Since we are Baptists we are pretty big on baptism. Jesus told us to baptize (Matthew 28:19) so it is logical to assume that we’d be blessed in the process of baptism.
At some point after our salvation it is natural to obediently follow Jesus’ instruction and be baptized. It can happen fast (like the Ethiopian Eunuch) or it can not happen at all (like the thief on the Cross).
Baptism is something that we participate in with clear Scriptural meaning.
Romans 6:3-4
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
Colossians 2:12
having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.
God gives us a way to participate in a physical way in a sacrament that mirrors what happened in a spiritual way. There is nothing magical about the water in the baptismal and yet God uses the process to minister Grace.
Acts 8:39
And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord carried Philip away, and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing.
Acts 16:30-34
Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Then he brought them up into his house and set food before them. And he rejoiced along with his entire household that he had believed in God.
If we over react to the idea that Grace is automatically imparted apart from faith (a la Roman Catholic teaching) then we’ll start teaching that nothing special happens in baptism and that would be a shame and we would not really be in submission to Scripture. We don’t need to under value tradition in order to submit to Scripture. Since we are part of the larger Body of Christ we value tradition highly but we recognize that it must be measured against God’s revelation in Scripture (like the noble Bereans). In fact, tradition has a large role in our interpretation of Scripture.
Alister McGrath, writing in The Science of God, develops 2 important aspects of tradition in the Church. They are:
1) Considered as a process of transmission, the notion of tradition embraces far more than the mere oral transfer of ideas from one individual to another. The process of inter-generational transmission of the faith has been institutionalized.We need to focus back on the rest of Christ’s Body as we formulate our statement of what we believe is true about our expression of baptism as Baptists. We must acknowledge that God has been directing the Church through the centuries. This is, in part, what gives tradition value in our lives as Christians. The knowledge that most of the Church throughout most of the Church’s existence has practiced paedobaptism means that Baptists should approach believer’s baptism with great humility rather than hubris. It also means that I must have a view of baptism that is consistent with the rest of the Church. If I formulate a view of baptism that places me in the position of arguing that the baptisms of most of the Church throughout most of history are invalid then I would be arguing that God left the Church in an unacceptable position with regard to baptism for centuries. To insinuate that those individuals whom God has used to build up the Church, establish sound doctrine, and encourage fidelity to Scripture were not saved because of the method of their salvation is absurd. In fact, it strains credulity to think that we denominationally new kids on the block, by the Grace of God, have been given a more appropriate means of baptism; however, that is what I believe based on my reading of Scripture.
2) Considered as transmitted reality, tradition includes institutions, practices, systems of symbols, values and beliefs. It is unacceptable to limit the notion of tradition merely to ideas; what is passed on from one generation to another are ways of thinking, existing, seeing, living, belonging, and behaving."
So, as a supporter of believer’s baptism, I can’t argue that paedobaptism is invalid. I can argue that I think Scripture supports believer’s baptism and therefore I think believer’s baptism is an application of the sacrament that is more consistent with the truth provided by revelation in Scripture. If a person were to desire to join our fellowship who was baptized as an infant would we then “require” or “recommend” baptism as an adult believer? We as a congregation of believers require baptism for membership but we don’t mean to infer that we think that believers who follow a different tradition are not saved.
2b. The Sacraments - Lord’s Supper.
Like baptism, the Lord’s Supper is given to us as a Means of Grace but the believer’s faith is a necessary part of the sacrament. So we reject the idea that the sacrament works apart from faith but we don’t want to fall into the other error of thinking of the sacrament purely as a ritual we just participate in.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
There is a real spiritual fellowship with Christ in His divine nature during communion and it is therefore dangerous to take communion without following the biblical directions for spiritual purity.
1 Corinthians 11:27-32We expect God to minister to us in Communion if we are thinking rightly. So we should be expectant as we partake Communion. It is not just a ritual. Notice that really even those who are weak and ill and those who were called home were the recipients of Grace since God did this to discipline the Church so that the Church would not be condemned with the world.
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.
This topic also begs a brief discussion of the historic discussion on the nature of Christ’s presence in communion. I’ll try to cover the range of interpretations this morning. The Roman Catholics had drifted gradually by tradition into a belief called transubstantiation. The belief has some roots in Aristotle’s philosophy. Aristotle thought that each “thing” had and essence or substance that was the real thing and then it had an accidens or the perceivable qualities of a “thing” and normally the substance and accidens are in agreement. Aristotle would say my beagle has probably has both the substance and accidens of a beagle but we can’t tell for sure and of course there is the perfect essence of a beagle and she is a particular representation of a particular beagle but of course she has some odd quirks. So why would I be talking about this on Sunday morning? Well I like beagles but Aristotle’s idea after a thousand years influenced the church in a bad way and brothers of ours were killed over some of these ideas. The Roman Catholic Church teaches what is called transubstantiation with regard to communion. In the Roman Catholic view, during communion, the substance or essence of the wine and wafer become the physical body of Christ but the accidens remains wine and wafer. So they teach a double miracle, the wine and wafer are miraculously transformed into the body and blood of Christ but miraculously the accidens (perceivable qualities) remain the same. So when they lift up the elements they worship the elements. So I’d be uncomfortable as an reformed or old school Baptist taking communion in a Roman Catholic Church since they worship the elements and actually teach that a new real sacrifice of Christ to God is made.
Luther struggled with this as he waded among alligators and tried to come up with a better understanding of what Scripture taught apart from Aristotle. Unfortunately Luther never really got to think it through in detail and settled on what has been called consubstantiation although Luther didn’t use the term and Lutherans don’t like it. Luther rejected the Aristotelian formulation in the communion that Roman Catholic doctrine but he still taught that there was a true corporeal (or physical) presence but that we don’t perceive it. So he made a baby step away from a confused doctrine but only a baby step.
The real problem with Luther’s idea was that he taught that Christ was present physically in more than one place at a time. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD clarified the Biblical teaching that Christ has 2 complete natures, fully God and fully Man, without mixture or confusion. Well to be physically present in two places would require a mixture of Christ’s physical and spiritual natures.
I think the Biblical context would have eventually have corrected Luther if he had more time to think about it. When Jesus re-signified the Passover Supper into Communion it seems obvious to me that Christ’s presence in the elements is spiritual rather than physical. He is sitting there in front of the disciples and says that the bread is His body and that the wine is His blood but obviously it isn’t physically His body or blood because He is the one passing it out and he hasn’t lost any blood or body parts.
Calvin stressed the problems that Luther’s ideas resulted in and taught that Christ was present spiritually in communion. This, for me is why Communion is such a vital Means of Grace. It is a real thing for me.
Now I need to mention that some Baptists have followed the teaching of Ulrich Zwingli. He taught that Communion is a memorial meal but is only a memorial and that Christ is not really present in the elements. I think Zwingli goes to far at least in the way his ideas are typically presented today. Jesus didn’t say that Elements were to remind us or testify of His blood and body. Jesus said the Elements were His body and blood. In addition, to partake unworthily of the Elements is a dangerous thing that can result in illness and death. Now that could be God’s judgment independent of a spiritual content of the Elements but then you would expect similar warnings and Scriptural evidence in baptism and yet we don’t really see the same type of warnings.
In communion we are told that “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” So you ask God what that means and make sure that you’re in agreement with Scripture when you take communion.
No comments:
Post a Comment