Americanized Baptist Reduction of the Sacraments and its Origins

The more I have been challenged by Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Reformed Christians on the historical roots of American Evangelicalism and especially the non-Reformed Baptist (Independent Fundamentalist/Southern) denominations, the more I find severe inconsistencies in theological views but especially when it comes to epistemology. I was raised in the non-denominational American Baptist view my entire life so I have been sympathetic to it for nearly my entire Christian life and I want to continue to be sympathetic to the ones who truly are just passionate about loving God with all their heart, mind, soul, and strength. However, the more I engage with and understand the foundations of the core beliefs these newer American Baptists hold, the more and more incoherent it gets especially when digging down on even the most basic of epistemological discussions. There really is nothing but speculation, blissful ignorance, and even arrogance in that ignorance regarding Church history and the early development of the Church at the very root. You know it's concerning when the more I study into the real theology of the traditional churches, the more grace and understanding I can offer them for their beliefs, but the more I study into the real theology of the new Baptists, the less grace and understanding I can offer for theirs.

This ignorance of Church history can work for people up to a certain point and the focus on scripture does and should provide a much deeper memorization and knowledge of the Word which is one of the upsides for sure. The downside, however, is that it can lead to wild variation in the interpretation of scripture if there is no regard given to the ones who were most active in the early church correcting and rooting out the worst heresies that were creeping in from the start. It can even lead to the return of many of these early heresies as well. I do see many many ignorant baptists that have returned to Nestorianism, Modalism, and, especially when concerning eschatology, Gnosticism. It also leads to a total inability to defend why the Scripture is even Scripture in the first place which is probably one of the most dangerous concerns with throwing out Church History entirely. "Because it's true or because it is" is an unacceptable answer to any question especially when trying to defend a belief you hold. Just because Jesus Christ is God doesn't mean you give some purely experiential anecdote or claim as your primary argument for why it is true. The same goes for "Why is the text contained in the Bible the God-breathed Word of God?". You must have a coherent, reasoned answer for these questions. Otherwise, you have zero business debating or arguing your claim to anyone who questions the validity of your claim. Apologia is the Greek word used for "reasoned defense" in 1 Peter 3:15. This word is the word used for a legal defense as if you are in court. Would you want a lawyer who turns to the jury and just says "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, he's innocent because I didn't see him do it and I've known him my whole life and he would never do this. I rest my case." and then sit down? Personal spiritual experience is incapable of holding up in court, though it may be a powerful reason for you yourself or maybe your family members who love and respect every word you say automatically.

As I have dug to defend Protestantism from criticism from Catholics and Orthodox and as I have dug into Catholicism and Orthodoxy to defend them from unfair strawman criticism from Protestants, I have found that the reformation was an incredibly beneficial thing to happen in the Church and it has even led to good changes made especially in the Catholic Church. They still have their accretions for sure, but it has been much more moderated when compared to the overt evil financial abuses of the indulgences of the past. However, the low-church Baptists that have become popularized in lieu of the more traditional Anglicans, Quakers, and Puritans of America's past seem to be far more anti-Catholic than they are Christian in their theology. Anything that a Catholic would have common ground with a traditional protestant has been thrown out the window to the point that there is even a belief that none of the Church Father saints were saved and were all preaching a damnable and heretical false Gospel.

There are two large, salvifically concerning issues I have seen arise in the non-Reformed Baptists that I find just as troubling as Icon Veneration, Intercession of the Saints, and even the Marian Dogmas such as the bodily assumption. The first and largest issue is the reduction of the necessity of repentance of sins and an ignorantly large amount of emphasis given to the thief on the cross being an example of how any Christian can function in life with a living-faith. The second issue is a logical progression from the first mistake which only makes the first one even worse. This is the severe dumbing down and reduction of the spiritual significance and salvific nature of the sacraments. They are so reduced in these churches that I think they would even wince at the term "Sacrament" or "Eucharist", or even reject the Nicene Creed due to the language of "one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins" which is directly out of Holy Scripture. The absolute destruction of these undeniably required commands from Jesus Christ Himself all in an effort to logically deconstruct Faith Alone down to the absolute bare minimum using purely human and earthly logic the way a progressive leftist deconstructs Christianity while claiming to be hyper-conservative is hilariously ironic. "Required for what?" is nothing but an attempt to lessen the holiness of these fulfillments of Old Testament prophecy that hold immense spiritual and salvific power according to both Christ Himself and all of the Apostles and their earliest successors. Just because an early successor such as Ignatius agreed with Paul on the participatory sacrificial nature of the Lords Supper does not mean that one has any right to reject this nature due to their own intentional illogical re-framing of what Paul was teaching in passages like 1 Corinthians 10.

One redeeming quality is actually one of the largest strengths of the new non-traditional Baptist movement is their evangelism they refer to as "Soul Winning". They evangelize more than any other denomination to my knowledge; a strength they share greatly with the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. However, in their evangelism, they completely remove half of the command Jesus gave in the Great Commission. "Soul Winning" in teaching the bare minimum of what is required to be saved, leading them in a prayer that may or may not have any real meaning to the individual and then leaving saying their soul has been won is only a third of what Christ commanded:

¹⁸ And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

¹⁹ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

²⁰ Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

We are called first to make disciples (teach and baptize) of all nations. A disciple is a loyal follower of Jesus Christ, not simply one who believes he was the Son of God and does nothing else. Teaching to observe is also a commanded requirement in evangelism meaning that these special commandments Christ started (especially Baptism and the Lord's Supper) are absolutely a necessity to emphasize and teach to those who are being saved and are evidences of a regenerated heart. One without any changed life and behavior as a result of their faith absolutely can bring salvation into question and also absolutely does not conflict with assurance of salvation in any way. This teaching is extremely consistent with scripture as well. A living faith is the faith that is required for salvation and the Holy Spirit will absolutely be changing someone from the inside out. To claim this undeniably unanimous (both historically and scripturally) doctrine is somehow a heretical "works-based" salvation is to entirely misunderstand and/or intentionally mischaracterize the teaching of the apostles. A mind that has repented towards God implies and requires a mind changed about sin as well at the very least. The flesh is just the body and is weak, but the heart is changed through the Holy Spirit and will be troubled by ones own sin as a result of their genuine salvation. One who does not turn away from their sin cannot be turned towards God in any way shape or form just as God cannot tolerate even the tiniest amount of sin in His presence. Letting this lack of sound doctrine influence evangelism dangerously leads to a lot of falsely assured people who do not understand what turning their hearts towards God even actually means and implies.

This awfully non-scriptural and severely reductionist view of Sola Fide, a true doctrine that stands powerfully and unopposed by the belief of the necessity of the Sacraments, has led to having an offensively low view of the Sacraments. Churches that are flippantly distributing the elements with no reverence and no fencing of the Table as little as once a year. It is not just a symbolic remembrance to be treated as if it has little to no significance and I am going to make a rock solid case for that from scripture and use that basis to explain why Saint Ignatius, appointed by the apostles themselves to be the Bishop of the Church in Antioch around 60-70AD was correct to describe the Lord's Table as:

breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ. 

And Justin Martyr (100-165AD) said the following:

And the offering of fine flour, sirs, which was prescribed to be presented on behalf of those purified from leprosy, was a type of the bread of the Eucharist, the celebration of which our Lord Jesus Christ prescribed, in remembrance of the suffering which He endured on behalf of those who are purified in soul from all iniquity, in order that we may at the same time thank God for having created the world, with all things therein, for the sake of man, and for delivering us from the evil in which we were, and for utterly overthrowing principalities and powers by Him who suffered according to His will. Hence God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, says the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, says the Lord: but you profane it.’ Malachi 1:10-12 [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane [it]. (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, Chapters 31-47)

Any Christian who views the Holy Scripture as infallible and claims to hold it in the highest regard as the only final authority for the Church should be able to understand and at the very least, sympathize with this view. It is also what every single Christian denomination both Protestant and non-Protestant alike outside of the non-traditional Baptists unanimously hold with varying explanation as to how it works (not that americanized Baptists would care about this fact to begin with as absolute unanimity outside of themselves is no indicator of falsehood to them). Nonetheless, having a high view of baptism and especially the Eucharist is entirely compatible with Sola Scriptura as scripture clearly teaches the significance through fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies (breathed by the Holy Spirit not left up for anyone's individual interpretation).

I will be reluctantly using the King James version that was handed down by the last Prophet Pastor Steven Anderson (Peace Be Upon Him) so it is even more abundantly clear that this is a real scriptural teaching and not some blasphemy contained within the earliest Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. I will, however, use the Greek lexicon to compare Paul's language to the language used in the Septuagint to prove that he is indeed quoting these prophecies verbatim as that is the Old Testament Paul was using to write his letters at the time.

Malachi 1:6-11

6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

7 Ye offer polluted bread upon mine altar (θυσιαστήριόν); and ye say, Wherein have we polluted thee? In that ye say, The table of the Lord (τράπεζα Κυρίου) is contemptible.

8 And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? and if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? offer it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of hosts.

9 And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the Lord of hosts.

10 Who is there even among you that would shut the doors for nought? neither do ye kindle fire on mine altar for nought. I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand.

11 For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.

Malachi is prophesying here that, due to the profaning of the Lord's Table (altar, or τράπεζα Κυρίου), there will come a time that Gentiles will be offering incense and a pure offering to God on the Lord's Table and that the Lord's name shall be great among the Gentiles. Remember these points:

• What is the Lord's Table? Levite priests must be completely ceremonially clean before entering the Holy of Holies or be struck down dead immediately for coming before God in an unworthy manner to offer sacrifice. (Leviticus 16)
• The wording used for the "altar" being θυσιαστήριόν, or "Lord's Table" being τράπεζα Κυρίου in the Greek.
• The prophecy that Gentiles will be actively offering a pure offering before the Lord in every place.

Now we look to 1 Corinthians 10:

¹⁴ Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

¹⁵ I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

¹⁶ 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?

¹⁷ For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

¹⁸ Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar (θυσιαστήριόν)?

¹⁹ What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

²⁰ But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

²¹ Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table (τράπεζα Κυρίου), and of the table of devils.

²² Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

and jumping down a little further to 1 Corinthians 11:27-29:

²⁷ Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

²⁸ But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

²⁹ For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.

Yes, the apostles and Christ Himself did affirm that it is to be done in remembrance of Jesus, but they also teach that it is so much more significant than just that. Paul is clearly arguing for some form of presence of the Lord in Communion, either spiritual or physical. I tend to fall into the spiritual camp, but the Lord is definitely present. What other reason would Paul have to severely warn people about partaking of the altar in an unworthy manner? All of Paul's explicit teaching here is verbatim aligning with what is taught in the Old Testament regarding worthy sacrifice to God. I can already hear the accusations against me trying to claim I'm being "too Catholic" thinking that I'm arguing that Christ is being re-sacrificed to God here or something. By no means! I am arguing that eating of the Lord's Supper is direct fulfillment of Malachi 1 where we are participatory agents in the already once-and-for-all, perfect, sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ by eating of his body (spiritually or physically) the same way a Levite priest is permitted to eat of the atonement sacrifice after it has been sacrificed as a second step in participating in that sacrifice. Paul uses identical language to what he was reading in the Septuagint and the words are also identical in the KJV. Paul as well as the early Church Fathers knew exactly what was being fulfilled by the Lord's Supper and wrote about it explicitly. So a purely symbolic remembrance view of this Sacrament is wholly unacceptable from both a Sola Scriptura standpoint and a historical standpoint. There is a good reason the earliest Saints wholly back up what Paul is writing here and even reference the same scripture and to reject what they taught about this sacrament purely on a selfish, ignorant, and prejudiced view that they were Catholic or Orthodox despite being in the same generation as the apostles is absolutely foolish. All of these fallings away from good and true tradition are a result of throwing the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to Catholic and Orthodox accretions. Just because there is common ground to be had on some tradition and doctrine that is indeed apostolic in nature and aligns perfectly with scripture, does not mean we reject it just because it is common ground with those who are wrong on other things.

I pray that as we lose more and more protestants to the Catholic and Orthodox churches here in America that more and more Baptist churches reform themselves to follow scripture more accurately and respectfully as well as returning to their historical roots so they at least have one single coherent argument to work with when it comes to convincing their own congregation that they are more correct than the Catholics and Orthodox. All the other protestant denominations respect scholasticism and are able to make a reasoned defense for the faith that is within their churches. Holy Spirit please provide these nominal Baptists the wisdom to teach more faithfully and scripturally so they to can be able to make a reasoned defense for the very real faith that is within their churches as well.