The Sacramental Efficacy of Baptism

As noted above, Article XXVII refers to baptism as a visible sign of regeneration, incorporation into the Church, forgiveness and adoption. At first sight, such language might seem to be describing baptism as strictly a symbolic sign rather than a sacramental one. Nevertheless, the original intention of this article was to do exactly the opposite. As Martin Davie notes, Article XXVII was meant to refute radical notions held by some Protestants who reduced baptism to no more than an external manifestation of inward commitment to God, and thus deemed infant baptism to be unacceptable.Footnote ⁵

That no purely symbolic view of baptism is being endorsed here is further apparent in light of the article’s immediate context. Two articles earlier, Article XXV unashamedly affirms that the sacraments ordained by Christ (namely baptism and the Lord’s Supper),

The sacraments, therefore, are not just tokens of human profession, but certain and sure witnesses of divine salvation; they are not mere signs, but effectual signs of God’s grace and good will towards those who receive them. ‘Certain’, ‘sure’, ‘effectual’ – these are audacious adjectives that convey how strongly the English Reformers believed the sacraments actually communicate what they visibly symbolize (a truth which cannot be forgotten when interpreting Article XXVII).

As Richard Hooker, in concert with this tradition, would later state, the sacraments are not ‘naked signs and testimonies assuring us of grace received before, but (as they are indeed and in verity) for means effectual whereby God when we take the sacraments delivereth into our hands that grace available unto eternal life, which grace the sacraments represent or signify’.Footnote ⁷ Simply put, baptism and Communion are sacraments, and as such, they surely effect what they signify,Footnote ⁸ genuinely gracing all faithful recipients in this present age with the riches of the world to come. In the case of baptism in particular, it effectually signifies all the blessings mentioned in Article XXVII: regeneration, entrance into the Church, forgiveness of sins, adoption into God’s family (and even more).

It is worth underscoring that in formulating such a high view of baptismal efficacy, the English Reformers were treading on sound scriptural ground. As Peter Leithart points out, ‘the Bible attributes an astonishing power to this water initiation’, far more than many Protestants are willing to admit.Footnote ⁹ St Peter calls the crowds to repent and be baptized ‘in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’ (Acts 2.38, esv; cf. 22.16). Elsewhere, he writes that baptism ‘now saves you, not as removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 3.21).

St Paul claims that ‘all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death’ (Rom. 6.3). We were buried with Christ ‘by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life’ (Rom. 6.4; cf. Col. 2.11-12). As many as ‘were baptized into Christ have put on Christ’ (Gal. 3.27). And ‘in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body’ (1 Cor. 12.13). In light of texts such as these, one can see why the Reformers stressed that baptism effectually signifies all that Scripture says it does.

Furthermore, it is crucial to clarify that the efficacy of baptism is grounded in the objectivity of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Baptism is not a magical or mechanical act, but an evangelical one. If baptism is efficacious, it is because Jesus is mighty to save sinners. In the words of Michael Green, baptism ‘is effective ex opere operato, in one very important sense of that much misunderstood phrase. It is effective because of what God in Christ has done for us, not because of any action or profession of faith that we make to him.’Footnote ¹⁰ The givenness of this gospel sign far surpasses our willingness to receive and respond to God’s redeeming initiative.

‘For baptism,’ continues Green, ‘points to the solid, objective nature of God’s rescue, and ushers us into the unbroken stream of those who have, down the ages and across the world, made that salvation their own, within the family of the Christian Church.’Footnote ¹¹ This is why baptism is called a sign of grace. It visually and physically plunges us into the sure reality of Christ’s saving work. Baptism ‘is nothing less than the gospel in action’, declares Frank Colquhoun.Footnote ¹² And one of the major elements of this redemptive action is the regeneration of dead sinners.

The Regenerative Nature of Baptism

Article XXVII specifically refers to baptism as ‘a sign of regeneration or new birth’.Footnote ¹³ This imagery abounds throughout multiple key Anglican documents. Two representative examples from the 1662 Prayer Book are ‘A Catechism’ and the liturgy for ‘The Ministration of Publick Baptism of Infants’. In the catechism, after establishing that water is the outward visible sign of the sacrament of baptism, the following relevant exchange appears.

The spiritual grace of this sacrament is dual. Baptism slays sin and begets new creatures. This twofold grace overcomes the natural reality that all humans are born sinners, and carries out God’s supernatural design to remake sinners unto righteousness, thus recreating abandoned children of wrath into adopted children of grace. One’s sinful condition is thus reversed into a new mode of existence through baptism with water in the name of the Trinity.

In harmony with the catechism, the liturgy for the public baptism of infants introduces the service in the subsequent way:

Like the catechism, this opening address acknowledges the biblical teaching that all people are born in sin. Stress is laid on Christ’s words about no one being able to enter God’s kingdom unless he or she is born again of water and the Holy Spirit (Jn 3.5). The liturgical context of this exhortation, at the beginning of the baptism service, illustrates how Anglicans have traditionally taken Christ’s saying to be intricately linked with the rite of baptism.

Moreover, the transformation that is expected to unfold throughout this service, as expressed in the above citation, is all predicated upon the bounteous mercy of the Triune God who alone can grant to human beings – even to the smallest of children – what by nature they cannot have. Both ‘A Catechism’ and ‘The Ministration of Publick Baptism of Infants’ insist that grace pervades the sacrament of baptism. And new life is one of the principal blessings which flows from this grace-filled event according to these two documents. Both employ a daring terminology that distinctly reflects a regenerational conception of baptism. Once again, these bold expressions are founded on scriptural truth.

The link between water cleansing and spiritual renewal harkens back to the Old Testament. As announced by the prophet Ezekiel, the Lord promised to the people of Israel that one day he would make them clean through water and place his Spirit within them. ‘I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you … And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes’ (Ezek. 36.25-27). A new covenant between the Lord and his people is being anticipated here, one whereby Israel’s idolatrous corruption would be thoroughly washed away, and new obedient hearts would be formed by the Spirit’s indwelling. The sacrament of baptism certainly seems to align with the content of this prophecy.

The New Testament also connects water and Spirit to rebirth and regeneration. In Jn 3.5, the passage alluded to earlier, Jesus forthrightly tells Nicodemus that ‘unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’. Some scholars debate whether ‘water’ in this case actually refers to baptism. Multiple Church Fathers such as St Cyril of Jerusalem and St Augustine of Hippo read it this way. While instructing his catechumens, Cyril admonished them not to merely consider ‘the bare element’, the waters they would soon enter, but to also ‘look for its saving power by the operation of the Holy Ghost; for without the two thou canst not be made perfect’.Footnote ¹⁶ Cyril reasons in this manner on the basis of Jn 3.5. ‘This is not my word,’ he adds, ‘but the Lord Jesus Christ’s, who has the power to do it; He saith, Except a man be born again, and he enlarges, of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.’Footnote ¹⁷

This same text led Augustine to believe that water and blood flowed from the side of the crucified Christ so that the penitent thief could be baptized and thus reach the paradise he was promised.Footnote ¹⁸ ‘Like most people in his day,’ comments Gerald Bray, ‘Augustine was a firm believer in baptismal regeneration, the conviction that baptism is the means by which a person is born again into the new life in Christ.’Footnote ¹⁹ As appealing (or not) as these arguments from tradition may be, a stronger exegetical case can be made in light of the literary context of Jn 3.5.

Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus is not the first nor the only instance where water and Spirit are coupled together in John’s Gospel. Two chapters before, these two elements appear in John 1, where the Holy Spirit descends upon Christ as he comes to be baptized with water by John the Baptist (1.29-34). Water and Spirit are explicitly mentioned in relation to baptism. As Leithart notes, this is the background that precedes the dialogue with Nicodemus.Footnote ²⁰ While Jesus is indeed the one who baptizes with the Spirit (Jn 1.33), he never says that one is born again by the Spirit alone, but by water and the Spirit. Furthermore, chapter 3 itself closes by stating that Jesus was baptizing his followers (3.22-26), and chapter 4 opens by reiterating that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John, even though it was not Jesus himself who performed the baptisms, but his followers (4.1-2).Footnote ²¹

Hence if water and Spirit are connected to baptism (as in Christ’s baptism), and baptizing people is part of how Christ himself makes disciples immediately after his encounter with Nicodemus, then how could Jesus not be referring at all to baptism when he says that one must be born of water and the Spirit to enter God’s kingdom? It seems safe to assume that the Lord’s disciple-making practice corresponds with his teaching. ‘And this is the way Jesus makes disciples,’ concludes Leithart. ‘He personally enlists disciples into His service through the physico-spiritual combination of water and the Spirit. That’s the way He made disciples in His own ministry. That’s the way He still makes them.’Footnote ²² Anglicans, therefore, have both traditional and textual support from Jn 3.5 for developing a theology of baptismal regeneration.

Another pertinent New Testament passage that associates regeneration with water and the Spirit is Tit. 3.5. This passage proclaims that Christ saves us ‘by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit’. If this verse is speaking about baptism, as the wording seems to suggest, then this sacrament needs to be considered as part of God’s regenerative work. Leithart points out how the word ‘regeneration’ appears only twice in the New Testament, here and in Mt. 19.28.Footnote ²³ In the Gospel it ‘refers to a cosmic transformation or a coming epoch of history’, which Leithart identifies with ‘the New Covenant order, the order of life in Christ’.Footnote ²⁴ If this same meaning is present in Tit. 3.5, then baptism can be conceived as the New Covenant sign that ‘initiates the baptized into the regeneration, into the renewed humanity and renewed cosmos that is the body of Christ’.Footnote ²⁵ These are some of the main biblical texts upon which Anglicans base their doctrine of baptismal regeneration.

Such an understanding of baptism, combined with a high view of sacramental efficacy, has led Anglicans across the centuries to confess that God is able to truly regenerate those who are baptized in His name. Following this logic, the Prayer Book deems a baptized child ‘regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ’s Church’.Footnote ²⁶ Historically, this language has been contentious among Anglicans. ‘Few will deny that these words are one of the chief stumbling-blocks that the Prayer-Book presents to devout and thoughtful minds’, notes A.E. Barnes-Lawrence.Footnote ²⁷ ‘Does the truth lie with the High Churchman, who takes them as literally and invariably true in the case of every baptized infant, or with the Low Churchman, who believes them to be nothing more than the language of faith and hope in view of Christ’s Sacrament?’Footnote ²⁸

The Gorham judgment, a nineteenth-century ecclesiastical dispute, is a clear manifestation of how divisive this matter can be. Henry Phillpotts, Bishop of Exeter (1831–1869), declined to institute George Gorham to a living in his diocese on the basis that Gorham did not believe that regeneration accompanied baptism in every case without exception. So severe was this controversy that in the end it reached the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.Footnote ²⁹

Some Anglo-Catholics, such as those who supported Bishop Phillpotts in the Gorham controversy, take the above assertion from the Prayer Book to mean that baptism literally regenerates everyone who receives it invariably. Edward B. Pusey, John Keble and Henry Manning are several notable figures who disagreed with Gorham’s position.Footnote ³⁰ Pusey wrote extensively on the subject of baptismal regeneration in his tracts. He argued that in Scripture ‘there is no hint that Regeneration can be obtained in any way but by Baptism’.Footnote ³¹ Furthermore, he contended that in the Bible our ‘life in Christ is, throughout, represented as commencing, when we are by Baptism made members of Christ and children of God’, not before and not after.Footnote ³²

John Henry Newman, who would eventually convert to Roman Catholicism, similarly held that ‘regeneration comes only by baptism’.Footnote ³³ The act of regeneration in this perspective seems to be exclusively tied to the rite of baptism. Peter Toon points out ‘that since the nineteenth century “baptismal regeneration” has carried the general Roman Catholic and strong Anglo-Catholic meaning that Baptism rightly performed automatically causes regeneration, unless the recipient actively resists it’.Footnote ³⁴ This is a common way people tend to think of baptismal regeneration.

On the other hand, some Evangelicals interpret the above assertion from the baptismal liturgy in purely promissory or symbolic terms, even to the point of denying baptism to have any real instrumental effect whatsoever upon one’s regeneration. J.C. Ryle reasons that the composers of the Prayer Book selected this language in ‘the judgment of charity and hope’ that all baptized children are supposedly regenerated, cognizant that such a change would only become apparent (or not) based on the future fruit of one’s life.Footnote ³⁵

Bray is a contemporary scholar who emphatically affirms baptism to be promissory, not regenerational. For him, the promise annexed to baptism ‘is not to be equated with the actual gift, nor is it a guarantee that the gift will be rightly used once it has been given’.Footnote ³⁶ Simply put, it is a gospel promise that ‘will only become real as and when it is appropriated by the person to whom it has been made’.Footnote ³⁷ According to Bray, what ‘baptism cannot do is bring about real regeneration. If it could, there would be no need to preach the Gospel at all.’Footnote ³⁸

In this view, regeneration is distanced from baptism. The moment when one comes to personal conscious faith in response to the gospel is considered as the real locus of new birth. Consequently, baptism ceases to be an efficacious sign of regeneration, and becomes a bare sign, one that can still point to and even anticipate the gift of new life, but cannot in actuality communicate its grace. While closely related to each other, baptism and regeneration remain intrinsically disjointed from one another.

Toon discerns this pattern in the preaching of John Wesley and George Whitefield, two men who fervently beckoned a nation full of baptized people to be born again. ‘These evangelists preached to “nominal Christians” as if they were heathen, as if they were not baptized in the Triune Name … they preached, “Ye must be born again,” and equated the new birth, regeneration, with both an internal renewal and an outward conversion, available there and then.’Footnote ³⁹ In this manner, Wesley and Whitefield unwittingly ‘undermined or denied the doctrine of the Baptismal Services’.Footnote ⁴⁰ Toon claims that this trend continues to influence how Anglicans today conceive of the relation between baptism and regeneration.Footnote ⁴¹

Davie insightfully proposes a middle way between the Anglo-Catholic and the Evangelical readings, one more akin to that of the Reformers.Footnote ⁴² He points to Alexander Nowell’s Catechism for illustration. After articulating how the baptismal benefit of regeneration is rooted in Christ’s death and resurrection, Nowell includes the following interaction:

Only the faithful, that is, those who through faith conform their lives to the pattern of Christ’s death and resurrection, these are the ones who receive the regenerational grace and fruit of baptism. Personal faith matters invariably when it comes to enjoying the saving benefits of baptism. The unbelieving, on the contrary, by willfully denying to believe in Christ and live for him, cut themselves off from the fullness of grace, and evaporate themselves from the life-giving stream of God’s promises. Nevertheless, and this is a key point, unfaith does not undo the power and purpose of the sacraments. Can human faithlessness ‘nullify the faithfulness of God?’ (Rom. 3.3). Certainly not!

Without cheapening nor minimizing the grace of baptism, Nowell’s Catechism concisely supplies a sound scriptural view of the sacrament consistent with the Articles which does not succumb into either invariable regeneration or mere symbolism. ‘What Nowell is saying,’ summarizes Davie, ‘is that baptism really delivers God’s gift of a new birth, but that this gift has to be received and where it is not received then the gift is unfruitful.’Footnote ⁴⁴ Both real grace and real obedience are jointly preserved in this formulation of baptismal regeneration.

Interestingly enough, George Gorham was legally vindicated in 1850, and the Privy Council articulated a very similar position to that of Nowell’s, which claimed the following:

As with Nowell’s Catechism, these statements reflect a balanced approach to baptismal regeneration that simultaneously maintains the efficacy of the sacrament as well as the vitality of right reception. In short, then, the wholesome effect of the baptismal benefit of regeneration is inextricably bound to the fruitful exercise of personal faith. Only those who receive baptism in faith enjoy its regenerative grace. And this is precisely what the Thirty-Nine Articles affirm.

The Need for Faith to Accompany Baptism

According to Article XXVII, baptism is a ‘sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church’.Footnote ⁴⁶ In order for baptism to be effectual and regenerative, the article specifies that it must be received rightly. And what exactly does this mean? Davie explains that ‘rightly’ here is not concerned with ritual rightness (as important as it is), but rather with rightful reception.Footnote ⁴⁷ Other articles clarify this point.

Article XXV asserts of the sacraments that ‘in such only as worthily receive the same, have they a wholesome effect or operation: but they that receive them unworthily, purchase to themselves damnation, as Saint Paul saith’.Footnote ⁴⁸ This article is applying the apostle’s teaching on the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 11.17-34 to the sacraments in general. When a sacrament is received unworthily, instead of accomplishing what it signifies, it incurs judgment upon the presumptuous recipient. Article XXVIII further elucidates what it means to receive baptism rightly by indicating that Communion is to be received ‘rightly, worthily, and with faith’.Footnote ⁴⁹ Such a set of qualifications sheds light on the intended meaning of ‘rightly’ in Article XXVII, as this term implies that baptism is also to be undertaken ‘worthily and with faith’.

John Rodgers observes that ‘worthily’ in this instance does not mean ‘that we deserve the grace that we receive from Christ in and through the sacraments, but rather that we take part in the sacrament in an appropriate manner, that is, with an intentional, humble, repentant faith in Christ as our Lord and Savior’.Footnote ⁵⁰ Right reception, therefore, does not signify that one has to be perfect in order to partake of the sacraments, nor that one must have an impeccable motivation or disposition when doing so – who could ever be baptized or take Communion with a clean conscience were this the case? No, right reception is about partaking of the sacraments with proper regard for what they are, visible signs of Christ’s gospel, which call for humble trust in God and readiness to walk in his will.

Concerning the sacrament of baptism in particular, the 1662 catechism details the following requirements.

Baptism is indeed an act of God’s unmerited grace towards helpless sinners, yet this blessed fact does not abolish the place of human response within this covenantal event. The old sinful self is to be left behind in the waters of death; the new baptized self is to rise forth into a life of faithfulness defined by confidence in God’s promises as signed and sealed in baptism. Regeneration is one of the many promises linked with baptism that is to be steadfastly believed upon in order to be completely realized.

Apart from faith, new life cannot fully flourish among the baptized. This same logic applies to all other baptismal benefits. Grace without faith is of no permanent profit to all who stubbornly refuse to live in the reality of their baptism. ‘We are left to the inevitable conclusion,’ pens Ryle, ‘that in all cases worthy reception is essential to the full efficacy of the sacrament.’Footnote ⁵² While baptism as an act ‘does accomplish something,’ states Scot McKnight, ‘baptism unattended by personal faith doesn’t accomplish its full design’.Footnote ⁵³ For baptism to be entirely efficacious, then, it needs to be accompanied by lively faith and hearty repentance.

Consequently, baptism does not invariably guarantee what it signifies to those who oppose it in unbelief. Scripture makes this clear. While all the people of Israel were ‘baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea … with most of them God was not pleased’ (1 Cor. 10.2-5). As John the Baptist proclaimed to the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to him, baptism demands bearing fruit in keeping with repentance (Mt. 3.7-10). Simon Magus was baptized, yet that did not prevent him from trying to purchase the Holy Spirit to his own ruin (Acts 8.9-24). The call to be born from water and the Spirit, therefore, cannot be divorced from the call to repent and believe; both are imperative for entering God’s kingdom according to Christ (Mk 1.15; Jn 3.5).

All things considered, Article XXVII exhibits a remarkably nuanced biblical theology of baptism. The article candidly recognizes that baptism involves at once God’s saving action as well as faithful human reception, yet it wisely avoids resolving the tension between these mutually interpenetrating aspects of the sacrament. ‘Notice the balance,’ comments Green: ‘As by an instrument stresses the general efficacy of baptism. They that receive baptism rightly stresses that this is far from automatic. 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 sunshine of faith.’Footnote ⁵⁴

In terms of baptismal regeneration, this means that baptism is really capable of truly regenerating those who are baptized, insofar as they persevere in the new life into which they were plunged. This is indeed a perplexing paradox, but a precious one also. As Kenneth Stevenson notes, in Article XXVII we encounter ‘the paradox of baptism as both sacrament and experience’, a gospel truth that transcends human understanding, and a holy mystery before which words ‘pale into insignificance, however eloquent or precise or beautiful’.Footnote ⁵⁵ In sum, the mystery of baptism embodies the initiative of God’s grace and the indispensability of human response in one single sign.Footnote ⁵⁶ ‘In this sacrament God confronts me with total demand, and total succour.’Footnote ⁵⁷