceptual shifts are usually rather
tentative, and there is no sustained interaction with the British paradigm
shift.4
The British paradigm could be useful for Baptists in general at both
theoretical and practical levels. At the theoretical level, it provides a way
to formulate a baptismal theology on the basis of the biblical statements

1 Paul F. X. Covino, "The Postconciliar Infant Baptism Debate in the American Catholic
Church," in Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation, ed. Maxwell
E. Johnson (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995), 327-349.
2 For example, Johannes Schneider, Baptism and Church in the New Testament, trans.
Ernest A. Payne (London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1957).
3 Paul A. Basden, ed., Has Our Theology Changed? Southern Baptist Thought Since
1845 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994).
4 Clark H. Pinnock, Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit (Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1996), 119-129; Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of
God (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 670-675; Wayne Grudem, Systematic
Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 953-
954; Robert H. Stein, “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament,”
Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 6-17.
The Significance of Baptist Sacramentalism 251

about baptism, as opposed to the common tendency to develop a theology

of conversion based on biblical texts about faith and/or repentance in
isolation. Such a theology of conversion may appear to contradict the
natural synthesis of the baptismal texts, with the result that the baptismal
language is frequently minimized to resolve the contradiction and baptism
is thus marginalized.
At the practical level, the British paradigm facilitates the practice of
Christian initiation by providing in baptism an objective seal of conversion
and spiritual rebirth. When baptism is not allowed to function in this way,
the typical result is an introspective approach to the experience of
conversion, a search for signs of grace in one's own private psychological
experience. The natural result of such subjectivism is either personal
despair over the ambiguity of experience or a judgmental attitude toward
others who cannot articulate the "right" kind of experience.? Many
evangelists in Baptist and other evangelical contexts have perceived this
problem (either consciously or unconsciously), and they have provided
substitutes for baptism in the form of tangible physical responses known in
the middle of the 19" century as the “anxious seat” and more recently as the
"altar call." Charles Finney (1792-1875), a father of such modern
techniques, articulated the connection between such measures and baptism:

In the days of the apostles baptism answered this purpose. The

gospel was preached to the people, and then all those who were
willing to be on the side of Christ were called on to be baptized. It
held the precise place that the anxious seat does now, as a public
manifestation of their determination to be Christians.°

It is thus recognized in practice that if union with Christ is to be an

experiential reality, then the entrance into that union calls for some event
which translates the attitude of faith into a personal act. Baptism admirably
serves this purpose according to both Scripture and experience, and only a
perverse anti-sacramentalism prevents the recognition of this. Baptism not
only serves to objectify the faith-response of the baptizand, but also affirms
the divine action of grace, in that baptism is fundamentally something done
to the individual rather than by the individual.
One of the major emphases of the Baptist tradition has always been the

5 Hicks, "Rational Religion," 212. “a

6 Charles Grandison Finney, Lectures on the Revivals of Religion, ed. William G.
McLoughlin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960), 268.
252 More Than a Symbol

unique authority of Scripture, with all that is thus implied about freedom to
rethink all traditions, including Baptist traditions. As noted in this study,
one of the key elements in the British Baptist reformulation of baptism along
sacramental lines was a reassessment of the New Testament baptismal
language. If other Baptists in the world are true to their historic principles,
then they should at least admit that the non-sacramental paradigm which has
dominated their baptismal theology for some time may be inadequate and
in need of modification. If that can be admitted, then the British Baptist
voices deserve a hearing.
In a recent article a leading Southern Baptist theologian has surveyed
Baptist monographs on baptism from the latter half of the 20" century, and
this review includes significant summaries of the literature which is the
focus of this book. However, near the end of the article he notes the absence
of trans-Atlantic dialogue:

British Baptist writings on baptism and Southern Baptist practice

of baptism have been like two ships passing in the night during the
last third of the twentieth century. The dawn of the new century
has exposed the genuine and persistent differences.’

The conclusion of the article raises questions which, in the writer’s opinion,
need to be addressed by Southern Baptists in the 21" century:

Why have recent Southern Baptists been reluctant to produce a

positive theology of Christian baptism? Will they continue to say
more about what baptism is not than what it is? Has recent affinity
with American Evangelicals dulled the blade of the importance of
baptism? Ought Southern Baptists to apply the term “sacrament”
to baptism? If so, with what meaning?®

These are in fact the questions which have received sustained attention in
the British Baptist recovery of baptismal sacramentalism, and the answers
which have resulted from this study of baptism appear to provide a natural
synthesis of the biblical witness to baptism and a coherent theology of
baptism which could enrich the theology and experience of Baptists and
other Christians. Ifthe answers suggested in this British reformulation were

7 James Leo Garrett, Jr., “Baptists concerning Baptism: Review and Preview,”
Southwestern Journal of Theology 43, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 67.
8 Ibid.
The Significance of Baptist Sacramentalism 253

accepted by the Southern Baptist Convention (the largest Protestant

denomination in the world), then it would hardly be necessary to
demonstrate the significance of this Baptist sacramentalism. Whatever may
be the reasons for the lack of trans-Atlantic dialogue in the past, there are
abundant reasons to facilitate it in the future.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources
Argyle, A. W. "'Outward' and 'Inward' in Biblical Thought." 7he Expository Times 68, no.
7 (April 1957): 196-199.
Ballard, Paul. “Baptists and Baptism: A Socio-Ecumenical Issue.” The Baptist Ministers’
Journal, no. 260 (October 1997): 18-22.
Bampton, T. A. "The Sacramental Significance of Christian Baptism." The Baptist Quarterly
11 (1942-1945): 270-276.
Baptist Revival Fellowship. Liberty in the Lord: Comment on Trends in Baptist Thought
Today. London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1964.
Beasley-Murray, GeorgeR. "The Authority and Justification for Believers' Baptism." Review
and Expositor 77 (1980): 63-70.
. Baptism in the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962.
. "Baptism in the New Testament." Foundations 3 (1960): 15-31.
. "Baptism and the Sacramental View." The Baptist Times, 11 February 1960,
9-10,
. Baptism Today and Tomorrow. London: Macmillan, 1966.
. "Baptist Interpretation of the Place of the Child in the Church." Foundations
8 (1965): 146-160.
. "The Case Against Infant Baptism." Christianity Today 9 (1964): 11-14.
. "Church and Child in the New Testament." Zhe Baptist Quarterly 21 (1965-
1966): 206-218.
. "The Church and the Child." 7he Fraternal, no. 50 (April 1943): 9-13.
. "The Church of Scotland and Baptism." The Fraternal, no. 99 (January 1956):
7-10.
. "Confessing Baptist Identity." In A Perspective of Baptist Identity, ed. D.
Slater, 75-86. London: Mainstream, 1987.
. "Faith in the New Testament: a Baptist Perspective." American Baptist
Quarterly 1 (1982): 137-143.
. "Holy Spirit, Baptism, and Body of Christ." Review and Expositor 63 (1966):
177-185.
. "I Still Find Infant Baptism Difficult." The Baptist Quarterly 22 (1967-1968):
225-236,
. "John 3:3,5: Baptism, Spirit, and the Kingdom." The Expository Times 97
(1985-1986): 167-170.
. "The Problem of Infant Baptism: An Exercise in Possibilities." In Festschrift
Gunter Wagner, ed. Faculty of Baptist Theological Seminary, Rischlikon/Switzerland,
1-14. Bern: Peter Lang, 1994.
. "The Sacraments." The Fraternal, no. 70 (October 1948): 3-7.
"The Second Chapter of Colossians." Review and Expositor 70 (1973):
469-479,
Bibliography 255

. "The Spirit Is There." 7he Baptist Times, 10 December 1959, 8.

. "The Theology of the Child." American Baptist Quarterly | (1982): 197-202.
Beasley-Murray, Paul. "Celebrating the Faith in Baptism." Baptist Ministers’ Journal, no.
244 (1993): 11-14.
Beattie, N. Letter to Zhe Baptist Times, 4 February 1960, 6.
Beattie, W. Letter to The Baptist Times, 18 May 1961, 6.
Bottoms, Walter W. "Christian Baptism." Zhe Fraternal, no. 78 (October 1950): 40-43.
Bridge, Donald and David Phypers. The Water that Divides. Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity
Press, 1977.
Bryan, F. C., ed. Concerning Believers Baptism. London: The Kingsgate Press, 1943.
Burnish, Raymond. 7he Meaning of Baptism: A Comparison of the Teaching and Practice
of the Fourth Century with the Present Day. London: SPCK, 1985.
Burrows, E. W. "Understanding of Baptism in Baptist Traditions, with Special Reference to
Modern Trends." /ndian Journal of Theology 26 (1977): 12-28.
Campbell, R. Alastair. "Jesus and His Baptism." Zyndale Bulletin 47, no. 2 (November
1996): 191-214.
Carter, S. F. Letter to The Baptist Times, 28 January 1960, 6.
Champion, L. G. Baptists and Unity. London: A. R. Mowbray, 1962.
. The Church of the New Testament. London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1951.
Child, R. L. "Baptists and Disciples of Christ." The Baptist Quarterly 14 (1951-1952): 188-
190.
. "The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation." Zhe Fraternal, no. 118 (October 1960):
18-23.
. "The Church of Scotland on Baptism." 7he Baptist Quarterly 16 (1955-1956):
244-251.
. A Conversation about Baptism. London: SCM Press, 1963.
. "The Ministry and the Sacraments." The Baptist Quarterly 9 (1938-1939):
132-138.
. "What Happens in Baptism?" The Baptist Times, 4 February 1960, 8, 10.
Clark, Neville. An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments. London: SCM Press, 1956.
. "Christian Baptism Under Fire." The Fraternal, no. 114 (October 1959): 16-
18.
. "Christian Initiation: A Baptist Point of View." Studia Liturgica 4 (1965):
156-165.
Clarke, Paul et al. Our Baptist Heritage. Leeds: Reformation Today Trust, 1993.
Clarke, Robert. Letter to The Baptist Times, 8 October 1959, 6.
. Letter to The Baptist Times, 7 January 1960, 6.
Clements, K. W., ed. Baptists in the Twentieth Century. London: Baptist Historical Society,
1983.
Cook, Henry. What Baptists Stand For. 3rd ed. London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1958,
Cranefield, D. L. Letter to The Baptist Times, 24 September 1959, 6.
Cross, Anthony R. Baptism and the Baptists: Theology and Practice in Twentieth-Century
Britain. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000.
. “Baptists and Baptism: A British Perspective.” Baptist History and Heritage
35, no. 1 (Winter 2000): 104-121.
. “Dispelling the Myth of English Baptist Baptismal Sacramentalism.” The
Baptist Quarterly 38, no. 8 (October 2000): 367-391.
Dakin, Arthur. Zhe Baptist View of the Church and Ministry. London: Kingsgate Press,
1944.
256 Bibliography

Dunning, T. G. "A Baptist Oxford Movement." The Baptist Quarterly 11 (1942-1945): 411-
416.
Edwards, A. David. Letter to The Baptist Times, 27 April 1961, 6.
Ellis, Christopher J. "Relativity, Ecumenism, and the Liberation of the Church." The Baptist
Quarterly 29 (1981-1982): 81-91.
Ennals, J. E. "Our Baptist Witness: Baptism in Practice." Zhe Baptist Quarterly 20 (1963-
1964): 183-186.
Evans, P. W. "The Baptismal Commission in Matt. xxviii.19." The Baptist Quarterly 15
(1953-1954): 19-28.
. Sacraments in the New Testament. London: Tyndale Press, 1947.
. "Sealing as a Term for Baptism." Zhe Baptist Quarterly 16 (1955-1956): 171-
Nf).
Fiddes, Paul S. Charismatic Renewal: a Baptist View. London: Baptist Union of Great
Britain, 1980.
, ed. Reflections on the Water: Understanding God and the World through the
Baptism of Believers. Macon, GA: Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 1996.
Ford, S. W. Letter to Zhe Baptist Times, 5 November 1959, 6.
Gilmore, Alec. Baptism and Christian Unity. Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1966.
, ed. Christian Baptism: A Fresh Attempt to Understand the Rite in Terms of
Scripture, History and Theology. London: Lutterworth Press, 1959.
. "Leenhardt on Baptism." The Baptist Quarterly 15 (1953-1954): 35-40.
. Letter to The Baptist Times, 24 September 1959, 6.
, ed. Zhe Pattern of the Church. London: Lutterworth Press, 1963.
. "The Scottish Report on Baptism (a Study Outline)." The Fraternal, no. 102
(October 1956): 16-19.
. "Some Baptismal Problems." The Fraternal, no. 109 (July 1958): 12-15.
. "Some Recent Trends in the Theology of Baptism." Zhe Baptist Quarterly 15
(1953-1954): 310-318, 338-345; 16 (1955-1956): 2-9.
Griffiths, D. R. "An Approach to the Theology of Baptism." The Expository Times 63, no.
5 (February 1952): 157-159.
. Letter to The Baptist Times, 10 December 1959, 6.
. "Study Outline on Baptism." Zhe Fraternal, no. 90 (October 1953): 21-28.
Hastings, B. Gordon. "An Outline of the History of Baptism." The Fraternal, no. 90
(October 1953): 28-32.
Haymes, Brian. “Baptism: A Question of Beliefand Age?” Perspectives in Religious Studies
27, no. | (Spring 2000): 121-126.
Hayward, Victor E. W. "Can Our Controversy with the Paedobaptists Be Resolved?" The
Baptist Quarterly 22 (1967-1968): 50-64.
Hulse, Erroll. The Testimony of Baptism. Sussex: Carey Publications, 1982.
Jaeger, L. S. Letter to The Baptist Times, 24 September 1959, 6.
John, S. B. Letter to The Baptist Times, 8 October 1959, 6.
. Letter to The Baptist Times, 14 January 1960, 6.
. Letter to The Baptist Times, 25 February 1960, 6.
. Letter to The Baptist Times, 27 April 1961, 6.
. Letter to The Baptist Times, 15 June 1961, 6.
Jones, N. B. "Christian Baptism IIL." The Fraternal, no. 115 (January 1960): 18-23.
Kevan, Ernest F. "Christian Baptism II." The Fraternal, no. 113 (July 1959): 8-12.
Kingdon, David. Children of Abraham: A Reformed Baptist View of Baptism, the Covenant,
and Children. Sussex: Carey Publications, 1973.
Bibliography 2S]

Kreider, Alan. "Baptism, Catechism, and the Eclipse of Jesus' Teaching in Early Christianity."
Tyndale Bulletin 47, no. 2 (November 1996): 315-348.
Kreitzer, Larry. "Baptism in the Pauline Epistles, With Special Reference to the Corinthian
Letters." The Baptist Quarterly 34 (1991-1992): 67-78.
Lane, Eric. J Want to Be Baptised. London: Grace Publications, 1986.
Law, A. E. Letter to The Baptist Times, 4 February 1960, 6.
Maoz, Baruch et al. Local Church Practice. Haywards Heath, Sussex: Carey Publications,
1978.
Martin, Hugh. "Baptism and Circumcision." The Baptist Quarterly 14 (1951-1952): 213-
PaPNVe
. "Baptism in the Fourth Century." The Baptist Quarterly 13 (1949-1950): 370-
312:
. "Baptism as Cleansing." Zhe Baptist Quarterly 16 (1955-1956): 378-381.
Mason, Rex A. "The Theology of Baptism." Zhe Fraternal, no. 90 (October 1953): 7-11.
Matthews, A. J. Letter to The Baptist Times, 14 January 1960, 6.
Matthews, John F. Baptism: a Baptist View. London: Baptist Union of Great Britain, 1976.
Nicholson, J. F. V. "Baptism in Context: Further Reflections on Louisville 1979." The
Baptist Quarterly 28 (1979-1980): 275-279,
Noble, Frank J. Letter to The Baptist Times, 10 March 1960, 6.
Norgaard, Johannes. "Shall Our Interpretation of Baptism Be Allowed to Divide Baptists?"
The Fraternal, no. 91 (January 1954): 27-31.
Norman, J. G. G. Letter to The Baptist Times, 31 December 1959, 4.
Parratt, J. K. "The Seal of the Holy Spirit and Baptism." 7he Baptist Quarterly 23 (1969-
1970): 111-113, 125.
Payne, Ernest A. "Baptism and Church Membership among the Baptists." Theology 55
(1952): 170-173.
. The Baptist Movement in the Reformation and Onwards. London: Kingsgate
Press, 1947.
. The Baptist Union: A Short History. London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1958.
"Baptists and the Laying on of Hands." The Baptist Quarterly 15 (1953-
1954): 203-215.
. "Baptists and Christian Initiation." The Baptist Quarterly 26 (1975-1976):
147-157.
"Believers' Baptism in Ecumenical Discussion." Foundations 3 (January
1960): 32-39.
. The Fellowship of Believers: Baptist Thought and Practice Yesterday and
Today. London: Kingsgate Press, 1944.
. Henry Wheeler Robinson: Scholar, Teacher, Principal-- A Memoir. London:
Nisbet & Co., 1946.
. "Implications of Baptism for Christian Unity." Encounter 21, no. 3 (Summer
1960): 311-316.
_ "Professor Oscar Cullmann on Baptism." 7he Baptist Quarterly 14 (1951-
1952): 56-60.
_ "Professor T. W. Manson on Baptism." Scottish Journal of Theology 2 (1945-
1950): 50-56.
and Stephen F. Winward. Orders and Prayers for Church Worship. London:
Kingsgate Press, 1960.
Peacock, Heber F. "Baptism and the Holy Spirit." The Fraternal, no. 85 (July 1952): 17-20.
Quicke, M. J. "Baptists and the Current Debate on Baptism." 7he Baptist Quarterly 29
(1981-1982): 153-168.
258 Bibliography

Read, L. A. "The Ordinances." The Fraternal, no. 67 (January 1948): 8-10.

Reiling, J. "The Holy Spirit in Baptism." 7he Baptist Quarterly 19 (1961-1962): 339-351.
Robinson, Henry Wheeler. Baptist Principles. 4th ed. London: Kingsgate Press, 1945.
"Believers' Baptism and the Holy Spirit." Zhe Baptist Quarterly n.s. 9
(1938-1939): 387-397.
. The Christian Experience of the Holy Spirit. London: Nisbet & Co., 1928.
_ "The Five Points of aBaptist's Faith." The Baptist Quarterly 11 (1942-1945):
4-14,
_ The Life and Faith of the Baptists. London: Kingsgate Press, 1946.
. "The Place of Baptism in Baptist Churches of To-Day." The Baptist Quarterly
n.s. 1 (1922-1923): 209-218.
Rowley, H. H. "Dr. G. R. Beasley-Murray on Baptism." The Baptist Times, 30 August
1962, 6.
_ "The Origin and Meaning of Baptism." The Baptist Quarterly 11 (1942-1945):
309-320.
. The Unity of the Bible. London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1953.
Russell, D. S. "Christian Baptism I." The Fraternal, no. 113 (July 1959): 5-8.
. "The Ministry and Sacraments." The Baptist Quarterly 17 (1957-1958): 67-
US:
Scott, William. "The Spiritual and the Sacramental in the Theology of Baptism." The
Fraternal, no. 137 (July 1965): 22-28.
Shackleton, G. Elwin. Letter to The Baptist Times, 22 October 1959, 6.
Snell, R. J. Letter to The Baptist Times, 10 March 1960, 6.
Stones, L. J. Letter to Zhe Baptist Times, 10 September 1959, 6.
Trent, H. W. "Ourselves and the Ordinances." Zhe Baptist Quarterly 17 (1957-1958): 10-
22
Underwood, Alfred Clair. "Conversion and Baptism." In Zhe Faith of the Baptists, by J. H.
Rushbrooke et al. London: The Kingsgate Press, 1926.
. Conversion: Christian and Non-Christian, A Comparative and Psychological
Study. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1925.
. A History of the English Baptists. London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1947.
. "The Place of Conversion in Christian Experience." The Baptist Quarterly 6,
no. 4 (October 1932): 157-163.
Walker, Michael J. "Baptism: Doctrine and Practice among Baptists in the United
Kingdom." Foundations 22, no. 1 (1979): 72-80.
. Baptists at the Table: The Theology of the Lord's Supper amongst English
Baptists in the Nineteenth Century. Didcot: The Baptist Historical Society, 1992.
. "The Relation of Infants to Church, Baptism and Gospel in Seventeenth
Century Baptist Theology." The Baptist Quarterly 21 (1965-1966); 242-262.
Walton, Robert C. The Gathered Community. London: Carey Press, 1946.
Weaver, John D. "Reconsidering Believers' Baptism." Baptist Ministers’ Journal, no, 257
(January 1997): 3-7.
West, W. M. S._ "Towards a Consensus on Baptism? Louisville 1979.". The Baptist
Quarterly 28 (1979-1980): 225-239,
. "Toward a Possible Agenda." Review and Expositor 77 (1980): 13-20.
Whilding, W. E. "Conversion, Baptism, and Church Membership." The Fraternal, no. 90
(October 1953): 11-14.
White, R.E. O. "Baptism: the Domestic Debate." The Fraternal, no. 118 (October 1960):
14-17.
. The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.
Bibliography 259

. Invitation to Baptism. London: Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland,

1962.
. "New Baptismal Questions." The Baptist Times, 13 April 1961, 9.
. "New Baptismal Questions--II." The Baptist Times, 24 August 1961, 2.
. "Some Important Issues for Baptismal Theology." Expository Times 61
(1949-1950): 108-111.
Winward, Stephen F. "The Administration of Baptism." The Fraternal, no. 123 (January
1962): 8-11.
. The New Testament Teaching on Baptism. London: Carey Kingsgate Press,
9525
Wnight, Nigel. “The Influence of the Charismatic Movement on European Baptist Life and
Mission: Theological Reflections.” EPTA Bulletin 13 (1994): 5-18.

Secondary Sources
Aland, Kurt. Did the Early Church Baptize Infants? Trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray. London:
SCM Press, 1963.
Aldwinckle, Russell F. "Believer's Baptism and Confirmation." The Baptist Quarterly 16
(1955-1956): 123-127.
"The Fellowship of Believers and the Nature of Belief." Foundations 23
(1980): 6-21.
. "Infant Baptism or Believers! Baptism: A Reply to D. M. Baillie." Houndations
2 (1959): 153-160.
. Of Water and the Spirit. Brantford: Baptist Federation of Canada, 1964.
Appéré, Guy. "Le Baptisme et les Baptistes Devant L'Avenir." Baptist Review of
Theology/La Revue Baptiste de Théologie 6, no. 1 (Spring 1996): 7-22.
Arndt, William and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and
Other Early Christian Literature. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Aulen, Gustaf. The Faith of the Christian Church. Trans. Eric H. Wahlstrom. Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1960.
Averbeck, Richard E. "The Focus of Baptism in the New Testament." Grace Theological
Journal 2 (1981): 265-301.
Baillie, Donald M. The Theology of the Sacraments and Other Papers. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1957.
Bancroft, Emery H. Christian Theology: Systematic and Biblical. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1949.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol. 1V/4. Trans. G. W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1969.
. The Teaching of the Church Regarding Baptism. Trans. Ernest A. Payne.
London: SCM, 1948.
Barth, Markus. Die Taufe--ein Sakrament? Zollikon-Zurich: Evangelischer Verlag, 1951.
_ "Weakness or Value of the Baptist Position." /oundations 1, no. 4 (1958):
62-68.
Basden, Paul A., ed. Has Our Theology Changed?: Southern Baptist Thought Since 1845.
Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Bebbington, David. Evangelicalism in Modern Britain. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1992.
Belcastro, Joseph. The Relationship of Baptism to Church Membership. St. Louis: Bethany
Press, 1963.
260 Bibliography

Berkhof, Hendrikus. Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Study of the Faith. Trans.
Sierd Woudstra. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. 4th rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949.
Berkouwer, G. C. The Sacraments. Trans. Hugo Bekker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
Best, Ernest. One Body in Christ: A Study in the Relationship of the Church to Christ in the
Epistles of the Apostle Paul. London: $.P.C.K., 1955.
Bjornard, Reidar B. "Important Works on Baptism from Continental Protestants."
Foundations 3 (January 1960): 40-45.
Blomberg, Craig L. Matthew. Vol. 22, The New American Commentary. Nashville:
Broadman Press, 1992.
Boice, James Montgomery. Romans, Vol. 2: The Reign of Grace, Romans 5-8. Grand
Rapids: Baker Books, 1992.
Brackney, William H., ed. Baptist Life and Thought: 1600-1980. Valley Forge: Judson
Press, 1983.
. The Baptists. New York: Greenwood Press, 1988.
Bromiley, Geoffrey W. Children of Promise. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.
. Sacramental Teaching and Practice in the Reformation Churches. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Brooks, Oscar R. The Drama of Decision: Baptism in the New Testament. Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson Publishers, 1987.
Brow, Robert. “Go Make Learners": A New Model for Discipleship in the Church.
Wheaton: Harold Shaw Publishers, 1981.
Bruce, F. F. The Book of the Acts. Revised edition. In The New International Commentary
on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.
Bruner, Frederick Dale. A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.
Brunner, Emil. 7he Divine-Human Encounter. Trans. Amandus W. Loos. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1943.
Buswell, James Oliver, Jr. A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1962-1963.
Calvin, John. /nstitutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Ed. John T. McNeill. Trans. Ford
Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
Carpe, William D. "Baptismal Theology in the Disciples of Christ." Review and Expositor
77 (1980): 89-100.
Carr, Warren. Baptism: Conscience and Clue for the Church. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, 1964.
Carroll. B. H. An Interpretation of the English Bible: Acts. Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1986 reprint.
Carson, D. A. Matthew. In The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Vol. 8. Ed. Frank E.
Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1995,
Church of Scotland. The Biblical Doctrine of Baptism. Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press,
1958.
Compton, R. Bruce. “Water Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins in Acts 2:38.” Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal 4 (Fall 1999): 3-32.
Conner, Walter T. Christian Doctrine. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1937.
. The Gospel of Redemption. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1945.
Cullmann, Oscar. Baptism in the New Testament. Trans. J. K. S. Reid. London: SCM Press,
1950.
Cummins, John S. "The Nature and Communication of Grace: The Roman Catholic
Perspective." Foundations 12, no. 3 (July-September 1969): 223-231.
Bibliography 261

Davis, J.C. "Another Look at the Relationship Between Baptism and the Forgiveness of Sins
in Acts 2:38." Restoration Quarterly 24 (1981): 80-88.
Dean, Eric. "Baptism in the Denomination: A Rationale for Infant Baptism." Encounter 21,
no. 3 (Summer 1960): 279-286.
Deterding, Paul E. "Baptism According to the Apostle Paul." Concordia Journal 6 (1980):
93-100.
Deweese, Charles W., ed. Defining Baptist Convictions: Guidelines for the Twenty-First
Century. Franklin, TN.: Providence House Publishes, 1996.
Dobbie, Robert. "The Validity of Sacramentalism: An Analysis of Recent Claims."
Encounter 21, no. 3 (Summer 1960): 287-298.
Dix, Dom Gregory. Zhe Theology of Confirmation in Relation to Baptism. London: Dacre
Press, 1946.
Dockery, David S. “Baptism in the New Testament.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 43,
no. 2 (Spring 2001): 4-16.
and Timothy George, eds. Baptist Theologians. Nashville: Broadman Press,
1990.
Duffy, Stephen J. “Southern Baptist and Roman Catholic Soteriologies: A Comparative
Study.” Pro Ecclesia 9, no. 4 (Fall 2000): 434-459.
Dunkerley, Roderic, ed. 7he Ministry and the Sacraments. London: SCM Press, 1937.
Dunn, James D. G. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. London: SCM Press, 1970.
. "The Birth of a Metaphor: Baptized in Spirit." The Expository Times 89
(1977-1978): 134-138, 173-175.
. Romans 1-8. Vol. 38A, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word Books,
1988.
Eagen, Joseph F. "The Authority and Justification for Infant Baptism." Review and
Expositor 77 (1980): 47-61.
Edgren, John Alexis. Fundamentals of Faith. Trans. J. O. Backlund. Chicago: Baptist
Conference Press, 1948.
Eller, Vernard. In Place of Sacraments: A Study of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972.
England, Stephen J. The One Baptism: Baptism and Christian Unity, with Special Reference
to Disciples of Christ. St. Louis: Bethany Press, 1960.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1983-
1985.
Estep, William R. The Anabaptist Story. Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
Faith and Order Commission, ed. Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Geneva: World Council
of Churches, 1982.
. "Report of the Consultation with Baptists." Review and Expositor 77 (1980):
101-108.
Fee, Gordon D. God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul.
Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.
Flemington, W. F. The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism. London: S.P.C.K., 1953.
Forsyth, P. T. The Church and the Sacraments. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1917.
France, R. T. The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.
Garrett, James Leo. “Baptists concerning Baptism: Review and Preview.” Southwestern
Journal of Theology 43, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 52-67.
. Systematic Theology: Biblical, Historical, & Evangelical. 2 vols. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990-1995.
262 Bibliography

"The Theology and Practice of Baptism: a Southern Baptist View."

Southwestern Journal of Theology 28, no, 2 (1986): 65-72.
Gill, Athol. A Bibliography of Baptist Writings on Baptism, 1900-1969. Rischlikon-Zurich:
Baptist Theological Seminary, 1969.
Green, Michael. Baptism: Its Purpose, Practice and Power. London: Hodder & Stoughton,
1987.
Grenz, Stanley J. "Baptism and Church Membership in a Post-denominational Context."
Atlantic Baptist 167 (March 1993): 17-19.
. Theology for the Community of God. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Gritz, Paul L. “The Decline and Recovery of Believers’ Baptism.” Southwestern Journal of
Theology 43, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 32-51.
Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. Trand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Hagner, Donald A. Matthew 14-28. Vol. 33B, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word
Books, 1995.
Hammond, T. C. Jn Understanding Be Men: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine. 6th ed.
Ed. and rev. David F. Wright. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1968.
Hardon, John A. "Believers' Baptism and the Sacrament of Confirmation." Foundations 11,
no. 2 (April-June 1968): 127-135.
Hartwell, Herbert. "Karl Barth on Baptism." Scottish Journal of Theology 22 (1969): 10-29.
Harvey, Thomas. “Baptism as a Means of Grace: A Response to John Stott’s “The
Evangelical Doctrine of Baptism..’” Churchman 113, no. 2 (1999): 103-112.
Hastings, C.B. "The Lima Document: A Southern Baptist View." Ecumenical Trends 12
(1983): 24-27.
Hendricks, William L. "Baptism: A Baptist Perspective." Southwestern Journal of Theology
31, no. 2 (1989): 22-33.
. "Baptists and Children: the Beginnings of Grace." Southwestern Journal of
Theology 28 (1986): 49-53.
Hendriksen, William. Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids: Baker
Books, 1973.
Hendrix, Scott H. "The Sacraments in Lutheranism." American Baptist Quarterly | (1982):
179- 187.
Heron, John. "The Theology of Baptism." Scottish Journal of Theology 8 (1955): 36-52.
Hine, Leland D. "A Second Look at the Baptist Vision." American Baptist Quarterly 4
(1985): 118-130.
Hobbs, Herschel H. Fundamentals of Our Faith. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1960.
Hoedemaker, L. A. "Toward a Consensus on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry." Review and
Expositor 77 (1980): 7-11.
Hughes, Richard T. "Are Restorationists Evangelicals?" In The Variety of American
Evangelicalism, ed. Donald W. Dayton and Robert K. Johnston. Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1991.
Hughey, J. D., Jr. "Baptism in Baptist Theory and Practice." Foundations 3 (1960): 7-14.
. "The New Trend in Baptism." 7he Baptist Times, 18 February 1960, 7.
Hull, William E. "Baptism in the New Testament: a Hermeneutical Critique." Review and
Expositor 65 (1968): 3-12.
Jeremias, Joachim. The Origins of Infant Baptism. London: SCM Press, 1963.
Jewett, Paul K. /nfant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Johnson, Maxwell E., ed. Living Water, Sealing Spirit: Readings on Christian Initiation.
Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995.
Bibliography 263

Kalin, Everett R. "New Birth and Baptism: An Exegetical Study." Covenant Quarterly 41
(1983): 11-17.
Kavanagh, Aidan. The Shape of Baptism: The Rite of Christian Initiation. New York:
Pueblo Publishing Company, 1978.
Kerr, Hugh Thomson. Zhe Christian Sacraments: A Source Book for Ministers.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1944.
Knudsen, Ralph E. Christian Beliefs. Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1947.
Kuhrt, Gordon W. Believing in Baptism: Christian Baptism--Its Theology and Practice.
London: Mowbray, 1987.
Lampe, G. W.H. The Seal of the Spirit. London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1951.
Lawson, John. /ntroduction to Christian Doctrine. Wilmore, KY: Francis Asbury Publishing
Company, 1980.
Leenhardt, Franz J. Le Baptéme Chrétien: Son Origine, Sa Signification. Neuchatel:
Delachaux & Niestle, 1946.
Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Matthew's Gospel. Minneapolis: Augsburg
Publishing House, 1943.
Lloyd-Jones, D. M. Romans: The New Man. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.
Longenecker, Richard N. The Acts of the Apostles. \n The Expositor’s Bible Commentary,
Vol. 9. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981.
Lorenzen, Thorwald. "Baptism and Church Membership: Some Baptist Positions and Their
Ecumenical Implications." Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18 (1981): 561-574.
. "Baptists and Ecumenicity with Special Reference to Baptism." Review and
Expositor 77 (1980): 21-45.
Lotz, Denton. "Baptist Identity in Mission and Evangelism." /oundations 21 (1978): 32-49.
MacNeil, GennaR. A Study Guide for Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. Valley Forge, PA:
Judson Press, 1986.
Macquarrie, John. Principles of Christian Theology. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1977.
Manson, T. W. "Baptism in the Church." Scottish Journal of Theology 2 (1949-1950): 391-
403.
Mantey, J.R. "The Causal Use of eis in the New Testament." Journal of Biblical Literature
70 (1951): 45-48.
Marcel, Pierre Ch. The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism. Trans. Philip Edgcumbe
Hughes. London: James Clarke & Co., 1953.
Maring, Norman H. "Is Baptism a Sacrament?" Foundations 3, no. 1 (1960): 74-83.
Marsh, H. G. The Origin and Significance of the New Testament Baptism. Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1941.
Masters, Victor I., ed. Re-Thinking Baptist Doctrines. Louisville: The Western Recorder,
n.d.
McCall, Duke K., ed. "Consultation on Believers' Baptism." Review and Expositor 77
(1980): 3-108.
McClendon, James W. "Baptism as a Performative Sign." Theology Today 23 (1966-1967):
403-416.
. Systematic Theology. Vol. 1, Ethics. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1986.
. Systematic Theology. Vol. 2, Doctrine. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994.
McIntyre, Luther B., Jr. “Baptism and Forgiveness in Acts 2:38.” Bibliotheca Sacra 153
(January-March 1996): 53-62.
Middleton, Robert G. "Believers' Baptism and the Sacrament of Confirmation." Foundations
11, no. 2 (April-June 1968): 136-147.
264 Bibliography

Moda, Aldo. "Le Bapteme Chretien: Sacrement ou Action Humaine?" Revue d'Histoire et
de Philosophies Religieuses 54 (1974): 219-247,
Moody, Dale. Baptism: Foundation for Christian Unity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,
1967.
. "Baptism in Recent Research." Review and Expositor 65 (1968): 13-22.
The Word of Truth: A Summary of Biblical Doctrine Based on Biblical
Revelation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.
Morrison, Charles Clayton. The Meaning of Baptism. Chicago: Disciples Publication
Society, 1914.
Mueller, John Theodore. Christian Dogmatics: A Handbook of Doctrinal Theology for
Pastors, Teachers, and Laymen. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1934.
Mullins, Edgar Young. The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression. Philadelphia:
Judson Press, 1917.
Murphy Center for Liturgical Research. Made, Not Born: New Perspectives on Christian
Initiation and the Catechumenate. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1976.
Murray, John. Christian Baptism. Philadelphia: Committee on Christian Education,
Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1952.
Neighbour, R. E. "The Moral Significance of Baptism." Review and Expositor 8 (1911):
420-430.
Nelson, J. Robert. Zhe Realm of Redemption. 2nd ed. London: Epworth Press, 1953.
Neunheuser, Burkhard. Baptism and Confirmation. Trans. John Jay Hughes. London:
Burns & Oates, 1964.
Newport, John P. "The Theology and Experience of Salvation." 7he Greek Orthodox
Theological Review 22 (1977): 393-404.
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. 2nd ed. Trans. Patrick Lynch. Ed. James
Bastible. Cork: Mercier Press, 1957.
Paul, Robert S. 7he Atonement and the Sacraments: The Relation of the Atonement to the
Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. New York: Abingdon, 1960.
Pieper, Francis. Christian Dogmatics. Vol. 3. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House,
1953)
Pinnock, Clark H. Flame of Love: A Theology of the Holy Spirit. Downers Grove: Inter-
Varsity Press, 1996.
Pohle, Joseph. The Sacraments: A Dogmatic Treatise. Vol. 1. Trans. Arthur Preuss. St.
Louis: B. Herder, 1915.
Polhill, John B. Acts. Vol. 26, The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman
Press, 1992.
Poole-Connor, E. J. Evangelicalism in England. London: The Fellowship of Independent
Evangelical Churches, 1951.
Porter, Stanley E. The Paul of Acts. Tibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
and Anthony R. Cross, eds. Baptism, the New Testament and the Church:
Historical and Contemporary Studies in Honour of R. E. O. White. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999.
Prenter, Regin. Creation and Redemption. Trans. Theodor I. Jensen. Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1967.
Quick, Oliver Chase. The Christian Sacraments. London: Nisbet & Co., 1932.
Reid, J.K.S. "Theological Issues Involved in Baptism." Expository Times 61 (1949-1950):
201-204.
Richardson, Alan. An Introduction to the Theology of the New Testament. New York:
Harper & Row, 1958.
Roark, Dallas M. The Christian Faith. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1969.
Bibliography 265

Robertson, Archibald Thomas. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of
Historical Research, Nashville: Broadman Press, 1934.
. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press,
1930-1933.
Robinson, William. Zhe Biblical Doctrine of the Church. Revised edition. St. Louis:
Bethany Press, 1955.
. The Shattered Cross: The Many Churches and the One Church. Birmingham:
Berean Press, 1955.
. What Churches of Christ Stand For. Birmingham: Berean Press, 1959.
Rogers, E.R. "Yet Once More--'One Baptism'." 7he Reformed Theological Review 50
(1991): 41-49.
Russell, Horace O. "The Relationship Between the Faith of the Individual and the Faith of
the Community in Baptism, the Blessing of Children and Confirmation: A Baptist
Perspective." Review and Expositor 77 (1980): 83-87.
Saucy, Robert L. Zhe Church in God's Program. Chicago: Moody Press, 1972.
Schillebeeckx, Edward. Christ the Sacrament of the Encounter with God. Trans. Paul
Barrett, Mark Schoof and Laurence Bright. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1963.
Schlink, Edmund. Zhe Doctrine of Baptism. Trans. Herbert J. A. Bouman. St. Louis:
Concordia Publishing House, 1972.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Baptism in the Thought of St. Paul. Trans. G. R. Beasley-Murray.
New York: Herder & Herder, 1964.
Schneider, Johannes. Baptism and Church in the New Testament. Trans. Ernest A. Payne.
London: Carey Kingsgate Press, 1957.
. Die Taufe im Neuen Testament. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammen, 1952.
Schwarz, Hans. Divine Communication: Word and Sacrament in Biblical, Historical, and
Contemporary Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.
Skoglund, J. E. "Recent Trends in Baptist Thinking about Baptism." /oundations 7 (1964):
209-216.
Smith, B. F. Christian Baptism. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1970.
Stafford, Thomas Polhill. A Study of Christian Doctrines. Kansas City: Western Baptist
Publishing Company, 1936.
Stein, Robert H. “Baptism and Becoming a Christian in the New Testament.” Southern
Baptist Journal of Theology 2, no. 1 (Spring 1998): 6-17.
Stookey, Laurence Hull. Baptism: Christ's Act in the Church. Nashville: Abingdon, 1982.
_ "Personal and Community Faith In Relation to Baptism and Other Rites of
Christian Initiation." Review and Expositor 77 (1980): 71-81.
Stott, John. “The Evangelical Doctrine of Baptism.” Churchman 112, no. 1 (1998): 47-59,
Strege, Merle D., ed. Baptism & Church: A Believers’ Church Vision. Grand Rapids:
Sagamore Books, 1986.
Synge, F. C. "The Holy Spirit and the Sacraments." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (1953):
65-76.
Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1949.
Thurian, Max, ed. Churches Respond to BEM: Official responses to the "Baptism, Eucharist
and Ministry" text. Vols. I-IV. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1986-1987.
_ and Geoffrey Wainwright, eds. Baptism and Eucharist: Ecumenical
Convergence in Celebration. Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1983,
Tidwell, Josiah Blake. Christian Teachings. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942.
Torbet, Robert G. "The Nature and Communication of Grace: The Baptist Perspective."
Foundations 12, no. 3 (July-September 1969): 213-222.
266 Bibliography

Torrance, T. F. Conflict and Agreement in the Church. Vol. 2, The Ministry and the
Sacraments of the Gospel. London: Lutterworth Press, 1960.
. God and Rationality. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.
. The Mediation of Christ. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1983.
"The One Baptism Common to Christ and His Church." In Theology in
Reconciliation. London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1975.
. Theology in Reconstruction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.
Tull, James E. "The Ordinances/Sacraments in Baptist Thought." American Baptist
Quarterly | (1982): 187-196.
Turner, Nigel and James Hope Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. 3.
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1963.
Vanhetloo, Warren. "Ordinance, not Sacrament." Calvary Baptist Theological Journal |
(Fall 1985): 16-25.
Vogel, Heinrich. "The First Sacrament: Baptism." Trans. G. W. Bromiley. Scottish Journal
of Theology 7 (1954): 41-58.
Wainwright, Geoffrey. Christian Initiation. London: Lutterworth Press, 1969.
= . "Developpements Baptismaux depuis 1967." Etudes Theologiques et
Religieuses 49 (1974): 67-93.
. Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and Life. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1980.
Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1957.
Walvoord, John F. and Roy B. Zuck, eds. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: New
Testament, Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983.
Ward, Wayne E. "Baptism in Theological Perspective." Review and Expositor 65 (1968):
43-52.
Warns, Johannes. Baptism: Studies in the Original Christian Baptism. Trans. G. H. Lang.
Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1957.
Watts, Ronald F. Zhe Ordinances and Ministry of the Church: A Baptist View. Toronto:
Canadian Baptist Federation, 1986.
Weber, Otto. Foundations of Dogmatics. Vol. 2. Trans. DarrellL.Guder. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1983.
Whale, John Seldon. Christian Doctrine. Cambridge: University Press, 1941.
Wilburn, Ralph G. "A Theology of the Sacraments: The Nature of the Church and Our
Salvation." Encounter 24, no. 3 (Summer 1963): 280-302.

Historical Background
Armour, Rollin Stely. Anabaptist Baptism: A Representative Study. Scottdale, PA: Herald
Press, 1966.
Ball, G. H. Christian Baptism: The Duty, the Act, and the Subjects. Dover: Freewill Baptist
Printing Establishment, 1860.
The Baptist Catechism: Commonly Called Keach's Catechism. Philadelphia: American
Baptist Publication Society, 1851.
Beddome, Benjamin. Baptism: Extract from a Scriptural Exposition of the Baptist
Catechism; by way of Question and Answer. London: Whittingham and Rowland,
1813.
Bibliography 267

Booth, Abraham. Paedobaptism Examined. 1n The Baptist Library. Ed. Charles G.

Sommers, William R. Williams, and Levi. L. Hill. 3 vols. New York: Lewis Colby &
Co., 1846.
A Vindication of the Baptists from the Charge of Bigotry, in Refusing
Communion at the Lord's Table to Paedobaptists. In The Baptist Library. Ed. Charles
G. Sommers, William R. Williams, and Levi L. Hill. 3 vols. New York: Lewis Colby
& Co., 1846.
Breakenridge, Melvin. “The Scottish Connection: John Glas, 1695-1773.” In Zhe Campbell-
Stone Movement in Ontario, ed. Claude E. Cox, 43-59. Lewiston: Edwin Mellon Press,
1995:
Briggs, J. H. Y. The English Baptists of the Nineteenth Century. London: The Baptist
Historical Society, 1994.
Brine, John. The Baptists Vindicated from Some Groundless Charges Brought against Them
by Mr. Eltringham. London: John Ward, 1756.
Brown, J. Newton. The Baptist Church Manual. Philadelphia: B. R. Loxley, 1853.
Brown, Raymond. The English Baptists of the Eighteenth Century. London: The Baptist
Historical Society, 1986.
Campbell, Alexander. Christian Baptism. Bethany, VA.: by author, 1853.
Carroll, B. H. Baptists and Their Doctrines. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1913.
Cathcart, William, ed. Zhe Baptist Encyclopedia. Philadelphia: Everts, 1881.
Clarke, William Newton. An Outline of Christian Theology. 4th ed. New York: Charles
Scribners, 1899.
Coggins, James Robert. John Smyth’s Congregation: English Separatism, Mennonite
Influence, and the Elect Nation. Waterloo: Herald Press, 1991.
Coxe, Benjamin, Hanserd Knollys, and William Kiffin. A Declaration Concerning the
Publike Dispute. London: 1645.
Cramp, J.M. A Catechism on Baptism. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society,
1865.
Danvers, Henry. A Treatise of Baptism. London: 1674.
Dargan, Edward Charles. The Doctrines of Our Faith. Rev. ed. Nashville: Sunday School
Board of the Southern Baptist Convention, 1920.
Davies, Horton. Worship and Theology in England. Vol. 1, From Cranmer to Hooker,
1534-1603. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970.
. Worship and Theology in England. Vol. Il, From Andrewes to Baxter and
Fox, 1603-1690. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975.
Davye. Thomas. The Baptism of Adult Believers Only, Asserted and Vindicated; and that
of Infants Disproved. London: John Darby, 1719.
Duncan, George. Baptism and the Baptists. London: Baptist Tract and Book Society,
1882.
Dutton, Anne. Brief Hints Concerning Baptism: of the Subject, Mode, and End of this
Solemn Ordinance. London: J. Hart, 1746.
Eltringham, William. The Baptist Against the Baptist: or a Display of Antipaedo-baptist
Self-Inconsistency. London: J. Waugh and W. Penner, 1755.
Finney, Charles Grandison. Lectures on Revivals of Religion. Ed. William G. McLoughlin.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1960.
Fuller, Andrew. The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller: with a Memoir of His Life,
by Andrew Gunton Fuller. 3rd ed. 3 vols. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1845.
Gale, John. Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant-Baptism. London: John Offor,
1820. Orig. published 1711.
268 Bibliography

Garner, Robert. A Treatise of Baptism. London: no publisher, 1645.

Gates, Errett. The Early Relation and Separation of Baptists and Disciples. Chicago: The
Christian Century Company, 1904.
Gill, John. Baptism a Divine Commandment to be Observed. London: G. Keith, 1765.
_ A Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity. Paris, Arkansas: The Baptist
Standard Bearer, 1989. Orig. published 1769-1770.
. The Divine Right of Infant Baptism Examined and Disproved. London: J.
Ward, 1749.
. An Essay on Scripture baptism: in Which It Is Shewn That Infant Baptism Is
Destitute of Proof Either from The Holy Scriptures or from Ancient Ecclesiastical
Writers. London: J. Barfield, 1815.
__. An Exposition of the New Testament. 3 vols. Philadelphia: William W.
Woodward, 1811.
. Infant-baptism, a Part and Pillar of Popery. London: G. Keith, 1766.
Grafton, Thomas W. Alexander Campbell. St. Louis: Christian Board of Education, n.d.
Grantham, Thomas. Christianismus Primitivus. London: Francis Smith, 1678.
_ A Sigh for Peace: or The Cause of Division Discovered (London: printed for
the author, 1671).
Graves, James Robinson. The Act of Christian Baptism. Texarkana: Baptist Sunday School
Committee, 1881.
._ The Relation of Baptism to Salvation. Texarkana: Baptist Sunday School
Committee, 1881.
Haley, J. J. Debates That Made History. St. Louis: Christian Board of Education, 1920.
Hall, Robert. On Terms of Communion, with a Particular View to the Case of the Baptists
and Paedobaptists. In The Works of Robert Hall, A.M., ed. Olinthus Gregory. 4 vols.
London: Henry G. Bohn, 1843.
Hayden, Roger. English Baptist History and Heritage. London: The Baptist Union of Great
Britain, 1990.
Haykin, Michael A. G. Kiffin, Knollys, and Keach. Leeds: Reformation Today Trust, 1996.
, ed. The Life and Thought of John Gill (1697-1771): A Tercentennial
Appreciation. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
Hicks, L. Edward. "Rational Religion in the Ohio Western Reserve (1827-1830): Walter
Scott and the Restoration Appeal of Baptism for the Remission of Sins." Restoration
Quarterly 34 (1992): 207-219.
Hinton, John Howard. Zhe Theological Works of the Rev. John Howard Hinton, M.A.
London: Houlston & Wright, 1865.
Holifield, E. Brooks. The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental
Theology in Old and New England, 1570-1720. New Haven: Yale University Press,
1974.
Hudson, Winthrop S., ed. Baptist Concepts of the Church. Valley Forge: Judson Press,
1959)
Hulse, Erroll. An Introduction to the Baptists. 2nd ed. Haywards Heath, Sussex: Carey
Publications, 1976.
Humbert, Royal, ed. A Compend of Alexander Campbell's Theology. St. Louis: Bethany
Press, 1961,
"An Index to Notable Baptists, Whose Careers began within the British Empire before 1850."
Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society 7 (1920-1921): 182-239.
Ingham, R. A Hand-Book on Christian Baptism. Vol. 2, Christian Baptism: Its Subjects.
London: E. Stock, 1871.
Bibliography 269

Jeter, Jeremiah B. Campbellism Examined. New York: Sheldon, Lamport, & Blakeman,
1855.
Keach, Benjamin. The Ax Laid to the Root. London: by the author, 1693.
. Gold Refin'd; or Baptism in its Primitive Purity. London: Nathaniel Crouch,
1689,
Kiffin, William. Remarkable Passages in the Life of William Kiffin, Ed. William Orme.
London: Burton & Smith, 1823.
Kinghorn, Joseph. A Brief Statement of the Sentiments of the Baptists on the Ordinance of
Baptism. Norwich: S. Wilkin, 1824.
Lawrence, Henry. Of Baptisme. London: F. Macock, 1659.
Leith, John H., ed. The Creeds of the Churches. 3" ed. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982.
Lumpkin, William L. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1959.
McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1987.
McClendon, H. R. The Bible on Baptism. Louisville: Baptist Book Concern, 1896.
McGlothlin, W. J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.
Moore, Walter Levon. "Baptist Teachings and Practices on Baptism in England, 1600-1689."
Unpublished Th.D. thesis, Southern Baptist Seminary, 1950.
Murray, Iain. The Forgotten Spurgeon. London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1966.
Nettles, Thomas J. By His Grace and for His Glory. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House,
1986.
Newman, A. H. A History of Anti-paedobaptism. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1896.
Noel, Baptist W. Essay on Christian Baptism. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1850.
Sermons on Regeneration, with Especial Reference to the Doctrine of
Baptismal Regeneration. 2nd ed. London: "The Pulpit" Office, n.d.
Novak, Michael James. "Thy Will Be Done: The Theology of the English Particular
Baptists, 1638-1660." Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University, 1979.
Old, Hughes Oliphant. The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth
Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.
Patterson, W. Morgan. "The Role of Baptism in Baptist History." Review and Expositor 65
(1968): 33-41.
Pengilly, Richard. The Scripture Guide to Baptism. \n The Baptist Library. Ed. Charles G.
Sommers, William R. Williams, and Levi L. Hill. 3 vols. New York: Lewis Colby &
Co., 1846.
Perkin, J. R. C. "Baptism in Nonconformist Theology, 1820-1920, with special reference to
the Baptists." D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, 1955.
Powell, Vavasor. The Life and Death of Mr. Vavasor Powell. No publisher, 1671.
Rainbow, Jonathan H. "Confessor Baptism: The Baptismal Doctrine of the Early
Anabaptists." American Baptist Quarterly 8 (1989): 276-290.
Roberts-Thomson, E. Baptists and Disciples of Christ. London: Carey Kingsgate Press,
1948.
Robinson, Robert. Zhe History ofBaptism. London, 1790. Reprinted with introduction and
notes by J. R. Graves. Nashville: Southwestern Baptist Publishing House, 1860.
Ross, J. M. "The Theology of Baptism in Baptist History." Zhe Baptist Quarterly 15
(1953-1954): 100-112.
Ryland, John. A Candid Statement of the Reasons Which Induce the Baptists to Differ in
Opinion and Practice from So Many of Their Christian Brethren, London: W. Button,
1814.
270 Bibliography

Smyth, John. The Works ofJohn Smyth. 2 vols. Ed. W. T. Whitely. Cambridge: University
Press, 1915.
Sommers, Charles G, William R. Williams, and Levi L. Hill, eds. The Baptist Library: A
Republication of Standard Baptist Works. 3 vols. New York: Lewis Colby & Co.,
1846.
Spilsbury, John S. A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme. London: n.p.,
1643.
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon. "Baptismal Regeneration." Sermon preached June 5, 1864.
Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. X (1864). Pasadena, Texas: Pilgrim Publications,
1981,
Starr, Edward C. A Baptist Bibliography. 25 vols. Rochester: American Baptist Historical
Society, 1947-1976.
Stennett, Joseph. Zhe Works of the Reverend and Learned Mr. Joseph Stennett, Vol. IV.
London: n.p., 1732.
Stovel, C. The Baptismal Regeneration Controversy Considered. London: Houlston &
Stoneman, and Dyer & Co., 1843.
Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1967. Orig.
published 1907.
Taylor, Dan. The Christian Religion: An Exposition of Its Leading Principles, Practical
Requirements, and Experimental Enjoyments. London: J. Smith, 1844.
Thompson, Philip E. “A New Question in Baptist History: Seeking A Catholic Spirit Among
Early Baptists.” Pro Ecclesia 8, no. 1 (Winter 1999): 51-72.
. “People of the Free God: The Passion of Seventeenth-Century Baptists.”
American Baptist Quarterly 15, no. 3 (September 1996): 223-241.
. “Practicing the Freedom of God: Formation in Early Baptist Life.” In
Theology and Lived Christianity, ed. David M.Hammond. Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third
Publications, 2000.
Torbet, Robert. A History of the Baptists. Rev. ed. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1965.
Wallace, Ronald S. Calvin's Doctrine of the Word and Sacrament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1957.
Wayland, Francis. Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. New York:
Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., 1857.
Westlake, Thomas. A General View of Baptism. In The Baptist Library. Ed. Charles G.
Sommers, William R. Williams, and Levi L. Hill. 3 vols. New York: Lewis Colby &
Co., 1846.
White, Barrington R. The English Baptists of the Seventeenth Century. London: The
Baptist Historical Society, 1983.
. The English Separatist Tradition. London: Oxford University, 1971.
. "Frontiers of Fellowship between English Baptists, 1609-1660." Foundations
11, no. 3 (July-September 1968): 244-256.
Whitley, W. T. Church, Ministry, and Sacraments in the New Testament. London: The
Kingsgate Press, 1903.
. A History of British Baptists. 2nd ed. London: Kingsgate Press, 1932.
. The Witness of History to Baptist Principles. 1897.
, ed.. The Works of John Smyth. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1915.
Whittle, Robert. An Answer to Mr. Francis Cornwell's Positions and Inferences. Appended
portions of Francis Cornwell, The New Testament Ratified with the Blood of the Lord
Jesus. London: W. H., 1646.
Bibliography 271

Wilson, Samuel. A Scripture Manual; or a Plain Representation of the Ordinance of

Baptism. In The Baptist Library. Ed. Charles G. Sommers, William R. Williams, and
Levi L. Hill. 3 vols. New York: Lewis Colby & Co., 1846.
Wright, David F. "One Baptism or Two? Reflections on the History of Christian Baptism."
Vox Evangelica 18 (1988): 7-23.

Book Reviews

Aldwinckle, R. F. Review of Zhe Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In

Foundations 4 (October 1961): 372-374.
Allison, Leon McDill. Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In
Interpretation 15 (January 1961): 100-102.
Bailey, John W. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville
Clark. In Journal of Bible and Religion 25 (April 1957): 168.
Barth, Markus. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville
Clark. In Journal of Religion 37 (1957): 223-225.
Beasley-Murray, George R. Review of Zhe Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O.
White. In Zhe Expository Times 72 (November 1960): 44.
Cerny, E. A. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville Clark.
In Catholic Biblical Quarterly 19 (January 1957): 160.
Crabtree, A. B. Review of Baptism and Christian Unity, by Alec Gilmore. In Foundations
10 (April-June 1967): 179-181.
Davies, J. G. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray. In
Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 14 (October 1963): 478-479.
Dillistone, F. W. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville
Clark. In Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 8 (April 1957): 216.
England, Stephen J. Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In
Encounter 22 (Autumn 1961): 482-483.
Every, George. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray. In Zhe
Baptist Quarterly 20 (January 1963): 42-43.
Filson, Floyd V. Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In
Journal of Biblical Literature 79 (1960): 388-389.
George, A. Raymond. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray.
In The Expository Times 74 (January 1963): 106.
Green, H. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville Clark. In
Church Quarterly Review 157 (October-December 1956): 490-491.
Heron, John. Review of Christian Baptism, ed. Alec Gilmore. In Scottish Journal of
Theology 13 (1960): 102-104.
Higgins, A. J. B. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville
Clark. In Scottish Journal of Theology 10 (June 1957): 209-211.
Hoekema, Anthony A. Review of Baptism and Christian Unity, by Alec Gilmore. In Calvin
Theological Journal 2 (April 1967): 74-77.
Hull, William E. Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In
Review and Expositor 59 (July 1962): 402-403.
Maring, Norman H. Review of Christian Baptism, ed. Alec Gilmore. In Foundations 3
(January 1960): 90-92.
Marsh, H. G. Review of Baptism and Christian Unity, by Alec Gilmore. In London
Quarterly and Holborn Review 192 (January 1967): 78.
22 Bibliography

Moody, Dale. Review of Baptism and Christian Unity, by Alec Gilmore. In Review and
Expositor 64 (Spring 1967): 248-249.
_ Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray. In
Review and Expositor 60 (Spring 1963): 232-234.
Morrison, Clinton. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray. In
Journal of Biblical Literature 82 (1963): 339-341.
Osterhaven, Eugene. Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In
Christianity Today 5 (December 5, 1960): 213-214.
Reid, J. K. S. Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In The
Baptist Quarterly 19 (January 1961): 45-47.
Rowley, H. H. Review of Christian Baptism, ed. Alec Gilmore. In The Expository Times
70 (July 1959): 301-302.
Scaer, David P. Review of Baptism and Christian Unity, by Alec Gilmore. In The
Springfielder 31 (Spring 1967): 75-76.
Schnackenburg, Rudolf. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray.
In Biblische Zeitschrift n.s. 7 (1963): 305-308.
Story, Cullen I. K. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray. In
Christianity Today 7 (February 1, 1963): 447-448.
Stuermann, Walter E. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville
Clark. In /nterpretation 11 (April 1957): 238-239.
Titus, Eric L. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray. In
Foundations 6 (July 1963): 280-281.
Van Roo, W. A. Review of The Biblical Doctrine of Initiation, by R. E. O. White. In
Gregorianum 42 (1961): 150.
. Review of Baptism in the New Testament, by G. R. Beasley-Murray. In
Gregorianum 44 (1963): 134.
Wahlstrom, Eric H. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville
Clark. In Lutheran Quarterly 9 (August 1957): 279-280.
Ward, Marcus. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville Clark.
In The Expository Times 67 (September 1956): 361-362.
Wilder, Amos N. Review of An Approach to the Theology of the Sacraments, by Neville
Clark. In Journal of Biblical Literature 77 (March 1958): 87-88.
 INDEX

Adoption 210 Carey, William 48

Aland, Kurt 217 Carson, Alexander 64-65
Anabaptists 120, 148, 156, 179, 228 Catechism of the Catholic Church 210
Apollinarianism 198 Causa salutis 211
Apostolic succession 221 Charnock, Stephen 29
Argyle, A. W. 120 Child, R. L. 124, 245
Arminianism 11, 84, 137 Christ-event 121-123, 135, 187, 207,
Assensus 201, 237, 240, 243 208
Aubrey, M. E. 152 Church membership 17, 21, 27-28, 36,
Augsburg Confession 11 57, 90, 103-105, 152, 196, 200,
Aulen, Gustaf 238 224-232, 249
Church of England 10, 58, 76, 79, 80-
Baptism ofJesus 95, 114-115, 135-136 > 81, 105, 207
157-158, 212, 219 Church of Scotland 133
Baptism of John 60, 63, 119, 157 Churches of Christ/Disciples of Christ
Baptismal Commission 158-159 128, 240-246
Baptist Catechism 5, 18, 87 Circumcision 114
Baptist Theological Seminary Circumcision of Christ 188-189
(Switzerland) 139 Clark, Neville 3, 107-113, 121-124,
Baptist Union of Great Britain 7, 65, 125, 132, 143, 144, 145, 148, 154 2

105, 113, 145, 149, 150-152 LO7 e202 S215 e223

Barrett, C. K. 138, 198 Clarke, Paul 4
Barth, Karl 107, 157, 178-195, 212, Close communion 42, 45-46, 57, 59
249 Cognitio salutis 178-179, 211
Barth, Markus 1, 116, 179 Collins, William 18
Beasley-Murray, G. R. 2, 4, 7, 111, Confirmation 216, 221-222
117-119, 124, 127, 129-132, 133, Conner, W. T. 204, 205
139-145, 147, 148, 154, 156, 174- Cook, Henry 105-107, 145, 149
I7SHUSZOUSS 88s LOT 219" 223" Corporate personality 148
227, 234, 236, 249, 250 Council of Trent 44, 66
Berkouwer, G. C. 208-209, 217 Creation 8, 196-199
Book of Common Prayer 66, 80, 83 Covenant ofgrace 31, 212-213, 217-
Booth, Abraham 42-46 219, 239
Brackney, William 1 Crosley, David 30
Briggs, J. H. Y. 58 Cross, Anthony 6, 113
Brine, John 42 Cross as vicarious baptism 206, 212,
Bristol Baptist College 51 216
British Council of Churches 233 Cullmann, Oscar 116, 211-212, 215
Brunner, Emil 137, 249
Bunyan, John 226 Dakin, Arthur 102
Buse, S. I. 115-117 De Ries, Hans 12
Discipleship 165-166
Calvin, John 85, 127 Dodd, C. H. 120
Calvinism (Reformed theology) 11, 17, Dualism 94
18, 19, 33, 36, 41, 42, 48, 52, 79, Dunn, James D. G. 171, 173
137, 179, 208, 238-240, 246, 248 Dutton, Anne 46-48, 53, 55
Campbell, Alexander 37, 240, 243, 245
Campbell, Thomas 241
274 Index

Ecumenism 4, 7, 8, 105, 128, 154, 242, Grantham, Thomas 27-28

248 Griffiths, D. R. 119-120, 125
Ellis, Christopher 8
Eltringham, William 41-42 Hall, Robert, Jr. 59-64
Evangelical Revival 88 Hayden, Roger 58, 105
Ex opere operato 66, 99-100, 125, 136, Helwys, Thomas 11, 128
179, 236 Henry, Matthew 44
Experience of salvation 3, 5, 6, 19, 21, Heron, John 205
24 27-288 32),30, 47, 525655 70) High Calvinism 33, 41, 42, 56, 88
72, 73-75, 82-83, 86,87, 92, 93, Himbury, D. M. 121
99, 114, 138, 139, 154, 243, 244, Hinton, John Howard 75-79
245, 251 Historical Jesus 176-177
Hughey, J. D. 124, 126, 128
Faith and baptism 2, 13, 23, 27, 29, 32, Hull, William E. 174-178
35-36, 41, 49, 52, 62, 64, 76, 80, Hulse, Erroll 4
81-82, 87, 117-118, 120, 124,
132, 138, 147, 164, 185-186, 191, Inaugurated eschatology 110, 112
196, 199-209, 211-219, 223, 236, Incarnation 96, 101, 102, 123, 138,
237-238, 243-244, 245, 246, 248 196-199
Faith and Order 98, 139, 233 Indiscriminate baptism 217-218
Federal Theology 207 Ingham, Richard 84-85
Fiddes, Paul 8 Initiation 21, 48, 101, 102, 110, 111,
Fiducia 201, 236, 237, 243, 246 116, 117, 122, 134, 138, 186, 220,
Finney, Charles, 251 223,225, 2200251
First London Confession 14, 230
Flemington, W. F. 213-214 Jeremias, Joachim 218
Footwashing 6 Jewett, Paul 216
Forgiveness of sins 6, 10, 12, 16, 19, Joint Liturgical Group 233
2324525 127-2 8629S384e ele Justification 15, 25, 35, 37, 42, 87, 118,
42, 49-50, 52, 78, 95, 126, 130, 125, 131, 142, 200, 201, 203-209,
157, 166-170, 181, 200, 210, 217, 211, 218, 236, 239
2185221 23932425945
Free Church Federal Council 150 Keach, Benjamin 18, 29-30, 57, 129
Friends 231, 233 Kevan, Ernest 124, 127, 128, 129
Fuller, Andrew 48-50 Kinghorn, Joseph 59

Garner, Robert 20-24 Lambeth Conference 150

Garrett, James Leo 5 Landmarkism 225, 229
General Baptists 5, 11, 14, 15, 19, 27, Lane, Eric 3
29, 32, 42, 48, 84, 224 230 Lawrence, Henry 24-27, 57
Gill, John 33-42, 48, 50, 55, 129, 165 Laying on ofhands 5, 15-16, 219, 221-
Gilmore, Alec 3, 7, 113, 114, 144, 145- 222
150, 197 Longenecker, Richard 161
Glas, John 240 Lord’s Supper (Eucharist) 5, 6, 13, 17,
Gorham, George 76 18, 19, 42, 50, 54, 59, 63, 102,
Grace and baptism 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 17, 103, 121, 145, 150-151
19820; 2 1 315325 8mo2N oon 16 Lumpkin, William L. 5
93, 106-107, 131, 136-138, 141, Lutheranism 66, 85, 145, 204, 207,
179, 196, 207-209, 209-219, 223, 237-238, 240, 246
235, 242, 246, 248
Index DIS

Mantey, J. R. 167 Prevenient grace 137, 212-219, 238,

Maoz, Baruch 4 246
Marcel, Pierre 212-213 Prophetic symbolism 96, 136, 148
Marshall, Walter 44 Propositions and Conclusions
Matthews, Isaac G. 98, 100 Concerning True Christian
Mennonites 6, 11, 12 Religion 13
Midland Confession 15 Puritans 10, 20, 207, 243, 248
Mitchill, William 30-31 Pusey, E. B. 86
Mode ofbaptism 1, 2, 3, 12, 14, 15, 17,
13, 30533; 40F43.453. 574 S78 1211 > Rantism 56
161, 248 Rawdon College 89, 98
Rebaptism 84, 100, 111-112, 123, 144-
Necessity of baptism 8, 26-27, 28, 51, 145, 148, 227, 231-232, 246
77-78, 132, 141-143, 198, 205, Regeneration 15, 29, 30, 32, 36, 37, 40,
232-234, 236, 244-246 41, 43, 51, 52, 58, 62, 66, 67, 69,
New Connexion 32 70-72, 73-75, 79, 80-83, 84, 99,
Newman, J. H. 86 101, 108, 119, 120, 125, 126, 129,
Noel, Baptist W. 72-75, 82, 86 133, 142, 170, 184-185, 235, 237-
238, 249
Obedience 32, 35, 39, 41, 57, 67, 90, Regent’s Park College 89
91, 93, 151, 179, 226, 250 Revivalism 243, 251
Old Testament 135, 146, 174-176 Richardson, Alan 206, 208
Oman, John 137 Roberts-Thomson, , E. 245
Open communion 59 Robertson, A. T. 126, 131, 166-170
Open membership 91, 104-105, 111, Robinson, H. Wheeler 3, 89-97, 103,
123, 144-145, 226-232, 233, 249 108, 129, 135, 136, 148, 196, 198,
Ordinance 2, 4, 5, 6, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 199, 202, 219, 227, 245, 249
Bil BS, DSi AO. SB, SSM, Robinson, William 241, 243
105-106, 151 Roman Catholicism 10, 56, 61-62, 66,
Orthodox Creed 19, 230 86, 106, 145, 149, 179, 209-210,
Oxford Movement 58 235-237, 246
Ross, J. M. 1, 16
Paedobaptism 12, 19, 30, 51, 54, 66, Rowley, H. H. 124
67, 68, 87, 103-105, 111-112, Ryland, John, Jr. 51-52, 56
1231285137. 2 11-2199 227-228; Ryland, John C. 51
235, 249
Parousia 110, 112, 125, 187 Sacerdotalism 198, 106
Particular Baptists 5, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, Salvation Army 128, 233
19, 20, 29, 30, 32-33, 41, 42, 46, Sandeman, Robert 240
48, 52, 88, 225, 231, 248 Savoy Confession 230
Payne, Ernest A. 105, 107, 113, 154 Schlink, Edmund 215
Pelagianism 205, 209 Seal 5, 10, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 25-27,
Perkin, J. R. C. 59, 121 28, 41, 44, 47, 50, 53, 55-56, 57,
Philadelphia Confession of Faith 5 63, 66, 72-75, 82, 85, 86, 87, 94-
Pieper, Francis 237-238 95, 98, 114, 198, 204, 211, 227,
Positive institution 45, 54, 91 231, 239-240, 248-249 251
Prayer 5, 18, 19, 54 Second London Confession 16-18, 31,
Prayer in baptism 5, 12, 13, 141, 192, 229
202 Service Books 152-154
Prenter, Regin 238 Shakespeare, J. H. 105, 150
276 Index

Short Confession of Faith 12 Vatican II 209, 249

Short Confession of Faith in XX Visible word 13, 14, 56, 85, 237, 240
Articles 12
Smyth, John 5, 11, 12, 103, 121, 128, Walton, Robert C. 100-105, 106, 108,
237 129, 143, 144, 145, 148, 197, 198,
Somerset Confession 15 223
South Wales Baptist College 108 Wesley, John 46, 88
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary West, W. M. S. 120-121, 154
139 Westminster Confession 11, 16, 19, 31,
Southern Baptists 250, 252-253 66, 67, 230, 239
Spirit and baptism 3, 8, 14, 15, 17, 23, Whale, J. S. 98
29, 36, 37, 53, 60-61, 78, 89, 90, White, R. E. O. 3, 114-115, 133-139,
92, 95, 96, 101, 109-112, 115, 1405 TATA IST A198N2022 2129!
116, 118-122, 125, 126, 130, 131, 236
138, 142, 151, 159-161, 163, 170- Whitefield, George 46, 88
174, 184-185, 189-190, 196, 200, Whitley, W. T. 5
210, 217, 219-223, 239, 246 Wikenhauser, A. 147
Spurgeon, Charles Haddon 79-83 Winward, Stephen F. 113-114, 153
Spurgeon’s College 139 Word of God 5, 13, 18, 19, 26, 54
Standard Confession 5, 15-16, 230 Works 201, 202, 203-209, 218
Stone, Barton 241 World Council of Churches 151
Stovel, Charles 65-72
Strong, Augustus Hopkins 5 Zwingli, Ulrich 63, 179
Subjects of baptism 1, 2, 15, 17, 18, 31,
53, 122, 248
Symbolism ofbaptism 2, 4, 14, 15, 18,
21, 34, 38, 43, 58, 85, 128, 140,
161, 170-171

Tertullian 54
Thirty-Nine Articles 10, 66
Thompson, Philip 28, 32
Thurian, Max 7
Torrance, T. F, 206-208
Tractarianism 58, 65, 72, 86, 121
Tradition 113-114, 128-131, 155, 156,
252
The True Gospel-Faith Declared
According to the Scriptures 14
Turner, Nigel 167

Unbaptized Christians 127-128, 132,

141-143, 196, 210
Underwood, A. C. 3, 98-100, 151
Union with Christ 4, 18, 24, 38-39, 41,
62, 63, 70, 87, 88, 96, 110-111,
118, 130, 131, 143, 161, 196, 199,
200, 201, 205, 211, 219, 239, 248
Unitarianism 32
 Studies in Baptist History and Thought
(All titles uniform with this volume)
Dates in bold are of projected publication
Volumes in this series are not always published in sequence

David Bebbington and Anthony R. Cross (eds)

Global Baptist History
(SBHT vol. 14)
This book brings together studies from the Second International Conference on
Baptist Studies which explore different facets of Baptist life and work especially
during the twentieth century.
2005 / 1-84227-214-4

David Bebbington (ed.)

The Gospel in the World
International Baptist Studies
(SBHT vol. 1)
This volume of essays from the First International Conference on Baptist
Studies deals with a range of subjects spanning Britain, North America, Europe,
Asia and the Antipodes. Topics include studies on religious tolerance, the
communion controversy and the development of the international Baptist
community, and concludes with two important essays on the future of Baptist
life that pay special attention to the United States.
2002 / 1-84227-118-0/xiv + 362pp

Damian Brot
Church of the Baptized or Church of Believers?
A Contribution to the Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Free
Churches with Special Reference to Baptists
(SBHT vol. 26)
The dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Free Churches in Europe
has hardly taken place. This book pleads for a commencement of such a
conversation. It offers, among other things, an introduction to the American
and the international dialogues between Baptists and the Catholic Church and
strives to allow these conversations to become fruitful in the European context
as well.
2006 / 1-84227-334-5 / approx. 364pp

November 2004
 Dennis Bustin
Paradox and Perseverence
Hanserd Knollys, Particular Baptist Pioneer in Seventeenth-Century England
(SBHT vol. 23)
The seventeenth century was a significant period in English history during
which the people of England experienced unprecedented change and tumult in
all spheres of life. At the same time, the importance of order and the traditional
institutions of society were being reinforced. Hanserd Knollys, born during this
pivotal period, personified in his life the ambiguity, tension and paradox of it,
openly seeking change while at the same time cautiously embracing order. As a
founder and leader of the Particular Baptists in London and despite persecution
and personal hardship, he played a pivotal role in helping shape their identity
externally in society and, internally, as they moved toward becoming more
formalised by the end of the century.
2006 / 1-84227-259-4 / approx. 324pp

Anthony R. Cross
Baptism and the Baptists
Theology and Practice in Twentieth-Century Britain
(SBHT vol. 3)
At a time of renewed interest in baptism, Baptism and the Baptists is a detailed
study of twentieth-century baptismal theology and practice and the factors which
have influenced its development.
2000 / 0-85364-959-6 / xx + 530pp

Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (eds)

Recycling the Past or Researching History?
Studies in Baptist Historiography and Myths
(SBHT vol. 11)
This collection of essays examines the issues of historiography and myths in
Baptist history and theology: these include the idea of development in Baptist
thought, studies in the church, baptismal sacramentalism, community,
spirituality, soul competency, women, Baptist bishops, creeds and the Bible, and
Overseas missions.
2005 / 1-84227-122-9

November 2004
 Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (eds)
Baptist Sacramentalism
(SBHT vol. 5)
This collection of essays includes biblical, historical and theological studies in
the theology of the sacraments from a Baptist perspective. Subjects explored
include the physical side of being spiritual, baptism, the Lord’s supper, the
church, ordination, preaching, worship, religious liberty and the issue of
disestablishment.
2003 / 1-84227-119-9 / xvi + 278pp

Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (eds)

Baptist Sacramentalism 2
(SBHT vol. 25)
This second collection of essays exploring various dimensions of sacramental
theology from a Baptist perspective includes biblical, historical and theological
studies from scholars from around the world.
2006 / 1-84227-325-6

Paul S. Fiddes
Tracks and Traces
Baptist Identity in Church and Theology
(SBHT vol. 13)
This is a comprehensive, yet unusual, book on the faith and life of Baptist
Christians. It explores the understanding of the church, ministry, sacraments and
mission from a thoroughly theological perspective. In a series of interlinked
essays, the author relates Baptist identity consistently to a theology of covenant
and to participation in the triune communion of God.
2003 / 1-84227-120-2 /xvi + 304pp

Stanley K. Fowler
More Than a Symbol
The British Baptist Recovery of Baptismal Sacramentalism
(SBHT vol. 2)
Fowler surveys the entire scope of British Baptist literature from the
seventeenth-century pioneers onwards. He shows that in the twentieth century
leading British Baptist pastors and theologians recovered an understanding of
baptism that connected experience with soteriology and that in doing so they
were recovering what many of their forebears had taught.
2002 / 1-84227-052-4 /xvi + 276pp

November 2004
 Michael A.G. Haykin (ed.)
‘At the Pure Fountain of Thy Word’
Andrew Fuller as an Apologist
(SBHT vol. 6)
One of the greatest Baptist theologians of the eighteenth and early nineteenth
centuries, Andrew Fuller has not had justice done to him. There is little doubt
that Fuller’s theology lay behind the revitalization of the Baptists in the late
eighteenth century and the first few decades of the nineteenth. This collection of
essays fills a much needed gap by examining a major area of Fuller’s thought,
his work as an apologist.
2004 / 1-84227-171-7 / xxii + 276pp

Michael A.G. Haykin

Studies in Calvinistic Baptist Spirituality
(SBHT vol. 15)
In a day when spirituality is in vogue and Christian communities are looking for
guidance in this whole area, there is wisdom in looking to the past to find
untapped wells. The Calvinistic Baptists, heirs of the rich ecclesial experience in
the Puritan era of the seventeenth century, but, by the end of the eighteenth
century, also passionately engaged in the catholicity of the Evangelical Revivals,
are such a well. This collection of essays, covering such things as the Lord’s
Supper, friendship and hymnody, seeks to draw out the spiritual riches of this
community for reflection and imitation in the present day.
2005 / 1-84227-149-0

Brian Haymes, Anthony R. Cross and Ruth Gouldbourne

On Being the Church
Revisioning Baptist Identity
(SBHT vol. 21)
The aim of the book is to re-examine Baptist theology and practice in the light
of the contemporary biblical, theological, ecumenical and missiological context
drawing on historical and contemporary writings and issues. It is not a study in
denominationalism but rather seeks to revision historical insights from the
believers’ church tradition for the sake of Baptists and other Christians in the
context of the modern—postmodern context.
2005 / 1-84227-121-0

November 2004
 Ken R. Manley
From Woolloomooloo to ‘Eternity’
A History of Baptists in Australia
(SBHT vol. 16)
From their beginnings in Australia in 1831 with the first baptisms in
Woolloomoolloo Bay in 1832, this pioneering study describes the quest of
Baptists in the different colonies (states) to discover their identity as Australians
and Baptists. Although institutional developments are analyzed and the roles of
significant individuals traced, the major focus is on the social and theological
dimensions of the Baptist movement.
2005 / 1-84227-194-6

Ken R. Manley
‘Redeeming Love Proclaim’
John Rippon and the Baptists
(SBHT vol. 12)
A leading exponent of the new moderate Calvinism which brought new life to
many Baptists, John Rippon (1751-1836) helped unite the Baptists at this
significant time. His many writings expressed the denomination’s growing
maturity and mutual awareness of Baptists in Britain and America, and exerted a
long-lasting influence on Baptist worship and devotion. In his various activities,
Rippon helped conserve the heritage of Old Dissent and promoted the
evangelicalism of the New Dissent
2004 / 1-84227-193-8 / xviii + 340pp

Peter J. Morden
Offering Christ to the World
Andrew Fuller and the Revival of English Particular Baptist Life
(SBHT vol. 8)
Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) was one of the foremost English Baptist ministers
of his day. His career as an Evangelical Baptist pastor, theologian, apologist and
missionary statesman coincided with the profound revitalization of the Particular
Baptist denomination to which he belonged. This study examines the key
aspects of the life and thought of this hugely significant figure, and gives
insights into the revival in which he played such a central part.
2003 / 1-84227-141-5 /xx + 202pp

November 2004
 Peter Naylor
Calvinism, Communion and the Baptists
A Study of English Calvinistic Baptists from the Late 1600s to the Early 1800s
(SBHT vol. 7)
Dr Naylor argues that the traditional link between ‘high-Calvinism’ and
‘restricted communion’ is in need of revision. He examines Baptist communion
controversies from the late 1600s to the early 1800s and also the theologies of
John Gill and Andrew Fuller.
2003 / 1-84227-142-3 /xx + 266pp

Ian M. Randall, Toivo Pilli and Anthony R. Cross (eds)

Baptist Identities
International Studies from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Centuries
(SBHT vol. 19)
These papers represent the contributions of scholars from various parts of the
world as they consider the factors that have contributed to Baptist
distinctiveness in different countries and at different times. The volume includes
specific case studies as well as broader examinations of Baptist life in a
particular country or region. Together they represent an outstanding resource for
understanding Baptist identities.
2005 / 1-84227-215-2

James M. Renihan
Edification and Beauty
The Practical Ecclesiology of the English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705
(SBHT vol. 17)
Edification and Beauty describes the practices of the Particular Baptist churches
at the end of the seventeenth century in terms of three concentric circles: at the
centre is the ecclesiological material in the Second London Confession, which is
then fleshed out in the various published writings of the men associated with
these churches, and, finally, expressed in the church books of the era.
2005 / 1-84227-251-9 / approx. 230pp

Frank Rinaldi
‘The Tribe of Dan’
A Study of the New Connexion of General Baptists 1770-1891
(SBHT vol. 10)
‘The Tribe of Dan’ is a thematic study which explores the theology,
organizational structure, evangelistic strategy, ministry and leadership of the
New Connexion of General Baptists as it experienced the process of
institutionalization in the transition from a revival movement to an established
denomination.
2006 / 1-84227-143-1 / approx. 330pp

November 2004
 Peter Shepherd
The Making of a Modern Denomination
John Howard Shakespeare and the English Baptists 1898-1924
(SBHT vol. 4)
John Howard Shakespeare introduced revolutionary change to the Baptist
denomination. The Baptist Union was transformed into a strong central
institution and Baptist ministers were brought under its control. Further,
Shakespeare’s pursuit of church unity reveals him as one of the pioneering
ecumenists of the twentieth century.
2001 / 1-84227-046-X
/ xviii + 220pp

Karen Smith
The Community and the Believers
A Study of Calvinistic Baptist Spirituality in Some Towns and Villages of
Hampshire and the Borders of Wiltshire, c.1730-1830
(SBHT vol. 22)
The period from 1730 to 1830 was one of transition for Calvinistic Baptists.
Confronted by the enthusiasm of the Evangelical Revival, congregations within
the denomination as a whole were challenged to find a way to take account of
the revival experience. This study examines the life and devotion of Calvinistic
Baptists in Hampshire and Wiltshire during this period. Among this group of
Baptists was the hymn writer, Anne Steele.
2005 / 1-84227-326-4 / approx. 280pp

Martin Sutherland
Dissenters in a ‘Free Land’
Baptist Thought in New Zealand 1850-2000
(SBHT vol. 24)
Baptists in New Zealand were forced to recast their identity. Conventions of
communication and association, state and ecumenical relations, even historical
divisions and controversies had to be revised in the face of new topographies
and constraints. As Baptists formed themselves in a fluid society they drew
heavily on both international movements and local dynamics. This book traces
the development of ideas which shaped institutions and styles in sometimes
surprising ways.
2006 / 1-84227-327-2 / approx. 230pp

November 2004
 Brian Talbot
The Search for a Common Identity
The Origins of the Baptist Union of Scotland 1800-1870
(SBHT vol. 9)
In the period 1800 to 1827 there were three streams of Baptists in Scotland:
Scotch, Haldaneite and ‘English’ Baptist. A strong commitment to home
evangelization brought these three bodies closer together, leading to a merger of
their home missionary societies in 1827. However, the first three attempts to
form a union of churches failed, but by the 1860s a common understanding of
their corporate identity was attained leading to the establishment of the Baptist
Union of Scotland.
2003 / 1-84227-123-7 / xviii + 402pp

Philip E. Thompson
The Freedom of God
Towards Baptist Theology in Pneumatological Perspective
(SBHT vol. 20)
This study contends that the range of theological commitments of the early
Baptists are best understood in relation to their distinctive emphasis on the
freedom of God. Thompson traces how this was recast anthropocentrically,
leading to an emphasis upon human freedom from the nineteenth century
onwards. He seeks to recover the dynamism of the early vision via a
pneumatologically-oriented ecclesiology defining the church in terms of the
memory of God.
2005 / 1-84227-125-3

Linda Wilson
Marianne Farningham
A Plain Working Woman
(SBHT vol. 18)
Marianne Farningham, of College Street Baptist Chapel, Northampton, was a
household name in evangelical circles in the later nineteenth century. For over
fifty years she produced comment, poetry, biography and fiction for the popular
Christian press. This investigation uses her writings to explore the beliefs and
behaviour of evangelical Nonconformists, including Baptists, during these years.
2006 / 1-84227-124-5

November 2004
 Other Paternoster titles
relating to Baptist history and thought

George R. Beasley-Murray
Baptism in the New Testament
(Paternoster Digital Library)
This is a welcome reprint of a classic text on baptism originally published in
1962 by one of the leading Baptist New Testament scholars of the twentieth
century. Dr Beasley-Murray’s comprehensive study begins by investigating the
antecedents of Christian baptism. It then surveys the foundation of Christian
baptism in the Gospels, its emergence in the Acts of the Apostles and
development in the apostolic writings. Following a section relating baptism to
New Testament doctrine, a substantial discussion of the origin and significance
of infant baptism leads to a briefer consideration of baptismal reform and
ecumenism.
2005 / 1-84227-300-0 /x + 422pp

Paul Beasley-Murray
Fearless for Truth
A Personal Portrait of the Life of George Beasley-Murray
Without a doubt George Beasley-Murray was one of the greatest Baptists of the
twentieth century. A long-standing Principal of Spurgeon’s College, he wrote
more than twenty books and made significant contributions in the study of areas
as diverse as baptism and eschatology, as well as writing highly respected
commentaries on the Book of Revelation and John’s Gospel.
2002 / 1-84227-134-2/xii + 244pp

David Bebbington
Holiness in Nineteenth-Century England
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
David Bebbington stresses the relationship of movements of spirituality to
changes in their cultural setting, especially the legacies of the Enlightenment
and Romanticism. He shows that these broad shifts in ideological mood had a
profound effect on the ways in which piety was conceptualized and practised.
Holiness was intimately bound up with the spirit of the age.
2000 / 0-85364-981-2/ viii + 98pp

November 2004
 Clyde Binfield
The Country a Little Thickened and Congested?
Nonconformity in Eastern England 1840-1885
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
Studies of Victorian religion and society often concentrate on cities, suburbs,
and industrialisation. This study provides a contrast. Victorian Eastern
England—Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk, Cambridgeshire, and Huntingdonshire—was
rural, traditional, relatively unchanging. That is nonetheless a caricature which
discounts the industry in Norwich and Ipswich (as well as in Haverhill,
Stowmarket, and Leiston) and ignores the impact of London on Essex, of
railways throughout the region, and of an ancient but changing university
(Cambridge) on the county town which housed it. It also entirely ignores the
political implications of such changes in a region noted for the variety of its
religious Dissent since the seventeenth century. This book explores Victorian
Eastern England and its Nonconformity. It brings to a wider readership a
pioneering thesis which has made a major contribution to a fresh evolution of
English religion and society.
2005 / 1-84227-216-0 / approx. 274pp

Christopher J. Clement
Religious Radicalism in England 1535-1565
(Rutherford Studies in Historical Theology)
In this valuable study Christopher Clement draws our attention to a varied
assemblage of people who sought Christian faithfulness in the underworld of
mid-Tudor England. Sympathetically and yet critically he assess their place in
the history of English Protestantism, and by attentive listening he gives them a
voice.
1997 / 0-946068-44-5 / xxii + 426pp

Anthony R. Cross (ed.)

Ecumenism and History
Studies in Honour of John H.Y. Briggs
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
This collection of essays examines the inter-relationships between the two fields
in which Professor Briggs has contributed so much: history—particularly
Baptist and Nonconformist—and the ecumenical movement. With contributions
from colleagues and former research students from Britain, Europe and North
America, Ecumenism and History provides wide-ranging studies in important
aspects of Christian history, theology and ecumenical studies.
2002 / 1-84227-135-0/xx + 362pp

November 2004
 Keith E. Eitel
Paradigm Wars
The Southern Baptist International Mission Board
Faces the Third Millennium
(Regnum Studies in Mission)
The International Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention is the
largest denominational mission agency in North America. This volume
chronicles the historic and contemporary forces that led to the IMB’s recent
extensive reorganization, providing the most comprehensive case study to date
of a historic mission agency restructuring to continue its mission purpose into
the twenty-first century more effectively.
2000 / 1-870345-12-6 /x + 140pp

Ruth Gouldbourne
The Flesh and the Feminine
Gender and Theology in the Writings of Caspar Schwenckfeld
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
Caspar Schwenckfeld and his movement exemplify one of the radical
communities of the sixteenth century. Challenging theological and liturgical
norms, they also found themselves challenging social and particularly gender
assumptions. In this book, the issues of the relationship between radical
theology and the understanding of gender are considered.
2005 / 1-84227-048-6 / approx. 304pp

David Hilborn
The Words of our Lips
Language-Use in Free Church Worship
(Paternoster Theological Monographs)
Studies of liturgical language have tended to focus on the written canons of
Roman Catholic and Anglican communities. By contrast, David Hilborn
analyses the more extemporary approach of English Nonconformity. Drawing
on recent developments in linguistic pragmatics, he explores similarities and
differences between ‘fixed’ and ‘free’ worship, and argues for the
interdependence of each.
2005 / 0-85364-977-4

November 2004
 Mark Hopkins
Nonconformity’s Romantic Generation
Evangelical and Liberal Theologies in Victorian England
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
A study of the theological development of key leaders of the Baptist and
Congregational denominations at their period of greatest influence, including
C.H. Spurgeon and R.W. Dale, and of the controversies in which those among
them who embraced and rejected the liberal transformation of their evangelical
heritage opposed each other.
2004 / 1-84227-150-4 / xvi + 284pp

Galen K. Johnson
Prisoner of Conscience
John Bunyan on Self, Community and Christian Faith
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
This is an interdisciplinary study of John Bunyan’s understanding of conscience
across his autobiographical, theological and fictional writings, investigating
whether conscience always deserves fidelity, and how Bunyan’s view of
conscience affects his relationship both to modern Western individualism and
historic Christianity.
2003 / 1-84227- 151-2 /xvi + 236pp

R.T. Kendall
Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
The author’s thesis is that those who formed the Westminster Confession of
Faith, which is regarded as Calvinism, in fact departed from John Calvin on two
points: (1) the extent of the atonement and (2) the ground of assurance of
salvation.
1997 / 0-85364-827-1 /xii + 264pp

Donald M. Lewis
Lighten Their Darkness
The Evangelical Mission to Working-Class London, 1828-1860
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
This is a comprehensive and compelling study of the Church and the
complexities of nineteenth-century London. Challenging our understanding of
the culture in working London at this time, Lewis presents a well-structured and
illustrated work that contributes substantially to the study of evangelicalism and
mission in nineteenth-century Britain.
2001 / 1-84227-074-5 / xviii + 372pp

November 2004
 Stanley E. Porter and Anthony R. Cross (eds)
Semper Reformandum
Studies in Honour of Clark H. Pinnock
Clark Pinnock has clearly been one of the most important evangelical
theologians of the last forty years in North America. Always provocative,
especially in the wide range of opinions he has held and considered, Pinnock,
himself a Baptist, has recently retired after twenty-five years of teaching at
McMaster Divinity College. His colleagues and associates honour him in this
volume by responding to his important theological work which has dealt with
the essential topics of evangelical theology. These include Christian apologetics,
biblical inspiration, the Holy Spirit and, perhaps most importantly in recent
years, openness theology.
2003 / 1-84227-206-3 /xiv + 414pp

Meic Pearse
The Great Restoration
The Religious Radicals of the 16th and 17th Centuries
Pearse charts the rise and progress of continental Anabaptism — both evangelical
and heretical — through the sixteenth century. He then follows the story of those
English people who became impatient with Puritanism and separated — first
from the Church of England and then from one another — to form the
antecedents of later Congregationalists, Baptists and Quakers.
1998 / 0-85364-800-X /xii + 320pp

Charles Price and Ian M. Randall

Transforming Keswick
Transforming Keswick is a thorough, readable and detailed history of the
convention. It will be of interest to those who know and love Keswick, those
who are only just discovering it, and serious scholars eager to learn more about
the history of God’s dealings with his people.
2000 / 1-85078-350-0 / 28Spp

Jim Purves
The Triune God and the Charismatic Movement
A Critical Appraisal from a Scottish Perspective
(Paternoster Theological Monographs)
All emotion and no theology? Or a fundamental challenge to reappraise and
realign our trinitarian theology in the light of Christian experience? This study
of charismatic renewal as it found expression within Scotland at the end of the
twentieth century evaluates the use of Patristic, Reformed and contemporary
models (including those of the Baptist Union of Scotland) of the Trinity in
explaining the workings of the Holy Spirit.
2004 / 1-84227-321-3 / xxiv + 246pp

November 2004
 Ian M. Randall
Evangelical Experiences
A Study in the Spirituality of English Evangelicalism 1918-1939
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
This book makes a detailed historical examination of evangelical spirituality
between the First and Second World Wars. It shows how patterns of devotion
led to tensions and divisions. In a wide-ranging study, Anglican, Wesleyan,
Reformed and Pentecostal-charismatic spiritualities are analysed.
1999 / 0-85364-919-7
/xii + 310pp

Ian M. Randall
One Body in Christ
The History and Significance of the Evangelical Alliance
In 1846 the Evangelical Alliance was founded with the aim of bringing together
evangelicals for common action. This book uses material not previously utilized
to examine the history and significance of the Evangelical Alliance, a movement
which has remained a powerful force for unity. At a time when evangelicals are
growing world-wide, this book offers insights into the past which are relevant to
contemporary issues.
2001 / 1-84227-089-3 / xii + 394pp

lan M. Randall
Spirituality and Social Change
The Contribution of F.B. Meyer (1847-1929)
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
This is a fresh appraisal of F.B. Meyer (1847-1929), a leading Free Church
minister. Having been deeply affected by holiness spirituality, Meyer became
the Keswick Convention’s foremost international speaker. He combined
spirituality with effective evangelism and socio-political activity. This study
shows Meyer’s significant contribution to spiritual renewal and social change.
2003 / 1-84227-195-4 / xx + 184pp

Geoffrey Robson
Dark Satanic Mills?
Religion and Irreligion in Birmingham and the Black Country
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
This book analyses and interprets the nature and extent of popular Christian
belief and practice in Birmingham and the Black Country during the first half of
the nineteenth century, with particular reference to the impact of cholera
epidemics and evangelism on church extension programmes.
2002 / 1-84227-102-4 / xiv + 294pp

November 2004
 Alan P.F. Sell
Enlightenment, Ecumenism, Evangel
Theological Themes and Thinkers 1550-2000
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
This book consists of papers in which such interlocking topics as the
Enlightenment, the problem of authority, the development of doctrine,
spirituality, ecumenism, theological method and the heart of the gospel are
discussed. Issues of significance to the church at large are explored with special
reference to writers from the Reformed and Dissenting traditions.
2005 / 1-84227330-2 / xviii + 422pp

Alan P.F. Sell

Hinterland Theology
Some Reformed and Dissenting Adjustments
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
Many books have been written on theology’s ‘giants’ and significant trends, but
what of those lesser-known writers who adjusted to them? In this book some
hinterland theologians of the British Reformed and Dissenting traditions, who
followed in the wake of toleration, the Evangelical Revival, the rise of modern
biblical criticism and Karl Barth, are allowed to have their say. They include
Thomas Ridgley, Ralph Wardlaw, T.V. Tymms and N.H.G. Robinson.
2006 / 1-84227-331-0

Alan P.F. Sell and Anthony R. Cross (eds)

Protestant Nonconformity in the Twentieth Century
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
In this collection of essays scholars representative of a number of
Nonconformist traditions reflect thematically on Nonconformists’ life and
witness during the twentieth century. Among the subjects reviewed are biblical
studies, theology, worship, evangelism and spirituality, and ecumenism. Over
and above its immediate interest, this collection provides a marker to future
scholars and others wishing to know how some of their forebears assessed
Nonconformity’s contribution to a variety of fields during the century leading up
to Christianity’s third millennium.
2003 / 1-84227-221-7/x + 398pp

November 2004
 Mark Smith
Religion in Industrial Society
Oldham and Saddleworth 1740-1865
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
This book analyses the way British churches sought to meet the challenge of
industrialization and urbanization during the period 1740-1865. Working from a
case-study of Oldham and Saddleworth, Mark Smith challenges the received
view that the Anglican Church in the eighteenth century was characterized by
complacency and inertia, and reveals Anglicanism’s vigorous and creative
response to the new conditions. He reassesses the significance of the centrally
directed church reforms of the mid-nineteenth century, and emphasizes the
importance of local energy and enthusiasm. Charting the growth of
denominational pluralism in Oldham and Saddleworth, Dr Smith compares the
strengths and weaknesses of the various Anglican and Nonconformist
approaches to promoting church growth. He also demonstrates the extent to
which all the churches participated in a common culture shaped by the influence
of evangelicalism, and shows that active co-operation between the churches
rather than denominational conflict dominated. This revised and updated edition
of Dr Smith’s challenging and original study makes an important contribution
both to the social history of religion and to urban studies.
2005 / 1-84227-335-3 / approx. 300pp

Martin Sutherland
Peace, Toleration and Decay
The Ecclesiology of Later Stuart Dissent
(Studies in Christian History and Thought)
This fresh analysis brings to light the complexity and fragility of the later Stuart
Nonconformist consensus. Recent findings on wider seventeenth-century
thought are incorporated into a new picture of the dynamics of Dissent and the
roots of evangelicalism.
2003 / 1-84227-152-0 / xxii + 216pp

Haddon Willmer
Evangelicalism 1785-1835: An Essay (1962) and Reflections (2004)
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
Awarded the Hulsean Prize in the University of Cambridge in 1962, this
interpretation of a classic period of English Evangelicalism, by a young church
historian, is now supplemented by reflections on Evangelicalism from the
vantage point of a retired Professor of Theology.
2005 / 1-84227-219-5

November 2004
 Linda Wilson
Constrained by Zeal
Female Spirituality amongst Nonconformists 1825-1875
(Studies in Evangelical History and Thought)
Constrained by Zeal investigates the neglected area of Nonconformist female
spirituality. Against the background of separate spheres, it analyses the
experience of women from four denominations, and argues that the churches
provided a ‘third sphere’ in which they could find opportunities for
participation.
2000 / 0-85364-972-3 /xvi + 294pp

Nigel G. Wright
Disavowing Constantine
Mission, Church and the Social Order in the Theologies of
John Howard Yoder and Jiirgen Moltmann
(Paternoster Theological Monographs)
This book is a timely restatement of a radical theology of church and state in the
Anabaptist and Baptist tradition. Dr Wright constructs his argument in dialogue
and debate with Yoder and Moltmann, major contributors to a free church
perspective.
2000 / 0-85364-978-2 /xvi + 252pp

Nigel G. Wright
New Baptists, New Agenda
New Baptists, New Agenda is a timely contribution to the growing debate about
the health, shape and future of the Baptists. It considers the steady changes that
have taken place among Baptists in the last decade — changes of mood, style,
practice and structure — and encourages us to align these current movements and
questions with God’s upward and future call. He contends that the true church
has yet to come: the church that currently exists is an anticipation of the joyful
gathering of all who have been called by the Spirit through Christ to the Father.
2002 / 1-84227-157-1/x + 162pp

Paternoster
9 Holdom Avenue
Bletchley
Milton Keynes MK1 1QR
United Kingdom
Web: www.authenticmedia.co.uk/paternoster
November 2004
 nap }

arty. et ;
. ' *. Cai®?, stay
iE tees | RT i A}
- alge » obs ial Rey Lear)
; . Gul ‘oll Wore Og Minti
Fal : a at ET ’ La Va ae Ageree Hp ‘GEIS qes 4
= } ‘phe “Aja Vehleiva,
el da
¢; teaihy
itges th
rete )
ove (wr ce
i} @ peck mus Bola

oe ae puking: we ened tl
: gb PF 6) pete. eh wii 'y Oe milpeas
oo: ' rrp et rena deketids denne 7
en Ptr G6 aii linw ee view * Wet Sng, wee of
Sas es 3" ema e! ele row damnit ceeds
oon RAS ov hogeperang ”
| a | _— “> i ss wh iio : :

| =
way
: f° Up
_ i ed
feria ot Pi Ne wre lakts oh ff? @ ai eOeeg? oi4V chy
ba Gagricits vt we Pete Wether a Pe ietaraerstnsmtos she
- J; yA WAN Oo foe Mire wey ne ale ay es
le et ee Re np SOE |oth pereenverny Ooh
AM rece net Sows ao Res 234 hat $
te 4, Sih i ly ad OP Sas Wiley ageld Pat lk
Yet (0) conic alle Gongs pohebereatney- yaheesd-
| a ve ae -
a tactics Over a
IETS, Ne Dame (tT and
 Volume 2

More Than a Symbol seeks to demonstrate that ‘Like an archaeologist uncovering the remains
the interpretation of baptism as a mere symbol of a lost city, Stan Fowler brings to light a long
bearing witness to a previously completed neglected trajectory of Baptist theology and
conversion experience is inadequate both as practice on Christian baptism. Based on careful
a summary of biblical teaching and as a research, this book offers a much needed and
summary of Baptist thought. Starting with long overdue challenge to the "low" view of
H. Wheeler Robinson and culminating in Baptist liturgical life.’
the work of G. R. Beasley-Murray, British Timothy George, Dean, Beeson Divinity School, _
Baptists in the twentieth century argued Samford University and Executive Editor of
effectively that baptism must be interpreted Christianity Today
as an effective sign, a meeting place of grace
and faith, a sacrament rather than a mere ‘In this book, Stanley Fowler breathes new life into
symbol. This book argues that the New the doctrine and practice of believer's baptism.
Testament exegesis which is at the heart of He argues that, if there is a form of sacramentalis an
this reformulation is fundamentally accurate, which we ought to reject, there is also a form of
and that the resulting system is theologically it which we ought to embrace.’ 3
coherent. The book also argues that this Clark H. Pinnock, McMasterold College
view is not a Baptist novelty, but is rather
a recovery of the foundational Baptist thought 'This is a fine study- nist judic
of the seventeenth century. theologically astute, spiritually alert, it i
exemplary piece of Christian holarship it
service of the Church. ' 2
John Webster, Oxford Unive

ISBN 1-84227-052-4 Stanley K. Fowler serve:

Theology at Heritage Theolo;
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada

in Canada since 1978. He|

842°270523 four adult children.