Baptist Sacramentalism

Hi Tom Butler,

You raise an issue that has come up in recent scholarship. Many Baptist historians have argued that Baptists embraced sacramentalism in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, but for various reasons they abandoned the position. Thus, there is no "traditional" view, but rather different views that are historically Baptist and not just "catholic."

There are many good resources out there that talk about this if you're interested in it. My guess is you are not.

I've tried to make it clear above that God's sovereignty and unilateral gift or however you want to word it is kept intact by Baptist sacramental views. Thus, rather than "do this and you'll get grace" it is God has ordained to meet you here. We don't want to call it salvific grace because we don't hold the view that the sacraments bestow salvific grace, but rather another kind of grace.

The whole debate is what does Scripture teach regarding the theology of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Some see the ordinance, naked symbol position to fail to do justice to the biblical witness while others think a sacramental view makes too much of it. I don't presume to persuade anyone to change their views. I changed to sacramentalism after studying Scripture. Others have remained with the ordinance, naked symbol view too after studying Scripture. It's one of the many areas where Baptists will have to agree to disagree.

PS: I posted not too long ago a very rough sketch on why I think the naked symbol view took hold among Baptists if anyone's interested. What I put here could change depending on how my research in the primary sources goes.

 

All terminology changes with time and culture. There was a time that we referred to the Christian "religion" with good connotations. Now "religion" is a bad thing. The use of sacramentalism came along with the embrace of Reformed theology.

Historically, Baptist were adament that the Lord's supper and baptism were not sacramental, but strictly ordinances. There was no "magic" that came with these ordinances. Both were acts of obedience. Any blessings from these ordinances were purely personal. There is no act of grace involved any more than an act of grace as we partake of dinner.

We observe two ordinances; the Lord's Supper and baptism....period!

Cheers,

Jim

 

I agree with this.

 

But what do you mean by "God had ordained to meet you here?"

I find that God meets me anywhere all the time, even if I am not looking for it! He is always with us and I need not do anything to know that or get that.

I think the Lord's Supper can be a special time of communion with God and a blessing, but I would not call it sacramental and I do not think I need to do it to get some kind of grace, even if it is non-salvific grace. The grace from God is always present through the Holy Spirit.

 

Brandon C. Jones said

Yes. This is key. I looked at the blog entry that you linked and I did not see a biblical argument there. Not criticizing, as I don't think that was the point of that particular post. You say you came to you view of "baptist sacramentalism" after studying thoroughly. What passages are key to your understanding?

 

I had wondered if I was the last Baptist on this thread. Glad to see some others who see them as Biblical ordinances rather than sacraments.

 

Hi Jim,

No one here is endorsing magic, but like I said before historiography on what is and isn't traditionally Baptist theology of baptism and the Lord's Supper is debatable.

Hi Marcia,

I think what I'm getting at is what Henri Blocher asks: "what do [they] give us that we cannot obtain otherwise." God may meet you all the time, but why did he ordain his people to do these specific things as opposed to other things or not doing anything at all? That's the whole ordain part. God may meet us anywhere, but he has promised that he will meet us in these faithful acts. Baptist sacramentalists would say that it is precisely through the Spirit's work that the sacraments are a means of grace.

Hi SwaimJ, If I recall we've discussed this issue on the board before. You are right that the post I linked to lacks a biblical argument by design. The texts that have struck me are: Matt 28:18; Acts 2:38; Rom 6:1-11; Gal 3:27; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Cor 10:14-22 among others. Of course, you can interpret them to strengthen the naked sign/ordinance view too. I can do no better than George Beasley-Murray's Baptism in the New Testament. I don't agree with all he says, but that's the best work I can recommend that offers exegesis of the pertinent passages from the baptismal point of view. For exegesis of passages on the Lord's Supper, I really appreciated the chapter on that topic in John Colwell's Promise and Presence .

Hi Tom Bryant, sorry you think this view not only unbaptist but also unbiblical. I'm not sure what else to say.

 

I've read all the verses you mentioned and still have yet to see how they even remotely apply to what you see as the sacramental nature of the ordinances, unless you believe that baptism plays a part in salvation. I hope that is not what you are saying.

 

Hi again Tom,

I think they apply and you don't. That's okay with me. I answered the OP to give an assessment of what Baptist sacramentalism is and is not from an insider's perspective since there is a lot of caricature and misinformation on the subject. I have no desire to turn this into the different topic of defending it biblically. The sources I mentioned above make good defenses in my opinion, but I understand many will find them unpersuasive. Perhaps this can be an opportunity to look afresh at what Scripture says about baptism and the Lord's Supper. I enjoyed studying them and know others will too, even if they don't end up agreeing with me.

Other resources are:
Anthony Cross and Philip Thompson, eds Baptist Sacramentalism and Baptist Sacramentalism2

One SBC work that I liked is Thomas Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, eds. Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ. The editors of this volume do not embrace sacramental terminology, but I think some of the authors, namely Robert Stein and Ardel Caneday, embrace some sacramental concepts. Either way, I think it is a good collaborative effort on baptism and hope to see more like it from North American Baptists.

Blessings,
Brandon

 

One element that has not yet come out in this discussion is the place that rationalism plays/played in the transition, if that's what it was, from sacramental views to a more "naked" view of the ordinances. I am in no position either to affirm or to refute the argument that early Baptists were sacramentalist. But as we move into the 18th and 19th Centuries, wouldn't it be correct to suppose that the appeal to reason that was abroad in the general culture would also affect the way Baptists did their theology around the ordinances?

FWIW, when I teach Baptist Polity I lead my seminary students to discover a relationship between 18th Century rationalistic thought, the democratic ideals that were emerging both in Europe and America, and the ways Baptists thought about church governance. I have thought that our understanding of the ordinances was also influenced by an age that appealed to evidence, reason, and "common sense." That does not, in my view, mean that rationalistic, non-sacramental views are unBiblical. It just means that Baptists of the 18th and 19th Century found cultural support for the way they were reading the Bible.

 

Brandon, I read the verses you cited to SwaimJ and do not see them as substantiating what you are saying.

I think God ordained these specific things for the reasons we see in scripture:

In baptism, we outwardly declare our faith in Christ and symbolically identify with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus

The Lord's Supper is to remind us of the Lord's atonement and is a special time of communion with the Lord

But I don't see anywhere validation of a special type of sacramentalism

 

Hi Marcia,

Ditto to what I said to Tom. Outwardly declaring our faith and symbolically identifying with Christ through the means of being faithfully immersed in water (as opposed to other means or no means) and having "special" times of communion with the Lord through the means of faithfully eating bread and drinking wine (as opposed to other means or no means), in my opinion, validate my points. You don't see it that way, and that's okay with me.

Blessings
Brandon

 

In that case, are you not redefining the word "sacrament?"

 

Hi Marcia,

I don't know what definition you use. I defined my understanding of it above. I suppose I mean more by "symbolic" than you do regarding baptism. But identifying with Christ and his body and a "special time" of communion both sound like God's gifts to me in which he meets me through such faithful acts, so I count it as grace. Others count it as something else that to me sounds like grace but to them is something different.

 

Yet another problem using this word occurs to me - it is going to be linked with and probably understood in terms of the Roman Catholic use of the word which, if I'm correct, is about infusing salvific grace through these sacraments.

 

Hi Marcia,

Yes, the word itself can be problematic to many, but I don't mind using it. Words such as "baptism" bring the same kinds of problems. I'm more interested in the concept than the term anyways.

Brandon

 

Speaking of “concept” rather than the dreaded term “sacrament”... I’m wondering from within the below posters statements the following:

How can it be both “special” and something that is “always there”? What makes it special and when does it become special?

Why is He looking for fellowship through an action of obedience in faith? And what then, if anything, is gained by this fellowship that was not already present, that is, if it is not a type of gain involving a type of grace?

(2) What is the gift that a believer then gains, and when does one receive it if it is something one has already received? Or IOW’s can you presently receive any type of a expanded gift (of grace) that you already have without it somehow being simply a duplicate?

 

I actually thought about withdrawing this remark or commenting that it's entirely subjective and not based in scripture. From scripture, I think one can only say the Lord's Supper is done in commemoration of Christ's sacrifice - to remind of us of that. Sure, some might find it a special time of communion, but that can be true of almost anything (praying, singing, etc). So I withdraw that.

 

So far this thread has been focused on whether to regard baptism and the Lord’s supper as ordinances or sacraments. However, there is another N.T. practice that is portrayed in scripture as purely sacramental. In fact it is the only time in scripture where we have positive language that links the practice with the spiritual result, and that is James 5:14-15:

Two practices are in view here, prayer and anointing. Two results are also in view, healing and forgiveness of sins. And James tells us to do it. I would not suggest that prayer is sacramental, although it is astonishing that the prayers of others will result in forgiveness of sins. However, the anointing is as sacramental as you can get. It has been said that the anointing was for medicinal purposes, and perhaps it was. But we know today that anointing, without more, has no healing effect on illnesses. Yet this very practice is commended to us by James and was also used by the apostles when Jesus sent them out in Mark 6:13—and it worked to heal the sick!