baptism and the lord's supper

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper © 2012 Dr Daniel K. Robinson

Baptism and the Lord’s Supper Objectives1:

1. Identify the three basic views of baptism as well as articulating the meaning of

baptism for the individual believer.

2. Identify and explain the subjects for baptism.

3. Identify and describe the points of agreement and disagreement among denominational groups

on the Lord’s Supper.

4. Examine four major views of the Lord’s Supper and the implications of each view.

Outcomes:

The aim of this session is to provide the student with an overview of the two protestant sacraments:

baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The session deliberately stops short of directing the student to a

designated view on either subject in order to allow the student to form their own view according to

their own theological perspective and denominational affiliation.

SacramentorOrdinance?

Before commencing the session we must first (if ever so briefly) address the use of term: sacrament and

ordinance. The Roman Catholic Church nominates seven sacraments: marriage, holy orders,

confession/penance/reconciliation, anointing of the sick/extreme unction, confirmation, baptism and

the Lord’s Supper.

The preference of the Reformation churches is generally to restrict the word ‘sacrament’ to baptism and

eucharist (since these are clearly New Testament rituals ‘instituted’ by Jesus) and to describe as ordinances

the other [five] rituals in use since the time of the undivided church. (Fahey, 2007, p. 278)

1 The framework for this session is guided by the work of Erickson (1998) as outlined in the readings (top of page).

Readings

• Davis (2010). Worship and the Reality of God. Chapter 4 (pp. 113–170)

• Erickson (1998). Christian Theology. Chapters 53–54 (pp. 1098–1134)

• Brand (2004). Perspectives on Spirit Baptism: 5 Views. Read complete text.

Christian Worship PC315/515


1. Baptism

Virtually all branches of the Christian church observe the initiatory rite of

baptism. Taken from the Greek “to immerse” (baptizō) (Provance, 2009, p.

23) baptism is considered a visible and outward expression of a new

believer’s faith in Jesus; an advancement from the world into the body of

Christ. “Theologically, one is baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27) and thereafter is in Christ (Gal.

3:28; 2 Cor. 5:17). To be baptized is to be identified with, or to participate in, Christ’s death, burial and

resurrection (Rom. 6:1–11, esp. 3–5)” (pp. 23–24).

The universal practice of baptism is founded on the instruction from Jesus to “go and make disciples of

all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt.

28:19). Despite the collective acceptance and practice of baptism three questions concerning its

administration still draw considerable debate (Erickson, 1998, p. 1099):

1. What is the meaning of Baptism; i.e. what does it actually accomplish?

2. Who are the proper subjects of baptism; i.e. should it be restricted to those who are capable of

exercising conscious faith in Jesus Christ, or may it also be administered to children and even

infants?

3. What is the proper mode of baptism? Must it be by dipping (immersion), or other methods

(pouring, sprinkling) acceptable?

We will now address each of these questions, surveying the range of denominational responses and

subsequent practices.

The Meaning of Baptism

The Roman Catholic tradition holds to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration: “baptism effects a

transformation, bringing a person from spiritual death to life” (pp. 1099–1100). The most extreme form

of this view (observed in medieval theology2) is found in traditional Catholicism. The classic Lutheran

position shares many features in common with Catholicism. The Lutheran position differs from the

Catholic position insomuch as the sacrament is considered “ineffectual unless faith is already present”

(p. 1100). In so doing the Lutheran view argues that faith is a requisite for the successful application of

the rite whereas the Catholic view holds to the self‐sufficiency of the sacrament. Erickson (1998)

summarises the meaning of baptism writing,

It is a symbol rather than merely a sign, for it is a graphic picture of the truth it conveys.

There is no inherent connection between a sign and what it represents. It is only by

convention, for example, that green traffic lights tell us to go rather than to stop. By contrast,

the sign at a railroad crossing is more than a sign; it is a symbol, for it is a rough picture of

what it is intended to indicate, the crossing of a road and a railroad track. Baptism is a

symbol, not merely a sign, for it actually pictures the believer’s death and resurrection with Christ. (p. 1110)

2 “Medieval theology was tempted into a twofold isolation – that of the believer’s regeneration from the substitutionary work of Christ, and that of the baptismal rite from baptism in its full and basic sense” (Bromiley, 2001a, p. 135).



The Subjects of Baptism

The next logical question is directed to who might be considered the proper subject of baptism.

Accordingly, the discussion typically settles into two views: infant baptism and believer’s baptism. It is

important to note here that our differentiation is not between infant and adult, “for those who reject

infant baptism stipulate that candidates for baptism must actually have exercised faith” (Erickson, 1998,

p. 1111); regardless of age.

Infant Baptism: There is neither direct instruction nor prohibition supporting or

discounting the practice of infant baptism. The practice is founded on the OT practice of

God dealing with families rather than individuals. For example, “when Noah is saved from

the flood, his whole family is received with him into the ark (cf. 1 Pet. 3:20–21)”

(Bromiley, 2001b, p. 133). Other OT examples include the covenantal sign of circumcision

given to Abraham (Gen. 17) which was administered to all the male members of his

family and Israel’s (men, women and children) crossing of the red sea which

“foreshadows not only the sign of baptism but the work of God behind it (cf 1 Cor. 10:1–

2)” (p. 133).

Similarly the NT holds a number of supportive text’s for the practice of infant baptism.

Noteworthy points include Jesus being conceived of the Holy Spirit and Christ receiving

and blessing children (Matt. 19:13–14), correcting those (in this case, his disciples) who

try and dismiss them (Mark 10:14). Children also receive

mention in “Ephesians, Colossians, and probably 1 John. We

also have the important statement in 1 Corinthians 7:14 in

which Paul speaks of the children of marriages that have

become ‘mixed’ through conversion as ‘holy’” (p. 133).

Importantly, many of those who advocate for infant baptism

similarly argue “that those who grow to maturity [adult] should

make their own confession of faith” (p. 133).

Believer’s Baptism: Those who subscribe to baptism as a rite

preserved only for those who profess a faith in Christ, contend

that “the command to baptize follows the command to disciple

(Matt. 28:19)” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1106). Similarly, John the

Baptist (Matt. 3:2, 6) and Peter (Acts 2:37–41) conjoined repentance with baptism. Paul

also develops the contention of faith through repentance in Romans 6.

Two additional observations need to be made here. First, those who hold that baptism is

essentially a sign and seal of the covenant claim that it is not legitimate to impose upon a

child the requirements incumbent upon an adult. Second, they emphasize the objective

aspect of the sacrament. What really matters is not one’s subjective reaction, but one’s

objective initiation into the covenant with its promise of salvation. (p. 1104)



The Mode of Baptism

The final consideration, the mode by which participants are baptised, has two main positions: “that only

immersion is lawful and that the mode is a matter of indifference” (Rayburn, 2001, p. 134). While many

concede that immersion was the primary practice of the early church there are equally as many scholars

who contend that “other modes were permitted…and that some of the influences contributing to the

popularity of immersion well may not have been healthy” (p. 135).

Of the three points (meaning, subject and mode) discussed in this session, mode receives the least

debate. Nonetheless, let’s briefly outline the two arguments as presented by Rayburn (2001) in the

Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (pp. 134–135):

Immersionists: Those how hold to full immersion as the only allowable mode found their

argument on three points:

i. The word baptizein means “to immerse”. Therefore, immersionists maintain, the

command to ‘baptise’ is inherently a command to ‘immerse’.

ii. In order to properly symbolise the death and resurrection of Christ in the rite,

immersionists hold that only the drama of plunging under the water and re‐emerging

adequately represents the scriptural truths (Rom.6:4; Col. 2:12).

iii. Immersionists lay claim to the testimony of the early church, for which immersion

was the primary mode. “Even Martin Luther and John Calvin acknowledge immersion

to be the basic meaning of the term and the original form of baptism practiced by the

early church” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1113).

Non‐Immersionists: The second position is less a case of supporting a particular mode

(immersion, pouring, and sprinkling) than a rebuttal of immersionist arguments. The

following ‘playful’ discussion between a Baptist and Presbyterian minister illustrates the

non‐immersionist view (albeit tongue‐in‐cheek):

After a beautiful dissertation on the subject by the Baptist minister, the Presbyterian minister asked if the Baptist considered a person baptized if he was immersed in water up to his chin. “No,” said the Baptist. “Is he considered baptized if he is immersed up to his nose?” asked the Presbyterian. Again the Baptist’s answer was “No.” “Well, if you immerse him up to his eyebrows do you consider him baptized?” queried the Presbyterian. “You don’t seem to understand,” said the Baptist. “He must be immersed completely in water—until his head is covered.” “That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you all along,” said the Presbyterian, “it’s only a little water on the top of the head that counts.” (Sourcebook, 1996, p. 4069)

“Whatever [position] be adopted, baptism is not a matter to be taken lightly. It is of

great importance, for it is both a sign of the believer’s union with Christ and, as a

confession of that union, and additional act of faith that serves to cement the more

firmly the relationship.” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1114)



2. TheLord’sSupperBaptism is the initiatory rite instituted by Jesus; a one‐off activity of

the individual believer. The Lord’s Supper is an ongoing rite of the

church collectively; “a rite Christ himself established for the church

to practice as a commemoration of his death” (Erickson, 1998, p.

1116). Perhaps it is the connection of the rite to the central gospel

event, Jesus death and resurrection, which has ensured the rite’s

practice in nearly every branch of Christianity throughout history. The universal observance of the Lord’s

Supper has not always been accompanied by complete agreement. In fact the Lord’s Supper has often

been the primary source of schism.

In order to understand the footings on which today’s practice of the rite are placed it is important to

account for the “philosophical presuppositions” (p. 1116) that have helped to shape the debate around

the implementation of the Lord’s Supper.

In some cases the subject of the spiritual or practical value of the Lord’s Supper has become lost in the

dispute over theoretical issues. The theoretical questions are important (they affect the spiritual

considerations), and so they ought not to be too quickly dismissed. If, however, we get bogged down in

the technical issues, and do not move on to deal with the practical meaning, we will have missed the

whole point of Christ’s having established the Supper. (p. 1117)

Erickson (1998) has outlined points of agreement (pp. 1117–1121) and points of disagreement (pp.

1121–1123) which, respectively, conjoin and distinguish branches of today’s church in respect to the

practice of the Lord’s Supper.

Points of Agreement

The following points are broad and open in character:

1. Establishment by Christ: The earliest writing which mentions the

Lord’s Supper is Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (11:17–34).

There has been some dispute, especially during the 19th century,

around the authenticity of Jesus’s statements instituting the Lord’s Supper. This being said, there

is now general consensus “that the establishment of the Lord’s Supper goes back to Jesus

himself. The evidence includes the fact that the three Synoptic Gospels all attribute to him the

words inaugurating the practice (Matt. 26:26–28; Mark 14:22–24; Luke 22:19–20)” (p. 1117).

2. The Necessity of Repetition: Despite some discussion being entertained around Matthew and

Mark’s gospels not including the statement (found in Luke’s account), “do this in remembrance

of me”, it is generally accepted that Jesus meant the rite to be practiced beyond the singular

moment of the Passover feast which he celebrated with the disciples. What is not clear is how



often the rite should be conducted: weekly, monthly, quarterly etc. Perhaps the greatest

challenge lies in making the Lord’s Supper available “often enough to avoid long gaps between

times of reflection on the truths it signifies, but not so frequently as to make it seem trivial or so

commonplace that we go through the motions without really thinking about the meaning”

(Erickson, 1998, p. 1134).

3. A Form of Proclamation: While there is definite disagreement as to the intrinsic value of the

emblems (bread and wine) there is considerable agreement concerning the representational

nature of the rite and the proclamation of Christ’s death that accompanies its practice.

In participating by the Holy Spirit in the body of Christ, which was offered once‐for‐all on the

cross, the members of the church are stimulated and enabled by the same Holy Spirit to offer

themselves to the Father in Eucharistic sacrifice, to serve one another in love within the body,

and to fulfil their sacrificial function as the body of Christ in the service of the whole world, which

God reconciled to himself in Christ (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 10:17). (Wallace, 2001, p. 705)

4. A Spiritual Benefit to the Partaker: Consensus exists around the efficacy of the Lord’s Supper to

the believer. More than mere obligation, “it can be a means or at least an occasion, of spiritual

growth in the Lord” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1120).

5. Restriction to Followers of Christ: All denominations agree that the table and the elements that

are distributed from it are reserved for believers only. “About self‐examination, which we noted

earlier. It is necessary for a person to examine himself, in order to eat and drink in a worth

manner” (p. 1120). This being stated, it is important to remind ourselves that “in the Lord’s

Supper, we remember Christ, not our sins (1 Cor. 11:24; Luke 22:19),

because He has forgotten our sins (Heb. 8:12)” (Wiersbe, 1992, p. 703).

6. The Horizontal Dimension: Represented in the breaking of a single loaf

of bread is the sacrifice of Jesus body broken for us. “In 1 Corinthians

10:15–17 Paul argues that since all partake of one loaf, which is Christ’s

body, they are all one body” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1120). Simply, the

sharing of Christ’s body should remind us of our ‘oneness’ with one

another; “It cannot be appropriately practiced by separate individuals in

isolation” (p. 1121).

“The Eucharist, Communion, or the Lord’s Supper, is the central act of Christian Worship.

It is the celebration of communion with the risen Christ and the true fellowship of the

saints. Every Christian group observes it at different times, and every Christian group has

liturgy of some kind in order to make it part of the worship. But every congregation must

be constantly seeking ways to make sure that it is the meaningful and powerful part of

worship it was intended to be.” (Ross, 2006, p. 468)



Points of Disagreement

Despite the many points of agreement connecting the body of Christ a

number of disagreements continue to exist concerning the Lord’s Supper:

1. The Presence of Christ: Perhaps the most contentious issue

surrounding the Lord’s Supper is the manner in which the presence of Christ is (or is not)

experienced in and through the elements employed by the rite. There are four main groupings

under which denominations congregate (Erickson, 1998, p. 1121):

a. The bread and wine are the physical body and blood of Christ.

b. The bread and wine contain the physical body and blood.

c. The bread and wine contain spiritually the body and blood.

d. The bread and wine represent the body and blood.

2. The Efficacy of the Rite: Considerable debate continues as to the value of the Lord’s Supper.

Some suggest that the rite conveys grace to the communicant. A second view holds that the

communicant is brought into contact with “the living Christ. He is present spiritually, and we

benefit from” (p. 1121) the encounter. The third position maintains that the rite “serves merely

as a reminder of the truth that the Lord is present and available. It’s potential for spiritual benefit

is much the same as that of a sermon” (pp. 1121–1122).

3. The Proper Administrator: Perhaps due to the lack of scriptural directive as to who should (or

should not) administer the Lord’s Supper (Leonard, 1993, p. 171), contention remains as to what

constitutes proper ordination. Specifically, this matter concerns itself with sacerdotalism which is

the “religious belief emphasizing the powers of priests as essential mediators between God and

humankind” (Merriam‐Webster, 2003). The Roman Catholics hold that only a Catholic priest can

administer the elements. They contend that if laity where to try administering the rite the

elements would remain merely bread and wine; not achieving the transformation into the

physical body and blood of Christ. At the other end of the spectrum is those groups who believe

that any believer can preside of the Lord’s Supper as long as the proper intention is held.

4. The Appropriate Recipients: Where all denominations agree that those partaking in the Lord’s

Supper are believers, some debate remains as to what constitutes a ‘believer’. “Some groups

insist that the participant have been properly baptized. Some local congregations distribute the

elements only to their own members. Others specify a minimum age. A particular state of

readiness is often required, at least tacitly or informally” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1122). Nearly all

denominations deny participation to believers known to be living in severe sin; often requiring a

time of confession before partaking of the elements.

5. The Elements to be Used: The final issue which invites discussion is whether the elements

should be the same as those used at the first observance: bread and wine. Is grape juice

acceptable? Can the wine be distributed in mini‐cups or from a communal cup?



Four Major Views

There are four major views regarding the Lord’s Supper. Much of the distinction between each of the

four views is drawn from the theology surrounding Christ’s presence (real or otherwise) during the rite.

Let’s outline the four major views:

The Traditional Roman Catholic View: Formalised during the Council of Trent (AD 1545–63), the

official Roman Catholic view of ‘Holy Eucharist’ applies the doctrine of transubstantiation.

“Transubstantiation is the doctrine that as the administering priest consecrates the elements, an

actual metaphysical change takes place3. The substance of the bread and wine into Christ’s flesh

and blood, respectively” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1124). There are a range of other subtleties applied

alongside transubstantiation (Erickson, 1998, p. 1124; Osterhaven, 2001, p. 705):

o Concomitance: both the body and blood of Christ are in each element. Thus when the cup is

withheld from the laity the whole Christ, body and blood is received in the bread alone.

o Consecration: The high point of the Eucharist is not the communion with Christ but the change of

the elements by their consecration into the very body and blood of Christ.

o Sacerdotalism: Only the ordained priest may consecrate the host (elements).

o Sacrificial Act: The propitiatory sacrifice of Christ, offered again on behalf of the worshippers

serves to atone for venial sins.

The Lutheran View: As previously noted, many of the controversies of the Reformation centred

on the Lord’s Supper. Luther did not seek to bring dramatic change to the established Roman

Catholic norms of transubstantiation. Luther retained the central tenant that Christ’s body and

blood are physically present in the elements, but denied that the bread and wine actually

changed into flesh and blood arguing “the body and blood of Christ are present ‘in, with, and

under’ the bread and wine” (Erickson, 1998, p. 1125). Consubstantiation is the term given by

3 It’s important to note that many Roman Catholics in the modern western world do not hold dogmatically to each literal premise as suggested by the doctrine of transubstantiation.



many to Luther’s position even though it was a term that Luther did not favour. Luther rejected a

number of the facets associated with the Roman Catholic Eucharist; namely sacerdotalism and

the idea that the Mass is a sacrifice. Luther reasoned, “since Christ died and atoned for sin once

and for all, and since the believer is justified by faith on the basis of that one‐time sacrifice, there

is no need for repeated sacrifices” (p. 1125). Despite some commentators accusing Luther’s

position as ‘encouraging superstition’ (Duffield & Cleave, 1983) it was Luther’s desire to “break

the bondage of superstition in which the church was held” (Osterhaven, 2001, p. 706). For Luther

the rite was regarded as a sacrament; “by virtue of taking the elements believers receive a

spiritual benefit they otherwise would not experience. The Christian ought therefore to take

advantage of the opportunity for grace afforded by the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper”

(Erickson, 1998, p. 1126).

The Reformed View: The third major view is the Calvinistic or Reformed view. The Reformed

view maintains that “Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper but not physically or bodily” (p. 1127).

Superficially, Calvin’s position seems to be merely a middle ground between Luther and Zwingli

(the fourth major view which we will look at next); but it is an independent position. Specifically,

Calvin rejected Luther’s “monstrous notion of ubiquity” (p. 4.17.30) and argued against Zwingli’s

staunch position of “memoralism” (p. 4.17.30). “Calvin held that the essence of Christ’s body was

its power. In itself it is of little value since it ‘had its origin from earth, and underwent death’ (p.

4.17.24), but the Holy Spirit, who gave Christ a body, communicates its power to us so that we

receive the whole Christ in communion” (Osterhaven, 2001, pp. 707–708). The following figure

illustrates the Eucharistic divide between the protestant understandings:

The Great Eucharist Divide (Hannah, 2004, p. 15)



Take a moment to reflect on your own views concerning the Lord’s Supper. Which of

the four major views (Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed and Zwinglian) do you

resonate with? Are your views informed by denominational instruction, personal

conviction or both?

The Zwinglian View: Initially Luther’s main opponent was Ulrich Zwingli. While reviewing the

Zwinglian view it is important to contextualise the influence of humanism upon Zwingli, “with its

aversion to the medieval mentality and its adulation of reason” (Osterhaven, 2001, p. 706).

Essentially, Zwingli’s view is heavily reductionist; stripping the rite of all mystery. This is not to

say that the service of the Lord’s Supper is void of importance in the Zwinglian interpretation.

Whilst the rite is reduced to a commemoration of Christ’s death “the value of the sacrament,

according to this view, lies simply in receiving by faith the benefits of Christ’s death” (Erickson,

1998, p. 1128). This position is founded on the denial that “the glorified Christ, now in heaven, is

present in any way that the words bodily, physically, or locally would fit” (Packer, 1995).

Each of the four views is in practice today, but it is important to note that with the passage of time there

has been the development of hybrids; if not in practice, certainly in theology. Osterhaven (2001)

summarises our survey of the four major views writing,

Calvin’s position has received widest acceptance within the universal church. Moreover, it is the position

closest to the thinking of contemporary theologians within both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran

traditions. It is a position that sees the Lord’s Supper as a rite instituted by Jesus Christ in which bread is

broken and the fruit of the vine is poured out in thankful remembrance of Christ’s atoning sacrifice,

having become, through their reception and the sacramental blessing given by the Holy Spirit, the

communion…of the body and the blood of Christ and an anticipation of full future salvation. (p. 708)

Scriptural Imperatives

It is important to allow God’s Word the final say on the matter of the

Lord’s Supper. Again, scripture stops short of offering any specific direction

in the ordering of the rite, but it does offer a number of guiding principles

that should always be considered; regardless of theological position.

John Sweetman (2012) offers a list of New Testament guide‐posts for the

administration of the Lord’s Supper (p. 8):

Communion: “a participation in the body of Christ” (1 Cor. 10:16)

Proclamation: “you proclaim the Lord’s death” (1 Cor. 11:26)

Commemoration: “remembrance” (Luke 22:19)

Giving Thanks: a thankful recital of God’s acts (Acts 2:46–47; 1 Cor. 11:23–24)

Anticipation: a foretaste of things to come eschatologically (1 Cor. 11:26)



References

Bromiley, G. W. (2001a). Baptismal regeneration. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed.,

pp. 135). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Bromiley, G. W. (2001b). Infant baptism. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed., pp. 132–

134). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Calvin, J. (1997). Institutes of the Christian religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

Duffield, G. P., & Cleave, N. M. V. (1983). Foundations of Pentecostal theology. Los Angeles, CA: L.I.F.E Bible

College.

Erickson, M. J. (1998). Christian theology (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Fahey, M. A. (2007). Sacraments. In J. Webster, K. Tanner & I. Torrance (Eds.), The oxford handbook of systematic

theology (pp. 267–284). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hannah, J. D. (2004). Charts of reformation and enlightenment church history (Vol. 2). Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Leonard, R. C. (1993). Worship leadership in the New Testatment. In R. Webber (Ed.), The Biblical Foundations of

Christian Worship (Vol. 1). Nashville, TN: Star Song Publishing Group.

Merriam‐Webster, I. (Ed.) (2003) Merriam‐Webster's collegiate dictionary (11th ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam‐

Webster Inc.

Osterhaven, M. E. (2001). Views of Lord's Supper. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed.,

pp. 705–708). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Packer, J. I. (1995). Concise theology: A guide to historic christian beliefs (Almightiness) Retrieved from Logos Bible

Software 4 database

Provance, B. S. (Ed.) (2009) Pocket dictionary of liturgy and worship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Rayburn, R. S. (2001). Modes of baptism. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed., pp.

134–135). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Ross, A. P. (2006). Recalling the hope of glory: Biblical worship from the garden to the new creation. Grand Rapids,

MI: Kregel Publications.

Sourcebook, S. s. (Ed.) (1996) Encyclopedia of 7700 Illustrations: Signs of the times. Garland, TX: Bible

Communications Inc.

Sweetman, J. (2012). Defining corporate worship: Module 4. Unpublished Learning Guide. Malyon College.

Wallace, R. S. (2001). Lord's Supper. In W. A. Elwell (Ed.), Evangelical dictionary of theology (2nd ed., pp. 703–

705). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.

Wiersbe, W. W. (1992). Wiersbe's expository outlines on the New Testament. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books.

baptism and the lord's supper

Documents