Most Mid Acts Dispensationalists reject water baptism as an ordinance. Most will not even entertain the notion that it can be practiced as a symbol, figure, or memorial under Grace. On the other hand a sizable number of Mid Acts people will either call the Lord's Supper an ordinance or will at least practice it as a symbol for faithful church members to observe. I have several issues with the above approach.
First of all, many Mid Acts people throw out water baptism because it was practiced during the "Acts Period" in which Paul was going to the Jew first, etc. The problem with this argument is the very book of the Bible that Paul writes about the "Lord's Supper" is the very same book which he mentions practicing water baptism-1 Corinthians. Yes, 1 Corinthians concerns the "Acts Period." This includes the chapter on the "Lord's Supper" (1 Cor 11). The Corinthians were getting water baptized and partaking of the "Lord's Supper at the same time. During the Acts period it is obvious that Paul had no problem practicing water baptism even while knowing he was not "sent to baptize" (1 Cor 1:13-17 & Acts 18:8). By the way most Mid Acts people will only quote 1 Cor 1:17 when referring to water baptism, which is a convenient way to ignore Paul's practice of water baptism in the preceding verses. Can one be consistent in tossing out water baptism which in only mentioned in an "Acts Epistle" but retain the "Lord's Supper" which is only mentioned in an Acts Epistle? No instructions are given in the post Acts 28 Epistles for either water baptism or the Lord's Supper.
Second, when many Mid Acts people come to 1 Cor 11 where Paul talks about the Lord's Supper (vs 20-34) they will take the position the Lord's Supper is an ordinance since the word "ordinance" is mentioned in 1 Cor 11:2, "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you." The problem is Paul did not praise the Corinthians in their observance of the Lord' Supper, but he rebuked them. The "ordinances" according to vs 2 were things the Corinthians were keeping and doing correctly!
Finally, but much more could be said, many of the Mid Acts people that practice the Lord's Supper as an ordinance only take a few verses, such as vs 23-25, of 1 Cor 11 dealing with the Lord's Supper and ignore the rest. The position is, we will do this, i.e. the Lord's Supper, to "shew the Lord's death till he come." So are you also going to say a believer under Grace, if he does the Supper incorrectly, will be guilty of the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor 11:27)? Can a believer under Grace drink "damnation" to himself (1 Cor 11:29)? Will a Grace believer get weak, sick, and die if he does the "Supper" incorrectly (1 Cor 11:30)? Most of the Mid Acts people I am familiar with would answer "no" to the above questions. Can one be consistent in claiming 1 Cor 11:23-25 as an ordinance for the "Lord's Supper" and throw out the remainder of the chapter that continues the discussion of the Lord's Supper?
Although many might consider me a "border line hyper" based on some of my posts, I also try to be a practical believer under Grace. I refuse to cause unnecessary division in the Body of Christ by creating a new set of ordinances as a " right division grace believer" in commanding "not to get water baptized" or "do not observe the Lord's Supper." I have no problem with either water baptism or the Lord's Supper as figures, symbols, or memorials. Even the Kingdom Apostle Peter said baptism is a "figure" (1 Pet 3:21). Once a believer under Grace starts making these "ordinances" (meaning requirement for salvation, church membership, or to be considered "faithful") then the believer ceases to practice Grace!
No comments:
Post a Comment