Re: eucharist, etc

As with Luther and Calvin and the early Zwingli.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Schneider" <rjschn39@bellsouth.net>
To: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>; "Debbie Mann"
<deborahjmann@insightbb.com>; "Asa" <asa@lists.calvin.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:12 AM
Subject: 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 Wed Mar 8 02:40:30 2006