The Case for Weekly Communion

One of the things that I like about the current church we go to is the fact that they do communion every week. The non-denominational church we attended in Philadelphia for a few years also did communion every week but it’s actually very uncommon outside of traditional churches (like Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran or more traditional Presbyterian). Many "high" churches will actually do it almost every time the church meets, so often during the week as well or for special/holiday services. Personally, I feel doing it more than once a week is more unnecessary, but I can appreciate their desire to be consistent on this point. 

 When we read the book of Acts and the formation and early practice of the Church, it is rather evident that they “broke bread” very often. 

Acts 2:46: “And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts…” While they went to the Temple daily, it’s not as clear as to the frequency or practicalities of “breaking bread”. This is also at the very beginning of the Church so they had yet to develop any kind of clear organization or pattern, so it is very possible that they did break bread whenever they were able to gather together.  

Acts 20:11: Paul is speaking to the church in Troas that had gathered for worship "on the first day of the week" and they “broke bread and ate”. This seems to be what they did on a weekly basis. (Based on Scripture and very early church history, gathering on first day of the week very quickly became the norm and breaking of bread was always a part of it.)

In 1 Corinthians 11 we have the only time the Lord’s Supper is clearly addressed in the Epistles. Paul is correcting some abuses, including the fact that the wealthier Corinthians were not waiting for everyone to eat, nor sharing their food with the poor (likely even segregating themselves from them). It does seem that the communion time was a whole meal centered around the bread and the cup – similar to the Passover which was also a whole meal. It’s also evident here that the Lord’s Supper happened often, “when you come together as a church” (assumption then is weekly, on the first day of the week, see also 1 Cor 16:1-2). Paul warns them not to partake “unworthily,” which in the immediate context refers to the division they were causing, since a big emphasis of the Lord’s supper is the unity of the body. How can you partake of the Lord’s supper if there is disunity in your heart or otherwise towards a fellow Christian? (Note: I think there could absolutely be room for “unworthily” including sin in general, I’m just pointing out the immediate context here.)

There are some Christian groups that still think that the Lord’s supper should be connected with an actual meal, but when Christ instituted the sacrament, it is “after supper” and he is referring very specifically to just the bread and the cup. (Of course, I’m all for fellowship meals since eating together is a great way to fellowship, serve and be together as a church family, it’s just not necessary.)

I would argue that the early church probably didn’t do communion every time they had a gathering of some kind. For example, if a small group was gathered for prayer (like when Peter was imprisoned in Acts 12)) or they had a church meeting (Acts 15). Of course, it doesn’t say they did or didn’t, but it does seem that very quickly the pattern became that they broke bread for their main weekly gathering. Early church tradition reinforces this.

Why then do most Protestant churches only do communion once a month? Does not Scriptures indicate that communion MORE often is more likely than having it LESS often? Below are two common reasons I have heard for not doing it at least weekly:

 

• It’s not necessary to do it every week.

If by “necessary” you mean “clearly required,” I guess there is no clear command in Scripture that says “do this every week”. However, Paul does seem to indicate a pattern of this happening on a weekly basis and furthermore he says, "For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes." (1 Cor 11:26). So the question is: How often should we be remembering and “proclaiming” the Lord’s death? Is this not to be a central part of our worship together as a Church? Are you really going to insist that it is not necessary for Christians to “share in the Lord’s death” or “proclaim the Lord’s death” at least weekly when you gather together?

 

• Doing communion too often turns it into a ritual or makes it not as “special”.

 This is the most common excuse. I say excuse, because that’s still what it is. Because anything can become ritualistic if we’re not careful. Every church has traditions, every church has things they do “just because that’s how we do it” but we don’t get all concerned about other things becoming a “ritual”. While this might seem like an understandable concern, ultimately we should be more concerned about doing what Scripture says, not avoiding it out of concerns of mis-use. The church in Corinth was absolutely abusing the Lord’s Supper… that was serious. But the solution to this was not to avoid it or do it less often, it was to strive to take it more seriously. So, Biblically, taking it “seriously” does NOT mean you do it less often. 

 

•  It makes the service longer, more complicated, more work/money.

I resort to above arguments. If these are your excuses, you're in danger of possibly being lazy and/or plain disobedient.  

I’d love to see the Church at large have the Lord’s Supper weekly. Pray about it and consider the importance Scripture lays on it. Whether you take a sacramental view or a memorial view it’s meaningful and important. And it’s the pattern we see in Scripture as well as very early Church history.

On a side note: those who take communion should also be baptized. This is also the pattern in Scripture, and it's also very clear in early church history that new converts were not allowed to take the Lord's Supper prior to baptism. 

 

Scripture Texts & More on Baptism

I have spent quite a lot of time studying baptism over the years. I'm no expert of course but I feel I've done a fair share. I studied believers/infant baptism (and Covenant theology/New Covenant Theology) a few years ago, and recently have dug deeper into the subject as a whole. In this post I look at various Scripture passages as well as some early church writing. Below are key passages that mention baptism, followed by additional important passages on salvation/justification that do not have any mention of baptism, then notes on early church history, and at the end is a further study/resource list. The additional Scripture is important because those who seek to equate salvation with baptism or defend infant baptism have to explain why it is completely left out of key passages on salvation. Church history is relevant because these are the people Scripture was directly written to and what they believed about what Scripture teaches matters.

Before we begin, the word for "baptism" (baptizo in Greek) means to submerge, to immerse, specifically of ceremonial dipping. It is important to note however, that "baptism" does NOT always refer to physical water baptism. For example:

In Matthew 20:22-23, Jesus is talking to the sons of Zebedee and asks,  "Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” When they say yes, he responds, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.” 

Very clearly this is NOT water baptism. His cup is suffering and his baptism is either suffering as well or I supposed you could argue that it's a Spiritual baptism (of the Holy Spirit). Either way, we have a passage that clearly uses baptism as spiritual and not in any way related to water. Also there are the numerous passages that refer to the "baptism of the Holy Spirit" which is also distinct from water baptism.

A common mistake people make is that when "baptism" is used in Scripture they assume it means water baptism, but that is not always the case. Our task then is to discern what kind of baptism the text means by using the immediate context and then using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

 

KEY TEXTS used for Baptism:

John 3:5: "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

 

While many think that "water" here refers to baptism, I believe born of “water and Spirit” here is referring to spiritual cleansing (water) and spiritual power (Spirit). Water is very often used as a metaphor for spiritual cleansing throughout Scripture. Furthermore, if Jesus had meant water baptism, 1) why didn't he clearly say so (the word baptism is not used), 2) why doesn't he ANYWHERE else in the Gospels connect baptism to salvation? Especially if it is THAT important of a connection with salvation?

Side note, in verse 3 the text can be interpreted as "born again" OR "born from above". Nicodemus interprets it as the former, but Jesus is talking about the latter. We see this "born from above" emphasis more clearly in other parts of John's writing (see John 1:12-13, 1 John 5:4).

Also see:  https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-John-3-5.html 

(Note: I will cite some sources where I feel they explain the text better than I could.)

Matthew 28:18-20: And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

I read one author who tried to say that the "order" here doesn't matter. But Jesus very clearly says "make disciples.... baptizing THEM". Who? The disciples, the believers. If you change the order you are no longer baptizing who Jesus commanded us to. 

Romans 6:

In our discussion of Romans 6, it is important that we note that this is the first mention of baptism in the book so in order to understand chapter 6 we must understand the context. A key verse of the book is found in 1:16: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek." Paul spends the next chapter or so talking about the universality of sin, then spends almost three chapters on justification by faith. Over and over he stresses the idea that justification is imputed apart from any works (or even any response) on our part. At the end of chapter 5 we see that we have been saved by the death of Christ and been given new life in Him. Finally in chapter 6 he addresses the question of "well if I'm justified by grace than does it matter if I continue to sin?" Paul then uses the metaphor of baptism to talk about how we have died to sin and been raised to new life in Christ so completely that to even consider such a question is horrible. We are not the same, we are dead sin - and he furthers this idea in chapter 7 of a spouse having died is no longer bound to the marriage. In light of what Christ has done for us, we are to "reckon" this truth over and over so that we will live accordingly. 

Many people assume that Paul is talking strictly about water baptism here, but what if he's talking about something deeper? There is a spiritual baptism that also occurs, some argue it happens at water baptism, but one cannot express faith apart from spiritually being baptized. Spiritual rebirth, spiritual circumcision, spiritual baptism are what make us a child of God, not the water rite. 

I will add a personal note here: I have been (water) baptized twice. The first was when I was 11 and thought I was saved (I had prayed and asked Jesus into my heart when I was 8), and wanted to "do the right thing". I'm sure God was working in my life throughout my my good Christian upbringing, however, I had a very clear conversion moment when I was 13, and later in my 20's it was exactly this passage that convicted me I needed to be rebaptized. Since I was not convinced I was saved prior to my first baptism, and because I realized how powerful the baptism was that Christ had done in my heart, I felt I needed to make a public confession of it. It was a cold October day in a lake but I shall never forget it. The symbolism was so rich and to disconnect this moment from my faith and trust in Christ would drain it of it's beauty.

1 Corinthians 1:17: "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect." 

 

Here Paul is admonishing the Church at Corinth for being divisive about who baptized them. Paul is saying "it doesn't matter who baptized you, that is not important, what is important is the Gospel." This verse is important because although Paul clearly indicates that baptism itself is important, he separates it from the Gospel message. In other words, baptism is not a part of the initial salvation/conversion, rather it comes afterwards. If salvation came in fullness only with baptism that it should be a part of the Gospel.

1 Cor 7:14: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy"

This passage says absolutely nothing about water or baptism, it's not even implied, yet pedobaptists still try and use it in defense of it. The reasoning is that the rest of the family is sanctified/set apart/made holy through the faith of one spouse/parent - a covenant/family relationship, implying that the whole family followed the head into the new religion. One problem with that is that clearly here we have an "unbelieving" spouse and the passage is talking about unequally yoked marriage. Also, if the husband was not a Christian it is very unlikely he would have agreed to have his children baptized. There is a sense in which the children of believers (even an unbelieving spouse) are "sanctified." The person's faith in Christ affects the household, the parent's relationship and how the children are raised. But again, this passage says nothing about baptism so why should we assume that's what it's talking about?

1 Cor 12:12-13: “For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all be made to drink into one Spirit”.

 We are baptized into one body, the Church. The question is, WHEN does this happen? I do believe that at baptism is when a person "formally" enters the Church. Prior to that they may be saved, but they have not yet been publicly joined to the Church. Notice that it is "by the Spirit" that this happens, and we are also "made to drink into one Spirit". Apart from the Spirit's working, baptism means nothing.

 

Galatians 3:26-27:  “for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

The whole book of Galatians is Paul responding the the false teaching that those who believe in Christ must be circumcised in order to be saved. Paul destroys this idea and argues that we are justified by faith, not anything we do as a result. In light of this, it doesn't make sense that Paul would then turn around and say "oh but you DO have to be baptized in order to be saved".  In this verse we become sons first (through faith), then baptism is as a active putting-on-Christ. As Children, we actively "clothe" ourselves in Christ. This makes baptism very important, but it is fairly evident that justification is apart from baptism.  (See Romans above as well.)

 

Ephesians 4:5: "one Lord, one faith, one baptism."

 

Recall that most people see "baptism " and immediately assume water baptism. I might be inclined to think this is spiritual although I will note the word "baptism" here in the Greek has a suffix on it which emphasizes it is a result (presumably of repentance). It could be spiritual or physical, but clearly it is the result of repentance not something that happens prior to it. This is another reason why I'm inclined to think my first baptism was not valid... I did not have repentance.

 

Colossians 2:11-12: “In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."

 

Christ’s circumcision (our justification, or what we usually refer to nowadays as “being saved”) is a “putting off of the sinful nature” and being “buried with him… and raised with him through your faith in the power of God.” (Col 2:11-12). Clearly the circumcision here is spiritual, not literal. It would make sense then for the baptism to also be spiritual and not strictly literal. It would indeed be strange for Paul to stress that the physical ritual of circumcision wasn’t what put off the sins of the flesh/united with Christ but that it was a physical ritual of water baptism that did.

See: http://www.lifeinchristministries.com/teachings/does-colossians-212-teach-salvation-by-baptism/

And: https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/buried-and-raised-in-baptism-through-faith

 

1 Peter 3:21: "There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

 

In the context Peter is talking about Noah being saved "through water". Noah was not saved by the water, he was saved by the ark through the water. The water from the flood "cleansed" the earth - it killed everyone on it - although sin still remained. Remember water is symbolic of cleansing, it doesn’t actually cleanse because only Jesus can do that. So here Peter is using baptism as a "antitype" - baptism saves us in type, it doesn't actually save. It "cleanses" us in type. The symbolism is rich.

See: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-1Peter-3-21.html

Acts 2:38: And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

 

Remember we must interpret Scripture with other Scripture. Does this verse mean that unless we are baptized we CANNOT receive forgiveness of sins? How can it, when other Scriptures talk about forgiveness apart from any mention of baptism? Furthermore, does it mean we can't receive the Spirit until we're baptized (when other Scriptures show us otherwise)? Peter has likely just linked repentance and baptism because he assumes the 2nd must follow the former, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our sins aren't forgiven until the moment we are baptized.

 

Good explanation here: https://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Acts-2-38.html

Here is also James White on this verse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nUR6-G8SNI

 

Acts 10:44-48: "While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.  And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered,  “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”  And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." 

Salvation/justification and the coming of the Spirit came to these believers prior to baptism. Baptism was a sign and seal that they had been accepted into the Church/were recognized as brothers/sisters in Christ. It was important and "necessary," but not for their having received the Spirit/becoming "born again". 

 

 

ADDITIONAL TEXTS on Salvation/Justification:  

Ephesians 1:13-14: “In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” 

 

We are saved through the Word of truth, the Gospel. Having believed, we are sealed by the Spirit. No mention of water or baptism here.

 

John 1:12-13: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

 

Here we see that we are born (literally "begotten") of God, not based on our nationality or our own will or of the will of other people, but entirely of God. To THESE, those who believe, are given the right to be children of God. How then can anyone who does not profess Christ be called a child of God or be considered a member of the Invisible Church? Also, if it is not our our "will" than how can we choose to be baptized in order to truly be saved?

 

John 6:37-40: "Everyone the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but to do the will of Him who sent Me. And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that I shall lose none of those He has given Me, but raise them up at the last day. For it is My Father’s will that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in Him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”

 

Jesus will save and keep all those whom the Father has given him. Should we dare presume that God has begun a work of salvation in a baby who does not yet believe? Certainly many adults are baptized that later show they are not converted, we cannot know people's hearts; we can only judge their profession and life of repentance/obedience.

Romans 8:5-8: "For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit^. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God."

 

Here we see that those who are filled with the Spirit are "regenerated" (as we use the term today). They are illuminated, changed, "born again". Before they were at enmity with God, but now they are able to please Him. What changed? They have the Spirit. Water or baptism is never mentioned; this is not the result of man's faith acting in obedience, this is all God.

Romans 10:9-10: "that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

 

Salvation is attained or applied through confession of Christ as Lord and faith in His work; there is no mention of water or baptism in this passage.  Some will assume that "confession" here means our public confession at baptism, but there is no reasonable reason to assume this since the text says nothing about it. Verse 13 goes on to say "whoever  calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." It is not necessarily a public confession or baptism that saves you (although it is an important step and a validation of your salvation in a way), it is one's repentance and crying out to God for salvation.

 

1 Corinthians 15:3-5: a short summary on the Gospel and the resurrection. No mention of water or baptism.

 

Early Church History & Baptism:

 THIS VIDEO is an excellent Baptist response by Gavin Ortlund on baptism and the early church, and he addresses peudobaptism as well as baptismal regeneration.

Reading the early church on this subject is a bit confusing. They often refer to baptism "regenerating". However, it is important to note a few things in understanding this.

1) Regeneration to them doesn't mean the same thing as we mean it today. The word appears only twice in Scripture (and only once in reference to salvation) and literally means "born again/anew". It is found in Titus 3:5 ("washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit") and Matt 19:28 where it refers to the new birth of the world when Christ sits on His throne. When we talk about regeneration today we tend to mean the illumination of the Holy Spirit, or a moment of being "born again" in the heart, meaning conversion. But the early church viewed the term much broader.

2) In the early church baptism happened immediately following a profession of faith and so they were often seen as the same event.

3) The public confession of baptism was a public testimony of the person's conversion from Judaism or paganism - and this was a HUGE deal. If a person wasn't willing to renounce all and follow Christ (in baptism) they couldn't be accepted as a true convert. In light of this, it's understandable that the early Christians sometimes blurred the line between salvation and water baptism. This is also relevant because today people tend to minimize or put off baptism as not that important when that was not the case at all in the beginning. Baptism was SO important that you couldn't be accepted as a Christian without it, however that does not by default mean that one is not saved unless/until they are baptized.

On infant baptism: There are scholars on both sides who say history is on "their" side. Seemingly more honest ones will admit history isn't conclusive. Personally I think you can find evidence to support either viewpoint if you look hard enough. Again, interpreting some early church writings is also rather tricky. 

 

One important document we should mention is the Didache. This was written sometime toward the end of the 1st century, and is one of the very earliest Christian writings we have. It was written to summarize some basic and core teachings for new converts. It talks about the baptism of “catechumen” (new converts) but there is no mention of family or children. The individual must be able to fast before their baptism therefore presumed to be old enough to do so. There is no indication that baptism has any “saving” benefit, but it is very obvious that it is an important initiation into the Church (the persons are called "catechumen" prior to baptism indicating that until they made this step of public confession they weren't fully accepted into the Church/allowed to participate in the Lord's Supper).

OTHER SOURCES:

Charles Hodge on Baptismal Regeneration:

We are said to be saved by the truth, to be begotten by the truth, to be sanctified by the truth. This does not mean—

1. That there is any inherent, much less magic, power in the word of God as heard or read to produce these effects. 

2. Nor that the word always and every where, when rightly presented, thus sanctifies and saves, so that all who hear are partakers of these benefits. 

3. Nor does it mean that the Spirit of God is so tied to the word as never to operate savingly on the heart except in connection with it. For infants may be subjects of regeneration, though incapable of receiving the truth. In like manner when the Scriptures speak of baptism as washing away sin, Acts 22, 16; or as uniting us to Christ, Gal. 3, 27; or as making Christ’s Gal. 3, 27; or as making Christ’s death our death, Rom. 6, 4; Col. 2, 12; or as saving us, 1 Pet. 3, 21; they do not teach-i. That there is any inherent virtue in baptism, or in the administrator, to produce these effects; nor 2. That these effects always attend its right administration; nor 3. That the Spirit is so connected with baptism that it is the only channel through which he communicates the benefits of redemption, so that all the unbaptized perish. These three propositions, all of which Romanism and Ritualism affirm, are contrary to the express declarations of Scripture and to universal experience. Multitudes of the baptized are unholy many of the unbaptized are sanctified and saved.

How then is it true that baptism washes away sin, unites us to Christ, and secures salvation? The answer again is, that this is true of baptism in the same sense that it is true of the word. God is pleased to connect the benefits of redemption with the believing reception of the truth. And he is pleased to connect these same benefits with the believing reception of baptism. That is, as the Spirit works with and by the truth, so he works with and by baptism, in communicating the blessings of the covenant of grace. Therefore, as we are said to be saved by the word, with equal propriety we are said to be saved by baptism; though baptism without faith is as of little effect as is the word of God to unbelievers. The scriptural doctrine concerning baptism, according to the Reformed churches is —

1. That it is a divine institution.

2. That it is one of the conditions of salvation. "Whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved," Mark 16:16. It has, however, the necessity of precept, not the necessity of a means sine qua non. It is in this respect analogous to confession. "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation," Romans 10:10. And also to circumcision. God said, "The uncircumcised male child — should be cut off from his people," Genesis 17:14. Yet children dying before the eighth day were surely not cut off from heaven. And the apostle teaches circumcision," Romans 3:26.

3. Baptism is a means of grace, that is, a channel through which the Spirit confers grace; not always, not upon all recipients, nor is it the only channel, nor is it designed as the ordinary means of regeneration. Faith and repentance are the gifts of the Spirit and fruits of regeneration, and yet they are required as conditions of baptism. Consequently the Scriptures contemplate regeneration as preceding baptism. But if faith, to which all the benefits of redemption are promised, precedes baptism, how can those benefits be said to be conferred; in any case, through baptism? 

(From notes on Ephesians 5:27, source here.)

RESOURCES for further study:

Videos of Debates/Q&A's:

Baptism Debate with James White (Baptist view) and Gregg Strawbridge (Presbyterian view): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXSPKjypoO8

Baptism & Justification vs Salvation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbhZgh7gDYI

BOOKS:

On the topic of baptism (especially believer's versus infant baptism) it is crutial you understand the three major interpretational views of Scripture: Covenantal theology, Dispensationalsim and Progressive Covenantalism/New Covenant Theology. If you accept Covenant Theology it is very likely you will also accept infant baptism, if you don't, you probably won't. Below are two books I'd recommend:

 

Continuity and Discontinunity: Perspectives on the Relationship Between the Old and New Testaments

In this book, thirteen noted evangelical theologians discuss, fairly but clearly, the continuity/discontinuity debate in regard to six basic categories: theological systems, hermeneutics, salvation, the Law of God, the people of God, and kingdom promises. This one is good although it really only discusses Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, there is a third view that is down the middle (Progressive Covenantalism, which is where I would fall). But you can get it here.

 

Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism: A Comparison of Traditional & Progressive Views. Find it here.  (Note: I have not actually read this one, but it's a more recent one that looks better because it has all three views.)

 

Also would recommend: 

Kingdom Through Covenant by Peter Gentry & Stephen Wellum. I read an older edition of this book

God’s Kingdom Through God’s Covenants: A Concise Biblical Theology - see book review in this post.

Infant Baptism & the Covenant of Grace by Paul Jewett (see my review here.)

Understanding Four Views on Baptism (review here.)

 

Abraham's Four Seeds by John G. Reisinger (review here.) 

 

It Takes a Church to Baptize by Scot McKnight. This one is from an Anglican perspective and, to be honest, gives some of the best defense of infant baptism I've read, although I still remain unconvinced. I do agree mostly with McKnight's higher sacramental view of baptism however.

 

 

Articles/Websites:

http://www.earlychurch.net/Baptism.htm

This website was very helpful: 

 https://triablogue.blogspot.com/search?q=baptism

especially these posts:

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/10/baptism-saves-you.html

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/03/history-of-infant-baptism.html

Book Review: Understanding Four Views on Baptism

Book Review: Understanding Four Views on Baptism (John Armstrong, general editor)

Baptism. One might think the subject is very straightforward, but the reality is that it is a complex subject in Scripture and among Christians the world over. This book lays out four major views on baptism within Protestant Christianity: Baptist view, Reformed (Presbyterian) view, Lutheran view, and Christian Churches/Churches of Christ view. The forward and post-script by the editor were also very well written, stressing the unity that the four contributors do have in Christ and in other doctrine and expressing hope for helpful discussion and tolerance towards fellow Christians who have a different view. All four contributors have searched the Scriptures and become convinced of their viewpoint, and we must not sneer at those who interpret Scripture in a way that is different from ours - when these are views which have been held by many, many faithful Christians who love the Word of God. While we might disagree, we should at least seek to understand one another so that we might still have unity in Christ. This is a difficult task (as the editor confesses) but we look to Heaven where one day all shall be made clear.

 

In each section the contributor for each view gives his defense and then the three other contributors respond.

Baptist View: Thomas Nettles

I fully agree with Nettles’ Biblical and historical arguments for immersion, as well as for believers only baptism.

I did feel like the author shared his opinion more than Scripture at times (one responder did point out exactly that), especially in that he tried too hard to simplify baptism to just a symbol so that while the symbolism is certainly rich, the rite itself doesn’t really mean anything. It’s so simplified that it’s merely an initiation rite into the local church membership. This is unfortunate as I believe Scripture infers that there is more than “just symbolism” in baptism.

Reformed View: Richard Pratt

Pratt seemed to quote more from Confessions than from Scripture (although I will fairly note that the Confessions cite Scripture as their source), and I understand that Pratt quoted them because they summarized nicely what (the writers though) Scripture teaches, however, it would have been better to have more Scripture exposition. This was rather unfortunate. However, I have read other books/listened to lectures on this particular view that did use a lot of Scripture and so I certainly understand the reasonable Biblical arguments.                                                                                                                   

The first half of the chapter focused on baptism as sacrament, most of which I would agree with. Baptism as a “sacrament” is defines as such: “Reformed theology views baptism as a mysterious encounter with God that takes place though a rite involving physical elements and special ceremony. Through this encounter, God graciously distributes blessings to those who participate by faith and also judgment to those who participate without faith”. Furthermore, “[s]piritual realities occur in conjunction with baptism, but the Scriptures do not explain in detail how baptism and divine grace are connected. Thus, Reformed theology speaks of the connection as a ‘sacramental [i.e., mysterious] union.’”

Second half of the chapter focused on the covenantal nature of baptism. I do not agree with the “Covenantal” view of Scripture as taught by Reformed/Presbyterians. Also, if in baptism, the person does “undergo ‘the circumcision done by Christ’ as they are ‘buried with him in baptism,’” to apply this to infants who have no faith is, as far as I’m concerned, a slap in Christ’s face. Christ doesn’t save halfway. He is the perfect sacrifice and the perfect Savior. When he saves, he does so completely. To put baptism (the sign and seal) before the profession and actual conversion is a reversal of all that the New Covenant was intended to do.

Christian Churches/Churches of Christ view: John Castelein

Castelein also made a good argument for immersion and believers only. He also views baptism as more that “just” a symbol (opposed to the Baptist view) which I appreciate. However, while he avoids the word “sacrament” this is exactly how he views it, and for all his dislike of Roman Catholicism he makes the same mistake as they do. Whereas the Reformed view views baptism as a sign and a seal of salvation, Castelein ties baptism so tightly with salvation that it is in danger of becoming confused with having saving power itself. He calls baptism the “Biblical occasion of salvation”. While he denies the error of “baptismal regeneration” on the grounds that they do not baptize apart from a confession of faith, because he ties baptism and salvation so together, one could argue (and he admits some in his churches do) that apart from baptism one cannot be saved at all, even babies or those who intend to be baptized (which in the end is the same error because it is not Christ alone who saves, it is Christ + baptism). In his response to Castelein, Pratt (Reformed view) very rightly points out Castelein is confusing salvation (which is multi-layered and includes justification, faith, repentance, yes also baptism but also ongoing obedience and ultimately glorification) with justification (becoming right with God through the sacrifice of Christ). Also, whereas the Reformed view leaves the sacramental grace that comes through baptism a “mystery,” Castelein tries too hard to define what the Scriptures don’t make clear – specifically how precisely baptism relates to the process of salvation. Despite his desire to be strictly Biblical (a quality I certainly admire) he is still holding to presuppositions that affect his interpretation of Scripture.

Lutheran View: Robert Kolb

I put this view last even though it’s third in the book because it’s similar to other views, and I felt concerns were addressed better there. To be frank I agreed with very little in this section and I feel Kolb made similar mistakes as Reformed and Christian Churches. To summarize, their view of baptism is closer to Christian Churches in that they tie it very closely with salvation, but they also baptize infants (for some reasons similar to Reformed but still different because of how they connect it with salvation). One big difference between Lutheran and Reformed is that the latter leaves mystery and Lutherans try too hard to define what actually happens in baptism. In tying baptism and salvation so closely, they also blur the line between justification and human response/faith/works (also the same mistake as Christian Churches). In light of this, the fact that they baptize infants rather blows my mind and brings to the surface even more concerns than one might have with the Reformed view of infant baptism.

 Conclusion:

I would definitely recommend reading this book if you are studying baptism as it very well lays out the four main views that are out there. There are, however, more than four views. Beside another major view like Anglicanism or the various views within some Presbyterian or Methodist circles, I myself would consider myself a “Reformed Baptist” – a hybrid between the Reformed and Baptist (with some appreciation for Christian Churches as well in how seriously they take baptism). I have a higher/sacramental view of baptism (very close to Reformed, not quite as extreme as Christian Churches view), but am firmly convinced of believers-only baptism. Furthermore, I see water baptism as a sacrament of the Church that signifies and seals the work of Christ in the believer. It is not to be confused (or fused) with justification (one being made right with God) but is nevertheless a crucial part of the “process of salvation”. In the sense that you can say that “faith saves” you can also say that “baptism saves” but we also need to be careful to qualify that. Baptism is not necessary for entrance into heaven (only justification does that) but is required for a person who professes Christ to be accepted into the Church/be recognized as a Christian (I personally would add that a believer should be baptized prior to participating in the Lord's Supper as well). And obviously, if a professor refuses to be baptized that is a sign that they are not saved since they are refusing a very clear command of Christ. There is a sense in which a believer prior to baptism does “lack” something, much like a couple prior to the marriage ceremony but with their marriage license still lacks something to make their marriage “official”. What exactly baptism does or what grace it bestows is more of a mystery, but we must not try to define things that Scripture leaves as a Divine mystery. To put it simply: We are justified by grace through faith alone (Romans 3-5 & Ephesians 2), but baptism is a such crucial element to our status and walk with God that to be really Biblical, one cannot fully be recognized as a “true Christian” without it. 

 

FOR FURTHER STUDY: Please see THIS POST on Scripture texts and more on baptism (and at the bottom of that post there is a further study/resource list if you want to study/read more on the subject).

Book Review: The QAnon Deception by James A Beverly

Get it here: (only $7 on kindle!) 

Before reading this book, I knew very little about Q. I knew a few basics and saw that Q’s followers were really passionate, but their theories and beliefs were very confusing. I was really glad to find a book I could read from a Christian who is well-educated in the area of conspiracy theories, religions and more and who had also done extensive research on this topic. The title is very negative, but the author is very well-studied and is quite fair in his treatment. It is written not just to the curious/skeptical but to Trump himself, and to all the followers of Q. Also, if you don't believe in or trust Q, and yet you follow the "deep state" conspiracies surrounding Trump, this book is for you! I (like the book's author) will remind you that it is always wise to be willing to challenge your own beliefs and would encourage you read this with an open mind. Just because something is labeled a "conspiracy theory" does not mean it is or is not true. But it does mean that we need to be very careful in our research as there is often a lot of speculation mixed in with facts.

One more important thing to realize is, that at one point, “Q” instructed his followers to be more covert; to drop mention of him in sharing things he’s said. As a result, there are many people who are sharing ideas and theories that originate from Q (or Q teachers) AND THEY DON’T EVEN REALIZE IT. This is exactly one reason why Beverly has labeled this as one of the most dangerous conspiracies... because people are unaware of what they are really following.

In summary, "Q" is a person who has claimed high military intelligence who was/is working with Trump. Qanon has several theories with many more offshoot theories, but there are a few key components:

• There is a "swamp" of corrupt individuals in government and it needs to be "drained". Trump is seen as the first President since Reagan to work at doing this. 
• As a result, Trump is also viewed as a type of savior, and anyone that even criticizes him is not to be trusted.
  
• Democrats (and most of Hollywood) are involved with a Satanic international pedophile ring which includes the murdering and sacrificing of children. (Pence was actually added to this as well when he didn't do what Trump wanted him to on January 6.)
  

From the introduction: “While I have no delusions that this book will change all minds to adopt my conclusions, one of my chief goals is to illustrate how to process topics, especially divisive ones, in terms of figuring out veracity of views, integrity of believes, and rationality of a worldview.” (p 13) Thus, Beverly goes on to give 15 principles that we should keep in mind as we think critically about any topic really, but in this book of course the focus is Q, Q teachers etc. Beverly shows the good intentions of Q and his followers, but also critically examines the truth that he/they claim. 

 In chapter 1 he gives 9 key components to understanding QAnon (Trump, Q posts, Q Teachers, “Think for yourself”, a battle between good and evil, etc.) He further explains where Q came from, where he first posted and where he has since, how Q teachers and followers have responded, various conspiracy theories that have come out of the core. He also looks at who various people think Q is, and how Q has changed over time.

Because of the connections with witchcraft and satanism (and the trafficking and sacrificing of children) Beverly also examines both of these and shows that both actually condemn human sacrifice and have no large links to child trafficking. (This is not to say that it doesn't happen, or that there aren't some fridge groups that might, but in general the rumors about this are not true.)

In conclusion, it is clear that Q is a liar. He claims to be high military intelligence, but this cannot be true based on several reasons. He makes accusations against individuals and groups that are false. This is true "misinformation". Whoever Q is now (the same or different), he still cannot be trusted. As a result, the conspiracies that have sprung from him (Deep State, government leaders and others being involved in a child trafficking ring) also cannot be trusted. This is NOT to say that there is not corruption in our government - there absolutely is! Nor is it to say that child trafficking isn't a problem - it absolutely is! There may be people here and there that DO have a "hidden agenda" (ie. I for one am SUPER suspicious of Big Pharma and the way they try and control things) but we need to be VERY careful about sorting out the truth from the speculation/gossip.

As a Christian who seeks the truth but also to battle TRUE misinformation, I must condemn "Q" AND anyone who follows the main components/conspiracies. It is gossip, slander and it is hurting the conservative cause, not to mention our Christian witness. I hope and pray that those caught up in these conspiracies will become more discerning in their search for truth.

*page numbers taken from Kindle edition.

Reading List: Parenting, The Kennedy's & Discrimination

 

Finished since last post:

 

Grace-Based Discipline by Karis Kimmel Murray

This was an excellent book! On top of having a great gift and style in writing, Karis Murray shares a lot of very practical advice when it comes to dealing with your child’s bad behavior. Many important reminders include: Don’t take your child’s behavior personally, your child is a sinner so “we shouldn’t be surprised if they act that way”, “you must separate your child’s behavior from their heart” and what the book really boils down to: How does God parent/discipline us? This is crucial because “Parents are the primary reflection our kids see of God’s heart and His grace.” How you parent and discipline teaches your child more about God than anything you could possibly say! As parents we ought to seek to parent as God does His children, and for that we need wisdom. “The only way we’ll be able to discern whether to give our children consequences, mercy or anything in between is if we’ve built a close enough relationship with our kids to afford us some perspective. That’s the only way our discipline will truly be for them.” (emphasis hers)

Karis differentiates between grace and mercy, punishment or retaliation and discipline, shame and remorse and gives practical examples. She also helpfully lays out the type of discipline and/or consequences that are most effective for different ages. Throughout the book there are great stories and examples from Karis’ own experience under her parents (who modeled this well) and with her own children.  

 

The Kennedy Curse by Edward Klein

 

This was a very interesting biography of the Kennedy family. Really good read! As in, I had a hard time putting it down! It explores the lives and deaths of various members of the Kennedy family (from JFK’s great-grandparents to JFK Jr.) and gives a lot of very insightful information into their family traits and patterns. Traits of narcissism, perfectionism and a weakness towards alcohol and sex led to destructive patterns and many times early avoidable deaths. Is there a “Kennedy curse”? More accurately we should call this sin’s curse, and the reality is that in some families, these kinds of sinful traits leave patterns of destruction than curse its descendants in more unique ways. A sad book in many ways because of this, but again, a very interesting read.  

 

Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell

 

This was a really excellent book on understanding economics, discrimination (not just race-based) and disparities among people. Definitely recommend anything by Thomas Sowell, who is a well-known economist. 

 

The chapter “Discrimination: Meanings and Costs” distinguished the different kinds of discrimination and showed how things like minimum wage laws and making it illegal for employers to do criminal background checks were actually hurting the black community – not helping promote equality which was the original intent. Employers who did background checks were actually MORE likely to hire blacks than those who didn’t – because the fact remains that more blacks tend to have criminal records so those who didn’t do checks made assumptions rather than hire based on facts. Another interesting thing was that while some people in America do have some discrimination against blacks, in the end cost/benefit will win. For example, Harlem used to be a very white neighborhood and landlords didn’t want to rent to blacks. However, as things changed and more blacks moved into the general area and at the same time whites were moving out – the landlords shifted as well. The cost to not rent to a black was too high. One point from this is that laws are not as effective in changing things as plain “cost/benefit”. Most people will trade their discrimination for something that benefits them. Another example he gave was in the south when the segregation laws were passed. Many of the trolley companies fought these laws because they realized that not only would it offend many of their customers (who were black) it would cost them more money since they ended up needing more trolley cars to seat everyone in the “appropriate” section. They lost in court but even then, many companies didn’t enforce the law at all until the government started fining them. Again – cost/benefit affected discrimination more than laws did.

 

His chapter on “Sorting and Unsorting of People” was very interesting. People naturally “sort” themselves into like-minded groups. Indeed, where the government has attempted to “unsort” people (move people around to make communities more “diverse”), while it helps a few people, in general it has not helped the majority of people (either those already in the community or those brought in). In fact, it has tended to hurt the community/people already there. While most whites have not complained out of fear of being called “racist”, many blacks who were residents of communities where the government was moving poorer blacks in complained and resisted about “those people” being brought in. They knew that it would not benefit their community – in fact they were very concerned about the likely increase of crime, devaluing of property (because poorer people don’t tend to take care of their property well), etc.

 

“The net result of police backing off [because the don’t want to be called racist] is often a rise in crime, of which law-abiding residents in black communities are the principle victims. Some people think that they are being kind to blacks by going along with unsubstantiated claims of ‘racial profiling’ by the police. But, as distinguished black scholar Sterling A Brown said, long ago: ‘Kindness can kill as well as cruelty, and it can never take the place of genuine respect’.” (p. 85-86)

 

“As obvious as this may seem, it is often forgotten. Nothing that the Germans can do today will in any way mitigate the staggering evils of what Hitler did in the past. Nor can apologies in American today for slavery in the past have any meaning, much less do any good, for either blacks or whites today… The only times over which we have any degree of influence at all are the present and the future – both of which and be made worse by attempts at symbolic restitution among the living for what happened among the dead…Pretending to have powers that we do not have, in fact, have risks creating needless evils in the present while claiming to deal with the evils of the past…. To admit we cab do nothing about what happened among the dead is not to give up the struggle for a better world, but to concentrate our efforts where they have at least some hope of making things better for the living.” (p.127)

 

Up Next: Q and Social Justice.... should be interesting!