Unassociated with Baptists, “baptistic” is nonsensical.
Back to our discussion. You want to see a biblical defense of the blessing received by participating in Lord’s supper and Baptism verses the grace that is received not of our own merit but by the good pleasure of God’s will?
1) SCRIPTURE: Jhn 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) and 1Cr 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
QUESTION: If Baptism were a means of conferring grace upon a person and a lack of baptism somehow means a lack of sanctification, why would Jesus not baptize? and why would Paul be thankful that he had baptized only two converts?
2) SCRIPTURE: Luke 22:And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and said, Take this, and divide [it] among yourselves:
For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake [it], and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup [is] the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me [is] with me on the table.And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed!
QUESTION: If grace were conferred upon those who participate in the Lord’s Supper, how is it that its power did not extend to Judas Iscariot who took part in the very first Lord’s Supper. I fully realize that you do not (presumably) believe that grace is conferred upon the unregenerate in the Sacraments. Therefore, this verse is more for those who hold that there is some special power in the elements themselves which is salvific in nature.
Scripture: 1 Corinthians 11: 26For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
QUESTION: In this discussion of the Lord’s Supper, Paul is speaking with Christians as is evident in verse 2. He was speaking of those who came to the table with wrong motivations. If, for Christians, the Lord’s Supper were a means of conveying grace upon the individual believer, then why is such emphasis placed upon the actions of the individual, their motivations, and even punishment for taking it unworthily. Would not the grace inherent in the supper be sufficient to overcome the shortcomings of the one who came to the supper hungry and had his/her physical needs in mind rather than the sacrifice of Christ? If not, then the said grace inherent in the sacrament is dependent upon the good deeds and motivations of the communicant. If it is dependent upon good deeds and motivations of the communicant, it is no more grace. Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Therefore, to be consistent in our definition of grace, we have to declare that 1)grace is a gift at God’s discretion 2) it is independent of human works 3) It is different from the blessing which we see in Scripture is often a result of human obedience and works.
Turning these examples around and applying them to blessing, we see blessings as gifts of God to us and from ourselves to each other that may or may not be linked to His grace but can most certainly be connected with human works. The communicant with bad motivation is not blessed by participating in Lord’s supper because God’s grace is somehow lacking in the life of the believer. To the contrary. We are full of God’s grace from the moment of salvation. Rather, the ill-motivated communicant brings the opposite of a blessing, a curse, upon himself/herself because they took the moment too lightly. Is this curse a loss of salvation? No. That is of grace. Rather, this curse is sickness and even death for some of them.
Paul and Jesus not baptizing is also not an issue. Being blessed has nothing to do with your sanctification. One rejoices when one is blessed. One is sad when a blessing is lost. Yet, God’s grace saves regardless of the state of blessing one is in. Paul’s gladness wasn’t due to any disdain for baptism. Rather, the church had divided into factions that saw who they were baptized as being some greater claim to God’s power in their lives. Well, I was baptized by Apollos! Oh yeah, I was baptized by Peter. Paul said “I’m glad I didn’t baptize any of y’all!” (Didn’t know Paul was from South Tarsus did you?) “17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. “
FINAL QUESTION: If the gospel pertains to our justification, sanctification and glorification, then why would Paul have said that Christ didn’t send him to baptize but preach the gospel? Wouldn’t that have been contradictory if baptism really were a sanctifying grace?
As much as I would like to answer your long series of questions, I must point out that you have not defined grace vs. blessing wrt the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
Until you are able to do that and I can see your real objection, I can’t answer your questions because they are really just a diversion from the issue that you raised.
So what is it in all those verses that teach your view of “blessing” vs. my view of “grace” in the sacraments?