Hmmm...unless you believe in a universal redemption or are a hardcore monergist Calvinist, then you must agree that some form of response to grace is required in order to be saved. Now we can argue till the cows come home about whether that response is to have faith in Christ and His atoning work, or to partake in the sacraments, or some combination of the two, but the fact remains that human response to grace is needed. Naaman's healing was free (as witness the rebuff of his attempts to pay for it, Gehazi's deceit notwithstanding), but he still had to dunk himself in the water for it to happen (what a marvellous antetype of baptism that is!).
-
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!
Sacrements vs Ordininace
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Hmmm...unless you believe in a universal redemption or are a hardcore monergist Calvinist, then you must agree that some form of response to grace is required in order to be saved. Now we can argue till the cows come home about whether that response is to have faith in Christ and His atoning work, or to partake in the sacraments, or some combination of the two, but the fact remains that human response to grace is needed. Naaman's healing was free (as witness the rebuff of his attempts to pay for it, Gehazi's deceit notwithstanding), but he still had to dunk himself in the water for it to happen (what a marvellous antetype of baptism that is!).
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Umm...there is where the disagreement lies.
Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Good points, Matt. And Naaman's healing is indeed a marvellous type of Christian baptism, as early Christians were fond of pointing out.
I know our pastor has addressed this directly to individuals and to the congregation. He's said that most of the time, either someone ISN'T saved or there is some kind of pride in not wanting to humble themselves to follow the Lord's command. He speaks of the fact that Jesus Christ went to the cross - how difficult is it to get dunked in light of that?? He shows the Scripture where we're commanded to be baptized and in the vast majority of cases, we've not had refusals after the issues were addressed.
You are correct.
Marcia
Active Member
I don't think Namaan's healing is to be looked on as an example of baptism, but more of faith and physical healing.
oh, so what if Namaan didn't do as Elisha instructed and dipped himself 7 times...would he still have been healed?
This IS without a doubt an example of baptism, it served as an indication to us...for we are lepers in sin, we just as Namaan are made clean by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord.
In XC
-
You mean like in Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16?
Absolutely. Also like in Acts 10:44-48
The Old Testament contains several “types” of baptism, among which are:
Noah and the flood. 1 Peter 3:21.
Escape from Egypt through the Red Sea. 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.
Circumcision. Colossians 2:11-12.
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.” Ezekiel 36:25. I am not aware of any direct N.T. reference to this, although verses following very clearly speak of the New Covenant.
Naaman dipping himself seven times in the Jordan River. 2 Kings 5:9-14 Again, no direct N.T. reference to show this as a type of baptism. However, it has been seen in this light since antiquity. E.g.,
Noah and the flood. 1 Peter 3:21.
Escape from Egypt through the Red Sea. 1 Corinthians 10:1-2.
Circumcision. Colossians 2:11-12.
“Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols.” Ezekiel 36:25. I am not aware of any direct N.T. reference to this, although verses following very clearly speak of the New Covenant.
Naaman dipping himself seven times in the Jordan River. 2 Kings 5:9-14 Again, no direct N.T. reference to show this as a type of baptism. However, it has been seen in this light since antiquity. E.g.,
Irenaeus of Lyons, circa 190.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcia
Active Member
It is never cited as an example of baptism. Namaan was physically healed. He is not mentioned in the NT as an example of water baptism but as an example of healing in Luke 4.
I think you are spiritualizing this account. Moreover, there are plenty of scriptures against the belief of baptismal regeneration, a belief which you have admitted you believe. But that's another thread. You can start it if you want to debate that issue.
I just saw your post quoting Iraneus. He was also spiritualizing the account, as many church fathers did. They often say helpful things but their words are not authoritative.
so Namaan would or wouldn't have been healed if he chose not to do as Elisha instructed?...i didn't catch your answer in your reply...
In XC
-
Marcia
Active Member
Physical healing is not salvation, so the analogy fails.
Back to the OP --
Regarding ordinances, there doesn't seem to be much difference (if any) between an ordinance or a command. We are baptized because we are commanded to (though it seems there is less of a command regarding the Lord's Table). The ordinance is simply a command - nothing less, but nothing more.
A sacrament goes much further. Baptism and the Lord's Table are visible signs and seals of the covenant of grace --- instituted by God for the church. In baptism, the water signifies the washing away of our sins through the blood of our Savior. In the Lord's Table, the broken bread & the wine signify the broken body and shed blood of Christ, by which we are spiritually nourished. Both (along with the preaching of Scripture) are considered means of grace for Christians.
However, just because they are sacraments not ordinances does not necessarily mean that they are regarded salvic in nature. Some denominations believe this. Others don't.
Regarding ordinances, there doesn't seem to be much difference (if any) between an ordinance or a command. We are baptized because we are commanded to (though it seems there is less of a command regarding the Lord's Table). The ordinance is simply a command - nothing less, but nothing more.
A sacrament goes much further. Baptism and the Lord's Table are visible signs and seals of the covenant of grace --- instituted by God for the church. In baptism, the water signifies the washing away of our sins through the blood of our Savior. In the Lord's Table, the broken bread & the wine signify the broken body and shed blood of Christ, by which we are spiritually nourished. Both (along with the preaching of Scripture) are considered means of grace for Christians.
However, just because they are sacraments not ordinances does not necessarily mean that they are regarded salvic in nature. Some denominations believe this. Others don't.
What do you mean by "spiritualizing" the account of Naaman? Certainly there was something spiritual that took place, otherwise there would have been no healing of his leprosy. Are you somehow equating "spiritualizing" with "allegorizing"?
Incidentally, I was the one who put up the Irenaeus quote, not Agnus, although I believe he would agree with it.
Why ever not??
I believe that and the other examples did prefigure baptism, but then it figures, if the physical healing prefigured spiritual healing, then the physical act of immersion then prefigured the spiritual act of being immersed into the Body of Christ. (1Cr 12:13) That's what marks salvation. Being In Christ. The physical ordinance was retained as the outward testimony of being baptized into Christ. So that's why it is not the act that procures salvation.
Marcia
Active Member
Spiritualizing a text usually means reading a meaning or message into a narrative account that is not there. Namaan was healed; yes, this was a healing from God. But there is nothing about it that has to do with NT baptism.
Marcia
Active Member
Naaman's event was a physical healing. Just because it had to do with water, that does not automatically link it to baptism by immersion. And if it does, why does your church not baptize by immersion?
The account is very straightforward - Naaman was healed miraculously. Naaman is mentioned only once in the NT, in relation to lepers being healed. He is never mentioned in connection to baptism.
The onus is on those who believe in baptismal regeneration to show from the Bible how Naaman's physical healing is connected to NT baptism by water immersion.
