 |
IS WATER BAPTISM A SACRAMENT OR AN ORDINANCE?
A look at water baptism with focus on the
debate between Barth and Berkouwer.
A term paper submitted to Archibald J. Spencer
for partial fulfilment of a
Master Of Applied Linguistics And Exegesis
THS 672
Vera Wilhelmsen
April 12th 2004
1. The issue
Water baptism is practiced by virtually all Christian churches in the world, yet the debate on the meaning of baptism is one of the most dividing one among churches. What baptism is, who should receive it and how it is to be performed is an issue of controversy and has led to countless church splits and is one of the most difficult questions in ecumenical work.
My background in the Lutheran Church of Norway and subsequent affiliation with a non-denominational church which practices believer’s baptism has given me many opportunities to investigate the issue. In settling the issue on the meaning of baptism in my own life I was seeking the counsel of Lutheran ministers, Pentecostal and Baptist pastors and the Bible, not the least.
The topic for this paper is not whether infant baptism or believers baptism is the Biblically and theologically correct practice, but rather the nature of baptism itself. I seek to find out if it is a sacrament or an ordinance, i.e. if it accomplished anything in itself. While researching I realized, however, that this question has everything to do with the different practices of baptism and the validity of infant baptism. This becomes very clear in the debate between Barth and Berkouwer, which we will be the focus of this paper.
2. Definition of sacrament and ordinance
Sacrament is a word that has proven to be very difficult to define, as it is not used in the Bible, and every denomination seem to fit their definition into their theological framework. It can be traced to Latin sacramentum, meaning ‘a sacred pledge of fidelity publicly symbolized by a visible sign’. In the New Testament the Greek word mysterion is used, but is naturally often
translated mystery. The ‘mystery’ of Jesus’ salvific death was early on connected to the ‘sacraments’ of baptism and the Eucharist. In modern time a sacrament has been defined as ‘means of grace’, that is a physical, outward rite in which God extends grace to the receiver. This is the traditional sacramental view, in which I was brought up in the Lutheran church. Erickson (1994) points out that Lutheran understanding requires faith for the reality of the baptism to take effect, but that it is God who acts in the baptism, namely by giving spiritual life and The Holy Spirit to the receiver.
Augustine defined it as ‘a visible sign of an invisible grace’. He emphasized that the word and the faith go together, and that the sacrament does not work automatically (ex opere operato). His view of the sacraments as symbols influenced many later theologians, both Reformed and Baptist. Reformed and Presbyterian emphasizes the baptism as a sign and seal of God’s covenant with human race, whereas Baptists view baptism as an outward symbol of salvation.
The term sacrament has come to refer to the holy rites the Church acknowledges. This of course includes different things in the various churches. In the Roman Catholic Church, which is a pure sacramental church, they have seven sacraments, while Lutheran and Reformed churches acknowledge two. Some groups who have a non-sacramental view of baptism and the Eucharist prefers to refer to these rites as ordinances, as did Karl Barth. Even if they don’t look at these events as sacraments, they practice them because they were ordained by Jesus in the New Testament, but they do not believe that the outward signs accomplish anything in themselves. Many evangelical churches, including Pentecostal and Baptist, share such a view and would maintain that baptism is an ordinance and not a sacrament.
A third view is that baptism has no saving power in itself, and is indeed a symbol, but not an empty symbol as such. This is the view Bloesch suggests when he recommend believer’s baptism, but still think infant baptism is valid, and that re-baptism is not necessary. Interestingly enough Karl Barth also argued against re-baptism. In the present discussion, then, on whether water baptism is a sacrament or an ordinance, there seem to be a third position, which calls it a sacrament but defines the term differently from traditional sacramentalists. Whether the third position is a valid one will be part of the following discussion.
3. Historical background
In many historical introduction to the topic of baptism there is mention of Judaic and Hellenistic rituals that may have inspired or influenced the instigation of baptism in water. These rituals might have some historical and anthropological interest, but I will say with Karl Barth that the Christian baptism is unique in its God-ordained and unquestionable instigation. In the New Testament it is a self-evident event, preached and practiced without much doctrine written about it. John the Baptist is the first who baptized in a comparable way to the Christian baptism, Barth even argues that his baptism was a Christian one. It is no doubt that baptism (from Greek ba;ptisma, ‘to dip’,) has been administered in the Christian Church from the very beginning, after example and command of Jesus Christ himself (Matt. 28, 18-20).
Bloesch maintains that the ‘sacraments’ (baptism and the Lord’s supper) first were viewed as signs and testimonies of the gospel, but soon they were perceived to have sacred power in themselves. He says that the church fathers and mystics never separated faith from the sacraments, but believed that the Spirit worked with the action, automatically bringing purification and regeneration.
Augustine held that the sacraments were signs, and said “Take away the word and the water is nothing but water”. His theology was particularly important in arguing against Donatism, a heresy that taught that the validity of the sacrament depended on the moral character of the one administering it. Thomas Aquinas has a similar theology to Augustine, but added that the sacraments are ‘commemorative signs of a past event’, instrumental but not efficient causes of salvation. These two had a great impact for the later development of the Church on these issues.
Peter Lombard had a great influence on the Roman Catholic Church, and was the one who postulated the seven sacraments which the Church came to acknowledge. The Catholic Church has a sacramental view in that they maintain that the sacraments mediate grace .
The reformers Luther and Calvin both rejected the magical understanding of the sacrament, and contended that there is no sacrament apart form faith. The sacraments were cut from seven to two, on the basis of Scriptural evidence and ordinance from Jesus.
After the reformation some argued that they should have put aside the term sacrament all together, others calls for a return to the sacramentalist spirituality of the Catholic church. This debate, and the one concerning infant baptism versus believers baptism especially, continue to be one of the most controversial issues in modern theology and church life.
4. Barth on baptism
Karl Barth worked with an awareness about and critical approach against what he called ‘a nationalized Church’, which was a reality in many European countries in the middle ages and up until the 20th century. The Church functioned as a
State Church, and to be born in a nation meant to belong to the Church of the State. This membership was established through infant baptism. Barth saw in this the grave danger of ‘cheap grace’, seeing how many parents did not take the wow they gave at their children’s baptism seriously, and the children grew up without knowing God or even the Word of God, but still rightly belonging to the church.
In his theology on baptism Barth seeks to reconcile the problem the reformers faced in claiming ‘sola fide’ but still insisting of infant baptism. He insists that the Reformed Church had misunderstood the sacraments because they all pointed to Jesus:
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not events, institutions, mediations, or revelations of salvation. They are not representations and actualizations, emanations, repetitions, or extensions, nor indeed guarantees and seals of work and word of God; nor are they instruments, vehicles, channels, or means of God’s reconciling grace. They are not what they have been called since the second century, namely, mysteries or sacraments.
The divorce of faith and baptism is the main problem with infant baptism. Both Luther and Calvin affirmed that they belong together, and that baptism is not effectuated without faith. They dealt with this problem in different ways; Luther talked about an implicit faith that infants can have, Calvin emphasized the sign as a process towards lifelong purification. For Barth the chasm between baptism and faith in infant baptism became too great to accept. To him the very basis, goal and meaning of baptism requires a human co-working with God and as such infants are excluded.
Barth’s view if water baptism is closely connected to his Christology and emphasis on the human agent. In his Christology he puts Christ as the only true sacrament, because he is the only one who can save. Baptism in the Holy Spirit he sees as God’s work in man unto salvation and regeneration. Water baptism, on the other hand, is a work of man, as he takes the first step in obedience to his new Lord. Barth sees water baptism as the starting point of the Christian walk, ‘as the first step in this life of faithfulness to God(...)”. He does not however underestimate God’s action as the one thing that makes this change possible.
Water baptism, then, is man’s response to God’s initial action in his life. Barth emphasizes that this ‘human decision has its origin wholly and utterly in the divine change’. Concerning the basis of water baptism, he points not primarily to the Great Commission but to Jesus’ baptism by John. This is according to Barth the only New Testament passage which has baptism as its main focus, furthermore it appears in all the gospels (clearly alluded to in John 1). Instead of pointing (as many do) to the differences between John’s baptism and the Christian baptism, he points to the similarities between them. Jesus’ being baptized by John so becomes a model for the Christian baptism, with a focus on repentance, submission to God, and fellowship of the believers.
Water baptism points forward, beyond itself, to God’s salvation and revelation. In baptism the one who is baptized and the one who baptizes have an expectation of the fulfillment of the promise given to them. This includes the coming of God’s kingdom and God’s rule in their life, being given the Holy Spirit, being judged by God, receiving forgiveness of sins, and the membership of the community of believers. It becomes clear how interconnected Barth perceiver baptism with the Holy Spirit and baptism with water to be.
Barth states that the meaning of water baptism is man’s conversion. He argues that water baptism is not a sacrament, as in it being God’s action, but man’s response to God’s baptism in the Holy Spirit. Still using Jesus’ baptism as the basis, he sees baptism as an ‘ordination to vocation’. Obedience and hope constitutes the meaning of baptism, as human action, that is. Conversion includes a turning away from sin and towards God, in other words, repentance.
His first reason to reject sacramentalism is that it integrates what he perceives as baptism in the Holy Spirit with baptism in water and makes the other redundant. The meaning of baptism becomes the same as its basis and goal, and this is not acceptable to Barth. He goes on to argue against sacramentalism based on an exegesis both of verses used to defend it and other relevant verses. I will go through these in section 6.
lHo
5. Berkouwer on Barth
Gerrit Cornelius Berkouwer was a Dutch theologian and Reformed leader who critiqued Barth on several issues. He introduces a discussion of Barth’s criticism of infant baptism by stating that ‘we understand that a very important question is involved, namely, whether the relation between baptism and faith still plays a role of significance in infant baptism.’ He earlier in the book established the importance of the relationship between faith and baptism in the Reformed tradition, referring to both Luther and Calvin. Is was this close relationship that made Barth criticize infant baptism, because he found it impossible to reconcile it with faith. Berkouwer is dealing with this question, arguing that Barth’s argument is based on a ‘correlation-motif’.
Central in Berkouwer’s argument is that baptism came to replace circumcision, something that Barth also acknowledged. Barth, however, dismissed that this meant that infants could be baptized, because in the Old Covenant membership was based on sacred lineage, or a natural birth, whereas in the New Covenant membership is based on a spiritual birth. Against this Berkouwer argues that the contrast between a spiritual and a natural birth is not present in Scripture, but rather that is was a misunderstanding that the prophets and Jesus refuted; “Natural birth is never detached from the calling, the admonition, and the comforting of God.” He argues that the significance of the Old Covenant was, like Paul emphasized in Rom. 2:28, the circumcision of the heart, not natural lineage. Therefore he could talk about Abraham as being the ‘father of all who believe’(Rom 4:11). Circumcision was not an automatic guarantee of God’s grace and favour, but pointed towards the Messiah and his salvation. Circumcision, then, was a predecessor of baptism, and naturally points to infant baptism.
Rather than pointing at the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant Berkouwer emphasizes the continuity between them, especially when it comes to children’s place in the covenant. They have a place within the covenant of grace, not as a guarantee of future salvation, but as a position in the reality of God. This is the meaning Berkouwer sees in the promise given to ‘you and your seed’. Barth, on the other hand, sees these verses as denoting the universality of the Kingdom of Christ, according to Berkouwer. A danger is all criticism of infant baptism, Berkouwer maintains, is to fall back to the contrast between the natural and the spiritual, or nature and grace. This was the position of the Anabaptists. The Reformers, however, believed the contrast was between flesh and spirit, and sin and grace, and did not see the alleged discontinuity between the old and the new Covenant.
The question of faith still remains, however. Berkouwer finds support in Calvin, who did not speak of a potential faith in the infant (as Luther did), but based infant baptism on the Covenant of God. His focus, which he also has been criticized for, was on God’s free action and the sovereignty of the Spirit. How and when the promise of the Covenant is realized in any person’s life is not Calvin’s focus, and thereby he avoids the problem of having to ascertain when and how the infant can have faith. This is the official Reformed teaching, according to Berkouwer.
Taking the Calvinistic, Reformed stand concerning infant baptism, Berkouwer effectively renders useless Barth’s argument. Barth is holding up the one thing the Church seems to have agreed on through history, namely that faith and baptism go together. By appealing to a higher promise, Calvin and the Reformers avoid the question of faith in infant baptism and instead claim the promise of the Covenant. Barth’s argument is no longer valid, because the premise has changed.
6. Biblical material and evidence
There are countless Scriptures that are used in relation to baptism. Almost every view of baptism encounters a few verses that are problematic for their view to be acceptable. It is however important to see Scripture as a whole, and let Scripture interpret Scripture. It should also be avoided to use questionable or unclear Scriptures or interpretations in order to support a specific view. Unorthodox readings occur both in Barth, Berkouwer and other writers I have read.
The great debate and disagreement among great theologians warns me that the subject of baptism is not as clear as I wish it would be in Scripture. I have seen Scripture being used to support every one of the different views, so the question is how Scripture is interpreted and what passages are most perceived as the most important ones. Another factor is what material which is counted as evidence; some groups accepts the Gospel and Acts as models for doctrine, others do not. In light of this, I will present Barth’s exegesis on some key verses concerning baptism.
In his exegesis Barth reminds us that for modern readers, as well as New Testament believers, any reference to water, washing, bath, pool etc. give associations to baptism. Therefore not only texts with the word baptism (in one of the Greek forms) needs to be taken into account, but other texts as well. As for doctrinal teaching, Barth claims that the narratives in Acts and the mentions in the epistles not can be taken as such, because they are just descriptions of the Christian life at the time, and not meant for teaching. Another aspect to be counted with is that references to baptism sometimes can refer to the spiritual truth in represents (Barth’s basis and goal for baptism), and not the act itself. I think this is a very important point to bear in mind.
The most clear place where baptism is linked with cleansing of sin, is according to Barth in Acts. 22:16; ‘And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ Barth concludes based on the grammar that Paul already has experienced the grace of God at this point, and that the non-sacramental interpretation of this verse is the most probable. I don’t know enough about the grammar here, but I do believe Paul was already saved and forgiven by this point.
A similar case is Hebrews 10:22b; ‘having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water.’ Barth here argues that although there is an allusion to water baptism in the second clause, the book of Hebrews makes it clear that the only thing that enables us to enter the Most Holy Place is the blood of Jesus. Baptism itself does not accomplish this, but water baptism reminds us of the inner cleansing that took place when we realized that Jesus’ sacrifice opened the door to God for us. I think this makes the most sense.
Ephesians 5:25f seems a bit more troublesome to Barth; ‘...Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her from by the washing with water through the word...’.Barth asks whether this describes two different processes, one in which he gave himself for her and one in which he cleansed her. He then asks for the significance of the phrase ‘though the word’, and asks if this is the sacramental understanding of the word and water working together in baptism, or maybe it is referring to the living Word of God, in parallel with John 15:3; ‘You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you.’ Barth clearly sees the parallelism here, and interpret the verse from Ephesians as one process, not two. I think the parallelism to John is self evident, and that Jesus uses this expression for being made clean by hearing his word.
Another verse in the same category is Titus 3:5, which refers to ’the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit,’ by which he saved us. He argues that the words ‘the washing’ is not the main point in this passage, as a sacramental understanding would require. He accepts the allusion to baptism, but maintains that a sacramental interpretation creates more problems than it solves, especially in reference to Tit. 2:14. I think it is important to keep in mind that the event of salvation is one single event with different aspects to it, as Barth also maintains.
Barth now turns to verses that give a connection between baptism and the unity of Christians to Christ. Gal. 3:27 is one such verse; ‘..for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.’ by looking at the narrow and the broader context he shows that is points to baptism as the concrete moment where they confessed their new life in Christ, having become ‘sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus’ (v. 26). Again the broader context points to a symbolic, not a sacramental meaning of the baptism.
Romans 6:3-4 is another passage Barth examines here. He reminds us again of the broader context, and that the topic of the passage is that we as Christians are dead to sin, because we are dead with Christ. He claims that the verse does not say that this change happened in baptism, but that we are baptized into his death. It says that is baptism we are buried with him, in the final resting place, so to speak. Thus it can seem that the meaning of baptism is to once and for all bury the old live and embrace the new life we have (already, in our salvation) in Christ.
Barth goes on to look at Col. 2:12; ‘having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.’ Based on the grammar, again, he points out that this clause is not the main point of the sentence (the verb being a participle), but that it corresponds to his reading of Rom. 6:4. He mentions another possibility, namely that the baptism in verse 12 correlates with the circumcision in the preceding verse. Because it has been argued that baptism has replaced circumcision he pays special attention to this possibility. He refutes it, though, based on the wider context of the passage and the book of Colossians. The circumcision is Christ’s circumcision, he maintains, done by the hand of God on our hearts when we died with him. This dying precedes the burial in baptism, as we also saw in Romans 6, according to Barth.
Another text that has been used by sacramentalists is John 3:5; ‘...no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and of the Spirit.’ Barth here points out that in verse 8 this same person is referred to as being ‘born by the Spirit’, without mention of the water. He therefore argues that it refers to one events, not two. He also points out that John often uses pairs, linked with kai, to denote one idea, but with emphasis on the last word in the pair. A sacramental interpretation of this verse is not plausible..
Two verses have been said to connect salvation to baptism; Mark 16:16 and 1. Pet. 3:21. He points out the ambiguity of the word for save in Greek (swzein), in that it can denote both a future and a present event. In can have God or man as a subject. Barth contends that in the context of these verses, it is in the sense that baptism saves us because it is an element of our salvation experience, together with faith, among other things. I agree with this assessment.
In conclusion Barth deals with 1. John 5:5-8 and John 19:33-37. Here baptism is related to the concept of witness. They have been important in Reformed (Calvinistic) theology on baptism. Concerning the first scripture, he argues that the water refers to the water which Jesus was baptized with by John. The water witnessed about Jesus in his baptism, and even God spoke from heaven and testified about him. Barth also argues that the blood is not the Lord’s supper, but his death on the cross. This interpretation is new to me, and I am not sure if it is valid.
In John 19:33-37 the key words are the ‘blood and water’ that came out of Jesus’ side. It had been used for many purposes throughout history, as symbols and evidences of different theories. Barth however emphasises the meaning of the terms elsewhere in John’s gospel, and concludes that the blood and water does not necessarily refer to baptism and the Lord’s supper, and even if they did, it does not denote a sacramental meaning of them.
On the whole I agree with Barth in his exegesis, and he makes a good case. I can see how some of the verses can be interpreted to give baptism a sacramental status, however. For instance it says that those who believe and are baptized will be saved, but those who does not believe will not be saved. Baptism seems here to be connected to salvation, but not required (notice how baptism is omitted in the second clause). In John 3:5 Jesus says to Nicodemus that he must be ‘born of water and the Spirit’, and in Tit. 3:5 it says that ‘he saves us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit’. Yet in Romans 10: 9 is says that we are saved if we confess and believe, and baptism is not mentioned. Barth did a good exegesis on some of these verses, but another way of reconciling these apparent inconsistencies is to conclude that the salvation experience is one event, which includes all of the elements mentioned above.
My main argument against sacramentalism is that in the Bible, the whole event of salvation, including repentance, forgiveness, regeneration, baptism, receiving the Holy Spirit, being buried with Christ and being raised up to a new life, is depicted as just that; one single event. Acts. 2, 38 is a primary text here, when Peter, after being asked “What shall we do?”, lists repentance, baptism, forgiveness, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. In verse 41 is says that ‘those who heard his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.’ It seems in Acts to be a clear expectation for people to be baptized in water and in Spirit with a very short time interval, and if they had experienced the one and not the other the Apostles sought to make sure their experience were complete immediately.
Tradition and history has separated for instance baptism and conversion, and made them two separate events. After the model found in Acts and the rest of the new testament I believe that we reach a crisis point in our lives, where God draws us to himself. and as a response to what we see that he already has done for us we believe, repent, as saved, born again, forgiven, and baptized in water and in Spirit. All the elements belong there, but the order is not the important factor. I do believe repentance comes before forgiveness, though, and I don’t see how Barth deals with that when he calls the first salvation experience baptism in the Holy Spirit, but that is beyond the scope of this paper.
7. Conclusion
Like Barth, I have seen the effects of a state religion. I particularly remember asking questions when I was going to confirmation class, and the minister taught us that we were born again in our baptism. I looked around at my class mates, which I knew from school, and I know all too well that they did not know God. I could not believe they were born again, because I sensed that such a change would be visible in their lives. It was also very sad for me when I later talked with my friends who thought they were Christian and would go to heaven because they were baptized, confirmed and ‘was thinking about God sometimes.’ It is the greatest deception I have ever seen, and I pray for the ministers who are responsible for this teaching.
I have to conclude with Barth that baptism is a symbol, and an ordinance, not a sacrament. From the very thorough exegesis he did I understand that baptism is an important part of the salvation experience, and the picture of a burial from Romans 6 and Col. 2 is an appropriate one; it is the completing event that seals our conversion or salvation experience. Because baptism is such an important event, however, I do not wish to rule out that there might be a spiritual significance to it, but in that case only as closure, a definite break with ‘the old man’. This might be more significant in the life of the believer than in the eyes of God, though. Only in this way can I see a possibility of a ‘third view’ of baptism, between a sacrament and an ordinance. I have not seen the actual argument Barth made for accepting infant baptism as valid, but I do not think it is because it is so far removed from Christian baptism as laid out in Scripture. There is no saving faith, repentance or conversion present in the life of the one who is baptized, and therefore it is not a Biblical baptism.
References:
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics IV,4. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Edinburgh: T, & T. Clark, 1969.
________. The Christian Life. Translated by Geofferey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1981.
Berkouwer, G.C. The Sacraments. Translated by Hugo Bekker. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1969.
Bloesch, Donald G. The Church: Sacraments, Worship, Ministry, Mission. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002.
Buckley, James J. Christian community, baptism, and Lord's Supper. Edited by John Webster. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Erickson, Millard J. Introducing Christian Doctrine, 4 ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 1994.
McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology -an introduction. Malden, MC: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2001.
Spencer, Archibald J. Clearing a space for human Action. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, 2001.
|
|
|
