Re: eucharist, etc

The KJV of Acts 16:34 - "he set meat before them and rejoiced, believing in
God with all his house" - can be read that way." But the participle
/pepisteukos/ (long o) is masculine singular. NRSV is clearer: "and he and
his entire household rejoiced that he had become a believer in God."

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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim Wallace" <t.p.wallace@gmail.com>
To: "Bill Hamilton" <williamehamiltonjr@yahoo.com>
Cc: "Debbie Mann" <deborahjmann@insightbb.com>; "Asa" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:52 PM
Subject: Re: eucharist, etc

> My grandfather always pointed out that it is stated that the Philippian
> jailer's household all believed, and hence were old enough to not be
> infants.
> Which doesn't solve all the issues, of course,
>
> --Tim
>
> Bill Hamilton wrote:
>
>>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 22:32:02 2006