Neto wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:05 pm
I would maintain that baptism is not a sacrament, but rather an observance, or a simple act of obedience. As it is used here, however, it is probably just a difference in definition of terms.
Oxford Lexico:
(in the Christian Church) a religious ceremony or ritual regarded as imparting divine grace, such as baptism, the Eucharist and (in the Roman Catholic and many Orthodox Churches) penance and the anointing of the sick.
However, Merriam-Webster says
: a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
I would accept the first part of their definition, but I think that they cross beyond the meaning of the word in the latter part. I understand the part about "imparting divine grace" or "a means of grace" to describe the core meaning, with the church itself as the vehicle for this "transfer of grace". Maybe I'm just influenced by my studies in anthropology and ethnology, because a religious rite would be understood in that way (to my memory, at least). I'm just leery of the idea that the church is imparting grace. I think the focus should be on God alone, as the actor or agent of the benefits that come from obedience.
It is the grace being imparted by God, not by men, when we receive these sacraments by faith. There is more than meets the eye. I suggest a close reading of 1Cor 11:28-31
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
While it is not specifically stated as clearly in scripture, there is a genuine spiritual element/application to both immersion and communion.
Is it the church that saves you or God? God uses means that He has established to make the process real to us. Without faith, neither rite is effective for anything.
Good reason if one is into conserving water, I guess. Quakers and Salvation Army believers would then be leading the way as they don't baptise in water. I wonder how many water baptised believers would still regard them as Christian.
Well, I can't see anywhere in the scripture that you're only born again and a follower of Jesus if you do certain religious sacraments. Of course we should get baptised - but salvation seems to come first. Lots of believers never end up following Jesus 100% in every area of their lives.
What would you do with the following scripture?
Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...
Why if immersion is not necessary (I will continue to use the translation to avoid confusion) were all of the new believers immersed immediately on the day of Pentecost and again each time we read of new believers? Seems to be more than just an option, don't you think?
Because it doesn’t say they were all immersed immediately, no matter how much you’d like it to. It says they were baptised. Church tradition from early centuries is that baptism can happen many different ways, not just in the mode that you think is best.
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:25 pm
This is an honest question.
But is there a fundamental difference between baptism and communion such that adherence to historical practice and biblical meaning is important for baptism but unimportant for communion?
A lot of the Anabaptist groups that have deep-seated disagreement on the question of baptism seem perfectly comfortable swapping out grape juice for wine when it comes to communion. When Jesus was pretty clearly and indisputably talking about wine.
Is not the substitution of sprinkling or pouring for immersion in the same category as substituting juice for wine? In that it is the symbolism and ritual that is important, not the precise historical details? Or are these two rites different in some fundamental way that I don’t understand?
The only significant Anabaptist group that requires immersion are German Baptists, and they use wine. Usually one brother ferments it once a year, so it’s “new wine”, often pungent.
Once I was with a group of Brethren discussing favourite smells. One of them said his favourite is that of the communion wine; strong and sour, which reminded him of our Lord’s passion and suffering.
Of course, us Holdemans use grape juice. We also pour. Most Old Orders use wine.
And it goes without saying that you Holdemans are the "one true church" and the only ones who have it all right... That's according to your own literature and teachings.
Well, I can't see anywhere in the scripture that you're only born again and a follower of Jesus if you do certain religious sacraments. Of course we should get baptised - but salvation seems to come first. Lots of believers never end up following Jesus 100% in every area of their lives.
What would you do with the following scripture?
Mar_16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved...
Why if immersion is not necessary (I will continue to use the translation to avoid confusion) were all of the new believers immersed immediately on the day of Pentecost and again each time we read of new believers? Seems to be more than just an option, don't you think?
Because it doesn’t say they were all immersed immediately, no matter how much you’d like it to. It says they were baptised. Church tradition from early centuries is that baptism can happen many different ways, not just in the mode that you think is best.
You are defending church tradition and not scripture. I am confident that I have demonstrated the use of immersion rather than baptism to be the right way to say and do.
What would you do with the following scripture?
Why if immersion is not necessary (I will continue to use the translation to avoid confusion) were all of the new believers immersed immediately on the day of Pentecost and again each time we read of new believers? Seems to be more than just an option, don't you think?
Because it doesn’t say they were all immersed immediately, no matter how much you’d like it to. It says they were baptised. Church tradition from early centuries is that baptism can happen many different ways, not just in the mode that you think is best.
You are defending church tradition and not scripture. I am confident that I have demonstrated the use of immersion rather than baptism to be the right way to say and do.
I believe you that you are confident, but many of the rest of us remain unconvinced and do not see a need to start worrying about a full dunk.
For the sake of unity and peace, though, I feel you might find fellowship with those who do agree with you, such as our German Baptist brethren (whom I have always appreciated, and who appreciate me, despite our lack of agreement on things as fundamental as salvation, marriage, and the eternal state.)
Ken wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:25 pm
This is an honest question.
But is there a fundamental difference between baptism and communion such that adherence to historical practice and biblical meaning is important for baptism but unimportant for communion?
A lot of the Anabaptist groups that have deep-seated disagreement on the question of baptism seem perfectly comfortable swapping out grape juice for wine when it comes to communion. When Jesus was pretty clearly and indisputably talking about wine.
Is not the substitution of sprinkling or pouring for immersion in the same category as substituting juice for wine? In that it is the symbolism and ritual that is important, not the precise historical details? Or are these two rites different in some fundamental way that I don’t understand?
The only significant Anabaptist group that requires immersion are German Baptists, and they use wine. Usually one brother ferments it once a year, so it’s “new wine”, often pungent.
Once I was with a group of Brethren discussing favourite smells. One of them said his favourite is that of the communion wine; strong and sour, which reminded him of our Lord’s passion and suffering.
Of course, us Holdemans use grape juice. We also pour. Most Old Orders use wine.
And it goes without saying that you Holdemans are the "one true church" and the only ones who have it all right... That's according to your own literature and teachings.
But we don’t believe our church’s teachings on baptism or communion impart salvation. That’s extremely important.
Neto wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:05 pm
I would maintain that baptism is not a sacrament, but rather an observance, or a simple act of obedience. As it is used here, however, it is probably just a difference in definition of terms.
Oxford Lexico:
(in the Christian Church) a religious ceremony or ritual regarded as imparting divine grace, such as baptism, the Eucharist and (in the Roman Catholic and many Orthodox Churches) penance and the anointing of the sick.
However, Merriam-Webster says
: a Christian rite (such as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality
I would accept the first part of their definition, but I think that they cross beyond the meaning of the word in the latter part. I understand the part about "imparting divine grace" or "a means of grace" to describe the core meaning, with the church itself as the vehicle for this "transfer of grace". Maybe I'm just influenced by my studies in anthropology and ethnology, because a religious rite would be understood in that way (to my memory, at least). I'm just leery of the idea that the church is imparting grace. I think the focus should be on God alone, as the actor or agent of the benefits that come from obedience.
It is the grace being imparted by God, not by men, when we receive these sacraments by faith. There is more than meets the eye. I suggest a close reading of 1Cor 11:28-31
1Co 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
While it is not specifically stated as clearly in scripture, there is a genuine spiritual element/application to both immersion and communion.
Is it the church that saves you or God? God uses means that He has established to make the process real to us. Without faith, neither rite is effective for anything.
Did you read what I said carefully enough to realize that you are agreeing with me? (Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant exactly what you said, that it is GOD who imparts his grace. Unless I am not understanding you, either.... But I was dealing with the term "sacrament", saying that I do not think that that's what baptism is, because it is NOT a ceremony by which the church imparts grace. I didn't say that GOD does not in some way impart grace when that step of obedience is taken.)
Neto wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 5:00 pm
Did you read what I said carefully enough to realize that you are agreeing with me? (Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant exactly what you said, that it is GOD who imparts his grace. Unless I am not understanding you, either.... But I was dealing with the term "sacrament", saying that I do not think that that's what baptism is, because it is NOT a ceremony by which the church imparts grace. I didn't say that GOD does not in some way impart grace when that step of obedience is taken.)
You seemed to be implying that no grace is given, but only referenced the church. I don't believe the church imparts grace, but as you said, God does. God only imparts grace when there is obedient faith involved on the part of the believer. A cup of juice/wine or a good dunking doesn't help anybody apart from grace, which is why I don't believe in infant "baptism".(at least in part)
In the MB church I attended, baptism and communion were considered ordinances not sacraments. I had a slip of the tongue one time referring to water baptism as a sacrament and the pastor quickly corrected me.
In our church the term sacrament and ordinance are interchangeably used and I doubt anyone has really spent much time thinking about the meanings of these words.
I am a near-sacramentalist; I don’t think holy water itself conveys saving grace. I do think obedience to scripture (including baptism and communion) conveys immense spiritual benefit upon the believer who practices it.
Quakers and Salvation Army believers would then be leading the way as they don't baptise in water. I wonder how many water baptised believers would still regard them as Christian.
(Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant exactly what you said, that it is GOD who imparts his grace. Unless I am not understanding you, either.... But I was dealing with the term "sacrament", saying that I do not think that that's what baptism is, because it is NOT a ceremony by which the church imparts grace. I didn't say that GOD does not in some way impart grace when that step of obedience is taken.)