UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES
UNDERSTANDING CHRISTIAN ORDINANCES
Virgil Warren, PhD
Introduction
The following presentation is, strictly speaking, the author’s understanding of Christian ordinances even though it attempts to represent fairly the view taken by a larger movement as well. There is some diversity in that movement, which is natural enough in a free-church heritage the size of ours; but that diversity makes it more difficult to state “our position.” Nevertheless, unity through restoration accomplishes one thing for us and for everyone here today: it assures the desire to continue adjusting toward a more biblical understanding. Hopefully, this treatment will synthesize our ideas and thereby sharpen and improve what we all believe and practice about Christian ordinances.
We attempt here not only to describe, but to provide biblical rationale and to contrast our own viewpoint with apparently foreign concepts and incompatible alternatives. Such a task is a formidable one because so many doctrinal issues surface in connection with the ordinances; so many tacit assumptions become visible in the practice of baptism especially. By concentrating on framework of thought, structure of presentation, and basis for presuppositions, we hope to achieve wholeness, cohesiveness, clarity, and economy of expression.
Because of time constraints, our discussion will be somewhat uneven. After illustrating the basis for “interpersonalism” as the underlying reality in Christian truth, we first draw out implications for Christian baptism. The Lord’s Supper ends up being treated more briefly because it is less complex and because the listener can generalize to it the implications already applied to baptism.
I. The Interpersonal Nature of the Ordinances1
A. The Interpersonal Nature of the Covenant
The nature of the new covenant sets the nature of its ordinances. When Jeremiah prophesied the coming of a covenant, he not only indicated that there would be another covenant, but that it would be another kind of covenant. It would not be like the one Yahveh made with Israel at Sinai after the exodus (31:31-34). Yahveh said his people would “know” him. “Knowing” Yahveh means more than knowing about him or believing he exists because knowing about God does not especially bring in the sin problem and its solution. Sin is something that happens between persons relative to their values and purposes.
We can call the new covenant “interpersonal” because it addresses active relationship between persons in contrast to legal function, natural process, rational process. The New Testament discussion of the covenant that came treats it in terms that belong to personal relationship, particularly in contrast to legal systems. Paul’s familiar comments in Romans 3-4, Galatians 3, and elsewhere highlight the contrast between faith, grace, promise, reckoning, reconciliation, life, love, spirit, and the like on one hand, and works, law, debt, flesh, and the like on the other. Every act that takes place in a fundamental category participates in the nature of that category. Christian ordinances belong to a grace-faith covenant; so they are interpersonal.
B. The Interpersonal Purpose of the Covenant
The purpose of the covenant also sets the nature of its ordinances. Interpersonal consequences come from interpersonal antecedents. The result of the new economy would be fellowship: Yahveh would be their God, and they would be his people. Their sins would no longer stand between them and him, because he would no longer “remember their sins” against them (Jeremiah 31:34; cp. Hebrews 8:6-10:18).2 In the place where it was said they were not his people, they would be called sons of the living God (Hosea 1:10-11). They would have personal relationship.
After speaking of the new covenant in 2 Corinthians 3, Paul moves ahead in 5:17-21 to describe God’s purpose in that covenant and in calling men to be his ambassadors. The apostle calls his work a “ministry of reconciliation” in which people are entreated to be reconciled to God through Christ. “Reconciliation” implies “alienation,” and both terms address interpersonal matters. Estrangement ceases if the trespasses that caused it are removed. Sins are removed by no longer reckoning them against sinners because they are in Christ, the Sinless One. The reconciling purpose of the new covenant establishes interpersonal meaning for its ordinances.
C. The Interpersonal Source of the Ordinances
Finally, the source of the ordinances sets the nature of the ordinances. Jeremiah indicated that Yahveh would “write the new covenant on their heart”; his people would internalize the values and purposes of that covenant. He would write his law in their inward parts rather than on “tables of stone,” as Paul later put it (2 Corinthians 3:7). Instead of an impersonal law that could be expressed on stone, a personal revelation and abiding influence were to come that persons would internalize “in their hearts.” As a result, psychologically speaking, any obediences in that kind of covenant spring from internal motivation instead of external compulsion. The origin of an act determines the nature of the act because behavior has the character of what motivates it. Antecedent must be amenable to consequence. Acts are “after their kind” in keeping with the law of harvest: people reap what they sow (Galatians 6:7-9; cp. 5:13-25). What is born of flesh is flesh; what is born of spirit is spirit (John 3:6; cp. 1 Corinthians 15:50?). Likewise, what comes from faith is faith. Since baptism and the Lord’s Supper arise from faith, they are faith—they are interpersonal.
II. The Interpersonal Character of Christian Baptism
A. Baptism as Personal Identification with Christ
The Great Commission sets the approach to understanding baptism by establishing its meaning at a broad level. Baptism identifies a person with Father-Son-Spirit (Matthew 28:19). According to several passages in Acts and the epistles, baptism identifies a person with the Lord Jesus (Acts 8:16; 10:48; 19:5; Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27). These statements parallel other expressions about identification with Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2), with Paul (1 Corinthians 1:13-14), and with John’s baptism. The twelve in Ephesus who had been baptized into John’s baptism were then baptized into Christ (Acts 19:2-5), which implies that the two baptisms have parallel significances, that is, parallel identifications. When people are in Christ, they are “new creations” (2 Corinthians 5:17); they have a new identity along with everything that entails. Baptism is a rite of passage into Christ; it is an initiatory rite into a personal relationship with him; it is an oath of induction into a new identity. “In Christ” is not so much a status or position as it is an identity—who a person is. And so we pass to what that new identity encompasses.3
B. The Meaning of Personal Identification with Christ
1. Commitment to Christ
Identification with Christ implies meanings associated with that identification. Within the meaning of baptism lie certain implied commitments. In baptism a person commits himself to the values and purposes of Christ, values and purposes that transcend the material frame of reference. They are spiritual rather than fleshly, interpersonal rather than impersonal, centered above the individual rather than in him. They stress invisible realities that are eternal, rather than visible ones that are temporary.
Living above the material lifestyle is set forth in two images associated with baptism. First, Paul pictures the transcendent orientation as a resurrected lifestyle (Romans 6) and ascended lifestyle (Colossians 2:12 + 3:1-17). The death, burial, resurrection, ascension of Jesus constituted the most distinctive event in his life because he alone resurrected to heaven never to die again. Baptism appropriately identifies us with Jesus by picturing that unique event. But baptism does more than dramatically re-enact what Jesus did. It makes a statement about what we are going to do and what we aspire to become. It is a performative act. Psychologically in baptism we crucify our fleshly orientation and bury it, and we adopt a higher orientation—a resurrected one, an ascended one that is “above all that.” Paul says we are “united with” Christ4 in this likeness of his death and resurrection. By “uniting” with him in baptism, we formally “identify” with him there, and our identity with him means we are “new creatures.” Since baptism is immersion as to form, it bears a formal “likeness” to his death and resurrection.5 To sum up in one statement, baptism is a formal likeness of a historical analogy to a lifestyle transformation.
Adopting the transcendent lifestyle means starting over from that changed perspective. During his discussion with Nicodemus (John 3), Jesus pictures in a second way this starting over from above. He calls it rebirth, birth from above, birth from spirit rather than from flesh. He calls for a reborn lifestyle (3:19-21; cp. Titus 3:5), one that is concerned with faith (3:16ff) and spirit, not biological descent, national identity, or even physical life (John 3:13-15). Since baptism takes place in water, people are psychologically “born of water” when they commit to a new way of life in the higher kingdom (3:5), which is not of this world (18:36). “Being born of water” expresses a new identification with the spiritual values and transcendent purposes (cp. 2 Corinthians 5:16-17) of the Savior who is “lifted up” (3:14), as it were, and draws to himself all nationalities of this world (John 3:16-17; 12:32).
As we are using the term here, identification means more than an appreciation for Christ or a sense of association with him. Identification involves commitment to him and his values and participation in his purposes and work. Baptism is a pledge of allegiance to Christ.
2. Consequences of commitment to Christ
In relation to the new interpersonal covenant, baptism arises from personal responses like trust and repentance, expresses identification with Jesus Christ, and by extension commitment to his values and purposes. Because of that (1) identity and its implied commitments, God (2) chooses to (3) give certain consequences people need. He chooses to fulfill his covenant promise to forgive sin, to give fellowship with his Spirit, and to add people to Christ’s body, the church. Two things stand between antecedent responses and consequent blessings: identity with Christ and God’s choice to fulfill previous covenant promises. Furthermore, the manner in which these consequences come to the person is by gift from the other Person.
Inside of what it means to be identified with Christ and committed to him lie the benefits of that new identity. Since baptism formally expresses the identification from which these benefits come, scripture often speaks of those benefits in connection with baptism.
a. forgiveness of sins
Salvation is primarily reconciliation back into fellowship with God (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Lostness represents alienation from God in consequence of personal sin. Salvation means solving the sin problem. In the new covenant, God no longer remembers people’s sins against them. Salvation deals with sin more than sins because it deals with people’s overall character more than their individual acts and with their estranged state, which by metonymy is called sin. People come to be considered righteous more than come to be righteous; they come to be considered righteous through identity with Christ who is righteous. Personal responses that identify a person with Christ, scripture associates with the consequent salvation itself. Since baptism stands among these responses, scripture connects it with forgiveness and salvation even though it is a formal act: “He that believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16); “Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name” (Acts 22:16); “. . . which after a true likeness now saves you—baptism” (1 Peter 3:31). Similarly, John’s baptism is directly associated with forgiveness in Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3. In keeping with the fact that it relates to forgiveness of sin, baptism is like a cleansing (Ephesians 5:26; Titus 3:5), and its element is water.
b. gift of the Spirit
On Pentecost Peter included “the gift of the Spirit” among God’s gifts to those he commanded to identify with Christ through repentance and baptism. We understand the gift of the Spirit in this case to be the gift that the Spirit is rather than a gift that the Spirit gives. Commonly called “the indwelling gift of the Spirit,” this gift consists primarily of interpersonal relationship with God in the person of the Spirit, because renewed relationship can accompany the forgiveness of what brought alienation. No decision must be made at this general level between natural and supernatural involvements. The natural-supernatural variable relates to particulars of each conversion and its setting. In all probability the expression “gift of the Spirit” equals the other expressions “baptism in the Spirit” and “earnest of the Spirit.”
c. membership in the body of Christ
The Acts 2 conversion accounts include God’s adding together the increasing number of those being saved (2:41, 47). There is one baptism for both Jews and Gentiles who identify with the one Lord to create the one body—the “new united mankind” (Ephesians 4:4-6; 2:11-18). Those whom God adds to Christ’s body are the same ones he forgives and gives his Spirit for. Consequently, no intended distinction exists between the “invisible” and visible church—or, for that matter, between the universal church and the local churches taken collectively. No distinction exists then in the time or condition for entering the one or the other. A person enters the salvation of Christ and the body of Christ at the same time and on the same condition.
All the individual responses people make combine to form one complex condition. No individual response within the general condition6 is anything more than conditionally appropriate to the consequences God provides. Baptism has no more, no less, and no other than this same kind of function. Repentant faith expressed in baptism identifies with Christ; identity with Christ is the condition for all consequences God gives. So to speak, “Identify with Christ and all these things will be added to you.”
C. Observations on This Understanding of Baptism
1. Baptism is an interpersonal response rather than a legal transaction.11 Baptism is a performative act. The prime motivation for doing it is to say something, not to get something. It is easy, perhaps, to associate a formal act with a legal process, but commanding something formal does not necessarily mean instituting something legal. Formal acts can communicate and define in personal relations as surely as they can effect results in legal operations. Christian ordinances, however, are performative, dramatic, expressive, communicative, not authoritative and causal.
2. This format for understanding baptism stresses the big picture. Interpersonal relationship is dynamic, reciprocal, qualitative, and involves growth by degrees. When the aspects of an operation are interdependent in this way, the operation must be holistic and harmonious. For this reason, we have emphasized the interpersonal nature of the covenant as such.
Furthermore, the antecedents and the consequences correlate with the persons involved on both sides of the interpersonal relationship that is being re-established in reconciliation. Antecedents and consequences therefore form two natural groupings rather than separable responses and unrelated gifts. Repentance, faith, and baptism are not three things but one whole response: repentant faith expressed in baptism. The total response identifies with Jesus Christ. Identity with Christ is the basic condition for the natural set of gifts that together really comprise various aspects of one consequence: restored relationship. Forgiveness of sins is one aspect involved here, because sins are what alienates persons. The gift of the Spirit is another aspect involved here, because that represents restored relationship with God in the person of the Spirit. Fellowship with all others that have been likewise reconciled to God is a third aspect naturally contemporaneous with the other two. There is one issue—interpersonal relationship, one condition—personal identity with Christ, and one consequence—reconciliation.
We have identified baptism with the general level because (a) we believe scripture pictures baptism this way. Besides the several texts that speak simply of baptism into Christ, every time scripture mentions consequences in relation to baptism, it includes identification in the statement.7 In Acts 2:38 baptism on the basis of the name of Jesus Christ is unto remission of sins. In Acts 22:16 Paul should be baptized and wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord. In 1 Peter 3:21 baptism saves insofar as it is an appeal to God of/for a good conscience. Identifying baptism with the general level makes sense of mentioning it in the Great Commission itself, which describes the apostolic enterprise. It also makes sense of using it as a “handle,” or shorthand expression, for converting someone.
For practical purposes, associating baptism with the big picture (b) lessens the tendency to causally connect it with consequences. Misconstruing the ordinance as a cause fosters the feeling that baptism is a token, discrete ritual that effects results.8 By focusing on the act itself, we may see it with legal eyes and misread the way it relates to consequences and other antecedents. Conceiving of an ordinance as a cause also conceives of it as operating under law, and participants psychologically focuses on the process rather than on the person of God. They make responses as if they were fulfilling requirements that themselves procure results. But people’s responses, even in the aggregate, cannot relate to reconciliation in a causal way. How much more it is that none of their specific responses can do so. Even more, a specific formal response cannot produce a dynamic interpersonal consequence.9
Associating baptism with the big picture (c) gives wholeness and cohesiveness to the understanding of the ordinance. Associating baptism with a subsequent specific, fragments what should be seen as one whole. Connecting baptism with church membership, for example, separates church membership off as a distinct item and institutionalizes baptism. “Baptized into Christ” is not a metonymy for baptized into the church. The gift of the Spirit is not to be separated off as a separate item so as, perhaps, to supernaturalize a part of what belongs to the one interpersonal baptism event. Sin as inherited guilt is not brought in and focused on separately so as to legalize baptism. Theologically the concern for wholeness leads us from separating the time of salvation from the time of church membership, from untying the time of being saved and receiving the Spirit, from contrasting visible and invisible or universal and local, from dividing between inner and outer response, from making necessary distinction between natural and supernatural, from speaking of water baptism vs. S/spirit baptism.10
We do not say, then, that baptism has a soteriological meaning, a primarily soteriological meaning, or a soteriological rather than ecclesiological meaning. That would omit the commitment to values and purposes. We do not say that baptism has an ecclesiological meaning, a primarily ecclesiological meaning, or an ecclesiological rather than soteriological meaning. That would omit both the commitment to values and the other consequences God gives. We do not say that baptism pictures what has already happened. That would omit baptism as a performative statement to God as well insofar as that would remove its role in expressing identification with Christ. These other approaches to this Christian ordinance foster a rigid and fragmented feel for Christianity itself. They create artificial distinctions within the whole because they connect baptism with one thing that is coextensive and contemporaneous with the others.
3. Baptism has been associated here with the upfront whole rather than a subsequent part. There is no perceived need to generate a non-biblical form to mark timewise the initial identification with Christ. From the perspective of this presentation, that is what has happened with the practice of kneeling and asking Jesus into your heart (“the sinner’s prayer”). That has happened, we believe, because a perceived vacuum was created by moving baptism from its up-front general place to one of the subsequent specifics and thereby depriving it of its intended function. Baptism as appeal to God (1 Peter 3:21) was intended to include the meaning associated with the sinner’s prayer.
4. Baptism is a commitment to values and purposes before it has any kind of association with benefits and consequences. A person does not have Christ as savior without at the same time acknowledging him as Lord.
5. The antecedent baptism is separated from the consequent forgiveness, and so on, by (a) identity with Christ, (b) by God’s personal choice, and (c) by the giftedness of the consequences. We do not speak of baptism as a condition for reconciliation. Instead, we say identity with Christ is the condition for reconciliation, which involves forgiveness, fellowship, and membership. As a formal act that combines with the dynamic factors it expresses, baptism communicates identification with Christ.
6. A distinction exists between the nature of baptism and the nature of the other aspects of identification with Christ. Formal and dynamic relate as less important to more important inasmuch as the latter category is inherent to interpersonal operations while the former is not.
In summary, as a part of standard response, baptism expresses personal identification with Christ and commitment to participation in his values and purposes. In consequence of identity with Christ, God forgives sin, gives his Spirit, and adds to Christ’s body.
D. Foreign Practices and Concepts
Over the centuries several practices and concepts have arisen that we deem foreign to the interpersonal character and purpose of the new covenant, hence, foreign to the interpersonal nature and purpose of its ordinances. These shifts have gone in two directions especially: the ordinances have too often been reinterpreted as parts of (1) legal process and/or (2) natural operation. In so treating them, interpreters have introduced foreign elements. Beliefs and practices that stem from contextualizing the ordinances in legal and natural frameworks are not only foreign but contradictory to New Testament teaching. There is no positive basis for introducing such matters because the new covenant provides an interpersonal context for its ordinances, because its purpose is to establish interpersonal consequences, and because the originating factors in each person’s observance are “person-al.” A problem must be solved in the realm of that problem. Since the problem exists in interpersonal matters (alienation), any actions involved in its solution must be interpersonal (reconciliation). Interpersonal results do not come about by impersonal means; ndo they do not come about by legal or natural means.12
1. Infant baptism
The interpersonal character of Christian ordinances, among other things, makes infant baptism unnatural. (a) Infant baptism cannot originate from the interpersonal factors prerequisite to an interpersonal ordinance. The meaning of a formal act is nullified by the absence of appropriate behavioral factors. The infant has no personal faith, and a personal relationship cannot be established by proxy faith, subsequent faith, non-content faith. An infant cannot make personal commitment to Christ, and personal commitment cannot be made by proxies. The faith of another cannot stand for a person’s own faith except in legal transaction, but Christian ordinances stand in a grace-faith covenant. A formal act in an interpersonal context has no meaning except as a performative act; consequently, it means something only if the person means something into it. Since infants cannot mean anything into the ordinance, baptizing infants has no meaning.
Besides the observation that infants cannot do what baptism is, they have no need for what it involves. (b) Infant baptism cannot be for the forgiveness of personal guilt because none exists yet. An infant cannot yet operate responsibly about morality, and morality belongs only to interpersonal contexts. (c) Infant baptism cannot be for the forgiveness of someone else’s sin—original sin—because guilt is personal. In personal relations, guilt and penalty that come from personal action are no more transferable than the action itself. Baptism cannot have any value for forgiving “original guilt” because there is no way to transfer such guilt to him except by legal assignment; but legal assignment is foreign to interpersonal need, process, and consequence. Obviously, racial guilt is denied here in any sense that precludes divine fellowship and eternal destiny.
(d) Baptism is not the outward sign of an external covenant because the new covenant is not an external covenant, it does not have an external component, and its “sign” is not simply an external act. It is a covenant in which everyone under it must know the Lord to get into it.
2. Baptism for the dead (proxy baptism)
Interpersonal relationships are interpersonally established. Proxy baptism is thoroughly legal. By the nature of interpersonalism, one person’s faith or obedience cannot substitute for another’s. Legitimizing such a substitution requires moving outside the interpersonal realm of the problem in order to invoke a legal solution to it. Since baptism does not relate to legal operations, it cannot be fulfilled by a proxy functionary. The seven sons of Sceva found out that Christianity does not accomplish its purposes by the magical invocation of the name of Christ or by going through certain rituals. Baptism for the dead breaches the principle of personal involvement in interpersonal operations as well as the lack of inherent necessity for formal acts in interpersonal operations.
3. Official administration
As far as meaning is concerned, baptism is done by the “candidate,” not by an administrator. Baptismal validity is not ex opere operato, where validity does not hinge on personal qualities in the administrator or candidate. What makes an observance valid depends on the kind of observance it is. Personal observance gets its validity from personal factors, but official administration belongs to legal transaction. Making the validity of baptism dependent on duly ordained clergy makes its validity like that of a wedding ceremony, which requires a duly authorized officer of the law as well as official witnesses. Baptism does not have to be performed “publicly” by a special person. Grace does not flow through the church by way of official operatives, but directly from God to the believer. Grace does not follow an institutional “flow chart”; it flows interpersonally.
Should God decide to establish authorized administration, he would do so for practical rather than theoretical reasons. His people would have to know that from positive commandment because they could not know it by inference from first principles. We know of no explicit or implicit teaching to that end in the New Testament. Anything of a practical sort that the church comes up with must not pre-empt the interpersonal reality in which Christian ordinances stand.
Since the validity of baptism does not depend on who assists in its observance, we see no reason for refusing baptism performed by members of other Christian heritages or for considering it “alien baptism.” As long as it is baptism, we have is no reason or right to redo it.
4. Required formula
The validity of baptism does not depend on any particular wording pronounced with its observance. The candidate’s basic understanding of its meaning establishes the validity of its observance. Normally the problem over “correct” formula centers on the “trinity” issue. Among Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ there has been some latitude in views of the trinity and therefore on the manner in which that understanding might affect the form and formula for baptism. At any rate, the so-called “trinitarian” expression in Matthew 28 obviously does not conflict with the “Jesus-only” statements in Acts. Since baptism is not a legal transaction, there is no notion here of the “valid wording of the contract.”
5. Delayed baptism
In some quarters of the ancient church, baptism came to be delayed as long as possible because Christians did not know what to do with post-baptismal sins. That practice—along with extreme unction—evidenced the tendency to view salvation as dealing with previous sins rather than with sin as such, that is, with sins rather than broken relationship because of sin. It was a quantifying approach to a relational issue.
In some quarters of the modern church, baptism is sometimes delayed until a new believers get settled in a congregation to whom they can witness their faith through baptism and where they can serve and grow in the faith. This practice associates baptism with a particular consequence rather than with the initial commitment; it does so as something that identifies people with the visible church (or a part of it) more than with Christ. It treats the consequences as a series spread out over time rather than as aspects of one total event. The logical series—forgiveness, gift of the Spirit, and membership in the body—gets correlated with chronological sequence so that what were intentionally simultaneous and coextensive are handled as if they were sequential and distinct. Identification with Christ is the overwhelming emphasis in the New Testament, a stress that is more inclusive than church membership. In fact, only 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of “baptism” into the church, and there the apostle stresses the Spirit aspect of baptism since he says, “In one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.”13 If baptism is interpersonal with Christ, it relates to something that logically precedes entering a group or institution associated with that person.
6. Periodic rebaptism
In ancient times the practice of hemerobaptism (“daily baptism”) considered baptism a ceremonial ablution meant to symbolize cleansing of sins committed since the last cleansing. The reason for such a practice stems from associating salvation with forgiveness of sins more than forgiveness of sin, the separated-from-God circumstance. Perfect goodness is not inherently necessary in personal relationships. In modern times people request rebaptism periodically because they have sinned or sense a lull in their devotion to Christ. They turn to baptism as a way of relieving perhaps a hypersensitive conscience. As a result, baptism takes on the role that should be associated with ongoing repentance and prayer.
7. Baptism as initiation into finished business
On the opposite extreme of hemerobaptism stands any impulse to regard baptism as related to finished business. Interpersonal relationships cannot be finalized. Entering Christ is not like receiving a high school diploma, which gives permanent status and privileges even though recipients may forget most of what they learned to get it. Interpersonal observances are not time-referenced. Law may validate for a period of time like a driver’s license, or permanently like a college degree. But personal relationships are processual, not categorical. When people establish relationship, they give no thought to how long. Friendships do not automatically last so long or last only so long. Initiation into friendship with God ushers in commitment to a holy life of growth; it does not mean obtaining certain desirable consequences and having them “for good.”
8. Baptismal regeneration
Baptism does not regenerate inherited natural depravity. We know of no biblical evidence for such a meaning of the ordinance, and we see no positive basis for the doctrine of natural depravity itself—at least in any sense or degree that precludes personal response to the gospel.14 There is nothing involved here like an “infused grace.” Such an idea moves salvation into ontology and attempts to invoke miracle to solve alienation. It does so despite the lack of clear teaching that Adam’s spiritual capacity after his sin differed from what it was before in a biologically inheritable sense. Baptism does not enable people to have faith by miracle; it expresses the mustard-seed faith they already have through personal influence. We do, of course, acknowledge the psychological depravity that arises from factors personally produced rather than genetically transmitted.
9. Inherent necessity
(a) Considering baptism inherently necessary would misunderstand the nature and purpose of formal acts. Interpersonal processes require no particular formal acts. Establishing identification with God, therefore, requires no ordinance at all. If one is instituted, it is for the person’s benefit, not for God’s benefit or for the system’s operation. An ordinance serves to focalize meaning, concretize significance, clarify the invisible, make the abstract tangible. Christian ordinances are performed because they are interpersonally appropriate, not because they are legally, rationally, or naturally necessary. We are not to take a sine qua non attitude toward ordinances. In a sense, ordinances are “necessary” acts, but only because God has instituted them, not because he had to institute them.
(b) Considering baptism inherently necessary would also misunderstand the nature and purpose of God himself. God is a person and therefore operates like one; he does not operate with the rigidness characteristic of law, nature, or thought. He takes into consideration intent of action, attitude of persons, and purpose of operation.
These two observations about necessity enable Christians to generalize salvation principles to practical situations not specifically dealt with in the New Testament. Circumstances sometimes do not make baptism possible—or do not make it possible without risk to life or health. A repentant believer committed to Jesus Christ might die without baptism through some misunderstanding or insuperable circumstance. It may not be clear whether a young person with a terminal condition has yet attained the age of accountability. Persons committed to Christ may honestly misunderstand that baptism should have been their own conscious response or should have been an act of immersion. For purposes of fellowship and Christian unity, situations like these must be dealt with. They should not get interpreted like a case where someone has not filled out properly all the right documents for a passport. They must be dealt with by inferences based on the nature of the new covenant and the redemptive purpose of the holy, loving God who instituted ordinances and knows the hearts of those who diligently seek him. All the while, each believer strives both to teach and learn the Lord’s will more perfectly on this and other issues.
In matters of personal relationship formal matters can be overlooked entirely for legitimate, practical reasons. The situation with baptism is analogous to Paul’s treatment of circumcision in Romans 2:25-29. Both circumcision and baptism are formal acts related to spiritual relationships. Circumcision, of course, had two aspects to it, one national and the other spiritual. Baptism does not have the national aspect to it, but it does parallel circumcision in its spiritual associations—as in identifying an adult proselyte with Israel and therefore with the values and purposes expressed in God’s constitution for that nation. Speaking of circumcision in its spiritual dimension, Paul observes, “If then the uncircumcision keeps the ordinances of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” (Romans 2:26). Paul may have in mind godfearers, or sebomenoi, like Cornelius (Acts 10:2, 22, 35; 13:16, 26; note 15:7-9). These people worshipped the one true God, but had not been circumcised to become proselytes and so considered full-fledged Jews. In light of 2:6-16, Paul may also have in mind more distant people who had only conscience to guide them.
In speaking about the spiritual aspect of circumcision, Paul says that not conforming to the values and purposes in God’s revelation changes a Jew’s circumcision to uncircumcision. Conversely, conforming to them changes a Gentile’s uncircumcision into circumcision. Paul does not explain why this is so, but we infer that it is so by the nature of the case: personal relationships do not depend on formal observances. Matters of the heart—sincerity, motivation, attitude—override the lack of formal observance under appropriate conditions.
Paul is quite bold here. He does not treat this circumstance in a neutral way by saying that God will deal with uncircumcised persons in a just manner. That would leave the matter open-ended, and the legal inference could still be made that uncircumcised people were lost because of their uncircumcision. Instead, Paul treats the “pious uncircumcised” in a positive way, affirming that because of their keeping God’s ordinances God reckons their uncircumcision as circumcision. His comment is reminiscent of a later one about Abraham, who in his uncircumcision had faith/trust reckoned for righteousness (Romans 4:3, 9-12). The righteousness Abraham had came from interpersonal considerations (faith/trust, promise) rather than legal ones. So also the consequent blessings of the patriarch and his role among men grew from interpersonal considerations: “Not through law was the promise to Abraham or his seed” (4:13). Legal and interpersonal are different kinds of systems (Romans 4:14-16; Galatians 3:10-12). Even the absence, then, of formal considerations like circumcision the apostle affirms is overlooked under appropriate circumstances in spiritual matters, or as we are saying, in interpersonal systems. If an action can even be set aside under legitimate circumstances, it has a different meaning and type of necessity than an act done in a legal system.
Of course, it is “necessary” to do what God tells us, and so baptism can be said to be necessary in that “interpersonal” sense. That is simply part of acknowledging the lordship of Christ in conversion. But most cases we have to deal with come up because of honest misobedience rather than intentional disobedience.
10. Baptism as an outer act
No correlation should be drawn between baptism and outward action. For one thing, valid outward responses arise from corresponding internal factors they express. Furthermore, no clear line can be drawn between overt behavior and inner commitment. Finally, visible obedience reciprocates with invisible motivation. Separating inner and outer seems as artificial in the theology of baptism as it does anywhere else in Christianity.15
There are no shortcuts to personal relationships and no artificial substitutes for what it takes to have the real thing. Even as a relational process involves actions on both sides of the relationship, so also it involves both inner and outer actions on both sides of it. As already noted, no correlation should be drawn, then, between baptism as outer action and visible church membership. If baptism is a performative act, it is not just an outward act. The inner self must mean something into the visible expression for it to have any meaning at all. Baptism as outer action not only makes an unnatural distinction between inner and outer, it makes an unnatural distinction between salvation and the church—between the invisible church of the saved and the visible church as a religious community. Baptism, outer action, and visible church membership do not constitute a set. Instead, baptism identifies persons personally with Christ up front at the level of the whole, not with any particular consequent within it. Those particulars come from God only in consequence of identification with the whole, that is, with Christ.
Not dividing between inner and outer response can correspond also with not dividing between water baptism and S/spirit baptism, depending on how the latter expression is understood. If “baptism in the Spirit” is taken as alternative terminology for “gift of the Spirit,” it refers to what we have called the second consequence of identification with Jesus Christ. S/spirit baptism would then be simultaneous with commitment to Christ in so-called “water baptism.” The aspects of a real whole may be distinguishable mentally, but they are not separated in the reality itself. In another direction, since outer does not correlate particularly with works, legal operation, and baptism, inner does not correlate particularly with faith, ontic operation (miraculous regeneration by the Spirit), and Spirit baptism. Scripture itself never uses the expression “water baptism” in reference to Christian baptism.16 In fact, one way of reading 1 Corinthians 12:13 joins (water) baptism and the Spirit into one statement: “In one Spirit we were all [water?] baptized into one body.” We prefer, then, to consider inner and outer responses and consequences as facets of the same whole event.
Baptism does not deal with legal and natural processes, and is not then legitimized by principles derived from those categories. Authority and miracle do not remove alienation. Alienation and reconciliation have to do with persons and so with behavior that makes or breaks fellowship between persons. Alienation and reconciliation do not deal with legal and ontological means or ends, but with interpersonal ones. Interpersonal consequences come from interpersonal antecedents.
D. Matters of Indifference
We have not practiced trine immersion, although there is no question of its validity. They have not concerned themselves with public vs. private baptism or a number of the ancient issues like cold vs. warm water or running vs. still water. There have been a variety of opinions on different kinds of “re-baptism” situations and on the question about the age of accountability.
III. The Interpersonal Character of the Lord’s Supper
Everything applies to communion that we said earlier about the nature and purpose of the new covenant and the personal origin of its ordinances. The Lord’s Supper is interpersonal, not legal or natural. It is a performative act; in observing it the believer “makes a statement” (1 Corinthians 11:26).
A. The Lord’s Supper as Personal Reaffirmation of Identity with Jesus Christ
As baptism is a performative act that expresses personal identification with Jesus Christ, so also communion is a performative act that expresses personal re-identification with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16-22). As a participation with Christ it re-affirms everything that identity implies about commitment to the values and purposes of Christ. It is an individual’s act of worship that normally takes place within the corporate life of Christians.
The participant consciously and implicitly means into this formal observance a number of sub-meanings. The bread and fruit of the vine represent the body and blood the Lord gave in providing a basis for reconciliation. In the Supper there is perception of this meaning in these emblems. The partaker ingests the elements as a memorial of Christ’s death (1 Corinthians 11:23-24) and a proclamation of it (11:26); he symbolically takes into himself the same degree of commitment to God’s will for him that Christ himself demonstrated in his original self-sacrifice. In this time of self-examination (11:28), the communicants make anew their pledge of allegiance (11:23-25) and imply a prophecy of Christ’s return (11:26). Observed by the fellowship together, communion is a plea for Christian unity until that time (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 21). In summary, the Supper has three dimensions: (a) upward, (b) outward, and (c) inward.
B. Foreign Practices and Concepts
Infant observance does not fit with interpersonalism for the same reasons given earlier in connection with infant baptism. Infant observance does not even involve personal awareness, much less recommitment, self-examination, discerning the body, plea for unity, and so on. The idea of periodic cleansing from sin likewise does not belong to interpersonal operations for the reasons given earlier under periodic rebaptism. Relationships are not time-referenced or individuated. It takes legal principles to validate such practices, but legal procedures do not effect interpersonal consequences.
In most circumstances observance by non-Christians presents no difficulty, because they usually do not participate in religious events alien to their beliefs. Most cases of this sort deal with whether a person is actually a Christian. Young people growing up in Christian homes would not naturally take an interest in the Lord’s Supper any sooner than they would take an interest in commitment and love of him. It seems natural, then, to correlate re-identification with original identification in these instances. The main concern is to avoid situations where observance is superficial and undiscerning so people do not “drink condemnation” to themselves. Young people who show an interest in partaking of the Lord’s Supper might do so more in the sense of worship, as they do in singing songs about God and Christ and what the commitment to him involves. In such a framework where parents are explaining the meaning of the observance, it seems that the young person is acting appropriately at a level of understanding that may be somewhat less advanced than in the commitment they will make in baptism.
The doctrine of real presence in all its forms is foreign to interpersonal concerns of interpersonal ordinances. Transubstantiation, consubstantiation, and impanation deal with ontological matters rather than relational ones. In these concepts, transformation takes place in the emblems themselves, not in the mind of the communicant. In the meal of remembrance, however, the partaker regards unleavened bread and fruit of the vine as the body and the blood of the Lord. The elements represent, not become. We see no positive biblical basis for considering them anything other than meaningful symbols of significant realities.
C. Patterns of observance
1. Open communion
Participation in Christ’s Supper is an act of worship that affirms identification with Christ and commitment to him. By the nature of the case, the only “qualification” for participation is loving Christ. The eucharist is no more associated with a particular congregation than baptism is. Neither ordinance identifies with the church or the local church, but generally with the Christ of the one church. Denominational affiliation has no relevance to this matter because his church is not denominated. Christians no more partake of communion relative to a denomination than they are baptized into a denomination. Consequently, any occasion of observance is open to any Christian that is present, a practice called “open communion.”
2. Weekly observance
Congregations of the “Restoration Movement” are rather unique among evangelicals in observing of the Lord’s Supper each week. Communion as a specific act of gathered worship evidently had the same frequency among early Christians as their gathered worship itself. The clearest New Testament indication of the practice comes from a combination of 1 Corinthians 16:1-2 and 11:17-20ff. The first passage shows that the Corinthians met each week on Sunday; the second passage indicates that the agape feast was part of what happened when they met. Acts 2:42 includes “breaking the bread” with fellowship, apostles’ teaching, and prayers when it speaks of some things the first Christians “continued steadfastly” doing. Since Luke’s account refers to a relatively brief time period, we infer that they broke bread more often than once a year or every few months, especially since he combines it with other religious activities done more frequently than that. Weekly communion is no more and no less clear than weekly worship in general.
There is no thought of frequency in a legal sense. Missing communion is like missing church. It is not so much a sin as a failure to avail oneself of an opportunity for mutual “exhortation to love and good works” (Hebrews 10:24-25). Interpersonal acts, formal and otherwise, increase in meaningfulness the closer persons grow together. In this same spirit, persons identified with Christ grow in their commitment to him through their continued reaffirmation of that identity formally and dynamically.
Endnotes
1For a more complete treatment of interpersonalism as understood here, see the author’s preliminary study Interpersonalism: The Integrating Reality for Christian Truth. The presentation surveys reasons for considering this reality the basic point of Christianity and compiles many ways it affects various aspects of the total Christian understanding.
2In Romans 11:26-27 Paul loosely cites the Septuagint form of Isaiah 59:20 as influenced by the wording of Psalm 14:7 (LXX 13:7). The subject again is a new covenant whose object is to take away sins.
3This generalized understanding of the significance of baptism means that we may not need to distinguish between the normal sequential preposition εἰς used after βαπτίζω and the one-time usages of ἐν (Acts 10:48) and ἐπί (Acts 2:38), even though the three prepositions may not be exactly synonymous. They may be variant specific prepositions in Greek translation for the more general Hebrew inseparable preposition לְ used in the expression “baptism to the name [לְשֵׁם].”
4The word translated “united with” or “planted together” (σyμφyτος ) contains the word picture “grown together” (σύν + φύω). “Identification” appears to be a fair representation of Paul’s idea here.
5On the basis of passages like Romans 1:23; Revelation 9:7; and Septuagint usages in Deuteronomy 4:12, 16; Exodus 20:4, and so on, we infer that the word ὁμοίωμα involves a likeness in form rather than just a similarity in meaning, which is carried more in the word ἀντίτyπος (cp. “antitype”).
6For the distinction intended here between cause and condition, see Virgil Warren’s What the Bible Says About Salvation (Joplin, Missouri: College Press, l982), pp. 194-216. In general, a condition involves a dependent first person who can do nothing decisive about his need, a sovereign second person who is under no obligation to meet that need, a free promise to help, an obedience commanded to the person in need, and a result bestowed by the other person. A condition precedes the result but does not cause it directly or indirectly, in whole or in part. Under conditionality, antecedent acts are performed, but consequent results are given. Conditionality is an interpersonal construct; it involves one person’s active trust in another person’s free promise to give. Under works, there is no second person, no promise, and no bestowed result. In this case the result is the righteousness prerequisite to being viewed as righteous so there can be fellowship with the Righteous One. The result comes directly and only from one’s own continuous obedience to all elements of the standard for righteousness (Galatians 3:10-12).
7Mark 16:16 presents a technical exception if accorded textual integrity. Even there, of course, identification with Christ comes into the picture. Belief and baptism are responses to the gospel, which is the good news of salvation through Christ.
8Even if baptism were connected with a consequent specific like forgiveness, it would not have the character of a “work” in the Pauline sense. It would be a condition, whereas works are causes. As suggested by Habakkuk 2:4 and Genesis 15:6, “faith” is Paul’s code word for the interpersonal situation; “works” is his code word for the legal situation (Romans 3:28). Inner and outer actions occur in both situations, but “works” are actions done in the context of law; hence, they have causal significance under law, because continuously doing everything commanded in the Law produces the person’s own perfect righteousness. In faith, however, people only “have faith” that their active concern for righteousness will be viewed graciously by the other Person and reckoned for what it seeks to be rather than is.
9There is nothing in baptism that implies automatic results. In a sense, there is more to baptism than identification with Christ, but anything “more” is within identification, not besides it.
10Some of these matters are worked out below in more detail under “Foreign Practices and Concepts.”
11Modern views of baptism have been historically conditioned. In the medieval church, salvation had come to be viewed and practiced in legal, institutional terms, and baptism along with it. By way of reaction, salvation—at least in some ways—began to be moved out of legal procedure; but since baptism had meantime been construed as a legal act, that feel for it continued. As a result, it was associated with the only thing in Christianity that could have the appearance of legality—church membership. Church membership, however, is a subsequent specific; and so there have been those who reacted again by associating baptism with a more important specific, namely, forgiveness of sins. This whole scenario has erred in two ways: (1) by making baptism a legal act and (2) by associating baptism with a specific consequence. The method of solution erred by being reactive rather than positive: It reacted to the contemporary situation (reformation) rather than making a positive start from New Testament teaching about first principles (restoration).
12For a more organized contrast between legal and interpersonal, see the essays “Law and Interpersonalism in Contrast” and “Types of Systems.”
13“Baptism in one Spirit into one body” would then refer to the logical movement from the second to third consequence of identity with Christ. The expression “baptism in the Spirit” would serve as equivalent terminology for “gift of the Spirit” in Acts 2:38. See under II, C, 10 for another way of understanding the 2 Corinthians 12:13 statement.
14The historical group of fellowships that designate themselves the “restoration movement” are rather unique among evangelicals in not having a doctrine of natural depravity. They have not seen in the historic fall any biblical indication that people have incurred an inheritable loss of ability in spiritual matters over what they had before Adam sinned. In its place they have put what can be called psychological depravity, which comes from each person’s own ingrained experience rather than from someone else’s inbred defect. What has come about by personal experience can be overcome by personal influence in contrast to supernatural miracle. The universal sinfulness of people and their inability to save themselves have been explained on other grounds than as results of depravity in ontic capacity. See What the Bible Says About Salvation, pp. 18-43, for one discussion of universal sinfulness and the impossibility of self-salvation.
15In Paul, works and faith do not correspond with inner and outer so as to make baptism a work. Works and faith differ by the settings in which they occur (law and interpersonalism respectively) and by the kind of connections they have with consequences (cause and conditionality respectively). The point is not what acts people do, but why they do them; the issue is what meaning and purpose the acts have, and how they relates to consequences. Such things are determined by the kind of system in which the acts stand, not by whether the acts are internal or external.
16“Water baptism” does designate John’s baptism (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:26, 31, 33; Acts 1:5; 11:16), but Christian baptism is not simply John’s baptism plus the gift of the Spirit. The twelve disciples of John in Acts 19:1-7 were baptized in the name of Jesus, which shows that the meaning of the two baptisms were parallel, not hierarchical. They had parallel meanings because they identified with separate persons. At most, John’s baptism was a repentance baptism with consequent forgiveness of sins. Christ’s baptism involves consequent forgiveness and relationship with the Spirit on the basis of identity with Christ.
christir.org