- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostRepentance, Reform & Baptism
- Next Post »Need GMail?
Baptism: Sacrament or Ordinance?
- 07/28/04
- 8
Today I am going to carry on the discussion of baptism that I began yesterday. Or more correctly, I will begin it again. Yesterday I asked some questions that were of a rambling nature rather than being presented logically. Today I am going to try to bring a more systematic approach to the different views of baptism. Time does not allow me to do so exhaustively, but at the same time I will try to avoid painting a mere caricature of the different approaches.
One question that arose in the discussion was whether baptism is a sacrament or an ordinance. Therein lies one of the main differences between Reformed baptism and the "baptist" form of baptism that most evangelical churches practice. Reformed churches consider baptism to be a sacrament whereas Baptist churches regard it as an ordinance. The same holds true of the Lord's Supper. I am going to present a couple of definitions for each of those terms. The first is from Miriam-Websters and the second from Dictionary.com.
Ordinance:
1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament
- An authoritative command or order.
- A custom or practice established by long usage.
- A Christian rite, especially the Eucharist.
- A statute or regulation, especially one enacted by a city government.
Sacrament:
1 a : an authoritative decree or direction : b : a law set forth by a governmental authority; specifically : a municipal regulation
2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity
3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony
Christianity. A rite believed to be a means of or visible form of grace, especially:
- In the Eastern, Roman Catholic, and some other Western Christian churches, any of the traditional seven rites that were instituted by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament and that confer sanctifying grace.
- In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
- A religious rite similar to a Christian sacrament, as in character or meaning.
The significant difference between the two terms is God's role in the act. When viewed as sacramental, baptism is more than an act of man - it is a means by which God conveys grace. When viewed as an ordinance, baptism is the testimony of the person being baptized. While it points back to an act of God in the person's life, God plays no role in the baptism - it is an act by a man (usually a pastor) performed on a man (the person being baptized).
I will look briefly at the different views of baptism, first discussing the Reformed view and then turning to the Baptist view.
Signs & Seals
We can get a Reformed perspective on the word sacrament through the Westminster Confession which reads "Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word."
Two important things we need to notice here. First, sacraments are signs. This means that they point to something other than themselves. Think of an exit sign that points towards a door. The sign itself is not the exit - it merely points the way to the exit. Similarly a sacrament points to something greater. Sacraments are also seals which means that God signifies that the person receiving the sacrament has the quality it signifies. So the seal points back to the sign. An illustration of a seal is a diploma. I will quote from Bob Burridge:
When someone receives a diploma upon graduation, the diploma certifies that he has completed the course of instruction as recognized by the faculty and board of the institution granting the degree. If a person forges a diploma or has misrepresented himself to the institution, the certificate does not make him qualified in the field it represents. It would be a serious crime and offense to the institution to make such a false claim. Similarly, someone who wrongly receives a sacrament offends God and does not bring the blessings promised upon himself. Instead he calls down the wrath of God upon himself for his false claim. But when a child of God receives the sacrament rightly administered by God's prescription he receives that blessing which is represented by the sign upon the authority of God who instituted it.
In this sense we say that a sacrament is a means of grace. It does not convey the grace by its outward application. But God uses the sacrament, when rightly applied and received, as a means by which he dispenses his grace to the recipient.
Big Words
Let's turn back to the Westminster Confession.
There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.
I am going to introduce two words that describe two different views on the sacraments.
Sacerdotalism - This is the view that the Roman Catholic Church holds to. In this view the sacraments have the power to actually convey the blessings they signify. So the sacrament has the power to confer the grace which it signifies. This is the view the Reformers fought against.
Memorialism - This is the view of the vast majority of Protestant churches, including most Baptist and evangelical churches. In this view the sacraments have no real power, but are merely memorials, object lessons, which teach something about God. This view arose in opposition to the Catholic view.
The Reformed Position
The Reformed position stands apart from these two views. As the Confession said, there is a sacramental union (or spiritual relationship) between the sign and the thing signified. So when a sacrament is properly administered, there is a real and effectual promise attached to it. The effect that will be derived from the act will be from God alone. This is not to say that baptism removes sin or conveys salvation, but it is to say that there is some spiritual advantage to being baptized. Similarly, there is a spiritual advantage to participating in the Lord's Supper. More than merely signifying something, baptism actually conveys something.
Because of the sacramental nature of baptism and Lord's Supper, Reformed churches traditionally try to ensure that they are properly administered. This means that, based on the Biblical example, only church officials (pastors and elders) may administer the sacraments. They strive to ensure that only those who Biblically qualify for them are included. Improper administration of the sacraments is considered blasphemous.
The Baptist View
Having briefly examined the Reformed view of baptism, let's take a quick look at the Baptist view. As we have stated already, Reformed theology refers to baptism as a sacrament where Baptist theology refers to it as an ordinance.
Here is a typical statement of what Baptist churches believe about baptism (as found at the Web site for the Canadian Convention of Southern Baptists):
Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified buried and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin the burial of the old life and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.
Baptism, then, is not a means by which God conveys grace, but is a testimony of a person who has believed. It is a sign, but not a seal. Where sacraments revolve around what God does, ordinances revolve around what man does and what God did. I am going to quote David Heddle who studied this topic just a few weeks ago: "When reduced to merely an ordinance, baptism and communion are no longer about what God does, but what man does. There is nothing supernatural occurring, as if the supernatural realm were off limits to the Creator of the universe, God merely observes as we commemorate His work. An ordinance is actor-centered."
My View
So where do my beliefs lie? I guess since I have taken the time to write all of this I should identify what I believe. So here goes. As a Reformed believer attending a Baptist church I struggle with this on an on-going basis. I have trouble viewing baptism as a mere ordinance. It may come from the Word or even from the way I was raised, but reducing baptism to anything less than a sacrament, a means of grace, just does not seem right. But I continue to struggle with it. At this time I cannot definitively say what I believe.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Comments (8)
Hi ! I just read your article comparing ordinances with sacraments. I recently graduated from seminary where the word "Sacrament" was used exclusively. This is an ecumenical school, but in teh tradition of the Congregational church. I am an American Baptist. I grew up in the Wesleyan church and the word "ordinance" was never used, to my knowledge. I only knew the word sacrament for the events of baptism and communion. However, in writing my ordination paper, I was pounced on by EVERY single reader (all ABC) who said "We are BAPTISTS - we don't use the word sacrament." So, I changed it to ordinance, as it make no diference SEMANTICALLY. Having read your column though, I do see that I believe in baptism as a step the individual takes for him/herself, and an outward SIGN....however, I also believe that it is God's grace that makes it possible...also in Communion - so it's still a mystery to me, as well!! Nice blog.....
Bette
I just ran across your blog, hope you're still hot on this topic!! So much on the Internet is old when I finally get to it. I was raised in the Roman Catholic tradition, so I was raised having been deeply immersed in all the sacraments. I then "jumped the fence" when I recommitted my life to Christ and spent many years in the Baptist tradition where sacraments were off limits absolutely. During those many years, when studying Scripture such as John 6 and Romans 6-8 I would find myself wondering how in the world Baptist and evangelical people could possibly not see and experience the deeply mystical union of God and man, especially in baptism and communion. Then our family moved to a church in the Reformed tradition, and THATs where I've found a home. I believe in the Reformed tradition, sacrament is explained and practiced in the way the scriptures intend. It's a sign of the deeply mysterious union with God that we could NEVER explain well theologically or even in a Sunday school lesson but we can experience all the time!! And the best part is that we don't have to apologize because we can't fully understand it. Isn't the Lord great?
Wow, I am glad I am not the only one struggling with this. I became a Christian at 18 after being an atheist. I joined a Baptist church and always felt like there was something hollow about the way baptism and the Lord's Supper were regarded. Scripture pictures baptism as an urgent and strongly desired practice, rather than the "symbol of obedience" that it was in the Baptist churches I attended. The Lord's Supper also seems to be much more than a remembrance. A mere remembrance does not permit one to drink judgement upon himself (1 Cor 11:29).
I began attending a Lutheran church because I felt they had a more scriptural view of these issues than the Baptists. However, I was uncomfortable with some related doctrines (infant baptism but a reluctance to baptize adults, for example). Also, my wife was just uncomfortable in that particular church. We ended up in a reformed Baptist church, but they stress the "ordinance" aspect, which separates them from the "fully" reformed traditions, I suppose.
What is interesting about the Reformed tradition concerning these issues is that it is unbiblical and I will state why. Never are Baptism and the Lord's supper ever refered to as mysteries; Therefore, we can safely refer to them as Baptism and the Lord's Supper not mysteries or sacrements. We should not go beyond what is written. The mystery refered to in the New Testament is Christ, whom no man knows by nature and who must be received by divine revelation: the Word of God. That Phillip the evangelist (deacon) Baptized the eunich and Moses' wife Zippora circumcised their son--Baptism being the NT equivalent of OT Circumcision (Col. 2)--should silence forever the Reformed notion of their performance only by pastors and elders, and yet they (the Reformed) persist in this unbiblical notion.
What is seldom said by so called Sacrementarians is that the efficacy of Baptism and the Lord's Supper lies not in the sign itself but in the WORDS OF INSTITUTION, i.e., God's Word. These words are spiritual words and with the sign draw our attention beyond the sign to what is signified. So it is the Word that is powerful. The Spirit of God does not inhabit bread, wine, or water, but He does operate through the hearing of the Word. So, what is conveyed is conveyed by God through his Word. It is the Word that gives these institutions there efficacy. Without the Word we would be just drinking wine and eating bread or taking a bath or shower.
What is even more humorous is that God decides when and to whom His Word is efficacious, by His Spirit. So, as far as the institutions conferring grace, it should be remembered, it is by the Word, if God so chooses.
Eric
Is there anything that you can do to save yourself or is it God that saves you alone by grace through faith? If there something you could do...if you could be good enough or smart enough or say the right things to receive God's gift of eternal life then the cross was not necessary. God's sacrafice was not necessary and we could have done it another way.
I think we would all agree as Christians that this is not true. So why do we think that we can do it through baptism by anything of our own doing? If we need to believe first and then be baptized then we are taking the precious gift of baptism away from God. We are presupposing that we can do something good to earn favor with God for our own salvalation. It has to be God working this through us. It has to be about God's gift to us or else we are just doing something to earn our own salvalation. This would have made the cross insignificant....
"Whosoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." Baptism is critical, but it has to be a gift from God and not a work...
One thought regarding believer's baptism. Even if it is "only" an ordinance, something supernatural is happening - a sinner who is by nature disobedient to God is obeying his Word and publicly demonstrating death, spiritual birth, and a new life! That doesn't confer anything on the one being baptized necessarily, but it sure does bring glory to our Savior!!
I love this discussion because everyone is trying to be civil towards each other. Baptism was so important to the Ethopian eunuch that he requested that Philip do it immediately and not wait another minute longer. We are commanded to go to all nations teaching and baptizing them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. And furthermore, Jesus himself said that "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." If this was to mean that whoever was baptized by the Holy Spirit and not necessarly physical water, then what was John the Baptist doing for all those years?
There is a real problem with beliver baptism being the only true baptism.
-Historically this is just not true. Although the Bible does not say that infants should be baptized, and every baptism says "...they came to believe and then they were baptized", the early church saw it a different way. Poylcarp, a disciple of John's was baptized as an infant. If this was not valid then don't you think that John would have required him to be baptized again once he was "old enough" to believe. We have also uncovered tombs of infants from the 1st and 2nd century that speek of the baptism of that child. It is really a fascinating thing to research. I beg you to take a look at the history of baptism... This idea of immersion only and "believer" baptism, came around after 1500 years of the church. If I am wrong about baptism then I will be wrong with the 1st century Christians.
-Second, when is someone old enough to believe? What about 3, 4, 5....or 12. When is that child old enough to believe. If it is so important then at what age does it become important. Aren't we all born into sin? What does it mean to put off the old Adam if it does not mean that we are by nature sinful and in need of God's grace.
I firmly stand with the early church fathers and say that baptism is a sacrament and it is "supernatural". It is God's precious gift to us and by no means do we deserve or earn that right to be called His children. It is by His grace alone that He sent Jesus to die for our sins. We deserve death, but God gives us life.
When you were born did your parents welcome you into their family even though you were just an infant, or did they wait until you were old enough to know that you were a part of the family before they welcomed you to be part of it? Then why is it so hard to believe that God could do the same thing?
Maybe helpful...
Forgive me for being a little late to this one.
There are unbiblical doctrines which greatly inhibit discussion on these matters, (infant baptism justified/ predicated upon "[flesh] seed of the Church" theology, itself made by appealing to "the promise to Abraham's [fleshly] seed", (which contradicts Paul who says not the seed of the flesh!)). This is not only wresting scripture to a huge extent (and ignores Romans 9), but awefully, it falsely assures many so-called Christians, even in the Reformed Churches, who look to their baptism for the security, and the impartation, of their salvation, and also to comfort themselves over their children as automatically saved because of being born to believers. (Sorry, but I just want to be frank.) I call this truly denying Children from coming to Christ (as many Reformed say "credobaptists" do), and it's honestly wickedness, and at worst a denial of the gospel. It's saddening, maddening, and frustrates people from real trust.
Thus the things at stake in the baptism war, and it is a war, "contend for the faith", (man-made and false doctrines, which are vain speculations, spread like gangrene, paraphrasing this fellow, http://www.thefaithfulword.org/quarreling.html who discusses quarreling vs. edification, what they aren/'t, and what's significant and not; it's a "war" in the sense when what's unbiblical has gotten to the point of replacing Christ's words and news).
This might help. Some of the reformed minds recognize that in the way baptism is used, they say, it's used as a state describing the believer; this is evident in the scripture that those baptized are baptized into Christ's death. This I appreciate the "Reformed" for (that in parenthesis because technically, the original baptists, and their doctrinal descendants, are just non-paedobaptistic Reformed!). What helps the "Reformed" see this is the necessity, because inarguably, either biblically or from the use of the word (unless dubious appeals are made to debated text-critical passages and misunderstandings of how Pharisees washed their hands), "baptize" means "immerse", "submerge", and a genuine scholar would not sanely argue against the word's meaning (or they'd lose all integrity). Thus, there is desperate searching for special use in scripture...which one can find, in fact, see (i.e. that baptism is also used of the state a believer is in).
Truly though that there is that use of the word, that notion that baptism IS a state the believer is in, there is, however, that we are still commanded to "make disciples", and one of the qualification (a subjugate clause that explains "make disciples", not a command itself as english makes it appear) is "baptizing them in the name of the father, and of the son, and of the Holy Spirit". In this vein it is an ordinance, in a sense; as part of "making disciples" we something that signifies something, we baptize people. That's the "dip 'em" lexical (and use) meaning of the word. Now the "Reformed" position here will flail if they still want to argue against baptizing only believers, not only because the command is "repent and be baptized EVERY ONE of you", and that the argument of audo-induction into Church of the believers' children fails Biblical scrutiny, but because it should be immediately apparent to us that we cannot ourselves baptize anyone into the "state" of baptism as scripture describes: that's God's work; this makes the "mode is unimportant" dodging by Reformed today, once they've given up all hope of defending their position, ('immerse away', one such man put it after being rebuked), evidently a dodge-of-accountability to God's word.
Words have senses, including in scripture: in defending unbiblical practices and beliefs (Paul, "wranglings", "useless chatter") it inevitably leads to the corruption of passages of scripture one must necessarily co-opt to support one's position. Sometimes it strangely leads also to people exposing a sense by paying extra careful attention to the uses in the attempt to defend one's own position, but sadly not enough people then submit and repent: there's too much "Reformed Tradition" vs. "Baptist Tradition" (which interesting is itself "reformed" in almost everything except things like Baptism!), vs. "let's not make the Bible be on our side, but strive to be on its side, subjugated". It's fine to defend one's position if you're on Scripture's side already (which I believe many Christians probably are in many things), but if you're pseudo-obedient, which you could be, you have to really be wary, and check yourself.
So to sum-up: "Baptism", in scripture, is used both to describe a believer's state in Christ, as well as to qualify a command (that is, it's part of an ordinance-not itself, independently, an ordinance, as Paul said, He was sent to preach, not baptize); the ordinance itself signifies this state. There, I think, is the solution to this "problem" (which I think is not so much a difficulty as a fabrication to defend unbiblical practices and teachings).
Grace. .(And please, Christians, stop trying to defend your positions just because, and hearken wholeheartedly to God and scripture.)