There are several differences between our understanding of baptism and those in other branches of Christendom. Consider the mode of baptism. Some baptize by immersion and others prefer sprinkling or pouring. Similarly, consider the subjects of baptism. Some baptize on profession of faith only (i.e., adult converts) while others also baptize the children of believers. There are other differences too. Some traditions will re-baptize people who have fallen away after baptism and return to the faith. I once saw a young man baptized for the third time after he “re-dedicated” his life to Christ. Finally, there is great discussion about what baptism does or doesn’t do. In order to insure that this series of reflections and instructions will be the most beneficial, we will begin this week with a brief historical sketch tracing the different traditions, primarily focusing on the different trajectories that emerged during the time of the Reformation. While justification of faith was central to the Reformation and the Reformers, the sacraments and sacramental theology was also at the center of the debate.

Let’s begin with the Roman Catholic Church. Every position now found in the church arose from a conscious reflection and rejection of Rome’s doctrine of the Sacraments. Rome’s position is best understood by the Latin phrase, ex opere operato, that is, “by doing it, it is done.” As such, it rightly treats baptism positively. However, it wrongly understands the positive benefits of the ordinance. In this understanding, grace is infused to the recipient. Not only does this lead to things like baptismal regeneration, but it also treats grace as a mysterious gas (metaphysical substance) infusing into us new qualities. While my Lutheran and Anglican/Episcopal friends would perhaps not appreciate the (guilt by) association I am moving toward here, nevertheless, those communions are very close to the RC position, if not identical. The distinction made between them is one only, of infusion over identity.

In contrast to Rome and the Reformers (both Lutheran and Calvinistic) another position emerged in the teaching of Zwingli and the radical-Anabaptists and continues today in the Baptist traditions and in most evangelical circles. This view of baptism is best summarized negatively. Simply put, baptism is a human act and merely symbolizes the gospel. Baptist theologian Millard Erickson states succinctly, “The act of baptism conveys no direct spiritual benefit or blessing.” Similarly dispensational theologian Charles Ryrie explains, that an ordinance like baptism “does not incorporate the idea of conveying grace but only the idea of a symbol.” To their credit, these traditions frame baptism as they do in order to insist on the need of personal faith, something which we also must insist upon while rejecting their vacuous view of the sacrament.

The Reformed/Calvinistic traditions understand baptism as a real means of grace. Grace is not something infused, but rather a favorable disposition that God is for us and not against us. It testifies that there is a covenantal relationship between the parties involved and is thus not transformative or commemorative. Therefore, through baptism God is actually at work, signing and sealing his covenant of grace to us and adopting us into his family. Next week we will flesh out our position in greater detail.

Stay tuned. – Pastor Tallman