Sacriments & Ordinances (anti-christians need not enter)

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Thu Dec 22, 2005 7:28 pm

I've got a question to bounce off of those of you here that study, or care about, what the Bible has to say. I'm just putting this in as a disclaimer... I'm not posting this thread to have the Bible's validity discussed. So, if you are tempted to jump in here and start taking the thread off topic, please take it elsewhere.

I'd like to bounce ideas about ordinances/sacriments off of you guys. I know we have a pretty diverse group here, so I hope to hear a variety of views on teh subject. I always grew up with baptism and communion being "ordinances." Baptism was by immersion and only done to people who had already made a personal confession of faith in Christ and wanted to do it. Communion was always called an ordinance. I have been attending a Presbyterian church lately, and have come across a new set of ideas. Baptism is a sacriment- done to children, by sprinkling. Communion is called a sacriment. What do you people believe about the subject, and why?

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 1:58 am

for presbyterians (and most 'orthodox' churches), the baptism of an infant is the same as a baptism of an adult. it signifies their birth into christ, the washing away of sin, and acceptance into the covenant of the church. when baptizing a child it signifies the difference of the child from believers and non-beleivers, and the church's willingness to help raise the child in faith. this is done because of some deep rooted beleifs about the way your life in christ should be 'directed' and becaue of the church doctrine. you are a chrisitian, in god's grace, and free from sin when baptized. you have many hurdles in front of you, and must still confirm this (confirmation

) and accept jesus into your heart. this may seem to differ greatly from baptists because they do not baptize you until you accept jesus and admit you are a sinner. why? it helps to study the history of these churches (it HELPS A LOT), but mainly it has to do with the congregations as they developed over the years. this, to me, gets into the very reason why there are multiple churches, and not just one 'christian mind'. there are many schools of thought as to what is the right way and the wrong way to be a christian in the eyes of the church. for baptists, infant baptism is wrong because it is a doctrine of the orthodox church (roman catholics, most eastern orthodox churches and those that pulled away after the protestant reformation, notably luthern, anglican, methodist, and of course presbyterian) and not taught in the new testament, implies that spiritual salvation can be acheived through ceremony without beleif, and they beleive that it imparts 'partial salvation' because they must in fact 'confirm' and profess their sins, which is 'wrong' because the scriptures to not talk of partial salvation. it is all or nothing.

i am not giving my thoughts on this because i am of course 'anti-christian', but i thought i would at least lend what i know on the subject to help shine a light on why one church views things differently than another. hope you don't mind an anti-christian post.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 6:29 am

First I'll post my thoughts and then I'll read firefly's post so that I may do so without distraction.

I was raised in a Lutheran church although denominational docterin has never been a big selling point for me. So, I am not "Lutheran" persay but Christian. (I don't attend a Lutheran Church these days, no reason.) As a young boy I was very aware of the bickering between denominations about the holy sacrimants and how and when they should be done. I always thought it appalling that something assigned buy God should be argued over, even in my youth. He said Do it, didn't always say exactly how.

Baptisim in the Lutheran church is done mostly to infants by sprinkling. Then when you are older, classes called "Catacism" are taken explaining the why and the significants of your baptisim. In my church it was called Confirmation as we were confirming our baptism and our faith; after which we could partisipate in taking communion. The Catholic church also does the same, however, I think kids are younger when they go through catacisim. I was in highschool.

Anyone who searches, finds and follows God will be urged inwardly (Or "lead") to be baptised at some point. It is a symbol of leaving our former life behind and being cleansed of our sins. It is a public confession of our sinful nature and our faith in Christ Jesus. One must be able to understand that their life is controlled by this old nature in order to repent (or turn away from) it. For some, it is at a very early age, for others it's never. As a blessing for infants, sprinkling is totally ok, but I have a hard time seeing where they would comprehend the significants of the remission of sin. I'm sure that God's grace is sufficiant to cover these little ones until such a time that each is responsible; which can only really be determined by God himself. I've not seen may adults sprinkled athough I know it is done. Many, maybe most, are dunked or emerssed; either in a tank or a river or some other means. As for myself, I was emersed in a creek Sept 22, 1986. It was quite an extraordinary experiance.

All in all, Baptism is a matter of the heart and not a matter of symantics. It is done before God and the public as symbol your adoption into God's family through Christ's work on the cross.

*edit* After reading through Fire's post, (good post btw) I want to clarify (of my post, not his) that "salvation" or adoption into God's family is recieved upon the first confession of faith. You are thus "baptised" into His family. Baptisim is usually something that comes a bit later. Jesus said:" He who believes and is baptised will be saved."*edit*

Communion is a bit more complex as it's roots are founded in covenant. It's a concept not used in today's culture often and when it is, not with good implications. In a couple of places Jesus mentioned His flesh and His blood and that we must "partake" of them or eat of them. No, we aren't to be cannibles. It is a reference to old testiment covantants. (Incidently, "testiment" can also be translate "Covanant". I also have heard that there is something in the Passover ceremony that lends to this. There is just way too much on this topic for me to go into... that and I'm wayyy tired.

Communion is not to be taken lightly as it is an act of covanant shared with believers, among believers, much like marrage is an act of covanant... yeah ..it's That serious. We share in the sufferings and mission of Christ and to honor him. There are many scrptural refences particularly the "last Supper" passages.

As far as the elements go? .. again. This is a matter of heart and is between you and God. Remember that it was instituted at the final Passover feast with Jesus and they would have been eating the "bread of haste" or unleaven bread that was eaten by the Isrealites as they fled Egypt. They also drank wine at the feast inwhich there is a ritual in place. (though I don't know what it is). But if all you have is 99 cent bread from Safeway or Winndixie and some water or grape juice, then hey, you're SET! Gather, pray, and I'm sure that God will honor you. The Isrealites were BIG on ritual and eventhough they did it without mechanical flaw, God was still displeased. He was looking on thier hearts and saw many "icky" things. (See various OT passages) He says that "He takes no pleaser in burnt offering. This is the fast that God desires, that a humble and contrite heart He will not despise" This is what is ment by "to obey is better than sacrifce".
"Take this, as often you do, in rememberance of Me."

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 7:09 pm

I'll go ahead and throw in my two cents on this subject. First, the issue of the sprinkling. NEVER did you see any accounts of babies being baptized in the bible, nor do you see people being sprinkled.

First, some info from the encyclopedia

The Encyclop?dia Britannica: ?The whole early period knows baptism only for adults, who join themselves of their own resolve to the Christian community. Infant baptism appears sporadically towards the end of the second century and was practiced also during the following centuries, yet only as an exception.??Vol. 3, page 84.

This was initially done by the church in order to "save" babies from sin, but this is the result of a common misconception. By considering the scriptures, one can see that baptism is not merely a washing away of sins, but a symbom of dedication to God. If it was merely to wash away sin, we would have to get baptized every single day as we are imperfect and sin frequently. And in order to make a dedication, you have to have faith. A baby is not capable of making a dedication as it is merely an infant. Dedication should be from one's own heart where he/she is at an age where they can make that decision.

Communion was always called an ordinance

Well, religion is a pretty big business. Gotta keep that paster's cadillac rollin

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:10 pm

duper: thanks.. it's usually cathecism, btw.

but overall i think your post makes sense (if you were as tired as i was at that point).

Admiral Thrawn: read my post for information as to 'why these churches baptize infants'....

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Well, religion is a pretty big business. Gotta keep that paster's cadillac rollin

you seem to be confusing communion (the consumption of the body and blood of christ...) and tithing (the 'giving' of money to the church, in its 'truest' form 10% of your earnings).

p.s. this is coming from an anti-christian, go figure.

Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Admiral Thrawn** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:35 pm

yea, your right, long day hehe, my bad. I was thinking about Tithing

As far as "washing away sin" as the reason for being baptized, let's consider when Jesus got baptized. Obviously, he had no sin when he was baptized, so why get baptized? It's of course to symbolize a dedication to God. To imply that the purpose of baptism is to merely wash away sin, then that would be saying that Jesus was a sinner.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:57 pm

I see your point Thrawn. I hadn't considered that before. It's more likely that water baptism is sybolism for the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I was thinking of what John was doing, which was preparing the way for Christ inwhich he was baptising for the remission of sins.

And yea fire. I was WAYYYYYyyy tired. Infact, I had typed out the whole first half of my post about baptism and LOST it all. 0_o.. It was 4 am before I finished it all again.

You have obviously spent time in church Fire, Christian or no. That or you studied theology and religious practices for a long time in school.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:14 pm

duper: yes.... i spent time in church when i was a child, i was baptized catholic, and later baptized baptist... which is why i studied theoligy in school and on my own to find answers, which is why i am 'anti-christian', and to expand just a little... i am really not anti-god... but anti-'organized religion', but i have laid some of this out throughout this forum... so forgive me for not going into detail.

as to losing your post... i did that too... 3 times... my first 2 were much longer and had a lot of info... in the end i settled for the synopsis. lol

the water is used symbolizes three accounts from the old testament: the waters of creation, the flood from the story of noah, and the hebrews' escape from from egypt when they crossed the red sea. 'god makes good with water'

it helps that it also symbolizes being washed, and immersion (which negates the 'sprinkling' imo).

as to the infant baptism, and the washing away of sin, it goes a bit deeper than that (as i said above). which is, i think, what you are getting at.

p.s. i never met a pastor that drove a cadillac... i knew one once that had a nice buick though.

i am sure the televangelists have some flashy rides (can you imagine the 'christian' version of 'cribs'? lol)

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:46 pm

Alright, I'm going to tackle a few of the ideas that you guys brough up, and I'll get to the rest later.... it's late, but I want to address some of my personal difficulties on the subject.

First: Thrawn. Your encyclopedia may or may not have correct information. I believe that child baptism was a practice even before Christ. (The Mishna refers to it.) Furthermore, the issue isn't directly with children, but with people who have not personally expressed a profession of faith. The Mishna's accounts describe whole households being baptised. If this where happening before Christ, would it not have been expressly forbidden in the New Testament if it was not intended for it to continue?

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:05 pm

Oh! you just reminded me! Isreal crossing the Jordan leaving the wilderness under the guidence of Joshua. That was also a form of baptism.

In my first post..er... first version, I expounded on my experiance as a kid in church a bit more. My resentment at the time about all this arguing about baptism and communion was such that I began to despise organized religion. A gal teaching summer bible school gave a book "How to be Christian without being Religious". It was a great read and I recomend it to anyone. It's basically an exposion of the book of Romans; on what it is to BE a Christian. This went a long way to ease my inner turmoil and now look back on it as a gift from God. Living with that kinda resentment is never a good thing and always breeds bitterness. And after much prayer and much thought, I've now come to the conclusion that organized religion thought not with out its flaws has gone a long way in spreading much good. Remember that organized religion is a group of people that is watched over by more people. And ANY time you throw that many people together, particuarly insinecere people, you get a real mess. But on the individual level, you can find pure gold. HAve you ever seen that movie with the two brothers, one is a priest, the other a slave driver? Both are in New Zealand back in the early 1800's i think? Long story short, one repents among the tribe he hunted and in the end they both die due to an authorized attack by the Catholic Church. I can't remember the title ..Grrr. But it was a great movie. It shows this comparison very well. Origized religion provided a venue for truely good people to spread the gospel. Although, even still, I tend not to prefer attending a mainstream church. Much of thier theologies are being watered down by pop culture. This is to be expected tho...if you've read the end of the book.

PS. Sorry Snoop, didn't mean to sidetrack this.

*edit #2*
You are correct Snoopy, baptism was a practice that arrose, if I rememeber, some time during the Roamn occupation and was being practiced before Jesus started his ministry.

snoopy · Post by **snoopy** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 10:34 pm

I think the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance, while on the surface seeming to be a simple symentic difference, really makes a large difference in people's lives.

If communion and baptism are sacrements, them one's salvation can be affected by them. If one partakes of communion with the incorrect heart, (like the Corinthians) they place themselves in danger of loosing their salvation.

Baptism becomes a much more significant issue. It is a families duty to have their children baptised, as a sign of their membership in the visible church, and as a sign of the covenant promises extended to the visible church. Salvation itself is not imparted, but if the child does not confirm that baptism in the form of a personal acceptance of Christ, he brings extra punishment upon himself. (Though I don't know exactly how that is possible, hell seems to be pretty much infinitely horrible either way.) The baptism takes on a certain level of significance in and of itself, because it precedes the child's entering into the invisible church, and thus speaks of something that is predestined to happen.

I see pros and cons with this position.
The Pros:
1) It helps people to take them seriously.
2) It follows the OT more closely- where the sacrifices and temple rituals where necessary sacriments.
3) It better acknowledges the difference between the visible and invisible church, and provides a formal introduction of children into the visible church.

The Cons:
1) It introduces a level of ambiguity concerning one's salvation- one may or may not do things to undo their salvation.
2) It downplays the role of free will in one's life, giving signs for things yet to come.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun Dec 25, 2005 11:13 pm

snoopy wrote: If communion and baptism are sacrements, them one's salvation can be affected by them. If one partakes of communion with the incorrect heart, (like the Corinthians) they place themselves in danger of loosing their salvation.

Could you please expound a bit more on "incorrect"? I don't remember an instance of that. Also, I'm not sure that you can loose your salvation thusly. ??

snoopy wrote:It is a families duty to have their children baptised, as a sign of their membership in the visible church, and as a sign of the covenant promises extended to the visible church. Salvation itself is not imparted, but if the child does not confirm that baptism in the form of a personal acceptance of Christ, he brings extra punishment upon himself. (Though I don't know exactly how that is possible, .....

This was kinda my thought also, but I don't think that it would bind the child in any way. There is no evidence in the scriptures that supports child baptism. It's binding, perhaps, to the parents, but certainly not the child as he/she, isnt/wasn't a concenting party to the oath. Which brings up what Jesus said in Matthew: "Let your Yes be yes and your no be no." Great caution was advised in the taking of an oath and illadvised as we can not control the circumstances that can cross our lives.

fyrephlie · Post by **fyrephlie** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 12:20 am

snoopy wrote:I think the difference between a sacrament and an ordinance, while on the surface seeming to be a simple symentic difference, really makes a large difference in people's lives.

yes indeed! i think that is the exact reason why there are differences between the churches. i think there is a lot to be said to about the way that a simple 'church hymn' can bring tears to one persons eyes as they feel a 'certain touch' of christ, while another person might find that same hymn to be just a funny song. it can be said that there are a lot of semantic issues that can be viewed VERY differently by different people. (i was just having a discussion recently about the request of mary to intercede with christ on their behalf...)

snoopy wrote: If communion and baptism are sacrements, them one's salvation can be affected by them. If one partakes of communion with the incorrect heart, (like the Corinthians) they place themselves in danger of loosing their salvation.

there is a lot of question about losing salvation. it is believed that there is no such thing partial salvation. it is also believed that unless you renounce your belief in christ, you can not lose salvation.

snoopy wrote: Baptism becomes a much more significant issue. It is a families duty to have their children baptised, as a sign of their membership in the visible church, and as a sign of the covenant promises extended to the visible church. Salvation itself is not imparted, but if the child does not confirm that baptism in the form of a personal acceptance of Christ, he brings extra punishment upon himself. (Though I don't know exactly how that is possible, hell seems to be pretty much infinitely horrible either way.) The baptism takes on a certain level of significance in and of itself, because it precedes the child's entering into the invisible church, and thus speaks of something that is predestined to happen.

lol @ hell = bad no matte what.

again, its a kind of a catch 22 issue. on one hand you will go to hell if... on the other hand, you can't go to hell no matter what... i no it seems like a silly way to put it maybe. but there you have it. some believe that if you are saved, even if you sin, your place in the great beyond is guaranteed, others believe that this is only true if you confess these sins (which opens the door to the question of whether there really is such a 'free pass' into heaven at all)

snoopy wrote: I see pros and cons with this position.
The Pros:
1) It helps people to take them seriously.
2) It follows the OT more closely- where the sacrifices and temple rituals where necessary sacriments.
3) It better acknowledges the difference between the visible and invisible church, and provides a formal introduction of children into the visible church.

The Cons:
1) It introduces a level of ambiguity concerning one's salvation- one may or may not do things to undo their salvation.
2) It downplays the role of free will in one's life, giving signs for things yet to come.

like i said...

congratulations on being human snoopy!!! i knew you could do it.

in all seriousness, these are the type of questions that lead me to where i am. uncertain. i would venture to say that you may never find a real answer to all of it. i think religion is quite literally our human need to find answers, but you must accept certain things with a 'grain of salt', as it were.

i was literally told, when i was much younger, sitting in sunday school class, not to ask such questions, but to do 'as the bible told me'.

perhaps that is the right answer, even if it isn't in the bible, the church as gone out of its way to do the best it can to answer questions (contradictory or not) so that we don't have to figure it out for ourselves. that isn't to say that it is really wrong to ignore them, but to do what you heart and soul tell you.

i would tell you this: do what feels RIGHT to you, and what you feel God would want you to do. that means that if you grew up in a Baptist Church, and you are having trouble grappling the ways of the Presbyterian Church, if it makes you uncomfortable, maybe you might want to go back to what feels right.

i'm sorry if it seems i am speaking so broadly, or taking any liberties that i shouldn't, and i appreciate the pm btw snoopy.

duper: i have read the book you are talking about (although i swear that isn't the title... even if i can't remember what it is at this point, but i think it's the same book), it is a good read.

the movie you are talking about is something else i have seen, but i am with you in being frustrated on not being able to remember the title! @#$!! i'll wake up at 3 am (if i am sleeping by then) and remember to post it tomorrow, by which time i will have forgotten again.

anyone here read mere christianity?

it's interesting, and might help. Lewis has some great things to say, and he says them well with out pulpit pounding, and bible thumping...

long link to first pages @ amazon

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Mon Dec 26, 2005 10:19 pm

fyrephlie wrote:anyone here read mere christianity?

One of my absolute FAVORITE authors. But then, you could probably already guess that.

fyrephlie wrote:The church as gone out of its way to do the best it can to answer questions (contradictory or not) so that we don't have to figure it out for ourselves.

Not all churches behave this way. My Denomination (Seventh Day Adventist), and some other denominations and congregations as well, insists that individual members are responsible for understanding and interpreting the Bible. A preacher in the pulpit at my church should expect that every text he quotes is being double checked, live, by a significant portion of the congregation. And if what he says doesn't seem to be supported solidly by the Bible, he WILL hear about it after the service.

I disagree with my church on a few points here and there, but I'm solidly behind them on this one, and the following.

My Church falls on the ordinance side of the argument. We believe that Baptism and Communion are symbols. There is no "Magic" in either ceremony, and there are occasions where they have been dispensed with. Take, for example, the thief on the cross. He certainly never received baptism after his confession of faith, and yet was promised salvation.

Now just because they are Symbols does not mean that Baptism and Communion are not required of Christians (assuming there is knowledge and opportunity). Consider them on a par with a wedding vow. Paul states that whenever a man and woman lie together, they are "one flesh". He's quoting Genesis 2:24 about the relationship between Adam and Eve, so yeah, it means married. So, according to Paul, if you have sex with someone, you ARE married to them. And that makes the marriage vow just a symbol. But it is still a REQUIRED symbol. It's something you should do.

No "Magic" happens to you at Baptism or communion, but Christ said that if you follow Him, you will be baptized and take part in the Lord's Supper. It's kind of hard to be a follower if you don't actually, uhm... follow. Just like if the person you are sleeping with refuses to get married, you might want to question their actual commitment to the relationship.

We do not practice infant baptism. The symbolism of baptism seems quite pointless for anyone not old enough to make a decision. We DO have baby dedications. It's a symbolic ceremony that says we are dedicating this child to Christ and asking for wisdom (and patience!) in raising them. We do not believe that this ceremony is in any way required for the child's salvation.

Kilarin