Much to the ignorance of many modern day Baptists, the word “sacrament” or sacraments was used by Baptist framers in their creeds and confessions. Yes, I said it. I used the words “Baptist” and “creed” in the same sentence. Recent Baptist history upholds that Baptists are non-creedal, however it is clear that Baptists in the 17th and 18th centuries used creeds. Later, Baptists called these creeds “confessions of faith” as did many other protestant groups.
Baptists affirm the theological statements in the creeds but do not use them to be identified as a “Baptist.” But, some Baptists used
confessions of faith as creeds. This is the paradoxical nature of Baptists and their confessions of faith because their statements were directed at excluding other completing theologies. That is exactly what the creeds do, among with affirm what people believe. We receive the word “creed” from the Greek word credo meaning “to believe.” Clearly, the Baptists were using creedal statements and formulas, but many Baptists did not want to call these doctrinal statements creeds in reaction to the creeds of the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church.
Alright, on to the use of the word “sacrament” in early Baptist thought and writings. William Joseph McGlothlin compiled a collection of early creeds and confessions of faith that our modern day Baptist life is modeled from. McGlothin’s, Baptist Confessions of Faith, was written in 1911 is a very helpful source book to understand how Baptists used “sacraments.”
The following are excerpts from, Baptist Confession of Faith, of the “English” living in Amsterdam in 1614, who desired to correct John Smyth‘s “errors” :
pg. 75
Wow, these early Baptists used the word sacrament and even saw Christ’s acts sacramental. Again, the term “sacrament” was not a term meant to convey magical ideas, but sacred ideas.
General Baptists in London published the “Orthodox Creed” in 1678, wishing to show commonality with Presbyterians, and other Reformed churches. pg. 144:
Here we seen the word “sacrament” as the leading phrase to express the sacred idea and the word “ordinance” to convey the command function of Christ of these two holy acts. In addition to being a creed, this statement of faith of early Baptists goes against other Baptist theologies that see communion as a mere memorial.
In addition to these uncovered theologies that go beyond many modern Baptist beliefs, Baptists used other modes of baptism. Affusion and dipping were recorded and practiced among early Baptists. This 1678 creed includes “dipping” as a valid way of baptism: pg. 145
Much to the mistake of modern day Baptists, they believe that the issues surrounding baptism in the Reformation was against the mode of baptism. This is simply not so. The issue was the non-scriptural model of infants being baptized (sprinkling too). The mode was merely a moot point. Early baptisms in England and Europe included pouring (affusion), dipping, and immersion. Many Baptists through the years have made immersion the key factor in baptism, but have forgotten that early Baptists practiced several modes of adult immersion or “believers baptism” in addition to calling baptism a sacrament.
The sacramental theology continues into communion. These Baptists in 1678 saw this holy act as “spiritual nourishment”, “sealing”, and a “covenant of grace.” pg. 148
It is at this point that modern Baptists should have a collective gasp of lament: “This is not Baptist! What is this heresy? Those descriptions sound like Presbyterian or even Methodist theology!” To these mid-20th century Baptists: remember that almost all protestants came from the same catalyst. The ideas that came from Luther, Calvin, and others during the Reformation served as a starting point for many protestant movements. We all have a shared genesis and these early Baptists embraced certain sacramental theologies because they saw these ideas as sacred to being a Baptist.
In fairness to these ecumenical ideas, these early Baptists did want to distance themselves from some theologies, including Luther’s consubstantiation and serving communion to “infants.” Page 149 continues:
These two confessions of faith that are quoted here are some of the first accepted Baptist theology and ecclesiastical ideas. Even before Baptists came to America, they were English separatists who joined with many others in their frustration with the Church of England’s lack of correction against the Church in Rome. Some of these separatists stayed in England and others went into the Netherlands with John Smyth. Smyth started a vein of the Baptist movement and adopted some Anabaptist ideas, but did not fully embrace Anabaptist theology. Smyth’s ideas are not the definitive origin of what a Baptist is, rather he was one among many who led the Baptists. There were other early Baptists who saw a great depth in sacramental life, especially those who stayed in England to become Baptists.
The next post will be written by fellow pastor and blogger, Tripp Hudgins. He will blog about how using sacramental language can shape Baptist churches into fruitful and dynamic congregations.
Sacrament or Ordinance (Part II) This is the second installment in this series. You can read the first installment here.
4 Comments
[…] Early Baptist Use of “Sacraments” […]
So what is the benefit to use a term that implies the impart of grace through mundane elements? If Baptist were in error or incoherent in the 1700s do we need to be today?
Dear
Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ,
I ask you to consider
these points:
1. When God said that he would preserve his Word, what
did he mean?
Did
he mean that he would preserve the original papyrus and parchment upon which
his Word was written? If so, then his
Word has disappeared as none of the original manuscripts remain.
Did
he mean that he would preserve his word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and
Greek only? He would not
preserve his Word when it was translated into all the other languages of the
world?
Or
did God mean that he would preserve his Word…the message/the words…the
Gospel: the free gift of salvation, and
the true doctrines of the Christian Faith?
Would God allow his Word/his message to mankind to be so polluted by
translation errors that no translation, into any other language from the three
original languages, continues to convey his true words?
2. There IS no
translation of the Bible, from the original ancient languages, into any
language, anywhere on earth, that translates the Bible as the
Baptists/evangelicals believe it should be translated.
No
Bible translation on earth translates Acts 2:38 as, “Repent and believe in Jesus
Christ every one of you and you will receive the Holy Ghost. Then be baptized as a public profession of
your faith.”
There
is no translation that translates, into any language, Acts 22:16 as, “ And now why tarriest thou? arise, believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord
and Savior, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Then be baptized.” Not a single translation in the entire
world translates that verse in any way remotely resembling the manner in which Baptists
believe it should be translated.
Isn’t that a problem?
And this verse, I Peter 3:21 as, “Asking Christ into your heart in
a spiritual baptism, which water Baptism symbolizes, which corresponds to this,
now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God
for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
And Mark 16:16 as, “He that believes will be saved,
and then baptized, but he that does not believe will be condemned.”
Why would God allow EVERY English translation of the
Bible throughout history to be mistranslated or use such confusing language as
to suggest that God forgives sins in Baptism?
And not only all English translations, ALL translations of the Bible
have retained these “mistranslations or confusing wording”.
Do you
honestly believe that God would allow his Word to be so polluted with
translation errors that EVERY Bible in the world, if read in its simple, plain
interpretation, would tell all the people of the world that God forgives sins
in water baptism??
3. Why is there not one single piece of
evidence from the early Christians that indicates that ANYONE in the 800-1,000
years after Christ believed that: Water
baptism is ONLY a public profession of faith/act of obedience; sins are NOT
forgiven in water baptism? Yes, you will
find statements by these early Christians that salvation is by faith, but do
Baptists and evangelicals really understand how a sinner obtains saving faith?
THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION, MY FRIENDS! Does the sinner produce faith by his own free
will or does God provide faith and belief as a gift, and if God does provide
faith and belief as a free gift,
with no strings attached, when exactly does God give it?
4. Is it possible that: Baptist-like believers, at some point near or
after 1,000 AD, were reading the Bible and came across verses that read
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and “Call upon the
name of the Lord and you will be saved” and established their doctrine of
Salvation/Justification first, based on these and similar verses alone, and then, looked at the issue of water
baptism, and since the idea that God forgives sins in water baptism doesn’t
seem to fit with the verses just mentioned, re-interpreted these verses to fit
with their already established doctrine, instead of believing the “baptism
verses” literally?
Is it possible that BOTH groups of verses are
literally correct?? If we believe God’s
Word literally, he says that he saves/forgives sins when sinners believe/call
AND when they are baptized? Why not
believe that God can give the free gift of salvation in both situations: when a sinner hears the Gospel and believes
and when a sinner is baptized?
Should we re-interpret God’s plain, simple
words just because they don’t seem to make sense to us?
Dear
Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters, your doctrine is very well thought
out and very reasonable…but it is wrong.
Do you really believe that God would require an education in ancient
Greek or a Greek lexicon to understand what he really wants to say to you? And do you really believe that Baptist
“Greek” scholars understand Greek better than the Greeks themselves? If the Greek language, correctly translated,
states in the Bible that Baptism is only a public profession of faith as
Baptists say, then why do the Greek Orthodox believe that the Greek Bible plainly
says, in Greek, that God forgives sins in water baptism? Somebody doesn’t know their Greek!
Please
investigate this critical doctrine further.
Do you really want to appear before our Lord in heaven one day and find
out that you have been following a false doctrine invented in the sixteenth
century by Swiss Ana-baptists?
God
bless you!
Gary
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/06/the-early-church-fathers-believed-in.html
I wish we modern Baptists were not so ignorant of historical theology, including our own.