Sacrament or Ordinance? (Part 1)

Recently, Karen Bullock, professor Christian heritage and director of the Ph.D. program at the B.H. Carroll Theological Institute, commented on Baptists celebrating their 400 year anniversary by saying, “…several theologians across the past half century have advocated that Baptists reconsider both the terms and meaning of sacramental acts…Some of this thinking re-engages the sacramental notions of churchly acts and ordinances…”

Over the past few years, I have been actively involved in reading confessions and writings of early Baptists who saw a theological strengthening in the acts of baptism and communion.  Normally, to contemporary Baptists, the word “ordinance” is used over “sacrament.”  This was done to avoid the Catholic understanding of “sacrament” and to avoid any hint of works related faith.  However, over the next few weeks and months, I will present scholarly and lay research on the case for strengthening sacramental language among Baptists.

Indeed, the word sacrament was used among Baptists in the 16th and 17th centuries.  However, “ordinance” stuck in favor of Zwingli’s view of baptism and communion.  Even modern British Baptists use the word “sacrament” when they speak of baptism and communion.

I found this little bit of encouraging research that opted to spiritually understand what happens at communion.  The 1689 London Confession of Baptist Faith, states:

Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, really and indeed, yet not carnally and corporally, but spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being then not corporally or carnally, but spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.

Even though the word “ordinance” is used, this theology tends to be more inline with the Reformed view of the sacramental nature of communion.  Though Christ is not present in the elements (physically), the 1689 Confession speaks of believers feeding and receiving Christ spiritually.  That Christ is present and actively involved. Even more key are the words “the elements themselves are to their outward senses.”

It may be helpful to quote a Reformed blogger to understand this thinking:

We can get a Reformed perspective on the word sacrament through the Westminster Confession which reads “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.”

As you can see, even within sacramental thought there is a spectrum. This understanding does not affirm Sacerdotalism or Memorialism, but rather an in between (that’s a big spectrum to be “in between.”)

At this point, we should make the distinction within sacramental theology:

• Sacramentalism is the belief that sacraments are efficacious and necessary for salvation.
• Sacramentarianism is belief that sacraments are mere visible symbols.

Baptists have had history with Reformed thought.  Early in the Baptist genesis, Baptists split into two groups: General (Arminian) and Particular (Reformed). Traditionally, Baptists have long believed that the ordinances are symbols and that they are not necessary for salvation. Logically, Baptists could fall within Sacramentarian thought. With seeing such spiritually centered language in an early Baptist confession of faith, it would seem that we Baptists should consider strengthening our thinking and theology around communion and baptism.

As Karen Bullock noted, we can join with others as Baptists to reexamine our beginnings to understand where we have been, where we are, and where we are going.

Next post: How Early Baptists Used “Sacrament”