Two Traditions of Sacraments

In the study of the Church one finds many distinctives and practices which are unique. There are different musical expressions, different expressions of building and community, all directed towards the worship of the Triune God. Yet despite the external differences there are two basic practices by which a church can be defined as a Christian community. The uniqueness of these rites may have differing theological assumptions in different traditions, but nevertheless there is a consistency of practice which can define a church as indeed Christian. Although some traditions may include more than two sacraments, the practices of the Eucharist and baptism can be traced to the earliest days of the church, and in the analysis of the various traditions are useful in the light they shed on the overall theology of that tradition. In this brief paper I will seek to explore the sacramental theology of the Baptist tradition and compare it with the Eastern Orthodox position. In doing this I hope to find both distinctions and commonalities which exhibit the great diversity which is found in the Church.

The key to understanding Baptist theology is to understand the weight that this theology places on the individual believer as the locus of God’s grace and activity, and through the believers gathering together the church becomes the Church. Each local community is made up of those who have made a personal declaration of allegiance to Christ, and who in doing that have been forgiven and filled with grace. These individuals are understood to be able to discern the will of God in all of life, and are not subject to another outside source of authority other than Scripture or in need of an outside source of grace other than the Spirit. [1] This understanding of the importance of the work of God in the individual forms the basis for the Baptist doctrines of baptism and communion.

It can be said that baptism is vitally important for Baptist theology, giving as it does the very name to the tradition. The original “Baptists” were those in the radical reformation who felt that the reformers did not go far enough in their restoration of the community to what they felt were 1^st century ideals. These believers felt that the church was not in fact made up of both the regenerate and unregenerate, but rather a true church was made up of those who had personally committed themselves to the message of the Gospel, and whose lives reflected this commitment. This understanding prevents infants and children who are too young to be able to understand such a commitment let alone choose whether or not to actually dedicate their lives to Christ to be baptized. The First Confession of 1646 declares instead that, “Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed upon persons professing faith, or that are made disciples; who, upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized and after to partake of the Lord’s Supper.” [2]

In reserving inclusion in the Church for conscious disciples of Christ, the church uses the rite of baptism as an initiation into the community and as a declaration by the new believer of his or her dedication to the Gospel truths. [3] There is not seen as a specific imparting of grace, but rather baptism is a symbolic act which represents what is going on in our own lives and declares our newfound allegiance to the people of God. The act of baptism, according to the Baptist theologian Stanley Grenz, “above all… symbolizes our spiritual union with Christ. Through baptism we declare that Jesus’ story now constitutes our own identity and life.” [4] In being baptized the believer is affirming a participation in the covenant of God, and thus is affirming a participation in the community of the church. The typical manner of baptizing is by immersion so as to “answer the things signified; which is that interest the saints have in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ; and that just as certainly as the body is buried under water, and risen again, so certainly shall the bodies of the saints be raised by the power of Christ.” [5]

In seeking to understand the Baptist view of the Lord’s Supper, one must again take note of the general Baptist understanding that the work of grace in the life of a Christian is an internal process of the Spirit not dependent on being imparted by external means. Thus, the ordinances in the church are symbolic acts which do not have any salvific or other such power, but rather are activities which are affirmations, and reaffirmations, of the work already accomplished by Christ in the life of the believer. The Baptist tradition follows this line of thinking in how it views the celebration of the Lord’s supper. Although mentioned in the Gospels, and discussed by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, there is not a detailed description of why, or really even how, we as Christians are to participate in this rite. We are given a very basic framework, and our ancient traditions have given us the seeming required nature of the celebration. Throughout history various ways of filling these basic traditions have been worked out, with those in different denominations holding to a differing view of exactly what is going on when we take the bread and the wine (or juice).

The Baptist tradition holds fairly closely to the position elucidated by the great Reformer Ulrich Zwingli, who not only rejected the Roman Catholic idea of sacrifice, but went past the views of his contemporary Luther and also saw no real presence of Christ in the elements at all. Christ, according to Zwingli, was now at the right hand of the Father, and thus could not be part of the elements. It is in faith that one “perceives the presence and receives the benefits.” [6] The Lord’s supper is seen as a “memorial meal, a vivid act of remembrance through which we memorialize Christ’s sacrifice.” [7] Christ is not present in the elements, but rather he is spiritually present in the life of the believers within the community. Thus, the elements do not impart grace to the believer, but rather the grace that is in the believer imparts significance to the elements. Zwingli lessened the importance of the words of institution, while emphasizing the phrase “Do this in remembrance of me” focusing on the community rather than the elements as the locus of the grace of God.

While the Anabaptists of Zurich may have disagreed with Zwingli on the issue of baptism, they held to and taught this view of Communion, passing it to their followers and spreading it through their flights from persecution. Just as in the rite of baptism, Baptist theology restricts the participation in the Lord’s Supper to believers. [8] There is with this an understanding that the Lord’s Supper is a continual reaffirmation of our affirmation of identity with Christ made with our baptism. [9] Because this is seen as a memorial and reaffirmation of Christ’s presence in the believing community rather than a specific impartation of grace, there is a flexibility in how often an individual community will take part in the Lord’s Supper, with monthly celebrations being the most common. So also is there a flexibility on how the rite itself is performed, with variations in styles and wording being found in different congregations, and even being celebrated in different ways within the same congregation.

On what can be considered the other end of the Christian theological spectrum, Eastern Orthodox Theology has most certainly different understandings of these two sacraments. Once again it is vital to lay out the theological foundations which form the development of their sacramental thinking. In the Baptist tradition grace is localized in the person of the believer, and in the believers gathering together, church is created and the sacraments take their significance from the believing community, rather than the believing community taking its significance from the elements and imparting that to the congregation. In Orthodox thought, the divinization of humanity is the “central theme, chief aim, basic purpose, and primary religious ideal.” [10] Although foreign sounding to Western ears, this concept essentially means a striving after union with God, participating with him in the fullness of his presence eternally, though retaining both the personhood of God and of the individual. [11] Eastern thought tends to view the problem of man as being the tendency towards corruption and death, rather than a forensic view of sin and the need for justification. Holding strongly to the Biblical concept of humanity’s being made in the image of God, their pursuit is more to recover the likeness of God, than to seek restitution with God. This more “positive” understanding of humanity leads to some differences not only with Baptist theology, but with Western thought as a whole.

Basing and tracing their theology on the Early Fathers of the 4^th and 5^th centuries, the Orthodox church has a strong claim for its views, and a strong developed understanding of its rites, which show a depth of theological thinking that the Baptist tradition does not begin to approach. There is an understanding that Grace is not static, but rather it is a “dynamic and shifting reality which varies according to the fluctuations of the infirmities of the human will.” [12] Thus, the sacramental life in the church is seen as a continual struggle for the grace which will transfigure human nature. [13] For the Eastern Orthodox, “man’s entry into the Church of Christ and the start of his personal participation in deification and regeneration in Christ are effected by the sacrament of baptism.” [14] This is not simply as symbolic representation and declaration, but rather through baptism the believer is actual cleansed of sin and released from the bonds of death. Cyril of Jerusalem said that through baptism the sting of death is destroyed, and Gregory of Nyssa calls baptism the cause of rebirth and regeneration. [15] The grace that comes through the baptismal act cleanses the soul, restoring the original brightness, and begins the process of restoration which will eventually result in the deification of the believer. In baptism the believer now is released from the condemnation of death and is allowed to mature in Christ and develop an ever closer communion with the Triune God. They consider this act to be “man’s first essential encounter with Christ.” [16] With this concept, Orthodox Christianity encourages both baptism of adult converts and especially baptism of the children of believers, following the ancient tradition of uniting baptism, chrismation, and taking of the Eucharist into one ceremony, even for infants. [17]

The celebration of the Eucharist is extremely important and vital for the Orthodox Christian. Although they do not hold to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, they do hold a very high view of the elements, understanding that the Holy Spirit descends upon the elements by liturgical invocation. [18] The great Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky states that “the sacrament of the body and blood is a realization of the unity of our nature both with Christ and, at the same time, with all the members of the Church.” [19] Participation in this sacrament is only allowed for those who have been baptized into the Church, for baptism restores the image of God in man, while the Eucharist takes that image and transforms it into the “likeness” of Christ. [20] The Holy Eucharist is the physical act of sanctification in which believers not only partake of Christ, but in fact they intermingle with the body of Christ, achieving and even surpassing the bond and love that is found in a marriage relationship. [21] The taking of the bread and wine initiates a real union with the deifying grace and energy of Christ, though not of the divine nature itself. This union allows humanity to grow in and participate with the eternal and divine, along with the community of believers which share in this holy sacrament.

The taking of the Eucharist is not casually received, but rather a purification of the believer must proceed his or her participation, with self-examination, repentance, and confession essential precursors. [22] However, this is not seen as a person making himself or herself clean or worthy, rather through repentance the believer gives “himself up to God, who transforms the unworthy into worthy.” [23] For the Eastern Orthodox the Eucharist is not a passive participation in receiving Grace, but indeed requires a profound faith in coming before the Table, and in fact must find a continual expression in the whole life of the believer with the reception and participation in the person of Christ leading to a real change of life and a regulation of “acts, words, and thoughts according to His will.” [24]

While there are substantial differences in the practices of baptism and the Eucharist between the Baptist and Orthodox traditions, these differences can be understood as resulting essentially from a differing understanding of Grace in the life of the believer. The Baptist tradition holds that grace is fully found within the life of the individual believer, whole and total requiring no outside boost or imparting. This leads to a more symbolic view of the elements which lead the believing community to remember and rejoice, to proclaim and celebrate, the work that Christ has already done in the life of each believer. In the Eastern Church, grace is dynamic, rising and descending according to the practice and faith of the believer. Salvation is the starting point, not the goal, of the Christian life, with each Christian being intended in some degree to reach for the ideal of divinization, or union with God. Christ and the Spirit work in and through the sacraments providing a starting point in baptism freeing the believer from death and cleansing the divine image. The Eucharist is the process by which the believer physically intermingles with the divine, taking in not only physical aspects but also the spiritual, allowing an ever closer communion with Christ. Though different, both traditions maintain the sanctity of these two rites, and in their continual practice unite themselves with Christians throughout history.

[1] Brown, R. “Baptist Theology”, New Dictionary of Theology, Sinclair Ferguson and David Wright, eds. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1988), 75.

[2] The First Confession, 1646, XXXIX, Documents of the Christian Church, 2^nd ed. , edited by Henry Bettenson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), 249.

[3] See Stanley Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 710ff.

[4] Grenz, 679.

[5] First Confession 1646, XL. Bettenson, 249

[6] Geoffrey Bromiley, “Zwingli, Ulrich”, New Dictionary of Theology, 737.

[7] Grenz, 695.

[8] Brown, 75.

[9] Grenz, 691.

[10] Daniel Clendenin, Eastern Orthodox Christianity: A Western Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 120.

[11] See Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1976), ch. 10 for an excellent overview of the concept of theosis, or divinization.

[12] Lossky, 180.

[13] ibid.

[14] Georgios I. Mantzaridis, The Deification of Man (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1984), 45.

[15] Quoted in Mantzaridis, 46.

[16] Mantzaridis, 49.

[17] Gerald Bray, “Eastern Orthodox Christianity”, New Dictionary of Theology, 217ff.

[18] Bray, 218.

[19] Lossky, 180.

[20] Mantzaridis, 51.

[21] See Mantzaridis, 52.

[22] Mantzaridis, 55.

[23] Mantzaridis, 56.

[24] ibid.