Thursday, June 19, 2003
Notes from Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of Baptism (Kasper, Walter)
Ecclesiological and Ecumenical Implications of Baptism
Kasper, Walter
Ecumenical Review
Oct2000, Vol. 52 Issue 4, p526-541, 16p
Despite the considerable consensus achieved by the Lima declaration Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), there are still many unresolved questions, such that all churches still do not recognise each others baptism. (p526)
The greatest differences are between the 'historic' churches and the Baptist, evangelical and Pentacostal churches. Apart from the question of 'believer's baptism' the biggest question is of the sacramental understanding of baptism.
There are also differences with certain Orthodox and Oriental churches that often require rebaptism of those coming from a different communion. The question is of the understanding of the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of baptism.
A third set of differences is where, despite baptismal recognition, there is not an agreement on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of that recognition. This includes the relation between baptism and confirmation, and especially baptism and eucharist. Baptismal recognition doesn't lead automatically to eucharistic admission. (p527)
Baptism is commanded by the Risen Lord in Matt 28:19, and it's practise is also done in the context of Jesus' own baptism, crucifixion, ressurection and exaltation, and in Acts 2:38-41 it is linked with forgiveness of sins and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is therefore indissolubly tied to the church's confession of Jesus Christ, and the trinitarian formula places it's meaning in the context of salvation history; the Father sends the Son to fulfil the eschatological promise of the Holy Spirit. Hence, historically, the baptismal liturgy was where the historical confessions were originally worked out, and baptism was the sacrament of faith. The baptismal command means that God takes the initiative in baptism, not the church, and hence is a promise that baptism effects salvation. (p528)
The significance of baptism to salvation is varied in the NT: forgiveness of sins and freedom from powers of evil: justification, reconciliation and sanctification: rebirth and renewal: enightenment and being sealed: placed in Jesus' hands: realising the death and ressurection: living a new life: recieving the Holy Spirit. Different churches may emphasise different aspects (highlighted by BEM), but today there is broad consensus on the content of the significance of baptism for salvation. There is, however, difference on the relation between baptism and salvation. Is baptism a sign (preliminary or subsequent) of salvation or a means (a therefore a sacrament) of salvation. In the NT baptism is an effective sign of salvation - it does what it symbolises (1 Cor 6:11; Heb 10:22; 1 Pet 3:21; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5). Baptism is therefore necessary for salvation, and rebaptism is wrong as salvation is a once-for-all event. (p529-530)
Baptism has an ecclesiological dimension. It is not just the salvation of the individual being baptised, but the addition of that person to the Christian community (Acts 2:41), their incorporation into the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Therefore the whole church celebrates baptism and the faith of the whole church is expressed in baptism, not just the one being baptised. The church isn't brought into being by people coming together, neither do we enter the church through baptism - we are accepted into the church as an existing reality of salvation. There are social consequences, especially the rejection of inequality on any basis (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). Baptism also involves us in the church's mission to the world, and is the foundation of the priesthood of all believers. Furthermore, baptism takes place in a local congregation, but is inclusion in the one indivisible body of Christ, and has importance beyond the specific communion that one joins. (p530)
The sacramental understanding of baptism is common to the historical churches of east and west. Baptism is understood primarily as an act of the triune God, whereby the Holy Spirit works through visible means. The church is the instrument of God in administering baptism (p531). There are differences however. The East maintains the unity of baptism and chrismation (confirmation), thus stressing the pneumatological dimension of baptism and church. This difference has had importance for the question of rebaptising former heretics and schismatics. In the West, following Pope Stephen I, what was important was baptism in the triune name and Augustine maintained that it is Jesus himself who baptises. Hence baptism by heretics is valid, and only laying on of hands is required (p531-532).
In the East there have been a number of positions. Following Cyprian of Carthage, a heretic stands outside the church and so does not possess the Spirit and so cannot impart the Spirit. Following Basil of Ceasarea, baptism was only invalid where there was a different belief in God and the Trinity. There has been much vacilation between the hard and soft position. For Orthodoxy what is important is not just the faith of the recipent of baptism, but the faith of the minister and the church that administers baptism. This concern may remain relevent where the historical Christian understanding of God is lost. (p531-534)
The 16th century Lutheran Reformation kept the sacramental understanding of baptism; the Holy Spirit is given through word and sacrament. However, Luther introduces a new context. It is the Word of God that promises and justifies, the sacrament is the God-given sign of the promise which is received in faith in the divine promise. The Word and the Sacrament are thus related to each other (p534), and are the work of God. For Calvin also baptism remains God's affair and is the promise, pledge and symbol of salvation. In Calvin's system baptism by the Spirit and baptism by water operate alongside and with each other, rather than in each other. Both Luther and Calvin recognise an objective character to baptism, as shown by their commitment to infant baptism. (p534-535)
Zwingli broke with tradition and led the way away from a sacramental understanding of baptism to a purely symbolic understanding. The focus is on baptism as an act of the believer rather than an act of God. It is the believer's sign of commitment and confession. This led to the radical position of the Mennonite and Baptist movements which rejected infant baptism and required adult - or believers - baptism. (p535)
The understanding of baptism as an act of the believer has ecclesiological consequences. The church ceases to be the organism through which God bestows salvation, and ceases to be the place of salvation into which the baptised person is received. Incorporation into the church has been replaced with freely-chosen entry into the church, and the church is thus a free association of believers - a voluntary organisation, a congregationalist church. It also has consequences for church-state relations, for if membership of the church is on a voluntary basis this weakens the principle of establishment where membership of the church is tied to membership of society. Such churches no longer understand themselves as being continuous with the historic church. (p535)
The evangelical and Pentacostal churches have followed in this tradition. Because baptism is not seen as an objective means of salvation there is emphasis on an individuals subjective experience of rebirth, Spirit baptism and charismatic gifts. These churches have rediscovered an openness to the Spirit's spontaneous working which perhaps the historical churches have forgotten with their emphasis on the Spirit's work through the sacraments (my comment).
The free church doctrine of Baptism was raised to a new prominence by Karl Barth, who clearly distinguishes baptism with the Spirit and baptism with water. Spirit baptism is an effective, causative and creative act of God on the believer. Water baptism is the believer's obedient response to Spirit baptism, and not sacramental. Infant baptism obscures the element of obedient response, and the church should be free of ties to the state.
There are also liberal elements in the historic churches that have abandoned the sacramental view of baptism. Nevertheless, in the Baptist, evangelical and Pentacostal churches some individuals have recently been raising the issue of the sacramental nature of baptism. (p536)
It is clear that the church's understanding of baptism has consequences for it's understanding of what the church is, and its relation to the state and society in general. (p537)
Baptism also needs to be considered in connection with confirmation/chrismation and the eucharist. The historical churches generally agree that incorporation into the church by baptism imparts the Spirit and is linked to participation in the eucharist. The Orthodox churches administer chrismation and eucharist to the newly baptized, as does the Roman Catholic church for adult baptisms, which emphasises the pneumatalogical dimension of baptism and maintains the unity of the sacraments. However, for infant baptisms the RC and Reformed churches administer confirmation and eucharist later on. This emphasises the growth to maturity of the believer, baptism is the beginning, eucharist is the fullness. Eucharist should also be open to those capable of recognising the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:26-29) and able to examine themselves in light of this. (p537)
On the question of eucharistic fellowship, until recently the RC, Orthodox and Reformation churches agreed on the conjunction of communion and eucharistic fellowship; there could be no eucharistic sharing outside one's communion. Since the mid 20th century the Protestant churches have departed from this understanding. Jesus is the giver and gift in the eucharist, so the church cannot exclude. However, in the sacramental view the church manifests Christ and is the sacramental sign and instrument of Christ. Fellowship in Christ and church fellowship cannot be separated, and this cannot be separated from the eucharist. Eucharist is a sacrament of an already existing unity, and hence cannot be shared outside of the unity of the particular communion. (p538)
Ecumenical discussion needs to resolve the fault lines concerning the sacramental view of baptism and the church.
Kasper, Walter
Ecumenical Review
Oct2000, Vol. 52 Issue 4, p526-541, 16p
Despite the considerable consensus achieved by the Lima declaration Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (1982), there are still many unresolved questions, such that all churches still do not recognise each others baptism. (p526)
The greatest differences are between the 'historic' churches and the Baptist, evangelical and Pentacostal churches. Apart from the question of 'believer's baptism' the biggest question is of the sacramental understanding of baptism.
There are also differences with certain Orthodox and Oriental churches that often require rebaptism of those coming from a different communion. The question is of the understanding of the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of baptism.
A third set of differences is where, despite baptismal recognition, there is not an agreement on the ecclesiological presuppositions and consequences of that recognition. This includes the relation between baptism and confirmation, and especially baptism and eucharist. Baptismal recognition doesn't lead automatically to eucharistic admission. (p527)
Baptism is commanded by the Risen Lord in Matt 28:19, and it's practise is also done in the context of Jesus' own baptism, crucifixion, ressurection and exaltation, and in Acts 2:38-41 it is linked with forgiveness of sins and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Baptism is therefore indissolubly tied to the church's confession of Jesus Christ, and the trinitarian formula places it's meaning in the context of salvation history; the Father sends the Son to fulfil the eschatological promise of the Holy Spirit. Hence, historically, the baptismal liturgy was where the historical confessions were originally worked out, and baptism was the sacrament of faith. The baptismal command means that God takes the initiative in baptism, not the church, and hence is a promise that baptism effects salvation. (p528)
The significance of baptism to salvation is varied in the NT: forgiveness of sins and freedom from powers of evil: justification, reconciliation and sanctification: rebirth and renewal: enightenment and being sealed: placed in Jesus' hands: realising the death and ressurection: living a new life: recieving the Holy Spirit. Different churches may emphasise different aspects (highlighted by BEM), but today there is broad consensus on the content of the significance of baptism for salvation. There is, however, difference on the relation between baptism and salvation. Is baptism a sign (preliminary or subsequent) of salvation or a means (a therefore a sacrament) of salvation. In the NT baptism is an effective sign of salvation - it does what it symbolises (1 Cor 6:11; Heb 10:22; 1 Pet 3:21; Eph 5:26; Tit 3:5). Baptism is therefore necessary for salvation, and rebaptism is wrong as salvation is a once-for-all event. (p529-530)
Baptism has an ecclesiological dimension. It is not just the salvation of the individual being baptised, but the addition of that person to the Christian community (Acts 2:41), their incorporation into the church as the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Therefore the whole church celebrates baptism and the faith of the whole church is expressed in baptism, not just the one being baptised. The church isn't brought into being by people coming together, neither do we enter the church through baptism - we are accepted into the church as an existing reality of salvation. There are social consequences, especially the rejection of inequality on any basis (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11). Baptism also involves us in the church's mission to the world, and is the foundation of the priesthood of all believers. Furthermore, baptism takes place in a local congregation, but is inclusion in the one indivisible body of Christ, and has importance beyond the specific communion that one joins. (p530)
The sacramental understanding of baptism is common to the historical churches of east and west. Baptism is understood primarily as an act of the triune God, whereby the Holy Spirit works through visible means. The church is the instrument of God in administering baptism (p531). There are differences however. The East maintains the unity of baptism and chrismation (confirmation), thus stressing the pneumatological dimension of baptism and church. This difference has had importance for the question of rebaptising former heretics and schismatics. In the West, following Pope Stephen I, what was important was baptism in the triune name and Augustine maintained that it is Jesus himself who baptises. Hence baptism by heretics is valid, and only laying on of hands is required (p531-532).
In the East there have been a number of positions. Following Cyprian of Carthage, a heretic stands outside the church and so does not possess the Spirit and so cannot impart the Spirit. Following Basil of Ceasarea, baptism was only invalid where there was a different belief in God and the Trinity. There has been much vacilation between the hard and soft position. For Orthodoxy what is important is not just the faith of the recipent of baptism, but the faith of the minister and the church that administers baptism. This concern may remain relevent where the historical Christian understanding of God is lost. (p531-534)
The 16th century Lutheran Reformation kept the sacramental understanding of baptism; the Holy Spirit is given through word and sacrament. However, Luther introduces a new context. It is the Word of God that promises and justifies, the sacrament is the God-given sign of the promise which is received in faith in the divine promise. The Word and the Sacrament are thus related to each other (p534), and are the work of God. For Calvin also baptism remains God's affair and is the promise, pledge and symbol of salvation. In Calvin's system baptism by the Spirit and baptism by water operate alongside and with each other, rather than in each other. Both Luther and Calvin recognise an objective character to baptism, as shown by their commitment to infant baptism. (p534-535)
Zwingli broke with tradition and led the way away from a sacramental understanding of baptism to a purely symbolic understanding. The focus is on baptism as an act of the believer rather than an act of God. It is the believer's sign of commitment and confession. This led to the radical position of the Mennonite and Baptist movements which rejected infant baptism and required adult - or believers - baptism. (p535)
The understanding of baptism as an act of the believer has ecclesiological consequences. The church ceases to be the organism through which God bestows salvation, and ceases to be the place of salvation into which the baptised person is received. Incorporation into the church has been replaced with freely-chosen entry into the church, and the church is thus a free association of believers - a voluntary organisation, a congregationalist church. It also has consequences for church-state relations, for if membership of the church is on a voluntary basis this weakens the principle of establishment where membership of the church is tied to membership of society. Such churches no longer understand themselves as being continuous with the historic church. (p535)
The evangelical and Pentacostal churches have followed in this tradition. Because baptism is not seen as an objective means of salvation there is emphasis on an individuals subjective experience of rebirth, Spirit baptism and charismatic gifts. These churches have rediscovered an openness to the Spirit's spontaneous working which perhaps the historical churches have forgotten with their emphasis on the Spirit's work through the sacraments (my comment).
The free church doctrine of Baptism was raised to a new prominence by Karl Barth, who clearly distinguishes baptism with the Spirit and baptism with water. Spirit baptism is an effective, causative and creative act of God on the believer. Water baptism is the believer's obedient response to Spirit baptism, and not sacramental. Infant baptism obscures the element of obedient response, and the church should be free of ties to the state.
There are also liberal elements in the historic churches that have abandoned the sacramental view of baptism. Nevertheless, in the Baptist, evangelical and Pentacostal churches some individuals have recently been raising the issue of the sacramental nature of baptism. (p536)
It is clear that the church's understanding of baptism has consequences for it's understanding of what the church is, and its relation to the state and society in general. (p537)
Baptism also needs to be considered in connection with confirmation/chrismation and the eucharist. The historical churches generally agree that incorporation into the church by baptism imparts the Spirit and is linked to participation in the eucharist. The Orthodox churches administer chrismation and eucharist to the newly baptized, as does the Roman Catholic church for adult baptisms, which emphasises the pneumatalogical dimension of baptism and maintains the unity of the sacraments. However, for infant baptisms the RC and Reformed churches administer confirmation and eucharist later on. This emphasises the growth to maturity of the believer, baptism is the beginning, eucharist is the fullness. Eucharist should also be open to those capable of recognising the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:26-29) and able to examine themselves in light of this. (p537)
On the question of eucharistic fellowship, until recently the RC, Orthodox and Reformation churches agreed on the conjunction of communion and eucharistic fellowship; there could be no eucharistic sharing outside one's communion. Since the mid 20th century the Protestant churches have departed from this understanding. Jesus is the giver and gift in the eucharist, so the church cannot exclude. However, in the sacramental view the church manifests Christ and is the sacramental sign and instrument of Christ. Fellowship in Christ and church fellowship cannot be separated, and this cannot be separated from the eucharist. Eucharist is a sacrament of an already existing unity, and hence cannot be shared outside of the unity of the particular communion. (p538)
Ecumenical discussion needs to resolve the fault lines concerning the sacramental view of baptism and the church.
