Re: The Left Hand of God or "is God a socialist"

*Observing the Eucharist only as a "remembrance"
is the Anabaptist view. Anabaptists are free-will Christians, janice; that
is, they are "Arminian" in theology though that term is applied
anachronistically since they precede Jacob Hermensen (ie., Arminius) by a
century, and we already know what you think about Arminians.*

I'm not sure it's entirely fair to tie the "memorial" view with Arminianism,
since many Baptists with reformed / Calvinist leanings today (of which I
suppose I am one, at least on Tuesdays) might view it only as a remembrance
and not as implying the spiritual presence of Christ as in the traditional
Reformed view.

As to the differences between protestants, particularly evangelicals, and
Catholics on this and other issues, Mark Noll's "Is the Reformation Over" is
highly recommended. Despite serious differences, we have much in common,
particularly that which Paul called "of first importance," the gospel:
"that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was
buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...."
(I. Cor. 15:3).

On 3/7/06, Ted Davis <tdavis@messiah.edu> wrote:
>
> Janice wrote this:
>
> I go by what Jesus said (paraphrased): "... Whenever you do
> this, do it in remembrance of me" - a memorial. Christ is always
> present in his people.
>
> If you believe that to please God, it is essential for you to
> actually go somewhere so that you can "literally" bring Christ down
> from heaven and sacrifice him anew at communion in order to atone for
> your sins, it is essential for you.
>
> Essentials of the faith don't revolve around rituals, they revolve
> around who God is and what he is doing.
>
> There are, and will be plenty of Christians in heaven for whom
> Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation wasn't an "essential" belief.
>
> Or do you not believe that?
>
> ***
>
> Ted replies:
> Yes, Janice, I believe there are and will be plenty of Christians in
> heaven
> who don't believe in Transubstantian or consubstantiation.
>
> But you ducked my point, Janice. The paragraph about essential Christian
> beliefs through the centuries leaves out all these Christians whom you and
> I
> both think are Christians. Do you agree with the sentence right before
> this
> one?
>
> And, what of those many modern Christians who baptize only adult (or
> adolescent) believers by immersion, upon confession of faith? Surely that
> is an aberration from tradition; surely the vast majority of Christians
> past
> and present baptize infants as well as adults. My suspicion is that on
> this
> one you and I are in the majority, but folks like Mr Falwell and many
> contemporary evangelicals do otherwise. What of them? Are they also
> being
> intellectually dishonest? I suspect not.
>
> Now let me come back to the Eucharist issue, Janice, just to focus
> attention more on the problems that the author of the article you posted
> did
> not bring into the issue. Observing the Eucharist only as a "remembrance"
> is the Anabaptist view. Anabaptists are free-will Christians, janice;
> that
> is, they are "Arminian" in theology though that term is applied
> anachronistically since they precede Jacob Hermensen (ie., Arminius) by a
> century, and we already know what you think about Arminians. I'm not sure
> you really appreciate the radical nature of this view of the Eucharist,
> relative to historic Christianity.
>
> My point in going into all of this is not to defend or attack any view on
> the Eucharist or free will. My point (again) is to say how deep these
> waters are, before we jump too quickly into them. Before taking a dive,
> it
> might be best first to become more familiar with the nature of some past
> and
> present theological debates, relative to foundational issues in Christian
> faith, and to become much more familiar with the theological side of
> modern
> religion/science conversation. This, I dare say, is where many have hit
> their heads on underwater rocks: either they can't articulate accurately
> the
> views of many contemporary voices in that conversation, b/c they have not
> taken time to study their positions (perhaps on the assumption that they
> have nothing worth saying), and therefore have missed very significant
> subtleties (I know that "very significant subtleties" sounds like
> quibbling
> over minnows, but often it is not, for "heretics" have been burned for
> misplaced modifiers); or they have defined orthodoxy in such a way that
> the
> truth can't fit into their box. This is one of those cases where casual
> swimmers often drown.
>
> ted
>
Received on Tue Mar 7 15:45:37 2006