Baptism And The Lord’s Supper…Means Of Grace?

A few days ago I posted on the Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and whether or not they should be called ordinances or sacraments. My position was that they are both. In the meta of that post Peter asked a clarifying question;

Are the ordinances/sacraments of baptism/communion merely memorials or are they in fact means of Grace?

My response to that;

They are in fact a means of grace.
By that I mean that they communicate God’s grace while they do not necessarily impart God’s grace.
By that I mean that they are symbols, much like a wedding ring is a symbol. The wedding ring does not make me married, does not make me loved, does not make me love, but it does communicate to me the fact that I am married, I am loved, and I do love. But this is not love in the abstract…it is love for a person…my wife. The ring then by symbolizing love points me to the object of love.
Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are two of the means that God uses to show His presence to the Church.

I need to make a post out of this.

So this is the post.

The question is, “Do we receive anything from being baptized or partaking of the Lord’s Supper?” I think it is helpful for us to understand first of all what we do not receive from these ordinances.

We are not saved by participating in either ordinance. That is to say, there are no salvific graces being given through them. We are not regenerated, converted, or justified by them. They do not contribute to my status as a Christian. We are not made more Christian by being baptized. I am not becoming more saved each time I partake of the Lord’s Supper.

What then are the graces that are given through Baptism and the Lord’s Supper?

In both these ordinances our faith is increased. We are assured of our union with Christ and with those in his body, the Church. We are encouraged to live in the power of Christ’s resurrection, as dead to sin and alive with Christ. Our union with our fellow brother’s is also augmented by them.

A specific grace given through baptism is a clear conscience. A specific grace given through the Lord’s Supper is fellowship with Christ and his Church.

Now before we dismiss these things as graces that we would be given anyway in the normal ministry of the Church (in Worship, Preaching, etc.), let’s ask ourselves two questions, “Would my faith be as strong without these ordinances?”, and, “Could we get along without these ordinances?” And before you answer let’s all remember that these were commanded by Christ to be observed by all of his followers.

Theology for Doxology

Things I Thought About While Driving Home From School On Tuesday Night

By David Rosati

How in the world do you pray for a “ministry” to the “extreme fighting” community, which is also led by an “extreme” fighter who happens to be Christian? I mean, this is some serious fighting here. How do you present the Prince of Peace to a man you intend to beat down in the next match?

That new “Believer’s Baptism” book Steve has been recommending on his blog is pretty good stuff. There were a few times during my reading of the “Luke-Acts” chapter where I had to stop reading and look at the back cover to be sure I was reading a Baptist book. I’m no rocket scientist for certain, but there were a few moments in that chapter where I thought I was going to read that baptism regenerates. It all worked out in the end though. Whew.

“A Pastor’s Sketches: Conversations with Anxious Souls Concerning the Way of Salvation” by Ichabod Spencer is a great read.

It is distressing to teach and talk about patience, kindness, and not envying with your daughters, and the very next evening they act toward one another like they’d never heard those words. Distressing too when I act the same way.

One of my besetting sins: anger at idiot drivers. Anyone else?

There is a beautiful joy which comes with keeping a short account with God. Sometimes I’ve been so long in confessing my sins to the Father that I dread coming to Him in prayer. Or, I do not pray at all, being eaten up with guilt over first the sin, then the not confessing. A viscious cycle. But, when the account is kept short, and stays there – it is such a blessed feeling.

SDG,

Theology for Doxology

Original Sin part three

Having attempted to finish this off three times now I am forcing myself to complete this series. Its tough when you have three such stalwarts that keep forcing me to think more and write better. And yes Jeremy, I mean David, D.J., and you. By the way David welcome aboard your first post was excellent. And D. J. great stuff on worship.

This series on original sin started when I was confronted by a unknown character on PalTalk here. After that I wrote a little on the history of the doctrine here. Getting down to brass tacks as my father used to say, the doctrine of Original Sin is defined as the guilt and corruption inherited by man after Adam’s fall. Berkhof states it like this: “Original Sin: This includes both guilt and pollution. The guilt of Adam’s sin is imputed to us. Because he sinned as our representative, we are guilty in him. Moreover, we also inherit his pollution, and now have a positive disposition toward sin. Man is by nature totally depraved. This does not mean that every man is as bad as he can be, but that sin has corrupted every part of his nature and rendered him unable to do any spiritual good. He may still do many praiseworthy things in relation to his fellow-beings, but even his best works are radically defective, because they are not prompted by love to God nor done in obedience to God.”

Now I’d like to point out something here: we are guilty because of Adam’s fall. I was in a bible study recently when a friend of mine started blaming Eve for the effects of sin. Let me correct that error right now. Eve was deceived but Adam wasn’t. Adam did this with his eyes wide open, and it is because of this that sin has been imputed to everyone because Adam represented all of us in the garden. The term for this is Federal headship and it is I believe the best view as I believe scripture plainly teaches that in Eden God had covenanted with Adam promising life for obedience (see Adamic Administration by John Murray). The Federal view seems to be the most compatible with scriptures especially Romans 5:12-19 and 1 Corinthians 15:22.

Now if you recall my annoymous PalTalker seemed to find it incredulous that I a “Baptist” could hold to anything but complete innocence with regards to children. Indeed the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 states:

In the beginning man was innocent of sin and was endowed by his Creator with freedom of choice. By his free choice man sinned against God and brought sin into the human race. Through the temptation of Satan man transgressed the command of God, and fell from his original innocence whereby his posterity inherit a nature and an environment inclined toward sin. Therefore, as soon as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors and are under condemnation.{emphasis mine}

This would seem to suggest that children are innocent until they commit a sin. But the problem with this is that children die as well as adults. And scripture teaches that death is a result of sin. Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned–(Rom 5:12) If children were truly innocent why would they die?

So now we come to that other sticky wicket God sending children to hell. Many Reformed Baptist hold to the idea that all infants that die in infancy are elect. This no matter whether they are the children of believers or unbelievers. Some would say we don’t know so we shouldn’t speculate upon such things. And I would agree that scripture doesn’t give a clear reading regarding this subject. I personally hold to that God saves elect infants by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

(Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who works when and where and how He pleases. The same is true of all elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called through the preaching of the gospel.)

And I can not see from scripture whether this means that all children who die in infancy are elect or only some and so choose not to speculate.

Some reading to conclude this post:

What is the biblical evidence for original sin? by John Piper

Born Sinful by Matt Perman

Of the Imputation of Adam’s Sin to All His Posterity by John Gill

“The Fall of Man–Part 1″ (Genesis 3:1-5) by John MacArthur
“The Fall of Man–Part 2″ (Genesis 3:6-7) by John MacArthur

Theology for Doxology

House, Free Will, And The Gospel

Andrew at Strange Baptist Fire posted this today. If you are a House fan who is also a Calvinist, like myself, you will enjoy it.

Theology for Doxology

David Dockery (and R. T. France) On The Christocentricity Of The Old Testament

Timmy Brister conducted an interview with David Dockery at Provocations and Pantings last week. Timmy is providing us an opportunity to submit some of our own questions to Dr. Dockery this Monday evening.

In honor of this momentous occasion, I have painstakingly fought both sickness and error prone typing to post a great quote from a book by Dr. Dockery. This book, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church, has been a help to me in my understanding issues surrounding Biblical Interpretation. One of my favorite passages in the opening pages of the book, and really drew me in. I finished the book in two days. Hopefully, you will be inspired to buy the book for yourself and glean treasures which will help you to see Christ in the Scriptures.

Jesus understood the Old Testament christologically, and it is from him that the church derives its identification of Jesus with Israel. In the temptation narratives (Matt. 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13), Jesus’ own estimation of his status and calling is reflected in his answers from Deuteronomy 6-8. In this old Testament passage Moses, following the forty years of wandering in the wilderness, exhorted Israel toward wholehearted obedience and continued faith in the divine provision for them. It was a time of hunger and testing, preparatory to a special task, in which God disciplined his nation Israel (Deut. 8:5), to teach them to worship only the true God. Jesus, at the end of the forty days, accepted afresh his messianic mission and his status as the Son of God, seeing himself in some sense as the new Israel, succeeding where the old Israel had failed. His belief in his forthcoming resurrection after three days seemed to be motivated both by the promise of Israel’s resurrection (cf. Hos. 6:2) and by seeing himself in light of the Jonah story (cf. Jon. 1:17; Matt. 12:40). He observed his own experiences prefigured in the psalms of vindication and suffering, used both by individual Israelites and by corporate Israel (Pss. 22, 41, 42, 43, 118).

R. T. France sums up the evidence of the synoptic Gospels in these words:

He uses persons in the Old Testament as types of himself (David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jonah) or of John the Baptist (Elijah); he refers to Old Testament institutions as types of himself and his work (the priesthood and the covenant); he sees in the experiences of Israel foreshadowings of his own; he finds the hopes of Israel fulfilled in himself and his disciples, and sees his disciples as assuming the status of Israel; in deliverance by God he sees a type of the gathering of men into his church, while the disasters of Israel are foreshadowings of the imminent punishment of those who reject him, whose unbelief is prefigured in that of the wicked in Israel and even, in two instances, in the arrogance of the Gentile nations.
R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Message (London: Tyndale, 1971), 75.

In all these aspects of the Old Testament people of God, Jesus saw foreshadowings of himself and his work. This resulted in opposition from and rejection by the majority of the Jews, while the promises concerning Israel were partially fulfilled in the new Christian community. The history of Israel had reached its decisive point in the coming of Jesus. The whole of the Old testament pointed to him. He embodied the redemptive destiny of Israel, and in the community of those who belong to him that status and destiny are to be fulfilled.

Because Jesus saw himself as the representative of Israel, words originally spoken of the nation could rightly be applied to him, and because Jesus is the representative of humankind, words spoken originally by the psalmist can be fulfilled by him (cf. John 13:18; 15:25; 19:28). For Jesus, the key to understanding the Old Testament was located in his own life and work, for everything pointed to himself. The New Testament writers, following the pattern of Jesus, interpreted the Old Testament as a whole and in its parts as a witness to Christ.
David Dockery, Biblical Interpretation Then and Now: Contemporary Hermeneutics in the Light of the Early Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992) 24-25.

HT: Pester Steve Weaver

Theology for Doxology

Jeremy, here’s my notes of what I taught this morn…

By David Rosati
Jeremy, here’s my notes of what I taught this morning. Just some things I’ve been thinking about. Hope you’re feeling better!

Scripture Introduction: There are several Scriptures we’ll be looking at this morning, so let’s go to God in prayer and begin.

Prayer:

Intro: Jeremy’s sick. The title of this morning’s lesson – not a sermon – is “Things I’ve Been Thinking About.” Have you ever read your Bible and gone right over certain passages without stopping to really think about what you’ve just read? I have. Well, not too long ago I had to write a paper discussing one of the signs of God’s judgments that Ezekiel performed for Judah. And as I wrote it, I had to slow down and really think about it. Here, let me show you what I mean. Please turn to…

Ezekiel 24:15-24 and follow along as I read.

Context: Ezekiel was a prophet to the Judean exiles in Babylon. Part of his ministry was to act out before the people 13 signs that portrayed God’s judgment of Judah. Here, Ezekiel is told he may not mourn the death of his wife, which is a picture of the way the Judeans are not to mourn when their temple and children are slain by the Babylonians.

Meaning: Here is a sign to Judah that all personal sorrow is to be overwhelmed in the national tragedy of Jerusalem falling. As Ezekiel’s wife was the “desire – or delight – of his eyes,” so was the temple and their children to the Judeans. The people are told to respond in the same way as Ezekiel at the death of his wife. They were not to mourn because the destruction of Jerusalem had been foretold by the prophets and they had not heeded the message. They should have known Jerusalem would fall!

Think About: This must have been so hard! When I thought about this I wondered how it would be to receive such a message. His wife! The delight of his eyes! How he must have loved her! It may have been by a plague or disease, for that’s what “one stroke” often meant in Hebrew. In the morning Ezekiel receives the message and in the evening his wife dies. Imagine, Gary, waking up this morning, being told that, and by this evening Angie has died. Imagine you cannot mourn. Look at the things he may not do. All of these things were the normal process after a death in that culture. Imagine. D.J., your Emily has been taken from you, and you will not receive friends, you will not place an obituary, you will not have a funeral service, there will be no caravan to the cemetery, no ladies of the church bringing you casseroles to see you through. See mourning bread. What a hard thing to do! Ezekiel did not just preach his message, his entire life lived his message.

Another passage that I’ve been thinking about lately is Acts 16:1-4. Please, turn there and follow along with me…

Context: Paul and Silas are traveling as missionaries and they come to a small town and meet Timothy, who is well thought of by local believers. The Jewish community in this place seems to have been small, so probably his mother Eunice was allowed to marry a Greek. So, Timothy is both Jewish and Greek. And Paul wants to take him with him on his journey, but he’s never been circumcised. This posed a problem. Why?

Meaning: Why would Paul, after insisting at the Jerusalem council that Gentiles did not need to be circumcised, insist on doing this to Timothy? Even though Paul resisted all efforts to impose Judaism on Gentile converts to Christianity, he himself continued to live as an observant Jew. In Jewish law, the child takes the religion of his mother. Timothy should have been circumcised and raised Jewish. But, in Greek culture, the father dominates, and with such a small Jewish community there, that’s the rule that prevailed. Because of his mother, to a Jew Timothy was a Jew. Being a good Christian did not mean being a bad Jew. In their attempts to reach the Jews in their mission this could have caused a real stumbling block. So, Paul circumcised Timothy.

Think About: You know, I’ve read that passage many times, but only recently stopped to think about what that meant for Timothy. Think about this a moment. Timothy, I want you to come with us, but I’m going to have to remove your foreskin first. Oh, and we have no real painkillers, and it’s going to really hurt. This is such a delicate procedure that today we entrust it to surgeons. Imagine this requirement for missionary service being required today! This is such a common practice today, and done at such a young age and away from our sight, that we don’t think much about it. But, turn with me to Joshua 5:1-8, and we’ll see a little more what it was like to go through this as an adult male. These guys didn’t just get up and start conquering Canaan. They had to stay encamped until they healed. You know, in all seriousness, I think the passage in Acts about Timothy speaks to his commitment to the Lord.

Now, I wouldn’t want you to think I was being less than serious in discussing that. Timothy was a real man, a real believer, just like you and I today, who took his commitment to God seriously, and that commitment is recorded for us as Holy Scripture.

The last passage I want to bring to mind is one that we cannot exhaust the depths of meaning contained within it. It is one we can wonder over, meditate upon, pray upon, for a lifetime, and still never truly comprehend the full meaning of what is written.

Mark 15:21-34. Please turn there and follow along as I read.

Context: Our Lord Jesus is crucified. And for three hours darkness falls across the land. And at 3 Jesus cries out these heartbreaking words from the 22nd Psalm.

Meaning: Our Lord suffered beyond our imaginings. Possibly He cries out because He is experiencing for us the utter agony of hell. The cup of God’s wrath is being poured out upon His head. God’s wrath for our sins. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul says, “God made Him who had no sin to be sin for us.” There is also the understanding that in some way Jesus was separated from God. Jesus, the Son of God, was cut off from God the Father. Eternal God was cut off from Eternal God. John 1 says “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God [meaning face to face with], and the Word was God.” Jesus was and is and always will be. He Is Eternal. Tell about the Robinsons (sweethearts since age 3; married 70+ years). Now Mr. and Mrs. Robinson’s wonderful closeness does not even compare to the one that exists within the Trinity. I only use it because our finite minds are incapable of going much further than that in grasping such a mystery. God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – had always been together. There was never a moment when it began. It always had been. It did not start – it was. And now, for us, what the Eternal Son had always known is no longer. The blessed, perfect, relationship He enjoyed with the Father is gone. For us. I cannot understand, but I will continue to seek understanding. What a wonderful Lord. May His Name be praised forever. Such thoughts can and should bring about our worship.

Conc.: Encourage all to slow down and think over your reading. The Bible records real people much like us and what really happened to them.

Prayer:

So anyway, that’s just the notes. Nothing world-shaking, but it went well I think.

SDG,

Theology for Doxology

Ps. 57:1

By D. J. Cimino

Be merciful to me, O God, Be merciful to me,

for in you my soul takes refuge,

till the storms of destruction pass by.

Psalm 57:1

Theology for Doxology

Last Two!

From Ken Fields;

Are Baptism and the Lord’s Supper ordinances or sacraments?

I’ll be watching as you address this one!!!

Both. They are Ordinances because they are commanded by Christ, and Sacraments because they are sacred events.
Baptists do not generally like the term ‘sacrament’ because of it’s association with the Catholic Church, but most other Protestant denominations use the two terms interchangeably.
I think there is meaning to be offered from both terms, as my initial answer illustrates, and that they should not be viewed as merely synonymous.
When we speak of Baptism and The Lord’s Supper as Ordinances we point out the fact that we have been commanded to practice both. When we say that they are Sacraments, we point out that these are ordinary elements (water, bread, and wine), that have been made holy for Christians since Christ has commanded their use to illustrate and communicate central truths of the Christian faith.

And as long as you’re at it, how about this one: should someone who hasn’t been Scripturally baptized partake of communion?

That’s a tricky question. We immediately think of paedo-baptists, but this could also include a new convert who hasn’t had the opportunity to be baptized.
On the one hand, I can’t find any Scripture that says that only the baptized may partake of the Lord’s Supper. On the other hand, as a Baptist I believe that after conversion, baptism is the next step, logically and chronologically, in a convert’s discipleship.
I don’t think I would withhold the Lord’s Supper from any believer who has examined their own conscience before God.

I think we need to ask Frank about this. He’s the baptism go-to guy.

Theology for Doxology

Two-fer Tuesday

From dec:

Question 1:
Acts 7:51 You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.

Can we resist the Holy Spirit?

Yes. Let me explain.
Stephen is preaching to Israel. He recounts all of the God’s blessings that have been bestowed on Israel. Let’s look at them; God reveals himself to Abraham, promises the land of Canaan to his children, promises Abraham a ‘seed’ (Jesus), gives the covenant of circumcision, delivers Israel from Egypt, promises the ‘prophet’ (Jesus), gives the tabernacle, gives the covenant of Law, gives Israel the land previously promised, and all the prophets. Israel despises each and every one of these blessings. And now the Great Prophet, the Seed of Abraham, the Son of David, God’s only Son has been despised and rejected by Israel. Stephen then utters those words in question, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.”, followed by a question, “Which of the prophets did not your fathers persecute? And they killed those who announced beforehand the coming of the Righteous One, whom you have now betrayed and murdered, you who received the law as delivered by angels and did not keep it.”
Stephen’s argument against Israel is that they have resisted the Holy Spirit because they have resisted the Spirit’s work among them. The grumbled in the wilderness, they apostatized in the promised land, they murdered the prophets, and now they have murdered their Messiah.
In the same way we resist the Holy Spirit when we do not obey the Word he has inspired, the Bible. We resist the Holy Spirit when we despise those who exercise their gifts given by the Spirit.
The question as it relates to ‘Irresistible Grace’ or ‘Effectual Calling’ is completely different. When the Holy Spirit regenerates the elect, that work is irresistible. When he calls the elect, that work is irresistible. When he gives faith and repentance, that work is irresistible.

Question 2:
Hebrews 4:9-10 So then, there remains a Sabbath rest for the people of God, for whoever has entered God’s rest has also rested from his works as God did from his.

Is this “rest” entered upon being saved by grace, or is it the heavenly rest that is entered upon Christ’s return? When are we to rest from works?

I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. We will never rest from work completely. Just as God has never rested from work completely. However, God has rested from certain works. We are told that he has rested from his work of creation. And, Christ has rested from the work of redemption.
The question then is, does ‘resting’ in this context imply total cessation of activity? God has rested from creating, but does he still uphold his creation? Christ has rested from his work of redemption, but does he still intercede for the redeemed before his Father? The answer to both questions is, “Yes”.
We know that we have been given life through no power of our own, and yet we still work, exercise, eat, sleep, etc., to sustain that life. We also have been given spiritual life by Christ’s work of redemption, yet we are told once and again to work out our salvation, maintain good works, walk worthy of the calling we have been given, etc.
The difference in these examples is simply this, in our physical life we eat, sleep, etc., in order to sustain our life, but with our spiritual life we pray, worship, evangelize, help others, etc. out of the life that has been given to us and is being sustained by God.
But what does any of this have to do with the question? Well, for one thing, work is a necessary component of our spiritual life. So, even while we rest in Christ (our Sabbath), we are at work for him. And when we get to Heaven we will not stop ‘working’. Our eternity will be spent worshiping God in all his glory.
The challenge for us now is to live in light of this reality. We live by faith right now, and the writer of Hebrews defines this faith as the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Our hope is for the day of perfect rest, but we have that substance, or down payment if you will, right now by faith. And the rest that we have right now is the evidence that there is a perfect rest coming.

On a side note, I think it is very helpful to read scripture with a hermeneutic of ‘already/not yet’. We already have every spiritual blessing in Christ (Eph 1:3), but not yet (Eph 1:14). The Kingdom of Christ has already come (Luke 17:21), but not yet (Luke 17:22). We are already new creatures (2 Cor 5:17), but not yet (1 John 3:2).

Theology for Doxology

1 Kings 22:22

From Peculiar Pete (and his friend).

Jeremy this was sent to me and so I thought I would pass it on to you.

“I am reading 1 Kings in the Holy Bible right now and I was skipping to the end when I found something that confuses me.

I looked it up in your Bible and it had that first part from Job as something similar. Here is the verse 1Ki 22:22 And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’

I just don’t understand why He would have anything to do with something lying.

I know He doesn’t lie ever not any part of Him. And I know angels wouldn’t lie so I don’t get it.”

The kings of Israel and Judah have come together for an alliance. But before they go to battle Jehoshaphat wants to be sure that they will win and so he asks Ahab to inquire of the prophets. 400 hundred prophets are called, but it something doesn’t seem right to Jehoshaphat. These prophets seem to be a bunch of ‘yes men’ to Ahab. So he asks for another prophet. Ahab reluctantly calls Micah, a prophet hated by Ahab because he never prophesied in his favor. Ahab sends a messenger to Micah who instructs him (probably at the command of Ahab) to speak favorably to the king just like all the other prophets.

When Micah arrives before the kings, he does as he has been instructed by Ahab. Jehoshaphat smells another rat. He presses Micah for the truth. The true prophecy that Micah gives him is presented almost as a parody of Ahab’s actions in calling the council of prophets.

God calls a council and inquires of his ‘prophets’, “Who will entice Ahab to fight and fall at Ramoth-Gilead?”, parodying Ahab’s enticement of Jehoshaphat to go to war. And just as Ahab’s prophets had spoken lies to Jehoshaphat, God is said to have sent the spirit of prophecy to be a lie to Ahab.
But at the end we find that God really doesn’t lie. He has just played along with Ahab’s little game for a while. The first part of the prophecy from Micah are to make the point that God is the true king, who works all things according to his own will. No matter how many prophets Ahab could find to build up his ego, he would never come back from the battle that God had ordained to be his fall.
The second part of the prophecy is to tell Ahab exactly what is taking place. He has put it into the hearts of the false prophets to work his will even through their lies. And he has determined destruction for Ahab.

The truth is told to Ahab, but along the way God has beaten Ahab at his own game.

Theology for Doxology