| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker |
Thank you, Grace Ambassador. I agree: no ceremonies give us grace or increase our grace or are in any way requirements for grace. The only problem I have with the discussion of "sacraments" is semantic. I completely agree that the Body of Christ gets its marching orders from the Bible aloneónot the "early church fathers". If the word "sacrament" means something required for added grace (or something similar), then I'm the first to agree that "sacraments" have no place in the church. Such a definition exists in The American Heritage Dictionary. If, on the other hand, "sacrament" means something symbolic of a divine act which is integral to the gospel which Christ instituted and commanded us to do, then I see them as having a place in the life of a Christ-follower. There are only two such acts: communion and baptism. The problem is with the word "sacrament", as I see it. Sacrament is a word that came much later than the apostolic church. And it's true that the Catholic and Reformed positions say that sacraments promise inward blessings. But if we look through the eyes of Grace, suddenly the question of whether or not to baptize or to celebrate communion no longer seems academic. It's no longer a point of theological debate. As I understand it, Jesus did not ask us to do these things as part of our salvation or as means of added grace. Rather he asked us to do these things as means of publicly proclaiming and remembering our relationship with him. Maybe the word "sacrament" is the wrong word. In a realtionship with Jesus, however, I see significance in honoring His requests. Doing these things without understanding grace may be quite pointless. But when we're in relationship with him, we see all of reality in a new paradigm. These ceremonies are not requirements for us, but they are acts of love and honor. And the paradox is that when we honor our Savior, we are blessed! But that is not "added grace", nor are we outside of grace if we do not do these things. | ||
| Billtwisse |
All of you guys (and gals) are great! I have never interacted on a bulletin board where people could accept real challenges for any significant length of time. Cindy, you're right on target! I love the exposition of Christ and salvation that is emphasized by the Reformed and Lutheran 'heavyweights.' But where I differ most emphatically is this: the gospel must determine our view of everything. If a certain dogma on law, prophecy, sacrament, or anything else has a 'strange essence' that makes it suspect in light of the gospel, we must reject it and not allow mankind to bind our consciences with it. I'm sure that you agree. Brother Milt, I love you! You are such an encouragement and blessing in my life, even though I have never met you personally (I hope that will change sometime). You exhibit the love and grace of Christ to such a great degree that it makes people want to say: 'I want what you have, because it is of the Lord.' The way that you handle any differences that I may have stated definitely proves that the Holy Spirit is speaking through you! Steve, I was disappointed to learn that the Reformed faith has never taught the communion as merely symbolic. This was a sad revelation for me: as I'm sure it is for you. However, the Reformers were right in one sense. The communion is the physical sign of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Grace, which God intended to be our highest experience in this world after receiving Christ! Even higher than the physical intimacy between husband and wife. More to say in future studies. Colleen, I was feeling down because I thought that I may have been too harsh in my disageement. This often happens to me after I think through all that I've said. The question that I would still ask is this: why do we need the word 'sacrament' to describe Christian ordinances if: 1. The Bible does not use the Greek equivalents except in the negative--or to refer to a mystery in past ages that is now abolished (no longer a mystery)--Col 1:26,27, 2. The word's first positive use in Christendom was by those who viewed water baptism and the 'host' as means of grace and salvation (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian), 3. The whole history of institutional Christianity (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, & Protestant) has continued the use of the 'early fathers'. The modern alternatives are of very recent origin and need to consider the historical precedent. I would refer to the Nicene creed as the chief example of what I am saying. "I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins." The NT teaches that the 'one baptism' for salvation and union with Christ is accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit. This, the greatest miracle in the experience of carnal humans, occurs when the 'hound of heaven' descends upon a lost rebel who is without hope and without God. Trajically: by the time of Nicea, this 'one baptism' had been reduced to the water. There is absolutely no question that the water (not the Holy Spirit) is what is meant in the confession. We need to study the associated history. Brother Milt, my insistence that the 'gift exchange' illustration is inadequate did not refer to water baptism--but the covenant festival of Isa. 25:6-9. This is fulfilled in Christ and the 'new wine' celebration of the gospel instituted in the Lord's supper. I will elaborate on this in a future study. I truly love all of you, not primarily as 'fellow members of the human race' (ugh!)--but as those who passionately believe the good news of Jesus Christ and his salvation apart from the contribution of human works or character! --Twisse | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Brother Bill! I love you too! you say: "Brother Milt, my insistence that the 'gift exchange' illustration is inadequate did not refer to water baptism--but the covenant festival of Isa. 25:6-9. This is fulfilled in Christ and the 'new wine' celebration of the gospel instituted in the Lord's supper. I will elaborate on this in a future study. I am looking forward to it. Not only for my sake, but for my younger son William (18). I suggested him to read your posts and cut and pasted for him in the Word 2000. He is now is an avid reader of your material. Some of it he uses in his own discussion in a discussion board in the Christian Band "Torniquete" where he discusses Grace. Other than his taste for Christian music, which is arguable, and his solos of "drums" in my basement, his choice for reading material is great! He is a great Bible student and a very gracious debator. I am very happy that he likes your material! Just a few minutes ago he asked me for my topical Bible. I a very good one, not published any longer that I purchased in an antique auction. He is studying all the examples of Mercy, in the Old Testament and her younger sister Grace in the New Testament. He is discussing that God "takes away the first and establishes the second" - Hebrews 10:9. (In our house we believe that Mercy is what God dispensed via the fulfillment of the sacrifices of the Law of Moses. So He was merciful and then was merciful again next year after the fulfillment of the sacrifice. But now in Grace is that HE HAS FOREVER, ONCE AND FOR ALL, IMPARTED TO US VIA JESUS HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, So, in JESUS we don't have God's annual mercy alone, but we have ETERNAL GRACE) I'm glad for him, but also for having your material as a bountiful supply of rhe understanding of Grace! Grace Ambassador! | ||
| Loneviking |
Folks, I'm new to the forum, but this little study interests me in the way it twists and turns. I couldn't find a definition of 'sacrament' posted, so here is the definition found in 'The American Heritage Dictionary': 1. Any of seven rites of the historical Christian Church considered to have been instituted or observed by Jesus as a testament to inner grace or as a channel that mediates grace. In the liturgical churches these rites include baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, orders, penance, and extreme unction. 2. Something considered to have sacred significance; a spiritual symbol or bond. From Latin 'sacramentum' meaning 'oath, solemn obligation, from sacrare, to consecrate..... I don't have a problem with seeing the first part of the definition (the seven rites) as being manmade. But it seems to me that some of you are putting down the very valid symbols of baptism and communion. The gospel commission was to do what? Go and BAPTIZE. What was Peter's reply on the day of Pentecost when the crowd asked him 'what shall we do?' Peter replied 'Repent and be baptized'. Jesus insisted that John baptize Him even thought John insisted that he was not worthy to untied His shoes. I have to conclude that water baptism is a necessity under the New Covenant. It is also a testament to inner grace, as it is the Holy Spirit that brings us to the state of repentence and the desire for baptism. In a similar fashion, communion is not merely something that we do for ourselves, it is a witness for others. Remember the texts, 'for by so doing ye do show the Lord's death until He comes'....show to who? The unbelieving world, as a witness to our faith. Wouldn't this be a 'channel that mediates grace'? Not because of the bread turning to the body and the wine into the blood, but because partaking of the communion is a means of placing us into the channel of grace that pours from the Fathers throne. I will also say that rejecting the word 'sacraments' simply because it wasn't used and could have been strikes me as rather self serving. It reminds me of the oft repeated challenge of the SDA church to show the text that says we are not to keep the Sabbath. The textual equivelent exists, but the challenge is couched is such a way that the Bible could never match it. It's a case of matching apples and oranges. My friends over at the Church of Christ do this also with the issue of music in the church--there is no record of anything but vocal music in the New Testament. Ergo, following the example of the early church, only vocal music was used and that's what should still be used in church today. If the apostles meant otherwise they could have said so as music was an integral part of the Jewish temple services. This isn't meant as a slam to anyone, it's just that I can't agree that this is a valid way to come to a conclusion for reasons that I have just demonstrated. Anyway, I'll vacate the soap box and hopefully I won't have to duck from any big, heavy rocks! | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hey LoveViking: Welcome to the board! Too bad you've missed many of the previous discussions. My suggestion, find them in the archives. You will see the tremendous weight of evidence that many of the things from Genesis to Acts have been "done away" with when the Revelation of Grace was fully open to and by Paul. (See differences between Acts 15 and I Cor 8, Jesus command for US ALL TO PREACH AND BAPTIZE and what Paul says about his own calling). You have to believe either one these things: Paul was a rebel Paul contradicts the other apostles Or... Paul reveals a finished work called Grace, as oppoosed to the Jewish influenced message in the book of Acts where even the Apostles followed Jewish laws and rites. That's what we discuss here! Note concerning Paul, in the covenant of Grace, which we discuss here, I repeat, that if Jesus' command was to be followed today as it was then by ALL, why he Paul, EXEMPTED HIMSELF from such a command in 1 Cor chapter 1-vs 17, and indeed in the previous verses as well, stating that he had not been called for such a thing. Is it possible that the Baptism of John, was really supressed as John himself said it would be by the church Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Is it possible that there is no tratidional "Christian Baptims" and that was added by "tradition", which we call here "additions"? Is Romans 6 speaking of water, if such, where is the water on that baptism? Can such a new word in English, as baptism, really express to us today what it meant to the Jewish first Apostles such as James and Peter? These are not assumptions as the example with "music" and the Sabbath. They can all be supported by scriptures. So, there is much to learn in the "cutting asunder" which is the Greek for "rightly dividing the word of truth". There is no rock throwing in the forum! We're looking forward to your ideas on the issue! But I sincerely hope that you would go to the Archives and read the posts on Predestination and Covenant Theology. Once more on my part, WELCOME! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Breezy |
Dear Uncle Milt, I just love all the love on this forum. You are so full of love and the Holy Spirit that you addressed your post "Love Viking" instead of "Lone Viking". It may just be a typo, but I think it says alot about your character! Love you too! Breezy(Wendy) | ||
| Cindy |
Bill, Just found my "Modern Reformation" magazine dated May/June 1997 (edited by Michael Horton and a publication of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals). It's titled "How Do We Receive Christ: God's Sacraments or Ours?" So I am going to attempt to study this whole sacrament thing more. It is very interesting. I've enjoyed yours and Grace Ambassador's (Hi Uncle Milt!!) views on them. And it is wonderful we can discuss these ideas in love... Briefly, I can see the Reformed view really feels that we, as sinners, NEED the sacraments of baptism and communion, this "means of grace", in our lives as a visual reminder of Christ's gift of salvation. "As those who struggle with temptation and doubts in soul and body we need the Word where we can touch it and taste it is as well as hear it. (Godfrey, p.28) Anyway, I have a lot to digest and many things going on at home right now that I must focus more on, so it may take awhile... I absolutely would love to spend the rest of my summer at a beach house reading in the sun, meditating, and having friends over in the evenings for good food and conversation!! But the reality of my life is pretty far removed from that dream!! Still I praise God for the blessings I do have, and they are many! Grace always!! Cindy | ||
| Cindy |
Lone Viking, Welcome!! May this forum be a 'place of Grace' for you, too. I'm glad you're joining in! Always Grace Alone, Cindy | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Breezy/Wendy: You said: "It may just be a typo, but I think it says alot about your character" Thank you for feeling that way about me! Actually, at the time of the night that I wrote my post, my body and my mind "had different objectives". One was thinkng bed time, the other was saying "bad time". Plus, my contact lenses had expired about 6 hours ago! So I was impaired mentally and visually! The suggestion is there, however, I think Love Viking may be an oximorum but it may be a cute nickname! Loneviking: I'm sorry for the mistake! I hope you did not feel that it was my comedian side trying to bug you... Whether you are "lone" or "love" or both, please, I would like to hear your ideas on the subject of "sacraments". Tell us what you think on their importance and timing. Grace Ambassador | ||
| Loneviking |
Grace Ambassador---no offense, I'm still laughing over that twist on the name. I've NEVER had anybody do that before! Yep, that would be an oxymoron! O.K., explanation time--my real first name is 'Bill'---and how many Bills do you find on the different forums? Have you ever tried to keep 5 or 6 of them straight? So, since I have that Viking look (being about 6 ft., 205 pounds, red hair and fairly muscular) and my opinions are mine and mine alone (not my wifes') ergo the nickname. Now, about baptism---you first pointed me to 1 Cor. 1:17 as an example that Paul exempted himself from baptism. Here's the verse from the NASB: 'For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, that the cross of Christ should not be made void.' Notice the word 'for'---that is conclusory language and we can see what the subject is by looking at vs. 14-16: 'I thank God that I baptized noe of you except Crispus and Gaius, that no man should say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that I do not know whether I baptized any other.' So, Paul DID baptize, but as he says in vs. 17, that was NOT his primary mission. Paul was an apostle that began churches, then he would train elders such as Titus and Timothy who would minister to these churches and baptize the new converts. Go read Corinthians--the problem with the church was that it had fractionalized and some were following one preacher, and others were following another. This is why it's important to look at the context of a verse and all of the verses around the verse in question. As for Romans 6, the water is implied. Nowhere do you find a 'dry' baptism that results in the washing away of sins. Christ came down here and during His three years of ministry set up the foundation for the New Covenant. Three symbols exist of His death which was the ratification and the beginning of this New Covenant. These three are baptism--signifying the death of Christ and the triumph over sin; the bread--the broken body of Christ; and the wine--the shed blood. What I object to is the two extremes often found in Christianity. The first is that of the Catholics that believe the bread and wine actually turn to the body/blood of Christ. We've pretty well nailed down that this is a false teaching. The other ditch I see some headed toward is that these are merely symbols, and it matters not in what manner, or at what time, or in what fashion we observe them. I believe the truth lies somewhere between. Have you read 1 Cor. 11:27 and 30? 'Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord....for this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.' I cannot believe that a mere symbol, devoid of any power, can cause what Paul is describing. My take on all of this is what the Church of Christ teaches. Baptism is to be performed by immersion as soon as possible after an individual expresses belief and a desire for baptism. Baptism is the outward expression of the working of the Holy Spirit, it is necessary to salvation, and is the means whereby one joins the 'ecclesia'. Communion is to be celebrated only by baptized members of the 'ecclesia', and all baptized Christians whatever there church affiliation are welcome to participate. Since we are Christians living under the New Covenant, a weekly reminder and celebration of the event that brought about this state of Grace is appropriate through the taking of Communion. Properly approached, a church that partakes of communion positions itself as a channel of Grace. Clear as mud? :) | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Loneviking Thank you for responding: You say: So, Paul DID baptize, but as he says in vs. 17, that was NOT his primary mission. I am glad you use context and hermeneutics to analyse your text. Thank you for making my point. The order of Jesus in the Great Commission was to PREACH AND BAPTIZE. They are in the same level! HOWEVER, WHO AUTHORIZED PAUL TO SAY: "I WAS ONLY CALLED TO PREACH! AS A MATTER OF FACT, I DO NOT EVEN REMEMBER HOW MANY TIMES I PERFORMED THIS IMPORTANT THING CHRIST COMMANDED!" I agree with the extremes in tha body. I do not forbid water baptism neither do I refuse to baptize as expressed later. But the symbol cannot be more important than that which it symbolizes. The gold of the temple cannot be more important than the God of the temple, Jesus taught. Since it has turned that way by "TR-ADDITION" I have the right to believe that it was turned into a SACRAMENT worthy of rejection if one is to believe in Grace alone! I said it before that I am white elephant for being a Pentecostal minister with Sovereign Grace (Calvin) convictions and a few years of ministry and theological training. I am too Charismatic for the Calvinist and too Calvinist for the Charismatic. These beliefs were given to me after years of defending the fallacy of FREE WILL and other Grace Killers such as "sacraments". When I studied Paul and how he detached himself from the Jewish run Church in Acts 15, I saw why he repeats "my Gospel", "our Gospel", why he uses "revealed" as opposed to "hidden" or "mystery revealed, that was hidden through the ages". That's when I realized that there is biblical evidence that many of the Jewish aspects were separated from Grace Christianity. (Assuming that one believes that baptism was imported from the washings in the Jewish ritual as many teach rather in a disguised way). On extremes, I am afraid that we are trying to Judaize Christianity again rather than the opposite. Look at what I wrote in a piece about baptism: I ASKED A BAPTISM DEFENDER: IS BAPTISM FOR SALVATION? ANSWER: "NO". IS BAPTISM AN ORDINANCE OF JESUS TODAY AS IT WAS WHEN HE ORDERED OR IS IT PAST AS "LAMB SACRIFICE"? ANSWER "YES" IT IS AN ORDINANCE FOR TODAY QUESTION: IF THEN SOMEONE REFUSES TO BE BAPTIZED AND YEA, REFUSES TO BAPTIZE, OR DOES NOT CARE WHETHER THEY BAPTIZE SOME OR NOT, ARE THEY DISOBEYING CHRIST'S COMMAND? ANSWER: "YES" QUESTION: IF SOMEONE IS IN THIS TYPE OF DISOBEYDIENCE TO CHRIST, ARE THEY SAVED? ANSWER: "LET ME CALL MY BIBLE TEACHER" You can use the same thing with tithing. The results will be the same! So they say IT IS NOT FOR SALVATION BUT IT IS! Strange doctrine!! As to the Communion, the issue is that it has been taken away from its original purpose and meaning. It is still a memorial. It should not be a Church pic nic although a pic nic can be used for such. It should not be a "show of status" either. Not even a sip and snnip and Bill Twisse calls it. It has to be a communal meal, in whatever shape or form that does not depart from the teaching of Paul and it is A MEMORIAL ONLY! No special "impartation". I wish to elaborate more on that if you wish! We can either do it here or you can write me at Milton Almeida Again, thank you for responding and congratulations for using context and hermeneutics! As such I can really expect to learn from you! Grace Ambassador/Uncle Milt Ephesians 2: (not in times past, not in the ages to come, in in the BUT NOW...GRACE) | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi LoneViking: Answer # 2: you say and quote: I believe the truth lies somewhere between. Have you read 1 Cor. 11:27 and 30? 'Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord....for this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number sleep.' I cannot believe that a mere symbol, devoid of any power, can cause what Paul is describing. My take on all of this is what the Church of Christ teaches My response: Most theologians agree that the "sleeping and the dying" in the text above, are in context with the carnal celebration of food that the Lord's Supper became in the Corinthian church. Both are caused by 1 - "overeating and overdrinking" 2 - Godly discipline against carnality (untimely death, NOT LOSS OF SALVATION) My question to you is that if these celebrations are not "devoid of power", then tell me what "power" they contain and for what purpose. What could they accomplish that the Blood of Jesus has not? What power can they bring that the Holy Spirit has not imparted to us? It should not be as the "music" or the sabbath that you mentioned, or even the trinity. Indeed, these words are taught in the Bible without a direct mention of it. The word "power" - delegateed authority, however, and POWER "creative, authritative, commanding power and addressing power - addressing God freely", are taught in the Bible extensively. We may not know how much but we can know the source. Jesus said in Acts one: "You shall receive POWER after that the Holy Ghost has come upon you" Paul says that we have not "received the spirit of fear, but of POWER". We know what power is for and what purpose it is for. What is the "power" that the Sacraments are not devoid of and what is their purpose. Can I have a B.C.V. (Book, chapter and verse). Again, this is not like the issues that would not have a "proof text" as the one you mentioned. The standard for "power" has been duly and completly established in the Bible. That is my problem with ascribing special "powers" to the sacraments! I just beg you to read the archives and find Bill's entire writ just so you can pick up where we left. If you would honor me reading mine as well great! But Bill is very exhaustive on his studies. Thank you as well for sharing your views on Baptism "to Salvation". I am very familiar with the doctrine of some branches of the Church of Christ and the United Pentecostal on Baptism Regeneration or "to Salvation". I believe my writings, previous and present expressed fully my biblical view on the issue and the weight of biblical evidence on the issue. Again, keep sharing your ideas with us, specially with me! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Billtwisse |
Wow! I can hardly believe that THIS, out of the many worthy issues regarding the covenants, would spark the most discussion! Does that say something to us? I'll let the reader interpret. Cindy: "So I am going to attempt to study this whole sacrament thing more. It is very interesting. I've enjoyed yours and Grace Ambassador's (Hi Uncle Milt!!) views on them. And it is wonderful we can discuss these ideas in love... Briefly, I can see the Reformed view really feels that we, as sinners, NEED the sacraments of baptism and communion, this "means of grace", in our lives as a visual reminder of Christ's gift of salvation." The notion of means of grace as a 'reminder' of salvation is of very recent origin. That is not the complete story regarding what Horton and Matzat are saying. The 'orthodox' position up until the last century (approx.) was this: the 'means of grace' insure the continued state of salvation. In fact, they even confirm or establish it initally. The high church confessions are clear: there is no salvation apart from these things. The early church fathers and Chalcedon taught the same thing. I would encourage you to study the Lutheran confessions (Augsburg & Formula of Concord) and the Reformed confessions (Westminster, Belgic, Dort, Heidelberg). They are the 'pristine' source on these matters. The Lutheran emphasize the sacraments as a condition of salvation and the Reformed emphasize them more as a continued assurance of salvation. Many things taught in the NT are a reminder of salvation (most importantly, the gospel revealed in the scriptures--1 Cor 15:1-4): this is not limited to the Lord's supper or water baptism. Shall we call Bible study, teaching, prayer, giving, love, forgiveness, etc. sacraments? All of these things benefit our souls. Lone Viking: "Baptism is to be performed by immersion as soon as possible after an individual expresses belief and a desire for baptism. Baptism is the outward expression of the working of the Holy Spirit, it is necessary to salvation, and is the means whereby one joins the 'ecclesia'. Communion is to be celebrated only by baptized members of the 'ecclesia', and all baptized Christians whatever there church affiliation are welcome to participate. Since we are Christians living under the New Covenant, a weekly reminder and celebration of the event that brought about this state of Grace is appropriate through the taking of Communion. Properly approached, a church that partakes of communion positions itself as a channel of Grace." There are two major streams of 'sacramental' thought in the history of Christendom. Your submersionist position is the first; the second is the practice of a 'bare dot' of water on the forehead of an infant (sometimes administered in the shape of a cross). Uncle Milt and I have presented the evidence why we believe that both dogmas are seriously wrong. You need to respond to specific quotes from that evidence. Both of these positions are stretching the NT beyond its primary focus: the gospel (kerygma) revealed to the apostles and taught by them. Acts 2:42 does not even mention water baptism as a primary element in the life of the early believers. I'm sure that it was a big element but was it central?! Milt, thanks so much for mentioning the 'institution' of the church picnic. Are you reading my mind?! This was one of the many institutions I planned to contrast with the NT Lord's Supper in my study! The conversation at church picnics is generally focused on ANYTHING except the Lord and what he has done (football, finances, politics, gossip). Since 'church' is over, why talk about that? Let me emphasize one more time that water baptism and the Lord's supper are not connected in the NT as parallel covenant institutions. This came as a striking revelation to me in my personal study of the scriptures (no other book I have ever read pointed this out). If we are talking about a 'sacred obligation' we are using the language of covenant. Each covenant has only one external sign. The external sign of the New Covenant is the 'remembrance' (not sacrament) of the Lord's supper and the internal sign is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. For scriptural evidence, please consider the past and future studies in this series. I certainly agree with you, Lone Viking, that there are too many Bills (also Bobs)! Why did I choose Bill as a sreen name? Maybe I'll elaborate some time. --Twisse | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Bill's and Bob's and all the brethren: Bill you "guess": Milt, thanks so much for mentioning the 'institution' of the church picnic. Are you reading my mind?! But when I read this portion of your post: Many things taught in the NT are a reminder of salvation (most importantly, the gospel revealed in the scriptures--1 Cor 15:1-4): this is not limited to the Lord's supper or water baptism. Shall we call Bible study, teaching, prayer, giving, love, forgiveness, etc. sacraments? All of these things benefit our souls. I think that perhaps it means that you are reading mine or we both should humbly but loudly Praise God for having the mind of Christ. I was going to write a piece of things that remind us of Christ and His work and ask: "can we call this Sacrament". The benefit of remembering Christ and His work are too great to comment in mere words. But the danger of making everything into a "memorial" (quotation marks intentional) can, WILL, and in fact has progressed historically into all kinds of weird things: Dolls, crucifixes, pictures of Christ, "pilgrimage to the (so called) Holy Land" and others. Through history, there will be always "teachers" who will invent a new "sacrament" or "memorial" and these will lead us farther apart from the true meaning of the Gospel of Grace. My suggestion, is that instead of spending Godly energy trying to sort these things out, identifying what is and what is not a true "memorial", God took care of it giving us REST in that the HOLY SPIRIT would walk along side us (parakletos) and REMIND US of all things, pertaining to Christ and His work. Now in Grace, and because of Grace, I do not need to wear myself out sorting what is valid as a memorial and what is not! My wife and I were talking about Grace the other day at lunch at Ponderosa. She said, "the reason why people have a hard time with Grace is that we have no control over our relationship with God. He provided everything, thougt of every detail whereby He would make sure we would remain His. So, without control we feel insecure whereas our lack of control should be exaclty the reason for our security!" Well said, baby! I responded! I am thinking on writing a piece which is part of a discussion that I had with a brother from South Africa. I showed him what is "valid soteriology" in the Bible and that progressed into what is "valid worship to God or memorial of God". It is controversial because it deals with the fact that I defend that Jesus intended to present Himself as a Savior in the Gospel, and the way of Salvation. But there is not much about the "method" other than glances and hints. This came with the Revelation given to Paul, that I call the Ultimate Revelation: GRACE, whereby the Holy Spirit uses Paul to teach us how God saved us "before the foundation of the world". Again, it is not exclusive of Paul's writing but the notion of "valid soteriology" is crowned in Paul's writings. I need, however, to find time and a heavy sense of Christian liberty so as not to offend the weak brethren. Hope to hear from y'all soon! Grace Ambassador/Uncle Milt | ||
| Graceambassador |
Dear Saints: This is condensed from a message I preached not too long ago. The Holy Ghost as our Friendly Reminder: John 14: (KJV) vs 17 - ...the Spirit of truth...for He dwells with you and shall be in you. This verse reveals a 1 - current state: "he dwells with you" and 2 - a future state "shall be in you" Up until that time, the Holy Ghost abode alongside the disciples more as an adjutant to Christ. The notion of the "being in you" or abiding inside of us as Christ's nature was still to come after Jesus' ascended to the Father. Jesus promised, and it came to pass in the day of Pentecost. vs. 24-26 It reveals that: Jesus expects us to remind, and yea, even to keep His words. But how would that be possible? So that none of us would be concerned with "spiritual Alzheimer's" Christ sent us the Holy Spirit with the following promises: 1 - He would TEACH us all things... 2 - He would bring WHATSOEVER Jesus told them to their remembrance. I believe these verses, besides many other things, teach us that our concern with WHAT AND HOW we should remember Christ and his ordinances, is taken care of and provided for. Physical elements should now lose its importance and give room to the final means whereby we would know for sure how we would be taught about Christ and remember His commands. My concern with people so fiercely hooked on the "visible" aspects of our faith, i.e. "sacraments" have a tendency to live life as though the Holy Spirit has never been given. Many rightfully say that none of the things hinted in my previous post were verbally, or expressly COMMANDED by Christ as the communion and the Baptism in water. I submit however that the suppression of the above as a "sacrament" becomes obvious when the Holy Spirit is given to the Body as the SUBSTANCE of the things that these two elements intended to symbolize. Now in the Holy Spirit dispensation we can, and should not forbid, the usage of water baptism and the Communion as a symbol of union with Christ. I beg you, nonetheless, to consider this: Neither of these two elements is a "sealing" of our Salvation. Bill Twisse has extensively written about it. Neither is given only to the elect. As a matter of fact, most of us consider that both elements should be open to all, contrary to the Baptist that preach that water baptism and the communion should be administered only to those of same like faith and order. But let me tell you the GOOD NEWS, the GOSPEL: Do you know WHO IS THE SEAL of our Salvation? Ephesians 1:13 - THE HOLY SPIRIT The word "seal" had in the New Testament days the following connotations: 1 - The seal of the Cesar in a letter or mandate. Nobody could break it under the penalty of death. 2 - A guarantee of safe delivery. A Royal seal in a package or letter in those days, signified that the letter would be delivered safely. It would reach its destination NO MATTER WHAT! 3 - Mark of ownership. The down payment had already been done, so now people of those days could "brand" what was their own pretty much as ranchers brand their cattle. Do you see where I am going? Can I have a witness?? 1 - God has sealed us with His Spirit so now we are "sealed" by the King. No one has the authority of breaking such a seal! 2 - We have guaranty of save delivery! I don't know where I drifted away, but I know where I am going. It does not matter where I've been, or where I've come from. Where I fell, or how I fell! It matters only that I am guaranteed to reach my final destination. God sealed me for that and the seal, the Holy Spirit, guarantees that I will get there! 3 - God branded me! Now I am His. I belong to Him. The seal is the evidence I have of being His is the Holy Spirit. I am His property! His peculiar people! A royal priesthood, a Holy Nation! Do you know what is EXCLUSIVE of the ELECT? The Holy Spirit. 1 Corinthians 2:14 As we see above, the sending of the Holy Spirit is the final act of God on behalf of the elect and such Gift suppresses ALL past physical foreshadows. Again, The Communion (the Lord's Communion is a stretch because the Lord's communion was the one that He was there personally) is a MEMORIAL, in REMEMBRANCE OF HIM! To stretch this into a "sacrament" is going back to a time when the Holy Spirit had not yet been given. Water Baptism however, has never been a sacrament; it was an ordinance that was to be suppressed by the Baptism with the Holy Spirit. My point above is one and only one: Christianity cannot and was not designed by God to be a religion of shrines, temples, holy places, special holy man (priests or reverends), pilgrimages and other additions. Christianity is THE ONLY FAITH that teaches that GOD ABIDES IN US, JESUS PROMISED THAT HE WOULD ABIDE IN US AND THE PROMISE WAS WITNESSED BY A BAND OF 120 BELIEVERS IN THE UPPER ROOM IN THE DAY OF PENTECOST! To me it is a tragedy the attempt to transform Christianity into an "outward religion" rather than an INWARD RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD! ************************************************** Short is not one of the gifts of the Spirit, so I will not pursue being short!!! Grace Ambassador | ||
| Steve |
Hi GraceAmbassador, You were shorter than many preachers (although I don't claim to know how tall you are,) so I got through it just fine! When I realized that the Holy Spirit (of Prophecy) is our seal, I thought of what I had heard many times in SDA evangelism. A seal in ancient times had three elements: 1) The name of the Owner -- in the case you present, the Holy Spirit is Yahweh, much better than just the name; 2) His Title, as above, the Holy Spirit is God; 3) His territory, in this case, not just the earth (dirt and rocks), but YOU AND ME! We are infinitely more important than the dirt and rocks (please don't be offended my ecology minded friends!) I don't claim to understand all the intricacies of the issue around the Bread and Wine. But I'm sure that for anyone that get's too "religious" about them, Jesus might say that "there's one here who is more important than the bread and wine." (Expanded paraphrase of His statement to the Pharisees who were so temple-oriented.) I'm continually being enlightened by your and Bill Twisse's posts. Steve | ||
| Loneviking |
Don't worry folks, I haven't vanished. I'm in the middle of a weekend of twelve hour shifts which leaves virtually no time for anything but eat, sleep, work, chores (wife and kids are on vacation) and a real quick peek at the thread. I'll be responding Mon. night or tuesday........ | ||
| Colleentinker |
I had decided that I wouldn't comment on this sacramental discussion again, but I find myself commenting! Suppose we abandon the word "sacrament". It's not in the Bible, and it has come to mean something to many people that it probably shouldn't mean. Instead, why don't we look at the things Jesus and the apostles practiced and taught and go from there? The gospel is clear: believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. It does not say we keep reaffirming our salvation by perforning any rites. It does not say that we will be penalized in any way by not performing rites. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an absolute certainty. (Acts 2:38) I do not see anywhere that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is in question one way or the other with or without baptism. Christ-followers receive the Holy Spirit. Baptism is a NT occurance. Jesus said in Matt. 28:19 to go and "make disciple of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." Jesus would not tell the disciples to bestow the baptism of the Holy Spirit on people because that's something no person can do. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is an act of God in response to our faith and belief in him. Baptism in the name of the Trinity is something Christ-followers administer to new believers. It's not a requirement for salvation. It's a commitment. Nowhere does the Bible say water baptism has been replaced by the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But Peter did rebaptize some believers who had received John's baptism (the baptism of repentance). He baptized them into the name of the Lord Jesus after which they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 19) Also, Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch with water.(Acts 8:36-38) As for communion, Jesus instituted it during the Passover meal before his death. If the accounts of communion recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke were the only mentions of it in the NT, we might be able to say that the Lord's Supper is only the supper Jesus ate with his disciples. But in I Cor. 11 Paul retells the story of the Lord's Supper, and he explains hyow Christians are to observe it. Again, communion is not required for salvation nor a means of continuing to obtain grace. But it is a remembrance, something we do in honor of the Lord Jesus because he bequethed this remembrance to us before he left the earth personally. Absolutely, the Holy Spirit is what defines the Christ-follower's life. I can see that there really are different ways to look at this question, and I believe that we might differ in our interpretations. That difference, I believe, is OK. If we are truly Christ-followers, committed to doing His will, knowing him, and responding to him, the Holy Spirit will direct each of us to his will for us. I enjoy conversing with such committed Christ-followers who live in grace! Colleen | ||
| Graceambassador |
Hi Colleen! Thank you for not giving up on me! It is 2:51AM here in Michigan, and as I read your post a thought comes to my mind: Perhaps sometimes we just want to win a discussion. Even the perception that we just want to win the discussion, although incorrect, is something that brings me to doubt the worthiness or value of the discussion anyway! So, perhaps, when our dear brother Loneviking comes back as he promised with his responses, and even if he has not backed down on his opinion of a "baptism to salvation", I should simply drop the subject and allow God to sort things out. This is in no way to say that I am not scripturally prepared to defend my positions. It only means that whatever it is said, very little or nothing will be changed. The mixing of covenants, the lack of understanding of how God managed His revelation, the claiming of things belonging to "times past", scriptures directed to the first Jewish Christians will be quoted as if they are for us Gentile Christians...these things will remain the same. I do have strong views in the issue. I said many times, however that I do not forbid baptism in water, and that I even practice ONLY as a public testimony and I used the wedding ceremony as a comparison. But I have a problem in looking at the 4 Gospels and the Book of Acts simply do what Peter and James and the others did. God intended for Jesus and His disciples in the Gospels and the early Apostles in the Baby Ek-klesia to follow Jewish rites. But then I see God starting a "new thing" in the Epistles of Paul. Peter even got in trouble with Paul because of that. I look at Paul and see that we are "engrafted in the vine" however, at the same time, we see Paul teaching a "severance" with such rites in his epistles. (I'm not saying that baptism in water is a rite, but it undeniably has been made into one specially if compared with the Jewish washings, and now by by Roman Catholics, Campellists - not a Christian addicted to soup, but one who believes in Baptism to Salvation - and other modern factions of Arminianism.) I believe you and I agree perfectly well in most everything relevant in the issue. Your views in the issue are not that which I am concerned about. It is the "lurkers", people that never respond, never participate, but read what we write, and can be thereby influenced. But this is "registered" alone discussion list; I do not have to worry about "lurkers" that could be otherwise misled by un-grace teaching. As such, I really do believe that dropping the subject and leaving it up to God and expecting a new issue to come up is the best I can do at this point. Besides I do not feel that God has made me His special Grace Guardian! I have interacted with Bill Twisse in other camps and I have nothing but admiration by his courage and forwardness in expressing something that I am sometimes too timid to handle. I use his material a lot, I check his views with the Bible and history and I happen to think he is right! So, I will be looking forward to his next issue and go from there. If the Lord wills, I will start some issues myself. I'm planning in writing more about God's administration of His Revelation through time. But I want God's plans not mine! I'm dropping out of this one issue right now! Thanks for the admonition! Love y'all, all y'all! Grace Ambassador/Uncle Milt | ||
| George |
Colleen, Dosn't it give you a sense of piece to cone to these kinds on conclusions! It IS only one thing that we have to do to get there, all the rest is icing on the cake. Oh, by the way It does seem to take a lot of the confusion out things, doesn't? George |
