Keep sharing good news without ads.
No description available
Sacraments in the church or ordinances of the church. And real quick just in case you are unfamiliar with those terms the term sacrament which of course has the idea of something being sacred is actually was something from the early Latin which would refer to something that was an obligation or an oath but later it would be used more towards a mystery.
And so now you hear people talk about the the the sacraments as a mysterious thing. Well we prefer in our church to use the term ordinance ordinance meaning a law or a demand or command. And we would say there are two commands in the new covenant.
The command first is that one would be baptized and two that a person would receive the Lord's Supper. So the two ordinances of the New Covenant Church are baptism and the Lord's Supper. And there's a relationship between those two.
Baptism is a single act. The Lord's Supper is a continuing act. You can have the Lord's theoretically hundreds of times even maybe a few thousand times depending on how often your church takes communion.
We do communion every week. So I've been the pastor here 15 years. I've been here since I was seven but I've been the pastor for 15 years 15 times 52 is a lot and so that's it. Okay. Look at you with your common core self going on so so so we so we have so and I've probably been out of church two Sundays a year so around.
I've had the Lord's Supper over 700 times since becoming the pastor. You know and that you know that's a lot but I've only been baptized biblically once. I was baptized before I was a Christian and I would say that was an unbiblical baptism when I was a little boy.
But I was baptized as a believer after I came to faith. So baptism in that sense is a singular act and the Lord's Supper is an ongoing perpetual act. When it comes to baptism there are two main questions.
What does it accomplish and who should receive it. What does it huh. Well that's what we're gonna get to that in a moment but just just writing it out. What does it accomplish and who should receive it.
Let's first discuss what does it accomplish. Why are we baptized. Some people believe that we are baptized in order to be saved. Well we're getting there. But we're talking about the different views right now right.
The first view would be that you are baptized in order to be saved. That view is there. There are two subsets of that view. The first is known as baptismal regeneration. That is the belief that you are baptized that is when you are born again.
And then there is a another view called baptismal remission. They would say that is when your sins are forgiven is when you're baptized your sins are washed away. So the idea is some people would say when you're baptized that's when you're born again.
Some people would say when you're baptized that's when your sins are forgiven. And some people would combine those and say all of that happens in the act of baptism. So the key is and just to be clear is in order to baptism in order to be saved.
That's that's whether you baptism remission or baptism regeneration. Baptism then has that purpose to be saved. That is not the view we hold. That is not the view I teach but that is a view that is held.
The second is the view that you are baptized as a sign of the New Covenant as a sign of the New Covenant in the same way Abraham's children were circumcised as a sign of their covenant with Abraham. You are baptized as a sign of your covenant in Christ the New Covenant.
That is the second perspective. The third perspective is that baptism is a symbolic act which pictures inward regeneration. Baptism is an a symbolic act which pictures regeneration. Now I want to make this point.
Two and three can go together. You can believe it's a sign of the New Covenant and it's a symbol of regeneration. Because if you read your book that's what dr. Sproul said he said it says he talks about it being a symbol of regeneration.
But he also says it's a covenant sign. The real issue is whether or not you think it's a sign of the New Covenant. Yes sir that is the Roman Catholic view that when they baptize a child grace is infused to that child and that's when the child is regenerated.
Yes that that would be a much different view than what we behold. Imputation. Imputation. Yes imputation is it is where our sins are imputed to Christ or charged to him and his righteousness is imputed to us or charged to us.
That is a that's actually a term which is specifically used in and in commerce. If my account is empty and your account is full and you take your money and put it in my account you have imputed it into my account and your account becomes empty and my account becomes full.
Therefore it's imputation. It's a placing from one account to the other. We use the term ledger. Sometimes Christ ledger was full of righteousness and empty of sin. My credit my right my ledger was full of sin and empty of righteousness.
And Christ took what was in his ledger and gave it to me and took what was in my ledger and put it in his. You know that's the act of imputation. No we would I would say that is by faith alone justified by faith alone.
Well that Roman Catholics don't have a view of imputation. They have a view of infusion. Yes. Distinct. Yeah. Um I believe that it is improper to see baptism as an act of salvation. The in order to I believe that that would be incorrect because in the final analysis it would make baptism a work that causes salvation and therefore you end up inevitably back to the doctrine of salvation by works.
Now I had this conversation with the Church of Christ minister one time because we were talking about this they believe that you have to be baptized in order to be saved. And I said how does that not make salvation by works.
And he said well it's not much of a work. He said it's not like you're asking them to do a whole lot. They're just getting baptized as it's a light bench press. And my my response has always been to that argument.
If there is any work that I do to bring about my salvation then I would say that you have abandoned the gospel because the gospel is justification by faith alone in Christ alone. That's right. So so so the danger of baptism in order to salvation.
Now I will say this there are some passages that you have to deal with. Probably the most specific is acts 238 repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin. And you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
And they'll say see right there the word for means in order to repent and be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins. They'll argue that the word for means in order to and I would argue it does not.
You say well how do you. How do I interpret it. The word for can mean in order to but it can also mean because of. If I say Ross you are wanted for murder. Does that mean I want you in order to commit a murder.
Or because of committing a murder. Well but you understand right the word for in that context would mean because of not in order to know. It would say repent and be baptized because of the forgiveness of sins rather in order to receive the forgiveness of sins.
Well in this sense it would be just the the the sense of how we're understood the word for is still the same part of speech. But it's how we interpret the word for. And the word for in this sense rather than being in order to something it's because of something.
And another verse that you can deal with at another time is Peter does make the statement that salvation you're saved through baptism. And that is a that's a sticky one that people have to deal with. It's in I forget I think it's in first Peter chapter 1 he's specifically referring to Noah and the ark.
He refers to them being saved through water. And he says in the same way you were saved through baptism. But then he goes on to define his own term. He says not the washing of dirt from the flesh but the reply of a good conscious towards God.
And so you have to interpret what he means by being saved through baptism. Is it that baptism is what is saving you. Or it's baptism in accord with your salvation. And again for the sake of time I would simply say I don't think either.
One of those is intended for us to think that the way a person gets saved is through baptism. I've got longer sermons on this that I've preached and dealt with. Be happy to send you guys a link if you're interested.
But the question of what does baptism accomplish I would say it's it's first and foremost it is a symbolic act which pictures regeneration. Paul tells us that when we are baptized into Christ we are buried with him in baptism and raised to new life.
That's a picture of regeneration something the Spirit has already done in the heart we are doing in the water as a picture of what has happened in the heart. The term outward show of an inward change is I think what you said earlier one of you guys said it the outward show of an inward change.
I don't. I don't necessarily dislike that term. I do think that sometimes it makes it a little a little too simplistic. I think we have to step back and say the the outward show is symbolic of something that that has happened in the heart.
But the outward symbol is still valuable because what people normally say it's that word I hate. They'll say it's just an outward show of inward change. And I say don't use the word just. You know I throw stuff.
I said don't use the word just I hate that word. The word just if you're watching on TV I lost my temper. No I'm just kidding. I don't like the word just when you say just you are minimizing the impact of the reality of what you're talking about.
It's just this. No if it symbolizes the reality of my regeneration then it is infinitely valuable and important for me and for the people of God. It has purpose. If it didn't have purpose Jesus would have done it you understand.
And Jesus did it and he calls me to do it so to limit its essentially its value by adding that word just just just don't just don't. But as far as saying it is an outward symbol of an inward reality I would agree with that.
I do think that identifying as a covenantal sign is is something that I have actually taught on that and talked about that. I think that that is. I think that there's some legitimacy to that because every covenant has a sign that Noah Noah had the the the rainbow Abraham had circumcision.
Moses had the Sabbath. For those who don't know the Sabbath is the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. David had the throne. That was the symbol of that covenant. It's going to last forever. And the new covenant I believe is symbolized in regeneration which is symbolized in baptism.
And the intercessory work of Christ which is symbolized in the taking of the table. Because Christ is there at the table we're communing with him he is. We're interceding for us. And we have that work there at the table.
So I don't have a problem with calling it a covenant sign. I just think we have to be careful because here's what here's what the Presbyterians do. They say covenant signs were always given to children.
Therefore we baptize our children. If Abraham's children receive circumcision why shouldn't my children receive baptism. And what they are doing is they are creating a continuity between the old covenant sign of circumcision and the new covenant sign of baptism.
And time does not allow me to deconstruct that. But that is that is their position. Again if you heard the podcast I talked about that today so that. So that leads to the second question who is the proper recipient of baptism.
Pato Baptists would say children of believers should be baptized. Different reasoning. The Roman Catholic Church would say it's for regeneration Lutherans Luther believed it was regeneration. Lutherans tend to disagree on that.
But Presbyterians would say it's for familial solidarity that they're. They're part of the covenant family. Therefore they receive the the the sign. And then the Baptist would say the credo. Baptist would say the only person fit to receive baptism is someone who confesses faith.
And the argument often becomes well you don't know who really has faith. You might be baptizing an unbeliever not knowingly. I would never walk an unbeliever up to the baptismal fount and say I know you don't believe this.
But we're going to baptize you anyway. Yeah there was a there was a there was a there was a. I saw this this clip from a TV show and these two girls were arguing. And the one girl said she said she said I came to your house thinking we were having a pool party and ended up being a baptism.
And she said well excuse me for trying to sneak you in heaven. So anyway so let us look now for a few minutes at the Lord's Supper. The question of the Lord's Supper can be also the same questions. Who what is it accomplished.
And who is it for. I think more easily answered is the who is it for. I don't think anybody would deny that the Lord's Supper is for professing believers only. Even people who believe in baptizing their infants don't give their infants the Lord's Supper until they confirm their faith through a profession of faith in Christ.
You're shaking your head. That's true. I guess I should clarify. There are those who would say the tables open. Anyone. They don't fence the table at all. But do. But let me ask you this because I've not been in a Methodist Church specifically.
I know you have. Would they encourage a child to come. Even the child hasn't professed faith. Really. That's that's okay. Didn't know that. That's good to know. Yeah. Yeah. I had. I had a lady argue with me one time here at the church.
Now this is we're talking 15 years ago. She said well my my my grandchildren love Jesus. Why can't they have the table. I said well have they been baptized. Have they confessed faith in Christ publicly and received the sign of baptism.
No. I said. Well then they're not ready to take the Lord's Supper. I wasn't being no one being ugly. I was just saying that's why that that you got two ordinances. Right. You've got one ordinance. That's if you if you if they can take the Lord's table why can't they be baptized.
But do you bet that. But again the Methodist baptized babies. We didn't hear. So I had a little leg to stand on here. So but but again the question. Will they love Jesus. Okay. But have they confessed him publicly.
Have they made you know repentance and faith. A statement of repentance and faith before the church. Have they received the sign of baptism. Yeah. Well you know that those would be questions that would would would precede the the Lord's table.
So who is a proper recipient. Believers only. And I would even go as further and say those who have been baptized would be first. But the second question is going back to the the first. What is it accomplished.
What is taking the Lord's table accomplish. And you all read the book. I hope you understand that there are those who believe in the real presence of Christ in the table which is that Christ is present in the elements.
Roman Catholics believe in transubstantiation which means the the substance changes to the the body and blood of Christ though the accidents are remain the same. So it still tastes like bread still looks like bread.
But it's actually substantively changed. That's transubstantiation. Classic Lutheran theology would say that the the body of Christ is added to the the bread and cup. It's not changing the bread and cup.
It's it's it's applied to or added to that's consubstantiation or with substance rather than change of substance. And then spiritual presence which was Calvin's view is that Jesus is Jesus is physically seated at the right hand of the Father.
And because Jesus's body is not omnipresent that he can't be physically present in the bread or the cup but he is spiritually present in the bread in the cup because spiritually he is omnipresent but not physically.
And again this comes down to how do you understand the physical nature of Christ versus the spiritual nature of Christ. And then of course the memorial view which is the view that I would take and the view that our church has espoused is that the bread and the cup are to be done in remembrance of the work of Christ but it does not change the substance or add to the substance of the bread and the cup.
So it's still real bread it's still real wine. Now for the sake of fun there are those who would argue that grape juice don't qualify. That's a big argument going on right now in some reformed circles because the argument is that wine was what was used in the Lord's table.
Therefore wine should be used at communion. And I have sympathy for that because I wouldn't allow our church to have moon pies and diet coke like I've seen in some churches that have really gone crazy and just allowed anything to be used you know diet coke and and and Doritos for communion and you laugh I'm not making that up those things happen.
So the question of the elements is grape juice qualified so far I have I remain convinced that it is a reasonable substitute because it's still the fruit of the vine. But it's not but it is not wine. And so there are people who think again though that's the the argument is not whether or not the recovering alcoholic should do it.
The question is whether or not there should be the wine in the table. Who how that what you're talking about is a practical question. Should there be grape juice available for kids. And most churches that have wine do have grape juice available for those who are under the age of 21 because the law of the land says they can't have wine or non-alcoholic wine.
And I imagine such a thing exists. But what were you gonna ask. Brian I bypassed you. Okay. Yes yes you could say that the three the thing that divided the three magisterial reformers the most was the Lord's table.
The magisterial reformers are Calvin Luther and Zwingli. And the reason why they're called magisterial was because they had the and they had one. They're considered magisterial in the sense that they had the loudest voice you know.
But but also they had the backing of the magistrates. Luther had you know Germany backing him. Calvin and Zwingli had Switzerland you know backing them. Therefore they had they were considered the magisterial reformers.
They had city councils that were backing what they were doing. And all three of them held two different views of the table. Luther held to the view that is still real presence real physical presence of Christ.
Calvin held the spiritual presence view and Zwingli held a view of Memorial. In fact it was Zwingli who chose to serve the Lord's Supper in wooden bowls. And that caused a huge issue because the Lord's Supper was always served in silver or gold chalices because this was the body of Christ and by him putting the bread in a wooden bowl they considered that inflammatory and disrespectful.
But he was simply saying it's it's still bread. It's still wine. And and we should not.
Misunderstand this memorial. So you were gonna say I don't know if I understand when you say components so clarify a question.
Well I would say that the word is present when when baptism is happening the word is proclaimed in that. So yes I would agree. But I would also say the Lord's Supper would require the proclamation of the word as well.
In fact historic Baptist theology the 1689 confession the 1644 and 46 confession would all accompany the Lord's Supper with the proclamation of the word. If you don't proclaim the word then you have not properly administered the ordinance.
Yeah. So so yeah I would say word. I would say both what it would include the proclamation of the word in that sense make sense. Yeah. All right. Any other questions comments. He's a Presbyterian. So yeah he'd say that.
No. Well Calvin. Yeah Calvin is the the Ark Presbyterian if you will the arch press. He was. He's the one his theology gave birth to Presbyterianism. But Sproul is Presbyterian. So Sproul's arguing his view in that book and I need to make this clear.
I don't agree with everything in that book. I don't agree with anything everything in any book I give you except for the Bible. So when Sproul makes the argument in that last in that last paragraph of the book that the timing of baptism is not is not important Baptists would disagree.
I would disagree. I would say that if you believe your baptism should come after you have made a profession of faith not before. So let's say you got baptized as a six year old because they had a VBS and it encouraged you to be baptized as a six year old and then you got saved when you were 19 like I did then I would encourage you to be what I would say is properly baptized.
Some people would say re-baptized. But I I don't typically use the word re-baptized. I just say biblically baptized. But that is a real big argument among some and certainly something we don't have time to get into tonight.
Let me read this last thing. The seriousness with which we approach the ordinances should not and cannot be overstated particularly the Lord's Supper because Paul clearly tells us that when we participate in the Lord's Supper there are consequences for mishandling the table.
1st Corinthians 11 says that some have even died. He didn't say some could have died. He said some have died and he wasn't lying. So I do believe the church should fence the table in a way that cares for the souls of the people.
This is why when we have the Lord's table we say one it is for believers only. If you are an unbeliever do not partake. And two if you are not in good standing with your church if you're visiting us from another church and you are under discipline do not partake.
These are two areas that we would say it's not safe for you until you have reconciled with the church or until you have come to faith in Jesus Christ do not come to the table. So we believe in the fencing of the table.
We know now. We don't walk around and you know say not today Jackie or whatever. Because we're not. We're not fencing in the sense of holding it back. But we do require that people are are faithful in their self-examination.
All right. Let's pray father thank you for your word. Thank you for your truth. Thank you for our time together may you be glorified in it and through it in Christ's name Amen.