Not by Water Alone: On Baptismal Regeneration

By Bishop William R. Cannon

July/August 1991

Although the Committee to Study Baptism has yet to issue its final statement, the working document should cause grave concern in our church. The fact that it has been adopted, at least in principle, by the committee over the strong protest of Bishop Ole Borgen, a Wesleyan scholar of renown, and has elicited a negative critique by eminent UM theologian Thomas Langford, who is also a member of the committee, should prompt our Board of Discipleship to be alert to any of its doctrinal deviations before recommending its conclusions to General Conference.

The first restrictive rule in the Constitution of the United Methodist Church states: “The General Conference shall not revoke, alter, or change our Articles of Religion or establish any new standards or rules of doctrine contrary to our present existing and established standards of doctrine.” Though no open attack has been launched against this rule and no doctrine has been formally introduced to contravene our Wesleyan standards, we have whittled away at our theology with a hodgepodge of beliefs and practices that dilute, if not outright contradict, our Methodist doctrine. We have done this through our liturgies, rituals, revision of rites, nomenclature in forms of worship, and in the addition of services and prayers for special events.

The present proposed statement on baptism goes beyond mere implication, however, and becomes a substitute for the Methodist doctrine of conversion and regeneration and, therefore, violates the first restrictive rule.

The report changes the concept of the church from a body of faithful people, dependent on the pure Word of God and the sacraments, into a sacrament itself. The church becomes a place where grace is dispensed through the ceremonial act of baptism, guaranteeing a person full incorporation into the Body of Christ. The paper reads:

“Baptism is Christ’s act in the church, the sacrament of initiation and incorporation into the Body of Christ. Wherever and whenever the people of God are gathered, Christ is in the midst of them (Matthew 18:20), making available all that he has accomplished for us in his life, teachings, passion, death, resurrection, glorification, and bestowal of the Holy Spirit” (lines 252-258).

Wesley, in contrast, says a person is incorporated into the Body of Christ, not through the ordinances of the church – baptism included – but through holiness of heart and life. He taught that,

“The church is called holy because it is holy, because every member thereof is holy, though in different degrees, as He that called them is holy if this whole body be animated by one spirit, and endued with one faith, and one hope of their calling: then he who has not that spirit, and faith, and hope, is no member of that body. It follows that not only … none that lives in outward sin, but none that is under the power of anger or pride, no lover of the world, in a word, none that is dead to God, can be a member of His Church.”(1)

To be sure, the act of justification takes place when a sinner accepts Jesus Christ as Savior, is forgiven by God, and accounted righteous for Christ’s sake. But, in Wesleyan theology, simultaneous with justification comes regeneration, or conversion, in which the person is actually made righteous and is given the power not to commit sin. Justification and regeneration are concomitant – two sides of the same coin.

The committee’s report also affirms baptismal regeneration:

“God bestows upon all baptized persons the presence of the Holy Spirit, marks them with a seal, and implants in their hearts the first installment of their inheritance as sons and daughters of God … Baptism is a gift of God. By water and the Holy Spirit we are initiated into Christ’s holy church and incorporated into God’s mighty acts of salvation” (lines 203-206; 138- 141).

The report continues: “Being born again is not something added to baptism; it is a baptismal experience, a part of the process of turning from sin and turning to God” (lines 322-24).

Wesley denies this. He categorically states that  baptism is not the new birth: They are not one and the same thing …. For what can be more plain than that one is external, the other an internal, work: that the one is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and therefore wholly different from each other? – the one being an act of man purifying the body; the other change wrought by God in the soul, so that the former is just as distinguishable from the latter as the soul from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost. From the preceding reflections we may observe that as the new birth is not the same thing with baptism, soil does not always accompany baptism. They do not constantly go together. A man may possibly be ‘born of water,’ and yet not be ‘born of the Spirit.’ There may sometimes be the outward sign, where there is no inward grace. (2)

The committee’s report states that signation, or anointing with oil by making the sign of the cross, is appropriate as a part of the act of baptism (lines 444-46). While this practice is acceptable in Roman Catholicism, it has never been the practice in Methodism. Wesley would be horrified at its introduction. He asked,

“But can we think it for the majesty of baptism to have it dressed up like a form of conjuration? .. . And what are the benefits imprinted on the mind by these fantastical ceremonies? Or when is it such benefits arc promised as these arc said to signify? Is it not rather a debasing of it, to have such rites and prayers introduced into it, as signifying that which baptism was never appointed for?(3)

The treatment of infant baptism in the committee’s report keeps within the traditional Methodist teaching and practice. The report does not vary in any way from the viewpoint of Mr. Wesley, who did not deny the possibility of regeneration through the baptism of infants as long as they manifest Christ’s way of life in thought, word, and deed as they developed into adulthood. In that sense, infant baptism anticipates the response of the individual to the call  of Christ once they reach the age of accountability. As the report presupposed, this can be, and it is hoped will be, an unbroken outgrowth of infant baptism. Thus, the person will always have felt that he or she has been a vital member of the Body of Christ.

Yet in Wesley’s experience, and more especially in his familiarity with the experience of others, this was seen more in the failure than in the observance. Most of the people he knew sinned away all the benefits of infant baptism. Therefore, that which baptism signified, namely repentance, forgiveness, and the cleansing of the heart and mind with the power to lead a new life, needed to be accomplished anew. Wesley accepted infant baptism as a proper rite in the church but he did not stress its importance or emphasize its practice. He says,

“I tell a sinner, ‘You must be born again.’ ‘No,’ you say, ‘He was born again in baptism. Therefore, he cannot be born again now.’ Alas, what trifling is this! What, if he was then a child of God? He is now manifestly a child of the devil; for the works of his father, he  doeth. Therefore, do not play with words. He must go through an entire change of heart. In one not yet baptized, you would call that change, the new birth. In him call it what you will; but remember, meantime, if either he or you die without it, your baptism will be so far from profiting you, that it will greatly increase your damnation.”(4)

Baptism in itself was not of vital concern to John Wesley. The important issue in this regard with him was the new birth or conversion. Consequently we in Methodism celebrate the Aldersgate experience, not the date of John Wesley’s baptism as an infant at Epworth. Luke Tyerman, the most thorough and exhaustive of Wesley’s biographers, does not even record the date of his baptism. He does tell us he was admitted to holy communion for the first time when he was eight years old, his father believing that at that time he was able to understand the meaning of the sacrament and that his childhood devotion entitled him to that privilege. It was his conformity to the transforming reality of which baptism is only the outward sign that led to his invitation to the Lord’s Supper. In my opinion, the open confession of one’s faith in Christ, based on the conscious assurance of forgiveness with strength to lead a new life, and the affirmation of these by joining the church should be the basis for receiving holy Communion, not the act of infant baptism. All persons baptized in infancy should, as is now the practice, be so nurtured in the faith by precept and example that they may come to faith in Jesus Christ.

The first Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, based one the decision of the Christmas Conference of 1784, permitted rebaptism of any who desired it when they experienced conversion and joined the church. The Discipline was published in 1785 and approved by Wesley, who reprinted it in 1786. Charles Wesley actually rebaptized anyone who requested it. Our church has always been a Spirit empowered, evangelical church, never a liturgical, sacramental church. Why countenance a small committee to change our church into something it is not? It has served God and His people well for 200 years. To accept the report of this committee would mean a revision of our theology and ecclesiology.

 

ENDNOTES

1. Sermon LXXIV, 28, Works, Jackson Edition, Vol, VI, p. 400.
2. Sermon XLV, iv, 1-2, Works, Jackson Edition, Vol. VI, pp. 70-11.
3. Works, Jackson Edition, Vol. X, pp. 115-116.
4. Works, Vol. VIII, pp. 48-49.

 

William R. Cannon is a retired bishop of the United Methodist Church, former dean of Candler School of Theology, former chairman of the executive committee of the World Methodist Council, and author of 14 books. This article is adapted from Challenge, a newspaper published by Ed Robb.