Stanley K. Fowler’s More Than a Symbol presents a thorough argument for a sacramental understanding of baptism for Baptists. According Fowler, to say baptism is sacramental means that “it mediates the experience of salvific union with Christ, i.e., that one submits to baptism as a penitent sinner in order to experience the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, rather than as a confirmed disciple in order to bear witness to a past experience of union with Christ” (6). Though such a view has been mostly foreign to Baptists since the 19th century, the first two chapters demonstrate that many early Baptists held such a view, explain how it fell out of favor in the following centuries, and then chronicle its recovery among 20th century British Baptists. The final three chapters offer an analysis of the exegesis and theology these 20th century Baptists relied on to make their cases and the enduring significance of their views.
Fowler begins with a chapter on Baptists views from 1600-1900. The 17th century Baptists affirmed that baptism was somehow instrumental in the application of redemption—that the benefits of Christ were somehow mediated through it—while vigorously denying any sort of automatic bestowal of grace via baptism (31-32). Many, if not most, of these early Baptists retained basically Calvinist-Puritan views on the meaning of Baptism, including baptism as a sign and seal of salvation (19-20). Fowler notes that early confessional documents give some support to the sacramental view, but often not a thorough statement (19-20). The preference for ordinance over sacrament in the First and Second London Baptist Confession is sometimes taken to be a denial of sacramentalism, but Fowler cautions against such a reading by noting that the terms were interchangeable (14, 16-18). Further, Fowler shows that the individual authors, including signers of these confessions, were often were more clearly sacramental than the confessions (20). The confessions should be interpreted in light of these facts.
However, in the 18th century, Baptist language about baptism noticeably shifted in that the terms “sacrament” and “seal” were rarely used, and any reference to divine action in baptism was usually minimized (53). Fowler is careful to warn against reading too much into a shift of terminology, and notes that these changes may result more from a neglect of the concepts than a rejection (54-56). Nevertheless, by the 19th century, the reaction against the Anglo-Catholic Tractarian movement pushed the majority of Baptists into a firm anti-sacramentalism (58).
To conclude his chapter on historical background, Fowler lists six reasons for the decline in Baptist sacramentalism that are worth restating here (see 87-88). First, the meaning of baptism was neglected as Baptists argued primarily about subjects and mode, with the result that sacramental views came to be identified with paedobaptism. Second, “the emphasis on confession of faith as a condition of baptism focused Baptist thought on what precedes baptism and diverted attention away from the effects of baptism… Thus there were other means of ‘sealing’ one’s union with Christ apart from Baptism, the result being a disconnection between conversion and baptism” (87). Third, sacramental views were often seen as a threat to justification by faith alone. Fourth, high Calvinism in the Particular Baptist tradition devalued human religious action, and particularly baptism. Fifth, the Evangelical Revival in the 18th century began in the Church of England, and many showed an undeniable experience of grace apart from adult baptism. This gave reason to question the significance of confessional baptism. Sixth, the Baptist theology of baptism was forged mostly in reaction to other traditions, and especially Anglo-Catholicism. Thus, Baptists spoke mostly of what baptism does not effect.
Fowler’s second chapter chronicles the recovery of Baptist sacramentalism among British Baptists in the 20thcentury. Fowler surveys too many authors with too many arguments and often divergent viewpoints to reproduce here, but he describes a growing movement of sacramental views of baptism as opposed to the merely symbolic views that had come to dominate Baptist thought. This chapter will give readers a thorough overview of the debated issues and argument used in this movement. There is much in this chapter to commend a sacramental view of understanding.
However, Fowler gives extended attention to Christian Baptism (1959), a work edited by Alec Gilmore and featuring several Baptist sacramentalists. The book provoked much criticisms from fellow Baptists, including the charge that the views in it were not truly Baptist (128-129). In fact, the book was rather aimed at non-Baptists, and thus seldom cited Baptist sources and did little to communicate to a Baptist audience. In light of this, Fowler makes the following observation:
Among other things, this interchange about what can properly be called ‘Baptist’ theology illustrates the distressing and ongoing Baptist tendency to ignore the work of previous Baptists as if there were no Baptist tradition at all. Thus John Gill wrote about baptism as if his influential predecessor, Benjamin Keach, never existed… and the authors of Christian Baptism almost never included Baptist sources in their footnotes, except in historical chapters devoted to Baptist debates, and even there they failed to note precursors of their own viewpoint. (129)
In the first chapter, Fowler had shown that Baptists can rightfully claim a sacramental understanding of Baptism. However, the 20th century Baptists in question make no such argument and hardly even mention their Baptist forebears (155). On the one hand, the fact that both the early Baptists and these 20th century Baptists reached similar conclusions about the meaning of baptism lends some credibility to their exegesis. But the 20th century movement could hardly be called a retrieval of 17th and 18th century Baptist sacramentalism. Fowler concludes that the 20th century movement was primarily driven by exegesis and biblical theology to the neglect of systematic theology, and in dialogue with other Christian traditions, to the neglect of the Baptist tradition (155).
Nonetheless, Fowler advances the arguments for Baptist sacramentalism, first by examining the biblical foundations for the position in chapter three, and then analyzing it in systematic categories in chapter four. Chapter three begins with a summary of the Baptist exegetical argument for a sacramental view of baptism. Surveying the New Testament data, Fowler concludes: “Although the crucial factor from the human side is penitent faith in Christ, this faith is not normally thought of as fully formed apart from baptism” (164). This is a critical point. The New Testament insists on salvation by faith alone without concluding that all human response is somehow separate from faith. For example, commenting on 1 Peter 3:21, Fowler writes “the attitude toward God which comes to expression in baptism is the fundamental concern and the basic instrumental cause of salvation from the human side. Nevertheless, it is assumed that this attitude comes to expression in baptism, and thus baptism is instrumental in the application of salvation to the individual” (164, emphasis original).
Fowler then responds to criticisms of this exegetical argument. First, he responds to exegetical and hermeneutical debates from other Baptists, and then responds to Karl Barth’s anti-sacramentalism. Barth is a strange interlocutor since he was not a Baptist, nor did he interact with the Baptist authors discussed in this book. Nevertheless, he made one of the most sustained arguments against sacramentalism (179). In the end, Fowler argues that Barth failed to take seriously questions about the application of salvation “because he appeared to relativize the response of faith in much the same way as he relativized baptism” (193). In this way, Barth is makes a similar mistake to the hyper-Calvinists two centuries earlier. If nothing else, this section provides a thorough discussion of exegetical arguments against sacramentalism and why they ultimately fail.
In chapter four, Fowler proceeds to a theological analysis of Baptist sacramentalism. Fowler notes that calling baptism instrumental in the application of salvation does not answer precisely what grace is conveyed or how, nor even relationship between baptism and the individual’s faith (196). Noting that the same things promised to faith are also promised to baptism in the New Testament, he argues that baptism is “the vehicle of faith, the means by which faith becomes a conscious, tangible reality” (200-201). Fowler notes that in many Baptist contexts, faith becomes this conscious tangible reality in a prayer of repentance and faith, which is not wholly inappropriate. However, he argues that in the New Testament, this prayer inheres in baptism, which is itself an acted prayer (202).
Some Baptists have argued that this threatens justification by faith alone by adding a condition to faith, and some paedobaptists have contended that if faith precedes justification (as it must in Baptist sacramentalism), then faith becomes a meritorious work (203). Fowler responds to the former by noting that baptism only appears as an additional condition for salvation when it has been separated from conversion. Baptism should rather be understood as a normal part of conversion (205). To the latter, Fowler notes that the assertion justification precedes faith does not sit well with New Testament data. The preaching of the gospel was consistently accompanied by the imperative to repent and believe. These were apparently not considered meritorious works, and should not be minimized (207-208). Key to Fowler’s arguments throughout is the notion that conversion is necessary for salvation, and that baptism is a normal part of conversion.
In chapter two, it had been noted that most of the Baptist sacramentalists discussed held to open membership. In chapter four, Fowler gives an extended critique of this position. He sees two ways to justify the open membership position. The first is to admit persons on the basis of a confession of faith out of charity toward other believers (a position going back to John Bunyan). Fowler reckons this to be a functional denial of the sacramental view. Even if someone has truly been converted, if baptism serves to seal faith, then one should translate faith to act in baptism (226-227). The second approach views infant baptism as valid but irregular, which is based on two arguments. The first is that baptism is a once-and-for-all phenomenon, never to be repeated. However, proponents must show what makes an infant baptism valid absent the normal mode and conditions (228-229). The second argument states that if infant baptism is invalid, then most churches are not valid churches. However, this argument assumes that these churches are valid, but on what basis? It cannot be baptism, since that is the point in question. It must be based on some other condition, in which case a we do not need to affirm infant baptism as valid in order to recognize that these churches are valid (231). Further, Fowler notes that the Second London Baptist Confession did not consider valid baptism to be required for a valid church (229-230). Fowler concludes that open membership does not sit well with a sacramental view of baptism. If believer baptism conveys real benefits, it does not make sense to counsel believers to forgo it (231-232).
One critical question for Baptist sacramentalism is whether baptism is necessary for personal salvation. Fowler argues that it is the normal means of personal salvation, which means it is relatively necessary, but not absolutely. It is not absolutely necessary, as the authors studied in this book readily acknowledge that many are saved without believer baptism. In this way, Baptists differ from certain segments of the Restorationist tradition, which would argue that there is no salvation apart from valid baptism (246) However, to say that “spiritual benefit can be obtained apart from baptism is not to say that there is no spiritual benefit in baptism” (234). Thus, it is relatively necessary as the normal and commanded means by which we receive the benefits of salvation. Chapter four ends with an insightful comparison of Baptist sacramentalism with other theological traditions. The book concludes with a brief chapter on the significance of Baptist sacramentalism.
This book is well worth the time of anyone interested in a Baptist theology of baptism. Fowler is thorough and careful, both in his reading of the primary sources, and in his analysis and argumentation. The exegetical arguments made for the sacramental view in chapter three are quite strong, and the theological analysis in chapter four successfully rebuts many common objections. Friends and critics of Baptist sacramentalism need to engage these arguments. But a perhaps overlooked strength of Fowler’s position comes at the end of the book, namely that there is a practical, pastoral benefit to the British paradigm. Baptism, according to this view, is an objective seal of conversion. “When baptism is not allowed to function in this way, the typical result is an introspective approach to the experience of conversion, a search for signs of grace in one’s own private psychological experience” (251). I have no doubt that many of my Baptist readers understand the terrible angst this search for assurance can produce.
The book’s greatest weakness is that it does not adequately describe the state of converted but unbaptized persons. Fowler relies on the argument that baptism is simply a part of conversion in the New Testament, and that the two should not be separated. This may well be the case (I think it is), but it neglects the fact that baptisms in the New Testament appear to have happened immediately in most cases. In our modern context, conversion and baptism are separated at least temporally, since most people have to wait at least a week to be baptized. What is the status of a person waiting to be baptized, and what new thing will they receive at baptism? Fowler gets at this issue and provides an answer:
Is this baptismal grace a grace of justification and sanctification, or is it merely a grace of confirmation-assurance?… assuming that we can never know with certainty the invisible work of God, these two approaches are in the end functionally equivalent. To say that these benefits of Christ are actually bestowed in baptism is to say that as far as our perception of them is concerned, they are bestowed in this context. (211)
To me, these do not appear to be equivalent answers. If baptismal grace is one of justification, that would seem to imply that a convert is not justified prior to baptism, and thus his salvation would be in jeopardy should he die before baptism. Such a position would at least require more explanation. But if it is a grace of assurance, then what does it offer to converts who already have assurance, such as countless Christians baptized as infants? If it is only a grace of assurance, insisting such believers be baptized to join the church would appear to insist on a useless formality, undermining Fowler’s argument against open membership. Of course, key to the sacramentalist argument is the notion that baptism is a normal means of grace, not an absolutely necessary one. Therefore, these exceptional cases are not fatal to the position. However, it does seem to me that Baptist sacramentalism needs further development at this point.
One more concluding thought is worth mentioning. Reading the book, one cannot help but be struck by the reticence of Baptists to cite their forebears. To my mind, this is at once our noblest strength and greatest weakness as Baptists. It is a great strength that Baptists insist on making their arguments from Scripture. Indeed, this was a necessity in polemical contexts in which Baptists were engaged with other traditions that would have had no regard for Baptist authorities. However, insisting on arguments from Scripture to the exclusion of studying Baptists of the past cuts one generation of Baptists off from the others. It robs them of their ancestors’ biblical insights and fosters a sort of denominational forgetfulness. We should happily submit all our traditions to scrutiny from the Word of God. However, we hardly display confidence in the unchanging Word when we neglect our ancestors who studied the same Bible. It will remain the case that our arguments must be ultimately founded on Scripture, especially in polemical contexts. But Baptists must learn to teach their own history in house. After all, we are the heirs of the Baptist tradition, not its inventors. It would be folly to ignore those who gave us our inheritance.
