This essay is a brief sum of my understanding on baptism within the Anglican tradition. I don’t pretend to represent all Anglicans since, as one of my priest’s recently quipped, “there’s a spectrum” of understanding. Hopefully what I have come to believe about baptism is not only on that spectrum but close to its center. I’m grateful for every reader who takes time to ponder what follows.
Some introductory remarks
First, it’s necessary to recognize the distinction between a sign and what it points to. To be sure, there is a connection between, say, a flag and the country it represents. But, all would agree that the flag is not the country; it points to the country. This much should be clear. Also, there are two extremes that we should be aware of and avoid: 1) making too little of a connection between the sign and the thing signified and 2) making too much of the connection.
Second, the efficacy of any sacrament (a means or vehicle of grace from God) is dependent upon the Spirit of God to inspire faith. Thus, the sacrament of baptism not only demonstrates faith, but in some mysterious way, imparts an inclination toward it as well. This is contrary to those who see baptism as an ordinance (credobaptism) wherein it is primarily (or, in some circles, exclusively) viewed in symbolic terms, as mere expressions of a faith already realized in the baptized (a.k.a., believer’s baptism). We might put it this way: although Anglicans grant that baptism is symbolic, serving as a sign, there is more going on in the sign itself. Read on to see what I mean.
Scripture demonstrates that baptism was the precept of Christ (Matthew 28:19) and the practice of the Apostles (Acts 2:38, 41). Baptism is trinitarian (Matthew 3:16; 28:19) and, therefore, marks the participant as distinctly Christian. Some may be surprised to learn that the practice of baptism was not new in Jesus’s day but was appropriated or co-opted by Christians to indicate a change in allegiance1.
Further, and most importantly, the New Testament portrays baptism as signifying at least three things: 1) our union with Christ (Rom 6:3-5) 2); 2) God’s forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 2:38), and 3) the gift of the Spirit (Matt 3:11; Acts 2:38-39). Note that in signifying these things, baptism does not, apart from faith, convey these things.
Sacraments as means of grace
The prominent Anglican theologian, J. I. Packer, wrote in his Concise Theology on the close connection between means and ends. Read carefully.
The sacraments are rightly viewed as means of grace, for God makes them means to faith, using them to strengthen faith’s confidence in his promises and to call forth acts of faith for receiving the good gifts signified. The efficacy of the sacraments to this end resides not in the faith or virtue of the minister but in the faithfulness of God, who, having given the signs, is now pleased to use them … As the preaching of the Word makes the gospel audible, so the sacraments make it visible, and God stirs up faith by both means.
Put differently, when someone believes the gospel, it is not simply the words that are believed but the truths conveyed by the words. Likewise, when someone is baptized or partakes of holy communion, it is not the water or the elements of bread and wine that are trusted, but what is signified by them. The sacraments are tools in the hand of God to instill faith and to strengthen us in it.
For Anglicans, the words spoken during the baptismal event actually do something. They are performative and not merely declarative. They are vehicles that carry truth into the heart. As Ben Myers writes: “They are words that perform: like naming a yacht, or making a bet, or speaking a marriage vow. In baptism [and communion], something is brought into being as the words are spoken.”
What about paedobaptism (infant baptism)?
Regarding infant baptism Packer states that “the New Testament neither illustrates nor prescribes nor forbids” it (Concise Theology). The Book of Common Prayer used in every Anglican baptismal service specifies that baptism is a proclamation of those realities that the sacraments bear. This proclamation calls those realities into action. The priest (Celebrant) addresses parents of the baptized with these powerful words that are a call to action for everyone present:
Celebrant: Today, on behalf of this child, you shall make vows to renounce the devil and all his works, to trust God wholeheartedly, and to serve him faithfully. It is your task to see that this child is taught, as soon as he is able to learn, the meaning of all these vows, and of the Faith that you will profess as revealed in the Holy Scriptures.
He must come to put his faith in Jesus Christ, and learn the Creeds, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and all other things that a Christian ought to know, believe, and do for the welfare of his soul. When he has embraced all these, he is to come to the Bishop to be confirmed, that he may publicly claim the Faith for his own and be further strengthened by the Holy Spirit to serve Christ and his kingdom.
Are you willing and ready to undertake this?
Godparents and Sponsoring Parents: I am, the Lord being my helper.
Scripture links baptism with circumcision. Under the old covenant, parents presented their male child to the community for circumcision signifying a commitment to rear the child in the faith of that community (Incidentally, in patristic cultures females were represented by proxy in the male, who represented the entire family; see Gen 17:10-22). But note, physical circumcision meant little if a “circumcision of the heart” was not also evident (see Deut 10:16; 30:6; Jer 4:4). We might say that while physical circumcision initiates, it was spiritual circumcision of the heart that consummates the participant into full covenant status. These ideas were carried through into the new covenant with the practice of baptism. In Colossians 2:11-12 Paul explicitly couples circumcision and baptism as visible signs of that invisible reality called spiritual circumcision of the heart (also, Rom 2:28-29).
Note also that just as children benefit from the faith of one believing parent in a mixed marriage (1 Corinthians 7:14), so too baptized children benefit from the faith of believing parents, as well as the faith of the believing community into which they are baptized. A baptized child, therefore, shares covenant membership by proxy of their parents who confer on them the sign of their membership into the covenant community through the administration of water by the priest. Baptism, therefore, is an active and solemn vow made to God by the parents and the covenant community that the child will be nurtured in the Christian faith.
What is not conveyed by God to a child in baptism is a saving faith that regenerates at the time of baptism. What is conveyed by God to a child in baptism is a disposition or inclination to saving faith such that, at some point in the future, the child is capable of responding in faith to the gospel message because they have been immersed in a culture of faith (see Oliver Crisp’s excellent article, “Infant baptism and the disposition to saving faith“). All of this is what baptism means in the Anglican tradition.
Baptism is the pledge of God’s new life. But it is like a seed: it only germinates when it encounters the water of repentance and the sunshine of faith (Rev Canon Dr. Michael Green, d. 2019).
Paedobaptism, therefore, is promissory in nature; it is forward-focused. This is not dissimilar to the idea of ‘baby dedication’ wherein parents and congregants enter into a covenant to raise the child in the Christian faith. While some traditions insist the waters of baptism convey regenerative faith to the child, this position is contrary to the Anglican tradition and is no reason to reject infant baptism altogether. Instead, most Anglicans understand paedobaptism as that which initiates what personal faith will one day consummate. Article 25 of the Articles of Religion states that the sacraments are to be received “worthily” for them to be operative in us. Article 26 defines what this means, “as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments.” So, faith (as allegiance or commitment) is both necessary and sufficient for the baptismal promises to be realized. This is the Anglican way.
Does order matter? Some remarks about sequence
As the central message of Christianity was first proclaimed in the early days of the church, it was primarily adults who were hearing the gospel message and coming to faith, so naturally it made sense that faith precede baptism. However, we would do well to observe the New Testament shows the order in which events occur varies. Consider: The first Holy Communion instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper was before his crucifixion and thus prior to the disciples’ faith being fully formed. Yet, Christ invited his followers to participate in the Supper (and likely before they were baptized, contra Anglican tradition; at least we have no record of them being baptized!).
Also, from Acts 8, 10, 19 we read the Spirit coming on some who were already baptized and had believed, while others were moved by the Spirit prior to belief and/or baptism.
We should not presume, therefore, that a pattern or order of events from the NT is necessarily a prescription to follow. This is not to say the Church should not respect trends in the New Testament and is free to roll out the sacraments in any order whatsoever. It is to say that the Church recognizes the priority of faith behind, before, and in all that the sacraments illustrate and entail.
To that end, and going back to the linkage between baptism and circumcision, it’s significant that Abraham was declared righteous by his faith and prior to his circumcision (Gen 15:6; 17:11). Paul even highlights this sequence in Rom 4:9-12 to insist that Gentiles are included in the promise by faith and that circumcision is explicitly not an instrument of salvation. Circumcision was a sign or a seal of the promise, not the means for attaining it. So too, with baptism.
Consider how John Stott puts it:
What circumcision was to Abraham, Isaac and his descendants, baptism is to us. It is not only the sign of covenant membership, but a seal or pledge of covenant blessings. Baptism does not convey these blessings to us, but conveys to us a right or title to them, so that if and when we truly believe, we inherit the blessings to which baptism has entitled us …. But the receiving of the sign and seal, and the receiving of the blessings signified, are not necessarily (or even normally) simultaneous…The reception of the sign, although it entitles [participants] to the gift, does not confer the gift on them. They need to be taught the indispensable necessity of personal repentance and faith if they are to receive the thing signified. — John Stott, The Evangelical Doctrine of Baptism, Churchman 112/1 (1998)
Most importantly, if the old covenant had a place for incorporating children into the household of faith by circumcision, how much more shall the new covenant do so by baptism (Col 2:11-12)? We cannot ignore that entire households were baptized and there is no explicit reason to think that children, if present, were excluded from baptism (Cornelius, Acts 10; Lydia and Philippian jailer, Acts 16; Crispus, Acts 18; Stephanus, 1 Cor 1). It is equally reasonable to assume parents would include their children in baptism as an act of solidarity. Given first-century families followed Roman law and tradition of the paterfamilias model, it is especially likely that all members of a household would adopt the faith and practices of the male parent as head of household.
A brief word about the word ‘baptism’
It’s essential to understand how terms were used in the New Testament period and, in some respects, usage is no different from how we speak today. Whereas conversion to Christ involves many aspects from faith in Christ (e.g., repentance, forgiveness, resurrection power, the gift of the Spirit, atonement, et al.), the term “baptism” can be understood as shorthand for all of these ideas. In other words, the term ‘baptism’ (and its cognates) came to be pregnant with ideas. The term ‘baptism’ became polysemous and was an economical way of expressing a variety of meanings contained within one word, much like ‘metonymy’ or ‘synecdoche’ is used as a figure of speech (when a part of something is used to refer to the whole thing or vice versa; see Acts 2:38; Gal 3:27; 1 Pt 3:21). Likewise, when an Anglican uses the term “baptize,” it can have a meaning that is full of implications and ideas pertaining to the salvation event. This is why it is helpful to ask questions and seek to understand nuances before drawing conclusions on what others mean.
What about adult baptism?
First, adult baptisms are a wonderful indication that the Church is being faithful to her great commission given by Jesus, which is sharing the gospel and leading people to faith in Christ as Lord. Anglicans celebrate this no less than any other Christian tradition. Typically, Anglicans assume a repeat baptismal experience is unnecessary. Still, believers who have sincerely embraced Christ in faith would not think themselves exempt from any of the commands of Christ, esp. to be baptized (Matt 28:19). So, for those who have become believers as adults, Anglicans would urge baptism for all who have not already been baptized. Baptism is necessary in the same way that repentance is essential for living into the life of faith and for realizing God’s forgiveness. Obedience to all of Christ’s commands are necessary, but should not to be understood as adding works to a regenerative faith (on the relationship between faith and works, see my “A Faith That Works: James 2:14-26“).
What are we to conclude?
First, apart from faith baptism does not confer salvation.
Second, baptism is not a work added to faith, but sets the stage for faith to work. Faith consummates what baptism initiates.
Third, though the term itself is full of meaning and significance, carefully nuancing ‘baptism’ (or ‘faith’ for that matter!) will generate more light than heat in discussion.
Fourth, insisting on a certain order of events before one can endorse another’s faith as genuine is dubious at least, since the New Testament itself is not consistent.
Fifth, and finally, while I personally maintain that baptism is necessary (all things being equal), it is not sufficient. It is faith alone in Christ alone that is both necessary and sufficient for being reconciled with God and receiving the gift of eternal life. The promise of Jesus to a thief on the cross tells us so (see Luke 23:43). Nevertheless, to make the thief on the cross the rule for excluding baptism from the salvific event — rather than the exception — is narrowly focused and would miss many biblical principles and practices found in the New Testament.
I’m hopeful this brief sum will help readers gain clarity on this most important topic and discover the rich depth of what it means to be baptized as an Anglican. Where questions remain, everyone is encouraged to consult with their leadership or priest and their community of faith. For an Anglican perspective that argues for both paedopaedobaptism and credobaptism, see Michael Bird’s post, “The Case for Dual-Mode Baptism Practice“.
- See my essay, “Against Baptismal Regeneration” for some historical background to this end. Coincidentally, this essay requires substantial updating to reflect my current views on baptism. However, the historical evidence remains relevant. ↩︎