-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Communion, is Christ truly present?
- Thread starter riverm
- Start date
They didn't circumsize adults in the Old Testament..they were male children, yea, infants.
Whether you agree or not, baptism in most churches follows the example of circumcision in the Old Testament. It is a covenant. Even the Anglican Church immersed up to Queen Elizabeth I and later. In many Anglican CHurches in England, there are baptismal tanks beneath the pulpit in the floor. In fact, if a candidate requests immersion in the present Anglican Church, the vicar must perform it. But we are not discussing the rightness or wrongness of baptism just now.
Cheers,
Jim
Whether you agree or not, baptism in most churches follows the example of circumcision in the Old Testament. It is a covenant. Even the Anglican Church immersed up to Queen Elizabeth I and later. In many Anglican CHurches in England, there are baptismal tanks beneath the pulpit in the floor. In fact, if a candidate requests immersion in the present Anglican Church, the vicar must perform it. But we are not discussing the rightness or wrongness of baptism just now.
Cheers,
Jim
Bro. James:
Your statement:
"Anger? No. Sarcasm? Yes, and not without reason.
Sarcasm can be an effective form of communication. I make no apology for saying what I think--even if it offends the ecumenical evangelicals. Most of my rhetoric is at religious systems, not individuals. Matthew and I could be friends in spite of our religious convictions."
. . . . . illustrates my point. You need not apologize for your thoughts, but you do need to temper the sarcasm - - and not because I find it offensive, but because it is harmful to you to have that spirit. You may say what you think, but it is the things from the heart that can defile. I think sarcasm is from the heart and is hurtful to the one who practices, regardless of its effect on the hearers.
Alexander
Your statement:
"Anger? No. Sarcasm? Yes, and not without reason.
Sarcasm can be an effective form of communication. I make no apology for saying what I think--even if it offends the ecumenical evangelicals. Most of my rhetoric is at religious systems, not individuals. Matthew and I could be friends in spite of our religious convictions."
. . . . . illustrates my point. You need not apologize for your thoughts, but you do need to temper the sarcasm - - and not because I find it offensive, but because it is harmful to you to have that spirit. You may say what you think, but it is the things from the heart that can defile. I think sarcasm is from the heart and is hurtful to the one who practices, regardless of its effect on the hearers.
Alexander
riverrm:
Excellent and thoughtful post.
Your experience of grappling with this teaching is, in some ways, similar to mine. I also add Paul's teaching in I Corinthians that the one who eats the bread and drinks the wine of the sacrament unworthily is guilty of desecrating our Lord's Body and Blood. John 6 and I Corinthians simply cannot be shoe-horned in any way into memorialism or symbolism, without doing serious damage to the clear words of Scripture.
I believe that if (and it's a BIG if) those who believe in memorialism would put aside the dogma they've accepted and let the Scripture (and early church Fathers) speak to them, the deficiency of memorialism would be apparent. (They would also need to get over the fear of 'Romanism' - whatever that is.) Maybe because part of the problem is that memorialism is part of what the sacrament is all about - - - but it is not a full understanding of what our Lord and the apostles taught and what the early church practiced.
The psuedo-debate I've seen on this board over transubstantiation or consubstantiation does not clarify, since (in my opinion) those who scoff at them either do not understand the philosophical and theological subtleties of them OR choose to ignore them and merely toss grenades and run.
As I've said before, the Orthodox view (and, in my opinion, the Anglican/Episcopal) accepts the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist by accepting His teaching on this without engaging in endless, abstruse reasoning as to exactly how it happens.
Alexander
Excellent and thoughtful post.
Your experience of grappling with this teaching is, in some ways, similar to mine. I also add Paul's teaching in I Corinthians that the one who eats the bread and drinks the wine of the sacrament unworthily is guilty of desecrating our Lord's Body and Blood. John 6 and I Corinthians simply cannot be shoe-horned in any way into memorialism or symbolism, without doing serious damage to the clear words of Scripture.
I believe that if (and it's a BIG if) those who believe in memorialism would put aside the dogma they've accepted and let the Scripture (and early church Fathers) speak to them, the deficiency of memorialism would be apparent. (They would also need to get over the fear of 'Romanism' - whatever that is.) Maybe because part of the problem is that memorialism is part of what the sacrament is all about - - - but it is not a full understanding of what our Lord and the apostles taught and what the early church practiced.
The psuedo-debate I've seen on this board over transubstantiation or consubstantiation does not clarify, since (in my opinion) those who scoff at them either do not understand the philosophical and theological subtleties of them OR choose to ignore them and merely toss grenades and run.
As I've said before, the Orthodox view (and, in my opinion, the Anglican/Episcopal) accepts the Real Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist by accepting His teaching on this without engaging in endless, abstruse reasoning as to exactly how it happens.
Alexander
Neither is the Trinity -is that wrong too?
In any event, I'm not sure that regeneration isn't found in Scripture. It depends on your interpretation, of course, but I throw up for consideration, inter alia Mark 16:16, John 3:5 and I Peter 3:21.
The three person Godhead is a plain teaching of the Scripture. The word Trinity is not found.
Immersion(baptism) is a doctrine found in many places in scripture. Baptismal regeneration is a tradition of man--a doctrine not found in scripture. Pedobaptism is a consistent adjunct to baptismal regeneration--a false doctrine built on a false doctrine is still a false doctrine.
Nothing new--man has been following false doctrine since Adam fell.
Selah,
Bro. James
Immersion(baptism) is a doctrine found in many places in scripture. Baptismal regeneration is a tradition of man--a doctrine not found in scripture. Pedobaptism is a consistent adjunct to baptismal regeneration--a false doctrine built on a false doctrine is still a false doctrine.
Nothing new--man has been following false doctrine since Adam fell.
Selah,
Bro. James
Your statements are of course based on your own interpretation of the Scriptures, to which you are entitled, naturally; others have different interpretations to which they are equally entitled.
Ephesians 2:8-10 does not leave much room for interpretation. Baptism is a work--so is the taking of communion, "tran-sub, con-sub or no-sub".
Bro. James
Bro. James
That is just according to you - others have consistently interpreted it otherwise.
Tell me how is God making a disciple through His word and water a human work? Tell me how is God giving His body and blood a work?
From an anthropocentric viewpoint the gifts of Holy Baptism and the Lord's supper appear to be human works, but from a theopocentric viewpoint the opposite is true. God is using ordinary things to accomplish extraordinary miracles.
Of course the one thing that always amazes me is that the people who decry Baptism and Communion as work make conversion a human work by making the claim that to be saved you must make Jesus Lord of your life by means of an act of human will.
From an anthropocentric viewpoint the gifts of Holy Baptism and the Lord's supper appear to be human works, but from a theopocentric viewpoint the opposite is true. God is using ordinary things to accomplish extraordinary miracles.
Of course the one thing that always amazes me is that the people who decry Baptism and Communion as work make conversion a human work by making the claim that to be saved you must make Jesus Lord of your life by means of an act of human will.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Good post, Chemnitz.
That was a great post!
I am aware that you are Lutheran and that the Lutheran view of Communion (constubstantiation) is a little different that the Catholic view (transubstantiation).
Being once a fundamentalist, I always heard Catholics being accused of idolatry by their view of communion. I’m somewhat familiar with the definition of transubstantiation. I was wondering what your view is, from a Lutheran stand point. Do you believe Catholics are idolaters?
Personally I don’t believe that Catholics are, simply b/c to be an idolater is to fundamentally put something in place of God. Someone worshipping a statue of wood or stone as a god (not the true one Creator God) in and of itself, I would call a true idolater.
The Catholics, Lutheran or Anglican are consciously worshipping the eternal God as far as they are concerned, not a piece of bread or wine. This seems to me very opposite of idolatry.
Also, I was thinking last night (I’m taking a bible class at a college and was writing a paper on God), Jesus was God in the flesh and no one at that time could explain how Jesus, a man, was God, but they worshipped God, not the flesh of a human. So why God couldn’t become truly present in a miracle which transforms the essence of bread and wine? Think about this, even the Jews today refuse to believe in the incarnation and regard it as unthinkable, just as many evangelicals regard the real presence as unthinkable.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Good thinking.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
That is true they are works.
And there is no "magic powers" in the water or in the bread or in the priest.
As Peter said "Baptism now saves you - NOT the touching of magic water to skin BUT THE APPEAL TO GOD for a clean conscience". NOT the magic words said by a priest - but the HEART of the one being baptized who aPPEALS to GOD for a clean conscience.
In Christ,
Bob
How about quoting it right, instead of offering a misleading statement and claiming it as a quote.
1 Peter 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,
BTW the Baptism is not efficacious because of "magic water" but because of the promise of God that is attached to the water.
Baptism is a picture of death, burial and resurrection-- some things which sprinkling and affusing do not picture.
Water does not wash away sin. Only blood washes away sin. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". Only the blood of Jesus is acceptable--He said it is finished.
One could be immersed, dipped, plunged, sprinkled, and affused daily and still be on the road to hell.
Salvation is of the Lord. Why do some want to crucify Him daily? It is finished.
Selah,
Bro. James
Water does not wash away sin. Only blood washes away sin. "While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". Only the blood of Jesus is acceptable--He said it is finished.
One could be immersed, dipped, plunged, sprinkled, and affused daily and still be on the road to hell.
Salvation is of the Lord. Why do some want to crucify Him daily? It is finished.
Selah,
Bro. James
How about a scriptural picture?
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."
Immersion in water and coming out of the water certainly show a death, burial and resurrection. Sprinkling infants does not show any of these "pictures". How come you do not see it?
Another scripture: Col. 2:12-14, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"
Another "picture" of death, burial and resurrection.
Selah,
Bro. James
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."
Immersion in water and coming out of the water certainly show a death, burial and resurrection. Sprinkling infants does not show any of these "pictures". How come you do not see it?
Another scripture: Col. 2:12-14, "Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;"
Another "picture" of death, burial and resurrection.
Selah,
Bro. James
Unfortunately, scripture doesn’t detail explicitly how each and every baptism was preformed. The Greek word used for baptism has several different meanings. It could mean to wash, dip or immerse. Romans used the Greek word when a ship sank and usually sunken ships aren’t raised back out of the water. Romans 6:3-6 and Col 2:12-14 are your interpretation that you learned from someone else and that doesn’t make it fact.
But there is some evidence in the Didache, which of course isn’t inspired, but is nonetheless a strong witness to the sacramental practice of the early Christians around 70 AD. Chapter 7 details the method of baptism and it is interesting to note that the most important aspect of baptism is that water is involved and it’s done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus commanded His disciples to do.
Infant baptism was never intended to demonstrate the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. It is a covenant promise to raise that child up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It is not unlike circumcision in the Old Covenant.
All those examples in the New Testament were of converts to Christianity. They had something to demonstrate publicly.
Cheers,
Jim
All those examples in the New Testament were of converts to Christianity. They had something to demonstrate publicly.
Cheers,
Jim