Re: eucharist, etc

I might note in regard to George's last point that Gal. 3:28 is stated in
the context of baptism into Christ. Those who have been baptized into
Christ have "clothed themselves" with Christ. In Christ, therefore, all
distinctions of ethnicity, social status, and gender are eliminated ("no
'male and female'", as in Gen. 1:27). The implications, then, for living as
a Christian in a world where these distinctions and divisions were dominant,
form part of Paul's (and his disciples') advice to Christian communities.
He had to work this out on the practical level for his churches.

On the Eucharist, by the time of the Elizabethan settlement, Anglican
theology was left in that state of theological ambiguity that we Anglicans
are well known for: we believe Christ is present but won't define it.

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>; "Asa" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 8:08 PM
Subject: 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 22:12:45 2006