Shepherds College: Systematic Theology Session 21

Conclusion: Baptism as the Means of Grace When speaking of God’s salvation in Jesus Christ, failure to distinguish the means from the ground, or instrument from basis, or intermediary cause from efficient cause wreaks havoc in Christian theology, in the church, and in the lives of individuals within the church. Some Christians, zealous to guard God’s grace against any intrusion of works, regularly confuse faith and grace. Despite Paul’s distinction of grace as the ground and faith as the means in Eph 2:8–9, they carelessly speak of faith as the basis of salvation and isolate faith from other biblically sanctioned means. Other Christians fail to account for Peter’s startling words—“baptism now saves you”—as they confidently assert that baptism has nothing to do with salvation and that the gospel of Jesus Christ does not require it, except perhaps as a mere symbol, and that for church membership. Regrettably, confusion of instrumental cause and efficient cause leads some to regard baptism as itself accomplishing regeneration, and others to make baptism optional, with little, if any, meaning. The apostles make it clear that God saves whom and when he chooses, and that baptism is a sign of, but not the effectual cause of, regeneration. Yet, to embrace this truth and simultaneously isolate baptism from Christian conversion, whether in time or in theological expression, is an over-reaction to those embracing “baptismal regeneration.” Worse, it divorces a symbol and reality that the NT holds together without embarrassment. The church and individual Christians suffer the consequences. This overly-zealous isolation of the symbol of baptism has degraded the distinguishing value and function of the symbol for individual believers and for the church. Ironically, since the Second Great Awakening, this same zeal has permitted “new measures” of various kinds, such as the “mourners’ bench,” the “invitation system,” or a recited “sinner’s prayer” to displace baptism as the rite of conversion, thus shirking and even marginalizing Christ’s command to the church. Zeal to avoid “baptismal regeneration,” which many perceived to be the necessary consequence of Alexander Campbell’s teaching, actually spawned another error, “decisional regeneration.” This was an error rooted in revivalism that is now a traditional element in American evangelicalism. If the former error is to relegate regenerating efficacy to the rite of baptism itself, the latter error assigns the same efficacy to the human decision to act upon whichever measures preachers may use. The Enlightenment’s high estimation of the power of human choice took root in the frontier American church. Regrettably, evangelical churches yielded to confluent streams of revivalism and Enlightenment influences. Though Alexander Campbell unwittingly yielded to the Enlightenment’s overconfidence in human reason, he rightly opposed the introduction of “new measures” that began to impoverish churches by the acceptance of conversions that did not yield transformed people. Understandably, Campbell’s “reformist” manner, tone, and zeal frequently repelled his contemporaries, so that even some Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006). Page 1. Exported from Logos Bible Software, 11:05 AM January 26, 2017. who followed him for some time eventually parted ways with him and his followers. Thus, two traditions—evangelicalism and the Stone-Campbell movement-developed side by side in America, occasionally sparring over baptism, but mostly ignoring each other as each group turned inward to tend to internal disputes. It is commendable that rapprochement has been taking place between the Stone-Campbell movement and evangelicalism, particularly among scholars, if theological correctives come to both sides. Stone-Campbell exegetes and theologians have been reevaluating and refining their formulations concerning baptism. Conversation with those of the Stone-Campbell tradition should prompt evangelicals to restore a higher “baptismal consciousness” and to represent more carefully the baptismal beliefs of Alexander Campbell and his heirs (true as it is that some have justly received criticism for propounding baptismal regeneration). This is not to suggest that we pursue a unity that suppresses the significance of baptism. Because baptism is commanded by the Lord Jesus, it is a matter of the first order in Christian practice. Though agreement on form of administration of baptism will be hard to achieve among churches of diverse traditions, all Christians ought to pursue a “single theology of baptism,” as David Wright contends, for the apostle’s words make it clear that there is but “one baptism” (Eph 4:4–6). Paul’s words ring with clarity and force beckoning us to a persistent endeavor to recognize and to retrieve our unity and then “to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (4:3). As with all theological squabbles, disputes over baptism have tended to push opposing views toward extremes. One isolates baptism from repentance, disconnecting baptism from the making of disciples and associating baptism at most with church membership. Such an approach deprecates baptism’s significance and urgency as authorized by Christ (Matt 28:19–20). Some even neglect baptism altogether as they ascribe to human decision an efficacy to bring regeneration (“decisional regeneration”). Another view isolates baptism from the multifaceted call of the gospel that ascribes to baptism a power that it does not have in itself since it is a sign or symbol and not the reality of cleansing itself. Undoubtedly, both sides mean well, but the consequences of the two errors persist longer than the theological squabbles that spawn them. This essay has focused on the theological formulations of the clearest, most careful, and most articulate representatives within the Stone-Campbell tradition. Many readers may dispute its assessment of the Stone-Campbell tradition concerning baptism. It must be admitted that at the popular level many preachers and members of Christian Churches, the Churches of Christ, and the Disciples of Christ describe baptism as effectual. From the beginning of the Restoration movement, Alexander Campbell was careful to articulate his beliefs concerning baptism, making it clear that he did not hold that baptism itself regenerates. At least some who associated with and have followed him, however, have lacked the Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006). Page 2. Exported from Logos Bible Software, 11:05 AM January 26, 2017. same clarity, prompting allegations that the movement’s leaders taught that baptism itself regenerates. That two large and well-known churches in the Stone-Campbell tradition take considerable measures to denounce “baptismal regeneration” is evidence that the tradition continues to suffer under the weight of being accused of advocating such a belief. These allegations are not pure fabrications. This essay has shown, however, that it is both historical and theological malpractice for Baptists and others to impute to Alexander Campbell the flaws of his theological heirs. The overwhelming and popular assumption among American evangelicals is that the official dogma of churches in the Stone-Campbell tradition is that baptism regenerates. Perusal of pamphlets and books as well as a search of internet resources readily demonstrates this. The slapdash manner with which many evangelicals judge the entire Restoration movement concerning baptism is regrettable. Diverse as Baptists are, it would be unreasonable, irresponsible, and unkind for anyone to judge all Southern Baptists, for example, as holding the views of Landmark Baptists, of Reformed Baptists, of American Baptists, or of any other variety of Baptists. Diversity exists even among Southern Baptists. Diversity also exists among the heirs of the Stone-Campbell Restoration tradition. Therefore, Christian charity should govern evangelicals, especially ministers and theologians, as we assess the StoneCampbell tradition concerning baptism by engaging the most biblically and theologically informed leaders in that tradition. Anyone in that tradition who advocates the notion that baptism itself is effectual to save actually diverges from Alexander Campbell’s teachings as preserved in his writings. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright, Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2006). Page 3. Exported from Logos Bible Software, 11:05 AM January 26, 2017.