Early reformers criticized the Catholic view on baptismal regeneration and transubstantiation of the eucharist. They agreed on disagreeing with the Catholics, but they did not agree amongst themselves. On the Lord’s supper, the first debate was between Luther and Zwingli, then came a sort of reconciling view from Calvin. On baptism, the first dissenters were Anabaptists and then Baptists. There were disputes on the meanings, qualifications, as well as on the modes: why do it, who can participate in it, and how to do it. Here we only briefly touch upon the modes of baptism and of the Lord’s supper.
Since orthodox Christians submit to the Scripture as the authoritative, infallible, divine rule of Christian faith and practice, the debate should be, though not always is, centered on the interpretation and application of Scripture. And we shall be consistent in our understanding, not arbitrarily siding with a tradition we prefer or just happen to fall into. For example, some Reformed insist on having alcohol in the wine, because Christ referred to wine; while the same people never insist the bread to be unleavened, although the bread Christ referred to at that moment was unleavened; and the same people were almost indifferent to the mode of baptism, if not arguing for sprinkling, which was a mode of very late development. One cannot be meticulous in one not in another; the interpretation cannot be literal in one not in another.
Let’s start with the wine in the Lord’s supper. When the Lord says, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:20, 1Cor. 11:25), what is his meaning by pointing to the cup? Definitely, he is not referring to the physical cup itself, no one would seriously argue it is about the cup. He is referring to the liquid in the cup, “For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” (Lk. 22:18), the fruit of the vine. The liquid coming out of grapes here is metaphorical not metaphysical (unless you go back to transubstantiation), it symbolizes something else: “the new covenant in my blood”. So, this liquid is symbolic of Christ’s blood given up for establishing the new covenant. By what is it symbolic? Or ask another question, what are the similarities between this liquid and Christ’s blood that make this symbolism viable? First, both being in liquid state; second, both are of similar color; third, both are life-sustaining (though one may talk about the related symbolism of vine, vine fruit, and vine press in Scripture, these seem not to be the chief concern here in ordaining the Lord’s supper). Examined from these three points, fermentation or alcoholic content is not part of the symbolism and should not be insisted to be part of the Lord’s supper. Of course, there is no fault of using wine that has an appropriate amount of alcohol (you do not want strong drink), but one need not make the alcohol an issue of theological significance, nor should one demand alcohol-free in all circumstances when having the Lord’s supper. The control of alcoholic content is regulated by other passages in Scripture, but alcoholic content is irrelevant to the Lord’s supper.
What about in places where no product from the fruit of vine (grape juice or wine) is available? Could we replace with something else? Yes, with caution as grape is not the essence of this symbolism though it may be peripherally meaningful. We should use liquid from the fruit of vine that has a blood-like color, and we ought to stick to the fruit of vine as far as feasible, since the vine has other annotations in the Scripture, which we want to keep. But as said above, the two major factors are liquid state and blood-like color. Under difficult circumstances, a liquid red drink can be used as a replacement. This drink should be fitting to the solemnity of the Lord’s supper, therefore, carbonated drinks are not good (unless extreme conditions), for example, coke. Syrup or brown sugar may be tried. Without the red color, the symbolism is invalid, thus plain water or non-red colored wine shall not be used.
The next item is the bread in the Lord’s supper. At the night when the Lord was betrayed, he and his disciples ate unleavened bread, per the Mosaic Law (Ex. 12:8, Nm. 9:11, Dt. 16:3). The bread was probably not of the same shape as we are accustomed to now. As long as most Christians were from the Jewish heritage, the unleavened bread may have continued to be used. This may not be the case for a gentile-dominated congregation, in which unleavened bread was not easily available (if unleavened was necessary, the apostle would have mentioned this to them, since this was not something they were familiar with). As the church became more gentile, the leavened common bread became the norm for the universal church. The leavened bread was also compatible with the de-Judaizing sentiment prevalent in the early church (part of the Judaizing and de-Judaizing dynamic). In the 8th to 9th century, the Roman church started to prefer the unleavened bread, which befitted the close identification between the Passover sacrifice and the Eucharist sacrifice in Roman theology. However, the Roman Church did not deny the validity of using leavened bread (Council of Florence in 1439, Decree for the Greeks), though did consider it as an error (Eastern-rite Catholics allowed to use leavened). After the Reformation, Lutherans and Anglicans continued to use unleavened bread for most part, while the Reformed in general considered leaven was irrelevant, so leavened bread was used for practical reasons. The Roman church also started to use waffle from the 9th century at least. This form has been adopted by some Protestant denominations.
Here are two major issues: leavened or unleavened bread; waffle or regular bread. The Lord instituted, “he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’” (Lk. 22:19, 1Cor. 11:24). Again, this is a symbolism based on certain similarities: both are life-sustaining; both are of similar physical state; both are broken and given to many. Leaven has important biblical connotations, but it seems not to be important here (if ever present). If unleavened bread is a divine command for Christians, it would appear surprising that the apostles never mentioned it once. Therefore, leavened or unleavened, shall be treated in the principles of Romans 14:1-12. However, the waffle is a different issue, since it cannot present the message of the second and third aspects mentioned above: it is quite distanced in shape from the human body, and it is not broken (as least not demonstrably so). It voids of some significant meanings of the Lord’s supper, therefor should not be used. What can be the replacement of bread in difficult or foreign circumstances? For example, when wheat is not available. The element in the Lord’s supper does not have to be the bread in the regular sense, as long as the above symbolism is well represented, a common food of similar shape and composition can be used with caution. Common bread may also be further modified for health concerns (e. g., gluten is not essential to the symbolism), but the taste shall not be too strange to raise an eyebrow.
The third item is the mode of baptism. It is the general consensus of scholars that the original meaning of “baptize” in Greek context generally meant dipping, immersion (including Luther and Calvin, Inst. 4.16.13), even though some would argue it only meant cleaning, washing. The records on the baptism of John, Jesus, and Apostles often indicated a large quantity of water was needed: John baptized people in the river Jordan (Mt. 3:6); after baptism, Jesus “went up from the water”, which meant the baptism was conducted in the water (Mt. 3:16); John was baptizing in a place where “water was plentiful” (Jn. 3:23); on the day of Pentecost, three thousand were baptized (Ac. 2:40) in the city (source of water not mentioned, nor did Ac. 8:12, 9:18, 10:48, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5, etc.); Philip found a place of water to baptise the eunuch, and they “went down into the water”, and then “came out of the water” (Ac. 8:36-39); Lydia was baptized after they met at a place of “riverside” (Ac. 16:13-15). For cases where water source was mentioned, did they enter the water to be immersed or just stand to be poured? The Jewish ritual of baptism was (and remains to be) immersion. Standing to be poured seemed to require further explanation which none of the NT writers gave (besides the need of a vessel), while immersion was simple and straightforward (as the biblical texts indicate). If sprinkling or pouring was the intent of Philip and the eunuch, they did not need to wait for a place of water at all, as the eunuch must have carried some water to drink (v. 36, the eunuch probably was looking for water; he was also a Jewish proselyte, familiar with the Jewish baptism or John’s baptism). What about those circumstances where the water source was not mentioned? Baptism immediately followed confession of faith, no delay. Was it possible to baptize three thousand in a day by immersion in the city? Yes, the city of Jerusalem had many water fountains/pools available (Jn. 5:1-7). A pool at a rich man’s house such as Cornelius was not uncommon. Was it possible that in every case they had a pool or river/lake right there? That depended upon whether they wanted to do it by immersion; if they wanted, it was not difficult to find a suitable facility. (Ac. 9:18-19, “he rose”, “was baptized”, “taking food” followed each other closely; the Philippian jailor was “baptized at once”. Some may argue that there was no time to go outside; but the author may just skip the process and only mention the baptism). So we do not have sufficient evidence to conclude that pouring was used in the apostolic church, but nor could we deny it from those record only (but see the theological meanings below).
Early church writings such as Didchae said immersion should be the first choice. Immersion was norm for both the Eastern and Western churches (thus pouring may not have an apostolic precedent) until affusion was gradually adopted by the West since the 8th century. The Eastern Church continues to use immersion. Aspersion (sprinkling) was a minority view in the first millennium, but it was recognized by the West and it became more popular from the late Middle Ages. Most reformers were not strict on the form of baptism, thus for practical reasons, sprinkling was used since it was the simplest of all. Some of their followers have been arguing for the superiority of sprinkling over other two types, which was ironic considering the historical development.
But does it matter? Does immersion or pouring matter? If pouring, does the amount of water matter? The Scripture in some passages explain baptism as cleaning or connect salvation with cleaning (Ez. 36:25-27, Ac. 2:17-18, 22:16, Tit. 3:5, Heb. 9:14, 1Pt. 3:21, 1Jn. 1:9, etc.). If one only considers these passages, baptism is nothing but a cleaning, which may be symbolized by all three forms above, if done properly. Some prefer sprinkling because some passages refer to sprinkling, of course, Scripture also refers to pouring, which is conveniently ignored. The “sprinkling” image in Ez. 36 is not the image most advocators of sprinkling present. What they do is dripping/wetting, which does not convey the image of cleaning. If the amount of water does not matter, why did not the early church use this form (at least from the historical evidence we have)? Can we just overlook this fact? If the amount of water did not matter, why did not they follow the simplest manner?
Baptism was also used in the Scripture in another sense, such as in Mk. 10:38. Lk. 12:50, Rm. 6:1-4, 1Cor. 10:2, etc. It means “union” not washing. In Mk. 10:38, the baptism mentioned was the death; this could not be explained by washing, it means metaphorically a union with the dead or death, be part of. Rm. 6:1-4 also centers on the Christian union with Christ; it is through union with Christ we identify with Christ in His death and resurrection (the union is the focus here, not the going into the water as death then coming out as resurrection, which has been commonly argued). 1Cor. 10:2, Israelites were baptized into Moses, which does not mean they were washed by Moses but they were united with Moses (“all ate the same…all drank the same…”). In the familiar passages of Mt. 3:11, “baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire”, does this baptize mean washing? No, it means being totally consumed or possessed, again, along the sense of union. This symbolism of union is present only in immersion. Therefore, immersion conveys the biblical symbolism of baptism in its fullness. Even if some think washing is the only essence of this symbolism, pouring should be used rather than wetting/dripping/moistening (see Erickson, Christian theology, 2nd ed. 1113-14).
