Don’t Take the Supper at Youth Camp or Get Baptized in the Jordan - by Ben Robin

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

The author isn't here to explain the Bible, he's here to explain his tradition and church practice. He quotes some Bible verses and essentially inserts them into his pre-arranged doctrines. What comes out of that unfortunate combination bears no resemblance to what the Bible teaches.

Baptism is not a church ceremony, it is a statement by the one being baptized regarding his faith and commitment to Christ. It belongs to him, not the church. Anytime believers get together it is a manifestation of the church, and baptisms can occur.

Communion is not a church ceremony either. It's a community meal and fellowship time where the Blood and the Body is honored. Anytime believers get together to do this it is a manifestation of the church. Communion belongs to the those who gather, not the church.

In the end, we are not interested in the author's traditions. We are happy for him if he finds meaning in them. But we will not tolerate him misrepresenting the Scriptures.

---------------------------------

Ben Robin is a staff pastor of Trinity River Baptist Church in Fort Worth, Texas.

Editor’s note: This article is part of an upcoming issue of Church Matters on The Ordinances.

* * * * *

Picture a scenario, familiar to many, where a Christian approaches you after the service, asking if her discipleship group can take the Lord’s Supper together when they meet every other week at a coffee shop. Her reason? She serves in the children’s ministry on many first Sundays when the church observes communion. In reply, you express your reservations, “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper belong to the church.” “Right! And we are all members of the ‘big-C’ Church,” she responds. (We shall make this distinction by referring to the universal body of Christ as "The Church," and the local body as "the church." The author will continually switch back and forth between The Church and the church at whim.)

Her intention is heartfelt, and her inquiry is earnest. At this point, you may intuitively think her request doesn’t seem right.

But would you be able to explain why from Scripture? (Yes, Indeed. From Scripture, please. Tell us where in the Bible that we are not permitted to partake in communion or baptism apart from the church rituals.)

In what follows, I aim to argue that the ordinances belong to the local church. (Sir, will it be an argument from the Bible?)

As such, their most fitting location is in the local church alone. ("Most fitting" seems a little less  certain than the author's previous statements.)

I will demonstrate this by considering what the ordinances are and how they feature in the Bible. Then I will consider what the universal church is and how we identify it in space and time. 

Finally, I will consider a few implications which follow from this account of the ordinances and conclude the argument. (We shall now allow the author to make his case and then jump back in when necessary.)

Baptism Joins One to Many

Baptism is an act of obedience for every believer. Jesus requires his followers to be baptized (Matt. 28:19). It is the first command a new Christian must obey. Paul assumed every Christian he wrote to had already been baptized (Rom. 6:3–4). So close is the association between baptism and becoming a Christian, Peter and Luke can use one to refer to the other (Acts 2:38, 1 Pet. 3:21).1

Baptism is also the way faith goes public.2 People are commanded to come to Christ both inwardly (Matt. 11:28) and outwardly (Acts 2:38). In fact, the “outward declares the inward.”3 In other words, becoming a Christian is always a personal act, but never a private one (cf. Matt. 10:32–33). Jesus wants us to repent, believe, and be immersed in water. He has not only identified with our humanity, but also set an example himself in being baptized (Matt. 3:13–17). Like our Lord, we should be baptized. In the New Testament, baptism is the way a person identifies with, commits to, and is marked off by Jesus (cf. Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 12:12–13; Gal. 3:26–27; Col. 2:11–12). There simply is no other way to profess faith, identify with Jesus as Savior (Gal. 3:26–27),4 commit to following Jesus as Lord (1 Pet. 3:21),5 and be marked off from the world (Rom. 6:1–4).6

As such, baptism joins one Christian to a group of other Christians in a church relation. (!! The author was ably explaining the nature of baptism and why as believers we're obligated to get baptized. He documented his points with pertinent Scriptures and proper commentary. Right up until this moment where he writes, "in a church relation." This is the central thesis of the author's article, which he assumes to be the church and not The Church. He simply asserts it and moves on. 

How is it possible the author just glosses over the key component? Is it because it's not found in the Bible, perhaps? The author spends many words explaining, so the barrage of verbiage acts as camouflage for the undocumented central point.)

It signifies that one Christian belongs to Christ’s body, the church. (That is, The Church.)

In baptism, a local church (That is, the church. Notice again the author switches concepts. He wants the belonging to be to The Church, but the ceremony is exclusively via the church. He doesn't show us this from the Bible, however.)

affirms and identifies a disciple as belonging to Christ, as one of his followers. (... to The Church.)

Thus, baptism is a church’s act.7 (... the church. Why doesn't The Church possess the authority to baptize but the church does? This is the distinction the author is making, but he never explains it.)

As much as baptism is an act of an individual, it is also an act of a church. (The "church," which apparently does not mean The Church.)

Through baptism, a church affirms and agrees to oversee a believer’s discipleship to Christ. (Perhaps this is true in his church tradition, but is it found in the Bible?)

When a baptism takes place, the church effectively says, “This one is with Jesus, like the rest of us.”8 (Yes of course. But there is nothing about this in the Bible.)

On this point, it’s important to recognize that Jesus has bound the church’s declarative authority to baptism. Matthew 28:19 (Since the author seems averse to quoting Scripture, we shall do so: 

Mt. 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit...

must be read in the context of Matthew 16:13–20 (Again we quote the pertinent verses: 

Mt. 16:18-19 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

and 18:15–20. (Sigh... Again we quote the pertinent part: 

Mt. 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

So what has the author attempted to accomplish here? He wants to connect baptism to the authority of The Church but only as expressed in the church, derived from this promise the Lord made to Peter. 

Further, the author thinks that the Kingdom authority given to Peter was really given to The Church [which expressed in the church]. This is an important claim. It may be true, but needs to be discussed before connecting it to baptism.

The second passage, the personal obligation to reconcile with a brother is not a matter of the church or The Church. The entire Matthew 18 process describes individual actions.

Therefore, neither example is true in the sense the author wants to use them. 

Aside from these issues, another problem is that there was no church when these words were spoken, so Jesus was not teaching on church structure and authority.)

Jesus has given one institution on earth unique authority to speak on his behalf, and he tied the church’s use of the “keys of the kingdom” to baptism.9 (??? We just supplied the quotes. There is no baptism mentioned or implied in either passage.)

Therefore, baptism should be done in the context of a local church (Back to the church.)

because it is ordained by Jesus for his gathered people.7 (Did we miss something? Which Bible verse tells us this?)

The Lord’s Supper Makes Many into One

While baptism joins one to many, the Lord’s Supper makes many into one. Our Lord Jesus instituted this ordinance when he observed the Passover meal with his disciples and said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:14–20; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23–25). (Our first Scripture, finally.)

The Lord’s Supper is the fulfillment of the Passover, like shadow to substance.10 In a greater way than the Passover, Jesus’s blood was shed for his people. He drank the cup of the wrath of God, (No. This did not happen. Jesus did not drink of the wrath of God. This is a false and pernicious doctrine. 

Here's the verse in question:

Mt. 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

Because of the Reformist/Calvinist belief that Jesus was punished for our sins this verse is interpreted to mean that this cup was the cup of the Father's wrath. There are several problems with the assertion:

• The verse does not mention wrath, so it is assumed. In fact, there is no verse in the Bible that indicates that the cup Jesus drank from was God's wrath. 

• The testimony of other Scriptures. Previously in Matthew we read this:

Mt. 20:21-23 “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

• Therefore, if the cup in Mt. 26:39 was God's wrath, then these two disciples (James and John) also drank from it. This of course is false.)

suffering death on the cross so that we could be spared. (The author is implying that Jesus' death was substitionary when in actual fact it was sacrificial. Jesus did not die in our place, He died to shed His blood to cleanse us, effect forgiveness, and reconcile us [Heb. 9:22, Heb. 9:14, Eph. 2:13]. He did not die so we could be spared, we died with Him [Col. 2:20, Col. 3:3].)

The Supper signifies this relationship. For Jesus said, “This is my body, which is given for you,” and “this cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:19–20). Thus, the Lord’s Supper signifies the blood of Christ which covers his people and the bond between Christians which he creates.

The Lord’s Supper is the corporate proclamation of our common, crucified Christ through eating and drinking the elements of bread and wine. The apostle Paul speaks in exactly this way: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). This is a foundational text for understanding the Supper.11 In the Supper, we re-commit ourselves to Christ and his church in mutual love, affirmation, and oversight. The Supper makes unrelated people into a covenant family. ("Covenant family?" Undefined phrase.)

As such, the Lord’s Supper should be taken corporately by a church when they come together as a church (cf. 1 Cor. 11:17, 18, 33–34). (Let's quote one of those, verse 18:

1Co. 11:18 In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it.

"Church" is ekklésia, the community of the Redeemed of Christ whether being on earth or in heaven or both [used only of people, not a location, structure, etc.]... These Corinthian believers were a local community of believers coming together to engage in fellowship by eating a meal [flawed, as Paul was pointing out.]. But it wasn't a church ordinance with a ritual, it was essentially a party. 

This was the practice of the NT church: 

Ac. 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

Whenever they got together to eat, they were to remember the Blood [1Co. 11:25] and the Body [1Co. 11:24], and especially, not dishonor its members [1Co. 11:22]. This was the regular fellowship meal, not a solemn, solitary ceremony with a little plastic cup of juice and a cracker.)

In fact, Paul went so far as to deny that the Corinthians were taking the Lord’s Supper at all because they did not wait until all were together (1 Cor. 11:20)! We could argue, with no gathered church, there is no Lord’s Supper. (No, we cannot argue this. The gathering of any saints together is the gathered church. If done for the purpose of sharing a meal, fellowshipping, and remembering the Blood and the Body, it is communion.)

The Local Church Identifies the Universal Church

The universal church (The author keeps switching back and forth between The Church and the church.)

includes all those redeemed by Christ—all Christians in all places across all times. That means the universal incorporates the sum of the regenerate members of all true local churches. Yet, until the eschaton, the universal church cannot be seen. It is spiritual and therefore invisible. Our knowledge and experience of the universal church are mediated through the judgment of local churches. In short, local churches particularize the universal church. If local churches use the authority given by Jesus in the keys of the kingdom, (The author has yet to identify this authority.)

then the ordinances represent the visible outworking of that authority. (Which he has yet to demonstrate.)

In the ordinances, the universal church becomes visible in local churches. The ordinances make and mark the local church as a church. (Bare assertion.)

The ordinances are the connection in space and time between local churches and the universal church. (Bare assertion.)

A local church is a group of Christians who gather regularly in obedience to God’s Word as it is preached, and who are marked out from the world by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Thus, in one important sense, it takes a church to know a Christian. The Christian life is church-centered, and the ordinances give shape and accountability to the Christian life as a life together in corporate, covenant community. How? Because they identify which Christians have regular, biblical obligations to one another. One analogy may help to illustrate the point. Do pastors have the same obligation to oversee and care for the souls of all Christians everywhere, or to one local church (Heb. 13:17)? In the same way, the ordinances mark out which Christians belong to a particular local church. (He just keeps going on and on. Now he draws a comparison between two disparate concepts and tries to tie them together.)

Implications for Observing the Ordinances

A few implications follow from this understanding of a local church as created by the ordinances.

First, anything that disconnects the ordinances from church membership confuses the meaning of Christ’s commands and the shape of the Christian life. Baptisms at summer camp, on a mission trip, or in the family swimming pool obfuscate the reality that the ordinances belong to the local church. (Well, that's the premise, yet to be demonstrated.)

Additionally, though it is popular today to signify conversion by raising a hand, walking an aisle, or praying a prayer, the biblical way to publicly identify yourself as a Christian is through baptism. Since baptism is an ordinance of the church, not the family, the practice of fathers baptizing children—especially when the father is not a pastor or the normal person who baptizes—may actually communicate the wrong things about salvation and the Christian life. (??? This is an astonishing claim!)

A similar challenge faces those who attempt to observe the Lord’s Supper at a wedding or in a small group. For the ordinances to be properly understood, the whole church must be genuinely invited to gather for the occasion. (Billions of people would be quite the logistical undertaking.)

The ordinances draw a line around the group of Christians who gather regularly, demarcating them as a local church. (The author reasserts his premise.)

Since the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper constitute a group of Christians as a local church, the ordinances belong to the local church as a church. Simply put, we call “church membership” what the ordinances create; it’s a theological term for how the ordinances constitute the local church.

Conclusion: Ordinances as “Badges of Belonging” to the Local Church

Strict security was part and parcel of my first paid job. Every member of the company was issued an ID badge. This badge identified an employee as a part of the company. It allowed access into the building. It certified an individual as an official company representative. These ID badges were badges of belonging. Everyone who belonged to the company had the badge. Though I was an employee before I had the official badge, no one else at the company could know I belonged until I had this public identity marker.

In a similar way, the two Christian ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are badges of belonging to the local church. Participating in baptism and the Lord’s Supper does not make someone a Christian. Yet, these badges of belonging create a new social or churchly reality. That is, the ordinances mark out a group of Christians from the world, making them into a local church together. They are effective signs that create the common reality to which they point. (He just keeps going on and on, reasserting the same things over and over as if repetition establishes truth.)

In baptism, one Christian is added to many other Christians. In the Lord’s Supper, many Christians are bound together as one local church. For this reason, they belong to the local church alone.

Footnotes

1. When portraying the process of publicly becoming a Christian, the book of Acts exemplifies the close connection between baptism, repentance, faith, forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Spirit, specifically by using each as a metonymy for the whole complex of Christian conversion. Scripture references here would be too numerous to list, so see Robert Stein, “Baptism in Luke-Acts” in Believer’s Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ, 35-66. 

2 . For a fuller treatment of this theme, see Bobby Jamieson, Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership.

3 . In other words, the visible attests to the invisible. It can be tempting today to overemphasize the internal reality at the expense of the external act, yet the Bible is not hesitant to enjoin both upon us. For more on this, see Bobby Jamieson, Going Public: Why Baptism Is Required for Church Membership, 11.

4 . Baptism is not required for salvation. No doubt, the thief on the cross went to heaven as dry as the asphalt on a hot summer day in Fort Worth (cf. Luke 23:39–43). Furthermore, Paul is glad to have not baptized many of the Corinthian Christians; in fact, he’s uncertain who he baptized! (1 Cor. 1:13–17). (Which suggests that maybe baptism is overemphasized. After all Paul refers to "one baptism" [Ep. 4:5]. Would that be water baptism or the baptism of the Holy Spirit [Mt. 3:11, Acts 1:5]? Is it possible that the Holy Spirit replaced water baptism? We only suggest this as food for thought.)

5 . Bobby Jamieson calls baptism “a wordless promise or oath.” For, in baptism, we commit to follow Jesus for the rest of our days. For this reason, churches often use verbal vows before the baptism occurs (e.g., “Do you come to be baptized today to declare your trust in the finished work of Jesus Christ? Is it your desire to follow him for the rest of your days?”).

6 . In and of itself, baptism does not create or affect anything. Yet, when paired with the preaching of the Word and the faith of the recipient, the ordinary act of immersion in water becomes a sign and seal of the New Covenant. Like circumcision, baptism marks a person as a visible member of the covenant (Col. 2:11–12). With Jesus’s own authority, a church declares through baptism that they discern the baptized person is a disciple, having received the internal circumcision of the heart.

7. For more on this see, Bobby Jamieson, Understanding Baptism.

8 . As such, as Fred Malone argues in The Baptism of Disciples Alone, disciples are the only appropriate recipients of baptism. Neither Jesus nor the apostles have given any warrant for churches to baptize without first discerning visible fruit of repentance and faith (cf. Acts 2:38).(Again we must quote: 

Ac. 2:38 Peter replied, “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.

Where is the church looking for "discernable fruit" mentioned in this verse?)

9 . And the Lord’s Supper, but we consider that more below.

10 . In Egypt, the LORD commanded that a spotless lamb be sacrificed in the place of his people (Exod. 12:1–6). (Read the passage in question, dear reader. There is no mention at all that the lamb was to die in the place of the one who offers the lamb. Because the shedding of the lamb's blood is the agent of atonement. The blood was enough. No substitution occurred.)

In this way, the LORD would pass over his people, saving them from sure destruction (Exod. 12:12–13). Because blood had been shed in their place, (The blood was not shed in their place, the blood was a sign for the Angel to pass by.)

their firstborns would not die like those of the Egyptians.

11 . Bobby Jamieson, Understanding the Lord’s Supper, 30-32.