What does this mean in the Nicene Creed, "We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins".

__________________
John
Member
Christ Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Salt Lake City, Utah
www.christpres.net

Can it be anything other than spiritual baptism; the new birth?

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Reformed Baptist
Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

So, it's referring to the spiritual baptism of believers?

Why should it mean anything then its face-value meaning--baptism?

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Because there are two types of baptism in the New Testament: water baptism and spiritual baptism (regeneration).

1 Peter 3:21 21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

see also:

Mark 1:8; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12

First, I would answer that regardless of how we as confessional Reformed interpret the NT (even if we think it is so fundamentally and obviously correct), such is not how it has always been interpreted. To the authors of the creed, baptism, the entrance into water, was that initiation into Christ; such was not, to them, contrary to saying that faith was our initiation into Christ, or any such thing. Thus Tertullian as a representative:
But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!

Such is how they interpreted the command, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." So neither has 1 Peter always been interpreted to mean, "Not physical baptism, but spiritual:" but rather, it isn't the dirt being washed off your body by the water that saves you, but by the water cleansing you through the spirit, washing away the stain of sin. Physical and spiritual were not and could not be separated.

I think if we let the Nicene era church speak for itself, we would find it perfectly natural that this is a reference to water baptism.

With loving exception to our Baptist brethren, we generally do not approach each text mentioning baptism and ask "what sort is this?" Now, the context in come places may be clear whether there is a particular emphasis (Spirit or water) but basically, the Reformed camp follows the historic church attitude, and sees one thing: baptism, and understands it to have two aspects, an inward and an outward.

They are not SO connected as that the Spirit may not baptize where men do not; nor that wherever men baptize, the Spirit does invariably baptize, either in close temporal proximity or farther away. So, there may be people who are outwardly baptized who never have true faith, and vice versa.

Obviously the Nicene Creed is thinking of baptism in its ideal consideration. One baptism, which is a Spiritual work, and which is spiritually connected to the activity of the church in the world. Water does not wash away sins, but it the church is making a statement about what God does for those who have faith in Christ.

Now, we happen to think that we have replicated the apostle's teaching actually better than perhaps even the Fathers who were formulating the Creed, if we suppose they were already taking the sacraments too far. They were following the Apostles doctrine, to be sure, but already were running ahead of them, in our opinion, attributing far more independent efficacy to the physical washing than would be appropriate.

IOW, there was the essential statement of the doctrine, which surely was derived from the Bible, and good traditional teaching; however, they were taking the basic language and reading new content into it. The additions later came to have the force of doctrine (in commandments of men) and it took the Reformation to clear away much of that error, to get back to Apostolic doctrine that predated the era that formulated the Creed.

Now, for example, I would say that the Anglicans and Lutherans did no more than get back to the doctrine of the actual Nicene and post Nicene Fathers (if that). For that reason, we can understand a bit better how they can believe in a "baptismal regeneration" effected by the sacramental act. They may not assume (perhaps to the same degree) the opinions perpetuated by Rome and EO, but we do think that the Reformed went back to a more pristine and biblical and truly apostolic doctrine of baptism.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

Bruce, I wasn't seeking to get off onto a rabbit trail regarding baptism. John asked a question in his OP and I asked a question in turn. I am not an expert on the Nicene Creed and will not argue strongly that the creed is not referring to water baptism. I have no problem in believing that water baptism is necessary for entrance into the visible church. Of course, I believe that only those who profess faith in Christ are eligible recipients of baptism. But I digress...

The statement in the creed is taken almost directly out of acts 2:38.

.

__________________
Gabriel Wetmore
Pastoral Intern, Fairview Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Fountain Inn, SC

It should also be mentioned that the word "for" in the Greek can be translated "unto", "with reference to" etc. The reading would be (on one side of the spectrum):

be baptized unto the remission of sins.

On the other end, it could be read:

be baptized with reference to the remission of sins.

I think the historic context would be the sacramental union of the sign, water baptism administered by the Church, and the thing signified, the washing of our sins, the ingrafting into Christ etc.

Later generations were less astute than Nicea, and corrupted the meaning. The Reformed recovered it.

Cheers,

__________________
Adam B., Wine Country, California, PCA

"I fear not to hold with Junius, de Politia Mosis cap. 6, that he who was punishable by death under that Judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now."

It means (in addition to other things) ONE baptism. IOW those who practise multiple baptisms are in violation of the creed.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

What do you mean Kevin?

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

"One Lord, one Faith, one Baptism" also comes to mind.

__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emily
Member of All Saints Anglican Church - Chapel Hill (AMiA / Anglican Church of North America)
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German and Classics

Thanks!

It makes sense now with this scripture brought to remembrance. In addition, to the other comments about one Baptism from the other posts.

I refer the Honourable member to the reply I gave some moments ago.

I am not trying to pick a fight with any baptists in this thread...but if you believe in or practice multiple baptisms (even if you say "Only the last one was a REAL baptism") then you are in violation of the Apostles creed.

FWIW

Would a baptized Roman Catholic, Mormon, JW who later in life is saved by God and gets baptized as a believer in obedience to scripture be guilty of being a "creed breaker" ? Or, was the last one The One?
You take the position that one Lord One faith, one baptism is water baptism rather than Spirit baptism?
If yes,then how do you see Spirit Baptism in this whole equation if there is only One baptism. Prospective and a possibility if the person improves their baptism, or past and now actual in the regenerated elect sheep?

JW & Mormon baptism is not baptism. These groups are non christian cults that borrow some christian symbolism & language. The discussion is about trinitarian baptism in/by a church.

The idea that only "pure" baptisms are "real" is sectarian at best, Donatism at worst. Either way it is in violation of the creed.

I think you are biblically right in these general statements. There is unity caused by God despite some wrong doctrines and practices.

The application is more difficult because we have to determine what groups are "non-Christian" in the sense of the unity of the Body that baptism represents.

Can a denomination that officially rejects a biblical gospel perform valid Christian baptism?

Can a denomination that officially rejects a biblical view of the Trinity (e.g. Orthodox)?

Can a denomination that officially rejects the authority of Scripture for Christian faith and practice?