Ecclesiology: Two Ordinances

Including tonight we have three Wednesdays and then Thanksgiving. Now on the week of Thanksgiving we do not meet for Wednesday night service because so many people are preparing meals for their family and I'm going to be preparing the meal for set free because we have set free here.

We have Thanksgiving for set free and the men and I look forward to that every year and I'm the the cook so I'll be here cooking but if you'll notice on your your sheet we have part 6 church ordinances part 7 church discipline part 8 church support.

Right so if we stay on task we will finish the ecclesiology section right before Thanksgiving and that will put us going into our study of eschatology when we come back the first Wednesday in December.

Now eschatology is the study of end times revelation and all that and a lot of people have told me they're interested in that so in fact I'm going to encourage our Sovereign Grace Academy students to come because they want to know more about that subject so we may have more folks in December depending on how things go but but just just know my goal tonight especially since Andy's not here and I'm going to have a little bit extra time my goal tonight is to get through the the whole handout that I've given you on the subject of church ordinances and this particular subject is one that I think is very important but is also one that is often fraught with a lot of confusion and a lot of misunderstanding.

Ordinance or Sacrament?

Even what we call this is often confusing because in some churches you will hear the term ordinance which is what I have used the term I have used but in other churches you will hear the term sacrament.

Now typically people will say well sacrament is Catholic language ordinance is Protestant language that is not actually true. The word sacrament is used in the Presbyterian Church is it used in the Methodist Church that you remember think so I know you have some background with that the word.

I don't have a problem with the word sacrament. The word sacrament comes from a Latin phrase the original word meant a oath or an obligation very similar to the word ordinance an obligation or a law but it became later to be associated with the idea of a mystery and so that's where the question mark of whether we should use it.

I think if we understand its origins that sacrament in that sense means something we are commanded to do something that we are told to do something we are obliged to do then we think of it in the same way because what's an ordinance right think of a city ordinance it's a law it's a command it's something we we were not given the option.

And when we think about sacraments or ordinances if you that the Roman Catholic Church talks about seven seven ordinances or seven rather seven sacraments so it's not just baptism and what they would call the mass we call the Lord's Supper but it's also marriage and that's a sacrament in the Catholic Church and last rites and what's called extreme unction and those there's seven specific sacraments.

One of the arguments of the Protestants was that no there are not seven things. They're not seven sacraments or seven commands there too. And the two commandments or the two ordinances of the new covenant that distinguish the new covenant are first the command of baptism and second the command of what we would call communion or the Lord's Supper or the Lord's table.

So that's the subject of tonight are the the two ordinances. And right away I want just for a moment in kind of creating the conversation when we see baptism and Lord's Supper what is one thing that we is is automatically distinguishable between the two.

What's what's one thing that maybe comes to your mind that's automatically distinguishable and it is it is on your sheet if you want to cheat huh. No not that yep baptism is once it's a one-time ordinance.

We only get we our baptism is a one-time responsibility. You don't have to get baptized every Sunday. You don't have to get baptized every year now I do believe that there are times where re-baptism is is I don't want to say required but is is is necessary with someone who wasn't saved when they were baptized the first time.

And so we would but we wouldn't call that re-baptism. We would simply call that a proper Christian baptism because and we're going to make this argument a moment a proper Christian baptism is upon a genuine profession of faith and so like with me I was baptized at eight years old I made a profession of faith but it was not a genuine profession of faith.

And so when I genuinely came to Christ and I had a genuine conversion when I was 19 a few years later I realized well I need to have my baptism on the right side of my conversion because at that point my baptism was before my conversion.

Now some people would argue with that particularly Presbyterians would say no no no you should never ever re-baptize. In fact the the term Anabaptist you've probably heard the term Anabaptist from the 16th century.

The term Anabaptist was actually a derogatory term that was that was used of the people who re-baptized because the term Anabaptist means re-baptizer and they would call them Anabaptists derogatorily they it wasn't a positive thing.

They didn't call themselves Anabaptists. They call themselves Christians or brethren but they didn't call them Anabaptists was a slur it was a you're you're a re-baptizer. So that was a negative term and they said no we're not re-baptizing.

We're we're doing a first true Christian baptism which is upon not upon birth but upon profession of faith. And so baptism is a one-time ordinance. We are only called to do it once upon profession of faith.

I baptized a few of you in this room. I hope that it was something I don't have to do again. That's I can always say that way you know it's it's it's not something that you know we we demand that people be re-baptized over and over.

Now some people do get re-baptized because they feel like they can lose their salvation and they feel like every time they lose their salvation they have to be essentially saved again. Therefore they are baptized again and and so I know people from the congregational Methodist movement the the holiness movement that that's the holiness Wesleyan holiness movement that are very very very deeply Pentecostal rooted and they're baptized multiple times because every time they feel like they've fallen away from God they feel like they've lost their salvation and therefore they need to be re-baptized.

And so certainly wouldn't. I would not think that that is something that we would we would want to practice. I don't believe that's the right way to understand. And again what does the Bible say. There's one Lord one faith one baptism.

Now some people would argue that that particular verse is referring to the baptism of the Holy Spirit which comes when you believe. But there's some debate about that but it but the point is there's one there's one ultimately baptism is a single practice ordinance.

But the Lord's Supper how often we supposed to do the Lord's Supper. It doesn't say the Bible doesn't command. I mean we you know Paul you've been in this church for 40 50 years. Yeah you've been here for a long time so and I've been here for a long time and and I don't know it.

I don't know how to do it any other way except for to do it every week. You know having communion every week has been that way since I was a little boy. So when when I you know I recently was in a pastor's meeting I go to a pastor's forum every month and I I sit in with other pastors and we talk about how we do things and we pray for one another often lament and cry together.

Now we don't really cry but sometimes want to cry. This church is hard and being pastors are hard. And one of the things we talk about is with just this last two two months ago was how often we do communion.

And one of the guys is like we do it often. We do it once a month and I like that's often. No no no once a week. That's often that's you know so we were kind of you know ribbing each other about how often we should do communion.

Is that a command though or is that a the different. The difference is huh it says they did meet on the first day of the week and they did break bread. And so we're dealing with the difference between something that would be indicative versus imperative.

And indicative tells us something happened and imperative tells us something should happen or something is a command. And while I do think that we are given an example in that passage and I do think it's exemplary that you do it every week.

I don't think it's a command. I don't think a church is being disobedient by not having communion every week. I don't think they're. I don't think they're disobeying the command of Scripture. But I do agree with you that that passage does tell us what the early church was doing and I do think the breaking of bread was referring to communion because some people think that that's only referring to like a meal.

But what we have to understand is the early church when they met together they had something called the the agape or the agape which was a feast and it was called the love feast. And first Corinthians 11 tells us that it says when they gather together they would eat together and in the midst of that they would have the bread and the cup.

So it wasn't just like I will say this the way we do it and the way most churches do it is totally foreign to the early church. I don't think the early church lined people up and had them come forward and get a cup and come forward and get a piece of bread.

I just don't think it was done that way. I don't think that's what we see in Scripture. I think in Scripture it was more organic. We're all eating we've all got bread we've all got wine with our meal and we stand up and we say this is the bread of the covenant.

This is the Lord's body. This represents the Lord's body. Let us eat. This is the cup of the new covenant let us drink. And I think it was much more organic in that in that sense. But so yes I would agree that that passage is indicative and therefore it can serve as a model and that's the model we do choose to follow here absolutely.

So the question then is is is that necessary. I don't think it's absolutely necessary but we we do know this. It's ongoing. I think that churches that don't do communion ever are disobedient because the Bible doesn't say that we should never do it.

It says as often as you do it do it in remembrance of me and therefore for church goes two three four years without communion. I think that would be wrong. Now some churches only do it once a year. That to me seems like a long stretch certainly longer than I would want to go.

But a lot of churches tend to settle on once a month or once a quarter depending. And when we get to the Lord's Supper and as part of our handout I want to talk about why. If you notice the second the second note on on your on under communion notice where it says fencing the table we're going to talk about what that means and why people have communion infrequently.

Because that's actually there's a reason for it. But let's let's actually go down the list. I'm gonna I'm gonna work from the handout tonight. I'm gonna work from the same thing you have and I'm gonna have you look at some scriptures with me.

But let's look first at our outline. The first thing we're gonna look at is baptism. Under baptism. I have three statements that we I want us to understand about baptism. Number one baptism is the external sign of a person's entrance into the New Covenant.

Number two baptism is a living picture of the promise of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And number three baptism is a public event which is meant to be participated in by the assembly of believers.

All right. Very quickly. Let's just for a moment look at a scripture verse. Go to Hebrews chapter 7 and verse 22. We're going. We're going back up now to number 1 Hebrews chapter 7 verse 22 it's only one short verse there and it's referred.

Well actually we can read what comes before it. We'll begin to read. Beginning up at verse 18 says. For on the one hand a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness for the law made nothing perfect.

But on the other hand a better hope is introduced through which we draw near to God. And it was not without an oath for those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath. But this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him the Lord has sworn and will not change his mind you are a priest forever.

This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. All right. So this particular passage reminds us that Jesus Christ is the priest of a better covenant. Oftentimes we talk about the new covenant. We simply call it the new covenant.

The book of Hebrews doesn't just call it the new covenant. The book of Hebrews calls it the better covenant. It actually tells us that it's better than the old one. Now if you look at chapter 8 which is just right across the page and verse 13 you'll notice it says this.

It says in speaking of a new covenant he that is Christ makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away now. That is a reminder to us that we as Christians are no longer part of the old covenant.

We as Christians are members of the new covenant. And as such baptism is the external sign of entrance into that covenant. What was the external sign of entrance into the old covenant. Circumcision. That was the sign of being a part of that covenant.

If you were not circumcised you weren't part of the covenant. Right. If you wanted to be part of the old covenant it well a man obviously was circumcised. Well so in the new covenant there is a and I have to be careful because my Presbyterians will jump on this and run with it.

There is a familial link between baptism and circumcision now this is why Presbyterians baptize their infants. Because they say that baptism has taken the place of circumcision. And because children are in the covenant by virtue of their parents according to first Corinthians 7 which says they are made holy because of that they receive baptism because their parents believe.

Now I do not agree with that interpretation but that is essentially the argument that we baptize infants because we circumcised infants and they were part of the covenant. Therefore our children are part of the covenant.

And they will use certain Bible verses like Acts 2 which says repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sin. And you'll receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is for you and for your children.

And for all who are far off. And they'll say see it's for your children too. It's not just for you it's for your children. And they'll they'll make that verse their argument verse. But I ask this question in the Old Covenant.

This is my question to my Presbyterian brethren. But the same I'll pose to you as well to think through if you are baptized rather excuse me if you are part of the Old Covenant you are part of the Old Covenant by birth.

But how are you made part of. How are you made part of the new covenant. New birth. Yeah new birth. That's what it's by by being born again. So the first covenant you were born into by flesh. This the new covenant you were born into by spirit.

So that's why a Baptist would argue no we don't baptize children. We baptize those who are of faith. And so because I would not my children and this this will get my Presbyterian friends fighting mad and I understand it and I love them.

And if you're watching I love you. But listen they will say their children are part of the covenant by having been born into their family they call them covenant children. I do not believe that is true now I believe my children have a very special benefit of growing up in a children home a Christian home.

I believe my children have a very special benefit of having two believing parents. One believing parent is enough to sanctify the child according to first Corinthians 7. It sets them apart because they're growing up and at least a partially Christian home.

But that does not mean they're part of the covenant. The new covenant. The one distinction of the new covenant is that everyone in the new covenant is a believer. The old covenant not everyone was a believer because you were born into it.

But the new covenant the distinction is you will no longer have to tell one another know the Lord. For they will all know me. That's the promise of the new covenant. You will no longer have to tell one another know the Lord for they will all know me.

What. What does that mean. If you're in the covenant you know the Lord. I don't have to tell you know the Lord. And where you already do you see that's the promise of the new covenant. Everybody in the new covenant is bully is a believer.

Now for those who are maybe have some Presbyterian background and you're screaming in your heart and saying but wait have you never baptized an unbeliever. I would say never on purpose. If I've ever baptized an unbeliever.

And I I'm sure that I have. I've baptized people who have fallen back into the world and then to sin and and have repudiated their faith. Yes I've done that. But it was not by my purpose to do that. It was by there.

It's the same as Philip baptizing Simon in Acts. Remember Simon who claimed he had faith and later Peter said no your son of the devil. You know that that that is an example of someone who professes faith but doesn't possess it.

And I I cannot be the Holy Spirit. I cannot determine whether or not somebody is genuinely a believer. All I can do is take their profession of faith. Now there are some things to consider with that because and I'll give you the there's a conversation I don't know if you remember a few weeks ago Andy and I taught on this and Andy and I were talking about whether or not there should be any kind of prerequisites to baptism like whether or not there somebody should have to meet certain qualifications to be baptized.

And and we don't see that in Scripture when Philip met the eunuch all the eunuch had to do was ask and he was baptized. You know I mean there so there wasn't so there wasn't like he had to pass a theology test to be baptized.

But at the same time I do think that they're a credible profession of faith would include certain things such as recognition of sin a verbal pronouncement of repentance a desire to follow Christ. You know when that when Ashley was younger and she wanted to be baptized you know I took her to where Jesus said unless a man is ready to hate father and mother sister and brother and even their own life they're not worthy of me.

You know I said are you ready to forsake the world and follow Christ. 16 years old. That's hard to say. Yes. You know it really is a tough question. But that's I think that's a legitimate question to ask somebody who says they want to be baptized.

So the first thing though is baptism is the external sign of entrance into the new covenant. So I think it belongs to believers only and it is to be administered to believers once not multiple times. Number two.

Baptism is a living picture of the promise of God in the gospel. You say where do you get that. Well I get that from Romans chapter 6. Turn to Romans chapter 6. It says in Romans 6 what shall we say then.

Are we to continue in sin. That grace may abound. By no means how can we who died to sin still live in it. 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 the newness of life. Now there is again there's debate as to whether or this is talking about physical baptism or whether this is talking about the baptism of the Spirit.

But I do think that there's a connection to physical baptism here because of the language of being buried the in fact when I when I baptize someone I think about the fact that this there's a symbol here of burying them.

They're dying to their self and they're being raised and that is a picture of the promise of God in Jesus Christ. If a person has believed on the Lord Jesus Christ then they have they have died to their self.

You know what is it. What does Paul say. He says it's no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me in the life I now live. I live by faith in the Son of God who gave himself for me. You know that that's the promise of baptism is that you are.

That is the gospel. And so baptism is a living picture of the promise of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ. And when a person receives it they it's it's it's as if they are saying to the world I have died to my old life and I am walking now in the newness of life.

Thirdly baptism is a public event which is meant to be participated in by the assembly of believers. This is important because some people have asked over the years is it okay to be baptized privately.

Personally I do not. I do not practice private baptism and I understand why someone might ask for private baptism. Maybe they are very inhibited maybe they're afraid of having eyes on them or whatever.

But baptism is an act of worship and therefore should be participated in by everyone not just by me and the person who's there. So if someone comes to me and says I'm afraid I try my best to encourage them to understand that everybody who's with you is is praising God for this.

Nobody's nobody's judging you. Nobody's. You shouldn't be embarrassed to get up and do this and to remember that in the in the ancient world when you were baptized you were separating yourself from family.

You were separating yourself from community. You were separating yourself from the world. You were saying to the world I'm following Christ. And you might even be giving up your life. And now when we baptize people we collapse.

So it's definitely different now than it was 2 ,000 years ago. Some people want to be baptized publicly. In fact I'm you know I've over the years I've given that as an option because we baptize publicly in the church.

But some people want to be baptized out in the world to show the world that they're following Christ. And I've begun to give that as an option to people even though nobody has yet taken that option to say if you want to go and be baptized at a lake or at a beach as long as I can get the church to know that it's going on.

I don't. I don't want it to be private. I don't want to be your private beach or your private you know. But if you want to show the world that you're following Christ I would I would be all for that. But I still think the church should be involved.

That would be. My only caveat is that it that the church would would participate in it. Now somebody might argue and say well the eunuch and Philip were the only ones there. But I don't think that's necessarily true.

There was an entourage with the eunuch when he was baptized and so I think that there were witnesses. And so I think that those three three statements will stand now questions for discussion. We'll spend three or four minutes discussing these.

Number one. What would you say to a person who claims conversion but has not received the sign of baptism. I know it's a small group that should make you feel better about talking. You all know each other.

I think you like each other feel free. What would you say Pat. If somebody said I'm saved but I didn't want to get baptized. Okay very good say okay. You tell them it was important to be baptized. Mr. Paul would tell them they're halfway there.

Yeah yeah okay. Now when you say they may not need to be I don't know what you mean. Oh I see. Oh I see it. Yeah yeah okay all right. They may think they believe but they don't. Yeah I got you I got the good good good good thought.

Yeah. And and that's the that's the thing right. A good question can lead you to a good answer. And that's. That's probably the same thing I would do miss Charlene if somebody said to me well I'm a Christian but I don't want to be baptized.

I would immediately like you. I would probably say well why. What. What is it that makes you think that Jesus doesn't want you to follow his command. Now he tells us to go into all the world make disciples baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit.

The command to be baptized is in the command of the going go and make disciples baptizing them. And so how do we how do we know we're supposed to do it. Well Jesus made it part of the command. And so yeah absolutely asking them why not.

Number two. Should a person wait a prescribed amount of time. And I know I sort of already answered this. Should a person wait a prescribed amount of time after conversion before receiving the sign of baptism.

You said no. Miss Janice. Yeah. Like I said there was no. There was no prescribed amount of time for the unit. I think the key word there is prescribed. I don't think there's a prescribed amount of time.

If it's I will say this like a child I will be a little more hesitant to just immediately baptize them. I want to talk to them about their faith and go over their faith and make see what it is they do understand.

Because I mean if it was just going in the water it's just like when I baptized Nicole y 'all heard what hope said me next you know cuz she she saw her get baptized. And she's that looks fun. You know I could you know I could increase our baptism numbers tenfold.

Just tell all the kids y 'all want to get baptized. Yes so absolutely I think that I think the word the keyword there's prescribed. I don't think there's a prescribed time. The Bible doesn't prescribe a time.

I will say this. Some of you've heard me talk about the did a K. The did a K was a very early Christian manual. It was dated somewhere to the early second century possibly even to the first century. And it was like Church Book of Order.

So not quite not quite a manual but about as close as you had to how to do church in the early church. And the did a K has a lot that is very good. And one of the things it has is on baptism. I'll read just a portion it says.

But concerning baptism thus shall ye baptized having first recited all these things baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit in living or running water. Okay so first of all they wanted you to baptize in a river.

But if thou hast not living water then baptized in other water. And if thou art not able in cold then in warm water. Such a weird thing. But if thou has neither then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit.

So this proves one thing putting them in the water was actually the method that was used. Pouring was only allowed if there wasn't enough water to put them in. So this is shows it's the ancient method was to dip them in water running water like a river.

If they didn't have running water still water but cold water. If they didn't have cold use warm. And if they didn't have enough water pour. Then it goes on to say but before baptism let him that baptize it and him that baptized excuse me that is baptized fast.

And any others also who are able and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before. So I will tell you this most of you know I know the ones I baptized. Notice. Well maybe not I baptized you Jackie.

Didn't I. But did we fast together. Okay it's been since I baptized you then I've started in the last few years fasting with the people I baptize. I just make it part of the practice that one of the days before the baptism Nicole and I would fast together.

And it's not a have to. It's just a way to have a spiritual discipline and also a way to sort of come together and pray together and and so we fast prior to baptism. Most people don't fast at all. Most people fast very little unless you're going for a surgery or something.

Yeah most people don't fast spiritually. So it sort of introduces them to the concept as well and tries to make it show how it's a part of of Christian practice. And and I got it from this is interesting 2 ,000 years ago that's how they were doing it.

Anytime somebody wanted to be baptized they would fast prior to their baptism. So just it's not a have to as I said if somebody said well I can't I don't I don't I'm not able to fast or whatever. I haven't yet haven't had anybody tell me that yet.

But I have had some people that couldn't go a whole day because of health issues or whatever. So I tell them fast one meal or whatever all right. Number three should a person be re-baptized and upon what grounds.

I think we already covered that and I want to get to the second part. So basically my answer to that is should a person be re-baptized only if they are confident that they were not saved when they were baptized the first time.

And that's something between that person and the Lord. I definitely don't. I don't walk around with a saying I'm the Holy Spirit and I can determine for somebody that's between them and God and I will help them help them come to a conclusion if they have questions.

But I but that's going to be between them and God all right. So now let's look at communion. If baptism is the once for all ordinance and it is an act of worship the whole church participates. Communion is the ongoing ordinance which is also an act of worship and the whole church participates now under the meaning of the table.

This is obviously very debated and you've heard me talk about this before so I won't spend a lot of time on it. But there are there are essentially four positions that someone might take on the table.

The first is called transubstantiation. That is the position that Roman Catholics teach that is the belief that Jesus Christ is physically represented as a sacrifice through the bread and the cup on the table.

That is what was one of the major issues of the Reformation because the argument was you have to be your sacrifice has to be made again because you've sinned and you need more sacrifice and therefore the sacrifice has to be represented on your behalf.

And therefore when people came to the mass they weren't going to church for worship. They were going to get forgiveness again. They needed to go back and receive that sacrifice again. And so transubstantiation as brother Mike I don't know if you heard him Sunday he said I believe it's heresy.

I do believe it's heresy because it says the once for all sacrifice of Christ has to be repeated. And the very argument of Hebrews is that it does not need to be repeated it does not need to be represented.

It simply needs to be believed. It is once for all time. So I would say transubstantiation is a no. But the next one is what is called real presence. Real presence is the belief that Jesus Christ is present in the bread and the cup in a very real way.

His body is. I think Luther was the one who said his body is is with the substance. The substance doesn't change but that his body becomes with. I think it was in over round and through was the language used referring to Christ's body being with the bread.

And therefore when we ingest the bread we are also ingesting the body of Christ when we ingest the cup where we're just in the blood of Christ. He made that argument because he could not get away from when Jesus said this is my body.

Luther at the Marlboro colloquy which was a meeting of several reform leaders including York Zwingli they argued over that and that was the point that divided them to the point that Luther left so upset and he said I'd rather drink blood with the Pope than drink wine with the Swiss.

The Swiss were the Zwinglians. So it really was. That's Luther was so consumed. That was when he he was shouting hoc est corpus meum which is Latin for this is my body and that was his he was very firm on physical presence of Christ the real presence.

And if you've ever been to a Lutheran Church they treat the cup and the bread with a great deal of reverence. Because of that they they see it as the physical body of blood of Christ. You remember there was a family here the Lyles remember them Paul.

They were from a Lutheran Church and whenever he would serve communion now this was 20 years ago but he would hand the bread and he would say the body of Christ. He would say it and it was because of his Lutheran background.

He that was part of the language. When you handed somebody the bread you said this is the body of Christ and it was very much an understanding that it was physical real presence. I do not see that as the same thing as transubstantiation because they're not arguing that it's a representation of the sacrifice.

They are simply arguing that Christ is present in the elements. And while you may think it's I'm splitting hairs here it really is a big distinction as to what they think is happening at the table. If you think that Christ has to be sacrificed again I think that's where the heresy comes in.

I don't think Lutherans are heretics. I think they're wrong. You can be wrong and and you know not not be a heretic. The next position on that is what is typically known as the Calvinist view and that is what is known as presence.