# The Nicene Creed "One Baptism"



## Blue Tick

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




> We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.
> 
> And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end.
> 
> And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets. And we believe one holy catholic and apostolic Church. *We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. *And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.


----------



## Herald

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


----------



## Blue Tick

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


----------



## Prufrock

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


----------



## Herald

Prufrock said:


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



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


----------



## Prufrock

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.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

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.

In other words,, 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.


----------



## Herald

> With loving exception to our Baptist brethren, we generally do not approach each text mentioning baptism and ask "what sort is this?"



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...


----------



## G.Wetmore

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



> Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit


.


----------



## Christusregnat

G.Wetmore said:


> The statement in the creed is taken almost directly out of acts 2:38.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts 2:38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


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,


----------



## Kevin

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


----------



## Iconoclast

Kevin said:


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



What do you mean Kevin?


----------



## Davidius

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


----------



## Blue Tick

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



Thanks!

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


----------



## Kevin

Iconoclast said:


> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means (in addition to other things) ONE baptism. In other words, those who practise multiple baptisms are in violation of the creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean Kevin?
Click to expand...


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.

For what it's worth


----------



## Iconoclast

Kevin said:


> Iconoclast said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin said:
> 
> 
> 
> It means (in addition to other things) ONE baptism. In other words, those who practise multiple baptisms are in violation of the creed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean Kevin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> For what it's worth
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## Kevin

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.


----------



## Scott1

> 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?


----------

