Re: eucharist, etc

There are several ways of understanding the significance of baptism & they
aren't mutually exclusive. Cleansing from sin (Acts 22:16), being joined to
the death & resurrection of Christ (Rom.6:3-5), putting on Christ
(Gal.3:27), new birth (Tit.3:5) & initiation into the Christian community
(Mt.28:19) are all aspects of baptism. It's with the last one there, an
initiation rite, that it parallels circumcision. Of course there's a major
difference in that baptism makes both men and women members of the community
in a way in which circumcision doesn't, at least directly.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>
To: "Asa" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 7:22 PM
Subject: 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 20:09:13 2006