By R. LUCAS STAMPS
Since a proposal was made a few weeks ago to add the Nicene Creed to the Baptist Faith and Message (2000), a lot of good conversations have been taking place about the role of creeds and confessions in Baptist life. To be sure, there have been some unhelpful comments as well, with some making accusations about the motivations of the proposal and others erroneously suggesting that the Southern Baptist Convention “voted down” the Nicene Creed (it empathically did not; the proposal was referred to the Executive Committee, a procedural move that many believe is an important process for any suggested emendations to our confessional document, given its binding use in our entities).
Actual opposition to the Creed has been hard to come by outside of a few social media accounts. One SBC presidential candidate did express reservations about the Creed (and one line in particular, which will be the subject of this post), but for the most part even those who questioned the timing and process of the suggested amendment have expressed affirmation of the Creed and support for its inclusion in the BF&M (perhaps including the other two ecumenical creeds and the Chalcedonian Definition as well).
If there is one line in the Nicene Creed that has the potential to raise eyebrows among Southern Baptists not familiar with its language it is surely the line about “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.” Even the line confessing belief in the “one holy catholic and apostolic church” will raise fewer questions. In any event, the proposed amendment included a version of the creed that translates the word καθολικὴν as “universal” (its basic meaning) rather than using the transliteration “catholic” in order to avoid any confusion. But what are we to do with the language of baptism for the remission of sins? Is this line smuggling in some kind of baptismal regeneration? Isn’t that what the church fathers at Constantinople believed when the language was first adopted? These are fair questions that deserve honest answers. In this post, I want to offer three replies to this concern about the baptism clause in the Nicene Creed.
1. The Baptism Clause is Biblical
For starters, the language of the Creed on this point is actually taken straight from the Bible. In its first and second articles, respectively, the Creed has already confessed belief in “one God the Father Almighty” and in “one Lord, Jesus Christ.” This language of “one God…and one Lord” echoes two key passages in the letters of Paul:
[Y]et for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist (1 Cor. 8:6).
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift (Eph. 4:4-7).
So, when we come to the third article, it is no surprise that we see this Pauline language repeated again in reference to “one baptism.” The phrase is taken straight from Ephesians 4:5 and is consonant with the biblical verbiage of the Creed as a whole.
The part that might cause concern for some, however, is what the Creed says about this one baptism, namely, that it is “for the remission of sins” (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν). But again, this language is taken straight from a biblical text—this time Acts 2:
Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:37-38).
The Greek text of the Creed is taken verbatim from Acts 2:38: “for the forgiveness of [your] sins.” So, as it turns out, both parts of the baptism clause—“one baptism” and “for the remission/forgiveness of sins”—are taken directly from the text of God’s inspired and inerrant Word. As such, no Bible-believing Baptist should have a problem affirming this line in the Creed.
As a people of the Book, Baptists have no need to fear any of the biblical language about baptism. The Bible also connects baptism with the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), with being buried and raised with Christ (Rom. 6:1-4), and with salvation itself (1 Pet. 3:21). To be sure, Baptists interpret these texts differently than, say, Roman Catholics or Lutherans do, but interpret them we must! They are in God’s Holy Word!
2. The Baptism Clause Is Theologically Underdetermined
But can Baptists affirm the meaning of the baptism clause that was intended by the council fathers at Constantinople in 381? The question of the fathers’ own baptismal theology is actually more complicated than many appreciate. While they did, no doubt, hold a high view of baptism, it would be an anachronism to read the more refined theologies of baptismal regeneration of later periods back into the texts of the patristic era itself (For more along these lines, check out this video by CBR fellow Gavin Ortlund).
In any event, the language of the Creed on this point—again, taken straight from the Bible—is theologically underdetermined or open-ended. In other words, the Creed itself does not give us a full theology of baptism; it simply reports and affirms the language of the New Testament. Different traditions must bring their own theology of baptism to the table when interpreting precisely what the clause means (just as they do with the biblical texts it is based upon). We might even say that the Creed is intentionally broad on this point. Received as an ecumenical (that is, worldwide) creed, the Nicene Creed is a symbol of the whole universal church. It does not belong exclusively to any one tradition, whether Catholic, Orthodox , Anglican or anything else. It belongs to the whole church. And many different traditions do in fact affirm it, including many Protestant traditions, despite their divergent theologies of baptism (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and more). So, there is nothing stopping Baptists from affirming this explicitly biblical language and interpreting it within our own theology of baptism.
3. The Baptism Clause Has Been Affirmed by Baptists
Matt Emerson and I have already demonstrated that there is ample historical precedent for Baptists affirming both the terminology and the text of the Nicene Creed (and the other ecumenical creeds). I won’t rehearse the evidence for that claim here. Suffice it to say that the Baptist confessional tradition—both in England and America—and the great theological luminaries of Baptist history have explicitly affirmed the ecumenical creeds. Here, I want to build on that evidence by pointing the reader to some Baptist interpretations of the biblical source material underneath the baptism clause, namely, Acts 2:38.
Consider, first, the interpretation of the great seventeenth-century Baptist pastor and theologian Benjamin Keach, who was a signatory of the important Second London Baptist Confession and is often credited with writing the Baptist Catechism. Keach argues that the baptism enjoined by Peter in Acts 2:38 must be water baptism and not merely Spirit baptism because it would make little sense for him to say, “Repent and be baptized with the Spirit, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” No, the baptism is, for Keach, indeed water baptism. But in what sense is baptism connected with the remission of sins? Keach argues that baptism “testifies to the genuineness of repentance for the remission of sins” (Gold Refin’d; or, Baptism in Its Primitive Purity). One of the ends, or purposes, of baptism, according to Keach, is to testify to the reality of our repentance and “to engage us thereby to bring forth Fruits meet for amendment of life.” This is part of the reason Keach argues, against the paedobaptists, that baptism can only rightly be administered to those who have credibly professed repentance and faith in Christ. Keach sees baptism as the outward confirmation or “seal” of our repentance and therefore our union with Christ, our regeneration, and our forgiveness. For Keach, and for the broader Baptist movement in the seventeenth century, baptism does not cause regeneration, but it does confirm and testify to it. Baptism doesn’t regenerate, but that doesn’t mean it does nothing. Keach lists several “special ends of this holy sacrament” including the one taught in Acts 2:38: testifying to the genuineness of repentance.
Consider also the interpretation of the influential eighteenth-century Baptist theologian John Gill:
“for the remission of sins”; not that forgiveness of sin could be procured either by repentance, or by baptism; for this is only obtained by the blood of Christ; but the apostle advises these awakened, sensible, repenting, and believing souls, to submit to baptism, that by it their faith might be led to Christ, who suffered and died for their sins, who left them buried in his grave, and who rose again for their justification from them; all which is, in a most lively manner, represented in the ordinance of baptism by immersion.
Gill too is reiterating a theology of baptism that was common among the early Baptists. Baptism does not earn or “procure” forgiveness any more than faith or repentance does; only the blood of Christ purchases our pardon. But baptism does serve as one of the “outward and ordinary means” of grace, as the Baptist Catechism puts it. It does not justify us, but it does strengthen and confirm our faith in Jesus. It is an outward sign that leads us to Christ, as Gill argues. It is a “lively” representation of our death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. In this sense, baptism is closely connected with the remission of sins: as an outward sign representing an inward reality.
To cite a contemporary Baptist author, consider finally the interpretation offered by New Testament scholar Robert Stein. Taking into account not just Acts 2:38 but the whole book of Acts, Stein writes, “Within the book of Acts water-baptism ‘in/into the name of Jesus/Lord Jesus/Jesus Christ’ is understood as an essential part of becoming a Christian, along with repentance, faith in Jesus, and confession of Jesus as Christ and Lord.” Again, it is not that baptism causes salvation. In this sense, Baptists have always stood against both Roman Catholic baptismal regeneration and the later Campbellite notion of baptismal justification. Rather, baptism is a part of the complex of events that occurs in a person’s conversion to Christ. Again, it is the outward sign and seal of an inward reality. If someone in the New Testament era were to knowingly refuse baptism such a person could not be considered a Christian—not because baptism regenerates but because baptism was the ordinary way that an already regenerate believer was publicly confirmed in the faith.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Baptists can and should affirm every line in the Nicene Creed, including the baptism clause, without any reservation. The language is biblical; its phrasing is broad enough to encompass more than one interpretation; and it has been exegeted in faithfully Baptist ways by some of the most capable thinkers in our rich tradition.