13. Ordinances Of The Church
ORDINANCES OF THE CHURCH Is it true, as taught in some quarters, that baptism and the Lord’s Supper were temporary, and that they are not intended for the New Testament Church? What was Peter’s relation to the Church?
No, it is not true. These two ordinances were given to the Church for the entire period of this dispensation. Baptism was practiced long after the “period of transition” so much spoken of by those who would have us believe that the ordinance was not given for us of the present time; indeed, it has never been suspended by any considerable portion of the Church, but has gone on till this day. Peter was, without doubt, the apostle to the Jews, but nevertheless he was sent by the Holy Spirit to open the door to the Gentiles when the first sermon to Gentiles was to be preached (Acts 10), and when his Gentile hearers believed the gospel and received the Holy Spirit, Peter, speaking with apostolic authority, “commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” The apostle to the Gentiles was Paul, and in a Gentile city, Ephesus (Acts 19:1-5), finding “certain disciples” who were ignorant of the gospel, he preached Christ unto them and then rebaptized them—”they were baptized in (into) the name of the Lord Jesus.” The manifestations which followed showed that what had been done in His name was approved by the risen Christ Himself, for “when Paul had laid his hands upon tnem, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” There is nothing here or elsewhere to indicate that baptism was a temporary arrangement for that time and that we are to have nothing to do with it. As to the Lord’s Supper, the words of 1 Corinthians 11:26, “till he come,” ought to settle the matter. It is a memorial feast which is to be observed, in obedience to His Word, until we see His face. The Word is perfectly clear on these things. “Be not carried away by every wind of doctrine.” Should unbaptized Christians partake of the Lord’s Supper? The proper order as pictured in the two ordinances is death, burial, resurrection, and then nourishing the new life by feeding upon Christ. A question has come up in our church with regard to the use of wine at the Lord’s table. Some contend for grape juice, and others for the fermented wine. One man will not commune because we use grape juice. I should like to have your opinion on this matter. In the Church where I was pastor for twenty years and am still a member, we use unfermented grape juice and unleavened bread on the Lord’s table. This use is in keeping with the fact that leaven is a type of evil in the Word of God (and fermentation is only another form setting forth the same principle) and therefore we feel that anything typifying the flesh and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ought to be free from fermentation or leaven.
However, I should not make a test of fellowship along this line. It is one of the things in which we may give each other liberty. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”
What is the meaning of1 Corinthians 11:20: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper”? The literal reading would be, “Ye cannot eat the Lord’s supper.” They were going through the form of eating the Lord’s supper, but they were not really eating the Lord’s supper at all, but rather turning it into a disgraceful orgy. In the 17th verse he tells the Corinthians that whenever they had a meeting they came “together not for the better, but for the worse.” That is to say, every meeting they had did more harm than good. We fear this may be true concerning many such meetings in these days.
If a minister is not “regularly ordained” does he have the right to serve at communion?
There is nothing in Scripture which restricts the right to serve at the Lord’s Supper to ordained ministers. I know of nothing to prevent any believer thus serving at the table. The present day prevailing custom of dividing the equal brotherhood of worshiping believer-priests into “clergy” and “laity” is without a shred of authority in the Word of God. Do you believe in the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament of Holy Communion? Does He not distinctly say: “Take, eat, this is my body”? and “Take, drink, this is my blood”?
No, I do not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. When our Lord said, ‘This is my body,” He could not have meant it literally because at that moment His body was seated at the table; and, similarly, the wine in the cup could not have been really His blood, for His blood was yet in His veins. The only reasonable conclusion is that the bread and wine represented His body and blood. It is as if I should say of a picture on a wall, ‘This is my father.”
Please explain1 Corinthians 11:29: “For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.”
Let us first read the verse in the better translation of the American Revised Version: “For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body.” The word “damnation” is exceedingly unfortunate here. There is no such thing possible as damnation for a believer. The people rebuked in this passage were believers, notwithstanding the fact that they were walking in the flesh and displeasing God in connection with their celebration of the Lord’s Supper. The whole passage beginning with the verse 17 should be considered. The apostle accuses the Corinthian Church of disorderliness in connection with the observance of the Lord’s Supper. In verses 23-25 he gives simple instructions as to how the Supper should be eaten, and in verse 26 he gives the purpose of the Supper, which is to “show the Lord’s death till he come.”
Then beginning at verse 27 he speaks of the sinfulness of an unworthy observance of the ordinance. Here, too, it is better to read from the Revised Version: “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself, andso let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.”
We have already quoted verse 29. Verse 30 says: “For this cause many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few sleep.” This means, of course, that on account of their sinful observance of the Lord’s Supper God had sent among them in chastening, an epidemic of weakness and sickliness, and in many cases this weakness and sickness had resulted fatally: “not a few” had died under the chastening hand of God. Then in verse 31 (and here the Authorized Version is better) he says: “For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world.”
Now to go back to your question concerning the verse 29. These believers who were eating and drinking in an unworthy manner were bringing upon themselves judgment from the hand of a faithful Father, because they were not discerning the Lord’s body.
All believers are members of the Lord’s body (Ephesians 5:25), and except we discern His body in His members when we gather together with them at the Lord’s Table, though we may go through the form of eating the Lord’s Supper, we are not really eating the Lord’s Supper at all. This is the point in verse 20: “When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s Supper,” or as the Revised Version puts it, “When therefore ye assemble yourselves together, it is not possible to eat the Lord’s Supper.” They thought they were eating the Lord’s Supper; they were going through the form of eating the Lord’s Supper, but they were not really eating the Lord’s Supper at all. They were failing to discern the true significance of the Supper and failing to discern the Lord’s body in it all.
There may be some relation between all this and our Lord’s revelation of Himself to the Emmaus disciples in Luke 24:13-32. While He talked with them by the way their hearts burned within them, as He opened to them the Scriptures, but they did not know Him until they saw Him breaking bread. It was then that they discerned Him and His resurrection body. And it is particularly true of a really Scriptural observance of the Lord’s Supper that we discern Him in the breaking of bread. Is there anything in Church history to indicate that the Church in the first and second century ignored or set aside believer’s baptism by immersion in water? In Acts we read that when a person believed on the Lord Jesus he was baptized in water. It seems to me that all believers were baptized in the early Church. I believe thatRomans 6:3-4;Galatians 3:27; andColossians 2:12can mean nothing else than baptism in water; but Bible teachers today say these three Scriptures do not mean water baptism at all.
How did infant baptism come in? The early Church knew nothing of any baptism other than believer’s baptism by immersion in water. It was not until late in the twelfth century that even the Roman Catholic Church considered any other baptism valid.
I dunk there is real ground for honest difference of opinion as to whether Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:27; and Colossians 2:12, refer to water baptism. For myself I believe that Romans 6:3 refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and that the fourth verse refers to water baptism. But I am perfectly certain that water baptism, by immersion of believers only, is required in the New Testament. This is not to say that it is a saving ordinance, which I do not believe.
Infant baptism came in through the doctrine of baptismal regeneration when people began to believe water baptism to be necessary to salvation. Then they began to baptize infants and sick people and so on, and since they could not always immerse them, they took to pouring or sprinkling water upon them. Did baptism take the place of circumcision? If so, why is there no mention of a child being baptized in the New Testament?
No. There is no relation between circumcision and baptism, except that both are a symbol of death to the flesh. Baptism has the added significance of resurrection out of death (Colossians 2:11-12). As for infant baptism, it is utterly unscriptural. Does infant baptism take the place of circumcision in this dispensation?
I will let Dr. Scofield answer this question: The whole question of circumcision in relation to the Gentile believers in Christ in this dispensation came up before the council at Jerusalem, described in the 15th chapter of Acts. The thought of the Jewish believers in Christ was a very natural one. If the Jews must, in order to have the benefit of the Abrahamic covenant, receive circumcision, it naturally seemed to them that much more the Gentiles must receive the sign of the covenant if they were to share in its blessings. But the decision of the council at Jerusalem was that the Gentile converts did not need circumcision, and there is not in all that discussion a single hint of the notion that baptism takes the place of circumcision as a sign for Christians in this age. There is a theological teaching that as the Jews had circumcision in order to enter the Abrahamic covenant, so the Christian has baptism for the same purpose; but there is not one syllable of Scripture connecting baptism with the Abrahamic covenant. It is purely and only a theological concept. Baptism was a new ordinance instituted for believers of this age, as a public witness to identification with Christ (Dr. C. I. Scofield’s Question Box, page 15). Can we be saved through baptism? The teaching in one of our churches here is that a child or infant can be saved through baptism. They claim that God plants His Spirit within the soul of the child, and that this is the new birth as recorded inJohn 3:5; and that at confirmation this baptism is renewed, and this is the spiritual birth, or rather conversion.
Such teaching is unscriptural. The only water baptism known to Scripture is the immersion of a person after he has believed and is saved. In other words, an unsaved person ought not to be baptized at all. But a saved person ought to be baptized as a matter of obedience and testimony. The teaching that baptism at any time is a means of salvation is Satanic; and as for confirmation, multitudes have gone through that ceremony and have come out simply confirmed sinners.
All these things are the inventions of the enemy to befog the simple truth that salvation is always by grace through faith plus nothing. Ephesians 2:8-10 puts the matter in exactly the right order. Our salvation is by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. It is a new creation “unto good works” indeed, but the good works are to follow salvation rather than precede it.
1. Does water baptism in any way add to salvation, or does it in any way enter into it? I citeEphesians 2:8-9. Are we saved by faith through the blood of Christ from our original sin only, and are we obliged to atone through water baptism for those sins that have been committed from childhood until Christ was accepted?
2. What is meant, and what weight has water baptism in the phrase, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”?
3. What does the word “water” mean in the phrase, “born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5)?
4. Is the phrase “baptized into Christ” (Galatians 3:27) water baptism or spiritual?
5. Is there remission of sins in Christian baptism as there was in John’s baptism? Peter referred to it in bis sermon (Acts 2:38).
1. Water baptism does not in any way add to our salvation, nor does it in any way enter into it. We are saved by faith and by grace through faith, and on the ground of the shed blood of Christ; and this, not only from our “original sin,” but from “all sin, and from all our sins.” The teaching that water baptism in any way atones for our sins is unscriptural.
2. The expression, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), doubtless has to do with the Kingdom age rather than the Church age. Notice the context: “But he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay nands on the sick, and they shall recover.” These signs do not follow faith in the Lord Jesus Christ in this present age. They are Kingdom signs. When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost and was asked by his hearers what they should do, he answered, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:38-39). By these words he did not mean to include Gentiles, but only Jews who were afar off as well as those who were present on that occasion. Up to that time it seemed that the Holy Spirit did not come upon believers until after water baptism had been accomplished. But when you come to Acts 10, where the gospel goes to the Gentiles, the order is reversed, for it was while Peter spoke that “the Holy Spirit fell on all them which heard the word.” Then Peter asked, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:44-48). From that time on, as seems apparent, baptism followed salvation rather than preceded it.
3. “Water” in John 3:5 is a reference to the Word of God. The same imagery is employed in Titus 3:5 (Compare Ephesians 5:25-27, James 1:18, 1 Peter 1:23).
4. The phrase “baptized into Christ” (Galatians 3:27), refers to the “one baptism” by which in the “one Spirit” the believer is baptized at the moment of regeneration into the “one body,” that is, the body of Christ (Compare 1 Corinthians 12:12-13, R.V.; Ephesians 4:4-6).
5. There is no remission of sins in Christian baptism (I have already referred to Acts 2:38). Christian baptism has its place in the Christian life, and is a matter for the Christian’s obedience; but to make it a means of salvation is to violate the teaching of Scripture and muddle the gospel of grace. Will you please show us precisely what the Greek words mean which relate to the doctrine of water baptism? The most frequent word relating to water baptism is baptizo. This word is translated “Baptist” once, “baptize” 9 times, “baptizing” 4 times, “baptizest” once, “baptizeth” twice, “baptized” 61 times, “wash” once, and “washed” once, making 80 times in all.
Baptisma occurs 26 times, and is translated “baptism” 22 times, “baptisms” once, “washing” twice, and “washings” once.
Baptismos occurs 4 times, and is translated “baptisms” once, “washing” twice, and “washings” once.
Baptistes occurs 14 times, and is translated “Baptist” 13 times, and “Baptist’s” (possessive) once.
Bapto occurs 3 times, and is translated “dip” once and “dipped” twice.
Embapto occurs 3 times, and is translated “dipped” once, and “dippeth” twice. The total is 130 times, and in every instance its meaning is to immerse, submerge, bury out of sight. No authority on New Testament Greek will dispute this statement. It so occurs that none of the Greek Lexicons or Dictionaries is the work of immersionists, and yet all agree that the words actually employed in the New Testament for baptism have the meaning we have here indicated.
We recall a warm discussion between two Presbyterian ministers, one of whom (and perhaps both) had been experiencing some uneasiness on the subject of baptism. Finally one said to the other “Look here now. Here is one text where ‘bapto’ is used and it cannot mean ‘immerse.’”
“What is that?’ asked his friend.
“In Luke 16:24. Here ‘bapto’ is translated ‘dip.’ Now you know it does not mean that Lazarus was to immerse his whole hand in water.”
“Ah,” said the friend, who had been contending for ‘immerse,’ “thank you for that fine bit of evidence for my contention. Of course, Lazarus was not asked to immerse his hand, or even his finger, but he was wanted to immerse the ‘tip’ of his finger in the water. Tell me, how else could he ‘dip’ it in water?’
There was no answer for this, and it is unanswerable. In view ofMatthew 28:19, why do we find all through The Acts that believers were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus only? Is the form in Matthew the correct one for the present time? In the Revised Version, Matthew 28:18-20 reads: “And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.” This we would call ‘The Kingdom Commission.” Of course, we are well aware that it is often spoken of as “the Great Commission” of the Church, but we are convinced that this is an error. It would be a strange thing to find the Church’s commission in the Kingdom Gospel.
Then, too, if we look into The Acts of the Apostles we shall find that it was not this Matthew commission under which the apostles worked. In the first place, they did not preach the Gospel of the Kingdom, which is the only Gospel known to Matthew, and which is the proclamation that “the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” They preached rather the Gospel of individual salvation by the grace of God, through faith, on the ground of the shed blood of the Son of God, and this Gospel is not found anywhere in Matthew. Let it be observed also that the baptisms of The Acts are not “into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” but rather “into the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:48; Acts 19:5). The commission under which the apostles wrought was that of Acts 1:8 : “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” The name of the Lord Jesus is in this day and dispensation the name which is above every name, and whatsoever we do in word or deed is to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father through Him (Colossians 3:17). The Kingdom commission will come into force after the Church is gathered out, and then God will raise up a great company of evangelists out of Israel who will go everywhere with the Gospel of the Kingdom as a testimony unto all nations, and then shall come the end of the Great Tribulation period, and then shall come the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory to set up the promised Kingdom upon earth (Matthew 24:14).
I wish you would explain why the Lord Jesus was baptized. I heard a man who claims to he a preacher say some time ago that “Jesus was baptized because He had sinned.” But He had not sinned, nor did He ever sin, for in Him there was no sin (1 John 3:5). He Himself gave the reason for being baptized when He said to John in Matthew 3:15, “Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness.” The pronoun “us” includes all believers, for He had us all in mind. In His baptism the means of salvation is set forth in a picture. He fulfilled all righteousness for us when He died and was buried and rose from the dead. Baptism symbolizes all that, and when a believer submits himself for baptism, and is buried as a dead man, and then raised up as in resurrection, he is proclaiming his faith in Christ’s death, burial and resurrection as the means by which he is saved.
Please explain1 Corinthians 15:29-30: “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” Is it true that there was in Paul’s day a custom among Christians of baptizing a living believer in behalf of a dead unbeliever?
No, there was no such custom. And had there been one it is impossible to conceive of Paul mentioning it without condemning it. The teaching of the passage is this: If there is to be no victorious end of the warfare in which we are engaged why go on with it, and why continue the work of recruiting for soldiers? Believers are dying continually and thus thinning the ranks. Why go on seeking to fill up the ranks? Why go on baptizing more converts to take the room of these who have died, if there be no resurrection? It is only because we know that there is victory at the end that we must go on with the work.
What is the teaching ofJohn 13:14, “If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet”? Is it meant to teach us to be humble? The teaching of John 13 is to be understood in the light of the 7th verse: “Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou lalt know hereafter.” Simon Peter certainly understood that there was a great lesson in humility here, but there was something else he did not yet understand. Then there are the words in verses 10 and 11: “Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.” That certainly did not mean that Judas Iscariot had a dirtier body than the others, but only that there was this difference between Judas Iscariot and all the others: the others were true believers, but Judas Iscariot was not They were clean every whit in the sense that they had been born again, but they needed daily to have their walk cleansed from defilement and so do we all.
Please explain your belief in regard to feet washing, whether you believe it is intended for God’s children of today.
I do not believe that washing one another’s feet was intended as a permanent ordinance for the Church. The key to the true meaning of John 13:1-17 is the 7th verse: “What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.” In the same discourse, at chapter 14:25,26, our Lord said: ‘These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.” And again, at 16:12,13, He said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth ... he will show you things to come ... he shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” From all this I gather that Simon Peter and his fellow-apostles were to look under the surface for the true significance of our Lord’s action in washing their feet, and await its interpretation by the Holy Spirit. This interpretation by the Holy Spirit is found, as I believe, in Galatians 6:1 : “Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” To wash one another’s (already clean) feet in a public service is a small matter and easy as compared with cleansing a sinning saint’s walk “with the washing of water by the Word.”