RE: eucharist, etc

A tape I'm listening to states that infant baptism was regarded by some as
being equivalent to circumcision - the initiation into the family of God.
This is quite different of the alternate view of purification - or the
washing away of original sin.

Debbie Mann
(765) 477-1776

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
Behalf Of George Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:09 PM
To: Ted Davis; dopderbeck@gmail.com
Cc: asa@calvin.edu; janmatch@earthlink.net; Pim van Meurs
Subject: Re: eucharist, etc

In brief response to Ted's earlier question about historical views on the
Eucharist - & I add Baptism.

    1) Many NT scholars today would agree that we can't determine from the
NT alone whether or not infants were baptized. The only explicit refernces
we have are to baptisms of adults but there is nothing to rule out infant
baptism & some texts (e.g., the baptism of the jailer at Phillipi "& his
whole house") that may suggest the baptism of small children. In the early
church in a missionary situation most of the baptisms were of adults but
there is some evidence, such as catacomb inscriptions, that show that some
infants were baptized. After Christianity was legalized & became the state
religion this became the norm.

    Two questions ought to be distinguished there: Is infant baptism valid
& should infants be baptized. I think that by the 2d century the general
answer to the 1st question was yes, while there was more ambiguity about the
2d.

    2) In the early church there's little indication that anyone of note
held a purely memorial or symbolic view of the Eucharist - i.e., we remember
Christ but he isn't really present. Controversies among theologians about
the eucharistic presence of Christ occurred in the west beginning in the 9th
& 10th centuries, though the popular view was probably strongly "realistic"
& not very subtle. By the end of the 11th century insistence on the real
presence was well established, as shown by the oath required of the
theologian Berengar in 1079. Transubstantiation was defined as church
teaching by the 4th Lateran Council in 1215 & remains the official RC
position as to how Christ is present in the sacrament. Luther rejected
transubstantiation but not the real presence (& in fact once said "Before I
would have mere wine with the enthusiasts I would have mere blood with the
pope.")

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Davis" <tdavis@messiah.edu>
To: <dopderbeck@gmail.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>; <janmatch@earthlink.net>; "Pim van Meurs"
<pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 5:08 PM
Subject: eucharist, etc

> David, Janice, and others.
>
> I won't post again on this topic, I'll let someone else have the last
> word(s). I changed the subject line to reflect more accurately what this
> is
> about.
>
> I linked Anabaptism with Arminian views specifically b/c of the Anabaptist
> view that the church is those who in a highly visible way freely choose to
> become disciples of Christ, at an age when they are mature enough to
> understand the magnitude and consequences of their decision. Thus their
> view of baptism follows from this.
>
> What they were rejecting at the time was the standard RC view, mirrored in
> the churches of the "magisterial" reformation (those reformation churches
> that were closely tied to state power, such as the Calvinists, the
> Lutherans, and the Anglicans), that princes and kings can impose a
> specific
> creed on their subjects (this led to the Enlightenment view that
> church/state separation is needed); and the view that infants should be
> baptized since they were already actual members of Christ's body on earth,
> a
> membership confirmed later by their own participation as adults in
> religious
> worship. Baptists of reformed leanings (I have heard several outstanding
> preachers from this group, which I greatly respect) do indeed as far as I
> know take an Anabaptist view of the Eucharist without taking free will
> theology. They likewise take adult baptism, obviously, and deny the
> validity of state churches.
>
> I simply wanted to do to things in my earlier posts. (1) point out to
> Janice the inadquacy of trying to define orthodoxy *simply* from the views
> of the majority of Christians in all ages--as important as that really
> truly
> is for defining orthodoxy. (2) show Janice that views I was guessing that
> she held herself, might not fit the particular definition. Believer
> baptism
> and a low view of the Eucharist are NOT majority views in Christendom,
> either historically or now. Unless perhaps we define Christianity in a
> particularly narrow way that denies the most Christians are or have been
> Christians.
>
> As I say, I'm not going further with this.
>
> ted
>
Received on Tue Mar 7 19:11:34 2006