One Baptism for the Remission of Sins? In This Economy?
A Response to Luke Stamps of the Center of Baptist Renewal
The Center for Baptist Renewal published an article by Luke Stamps arguing that Baptists can and should affirm the Nicene Creed's statement of "One Baptism for the Remission of Sins." While this article won't be a point-by-point rebuttal, it will attempt to answer many of the arguments that Stamps makes. I've been very vocal in the debate over the Nicene Creed, and I believe an article, instead of a host of tweets, would be more beneficial to the discussion. Baptists have not and cannot affirm what the Nicene Creed means in the Baptism Clause.
Preface
To preface this discussion, I want to say emphatically that this is not about the Christological or Trinitarian statements in the Nicene Creed. I do not believe in EFS or any other acronyms it goes by. Not only do I affirm Nicene Christology and Trinitarianism, but I also affirm the Christology and Trinitarianism found in the Apostle's Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedonian Creed. Since my freshman year of college, I've practically had "Patrick's Bad Analogies" memorized, and I will quote it the second someone explains the Trinity in a way that denies Nicene/Athanasian/Chalcedonian Christology or Trinitarianism and punctuate it with calling the person "Patrick" in a bad Irish accent. These Creeds all rightly reflect what Scripture says about Christ and the Trinity. Where I believe it is wrong is concerning the ecclesiological statements. For the sake of this debate, please be gracious to your Baptist brothers who feel this way, and don't lump us in with the Arians.
Where We Agree
Stamps is correct that Baptists can affirm the statement "One Baptism for the remission of sins" because it's a Bible statement. Baptists do believe in "One Baptism." What we mean by that is we believe that immersions administered by any New Testament church are equally legitimate and identify us with our Lord and Savior. We do not believe in other modes of baptisms, like sprinkling or affusion. We also do not believe in a baptism of infants or unbelievers. We affirm one Baptism, that of a believer, by immersion, identifying himself with Christ through the administration of a local New Testament church.
Baptists also believe in "Baptism for the remission of sins." Stamps rightly points out that this is practically a direct quote from Scripture in Acts 2:38. Baptists have long toiled in this passage, specifically over the preposition εἰς. We've come to the proper conclusion that what "for" means is "because of." We believe in Baptism because of the remission of sins. As many good Baptist preachers have illustrated, for means the same thing as "Jessie James wanted for murder." It's "because of" not "in order to receive."
If you read Stamps's article, you're probably thinking, "Isn't that his argument? Why do you disagree with him?" The reason I disagree with Stamps is because of Authorial Intent.
Authorial Intent
In Biblical hermeneutics, I strongly advocate for "authorial intent," and I believe most Baptists have also historically. The basic concept of authorial intent is that what the person meant when they wrote is what it means forever. The reason I believe this about Scripture is actually because I believe it about every writing. There is no meaning if authorial intent is not the standard. Without the author's intended purpose, which can be ascertained either directly from the author or through historical and grammatical context, every book, paper, poem, or story means nothing. This concept is true even when the author purposefully writes something to be open for interpretation; that can only happen when the author intends for it. So, whenever we look at a historic document, we cannot have a reader's response hermeneutic; we have to search for the authorial intent.
My disagreement with Stamps rests on authorial intent. If the writers of the Nicene Creed of 381 intended for "One Baptism for the remission of sins" to be left for each individual or local church to interpret or for it to be the Baptist understanding of the phrase, Stamps is correct, and Baptists can affirm the statement. If the writers of the Nicene Creed meant for the statement not to be left up to interpretation and meant baptismal regeneration, Baptists must reject it wholesale.
So, let's go back to 381 and try to be a fly on the wall at the Council of Constantinople.
Historical Background
The original Nicene Creed from 325 did not include either of the ecclesiological statements.[1] The addition of "One Baptism for the remission of sins" was not accidental or off the cuff; rather, it was very purposeful to address groups with a "wrong" Baptism.
Arians and Modalists were not the only groups that the Council of Constantinople was addressing; they were also addressing schismatic groups such as the Novatians and Montanists, as seen in Canon 5.[2] The Novatians and Montanists, who among Baptist perpetuitists are considered Baptist predecessors, are not recorded as heretical in their Christology or Trinitarianism. The Council considered these groups to be among the heretical sects because these groups rejected the Baptism of lapse priests. The inclusion of "One Baptism" was not merely to quote Scripture and to have a "fuller" Creed but to anathematize groups that did not accept the centralized Catholic Church's Baptism.
The inclusion of "One" was to state plainly that this Baptism Clause was not up for interpretation. Theodosius 1, soon after the Council of Constantinople, would use the Nicene Creed as the standard to persecute and kill non-Nicene sects. The primary target of the Edict of Thessalonica was the Arians, but included in the persecution were the Novatians, whose only non-Nicene practice was Baptism outside the centralized Catholic Church. Stamps claims that the Baptism Clause is theologically underdetermined, but the emperor who called the Council certainly did not seem to think it was undetermined. As previously stated, the only way a statement can be open for interpretation is if the author or authors intended it to be. The Council had a set interpretation in mind of what was and wasn't acceptable Baptism.
The next question, then, is what did they have in mind?
Evidence of the Predominance of Baptismal Salvation
To preface this section, Stamps is correct that attributing a well-developed baptismal regeneration to these early Christians is anachronistic. Baptismal regeneration, especially post-Campbell, has taken on a definition that few, if any, early Christians would have in mind. A better phrase would be the term "Baptismal salvation." Baptismal salvation could be used to describe the belief that Baptism is required for salvation. It could also describe the belief that Baptism bestows salvific benefits. The latter is much more common among early Christians.
The Council of Constantinople had over 150 non-heretical bishops in attendance. This article would get very dull if I tracked down each of these bishops and described their baptismal theology. The good news is that, as the Center for Baptist Renewal has written, the Capedocian Fathers are the best representatives of the Nicene Creed.[3] Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus were instrumental in advocating for Nicene Christology. The latter two would be instrumental in developing the Nicene Creed of 381. What these three men write about Baptism should determine what the Council meant by "Baptism for the remission of sins."
Basil the Great, who died two years before the Council of Constantinople but still had great influence among the bishops attending, held to baptismal salvation. In his sermon "On Holy Baptism," Basil writes,
Art thou young? secure thy youth against vice, by the restraint which Baptism imposes. Has the vigor of life passed away? Do not neglect the necessary provision for thy journey: do not lose thy protection: do not consider the eleventh hour, as if it were the first; since it even behoves him who is beginning life, to have death before his eyes. If a physician should promise thee, by certain arts and devices, to change thee from an old to a young man, wouldst thou not eagerly desire the day to arrive on which thou wouldst find thy youthful vigor restored? Nevertheless, whilst Baptism promises to restore to her pristine vigor thy soul, which thy iniquities have brought to decrepitude, and covered with wrinkles and defilements, thou despisest thy benefactor, instead of hastening to receive the proffered boon. Art thou without any solicitude to witness the miraculous change which is promised — how one grown old, and wasted away by corrupting passions, can bud forth anew, and blossom, and attain to the true bloom of youth? Baptism is the ransom of captives, the remission of debts, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, the robe of light, the seal which cannot be broken, the chariot to heaven, the means to attain the kingdom, the gift of adoption. Dost thou think that pleasure is preferable to these and such like blessings? (Emphasis mine)[4]
Basil's view of Baptism is that it gives the remission of sins and the regeneration of the soul, and it is the chariot to heaven.
Gregory of Nyssa, the brother of Basil, was an important figure at the Council of Constantinople. When the first presiding officer, Meletius, died, Gregory was asked to give the eulogy. Gregory affirms Baptismal salvation as well. In his sermon, "On the Baptism of Christ," Gregory writes,
Baptism, then, is a purification from sins, a remission of trespasses, a cause of renovation and regeneration. By regeneration, understand regeneration conceived in thought, not discerned by bodily sight. (Emphasis mine)[5]
Gregory, after clarifying that it is not the water itself that does this work but God through the waters, writes,
Let us however, if it seems well, persevere in enquiring more fully and more minutely concerning Baptism, starting, as from the fountain-head, from the Scriptural declaration, Unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Why are both named, and why is not the Spirit alone accounted sufficient for the completion of Baptism? Man, as we know full well, is compound, not simple: and therefore the cognate and similar medicines are assigned for healing to him who is twofold and conglomerate:— for his visible body, water, the sensible element — for his soul, which we cannot see, the Spirit invisible, invoked by faith, present unspeakably. For the Spirit breathes where He wills, and you hear His voice, but cannot tell whence He comes or whither He goes. He blesses the body that is baptized, and the water that baptizes. Despise not, therefore, the Divine laver, nor think lightly of it, as a common thing, on account of the use of water. For the power that operates is mighty, and wonderful are the things that are wrought thereby. (Italics quoting Scripture) [6]
Gregory of Nyssa affirms that Baptism brings regeneration, the purification of sin, and remission of trespasses.
Gregory of Nazianzus is likely the most important of these three for this conversation, as he became the presiding officer of the Council of Constantinople after the death of Meletus. Gregory of Nazianzus also affirmed Baptismal salvation. In Oration 40 On Holy Baptism, sections 7 and 8, Gregory writes,
Such is the grace and power of Baptism; not an overwhelming of the world as of old, but a purification of the sins of each individual, and a complete cleansing from all the bruises and stains of sin.
And since we are double-made, I mean of body and soul, and the one part is visible, the other invisible, so the cleansing also is twofold, by water and the spirit; the one received visibly in the body, the other concurring with it invisibly and apart from the body; the one typical, the other real and cleansing the depths. And this which comes to the aid of our first birth, makes us new instead of old, and like God instead of what we now are; recasting us without fire, and creating us anew without breaking us up. For, to say it all in one word, the virtue of Baptism is to be understood as a covenant with God for a second life and a purer conversation. And indeed all need to fear this very much, and to watch our own souls, each one of us, with all care, that we do not become liars in respect of this profession.[7]
Gregory of Nazianzus affirms that God uses Baptism to remold us and create us anew.
Space does not allow exposing the many other early Christians, such as The Shepherd of Hermas, Athanasius, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and numerous councils that would quickly follow Constantinople, who affirmed such a grievous error. Not to mention also Constantine, who awaited Baptism until soon before he died to be cleansed of more sins. Even Theodious 1, the emperor who called the Council, was baptized late in life, seemingly to receive the forgiveness of sins.
The doctrinal error of baptismal salvation was not a late development; rather, it was among the first acceptable heresies in the Catholic Church. Unless cognitive dissonance prevailed among the two Gregories, the Nicene Creed of 381 affirms Baptismal salvation.
Why Baptists Must Reject It
Baptists have never held to any form of Baptismal salvation. We've never treated it as the conversion experience, as a way to receive regeneration, or as an entrance into heaven. Baptists have always believed that Baptism is a symbol of what God has wrought in a believer and bestows no blessing other than the blessings that come from every other act of obedience.
The Nicene Creed is not something Baptists are allowed to reinterpret so we can find ourselves among the "Great Tradition." To demand the ability to reinterpret the statement to fit our ecclesiology is to demand that Catholics and Protestants act like Baptists, which our belief in freedom of conscience precludes. The document belongs to the Council, and to those who can affirm every line of the Creed as the Council meant it. Baptists are not among them. To affirm this ecclesiological statement in the Nicene Creed would be to reject being Baptist, and to admit that the Catholics, the Protestants, and the Campbellites were right about us all along.
Why Baptists Shouldn't Fear Rejecting It
Baptist brothers, there is no fear in rejecting what the Council of Constantinople meant by "One Baptism for the remission of sins." That does not make us heretics or schismatics. It makes us Baptist. Being Baptist means that our sole authority is the word of God. As we study the word of God, we can observe great theologians, commentaries, confessions, and even Creeds to understand the word of God better. Yet, the second any of those things depart from the Bible, we reject it, no matter the cost. Baptists have always been called schismatics. Our Anabaptist forefathers were persecuted for that reason. The English Baptists were beaten for that. The Colonial Baptists were urinated on! Yet, they prevailed. To be faithful to the word of God is worth receiving any label the Catholics and her children, the Protestants, throw our way.
[1]“CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea,” accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11044a.htm.
[2]“CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381),” accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3808.htm.
[3]“Meet the Cappadocian Fathers,” Center For Baptist Renewal, last modified May 6, 2019, accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.centerforbaptistrenewal.com/blog/2019/5/6/meet-the-cappadocian-fathers.
[4] Saint Basil and Francis Patrick Kenrick, A Treatise on Baptism: With an Exhortation to Receive It, Translated from the Works of St. Basil the Great, to Which Is Added a Treatise on Confirmation (Philadelphia: M. Fithian, 1843). 233.
[5]“CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Christ (Gregory of Nyssa),” accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2910.htm#.
[6]“CHURCH FATHERS: On the Baptism of Christ (Gregory of Nyssa).”
[7]“CHURCH FATHERS: Oration 40 (Gregory Nazianzen),” accessed June 20, 2024, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310240.htm.