ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH:
BAPTISM AND THE LORD’S SUPPER
I. INTRODUCTION
Various religions have many rites or rituals that a convert must perform either to achieve their definition of salvation or to maintain that salvation. Often these rites have secret meanings and are surrounded in mystical auras only understood by the elite or priesthood of that religion. Some call these types of rituals sacraments, which comes from the word sacred.
Baptists believe that Christ initiated only two ordinances or decrees that Christians are to observe. One is baptism and the other is the Lord’s Supper. Neither of these ordinances saves a soul nor helps that soul to maintain their salvation. You might call them family rules. They are acts of obedience as one born into the Lord's family or Church. As with all the commandments of God, disobedience will affect a person's fellowship with the Lord and their spiritual growth may be hindered, but not their relationship to the Father.
II. BAPTISM
{A} Purpose and reasons.
The following Scriptures show that water baptism is an ordinance and has no sacramental properties.
Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Romans 6:3-5
(3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
(4) 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.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
These verses are not speaking of water baptism as we see in the next one.
I Corinthians 12:13
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.
His Spirit baptizes us into Christ, not the water symbol of our death, burial, and resurrection to newness of life.
I Peter 3:19-21
(19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
(20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
(21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
Although eight souls were delivered physically from death in the water by the very water itself because the ark floated, they were not spiritually saved/delivered by that water. They were physically saved because they had the faith to enter the ark. Their faith in God made them enter the ark, and that act of faith saved them spiritually and physically.
Peter says that in like fashion baptism saves/delivers us not by putting away (salvation) the filth of the flesh (sin), but that it is a symbol of our salvation and helps us heal/deliver our conscience for two reasons: First, It helps us identify with Christ and our new creation; Second, it is a first act of obedience that produces blessing and emotional peace. (answer to/benefit to a good/clean conscience.)
Save 4982 sozo (sode'-zo); from a primary sos (contraction for obsolete saoz, "safe"); to save, i.e.
deliver or protect (literally or figuratively): KJV-- heal, preserve, save (self), do well, be (make) whole.
Good 18 agathos (ag-ath-os'); a primary word; "good" (in any sense, often as noun): KJV-- benefit, good
(-s, things), well. Compare 2570.
Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (KJV)
Romans 10:9-13
(9) That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
(11) For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
(12) For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
(13) For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Some would be in a dilemma here; but there is no contradiction between these verses. I believe that Mark is speaking of the commitment required to truly believe the Gospel versus mere mental assent of facts. James tells us that even demons believe but that type of belief will not save them because it is only an intellectual acknowledgement of God’s existence. Many hear the Word and acknowledge that it is God’s Word, but do not exercise faith in it. (James 2:19; Hebrews 4:2)
In New Testament times and currently in communist or Islamic countries, being baptized could cost you your family, job or life. It is easy to say you believe, but to show that belief when it can cost you dearly is an entirely different matter. (James 2:18)
As we have today, many were fearful to make public their faith in Christ, preferring to be silent Christians. Jesus warned that if we were ashamed of Him here, He would be ashamed of us there. (Mark 8:38) Mark is saying, then, that true faith or belief would express itself in obedience to the commandment to be baptized. He saw the two as being hand in hand. Indeed, the word "and" is kai in the Greek. Kai can also mean even. Mark may well have been saying that he who believes even baptized shall be saved. Not saying that there is salvation in the water, but rather a person that truly believes will be baptized gratefully identifying himself with the Lord he says he believes in. Thus showing his faith by obedience as James declares.
The Romans passage clearly gives a plan of salvation and the definition of how the plan works. The word saved is the same in both passages. Does believing and baptism or just believing save us? It cannot be both. Paul clearly states that salvation can be had for the asking/calling with no mention of water. He defines of what the calling should consist: confession of whom Jesus is which will spring from a heart that believes in His resurrection. It is summarized here in the bottom line rather than detailed. If you have the truth in your heart, confession on your lips, calling upon Him, you will be saved and never be ashamed or confounded because you believed on Him.
If I were to make a profession of faith in Jesus on Saturday night, but died before I could be baptized on Sunday morning, would my salvation be up to God. To answer yes to this question is a cop out. He clearly says that if I call upon the name of the Lord that I shall be saved. If I believe in my heart that God raised Christ from the dead, then salvation is mine by confessing Him (homologeo/same word) with my mouth the Lord Jesus. There is no mention of water here. My salvation is in believing the following record.
I John 5:11-13
(11) And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
(12) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
The entire Word of God is the record. What does it record? God gives us eternal life. How do I get eternal life? I must have the Son. How do I get the Son? I believe. These verses have no reference to water of any kind. Where is the idea of believe and be baptized of Mark as it is sometimes taught? Not here at all in this clear presentation of bottom line salvation!
Remember I Corinthians 12:13 tells us that the Spirit baptizes us into Christ. Acts 1:5 differentiates between water and Spirit. So it is possible that Mark is referring to the Spirit’s baptism that will happen when you believe. He does follow that passage with a list of the sign gifts that were given to establish the early Church. Mark 16 also helps us to militate against infant baptism, which may also be an intent of the passage since God knew pedobaptism/infant baptism would become an issue. It would be reasonable to expect in this discussion to include in the linear logical progression that: 1. He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; 2. He that believeth, but is not baptized shall be damned; 3. He that believeth not shall be damned if baptism were essential to salvation. I would not expect Mark to be ambiguous about such a core doctrine.
I do not believe that Mark and Paul would contradict one another. Paul spends the whole of his writings teaching that salvation is by faith and faith alone. If it is faith plus baptism then baptism is the New Testament replacement of circumcision and Paul slapped the ones who said that the Gentiles must believe and be circumcised. If he fought that teaching as hard as he did, he surely would have made a doctrine of believe and be baptized to be saved clear. By the way, if baptism were the replacement of circumcision then only men would be baptized.
Ephesians 4:4-5
(4) There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of our calling;
(5) One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Again, Paul emphasizes the Spirit and makes it the one essential baptism, as is our faith in the only true Lord. By the way, that would mean that the true church is the true church and maybe denominations are more like parts of the body fulfilling different functions. Therefore all the hoopla over denominational/nondenominational tags is moot and even to the point of being silly. For a group to claim it is not a denomination would mean that it is the only true church. The Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist Bride groups, Apostolic Churches, Mormons, some branches of the Church of Christ, and others share this error.
The Jews thought they were the only ones, but Jesus told them that He had sheep in another fold. We must be careful of being guilty of the same type of snobbery. We must unite around fundamental truths by being of the same mind and purpose, while at the same time not abdicating conviction. That mind is to be Christ's and His purpose is saving the lost and edifying the saints. This is not Ecumenism. Luther said, "Peace, if possible, but truth at any rate." We cannot unite around error in the name of love and unity. Christ and Belial cannot share the same table. (I Corinthians 6:15)
I Corinthians 2:1-2
1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring
unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
We would be wise to make our main thrust the same as Paul’s. Christ is the focus of everything. His atonement is what we need and if we are baptized into His Spirit, we have it all.
I Corinthians 1:12-18
(12) Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
(13) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
(14) I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
(15) Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
(16) And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
(17) For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the
cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
(18) For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is
the power of God.
This shows the Corinthians understood the concept of identification by baptism, but abused it. They were proud of the person who baptized them instead of who they were baptized unto. Christ did not send Paul to baptize? Paul was not one to do things halfway or be ambiguous. He would have been perfectly clear if baptism was mandatory for salvation. He was sometimes brutally clear on issues. (Galatians 5:12) I doubt that he would have failed to define the need for baptism had it been the doctrine given to him. He would have seen the job through to completion. If his preaching led them to Christ, he would have baptized rather than being glad that he did not. Those folks were using baptism as a status symbol or like getting an autograph and were missing the whole point. He did not want them to identify with him, but with Christ!!! What did he point back to for salvation? The preaching of the cross, which is the power of God unto salvation!!!
I Corinthians 10:1-4
(1) Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
(2) And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
(3) And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
(4) And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Acts 18:25
This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Acts 19:3-5
(3) And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
(4) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
(5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Here again is the identification issue. They were baptized unto Moses. God gave His people to Moses and calls it a baptism. Water? The only ones that got wet in that baptism were the Egyptians and they died rather than received life. The Red Sea symbolically illustrated their death to the old life of slavery and their resurrection unto a new life in Jehovah under the leadership of Moses!!!! This was physical salvation and not a spiritual one like we have in Christ, but the issue of identification is the same.
We see Apollos preaching and teaching with a fervent heart the message he heard from John the Baptist. What was that baptism? It was identification with the message of John that Christ was on the way. Yes, they had to repent or change their minds about their sins and in whom they trusted. Although it was not baptism unto Christ, they would have been in Paradise when Jesus got there, even if they had not heard about and received Him. They were trusting that the Messiah was coming. We are now baptized unto the message of Christ that He has come, died and rose again to save us from our sins.
Apollos was taken aside and told that Christ had come, but we do not see him being baptized again. (Acts 18:26) Now Peter's group of Johanine believers were baptized in the name of the Lord but that may have been at their desire to identify with Christ rather than a requirement since Apollos was not as far as we are told. If he was baptized again, he was not taken aside and told that he was lost, only that whom he believed was coming had indeed arrived. Sounds more like discipleship than evangelism. Note the identification issue when Peter asked his group unto what were they baptized. They did not say unto righteousness or deliverance, but John and his message, his baptism.
Romans 8:9
But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Can a man be in Christ without being baptized? Can he have the Spirit of Christ without salvation?
Acts 11:14-18
(14) Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
(15) And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
(16) Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
(17) Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
(18) When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
These lads were saved and sealed when the Holy Ghost entered them. Ephesians 1:13 teaches that this is the seal that proves and guarantees our redemption. When did we get that seal? After we trusted, we were sealed. There is no mention of water. Note also that Ephesians 1:7 says we have redemption and the forgiveness of sins through His blood. Hmm, where is the water requirement?
This is descriptive of the Day of Pentecost process. These Gentiles were not baptized, but they believed in Christ. Peter barely got preaching and Romans 10 kicked in. If one person can be saved without baptism, then all are saved without baptism. There are not two gospels. It is either faith alone or faith plus. This passage is the death knell of faith plus theology.
Speaking of the day of Pentecost, when were the disciples baptized again after Christ ascended? John baptized them, like Christ. They received the Spirit and there is no mention of them baptizing one another after the Cross? If they could be saved first without baptism, receiving the Holy Ghost on dry land, when does the Gospel really start? If Christ had no need of baptism by John, but suffered it to fulfill righteousness then why were not the Apostles baptized after the Cross? Because they were identified with John by water baptism, but with Christ by Spirit baptism as John predicted.
John 1:32-33
(32) And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
(33) And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
A controversial verse is Acts 2:38. Some interpret the “for remission of sins” as receiving remission when you are dipped. Actually, the Greek word eis is in the accusative case. This means on account of or on the basis of. This means that since these folks believed and were saved they were to be baptized on the basis of their sins being remitted or on the account of them being remitted.
We might say that I went to the store for Mom. We did not go there to get Mom. We went there on account of her requesting it or on the basis of her need for something from the store. Making it to get remission would create a great many contradictions in Scripture; whereas, on the account of or on the basis of certainly aligns with Pauline doctrine. This also helps us to believe that Mark may be speaking of Spirit baptism as well as commitment and thus remaining in harmony with the whole of scripture.
[Unto the remission of your sins] [eis (grk 1519) afesin (grk 859) toon (grk 3588) hamartioon (grk 266) humoon (grk 5216)]. This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as people look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of [eis] (grk 1519) does exist as in <1 Cor. 2:7> [eis] (grk 1519) [doxan] (grk 1391) [heemoon] (grk 2257), "for our glory." But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of [eis] (grk 1519) for aim or purpose. It is seen in <Matt. 10:41> in three examples [eis] (grk 1519) [onoma] (grk 3686) [profeetou] (grk 4396), [dikaiou] (grk 1342), [matheetou] (grk 3101) where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, upon the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man,
disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in <Matt. 12:41> about the preaching of Jonah [eis (grk 1519) to (grk 3588) keerugma (grk 2782) Ioona (grk 2495)]. They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the New Testament and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the forgiveness of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or anyone in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the forgiveness of sins or the means of securing such forgiveness. So, I understand Peter to be urging baptism upon each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins, which they had already received. (from Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament)
Let us do one more Pauline identification issue.
I Corinthians 15:26-32
26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.
29 Else what shall they do which are BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD?
30 And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?
31 I protest by your rejoicing, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.
32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die. (Capitals for emphasis are mine)
Paul is militating against those who said that there would be no resurrection. Note the phrase "baptized for the dead." Acts says, "baptized for the remission of sins." The phrasing is the same. So, let us use the baptismal regenerationalist logic here. If I received remission of sins in Acts by my baptism then what do I receive here? A dead body? Death?
Paul is saying that if the dead do not rise then it is stupid to identify yourself with a dead man. What good would it do you? There is no advantage!!! This life is it!! Par-tay!!!! Eat! Drink! Be Merry! Why am I at risk of being imprisoned or killed every hour for a dead man? The Christians were being baptized to identify themselves with Christ!!!! Paul emphasized his identification with Christ by saying that because of Him he chose to die daily to his own will and lived for Christ!!
Making the phrase say to receive makes no sense in I Corinthians 15 and causes doctrinal conflict in Acts. Translating the phrase as on the behalf of, because of, on account of, or on the basis of makes sense in both passages and causes no doctrinal rifts. God is not the author of confusion and by comparing scripture with scripture, we can solve seeming conflicts and find truth.
Now after all that, am I saying that we forget baptism? What kind of Baptist would I be??? I believe it to be a valuable teaching tool and an act of obedience by the baptizer as well as the baptized, but I do not believe it to be necessary for salvation. It is a symbol of great spiritual truth and not to be abandoned, but neither is it to be elevated beyond its purpose.
{B} The Mode or How to Be Baptized.
Now that we have discussed the reason and purpose of baptism, we need to discuss the mode of baptism. Some folks sprinkle and others pour, but Baptists believe in immersion. The reason is very simple. The meaning of the word baptize leaves us no other choice.
907 baptizo (bap-tid'-zo); from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N. T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: KJV-- Baptist, baptize, wash.
It is very difficult to derive sprinkled or poured out of this. These are man made doctrines, formulated during a time of fear over public baptism. A more private mode of baptism was needed in order to avoid arrest or death.
Hebrews 9:19-22
(19) 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,
(20) Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you.
(21) Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry.
(22) And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
This passage of verses is used to support sprinkling. The reference to Old Testament practices, though, are part of an explanation to the Hebrews that Christ had done the same thing with His blood. There is no reference to baptism here.
Acts 10:45
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.
Some use this one as a reason to pour since we received the Holy Ghost when we believed. If we are baptized by the Spirit into Christ then why not use pouring?
( I Corinthians 12:13) Yes, we could use pouring as a symbol of the Holy Spirit coming upon us or anointing us, but water baptism comes after we already have Him. Then again, we could use trained doves to light on our shoulder or hover over the head of a new convert to symbolize this, but we still are not talking about water baptism.
I do not fault those in the past that were fearful for their lives and I can understand how they justified their actions. However, to remain true to Scripture and to the symbolism of water baptism we must immerse.
Matthew 3:5-6
(5) Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
(6) And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mark 1:9-10
(9) And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
(10) And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
John 3:22-23
(22) After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
(23) And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
Acts 8:35-39
(35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
(36) 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?
(37) 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.
(38) 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.
(39) 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.
Now, all of these verses reference the need for much water. Why? If we were to be sprinkled then a quart or so would be plenty. A bucket would be good for pouring. However, much water was important and they mention going down into the water.They could have stood on the shore to sprinkle or pour.
John 13:26
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
Revelation 19:13
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
We understand the word dip. It does not equal sprinkle or pour even in our day. The word dip in both these passages is bapto which is the root of the word baptize. When you dip a doughnut into coffee you immerse or submerge it into the coffee. When we bury a person we do not throw or pour a little dirt on them; we immerse them into the ground and then cover them.
Romans 6:1-11
(1) What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
(2) God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
(3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
(4) 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.
(5) For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
(6) 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.
(7) For he that is dead is freed from sin.
(8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
(9)Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
(10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
(11) Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Do you see the symbolism of death here? Even if someone is buried in a cave tomb the body was placed under the ground and closed off or totally dipped/immersed into the earth. Similarly, we are immersed in water, representing the death and burial of the old man, but we are raised from the water as a picture of our rebirth unto newness of life in Christ. No other mode keeps the picture of what baptism is to represent. To be biblical and honest to the symbol we must be immersed. Truly, it is a biblical thing and not a Baptist thing.
Martin Luther - "I would have those who are to be baptized to be entirely immersed, as the word imports and the mystery signifies."
John Calvin - "The word 'baptize' signifies to immerse. It is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church."
John Wesley - "Buried with Him, alludes to baptizing by immersion according to the custom of the first church."
III. THE LORDS SUPPER
{A} Scriptural basis.
The second ordinance that Baptists observe is The Lord's Supper or Communion. The Lord instituted this on the night He was betrayed.
Matt 26:26-30
(26) 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.
(27) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
(28) For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
(29) 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.
(30) And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Mark 14:22-26
(22) And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.
(23) And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it.
(24) And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
(25) Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God.
(26) And when they had sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives.
Luke 22:17-20
(17) And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves:
(18) For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.
(19) And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.
(200 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
{B} False doctrines concerning the Lord’s Supper.
Like baptism, some have tried to make the Lord’s Supper into a sacrament with some element of saving grace or retaining grace. Catholic theology teaches transubstantiation which means that the wine and bread turns into the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ after the priest blesses it. Luther taught consubstantiation which means, that while the bread and the wine retain their natural characteristics, there is a mystical way that Christ is present in, through and around them. Baptists teach that Christ was using metaphorical language here and that nothing mystical is involved. I will give just a short response to the other two points.
1. Transubstantiation
Hebrews 6:4-6
(4) For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
(5) And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
(6) If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
The context of the passage concerns believers whom left the church or may have denied Christ during a period of mild persecution. The elders of the church did not want to let them confess this sin and return to the church unless they asked to be saved again. Some believed they had lost their salvation and could not come back. Paul instructs them as to what this really says. To do these things is to say Christ’s initial shedding of blood on the Cross was insufficient, that these people needed more. It is equivalent to saying Christ needed to be crucified a second time, which would be a shame to Him.
By saying that at each Eucharist, Christ must shed His blood and that the people receiving the host are receiving a booster shot of saving grace the doctrine of transubstantiation is crucifying Hebrews 7:27 Christ again and again for His Church. Romans 6:9-10 militates against that position.
Romans 6:9-10
(9) Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
(10) For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Hebrews 7:27
Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
He cannot be crucified again because He cannot die again. He need not offer His blood on a routine basis for us because His sacrifice was sufficient. He only did it once and it is good for eternity. Therefore, the doctrine of transubstantiation is a heresy, not a biblical doctrine.
2. Consubstantiation
Acts 17:27-28
(27) That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
(28) For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
We live in God whether we are saved or not. In a sense, God lives in the unsaved and saved, much like we all breathe the same air. When we are saved, He then lives within us in an active way. God is a spirit. We move about in air. We take air into our very cellular structure. Air is in us, around us and through us. Radio waves, gamma waves and other things are around us and pass right through us. When we understand the omnipresence of God, we understand why a mystical presence in the bread and wine is not needed. He is in everything He created.
Paul is quoting a pagan poet who had one concept of God correct. Aristotle said that the only way for man to truly understand God was for God to come as a man and live with us. This was years before Christ became incarnate. I do not know if he had access to the Old Testament and gleaned the concept from there, or if he had responded to some light God was giving him in an attempt to draw Aristotle to Him. Pagans can receive some light. The problem is how they react to it and if they seek more. Often they only seek to be seeking and remain lost. (II Timothy 3:7: Romans 1:18-23)
Colossians 1:17
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (KJV)
This literally means all things are held together by Him. He is in the bread and wine, just as He is in everything else, and holds them together.
Matthew 18:20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
If Martin Luther needed a mystery here is one for him. God does not need to do anything special with the bread and wine because He is in the midst of His people when they congregate. (Matt 18:20) When we study our service to God in week 5, we will see that the entire Godhead dwells in us when we are saved. Saying that God is in, around, and through the elements is redundant. Fact is far more exciting than mysticism. Having Him dwell in us is better than in bread and wine!
{C} “… this do in remembrance of me.” Luke 22:19
John 10:7-9
(7) Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
(8) All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
(9) I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
No one that has studied these Scriptures has ever thought that Christ was saying that He was a literal door that swung on hinges. Actually, in the context, He would be an open space leading into a sheep pen. He is using a metaphor to teach a spiritual lesson. When we say someone is such a pig when they eat, we do not believe that they transform themselves into an actual pig. Neither does the wine and bread turn into the literal blood and flesh of Christ.
Christ gave a long discourse on the bread of life in John 6:48-61. Many who heard it thought He was teaching cannibalism and were repulsed. He was trying to take them from what they knew and lead them into what they did not know. That is a first principle of teaching. The people were taught about the physical manna that God rained from Heaven and how it sustained their physical life. Christ was saying that He was the spiritual bread that came down from heaven to give them eternal life. Just as we must take bread or manna into our bodies for it to be transformed into our flesh or nature, so also must Christ be taken into our heart. The joy is that in His case, we are transformed into His flesh and we take on His nature.
If you look at the other parables in the Gospels, Christ gives the parable to the masses and then interprets that parable for the Disciples. In John 6, He changes the subject. Why?
John 16:12
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
The Disciples had a hard time grasping things about the need for the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. They had a short attention span and trouble remembering things they were taught. Hmm, sounds like us. He gave them the interpretation on the night before His crucifixion and they still had a problem with it. (Luke 24:13-32) John 6 was not the time or place for the explanation. We need to remember this when He does not always explain things to us when we think we need the answer. All right then, now that we understand the symbolism, how do we participate in the Lord's Supper.
I Corinthians 11:17-34
(17) Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.
(18) For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
(19) For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.
(20) When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.
(21) For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.
(22) What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.
(23) 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:
(24) 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.
(25) 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.
(26) For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
(27) 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.
(28) But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
(29) For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
(30) For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
(31) For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
(32) But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.
(33) Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.
(34) 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.
Some churches have a supper and then pass the elements around the table. This is how the early church celebrated. Over the years we have moved to where most churches have the congregation in the pew and the deacons serve them just the elements. I am not sure why, but I would assume it would have to do with numbers of people, time allowed and the need for expediency. Some may have feared the Corinthian abuses of gluttony and drunkenness; those showing off their lavish recipes while some of the poor folks could only bring black-eyed peas and corn bread; or those who would not share. To avoid these problems, a simple method was devised. I am partial to the actual supper, but the other is not wrong.
Some churches celebrate the Lord's Supper weekly, some monthly, some quarterly, and some yearly. We are not given a ritualistic command of the number of times we are to do it. Paul says "this do ye, as oft as ye drink it." ( I Corinthians 11:25 ) Remember that the Corinthians are baby and carnal Christians. They were misguided in many ways, which is why Paul wrote two large epistles to correct them. We should not seek to emulate them. Rather, we should learn from their errors and accept the corrections given to Paul by inspiration. They were obviously having problems with how often it should be observed as well as how it should be observed.
The problem with anything we do in church life is that it can become a ritual without reality. We become locked into what some folks call a liturgy, a by the numbers worship rather than a Spirit lead worship. Many times Baptists have a liturgy, but do not realize it. The order of service better go like it is written in the bulletin or some folks get mad. Once church had people threaten to leave the church because the Doxology was not in the service for a couple of weeks. It is sad to think that they were more concerned with a song being present than with God being present. He did not leave the church because the Doxology left.
It does not matter how often you observe the Lord's Supper, but it does matter how you approach the table. The purpose of the Lord's Supper is to "shew the Lord's death till He come." The word shew can also be translated as preach, declare, speak of, or teach. Gathering together to celebrate the Lord’s Supper teaches the world that we are looking for Him to return and the meaning of His death. It is a collective sermon, preaching to the world that they need Him. We are in essence speaking of Him by our eating of His body and drinking His blood of the New Testament. We are declaring that the Gospel is sufficient and efficient for each of us and to all that will come to Him.
That is why we must not partake of it unworthily. It means irreverently. None of us are worthy to sit at His table and partake of His blessings and salvation. If we come to Him with that humble understanding, then we are eating worthily. The Corinthian problem was that they just saw it as a Christian party where they stuffed themselves and became drunk. Is it any wonder many were sickly or dead among them?
Leviticus 10:1-2
(1) And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
(2) And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
Just because these lads were sons of Aaron, they thought they could just offer incense and offerings any way they wanted and God would not care. Strange is the same word use of the strange woman or harlot that men are warned to stay away from. It was adulterous fire because it was not what God had commanded. It was as if they were offering up incense to a false God on His altar. It is no wonder that He was incensed and let loose His fire on them.
When we come to the Lord's Supper in an irreverent way, we are offering up strange fire. When it is just another thing we do or do it mindlessly as we think about the game we are missing or the line at the steak house if we do not get this over with soon we are taking our sonship for granted and not respecting the Lord's body. We need to reflect on what He has done for us and give Him the worship and respect He deserves. He can take us home to Heaven on the earlier flight rather than the one we were normally scheduled for if we get cocky. Once saved, always saved does not mean long life even if misbehaved.
Some do not take the Lord's Supper if they have sinned and have not confessed it. Duh! Why do you think you have that time of mediation before it is served? Get it confessed! At least you realize your sin and His holiness!! That is a worthy or reverent state of mind. Use I John 1:9 to get it straight and partake of the Supper joyfully over forgiven sin based upon His body and blood!
I hope you have come to understand the meaning of baptism and the Lord’s Supper this week. If you are not baptized, I trust you will do so soon. Baptism will bring your joy into fullness as you obey his commandment by identifying with Him. In addition, I trust that the Lord's Supper will be something that you will be looking forward to with joyful anticipation as you declare His death and return! Blessings unto you!
Homework
Don't just answer, put the Scripture reference with your answer.
1. How are we baptized into Christ?
2. What is the correct mode or way to be baptized?
3. Who may be baptized?
4. Can a man be in Christ without being baptized?
5. Can he have the Spirit of Christ without salvation?
6. What gives us a clean conscience towards God?
7. Can that take away our sin or filthiness of the flesh?
8. How does I Corinthians 15:26-32 militate or argue against those who hold to baptismal salvation based on? Acts 2:38
9. Give a verse that shows that Christ needs not to offer up His blood when we take the Lord's Supper?
10. How do we offer up strange fire?
11. How often should we observe the Lord's Supper?
12. If it becomes a ritual, how often should we observe it?
13. Why do we observe the Lord's Supper?
