Tying Up Loose Ends on Hyper-Sacramentalism
Here's the reasoning process of one hyper-sacramentalist to show that 1 Cor 6:11 teaches baptismal justification:
The hyper-sacramentalist wants you to believe that "washed" = baptism = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage; that each term refers to the same event at baptism. Notice how shallowly the hyper-sacramentalist views the word "wash" when he says, "kind of sounds like water might be involved does it not?" Yes, and the phrase "I will build this temple" kind of sounds like hammers and chisels might be involved. And the phrase "circumcision of the heart" kind of sounds like a scalpel might be involved. And the phrase "for we who have believed enter that rest" kind of sounds like a sabbath day might be involved. And the phrase "clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump" kind of sounds like a mixing bowl might be involved. And the phrase "for Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed; therefore let us celebrate the feast" kind of sounds like a passover meal might be involved. And the phrase "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" kind of sounds like bread might be involved.
We've already addressed in an earlier entry how the phrase "in the name of" is found in many more contexts outside of baptism than it is in baptismal contexts (see Matt 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13; Acts 3:6, 16; 4:18; 5:40; 9:27-28; 16:18; 19:13; 1 Cor 1:10; 5:4; 6:11; Eph 5:20; Col 3:17; 2 Thess 3:6; James 5:10, 14). Hence, the hyper-sacramentalist's suggestion that Paul's use of this phrase in 1 Cor 6:11 "kind of reminds one of Acts 2:38 and 8:16" is off the mark exegetically. It could refer to that; but it could just as readily refer to something else. Context must decide, and there is no baptism in the context of 1 Cor 6:11.
But just how does our hyper-sacramentalist arrive at the notion that "washed" = baptism = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage? The NASB has it exactly right when it inserts the word "but" (alla) between each independent clause. "Washed," "sanctified," and "justified" are three different actions. And the phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" does not occur with each of those actions, but with the final action only; "justified." For the hyper-sacramentalist's view even to be tenable that final phrase would have had to accompany "washed," not "justified." Alternatively, Paul could have used the word kai ("and") between the clauses rather than alla ("but"). Either of those would have connected the ideas more readily.
But to suggest (as the hyper-sacramentalist does) that "washed" = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage is just too much weight for the passage to bear. Hence, "wash" does not here refer to baptism, but to regeneration. As I've mentioned in a previous post, baptism certainly symbolizes the washing of regeneration, but it just as certainly does not effect our regeneration, much less our justification. And "sanctified" does not refer to baptism, but to the setting apart of the believer from the world. And "justified" certainly does not refer to baptism; it refers to our being brought into right standing with God.
Hence, the hyper-sacramentalist's strained exegesis of this passage is found wanting on all points. I want to make one other point about the absence of any mention of baptism in Galatians in the next blog entry.
My critic wants you to believe that baptism is not in Paul’s mind when he speaks of the occasion when Christians were “washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 6:11 cf. 1:13-15). Let’s see, Paul speaks of being “washed” (kind of sounds like water might be involved does it not?), in “the name” of the Lord Jesus Christ (kind of reminds one of Acts 2:38 and 8:16 does it not?), and yet we are supposed to swallow the idea that water baptism is not in view here! And this is supposed to be “exegesis”? We can’t know what Paul is referring to by being washed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ? Come on!Here is how 1 Cor 6:11 actually reads: "but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" (NASB).
The hyper-sacramentalist wants you to believe that "washed" = baptism = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage; that each term refers to the same event at baptism. Notice how shallowly the hyper-sacramentalist views the word "wash" when he says, "kind of sounds like water might be involved does it not?" Yes, and the phrase "I will build this temple" kind of sounds like hammers and chisels might be involved. And the phrase "circumcision of the heart" kind of sounds like a scalpel might be involved. And the phrase "for we who have believed enter that rest" kind of sounds like a sabbath day might be involved. And the phrase "clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump" kind of sounds like a mixing bowl might be involved. And the phrase "for Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed; therefore let us celebrate the feast" kind of sounds like a passover meal might be involved. And the phrase "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees" kind of sounds like bread might be involved.
We've already addressed in an earlier entry how the phrase "in the name of" is found in many more contexts outside of baptism than it is in baptismal contexts (see Matt 21:9; 23:39; Mark 11:9; Luke 13:35; 19:38; John 12:13; Acts 3:6, 16; 4:18; 5:40; 9:27-28; 16:18; 19:13; 1 Cor 1:10; 5:4; 6:11; Eph 5:20; Col 3:17; 2 Thess 3:6; James 5:10, 14). Hence, the hyper-sacramentalist's suggestion that Paul's use of this phrase in 1 Cor 6:11 "kind of reminds one of Acts 2:38 and 8:16" is off the mark exegetically. It could refer to that; but it could just as readily refer to something else. Context must decide, and there is no baptism in the context of 1 Cor 6:11.
But just how does our hyper-sacramentalist arrive at the notion that "washed" = baptism = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage? The NASB has it exactly right when it inserts the word "but" (alla) between each independent clause. "Washed," "sanctified," and "justified" are three different actions. And the phrase "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" does not occur with each of those actions, but with the final action only; "justified." For the hyper-sacramentalist's view even to be tenable that final phrase would have had to accompany "washed," not "justified." Alternatively, Paul could have used the word kai ("and") between the clauses rather than alla ("but"). Either of those would have connected the ideas more readily.
But to suggest (as the hyper-sacramentalist does) that "washed" = "sanctified" = "justified" in this passage is just too much weight for the passage to bear. Hence, "wash" does not here refer to baptism, but to regeneration. As I've mentioned in a previous post, baptism certainly symbolizes the washing of regeneration, but it just as certainly does not effect our regeneration, much less our justification. And "sanctified" does not refer to baptism, but to the setting apart of the believer from the world. And "justified" certainly does not refer to baptism; it refers to our being brought into right standing with God.
Hence, the hyper-sacramentalist's strained exegesis of this passage is found wanting on all points. I want to make one other point about the absence of any mention of baptism in Galatians in the next blog entry.
posted by NA at 5:33 AM
<< Home