I LOVE this post. How fitting the signs are when ordered properly! Since baptism symbolizes a person being "raised to newness of life," it is the fitting prerequisite symbol to the symbol of the Supper.
A corpse does not need a meal, but a resurrection. And of course, Jesus often ensured that newly raised people got something to eat (Mark 5:43; Luke 8:55).
I wholeheartedly agree. Jesus Himself was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness," to leave an example to us that such things matter to God. Who are we to presume that any old way will do?
It’s about the condition of man’s heart that matters to the God I know; not the punctilious observance of ritual and regimens of men. One may find God and be baptized leading to the desire for communion, another may find Him through communion and then long for baptism. Who has the hubris to claim either got that wrong in the eyes of the loving God calling a sinner home?
Hey John, the condition of the heart is certainly what matters to God. In the post, I'm trying to point out, though, that the signs of circumcision and baptism were not regimens invented by men. They were signs that the Lord instructed his people to receive as covenant members. And while, hypothetically, someone could be taking communion and then long for baptism, the question for churches comes down to what "best practices" look like. The order of sign-and-then-meal is an instructive pattern in Scripture to notice. So the issue, to me, isn't about hubris activity. It's about churches seeking to order their practices (especially the ordinances which God has instructed--baptism and communion) in ways which most closely conform to what we see happening in Scripture. I have friends who don't think someone has to be baptized before receiving the Lord's Supper. I simply disagree with their position. Added to this whole discussion--and something I didn't get into in the post--is that the practice of baptism-before-communion is a deeply rooted position in the history of Christian denominations. And the position even shows up in historical Confessions of faith.
I LOVE this post. How fitting the signs are when ordered properly! Since baptism symbolizes a person being "raised to newness of life," it is the fitting prerequisite symbol to the symbol of the Supper.
A corpse does not need a meal, but a resurrection. And of course, Jesus often ensured that newly raised people got something to eat (Mark 5:43; Luke 8:55).
Thanks for the encouragement, brother!
I wholeheartedly agree. Jesus Himself was baptized "to fulfill all righteousness," to leave an example to us that such things matter to God. Who are we to presume that any old way will do?
It’s about the condition of man’s heart that matters to the God I know; not the punctilious observance of ritual and regimens of men. One may find God and be baptized leading to the desire for communion, another may find Him through communion and then long for baptism. Who has the hubris to claim either got that wrong in the eyes of the loving God calling a sinner home?
Hey John, the condition of the heart is certainly what matters to God. In the post, I'm trying to point out, though, that the signs of circumcision and baptism were not regimens invented by men. They were signs that the Lord instructed his people to receive as covenant members. And while, hypothetically, someone could be taking communion and then long for baptism, the question for churches comes down to what "best practices" look like. The order of sign-and-then-meal is an instructive pattern in Scripture to notice. So the issue, to me, isn't about hubris activity. It's about churches seeking to order their practices (especially the ordinances which God has instructed--baptism and communion) in ways which most closely conform to what we see happening in Scripture. I have friends who don't think someone has to be baptized before receiving the Lord's Supper. I simply disagree with their position. Added to this whole discussion--and something I didn't get into in the post--is that the practice of baptism-before-communion is a deeply rooted position in the history of Christian denominations. And the position even shows up in historical Confessions of faith.
The problem I have is reflected in the phrase “best practices “
Which presupposes that is the formula for spiritual engagement.