RE: eucharist, etc

Infant baptism _is_ regarded by some as the new covenant equivalent of
circumcision. Look at Col 2:11,12.

--- Debbie Mann <deborahjmann@insightbb.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>

Bill Hamilton
William E. Hamilton, Jr., Ph.D.
586.986.1474 (work) 248.652.4148 (home) 248.303.8651 (mobile)
"...If God is for us, who is against us?" Rom 8:31

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Received on Tue Mar 7 21:18:12 2006