Monstrance
Chapter 9 - The Ekklesia - Ordinances
Within our tradition, we recognize two ordinances: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Other traditions incorporate sacraments, rather than ordinances, and it is important to understand the terms in use. An ordinance is “something regularly done because it is formally prescribed, especially a religious ceremony such as Communion.”1 On the other hand, a sacrament is so much more: it is “a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it” (emphasis added).2 It is important to understand the difference between these two as we proceed to look at Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the classification assigned (as ordinance or sacrament) will give indication of the views attached to it. Even though we might be somewhat insulated from other views on this subject, we would be remiss not to pause to consider some of these differing positions, if for no other reason than to be more firmly convinced of our own.
Within the Roman Catholic tradition, there are seven sacraments of which most are considered necessary for salvation3 (note the term used – these are not ordinances):
1. Baptism “is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church.”4 This is called baptismal regeneration (born again by baptism), and within the Catholic tradition it is applied to infants; this is considered the important first step toward heaven. Interestingly, faith is strangely absent.
2. Confirmation – in “which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.”5 This completes the cycle of preparation for heaven. The only faith at work here is a misplaced faith in the Roman Catholic Church that they have their doctrine right.
3. Holy Eucharist, the celebration of mass where the “Body and Blood of Christ are truly present” in the bread and wine.6 The full extent of this sacramental sacrilege is seen when the wafer, consecrated by the priest, is placed into a monstrance for all to see and worship as being Jesus, the Son of God. For the Catholics, the bread and/or wine are not symbolic (in most cases the bread/wafer fills the role of both the bread and wine), but become the actual body and blood of the Lord through the Eucharistic mass; the reality is that Christ is sacrificed in an unbloody manner during each mass.7 Anyone disputing this, according to the Council of Trent, is anathema (accursed).8
4. Penance – “forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution [forgiveness of sins] to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same.”9 This is in keeping with the pastor, or priest, being the intercessor for the people, and, considering that baptism is applied to infants, clearly the priest will be in high demand for the parishioner’s whole life.
5. Extreme Unction (an anointing) means “to give spiritual aid and comfort and perfect spiritual health, including, if need be, the remission of sins, and also, conditionally, to restore bodily health, to Christians who are seriously ill.”10 Traditionally the “extreme unction” is applied to those who are on the verge of dying, as being part of the “last rites” administered. This would be the Catholic’s way to ensure that the soul is ready for eternity – a final anointing, possibly for the remission of sins, so that the soul is clean for passing through death. It is amazing to see that the eternal condition of the soul rests in the hands of a fallible clergy, supported by the errant doctrines of a church that has long since departed from the truth.
6. Order, as a sacrament, “was applied to clergy and laity … later to the hierarchy as a whole or to the various ranks of the clergy.”11 The Catholics have not only created a complex hierarchical system of control, but they have made it one of their sacraments so that it is firmly established. It’s interesting to note that they’ve made this a sacrament (something supposed to have been established by Jesus Christ), when it is perfectly clear that Jesus was opposed to this very thing (Matthew 20:25-28).
7. Matrimony “a figure of the union of Christ, and the Church.”12 Interestingly, even though this is a sacrament, it is one in which the priests are forbidden to participate (hence the Council of Trent says that not all sacraments are essential for everyone’s salvation); their marriage is to the Church of Rome, and in that they are to be satisfied.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize a fixed number of Sacred Mysteries (as they call the sacraments), but they do include the seven of the Roman Catholic Church as basic; they may be termed somewhat differently, but they are essentially the same. Even though someone of the Eastern Orthodox faith could participate in a Roman Catholic mass, the Orthodox tradition includes a much more strict form of closed communion that would not permit a Catholic to participate in their service. In many ways, these two groups are a reminder of the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day – both hold the Truth in their hands, yet neither can see beyond their own rules and regulations to the Life that is right under their noses. However, we must all examine our hearts to ensure that we are not guilty of the same error. So many Evangelicals hold the truth of God’s Message, yet fail to incorporate His truths because of their blindness due to denominationalism, theology, ignorance, worldliness, and/or complacency.
Let us consider the two ordinances common to the Evangelical and Baptist traditions: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
A. Baptism – The Greek word translated as baptism (the noun) means, “consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence.”13 This definition indicates an entrance into the water (immersion), being completely covered by the water (submersion), and coming up out of the water (emergence). Strong’s defines the Greek verb form, baptizo, as “to dip repeatedly [as in dying cloth], to immerse, to submerge.”14 One would think that that should make an end of any discussion on how baptism is to be carried out, but, alas, nothing is quite so simple.
Within the Protestant Evangelical community (and I would include Baptists in this group) there are a couple of concepts of baptism to be considered. When we think of baptism, we typically think first of John the Baptist:
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:1-6).
Indeed, this is the first mention of the ritual of baptism in the Scriptures.
It is interesting to see that the Jewish leaders were not taken aback at John’s work of baptizing in the Jordan River, but their great curiosity was “Who art thou?” (John 1:19). The ritual of baptism was not unfamiliar to the Jews of this time, but how John was using baptism was a variation to the norm of their day – he was baptizing Jews. Within rabbinical traditions, baptism was an essential part of their process of initiating a proselyte, along with circumcision and the presentation of a sacrifice.15 John came on the scene baptizing Jews upon their repentance from sin, and the Jewish leaders needed to find out who this man was who was baptizing in this unusual manner (John 1:19-27). When these leaders asked John their question, his response was that he was not the Christ – he was not the Messiah for Whom the Jews were waiting. John wanted it clearly understood by these men that he was not the promised Messiah. The leaders then asked him if he was Elijah, or the prophet who was promised by Moses – which he also clearly denied. When pressured as to who he was, John quoted from Isaiah 40:3 (cp. Isaiah 40:3-5 with John 1:23). John’s message was one of preparation for the Messiah, the Lord Jesus; his baptism of repentance was in anticipation of the coming ministry of Jesus. The Jewish leaders rejected John’s baptism, even as they would reject the coming Son of God, the One to Whom John pointed as being “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Their rejection of John’s baptism came to the fore when Jesus asked them pointedly whether the baptism of John was of heaven or of men, and they refused to answer (Matthew 21:23-27).
As we consider baptism today, it isn’t long before we realize that there are various views held, and most seek to pull their support from the Scriptures. Evangelical positions are often vague, although most will practice emersion. The Evangelical Free Church (EFC) pioneers, however, believed that “if Scripture alone is the rule, and Scripture is open to various interpretations, and believers are free in conscience to interpret it as they feel ‘led’ by the Holy Spirit, it follows that they may be led to different views.”16 With this heritage, you would expect the Free Church to have a decidedly open position regarding baptism, and you wouldn’t be disappointed. Contrary to the EFC pioneers, I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead to only the one true interpretation, but readily acknowledge that man has a great tendency to impose a multiplicity of views on God’s Word. We cannot ascribe the spiritual confusion that is out there today, to the Holy Spirit – it is man who is responsible for the myriad interpretations of (and deviations from) God’s Word.
As we consider the doctrine of baptism, it is with a full awareness that there are various understandings of the significance of baptism, and differing views as to modes.
1. Reformed Tradition
The Reformed concept of baptism harkens back to the Roman Catholic tradition, and was carried with them in their separation from Rome. Their view is that baptism is a sacrament rather than an ordinance, as it is within Evangelical traditions. Sacraments, within this context, are defined as “holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world ….”17 Within Reformed tradition, they contend that their manner of baptism was implemented directly by God, and, therefore, it is a sacrament. Consider what the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) has to say about baptism:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19), not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church (1 Corinthians 12:13); but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Romans 4:11; Colossians 2:11-12), of his ingrafting into Christ (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:5), of regeneration (Titus 3:5), of remission of sins (Mark 1:4), and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world (Matthew 28:19).
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto (Matthew 3:11; John 1:33; Matthew 28:19-20).
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person (Hebrews 9:10, 19-22; Acts 2:41, 16:33; Mark 7:4).
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38), but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized (Genesis 17:7, 9; Galatians 3:9, 14; Colossians 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Romans 4:11-12; 1 Corinthians 7:14; Matthew 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15).
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (Luke 7:30; Exodus 4:24-26), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it (Romans 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47): or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (Acts 8:13, 23).
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered (John 3:5, 8); yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time (Galatians 3:27; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:25-26; Acts 2:38, 41).
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person (Titus 3:5).18
This is the basis for Reformed thinking as it pertains to baptism. What is immediately apparent is that there are two churches in view here: a visible one, and an invisible one. The emphasis is clearly placed upon the visible church, and the obvious reason for this is that those who subscribe to the WCF also hold tenaciously to a rigid doctrine of election, i.e., “This effectual call [of those predestined unto life] is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein ….”19 Therefore, within the minds of the framers of the WCF, no one can know who is a part of the invisible church, because it is all of God and we have no part in determining whom He selects. Those within the Reformed tradition have no assurance of salvation, other than a subjective evaluation of their own lives, with the hope that they are not deceiving themselves through righteous works.
You will note in the portion of the WCF quoted, that only one Scripture reference is used to support baptism as an admission of the individual into the visible church: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Paul’s letter was written to the redeemed, not to the heathen of Corinth; therefore, when it is declared, “ye are the body of Christ” (verse 27) this is the Body of the Redeemed, those who by faith have laid hold of the eternal life that is found only in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 6:11-12). The primary focus of the epistles within our NT Scriptures is not on the “visible Church,” but on living a godly life in keeping with the calling to holiness that we have received of God (Ephesians 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15-16). Our redemption is sure as we walk in faithful obedience to the commands of God’s Word, and the visible aspects of our lives will be conformed to our inward commitment. The Pharisees were very committed to the visible “church” of their day, yet Jesus spoke words of condemnation to them: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:27-28). This is the philosophy that the WCF would seek to perpetuate, but unfortunately, those who hold to this view often do not even attempt to maintain an external righteousness – after all, nothing we can do in this life can impact what God has already predetermined as our eternal destination.
As such then, baptism, within the Reformed tradition, is not a symbol of a spiritual decision made, but a sacrament by which they hope that spiritual grace will be imparted, thereby welcoming the individual into the covenant of grace (a “sign and seal”). The WCF uses Romans 4:11 as support for this teaching: “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.” This speaks of Abraham receiving the sign of circumcision as a confirmation of the covenant that the Lord had made with him – a perpetual sign that was to be carried forward to all generations. This is where the Reformed thinkers relate baptism to circumcision; circumcision was administered on the eighth day of life (Leviticus 12:3), and so baptism must also be administered early in life. They have grasped onto the sign of Abraham’s covenant with the Lord, but missed much weightier matters. If they would simply read Romans 4:11 in the context of what follows, they would surely realize that it was the faith of Abraham that led to his righteousness, and that he is “the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps” of his faith (verse 12) – a faith that he had even before he was circumcised. The promise of blessing that God made to Abraham, came well before the sign of circumcision (Genesis 12 – the promise, Genesis 17 – the sign); therefore, all who exercise faith in the redemption of Christ (in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham) are considered to be the spiritual children of Abraham (Romans 4:16). However, the WCF seeks to perpetuate a physical sign for a spiritual benefit, even while they admit in their Article V that it is of no real value (nevertheless, they still insist that it is a “sin” to fail to administer baptism after their manner). All through this, the WCF only offers a frayed thread of hope, for the grace of the Spirit of God will only be effectual if the person baptized is one who has been predestined by God to grace for eternal life. The WCF openly confesses that baptism has no bearing on an individual’s salvation, for you can be saved without it, and by the same token, you can be damned even if you have received it. What a hopeless situation; in many respects, this sounds very much like Orwellian doublespeak, seeking to cover every option available. Baptism’s value is clearly limited to being a sign of joining their visible church; there is obviously no value to it being a sign of the covenant of grace (a sacrament). Their form of baptism is simply a sign of accepting the WCF as holding the correct interpretation of Scripture, very much like circumcision was simply a sign of being a descendent of Abraham.
Inasmuch as they view baptism as a means of possibly infusing the grace of the Spirit of God into the individual’s life (should they be among the elect), it is administered as quickly as possible to the children of those who ascribe to the WCF (as closely as possible to the eighth day is preferred). I recall hearing that there was concern expressed by some that I was almost three weeks old before I was baptized. There seems to be a dichotomy within the minds of those who hold to the WCF position, for, on the one hand, they are in a rush to have the baptism administered, and, on the other hand, they declare: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ …,”20 the obvious implication being that infants who are not elect will not be saved. So, what’s the rush? Why bother with baptism at all, since it is clearly not necessary for salvation – what difference will one more “sin” make in the broad scheme of such a confining view of predestination?
Since baptism within the WCF holds no truly symbolic significance, it follows that the mode of baptism will be somewhat nebulous as well. As they declare: “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary,”21 pouring or sprinkling is just fine; when you consider that they hold to paedobaptism (child/infant baptism), it is very understandable that immersion would be avoided. However, the question arises, how do they justify this within the definition of the word baptism? Let’s take a moment to consider the passages of Scripture that they use to support their position (Article III). Their first text is from Hebrews 9:10 – “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation,” and 19-22:
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
There are two words here that speak to the matter of cleansing: washings and sprinkled. In the former case, the Greek word is baptismos, which means “a washing, purification effected by means of water,”22 and the passage quoted refers to the ritual washing required under the Mosaic Law. Within the Hebrew, these words also mean “to wash, wash off, wash away, bathe” (Exodus 29:4; 30:19), and do not carry the concept of immersion. This ritual was used for the sanctification of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood (Exodus 29:4), and the routine cleansing that was required before they ministered in the tabernacle (Exodus 30:19); both speak of the holiness of God and the need that man has to be cleansed in order to minister before Him. Sprinkled comes from the Greek word that means just that, and the Hebrew used in Exodus 24:8 is also a word that means to sprinkle, scatter, or toss.23 Although this might, at first, appear to support the WCF concept of baptism, it is necessary to keep in mind that these are applied to ritual cleansings that underscored the holiness of God, and have absolutely no bearing on circumcision, which the WCF seeks to link to baptism. In other words, these are some of the ritualistic cleansing routines that were part of the Mosaic ceremonial laws, all of which were fulfilled and ended with the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah Jesus (Ephesians 2:14-17). None of these OT ceremonies have any correlation whatsoever with baptism.
The WCF then appeals to Acts 2:41 – “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Alas, there is no support here for their mode of baptism (or any mode, really); what does come through is that those who were baptized had received the word that Peter preached, which means that they all understood what was spoken (an immediate elimination of anyone who could not understand – namely, infants). This actually speaks against what the WCF advocates.
Next, the WCF uses Acts 16:33 – “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” However, just two verses earlier, Paul and Silas expounded, for the Philippian jailor, the terms of salvation: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Once again, there is nothing here to support or dispute any mode of baptism. However, the prerequisite to baptism, being an active belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, is very clearly evident; something that infants cannot do. Even though there is nothing here that would dispute the WCF’s mode of baptism, there is evidence that would call their infant-baptism teachings into question. The thread to which they cling is that it would not have been convenient to have used immersion.
Finally, they use Mark 7:4 – “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.” Here, the Greek word for wash is baptizo, which means to immerse, or submerge. The Reformed would say that this cannot refer to a full submerging of the body under water, for they would not be able to accomplish this “baptism” every time that they returned from the market. However, once again, context is very important. Just before this we read: “1Then came together unto him [Jesus] the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled [aniptos: a – not, niptos – to cleanse], that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:1-3). Within the context of this passage, it is clear that in verse four the reference is to washing (baptizing) the hands, not the whole body. Simply sprinkling one’s hands will not clean them; it would only dampen them sufficiently to make the defilement more evident. Here, again, we fail to find support for pouring or sprinkling to be applied to the Greek word baptizo. There is nothing to suggest that this word means anything other than a full immersion.
Within the WCF tradition, baptism is applied to herald the bringing of the recipient into the particular church that is conducting the sacrament. This is not to be construed as salvation, although, they insist, it can be a grace used to instill salvation, should the recipient be one of the elect. However, if the individual is not one of the elect, then it holds no value whatsoever. Baptism, within this tradition, is likened to Jewish circumcision which was a rite of entry into the Jewish nation. Inasmuch as they practice infant baptism, their mode of baptism follows the Catholic tradition of sprinkling or pouring. This is one area where the Reformed thinkers did not depart far from the Roman Catholic Church, and there are those within the broad fold of Reformed theology who would admit this to have been one of the errors of the Reformers. The practice of infant baptism came into being early in the second century through the teaching of baptismal regeneration.24 We have the roots of this Roman Catholic tradition going back to within a few years of the death of the last Apostle of Jesus; the corrupting work of Satan is evident very early on.
2. Baptist Tradition
What we have within Baptist teaching on the matter of baptism is, in essence, a position that is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Reformed tradition. Theologians love labels, and, for example, when I sought to discuss the lack of a Biblical basis for church membership with a Baptist leader, I was labeled Brethren (which I’m not) and he is a Baptist – end of discussion. I fear we are prone to miss much of what God would have for us in His Word because we are quick to attach a label and look no further. When I began this study, my anticipation was that the Baptist position on baptism would present my own personal views, but now that I have entered the study of this subject, I will have to qualify that thought. We must learn to study the Scriptures without the bias that can come through adherence to a particular denominational position (or at least have our minds open to the Scriptures and the Spirit of God – not closed by man-made blinders). “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Any denominational statement of faith, creed, or doctrinal statement is an interpretive presentation of what some men think that the Word of God says on a subject or subjects; it is not God’s, for He explains His Word by His Word. The creeds are statements drawn together by men, perhaps very godly men but, nevertheless, still men. We are commanded to “try the spirits,” which simply means to hold what is presented against all of the Word of God. Evangelicals and Baptists have forgotten how to do this; the Bereans were commended for taking the Apostle Paul’s words and testing them against the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-11), yet, in our fast-paced world, most Christians will barely crack their Bibles, let alone study them. So, far be it from me to accept a Baptist or any other denominational position on any doctrine as the final word, and it matters little to me who holds it – the question must be: “What does the Scripture say?”
I mentioned that the Baptist position on baptism is, to some extent, poles apart from the Reformed tradition. I say this based on two areas of thought related to baptism: the first is how the progression from the times of the OT prophets to today is viewed, and the second deals with the meaning of the ritual of baptism.
Within our tradition, we recognize two ordinances: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Other traditions incorporate sacraments, rather than ordinances, and it is important to understand the terms in use. An ordinance is “something regularly done because it is formally prescribed, especially a religious ceremony such as Communion.”1 On the other hand, a sacrament is so much more: it is “a rite that is considered to have been established by Jesus Christ to bring grace to those participating in or receiving it” (emphasis added).2 It is important to understand the difference between these two as we proceed to look at Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; the classification assigned (as ordinance or sacrament) will give indication of the views attached to it. Even though we might be somewhat insulated from other views on this subject, we would be remiss not to pause to consider some of these differing positions, if for no other reason than to be more firmly convinced of our own.
Within the Roman Catholic tradition, there are seven sacraments of which most are considered necessary for salvation3 (note the term used – these are not ordinances):
1. Baptism “is the door of the spiritual life; for by it we are made members of Christ and incorporated with the Church.”4 This is called baptismal regeneration (born again by baptism), and within the Catholic tradition it is applied to infants; this is considered the important first step toward heaven. Interestingly, faith is strangely absent.
2. Confirmation – in “which the Holy Ghost is given to those already baptized in order to make them strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.”5 This completes the cycle of preparation for heaven. The only faith at work here is a misplaced faith in the Roman Catholic Church that they have their doctrine right.
3. Holy Eucharist, the celebration of mass where the “Body and Blood of Christ are truly present” in the bread and wine.6 The full extent of this sacramental sacrilege is seen when the wafer, consecrated by the priest, is placed into a monstrance for all to see and worship as being Jesus, the Son of God. For the Catholics, the bread and/or wine are not symbolic (in most cases the bread/wafer fills the role of both the bread and wine), but become the actual body and blood of the Lord through the Eucharistic mass; the reality is that Christ is sacrificed in an unbloody manner during each mass.7 Anyone disputing this, according to the Council of Trent, is anathema (accursed).8
4. Penance – “forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution [forgiveness of sins] to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same.”9 This is in keeping with the pastor, or priest, being the intercessor for the people, and, considering that baptism is applied to infants, clearly the priest will be in high demand for the parishioner’s whole life.
5. Extreme Unction (an anointing) means “to give spiritual aid and comfort and perfect spiritual health, including, if need be, the remission of sins, and also, conditionally, to restore bodily health, to Christians who are seriously ill.”10 Traditionally the “extreme unction” is applied to those who are on the verge of dying, as being part of the “last rites” administered. This would be the Catholic’s way to ensure that the soul is ready for eternity – a final anointing, possibly for the remission of sins, so that the soul is clean for passing through death. It is amazing to see that the eternal condition of the soul rests in the hands of a fallible clergy, supported by the errant doctrines of a church that has long since departed from the truth.
6. Order, as a sacrament, “was applied to clergy and laity … later to the hierarchy as a whole or to the various ranks of the clergy.”11 The Catholics have not only created a complex hierarchical system of control, but they have made it one of their sacraments so that it is firmly established. It’s interesting to note that they’ve made this a sacrament (something supposed to have been established by Jesus Christ), when it is perfectly clear that Jesus was opposed to this very thing (Matthew 20:25-28).
7. Matrimony “a figure of the union of Christ, and the Church.”12 Interestingly, even though this is a sacrament, it is one in which the priests are forbidden to participate (hence the Council of Trent says that not all sacraments are essential for everyone’s salvation); their marriage is to the Church of Rome, and in that they are to be satisfied.
The Eastern Orthodox Church does not recognize a fixed number of Sacred Mysteries (as they call the sacraments), but they do include the seven of the Roman Catholic Church as basic; they may be termed somewhat differently, but they are essentially the same. Even though someone of the Eastern Orthodox faith could participate in a Roman Catholic mass, the Orthodox tradition includes a much more strict form of closed communion that would not permit a Catholic to participate in their service. In many ways, these two groups are a reminder of the Pharisees and Sadducees of Jesus’ day – both hold the Truth in their hands, yet neither can see beyond their own rules and regulations to the Life that is right under their noses. However, we must all examine our hearts to ensure that we are not guilty of the same error. So many Evangelicals hold the truth of God’s Message, yet fail to incorporate His truths because of their blindness due to denominationalism, theology, ignorance, worldliness, and/or complacency.
Let us consider the two ordinances common to the Evangelical and Baptist traditions: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
A. Baptism – The Greek word translated as baptism (the noun) means, “consisting of the processes of immersion, submersion and emergence.”13 This definition indicates an entrance into the water (immersion), being completely covered by the water (submersion), and coming up out of the water (emergence). Strong’s defines the Greek verb form, baptizo, as “to dip repeatedly [as in dying cloth], to immerse, to submerge.”14 One would think that that should make an end of any discussion on how baptism is to be carried out, but, alas, nothing is quite so simple.
Within the Protestant Evangelical community (and I would include Baptists in this group) there are a couple of concepts of baptism to be considered. When we think of baptism, we typically think first of John the Baptist:
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan, And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:1-6).
Indeed, this is the first mention of the ritual of baptism in the Scriptures.
It is interesting to see that the Jewish leaders were not taken aback at John’s work of baptizing in the Jordan River, but their great curiosity was “Who art thou?” (John 1:19). The ritual of baptism was not unfamiliar to the Jews of this time, but how John was using baptism was a variation to the norm of their day – he was baptizing Jews. Within rabbinical traditions, baptism was an essential part of their process of initiating a proselyte, along with circumcision and the presentation of a sacrifice.15 John came on the scene baptizing Jews upon their repentance from sin, and the Jewish leaders needed to find out who this man was who was baptizing in this unusual manner (John 1:19-27). When these leaders asked John their question, his response was that he was not the Christ – he was not the Messiah for Whom the Jews were waiting. John wanted it clearly understood by these men that he was not the promised Messiah. The leaders then asked him if he was Elijah, or the prophet who was promised by Moses – which he also clearly denied. When pressured as to who he was, John quoted from Isaiah 40:3 (cp. Isaiah 40:3-5 with John 1:23). John’s message was one of preparation for the Messiah, the Lord Jesus; his baptism of repentance was in anticipation of the coming ministry of Jesus. The Jewish leaders rejected John’s baptism, even as they would reject the coming Son of God, the One to Whom John pointed as being “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Their rejection of John’s baptism came to the fore when Jesus asked them pointedly whether the baptism of John was of heaven or of men, and they refused to answer (Matthew 21:23-27).
As we consider baptism today, it isn’t long before we realize that there are various views held, and most seek to pull their support from the Scriptures. Evangelical positions are often vague, although most will practice emersion. The Evangelical Free Church (EFC) pioneers, however, believed that “if Scripture alone is the rule, and Scripture is open to various interpretations, and believers are free in conscience to interpret it as they feel ‘led’ by the Holy Spirit, it follows that they may be led to different views.”16 With this heritage, you would expect the Free Church to have a decidedly open position regarding baptism, and you wouldn’t be disappointed. Contrary to the EFC pioneers, I believe that the Holy Spirit will lead to only the one true interpretation, but readily acknowledge that man has a great tendency to impose a multiplicity of views on God’s Word. We cannot ascribe the spiritual confusion that is out there today, to the Holy Spirit – it is man who is responsible for the myriad interpretations of (and deviations from) God’s Word.
As we consider the doctrine of baptism, it is with a full awareness that there are various understandings of the significance of baptism, and differing views as to modes.
1. Reformed Tradition
The Reformed concept of baptism harkens back to the Roman Catholic tradition, and was carried with them in their separation from Rome. Their view is that baptism is a sacrament rather than an ordinance, as it is within Evangelical traditions. Sacraments, within this context, are defined as “holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world ….”17 Within Reformed tradition, they contend that their manner of baptism was implemented directly by God, and, therefore, it is a sacrament. Consider what the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) has to say about baptism:
I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:19), not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church (1 Corinthians 12:13); but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (Romans 4:11; Colossians 2:11-12), of his ingrafting into Christ (Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:5), of regeneration (Titus 3:5), of remission of sins (Mark 1:4), and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life (Romans 6:3-4). Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world (Matthew 28:19).
II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto (Matthew 3:11; John 1:33; Matthew 28:19-20).
III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person (Hebrews 9:10, 19-22; Acts 2:41, 16:33; Mark 7:4).
IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38), but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized (Genesis 17:7, 9; Galatians 3:9, 14; Colossians 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Romans 4:11-12; 1 Corinthians 7:14; Matthew 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15).
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance (Luke 7:30; Exodus 4:24-26), yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it (Romans 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47): or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated (Acts 8:13, 23).
VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered (John 3:5, 8); yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time (Galatians 3:27; Titus 3:5; Ephesians 5:25-26; Acts 2:38, 41).
VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person (Titus 3:5).18
This is the basis for Reformed thinking as it pertains to baptism. What is immediately apparent is that there are two churches in view here: a visible one, and an invisible one. The emphasis is clearly placed upon the visible church, and the obvious reason for this is that those who subscribe to the WCF also hold tenaciously to a rigid doctrine of election, i.e., “This effectual call [of those predestined unto life] is of God’s free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein ….”19 Therefore, within the minds of the framers of the WCF, no one can know who is a part of the invisible church, because it is all of God and we have no part in determining whom He selects. Those within the Reformed tradition have no assurance of salvation, other than a subjective evaluation of their own lives, with the hope that they are not deceiving themselves through righteous works.
You will note in the portion of the WCF quoted, that only one Scripture reference is used to support baptism as an admission of the individual into the visible church: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit” (1 Corinthians 12:13). Paul’s letter was written to the redeemed, not to the heathen of Corinth; therefore, when it is declared, “ye are the body of Christ” (verse 27) this is the Body of the Redeemed, those who by faith have laid hold of the eternal life that is found only in Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 6:11-12). The primary focus of the epistles within our NT Scriptures is not on the “visible Church,” but on living a godly life in keeping with the calling to holiness that we have received of God (Ephesians 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:9; 1 Peter 1:15-16). Our redemption is sure as we walk in faithful obedience to the commands of God’s Word, and the visible aspects of our lives will be conformed to our inward commitment. The Pharisees were very committed to the visible “church” of their day, yet Jesus spoke words of condemnation to them: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:27-28). This is the philosophy that the WCF would seek to perpetuate, but unfortunately, those who hold to this view often do not even attempt to maintain an external righteousness – after all, nothing we can do in this life can impact what God has already predetermined as our eternal destination.
As such then, baptism, within the Reformed tradition, is not a symbol of a spiritual decision made, but a sacrament by which they hope that spiritual grace will be imparted, thereby welcoming the individual into the covenant of grace (a “sign and seal”). The WCF uses Romans 4:11 as support for this teaching: “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.” This speaks of Abraham receiving the sign of circumcision as a confirmation of the covenant that the Lord had made with him – a perpetual sign that was to be carried forward to all generations. This is where the Reformed thinkers relate baptism to circumcision; circumcision was administered on the eighth day of life (Leviticus 12:3), and so baptism must also be administered early in life. They have grasped onto the sign of Abraham’s covenant with the Lord, but missed much weightier matters. If they would simply read Romans 4:11 in the context of what follows, they would surely realize that it was the faith of Abraham that led to his righteousness, and that he is “the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps” of his faith (verse 12) – a faith that he had even before he was circumcised. The promise of blessing that God made to Abraham, came well before the sign of circumcision (Genesis 12 – the promise, Genesis 17 – the sign); therefore, all who exercise faith in the redemption of Christ (in fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham) are considered to be the spiritual children of Abraham (Romans 4:16). However, the WCF seeks to perpetuate a physical sign for a spiritual benefit, even while they admit in their Article V that it is of no real value (nevertheless, they still insist that it is a “sin” to fail to administer baptism after their manner). All through this, the WCF only offers a frayed thread of hope, for the grace of the Spirit of God will only be effectual if the person baptized is one who has been predestined by God to grace for eternal life. The WCF openly confesses that baptism has no bearing on an individual’s salvation, for you can be saved without it, and by the same token, you can be damned even if you have received it. What a hopeless situation; in many respects, this sounds very much like Orwellian doublespeak, seeking to cover every option available. Baptism’s value is clearly limited to being a sign of joining their visible church; there is obviously no value to it being a sign of the covenant of grace (a sacrament). Their form of baptism is simply a sign of accepting the WCF as holding the correct interpretation of Scripture, very much like circumcision was simply a sign of being a descendent of Abraham.
Inasmuch as they view baptism as a means of possibly infusing the grace of the Spirit of God into the individual’s life (should they be among the elect), it is administered as quickly as possible to the children of those who ascribe to the WCF (as closely as possible to the eighth day is preferred). I recall hearing that there was concern expressed by some that I was almost three weeks old before I was baptized. There seems to be a dichotomy within the minds of those who hold to the WCF position, for, on the one hand, they are in a rush to have the baptism administered, and, on the other hand, they declare: “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ …,”20 the obvious implication being that infants who are not elect will not be saved. So, what’s the rush? Why bother with baptism at all, since it is clearly not necessary for salvation – what difference will one more “sin” make in the broad scheme of such a confining view of predestination?
Since baptism within the WCF holds no truly symbolic significance, it follows that the mode of baptism will be somewhat nebulous as well. As they declare: “Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary,”21 pouring or sprinkling is just fine; when you consider that they hold to paedobaptism (child/infant baptism), it is very understandable that immersion would be avoided. However, the question arises, how do they justify this within the definition of the word baptism? Let’s take a moment to consider the passages of Scripture that they use to support their position (Article III). Their first text is from Hebrews 9:10 – “Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation,” and 19-22:
For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
There are two words here that speak to the matter of cleansing: washings and sprinkled. In the former case, the Greek word is baptismos, which means “a washing, purification effected by means of water,”22 and the passage quoted refers to the ritual washing required under the Mosaic Law. Within the Hebrew, these words also mean “to wash, wash off, wash away, bathe” (Exodus 29:4; 30:19), and do not carry the concept of immersion. This ritual was used for the sanctification of Aaron and his sons into the priesthood (Exodus 29:4), and the routine cleansing that was required before they ministered in the tabernacle (Exodus 30:19); both speak of the holiness of God and the need that man has to be cleansed in order to minister before Him. Sprinkled comes from the Greek word that means just that, and the Hebrew used in Exodus 24:8 is also a word that means to sprinkle, scatter, or toss.23 Although this might, at first, appear to support the WCF concept of baptism, it is necessary to keep in mind that these are applied to ritual cleansings that underscored the holiness of God, and have absolutely no bearing on circumcision, which the WCF seeks to link to baptism. In other words, these are some of the ritualistic cleansing routines that were part of the Mosaic ceremonial laws, all of which were fulfilled and ended with the death, burial and resurrection of Messiah Jesus (Ephesians 2:14-17). None of these OT ceremonies have any correlation whatsoever with baptism.
The WCF then appeals to Acts 2:41 – “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Alas, there is no support here for their mode of baptism (or any mode, really); what does come through is that those who were baptized had received the word that Peter preached, which means that they all understood what was spoken (an immediate elimination of anyone who could not understand – namely, infants). This actually speaks against what the WCF advocates.
Next, the WCF uses Acts 16:33 – “And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” However, just two verses earlier, Paul and Silas expounded, for the Philippian jailor, the terms of salvation: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Once again, there is nothing here to support or dispute any mode of baptism. However, the prerequisite to baptism, being an active belief in the Lord Jesus Christ, is very clearly evident; something that infants cannot do. Even though there is nothing here that would dispute the WCF’s mode of baptism, there is evidence that would call their infant-baptism teachings into question. The thread to which they cling is that it would not have been convenient to have used immersion.
Finally, they use Mark 7:4 – “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.” Here, the Greek word for wash is baptizo, which means to immerse, or submerge. The Reformed would say that this cannot refer to a full submerging of the body under water, for they would not be able to accomplish this “baptism” every time that they returned from the market. However, once again, context is very important. Just before this we read: “1Then came together unto him [Jesus] the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled [aniptos: a – not, niptos – to cleanse], that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:1-3). Within the context of this passage, it is clear that in verse four the reference is to washing (baptizing) the hands, not the whole body. Simply sprinkling one’s hands will not clean them; it would only dampen them sufficiently to make the defilement more evident. Here, again, we fail to find support for pouring or sprinkling to be applied to the Greek word baptizo. There is nothing to suggest that this word means anything other than a full immersion.
Within the WCF tradition, baptism is applied to herald the bringing of the recipient into the particular church that is conducting the sacrament. This is not to be construed as salvation, although, they insist, it can be a grace used to instill salvation, should the recipient be one of the elect. However, if the individual is not one of the elect, then it holds no value whatsoever. Baptism, within this tradition, is likened to Jewish circumcision which was a rite of entry into the Jewish nation. Inasmuch as they practice infant baptism, their mode of baptism follows the Catholic tradition of sprinkling or pouring. This is one area where the Reformed thinkers did not depart far from the Roman Catholic Church, and there are those within the broad fold of Reformed theology who would admit this to have been one of the errors of the Reformers. The practice of infant baptism came into being early in the second century through the teaching of baptismal regeneration.24 We have the roots of this Roman Catholic tradition going back to within a few years of the death of the last Apostle of Jesus; the corrupting work of Satan is evident very early on.
2. Baptist Tradition
What we have within Baptist teaching on the matter of baptism is, in essence, a position that is at the opposite end of the spectrum from the Reformed tradition. Theologians love labels, and, for example, when I sought to discuss the lack of a Biblical basis for church membership with a Baptist leader, I was labeled Brethren (which I’m not) and he is a Baptist – end of discussion. I fear we are prone to miss much of what God would have for us in His Word because we are quick to attach a label and look no further. When I began this study, my anticipation was that the Baptist position on baptism would present my own personal views, but now that I have entered the study of this subject, I will have to qualify that thought. We must learn to study the Scriptures without the bias that can come through adherence to a particular denominational position (or at least have our minds open to the Scriptures and the Spirit of God – not closed by man-made blinders). “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Any denominational statement of faith, creed, or doctrinal statement is an interpretive presentation of what some men think that the Word of God says on a subject or subjects; it is not God’s, for He explains His Word by His Word. The creeds are statements drawn together by men, perhaps very godly men but, nevertheless, still men. We are commanded to “try the spirits,” which simply means to hold what is presented against all of the Word of God. Evangelicals and Baptists have forgotten how to do this; the Bereans were commended for taking the Apostle Paul’s words and testing them against the Scriptures (Acts 17:10-11), yet, in our fast-paced world, most Christians will barely crack their Bibles, let alone study them. So, far be it from me to accept a Baptist or any other denominational position on any doctrine as the final word, and it matters little to me who holds it – the question must be: “What does the Scripture say?”
I mentioned that the Baptist position on baptism is, to some extent, poles apart from the Reformed tradition. I say this based on two areas of thought related to baptism: the first is how the progression from the times of the OT prophets to today is viewed, and the second deals with the meaning of the ritual of baptism.
John Nelson Darby
Within Baptist theological thinking, there is a strong leaning toward a dispensational view of Scripture (probably more so today than historically), even though the way it is expressed may vary considerably from group to group. Nevertheless, there is generally an acceptance of the concept of dividing all of time into chunks based upon how they see God working with man (yes, this is a very subjective exercise). C.I. Scofield, perhaps the most notorious promoter of dispensational thinking, defined a dispensation as “a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.”25 As we noted earlier, Scofield recognized seven dispensations, David Cloud (a Fundamental Baptist and strong dispensationalist) thinks that there are nine, John Darby (considered by some to be the 19th century father of dispensationalism) held to six, James Gray (one of the editors of the Scofield Bible) thought there were eight, and Robert Thieme (an independent Fundamentalist from Texas) considers only four. The contention is made that the number of dispensations is not as important as using a dispensational grid for studying the Scriptures, yet even having said that, Cloud confesses that there are principles that will apply to all dispensations.26 In essence, dispensationalism is a theologian’s attempt to divide up the Word of God and, thereby, to varying degrees, isolate certain parts from one another – a primary target of this isolationist tactic is Israel and the “church,” something that all dispensationalists seem to hold in common.
Covenantalism (the primary focus of Reformed thinking), on the other hand, draws the Scriptures together into one or more covenants made between God and mankind; rather than periods of time, they consider the scope of the covenants made. For example, the WCF identifies two covenants, the covenant of works, which applied to Adam before the fall, and the covenant of grace applied to Adam and all of mankind after him; however, even within the covenant of grace, they refer to two dispensations: one of law and the other of the Gospel. Within covenantal thinking, there is an attempt to draw all times together and emphasize the sameness of God’s dealings with man throughout time. Even though there are those who draw from both fields (covenantal and dispensational), their view of history will, for the most part, follow either the covenantal or dispensational line of thinking (if you need a label). So when you hear of Reformed Baptists, they would be those who hold to a covenantal view of history, but do not hold to all of the doctrines of the WCF. Typically, they will hold to credobaptism (believer’s baptism) rather than a paedobaptism (infant baptism).
Unfortunately, what tends to take place is a focus on the theology, working all the bits and pieces together to make a cohesive whole, and then using that as a grid for the interpretation of Scripture. I’ve had a strongly Calvinistic individual (a covenantal position) question my intelligence because I could not understand and accept his theological position; in his words, “it all fit together so perfectly” how could I not understand it. Yet anytime I would bring to his attention those Scriptures that clearly declared a truth contrary to his Calvinistic position (to show that it did not all fit together so perfectly), it was generally deflected by him saying that it referred only to the elect, not to all of mankind. For example, 1 Timothy 2:1-4 reads: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”; within his Calvinistic mindset, the “all men” refers only to the elect who are determined to be saved in the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world. Those who strongly adhere to a specific theology tend to not have eyes to see what the Scriptures say, or ears to hear any explanation other than what their theology supports. I was told by a Baptist pastor: “I am a Baptist by conviction. I believe our faith and practice is absolutely in line with what the Word of God teaches … We will have to agree to disagree ….”27 Notice his first alignment was with the Baptist position, not the Word of God, and therein rests the hurdle over which we will never be able to drag these men. Unless God opens their eyes, they will continue to proclaim, “We see!!” – even while they remain trapped in their own theological maze.
Those of the Baptist persuasion will typically hold to a dispensational view of Scripture that sets a gulf between Israel and the “church.” Within this framework, the “church” is something new that God implemented when Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and it will continue until it is raptured out of the world, at which time God will turn His attention to Israel once again. Since they perceive there to be a gulf fixed between Israel and the “church,” they reject anything carried forward from OT times into today; there is an undue emphasis on the NT as being for today, while the OT merely tells us how we got to where we are. Whereas the covenantal position tends to meld the two together and erroneously, in our case, sees baptism as an extension of circumcision, the dispensational view permits no such thought. Although I do not agree with the dispensational view of Scripture, as it erects false barriers within the flow of God’s Word, it has landed its adherents on the right side of the baptism issue. I have provided this explanation to illustrate that our overall view of Scripture will impact specific doctrines.
The second area of difference between Reformed and Baptist baptism traditions deals with its meaning. We’ve already noted that, within the covenantal position, it serves as a door into the visible “church,” a means to receive the grace of God, which could lead to the salvation of the recipient if they happen to be among the elect (after all, it is a sacrament). It would seem that this understanding comes at the expense of many Scriptures that clearly contravene this view, and would, in fact, support the Baptist position. Since this is probably the area where the most significant differences rest, let’s take some time to review the Scriptures that speak of baptism within the context of the activities of the ekklesia in Acts, and within the instructions given in the epistles.
Acts 2:37-39 – Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
The middle verse (38) is typically the only one quoted in reference to baptism, but it is important to provide some context lest we misread the passage. Verse 37 provides us with a clear understanding of those whom Peter told to repent and be baptized – it was the people who had been pricked in their hearts. This indicates that they were at least old enough to understand the message that Peter had just delivered, and they were under conviction by the Spirit of God. Lest the infant-baptizers latch onto verse thirty-nine and say that Peter included the people’s little children, we must again permit context to provide a true understanding of what is being said. Peter is declaring that repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost are not only for the present audience, but also a promise of God for their children (to those who will come after them) and to those who were “afar off.” This last phrase (actually a single word in Greek, makran) is used by Paul in Ephesians 2:13 to speak of the Gentiles, those not of the commonwealth of Israel, who have been brought together with spiritual Israel into one – Jesus having broken down the middle wall that separated the Jew from the Gentile. Peter, through the inspiration of the Spirit of God, used a term that would come to be applied to the nations of the world – and, indeed, the promise of the Spirit of God is to everyone who believes.
Acts 8:36-39 – And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
The word used here is baptizo, and what is very evident is that Philip ensured that the Ethiopian understood Who Jesus Christ was and that he believed (was persuaded) before consenting to baptize him – the qualification for baptism was belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. The mode of baptism is equally clear – baptizo means to immerse, or submerge;28 therefore, the Ethiopian went down into the water, went under the water, and then came up out of the water.
Acts 10:44-48 – While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days….
There are those of the infant-baptism persuasion who use Acts 10:24 as justification to say that small children were in the audience, and, therefore, included in the baptism rite: “And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.” However, it is important to read the whole story, for verse thirty-three provides some further clarification on this matter – Cornelius declares: “Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear [includes understanding] all things that are commanded thee of God.”29 They were there for the express purpose of being taught what God had prepared for them through Peter; this would exclude those who could not understand, i.e., infants.
This is a fascinating passage that relates the lesson given by God to Peter, and those with him, that this work was God’s work, and it was bigger than just the Jewish community. On Pentecost, it was Peter, and the other disciples, who spoke in tongues to convince the observing people that the words that they heard were of God, for the crowd declared: “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11). This time it was the Gentile outcasts who spoke in tongues by the Spirit of God so that Peter, and those with him, might learn something. In his discourse to these people, Peter got as far as “whosoever believeth in him [Jesus] shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). At this point, while Peter was speaking these words, the Spirit of God fell on those gathered – they believed, even as Peter spoke, and received the cleansing from on high. After they believed, they were baptized (baptizo); again proof that all those who were baptized were believers, and those incapable of believing (infants) were not included.
Acts 16:14-15 – And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Even though there is nothing within this passage to indicate who all would have been included in Lydia’s household, based on the wealth of passages that make it clear that belief precedes baptism, we cannot support creating a doctrine of infant baptism from this text.
Acts 16:30-33 – And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Paul’s instructions to the Philippian jailor do not mean that the jailor’s household was automatically saved if he believed; the thrust is that believing results in salvation for anyone. The very next verse says that the jailer and all who were in his house received instruction from Paul that very hour. Since the passage indicates that all within his household were baptized (baptizo), it only follows that everyone was able to believe and understand Paul’s teaching; there were no infants in this household.
Romans 6:3-6 – Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Here we have the explanation of the symbolism of baptism, which in the Greek means immersion, or submersion30 – imagery that would fall apart if submersion were not used. Baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, and testifies that these have been applied, by faith, to the life of the recipient. Paul offers this illustration of the new life that we have in Christ to provide an image of why we are to “yield [ourselves] unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and [our] members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Romans 6:13). The argument that Paul uses is: how can something that is dead still live? (Romans 6:2). If we have been brought by faith into a new life in Christ, how can we remain active in a life of sin? The thrust of this passage makes it clear that we cannot. “For when ye were the servants [slaves] of sin, ye were free from righteousness … But now being made free from sin, and become servants [become enslaved] to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life” (Romans 6:20, 22).31
As we accept Christ’s redemption by faith, we identify with Him in His death. Our old man, our sinful nature, is crucified with Christ – it has died with Him (Romans 6:6; Galatians 2:20, 5:24). We are to reckon or account ourselves to be dead to sin (Romans 6:11); this is a term of logic that speaks of this reckoning being based on facts, not supposition, conjecture, or thin hope.32 The fact in this is that Christ died bearing the sins of the world (John 1:29), and that includes the sin that we, by faith, acknowledge as being crucified with Him (1 Peter 2:24). As we enter into the water in baptism, we are signifying the death of our old sin nature – it is our identification with Christ in His death; we are testifying that we are considering our old man to be dead, as well as the life of sin that it exemplifies. Through a living faith in Christ, we are made free from sin; not that we are made sinless, but we are able to deem the bondage or power of sin to be broken within us.33 We are commanded to “let not sin therefore reign [to be king, to exercise kingly power] in your mortal body” (Romans 6:12);34 this is a command that we are called to obey; it is not a stated reality. “…22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23And be renewed [being renewed; present tense, passive voice (it is God Who does the renewing)] in the spirit of your mind; 24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:22-24).35 The “putting off” and the “putting on” are activities in which we are to be involved; the middle voice means that we are doing this and we are the beneficiaries as well.36 The grace of God that is imputed to us through faith in Jesus Christ, our Sacrifice, is not a grace that does everything for us. Even as Adam, the first man, was provided with a choice, so we, too, are called upon to exercise our wills in choosing to follow after God’s righteousness, and He has not left us without resources. Jesus said that He must leave this world so that He could send the Comforter, the Spirit of God, so that He might abide with us forever (John 14:16); this same Spirit from God intercedes for us with God (Romans 8:26).
As the waters of baptism close over us, we are identifying with Christ in His burial. The significance of His burial is that it confirms His death. The theories still circulate that Christ did not die but merely swooned and appeared to be as dead. However, the fact that he remained in the tomb for three full days and nights, confirms that He died. Within early Jewish custom, the tomb was not “immediately closed over the dead. During the first three days it was customary for the relatives to visit the grave to see whether the dead had come to life again.”37 We can readily see that Jesus’ burial (with the sealed tomb) was a departure from Jewish tradition, and His three-day burial is confirmation that He was dead.
“Now upon the first day of the week [this would have been the beginning of the fourth day after Jesus’ death], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them” (Luke 24:1). This indicates two things: 1) there was no doubt in the minds of these women that Jesus had died, for they brought the traditional spices for burial, which they had prepared beforehand, and 2) the time within which the Jews would watch for a return to life was past – Jesus was dead. This is even more striking at the death of Lazarus: “Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days” (John 11:39); Jesus delayed His coming to the family so that everyone would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lazarus was dead. The two witnesses of Revelation are left in the streets of Jerusalem for three and a half days – again, confirmation that they were really dead (Revelation 11:9). When the waters of baptism close over our heads, we are affirming our identification with Christ’s burial; it demonstrates our will to put off the old man – he is dead.
However, the ordinance of baptism is not complete without coming up out of the water, and, thereby, identifying with Christ in His resurrection. We are brought up out of the water, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). This is the capstone of our Christian faith: “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Having been raised with Christ through faith in Him, we are called to live our lives in the new man, whom we are to put on (Ephesians 4:24), as the slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:18). Even though there are many commands in the Scriptures that tell us how we are to live our lives, we are not left to work out this life of righteousness on our own – the guidance of the Spirit of God is ours (Romans 8:1-14).
As we consider the ordinance of baptism in light of the Scriptures that we have looked at so far, we can readily see that it is a picture of the process of acquiring new life in Christ; we identify with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. What is equally evident is that baptism alone holds no merit and, without new life through faith in Christ, it is reduced to an empty ritual. The order of belief and then baptism makes perfect sense, for baptism is a physical testimony of the reality of what has already taken place spiritually. It makes no sense to put baptism ahead of new birth, for then it could not testify to the reality of the spiritual condition of the recipient.
Colossians 2:12 – … Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation [working] of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
This is another passage that ties baptism to the work of the Lord that was accomplished through His death, burial and resurrection. This likeness is drawn after the declaration of the spiritual condition of the recipients of this letter: “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him …” (Colossians 2:6). The saving work of the Lord must precede baptism, else it cannot be a picture of something that has taken place.
What the covenantal, infant-baptism sacrament cannot illustrate is the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Despite the clear explanation from passages like that in Romans 6, for many people the traditions of men still hold greater weight than the Word of God. When all of the pieces of their theology fit together so neatly, they are very hesitant to entertain any evidence that would cause damage to their tight, little package.
Covenantalism (the primary focus of Reformed thinking), on the other hand, draws the Scriptures together into one or more covenants made between God and mankind; rather than periods of time, they consider the scope of the covenants made. For example, the WCF identifies two covenants, the covenant of works, which applied to Adam before the fall, and the covenant of grace applied to Adam and all of mankind after him; however, even within the covenant of grace, they refer to two dispensations: one of law and the other of the Gospel. Within covenantal thinking, there is an attempt to draw all times together and emphasize the sameness of God’s dealings with man throughout time. Even though there are those who draw from both fields (covenantal and dispensational), their view of history will, for the most part, follow either the covenantal or dispensational line of thinking (if you need a label). So when you hear of Reformed Baptists, they would be those who hold to a covenantal view of history, but do not hold to all of the doctrines of the WCF. Typically, they will hold to credobaptism (believer’s baptism) rather than a paedobaptism (infant baptism).
Unfortunately, what tends to take place is a focus on the theology, working all the bits and pieces together to make a cohesive whole, and then using that as a grid for the interpretation of Scripture. I’ve had a strongly Calvinistic individual (a covenantal position) question my intelligence because I could not understand and accept his theological position; in his words, “it all fit together so perfectly” how could I not understand it. Yet anytime I would bring to his attention those Scriptures that clearly declared a truth contrary to his Calvinistic position (to show that it did not all fit together so perfectly), it was generally deflected by him saying that it referred only to the elect, not to all of mankind. For example, 1 Timothy 2:1-4 reads: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth”; within his Calvinistic mindset, the “all men” refers only to the elect who are determined to be saved in the foreknowledge of God before the foundation of the world. Those who strongly adhere to a specific theology tend to not have eyes to see what the Scriptures say, or ears to hear any explanation other than what their theology supports. I was told by a Baptist pastor: “I am a Baptist by conviction. I believe our faith and practice is absolutely in line with what the Word of God teaches … We will have to agree to disagree ….”27 Notice his first alignment was with the Baptist position, not the Word of God, and therein rests the hurdle over which we will never be able to drag these men. Unless God opens their eyes, they will continue to proclaim, “We see!!” – even while they remain trapped in their own theological maze.
Those of the Baptist persuasion will typically hold to a dispensational view of Scripture that sets a gulf between Israel and the “church.” Within this framework, the “church” is something new that God implemented when Israel rejected Jesus as their Messiah, and it will continue until it is raptured out of the world, at which time God will turn His attention to Israel once again. Since they perceive there to be a gulf fixed between Israel and the “church,” they reject anything carried forward from OT times into today; there is an undue emphasis on the NT as being for today, while the OT merely tells us how we got to where we are. Whereas the covenantal position tends to meld the two together and erroneously, in our case, sees baptism as an extension of circumcision, the dispensational view permits no such thought. Although I do not agree with the dispensational view of Scripture, as it erects false barriers within the flow of God’s Word, it has landed its adherents on the right side of the baptism issue. I have provided this explanation to illustrate that our overall view of Scripture will impact specific doctrines.
The second area of difference between Reformed and Baptist baptism traditions deals with its meaning. We’ve already noted that, within the covenantal position, it serves as a door into the visible “church,” a means to receive the grace of God, which could lead to the salvation of the recipient if they happen to be among the elect (after all, it is a sacrament). It would seem that this understanding comes at the expense of many Scriptures that clearly contravene this view, and would, in fact, support the Baptist position. Since this is probably the area where the most significant differences rest, let’s take some time to review the Scriptures that speak of baptism within the context of the activities of the ekklesia in Acts, and within the instructions given in the epistles.
Acts 2:37-39 – Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
The middle verse (38) is typically the only one quoted in reference to baptism, but it is important to provide some context lest we misread the passage. Verse 37 provides us with a clear understanding of those whom Peter told to repent and be baptized – it was the people who had been pricked in their hearts. This indicates that they were at least old enough to understand the message that Peter had just delivered, and they were under conviction by the Spirit of God. Lest the infant-baptizers latch onto verse thirty-nine and say that Peter included the people’s little children, we must again permit context to provide a true understanding of what is being said. Peter is declaring that repentance, baptism and the Holy Ghost are not only for the present audience, but also a promise of God for their children (to those who will come after them) and to those who were “afar off.” This last phrase (actually a single word in Greek, makran) is used by Paul in Ephesians 2:13 to speak of the Gentiles, those not of the commonwealth of Israel, who have been brought together with spiritual Israel into one – Jesus having broken down the middle wall that separated the Jew from the Gentile. Peter, through the inspiration of the Spirit of God, used a term that would come to be applied to the nations of the world – and, indeed, the promise of the Spirit of God is to everyone who believes.
Acts 8:36-39 – And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
The word used here is baptizo, and what is very evident is that Philip ensured that the Ethiopian understood Who Jesus Christ was and that he believed (was persuaded) before consenting to baptize him – the qualification for baptism was belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. The mode of baptism is equally clear – baptizo means to immerse, or submerge;28 therefore, the Ethiopian went down into the water, went under the water, and then came up out of the water.
Acts 10:44-48 – While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days….
There are those of the infant-baptism persuasion who use Acts 10:24 as justification to say that small children were in the audience, and, therefore, included in the baptism rite: “And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.” However, it is important to read the whole story, for verse thirty-three provides some further clarification on this matter – Cornelius declares: “Now therefore are we all here present before God, to hear [includes understanding] all things that are commanded thee of God.”29 They were there for the express purpose of being taught what God had prepared for them through Peter; this would exclude those who could not understand, i.e., infants.
This is a fascinating passage that relates the lesson given by God to Peter, and those with him, that this work was God’s work, and it was bigger than just the Jewish community. On Pentecost, it was Peter, and the other disciples, who spoke in tongues to convince the observing people that the words that they heard were of God, for the crowd declared: “we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” (Acts 2:11). This time it was the Gentile outcasts who spoke in tongues by the Spirit of God so that Peter, and those with him, might learn something. In his discourse to these people, Peter got as far as “whosoever believeth in him [Jesus] shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43). At this point, while Peter was speaking these words, the Spirit of God fell on those gathered – they believed, even as Peter spoke, and received the cleansing from on high. After they believed, they were baptized (baptizo); again proof that all those who were baptized were believers, and those incapable of believing (infants) were not included.
Acts 16:14-15 – And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
Even though there is nothing within this passage to indicate who all would have been included in Lydia’s household, based on the wealth of passages that make it clear that belief precedes baptism, we cannot support creating a doctrine of infant baptism from this text.
Acts 16:30-33 – And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
Paul’s instructions to the Philippian jailor do not mean that the jailor’s household was automatically saved if he believed; the thrust is that believing results in salvation for anyone. The very next verse says that the jailer and all who were in his house received instruction from Paul that very hour. Since the passage indicates that all within his household were baptized (baptizo), it only follows that everyone was able to believe and understand Paul’s teaching; there were no infants in this household.
Romans 6:3-6 – Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Here we have the explanation of the symbolism of baptism, which in the Greek means immersion, or submersion30 – imagery that would fall apart if submersion were not used. Baptism symbolizes Christ’s death, burial and resurrection, and testifies that these have been applied, by faith, to the life of the recipient. Paul offers this illustration of the new life that we have in Christ to provide an image of why we are to “yield [ourselves] unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and [our] members as instruments of righteousness unto God” (Romans 6:13). The argument that Paul uses is: how can something that is dead still live? (Romans 6:2). If we have been brought by faith into a new life in Christ, how can we remain active in a life of sin? The thrust of this passage makes it clear that we cannot. “For when ye were the servants [slaves] of sin, ye were free from righteousness … But now being made free from sin, and become servants [become enslaved] to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life” (Romans 6:20, 22).31
As we accept Christ’s redemption by faith, we identify with Him in His death. Our old man, our sinful nature, is crucified with Christ – it has died with Him (Romans 6:6; Galatians 2:20, 5:24). We are to reckon or account ourselves to be dead to sin (Romans 6:11); this is a term of logic that speaks of this reckoning being based on facts, not supposition, conjecture, or thin hope.32 The fact in this is that Christ died bearing the sins of the world (John 1:29), and that includes the sin that we, by faith, acknowledge as being crucified with Him (1 Peter 2:24). As we enter into the water in baptism, we are signifying the death of our old sin nature – it is our identification with Christ in His death; we are testifying that we are considering our old man to be dead, as well as the life of sin that it exemplifies. Through a living faith in Christ, we are made free from sin; not that we are made sinless, but we are able to deem the bondage or power of sin to be broken within us.33 We are commanded to “let not sin therefore reign [to be king, to exercise kingly power] in your mortal body” (Romans 6:12);34 this is a command that we are called to obey; it is not a stated reality. “…22That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; 23And be renewed [being renewed; present tense, passive voice (it is God Who does the renewing)] in the spirit of your mind; 24And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness” (Ephesians 4:22-24).35 The “putting off” and the “putting on” are activities in which we are to be involved; the middle voice means that we are doing this and we are the beneficiaries as well.36 The grace of God that is imputed to us through faith in Jesus Christ, our Sacrifice, is not a grace that does everything for us. Even as Adam, the first man, was provided with a choice, so we, too, are called upon to exercise our wills in choosing to follow after God’s righteousness, and He has not left us without resources. Jesus said that He must leave this world so that He could send the Comforter, the Spirit of God, so that He might abide with us forever (John 14:16); this same Spirit from God intercedes for us with God (Romans 8:26).
As the waters of baptism close over us, we are identifying with Christ in His burial. The significance of His burial is that it confirms His death. The theories still circulate that Christ did not die but merely swooned and appeared to be as dead. However, the fact that he remained in the tomb for three full days and nights, confirms that He died. Within early Jewish custom, the tomb was not “immediately closed over the dead. During the first three days it was customary for the relatives to visit the grave to see whether the dead had come to life again.”37 We can readily see that Jesus’ burial (with the sealed tomb) was a departure from Jewish tradition, and His three-day burial is confirmation that He was dead.
“Now upon the first day of the week [this would have been the beginning of the fourth day after Jesus’ death], very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them” (Luke 24:1). This indicates two things: 1) there was no doubt in the minds of these women that Jesus had died, for they brought the traditional spices for burial, which they had prepared beforehand, and 2) the time within which the Jews would watch for a return to life was past – Jesus was dead. This is even more striking at the death of Lazarus: “Jesus said, Take ye away the stone. Martha, the sister of him that was dead, saith unto him, Lord, by this time he stinketh: for he hath been dead four days” (John 11:39); Jesus delayed His coming to the family so that everyone would know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Lazarus was dead. The two witnesses of Revelation are left in the streets of Jerusalem for three and a half days – again, confirmation that they were really dead (Revelation 11:9). When the waters of baptism close over our heads, we are affirming our identification with Christ’s burial; it demonstrates our will to put off the old man – he is dead.
However, the ordinance of baptism is not complete without coming up out of the water, and, thereby, identifying with Christ in His resurrection. We are brought up out of the water, “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). This is the capstone of our Christian faith: “if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). Having been raised with Christ through faith in Him, we are called to live our lives in the new man, whom we are to put on (Ephesians 4:24), as the slaves of righteousness (Romans 6:18). Even though there are many commands in the Scriptures that tell us how we are to live our lives, we are not left to work out this life of righteousness on our own – the guidance of the Spirit of God is ours (Romans 8:1-14).
As we consider the ordinance of baptism in light of the Scriptures that we have looked at so far, we can readily see that it is a picture of the process of acquiring new life in Christ; we identify with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection. What is equally evident is that baptism alone holds no merit and, without new life through faith in Christ, it is reduced to an empty ritual. The order of belief and then baptism makes perfect sense, for baptism is a physical testimony of the reality of what has already taken place spiritually. It makes no sense to put baptism ahead of new birth, for then it could not testify to the reality of the spiritual condition of the recipient.
Colossians 2:12 – … Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation [working] of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
This is another passage that ties baptism to the work of the Lord that was accomplished through His death, burial and resurrection. This likeness is drawn after the declaration of the spiritual condition of the recipients of this letter: “As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him …” (Colossians 2:6). The saving work of the Lord must precede baptism, else it cannot be a picture of something that has taken place.
What the covenantal, infant-baptism sacrament cannot illustrate is the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Despite the clear explanation from passages like that in Romans 6, for many people the traditions of men still hold greater weight than the Word of God. When all of the pieces of their theology fit together so neatly, they are very hesitant to entertain any evidence that would cause damage to their tight, little package.
Bill Hybels
Within the Biblical ekklesia, it would seem evident that baptism is an ordinance that is used to testify of a change that has already taken place within the spiritual life of the recipient. It is a picture that serves to remind us of the reality of what the Lord went through to purchase our redemption. We have died to the old man (he has been put off [Ephesians 4:22], and he is crucified [Galatians 2:20]), and, inasmuch as he is dead, we are to live a life of holiness (1 Peter 1:15-16) and righteousness (Romans 6:13, 18) through the power and guidance of the indwelling Spirit of God (Romans 8:10-11).
It is interesting to look at what some very prominent Evangelicals say about baptism. Bill Hybels, on his Willow Creek Community Church website, declares: “While recognizing the right for other churches to practice infant Baptism if it conforms to their theologies, the congregation of Willow Creek Community Church understands Scripture to teach that only professing believers qualify for Baptism. … If you were baptized as a child, it was the intent of your parents that you would one day be a follower of Christ. Your Baptism as an adult can be viewed as the fulfillment of your parents’ wishes. It in no way repudiates the Baptism you received as a child” (emphasis added).38 There is a definite effort made to not offend anyone who holds to infant baptism, despite it having no basis in Scripture; even though they will not practice it themselves, they steer well clear of using righteous judgment (the Word of God) to state that infant baptism is unbiblical. Joel Osteen (Lakewood Church) is even more vague: “We believe…water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and a testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”39 Although he says that baptism is to be a testimony, and therefore, it must follow our faith, he is very short on details. The comments made by the leaders of the Evangelical Free Church are supremely anemic: “The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means of salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer” (emphasis added).40 As clear as the Scriptures are regarding the symbolism of baptism, there is a hesitation on the part of Evangelicals to take a Biblical stand on this doctrine – even to the point of making an ambiguous attempt to attach some sacramental value to it (nourish).
As we have looked at the passages in Acts that deal with baptism, it is evident that believer’s baptism was practiced by the early Christians. Jesus’ final instructions to His disciples included the concept of baptism (Matthew 28:19), and it is apparent that the early disciples followed through on that instruction. It is equally clear from Scripture that baptism is not essential to holding saving faith, for it is only an outward expression of an inward change. Baptism will not make you live a better Christian life; it will not save you, nor will it bestow some mysterious grace into your life. Unless you have by faith appropriated the redemption that Christ won at Calvary, and unless you have made a commitment to walk worthy of the calling that Christ has placed upon you, baptism will be nothing more than another religious ritual. Too often it is the thing to do; you’re not opposed to that for which it stands and all your friends are doing it, so it becomes another step along the road of participating in a Christian culture. The meaning and reality of rebirth into life in Christ has become clouded, and baptism becomes an empty ritual (we may understand all the theory behind it, but our lives do not exemplify its spiritual truth).
As an aside, why did Jesus insist that John the Baptist baptize Him?
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:13-17).
John recognized the anomaly of baptizing Jesus, the Lamb of God, Who came to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Then there was the matter of John’s baptism being one of repentance – and Jesus, as the sinless Son of God, had no need for repentance. However, there are a couple of things I would suggest that may not completely answer the probing question, but, perhaps, will serve to provide a fuller appreciation for all that took place on this occasion.
First of all, Jesus’ baptism took place in the midst of John’s ministry; it was a public baptism that occurred in the sight of all those who were present that day. By doing this, Jesus made it abundantly clear that the ministry of John the Baptist had His endorsement; it was God’s work and served a prophetically fulfilling purpose. We’ve already seen that the scribes and Pharisees rejected John’s baptism – this is another instance where Jesus stood in opposition to the religious authorities of His day.
Secondly, it served as a fulfillment of the cleansing required by the Law before a priest could assume his duties. “And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water” (Exodus 29:4, also 40:12; Leviticus 8:6); this was one part of a complex process of preparing these men for their priestly duties. Even though Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 5:1-10), and not through the lineage of Aaron, He accepted John’s baptism as a symbolic cleansing before He began His earthly, high-priestly ministry, in fulfillment of the Law that required the high priest to be cleansed. Leviticus 21:10 tells us that the high priest was also anointed with oil: “And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured ….” As Jesus came out of the water, we are told that heaven opened and John saw “the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him” (John 1:32). “… the anointing oil, which was prepared according to divine instructions, was therefore a symbol of the Spirit of God, as the principle of spiritual life which proceeds from God ….”41 As Jesus emerged from the water, the Spirit of God, the third member of the Godhead, descended upon Him. The high priest, within the ceremonial practices of the Mosaic Law, was to be cleansed and anointed before he was ready to carry out his responsibilities. Jesus openly declared that He came not “to destroy the law, or the prophets … but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). Throughout His life and ministry, He kept the Law perfectly (not necessarily the traditions of the Pharisees, but the Law of God and the Law of Moses). As He prepared to begin the ministry that He had come to earth to perform, He fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of a high priest, and He ultimately became our High Priest. “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus … a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:1, 6). Jesus is our High Priest as long as we hold fast, or retain, the hope that we have in Him. This promise is followed by a clear warning, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12).
First Peter 2:4-10 – To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
The mercy of God is obtained by identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ – all that Jesus went through to purchase our pardon. In practical terms, the Lord Jesus set the example for us. He, the sinless Son of God, entered the waters of baptism, and submitted to the ritual cleansing prescribed for a priest so that there might be no question as to His ministry for sinners. We have been declared to be a royal priesthood, and the ordinance of baptism provides both a public testimony and a living illustration of our commitment to walk in the steps of our Savior.
A. Lord’s Supper – This ordinance might seem to be far less controversial than baptism, yet there are extreme variances in understanding within the Protestant community and, in reality, this served as the focus of the contention between the Reformers and the Catholic Church. We noted earlier that within the Roman Catholic Church this is a sacrament referred to as the Holy Eucharist, in which they believe the wine and bread (or, more commonly, just the bread or wafer) literally becomes the blood and body of the Lord Jesus Christ through the words of the priest in their ceremonial mass – to the point that parishioners are encouraged to worship the wafer as they would the Lord. Interestingly, this Catholic tradition began to take form early in the third century AD, and served to solidify the clergy-laity separation, for only the clergy could perform the ritual that would transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord.42 Within Protestantism, we have a full range of understandings of the Lord’s Supper, from a memorial ordinance to a sacrament that is almost, but not quite, the same as the Catholic tradition.
It is interesting to look at what some very prominent Evangelicals say about baptism. Bill Hybels, on his Willow Creek Community Church website, declares: “While recognizing the right for other churches to practice infant Baptism if it conforms to their theologies, the congregation of Willow Creek Community Church understands Scripture to teach that only professing believers qualify for Baptism. … If you were baptized as a child, it was the intent of your parents that you would one day be a follower of Christ. Your Baptism as an adult can be viewed as the fulfillment of your parents’ wishes. It in no way repudiates the Baptism you received as a child” (emphasis added).38 There is a definite effort made to not offend anyone who holds to infant baptism, despite it having no basis in Scripture; even though they will not practice it themselves, they steer well clear of using righteous judgment (the Word of God) to state that infant baptism is unbiblical. Joel Osteen (Lakewood Church) is even more vague: “We believe…water baptism is a symbol of the cleansing power of the blood of Christ and a testimony to our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.”39 Although he says that baptism is to be a testimony, and therefore, it must follow our faith, he is very short on details. The comments made by the leaders of the Evangelical Free Church are supremely anemic: “The Lord Jesus mandated two ordinances, baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which visibly and tangibly express the gospel. Though they are not the means of salvation, when celebrated by the church in genuine faith, these ordinances confirm and nourish the believer” (emphasis added).40 As clear as the Scriptures are regarding the symbolism of baptism, there is a hesitation on the part of Evangelicals to take a Biblical stand on this doctrine – even to the point of making an ambiguous attempt to attach some sacramental value to it (nourish).
As we have looked at the passages in Acts that deal with baptism, it is evident that believer’s baptism was practiced by the early Christians. Jesus’ final instructions to His disciples included the concept of baptism (Matthew 28:19), and it is apparent that the early disciples followed through on that instruction. It is equally clear from Scripture that baptism is not essential to holding saving faith, for it is only an outward expression of an inward change. Baptism will not make you live a better Christian life; it will not save you, nor will it bestow some mysterious grace into your life. Unless you have by faith appropriated the redemption that Christ won at Calvary, and unless you have made a commitment to walk worthy of the calling that Christ has placed upon you, baptism will be nothing more than another religious ritual. Too often it is the thing to do; you’re not opposed to that for which it stands and all your friends are doing it, so it becomes another step along the road of participating in a Christian culture. The meaning and reality of rebirth into life in Christ has become clouded, and baptism becomes an empty ritual (we may understand all the theory behind it, but our lives do not exemplify its spiritual truth).
As an aside, why did Jesus insist that John the Baptist baptize Him?
Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased (Matthew 3:13-17).
John recognized the anomaly of baptizing Jesus, the Lamb of God, Who came to take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Then there was the matter of John’s baptism being one of repentance – and Jesus, as the sinless Son of God, had no need for repentance. However, there are a couple of things I would suggest that may not completely answer the probing question, but, perhaps, will serve to provide a fuller appreciation for all that took place on this occasion.
First of all, Jesus’ baptism took place in the midst of John’s ministry; it was a public baptism that occurred in the sight of all those who were present that day. By doing this, Jesus made it abundantly clear that the ministry of John the Baptist had His endorsement; it was God’s work and served a prophetically fulfilling purpose. We’ve already seen that the scribes and Pharisees rejected John’s baptism – this is another instance where Jesus stood in opposition to the religious authorities of His day.
Secondly, it served as a fulfillment of the cleansing required by the Law before a priest could assume his duties. “And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water” (Exodus 29:4, also 40:12; Leviticus 8:6); this was one part of a complex process of preparing these men for their priestly duties. Even though Jesus is a High Priest after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 5:1-10), and not through the lineage of Aaron, He accepted John’s baptism as a symbolic cleansing before He began His earthly, high-priestly ministry, in fulfillment of the Law that required the high priest to be cleansed. Leviticus 21:10 tells us that the high priest was also anointed with oil: “And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured ….” As Jesus came out of the water, we are told that heaven opened and John saw “the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him” (John 1:32). “… the anointing oil, which was prepared according to divine instructions, was therefore a symbol of the Spirit of God, as the principle of spiritual life which proceeds from God ….”41 As Jesus emerged from the water, the Spirit of God, the third member of the Godhead, descended upon Him. The high priest, within the ceremonial practices of the Mosaic Law, was to be cleansed and anointed before he was ready to carry out his responsibilities. Jesus openly declared that He came not “to destroy the law, or the prophets … but to fulfil” (Matthew 5:17). Throughout His life and ministry, He kept the Law perfectly (not necessarily the traditions of the Pharisees, but the Law of God and the Law of Moses). As He prepared to begin the ministry that He had come to earth to perform, He fulfilled the ceremonial requirements of a high priest, and He ultimately became our High Priest. “Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus … a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end” (Hebrews 3:1, 6). Jesus is our High Priest as long as we hold fast, or retain, the hope that we have in Him. This promise is followed by a clear warning, “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God” (Hebrews 3:12).
First Peter 2:4-10 – To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed. But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
The mercy of God is obtained by identifying with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ – all that Jesus went through to purchase our pardon. In practical terms, the Lord Jesus set the example for us. He, the sinless Son of God, entered the waters of baptism, and submitted to the ritual cleansing prescribed for a priest so that there might be no question as to His ministry for sinners. We have been declared to be a royal priesthood, and the ordinance of baptism provides both a public testimony and a living illustration of our commitment to walk in the steps of our Savior.
A. Lord’s Supper – This ordinance might seem to be far less controversial than baptism, yet there are extreme variances in understanding within the Protestant community and, in reality, this served as the focus of the contention between the Reformers and the Catholic Church. We noted earlier that within the Roman Catholic Church this is a sacrament referred to as the Holy Eucharist, in which they believe the wine and bread (or, more commonly, just the bread or wafer) literally becomes the blood and body of the Lord Jesus Christ through the words of the priest in their ceremonial mass – to the point that parishioners are encouraged to worship the wafer as they would the Lord. Interestingly, this Catholic tradition began to take form early in the third century AD, and served to solidify the clergy-laity separation, for only the clergy could perform the ritual that would transform the bread and wine into the body and blood of the Lord.42 Within Protestantism, we have a full range of understandings of the Lord’s Supper, from a memorial ordinance to a sacrament that is almost, but not quite, the same as the Catholic tradition.
Martin Luther
Within Anglicanism, we have the closest understanding to that of the Catholic practice, but there is also a wide variation of beliefs. The High Anglicans tend to practice what is known as consubstantiation, which simply means that the elements of the Eucharist (they use the Catholic term), even though they do not change from being bread and wine, take on the nature of the body and blood of the Lord alongside of their physical substance. So physically, the elements remain bread and wine, but sacramentally they become the body and blood of the Lord; they view the change as one of transformation, but not substitution. Therefore, for the purposes of their Eucharist, they are partaking of the body and blood of the Lord (in similar fashion to the Catholics). The Low Anglicans tend to hold beliefs that vary from the sacramental union tradition of the Lutherans, to spiritual presence and dynamic memorialism – each one a step further away from the Catholic tradition of transubstantiation.
The Lutherans practice what they call sacramental union, which goes back to Martin Luther. The understanding is that the body of Christ is united with the Eucharistic bread (they, too, use the term Eucharist), and the blood of Christ is united with the wine of the sacrament, in much the same way that we as humans are body and soul. Therefore they, too, believe that anyone participating in the Eucharist is actually eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood. The fine line of difference between this and the Catholic tradition is that the bread and wine remain present, although mystically united with Christ’s body and blood, whereas the Catholics see the bread and wine transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. As I said, the difference is a very fine line.
The Lutherans practice what they call sacramental union, which goes back to Martin Luther. The understanding is that the body of Christ is united with the Eucharistic bread (they, too, use the term Eucharist), and the blood of Christ is united with the wine of the sacrament, in much the same way that we as humans are body and soul. Therefore they, too, believe that anyone participating in the Eucharist is actually eating the body of Christ and drinking His blood. The fine line of difference between this and the Catholic tradition is that the bread and wine remain present, although mystically united with Christ’s body and blood, whereas the Catholics see the bread and wine transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. As I said, the difference is a very fine line.
John Calvin
The Reformed and Presbyterian traditions (both finding their roots in the theology of John Calvin) hold to a spiritual presence in the elements of communion. The essence of this is that the physical characteristics of the bread and wine do not change; however, spiritually, the elements, through the faith of the participant, become the body and blood of the Lord – another tiny step away from Catholic transubstantiation, but the line of change remains very small.
Within each tradition considered so far, the participant is eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, whether this is considered a literal reality (as with the Catholics), a mystical union of some sort (as for the Anglicans and Lutherans), or only spiritually speaking (as with the Reformed). What is very evident is that none of these views has departed very far from the Catholic traditions surrounding the Eucharist. Today, as we see many of these faiths once again joining hands with the Roman Catholic Church, it is evident that the practices surrounding this sacrament (and they all call it a sacrament) will not stand in the way of such a reunion. Despite the fact that the Reformers went to their deaths disputing the Catholic traditions in this matter, you can see that, in their separation, they did not go very far. With the passage of time, that fine line of demarcation has become blurred, and generations later it is no longer seen as a dividing principle upon which they are prepared to stand.
The final position regarding the Lord’s Supper is that it is a memorial of the death of our Lord, and the elements are symbolic of His body and blood. Considering the practices that we’ve looked at so far, this is clearly a great departure from them. Our ordinance (it is not considered a sacrament) is based on the last meal that Jesus had with His disciples before His crucifixion, and on a passage from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Matthew 26:26-29 – And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
When Jesus said to His disciples: “this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” what should be very apparent is that the disciples would have understood this to be figurative language. Jesus did not turn the elements into his flesh and blood, for He goes on to refer to the contents of the cup as being the “fruit of the vine.” No transubstantiation had taken place, not even consubstantiation or mystical union; the bread and the fruit of the vine were still, in substance, just that. Clearly the content of the cup was of less importance than the symbolism that Jesus sought to instill in His disciples at this time. Luke adds the thought that this was to be done in remembrance of the Lord (Luke 22:19).
We find no evidence of any mystical transformation of the elements at the first Lord’s Supper, but what we do find is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people (Jeremiah 31:31-33).
As Jesus broke the bread and distributed the produce of the vine to His disciples, He specifically stated: “This cup is the new testament [covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).43 He used the very words that God gave to Jeremiah so many years before, and He made that covenant with those who were sons of Israel. There was no mystical transubstantiation at that gathering, but something far greater took place – the implementation of the promised New Covenant! The writer of the book of Hebrews recognized this amazing truth, and declared, “6[Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah …” (Hebrews 8:6-8; the writer then begins to quote from Jeremiah 31).
Paul, in his letter of instruction to the Corinthians, provides them with instruction in how they were to celebrate that which has become known as the Lord’s Supper. Evidently, their way of keeping the commemorative meal had fallen into disarray, and Paul clarified for them (and for us) the proper order:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [announce or declare] the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. 1 Corinthians 11:23-34.44
This is a reiteration of the account from Matthew, with the addition of the purpose of this celebration being a remembrance of the Lord: His birth, ministry and what He accomplished through the giving of His body on the cross and the shedding of His blood, and we are to do so until He comes again. What is significant in Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians is the warning that comes along with keeping this ordinance of remembrance. It seems that the Corinthians had failed to comprehend the purpose for looking back to the death of the Lord Jesus as the price paid for our redemption. It seems that some were coming to their assembly hungry, and looking to fill up during the ordinance (verse 21), and others started their celebration before they came together, and were imbibing too freely of the cup. Then there was the problem of divisions (again) between the rich and the poor, with the former despising the latter (verse 22). This was an assembly that was fraught with divisions even at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Some of the Corinthians considered the celebration to be just another meal, not laying hold of the solemn symbolism of this time; this is not a common meal, for there are only two elements, and each is to bring to the remembrance of the participant the sacrifice that the Lord made for them. This is not a time to eat to fill the stomach or drink to quench the thirst; those activities are to be taken care of in the home before coming together (verse 22). The warning is to those who would partake without recalling the sacrifice that the Lord made for them or the New Covenant that He had implemented – those who would eat and drink unworthily. It is stated that they will be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (verse 27); they will be under judgment for not discerning the significance of the elements representing the body and blood of the Lord (verse 29), and, thereby, eating and drinking carelessly. The word unworthily (used in verses 27 and 29) means irreverently;45 these do not discern the significance of the event that is being called to mind through partaking of these elements. Essentially, this would be someone who is flippant with the commemoration of the Lord’s death, and the elements are but bread and wine (a time to eat and drink); by contrast, the Catholics make the elements the very body and blood of the Lord, thereby crucifying Him all over again, and, thereby, making the celebration to be that which our Lord never intended. Both are a desecration of what the Lord desired.
The significance of approaching the elements of communion irreverently are clearly described by Paul: because of their actions, many were “weak and sickly” (physically) among them and “many sleep” (1 Corinthians 11:30). This same word is used to describe the “sleep” that Lazarus had for four days before Jesus arrived to call him forth from the grave (John 11:11-14); it is the sleep of death. There can be no question that this is a solemn occasion; there can be no doubt that the Lord took the desecration of this celebration very seriously. This is to be a time of reflection on the sacrifice that the Lord made on our behalf by coming to earth for the express purpose of securing our redemption at Calvary; we are to partake of the elements in remembrance of Him – anything beyond that, or less than that, is not following the Lord’s instructions.
Within each tradition considered so far, the participant is eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, whether this is considered a literal reality (as with the Catholics), a mystical union of some sort (as for the Anglicans and Lutherans), or only spiritually speaking (as with the Reformed). What is very evident is that none of these views has departed very far from the Catholic traditions surrounding the Eucharist. Today, as we see many of these faiths once again joining hands with the Roman Catholic Church, it is evident that the practices surrounding this sacrament (and they all call it a sacrament) will not stand in the way of such a reunion. Despite the fact that the Reformers went to their deaths disputing the Catholic traditions in this matter, you can see that, in their separation, they did not go very far. With the passage of time, that fine line of demarcation has become blurred, and generations later it is no longer seen as a dividing principle upon which they are prepared to stand.
The final position regarding the Lord’s Supper is that it is a memorial of the death of our Lord, and the elements are symbolic of His body and blood. Considering the practices that we’ve looked at so far, this is clearly a great departure from them. Our ordinance (it is not considered a sacrament) is based on the last meal that Jesus had with His disciples before His crucifixion, and on a passage from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians.
Matthew 26:26-29 – And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.
When Jesus said to His disciples: “this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” what should be very apparent is that the disciples would have understood this to be figurative language. Jesus did not turn the elements into his flesh and blood, for He goes on to refer to the contents of the cup as being the “fruit of the vine.” No transubstantiation had taken place, not even consubstantiation or mystical union; the bread and the fruit of the vine were still, in substance, just that. Clearly the content of the cup was of less importance than the symbolism that Jesus sought to instill in His disciples at this time. Luke adds the thought that this was to be done in remembrance of the Lord (Luke 22:19).
We find no evidence of any mystical transformation of the elements at the first Lord’s Supper, but what we do find is a fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people (Jeremiah 31:31-33).
As Jesus broke the bread and distributed the produce of the vine to His disciples, He specifically stated: “This cup is the new testament [covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you” (Luke 22:20).43 He used the very words that God gave to Jeremiah so many years before, and He made that covenant with those who were sons of Israel. There was no mystical transubstantiation at that gathering, but something far greater took place – the implementation of the promised New Covenant! The writer of the book of Hebrews recognized this amazing truth, and declared, “6[Jesus] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 7For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. 8For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah …” (Hebrews 8:6-8; the writer then begins to quote from Jeremiah 31).
Paul, in his letter of instruction to the Corinthians, provides them with instruction in how they were to celebrate that which has become known as the Lord’s Supper. Evidently, their way of keeping the commemorative meal had fallen into disarray, and Paul clarified for them (and for us) the proper order:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew [announce or declare] the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come. 1 Corinthians 11:23-34.44
This is a reiteration of the account from Matthew, with the addition of the purpose of this celebration being a remembrance of the Lord: His birth, ministry and what He accomplished through the giving of His body on the cross and the shedding of His blood, and we are to do so until He comes again. What is significant in Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians is the warning that comes along with keeping this ordinance of remembrance. It seems that the Corinthians had failed to comprehend the purpose for looking back to the death of the Lord Jesus as the price paid for our redemption. It seems that some were coming to their assembly hungry, and looking to fill up during the ordinance (verse 21), and others started their celebration before they came together, and were imbibing too freely of the cup. Then there was the problem of divisions (again) between the rich and the poor, with the former despising the latter (verse 22). This was an assembly that was fraught with divisions even at the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. Some of the Corinthians considered the celebration to be just another meal, not laying hold of the solemn symbolism of this time; this is not a common meal, for there are only two elements, and each is to bring to the remembrance of the participant the sacrifice that the Lord made for them. This is not a time to eat to fill the stomach or drink to quench the thirst; those activities are to be taken care of in the home before coming together (verse 22). The warning is to those who would partake without recalling the sacrifice that the Lord made for them or the New Covenant that He had implemented – those who would eat and drink unworthily. It is stated that they will be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” (verse 27); they will be under judgment for not discerning the significance of the elements representing the body and blood of the Lord (verse 29), and, thereby, eating and drinking carelessly. The word unworthily (used in verses 27 and 29) means irreverently;45 these do not discern the significance of the event that is being called to mind through partaking of these elements. Essentially, this would be someone who is flippant with the commemoration of the Lord’s death, and the elements are but bread and wine (a time to eat and drink); by contrast, the Catholics make the elements the very body and blood of the Lord, thereby crucifying Him all over again, and, thereby, making the celebration to be that which our Lord never intended. Both are a desecration of what the Lord desired.
The significance of approaching the elements of communion irreverently are clearly described by Paul: because of their actions, many were “weak and sickly” (physically) among them and “many sleep” (1 Corinthians 11:30). This same word is used to describe the “sleep” that Lazarus had for four days before Jesus arrived to call him forth from the grave (John 11:11-14); it is the sleep of death. There can be no question that this is a solemn occasion; there can be no doubt that the Lord took the desecration of this celebration very seriously. This is to be a time of reflection on the sacrifice that the Lord made on our behalf by coming to earth for the express purpose of securing our redemption at Calvary; we are to partake of the elements in remembrance of Him – anything beyond that, or less than that, is not following the Lord’s instructions.
______________________
1 Encarta Dictionary, “ordinance.”
2 Ibid., “sacrament.”
3 The Council of Trent, Canons and Decrees, Seventh Session, Canon IV. “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.” Despite the best efforts of Ecumenists today, the Council of Trent is alive and well within the Catholic economy, and it is clear that any unity that involves the Roman Catholic Church will require compromise on the part of the other faith.
4 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm, “Baptism.”
5 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm, “Confirmation.”
6 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm, “Holy Eucharist.”
7 Ibid.
8 The Council of Trent, Canons and Decrees, Thirteenth Session, Canon VI.
9 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm, “Penance.”
10 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm, “Extreme Unction.”
11 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm, “Holy Orders.”
12 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm, “Marriage.”
13 Vine’s “baptism.”
14 Strong’s Online.
15 Jewish Encyclopedia, “Baptism.”
16 David V. Martin, Trinity International University 1897-1997, p. 19.
17 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter XXVII.
18 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/, Chapter XXVIII.
19 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter X.
20 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter X, Article III.
21 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter XXVIII, Article III.
22 Strong’s Online.
23 Ibid.
24 E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, p. 32.
25 http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm#_1_48 , “Dispensationalism.”
26 Cloud, “Study.”
27 Personal correspondence from Wilbert Unger, Bethel Baptist Church, London, ON.
28 Strong’s Online.
29 Friberg Lexicon.
30 Strong’s Online.
31 Friberg Lexicon.
32 Ibid.
33 This is the real bondage breaker, not Neil Anderson’s ritual prayers endeavoring to cast off the forces of evil.
34 Strong’s Online.
35 Stephanus 1550 NT.
36 https://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm
37 Jewish Encyclopedia, “burial.”
38 http://www.willowcreek.org/attachments/Baptism.pdf
39 http://www.lakewood.cc/AboutUs/OurBeliefs/Pages/LCBeliefs.aspx
40 http://www.efccm.ca/wordpress/?page_id=274
41 Keil & Delitzch Commentary on the Old Testament, Leviticus 8:10-13, ESword.
42 Broadbent, pp. 52-53.
43 Strong’s Online.
44 Ibid.
45 Strong's Dictionary.
1 Encarta Dictionary, “ordinance.”
2 Ibid., “sacrament.”
3 The Council of Trent, Canons and Decrees, Seventh Session, Canon IV. “If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema.” Despite the best efforts of Ecumenists today, the Council of Trent is alive and well within the Catholic economy, and it is clear that any unity that involves the Roman Catholic Church will require compromise on the part of the other faith.
4 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm, “Baptism.”
5 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04215b.htm, “Confirmation.”
6 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm, “Holy Eucharist.”
7 Ibid.
8 The Council of Trent, Canons and Decrees, Thirteenth Session, Canon VI.
9 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm, “Penance.”
10 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05716a.htm, “Extreme Unction.”
11 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm, “Holy Orders.”
12 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm, “Marriage.”
13 Vine’s “baptism.”
14 Strong’s Online.
15 Jewish Encyclopedia, “Baptism.”
16 David V. Martin, Trinity International University 1897-1997, p. 19.
17 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter XXVII.
18 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/, Chapter XXVIII.
19 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter X.
20 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter X, Article III.
21 http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html Chapter XXVIII, Article III.
22 Strong’s Online.
23 Ibid.
24 E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church, p. 32.
25 http://www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_c-d.htm#_1_48 , “Dispensationalism.”
26 Cloud, “Study.”
27 Personal correspondence from Wilbert Unger, Bethel Baptist Church, London, ON.
28 Strong’s Online.
29 Friberg Lexicon.
30 Strong’s Online.
31 Friberg Lexicon.
32 Ibid.
33 This is the real bondage breaker, not Neil Anderson’s ritual prayers endeavoring to cast off the forces of evil.
34 Strong’s Online.
35 Stephanus 1550 NT.
36 https://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm
37 Jewish Encyclopedia, “burial.”
38 http://www.willowcreek.org/attachments/Baptism.pdf
39 http://www.lakewood.cc/AboutUs/OurBeliefs/Pages/LCBeliefs.aspx
40 http://www.efccm.ca/wordpress/?page_id=274
41 Keil & Delitzch Commentary on the Old Testament, Leviticus 8:10-13, ESword.
42 Broadbent, pp. 52-53.
43 Strong’s Online.
44 Ibid.
45 Strong's Dictionary.