 |
|
|
Did you know that from the beginning of time the whole purpose of God was to reproduce Himself?...And when we stand up here, brother, you're not looking at Morris Cerullo; you're looking at God. You're looking at Jesus
-- Morris Cerullo, "The End Time Manifestation of the Sons of God"
|
|
| |
Exclusive: Baptism & Communion: Affirmed or Annulled?
Posted on Friday, December 22 @ 09:54:00 PST by Kurt Simmons |
|
by Kurt Simmons
An unfortunate teaching has surfaced in Preterist circles which states that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are become obsolete and may be disregarded. Apparently, the thinking is that Jesus’ coming in AD 70 somehow obviates the need to observe these commandments. This is mistaken.
The Lord left two ordinances or “sacraments” for his church: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, or Communion. We tend to avoid the term “sacrament” because of its association with certain errors and abuses in the Catholic Church. But the term itself is perfectly scriptural. Scripturally speaking, a sacrament is a rite by which the believer obtains divine grace or favor. It is not a work of merit, but an act of obedience born of faith. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper both fit the definition of a sacrament.
In baptism the repentant believer receives remission of sins (Acts 2:38); he has his sins washed away (Acts 22:16); he gets into Christ (Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27); and has forgiveness of sins (Col. 2:11-13). Those that obeyed Peter’s commandment to repent and be baptized were added to the church: “And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved” (Acts 2:38, 41, 47). Since the church is the saved, and one gets into the church by baptism, it is not difficult to understand how Peter could say “baptism doth also now save us” (I Pet. 3:21). Mark’s gospel proclaims “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mk. 16:15, 16). Baptism is an essential element of the rebirth by water and the Spirit (Jno. 3:3, 5). Indeed, to believe and be baptized is to be born of water and the Spirit.
Baptism was the identifying mark of those entering the kingdom (Matt. 21:31, 32; Lk. 7:30). No one this side of the cross enters the kingdom of God without it. Jesus’ parting instruction to his disciples was to keep up the work begun by John the Immerser by preaching among earth’s peoples the message of repentance and baptism in his name (Matt. 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15, 16; Lk. 24:47). And so they did. The book of Acts has ten examples of conversion; baptism was an essential part in each case. (Acts 2:38; 8:12, 13; 8:36-38; 10:48; 16:15; 16:33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16) Ten is a perfect number. Could it be the Lord is telling us something here? Given the integral part of baptism in the gospel, it seems incredulous anyone could argue it has somehow lost its efficacy in AD 70. The eschaton consummated the New Testament and its ordinances, not annulled them.
Likewise the Lord’s Supper. Paul said that the Lord’s Supper is a participation in the body and blood of Christ (I Cor. 10:16, 17). That tells me that we share in the benefits of Christ’s atoning sacrifice each time we partake. Taking the Lord’s Supper is serious stuff. More than merely a memorial is involved; the Lord’s Supper is something that can be desecrated. Failing to approach the Lord ’s Table with discernment caused some at Corinth to come under judgment by God, even to the point of striking some with sickness and death (I Cor. 11:27-30). Paul’s statement “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come” (I Cor. 11:26), does not imply that observance was to cease at the eschaton. Rather, Paul merely indicates the reason wrath would be poured out upon the Jews and Romans was being reenacted each Lord’s Day when they gathered around his table. (Cf. Heb. 10:25-29) Far from ceasing at Christ’s coming, Jesus said that he would partake of it “anew” with us in his kingdom (Matt. 26:28; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16, 18) The kingdom on earth is the church; the terms are used interchangeably. (Cf. Matt. 16:18, 19; Heb. 12:23, 28) The apostolic church observed the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:17ff; 16:2). We are charged to keep the traditions set in the church by Christ and the apostles (I Cor. 11:2; II Thess. 2:15).
Abandoning baptism and the Lord’s Supper is a precarious position to take. “This persuasion cometh not from him that calleth you.” (Gal. 5:8)
------
Kurt Simmons is a columnist for PlanetPreterist.com.
View Kurt Simmons archives
Note: Opinions presented on PlanetPreterist.com or by PlanetPreterist.com columnists may not necessarily reflect the position of PlanetPreterist.com, or reflect the beliefs, doctrine or theological position of all other preterists. We encourage all readers to first and foremost carefully analyze all articles in the light of God's Word.
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 4.25
Votes: 4
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Baptism & Communion: Affirmed or Annulled? (Score: 1)
 by JL on Friday, December 22 @ 13:55:11 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Amen.
I don't know about ten being the perfect number, but certainly repetition implies that it is important. Yes the Lord is telling us something.
JL |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Baptism & Communion: Affirmed or Annulled? (Score: 1)
 by Terry on Friday, December 22 @ 14:32:53 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Baptism & the lord's supper are covenant ordinances. They were not of the Jewish covenant, nor are they anywhere presented or treated as "eschaton only". The eschaton only items are specifically given a "temporary, and then passing away" treatment (see 1 Cor.13).
Jesus indicated clearly his disciples would initiate the supper without him, looking forward to his return...then with him sibsequent to his return. Baptism is instituted by the miraculous guidence of the covenant-revealing Holy Spirit, given its inspired covenant purpose by the Holy Spirit and is nowhere spoken of as temporary. The remarkable thing is that there were no debates or writings that teach anything other than what Paul and Peter taught until centuries later after Luther put forth the "faith only...James is an epistle of straw" work.
In the first century, the writings are not difficult or unclear.
Good article.
Terry M. Hall
Dayton, Ohio
Home of TRUTHVOICE '07 |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by tom-g on Saturday, December 23 @ 11:46:42 PST
- by Starlight on Saturday, December 23 @ 19:03:52 PST
- by tom-g on Friday, December 29 @ 08:41:27 PST
Re: Baptism & Communion: Affirmed or Annulled? (Score: 1)
by mazuur on Friday, December 22 @ 15:46:24 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Kurt,
True words. Amen!
Not to beat a dead horse, but I have to recommend (too those reading) Max King's section on Baptism at the end of his book "The Cross and the Parousia of Christ", pages 704-715. By far the best (and comprehensive) I have ever read concerning the topic of Baptism.
He also wrote a 9 page (p.716-724) discourse on The Lord's Supper. Of course I have to say it again. The best treatment on on the Lord's Supper I have ever read too.
Again, thanks for your continued work in delivering this truths.
Also, I am looking forward to your new commentary. Will be worth the wait I'm sure.
Rich |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: The Lord's Supper Is An Update Of Passover: An Annual, Not Weekly, Observance (Score: 1)
 by chrisliv on Friday, December 22 @ 16:30:41 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Yeah,
I agree that Baptism and The Lord's Supper were certainly intended to endure beyond 70 AD. But to demand a weekly observance is silly and unfounded in the Bible.
At the end of the article, Kurt says:
"The apostolic church observed the Lord’s Supper each first day of the week (Acts 20:7; I Cor. 11:17ff; 16:2). 'We are charged' to keep the traditions set in the church by Christ and the apostles (1Cor. 11:2; II Thess. 2:15)."
Those kind of verses or contexts don't demonstrate a "weekly" celebration of the Lord's Supper. Not at all.
Acts 20:6 & 7: "And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight." (The mention of the various number of days, the time of the year, the day of the week, and the fact that they were having a meal when Paul decided to preach does not imply The Lord's Supper nor a weekly observance of it.)
1Cor. 11:20: "When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper." (This suggests that The Lord's Supper is more of a private, family observance as was the custom of Passover.)
1Cor. 16:2: "Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." (This had to do with a particular collection of donations that Paul was going to transfer directly to the needy Jerusalem Christians.)
1Cor.11:2" "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." (The Lord's Supper is contained in this context, but not any mention of a weekly observance.)
II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." (Again, nothing in this context about The Lord's Supper or how often it was intended to be observed.)
The Lord's Supper was an update of Passover, which was an annual celebration. Of course, if some people want to make it a weekly observance for themselves, that shouldn't offend anyone.
Paul quotes Christ (even though it is a secondhand quote by Paul) Himself on the observance of the Lord's Supper at 1Cor. 11:24-26:
"And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, 'Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.' After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, 'This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.'"
Notice Paul quotes Christ as saying, "as oft as ye drink it." Now, interestingly, none of the Gospel writers seemed to feel it necessary to included that part in their Gospel accounts. So, Paul obviously got that part from them. And, we know how "oft as ye drink it" was for the Jews. It was once per year.
Someone might say that Christ was there giving latitude to the frequency of the observance, i.e., one a year, once a week, or every time you drink wine or eat bread. However, even Paul implies that it is a more serious and less frequent observance, saying, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord." 1Cor. 11:27
So, to demand that all observe it as a weekly ordinance is not at all biblical, though to do it weekly or even daily may be customary for some.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Malachi on Saturday, December 23 @ 06:46:51 PST
- by chrisliv on Saturday, December 23 @ 13:10:18 PST
- by Malachi on Saturday, December 23 @ 13:28:50 PST
- by chrisliv on Saturday, December 23 @ 18:34:58 PST
- by JL on Saturday, December 23 @ 20:17:08 PST
- by chrisliv on Saturday, December 23 @ 21:45:45 PST
- by JL on Saturday, December 23 @ 08:01:59 PST
- by chrisliv on Saturday, December 23 @ 13:12:36 PST
Re: Baptism & Communion: Affirmed or Annulled? (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Saturday, December 23 @ 15:46:44 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Kurt, it seems to me that baptism of water was an Old Covenant ordinance which Jesus and first century Christians practiced. It was replaced by the baptism of fire which John spoke of and which happened in AD 70 when Jerusalem/the World were baptized by fire to be prepared for the return of Christ.
Baptism was nothing new to first century Christians and it has been practiced for thousands of years by Jewish people yet we now make it a requirement? I may agree with the communion being a new covenant ordinance, but baptism was clearly finalized in AD 70. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Starlight on Saturday, December 23 @ 19:25:18 PST
- by Virgil on Saturday, December 23 @ 19:49:01 PST
- by Starlight on Saturday, December 23 @ 21:48:52 PST
- by mazuur on Sunday, December 24 @ 11:22:53 PST
Re: Baptism & Communion: Affirmed or Annulled? (Score: 1)
by TheIdealNate on Thursday, December 28 @ 07:34:18 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | The point about it being "obsolete" isn't that Communion of Baptism has no place in the New Covenant, it is that ANY PHYSICAL ORDINANCE has no place.
Read Hebrews 8-12. EVERY physical act has no benefit to the conscience or soul in the covenant of Christ. These things that they did externally are internally and eternally fulfilled in believers, APART from the external practice.
God Bless
Nate |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
| 
|
