Salvation and the “Sacramental Ordinances” of Baptism & Communion

A large portion (if not the majority) of “evangelical,” Bible-believing Protestants view both baptism and communion as simply being “ordinances[1]” of the church, rather than “sacraments[2]” of the church. In other words, many (if not most) Evangelicals would hold that both baptism and communion are merely symbolic acts that have been commanded by God to be practiced by the church, but that they do not have any real effect upon the soul. Some of them may even say that anyone who believes that baptism and communion are more than just “a sign” are superstitious Christians who have fallen into the “error” of sacramentalism. But my concern is that those who say such things have fallen into an error of their own: their error being that they have adopted elements of an early heresy called Gnosticism[3].

The Gnostics believed that all material things were inherently flawed. Therefore, they rejected the physical “sacramental ordinances” of baptism and communion and said that they were in no way efficacious to the human soul. The Gnostics even used the Bible and quoted Scripture to support their doctrines, so just because a person quotes Scripture in order to prove something, this does not mean that they are correct in what they are asserting. And this paper will deal with the Scriptures, but not in isolation from the knowledge of how the main body of Christians who lived closest to the Apostles interpreted those Scriptures[4]. Because if the proper interpretation of the passages that we will deal with was lost so quickly by the early church or was so quickly perverted into a wrong understanding which then spread throughout the entire church, then this means that the Apostles were failures in passing on “the faith” to faithful men who would in turn pass it on to others—and it also means that the Gnostics (who were referred to as heretics and antichrists) were right.

Are You a Conservative Christian?

Anyone who would think of themselves as being a conservative Christian ought to ask themselves “What exactly is it that I try to conserve (or preserve)?” Because we have no business thinking of ourselves as conservative Christians if we prove ourselves ready and willing to unhesitatingly depart from what is known to be the established, universal[5] consensus of the early church on the various basic teachings and practices of the Christian faith—especially on matters related to salvation. A person can hardly be called “conservative” if they eagerly break away from or else distort, pervert, and creatively reinterpret what the originators of a thing obviously intended to pass down to those who would come after them. This is not a conservative mindset, but a liberal one. If a Christian demonstrates a strong aversion to using common-sense methods of interpreting Scripture that are specifically meant to help preserve “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3); if they show no concern to “keep the traditions” (1 Cor 11:2) just as they were delivered; if they make no effort to “hold the traditions” (2 Thes 2:15) but instead does his or her part to perpetuate the rampant doctrinal chaos and confusion that already exists in the church by coming up with and trumpeting interpretations that show no strong evidence of having been passed down by the Apostles but have instead been arrived at through his or her own (or someone else’s ) insulated private judgment—while claiming that “God has taught me” this or that—then the only thing this professed conservative is trying to preserve is their own personal convictions and interpretations of what they think the Scriptures mean. But many Bible interpreters (including the Gnostics) down through history have claimed that God had revealed knowledge (gnosis) to them, but yet these very people who have supposedly been “taught of God” disagree with each other in their interpretations. Is the Holy Spirit confused? Did He tell one person that a certain passage means one thing and then tell another person that the same passage means something different? Also, when such people predict future events based on what “the Lord has revealed” to them, they almost always end up being wrong. So for this reason, we should be very slow to go off on our own and simply ignore or refuse to learn from church history and the history of interpretation (or Historical Theology)—in favor of relying solely on the subjective impressions and interpretations that come into our heads. If a person refuses to learn from “a bunch of old dead guys” and rejects all efforts to preserve the “historic Christian faith”—if they are going to be consistent—they have to throw out their Bibles too, because the Bible was written down by a “bunch of old dead guys” and the Bible itself is a historical document containing historical facts and teachings. Certainly it is unique in that it is inspired of God, but it is still a historical document. It did not just fall out of the sky untouched by human hands.

Would God Stoop to Using Physical Things to Effect a Change in or on Man?

• Every Christian (unless they have fallen into a type of Gnosticism that is referred to as “Docetism[6]”) believes that God in Christ used a physical human body consisting of real physical flesh and blood (and a physical wooden cross) in order to save mankind.
• The woman who had a flow of blood for 12 years was healed by touching Jesus’ physical garment in faith (Lk 8:43-44, 48)
• That the works of God might be revealed in a man who had been blind since birth, Jesus cured him by using physical mud. (Jn 9:6);
• God apparently sometimes chooses to heal people not just through prayer, but also through having them anointed with oil. (James 5:14, 15; Mark 6:13);
• In Acts 19:11-12, we read that God worked unusual miracles through Paul so that when physical handkerchiefs or physical aprons were brought from Paul’s body to the sick, their diseases left them and evil spirits went out of them.
• In the O.T., Elisha told Naaman that he would be healed of his leprosy if he washed in the Jordan seven times. When he finally obeyed (after making some initial objections) and went and washed in the physical river, he was healed. (2 Kings 5:10)
• Another example from the same O.T. book is an incident that happened when a dead man was being placed in the tomb of Elisha. When the dead man’s body came into physical contact with the physical bones of Elisha, this caused the dead man to come back to life. (2 Kings 13:21)

Do it–for This Reason!

Concerning our relationship to the Triune God, it is a given that both obedience to Him and knowing Him are needed if we are to have any hope of being saved or having eternal life. Even if we are very fastidious about obeying God’s commandments but yet do not know Him, this will not save us. And even if we say that we know God and have a close relationship to Him, but yet we do not obey His revealed will, this professed relationship will not save us. There is no need to waste time and effort in giving multiple pages of Scripture quotations to prove this, but one particular passage comes to mind that nicely illustrates this connection between obeying God and knowing Him is 2 Thes 1:8, where Paul is writing about what will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, and Paul writes that Jesus (in conjunction with the angels) will take “vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

So before the reader accuses this writer of thinking that simply the physical act of passing “through the sea” and being “baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea” (using Paul’s language in 1 Cor 10 alluding to the ‘birth passage’ of baptism or being baptized into Christ) will save a person, or that simply the physical act of partaking of the “spiritual food” and the “spiritual drink” (which allude to taking communion) will save a person—let me just take some space to renounce this error right here and now. I have seen this wrong-headed thinking in the lives of people whom I know very well, and I acknowledge that it is a real and common error, but it makes it very difficult for a person to arrive at this erroneous understanding of how salvation works if they are familiar with, and integrate the whole counsel of God into their theology.

But it is no less true that the “sacramental ordinances” of the church (baptism and communion) are most definitely things that Jesus and the apostles have commanded us to “do”. So we are to be diligent about practicing them and we should never downplay them. Some of passages concerning baptism that show us that it is definitely something we are to “do” include Matt 28:19; Acts 2:38; Acts 9:6, 18/22:10, 16; Acts 10:48; Acts 16:30-33. And likewise, there are passages showing us that communion is something that we are commanded to do (see Matt 26:26-27; Matt 28:20[7]; Luke 22:19; 1 Cor 11:23-25).

But why are we to practice the “sacramental ordinances” of the church? Are we to practice them simply to be obedient to God and to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt 3:15)? Certainly that in itself is reason enough to practice them! After all, would not all true Christians want to please God by listening to and doing what His Son has commanded us to do? But we should also desire to do what God tells us to do because the Scriptures repeatedly show that obedience in general is closely tied to our salvation. However, another motivating factor would be that there are Scripture passages in the N.T. that reveal specific things that are mediated to us from God through the “sacramental ordinances” of the church.

Concerning why we should practice baptism, we see in Scripture that people were baptized in order to have their sins washed away (Acts 22:16), to get into Christ (Rom 6:3), to put on Christ (Gal 3:27), to be added to the church (Acts 2:41) or to be placed into the one body (1 Cor 12:13), to receive initial salvation (Mark 16:16, 1 Pet 3:21, Tit 3:5), to be buried with Christ and raised with Him (Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12), to obtain initial forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38[8]), and it was closely linked with receiving the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38, John 3:5, Tit 3:5, etc.) as well as initial justification and initial sanctification (1 Cor 6:11)—and that is just to mention a few of baptism’s more obvious Scriptural purposes. Paul did not minimize baptism[9] and neither did any of the other early Christians who were considered to be orthodox. In fact, the earliest Christians believed that, in the normal course of things, the salvation process was not complete without water baptism. And they often used very strong language in refuting those (like the Gnostics) who said differently—even going so far as to speak of them as being heretics, apostates, and unbelievers. And in this present day and age, many Christians have fallen into these same Gnostic errors and as a result have simply cut out water baptism from the salvation process altogether. For many modern Christians, baptism is not even worth mentioning because they think that it is merely symbolic—and the logical conclusion that many modern Christians end up coming to is: “So why even do it? It is not necessary.”

Concerning communion, the “proof texts” we have to work with in the N.T. are very few. I readily concede that passages dealing with obedience and knowing God and His Son are very abundant and that the passages specifically dealing with baptism are considerably less than those concerning obedience and knowing God and His Son. And I concede that the proof texts addressing the question of why we should practice communion are even fewer still—but I do believe that there are some passages in the N.T. that seem to indicate that when the church partakes of communion, it becomes a bit more than simply a symbolic memorial act. For this reason, I believe we should agree “do it” and be satisfied to leave it as a mystery as to exactly how communion affects us spiritually and simply accept the ancient Christian teaching that it just does somehow.

Let us look at the three main passages that I believe indicate that the Lord’s Supper is more than “a sign” or a symbolic memorial event (although I do not deny that it has a symbolic element to it): First, of all we have Jesus’ words when He instituted the Supper. He referred to the bread as his body and the cup as his blood (Matt 26:26-28; Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20; 1 Cor 11:23-29). Paul wrote to the Corinthians on this matter in 1 Cor 11:23-30:

“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes. Therefore whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep.”

Not only does Paul quote Jesus’ words identifying the communion elements as His body and blood, but because the elements are “spiritual food and drink”, Paul warns the Corinthians not to participate in communion in an unworthy manner[10]. Because Christ is somehow present in the bread and the cup, unworthy partakers of it (or those who partake in an unworthy manner) will be “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord” and “eat and drink judgment” to themselves. This sounds like a pretty serious spiritual thing (not to mention that v.30 shows that it also affected them physically), and therefore it sounds like Paul believed communion to be more than just a memorial meal.

Second, we have 1 Cor 10:16-17, where Paul writes:

“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.”

The view that sees communion as a simple commemoration of Jesus’ death does not quite capture the force of what Paul puts forth in this passage. We express the truth that we are one body when we take communion together, because in this celebration, we are really, but spiritually sharing in the body and blood of Christ. And this is confirmed (in v. 20-22) when Paul seems to suggest that demons are really, but spiritually present (at the “table of demons”) and that people were partnering with demons when they ate food that had been dedicated to them. Paul seems to be talking about something more than mere symbols here. Likewise, the Lord is really, but spiritually present in communion and believers partner with Him when they eat the bread and drink the cup that is dedicated to Him. Taking communion is meant to aid in bringing about unity in the church. But sadly, it has historically been a source of contention and disagreement.

The third passage that I would put forth is John 6:53-58:

“Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven–not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.'”

The traditional interpretation of this passage is that Jesus was referring to communion. This is a valid and completely orthodox interpretation which is perfectly in line with what appears to be the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. In this passage the two issues of communion and salvation/eternal life seem to come together, which is exactly why being excommunicated used to be considered to be such a big deal, and why it still ought to be a big deal to us. When Christians believe that Christ is at least spiritually present in the communion elements and that when we partake of communion we are in a real but spiritual sense, “eating the flesh” and “drinking the blood” of the Son of God—these Christians are not holding to some erroneous interpretation of John 6:53-58, they are simply holding to the faith that was once for all delivered! We should take communion, not only to be obedient, but also because it is part of “abiding” in Christ. Without trying to explain exactly how partaking of communion affects us spiritually– according to this interpretation–it is connected to receiving eternal life, and it appears to nourish us spiritually. It is entirely possible that taking communion is part of receiving the on-going spiritual cleansing by the blood of Jesus (on-going remission of sins) that 1 John 1:7 & 9 speaks of, meaning that taking communion may be linked to walking in the light and confessing our sins, because it is connected to the issues of obedience and reconciliation[11]. It is also entirely possible that taking communion is one way that we appropriate the benefits of those “exceedingly great and precious promises” that Peter speaks of (in 2 Pet 1:9) “that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature,” but only if we have “escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” By receiving communion in the proper spiritual state, it could very well be that it is an aid towards our sanctification, our growing in grace, or our partaking “of the divine nature.”

Conclusion

This writer freely admits that it is at least possible that the entire pre-Nicene church got it wrong on these issues of baptism and communion. But it is a hard fact that the pre-Nicene church interpreted the Scriptures to be teaching that both of these “sacramental ordinances” were closely related to our salvation. Maybe the entire early church misunderstood the Apostles on this—but if so, then this would mean that the Apostles failed in their duty to pass on the faith to their hearers. It also means that the heretics (the Gnostics) were right in saying that God would not stoop to using material things in order to aid in bringing mankind to salvation.

Many Christians today make assertions that sound very Gnostic. They say that both baptism and communion are nothing more than beautiful symbols.[12] They say that nothing actually happens in our observance of either one of them. And some even dare to carry this reasoning to its logical conclusion and end up either implying or actually saying that it is not necessary for us to practice either baptism or the Lord’s Supper.

But let us apply the logic of “Pascal’s Wager” to this issue. If these “symbolic-ordinance-only” Christians depend on this doctrine and then live that doctrine out to its logical conclusion (failing to receive baptism & communion themselves while also failing to administer them to others), and then in the end it turns out that baptism and communion were indeed necessary for eternal life—then they not only would be guilty of misleading and stumbling[13] others (due to either failing to teach the necessity of the sacraments or in failing to administer the sacraments), but they themselves would miss heaven (if they failed to receive the sacraments).

However, if “sacramental ordinance” (meaning “symbol with power”) Christians live their doctrine out to its logical conclusion (purposely seeking to receive baptism & communion themselves while also being careful to administer them to others), and then in the end it turns out that they were wrong and both baptism and communion were indeed optional practices that were only symbolic and had no bearing whatsoever on our salvation—then they will still enter the pearly gates because they will have done the will of their Father in heaven on this issue (having been obedient in both teaching, receiving, and administering God’s “ordinances”). And if the reader thinks that I (the writer) sound a bit Catholic in having expressed these ideas—I can only plead guilty! (I am catholic, but I am not Roman Catholic.)

[1] An ordinance is a command. People who view baptism and the Lord’s Supper as only being ordinances, instead of being sacraments, believe that their meaning lies in the simple fact that the people who engage in them are obeying God.

[2] A sacrament is traditionally understood as a means of grace. Something is sacramental when it is said to “bear the divine.” Some people see baptism and the Lord’s Supper as sacraments in that God uses them as a means of dispensing grace to those who participate in them.

[3] The efforts of early Christians to combat the beginnings of Gnosticism can be seen in 1 Tim 6:20-21 and 1 John 4:3.

[4] In an effort not to offend those who may have an aversion to extra-biblical writings, the early Christians will not be quoted in this paper. Let the reader search out this information themselves if there is any doubt as to what the early church believed on the subjects of baptism and communion.

[5] Or at least, nearly universal, because if it was completely universal we would not be aware of differing opinions that would cause those who held them to end up being branded as being “heretics.”

[6] Docetists taught that the Son only appeared to take on flesh, but that it was actually an illusion.

[7] In this verse Jesus tells the apostles to teach future disciples to observe all things that He had commanded them to do—this would include observing Communion.

[8] Many Christians will argue that baptism is not for the forgiveness of sins, but that only Jesus’ blood is for the forgiveness of sins. But when we consider both that Matt 26:28 (in the context of the Lord’s Supper) teaches that Jesus’ blood is “for the forgiveness of sins” and that this same exact phrase occurs at Acts 2:38 when speaking of baptism, it seems obvious that in the act of baptism is where and when the believer comes into initial spiritual contact with the cleansing blood of Christ.

[9] People often use 1 Cor 1:12-17 as a proof text to try to show that water baptism is either not essential to the Christian faith or is not a necessary component of the gospel. But Paul is not degrading or down-playing baptism in this passage. He is simply expressing his thankfulness that he did not personally baptize any more of the Corinthians than the handful that he did. He did not want to do anything that might encourage misplaced devotion—as the baptized sometimes have towards their baptizer. Paul is saying that as an apostle, his primary job was to preach the gospel. He preached and taught those who made commitments to Christ to be baptized into Him, but Paul himself did not have to be the one who actually did the baptizing—he had people helping him who could do that. In any case, the converts’ loyalty was to be Christ, not to Paul or Apollos or to Cephas.

[10] “Manner” does not have to simply mean the way in which we partake, as so many commentators would have it. It could just as well refer to the way or manner in which we are living at the time that we partake. For example see 2 Pet 3:ll: “what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness”, and Jude 15: “to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.” And how can some people dismiss this explanation by merely saying that “no one is worthy” when the Bible repeatedly speaks of people as being worthy or exhorts us to worthiness (see 1 Kings 1:52; Matt 10:10-13, 37-38; Luke 20:35; 21:36; Acts 5:41; Eph 4:1; Col 1:10; 1 Thes 2:12; 2 Thes 1:5, 11; 1 Tim 5:17-18; Rev 3:4 and various others)? It is a fact that the Bible repeatedly speaks of fallen humans as being practically righteous, just, blameless, worthy, good, godly, holy, faithful, saints, or upright and it repeatedly exhorts us to be that way.

[11] On communion being connected to reconciliation, Matt 5:23-24 is a passage that is often referred to.

[12] But where are such words or teachings to be found in Scripture?

[13] Causing someone to stumble in their faith is no small matter. In Mark 9:42, Jesus said: “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.”