RE: sacraments as means of grace (was Re: [asa] Pregnancy & Communio)

As a Southern Baptist, allow my 2 cents...

I know of no SB churches that would suggest works of any kind is a means to
salvation, including the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Nevertheless, Baptism is required for church membership, but we believe it
is only an expression of faith and not essential to salvation itself. I
think most, but not all, SB churches allow any visitor to join with the
membership in receiving the Lord's Supper but are asked to do so as
believers, though no one is questioned on this point.

Regarding the following,
<cite>Christian Baptism, by which is meant the immersion of believers as
instituted by our Lord, is a personal, public confession of the believer's
identification with Christ, AND ALSO AS A MEANS OF GRACE TO THE CHRISTIAN.
(emphasis added)
</cite>

Confession can be considered an essential element and a means (along with
belief, of course) for salvation (Rm 10:9). I suspect they may be using
the context that confession is made manifest in baptism and that baptism
itself serves this purpose. Since there are other ways to confess Christ,
however, baptism is not considered a requirement for salvation.

Layman Coope

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 8:15 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: sacraments as means of grace (was Re: [asa] Pregnancy &
Communio)

Hi George,

Yes, it's interesting to actually look at confessions of faith and it
doesn't surprise me that Lutheran formulations should emphasize the
sacraments as means of grace.

What's interesting, however, is the way the same sort of ideas "lurk" under
the surface of what otherwise seems far less sacramental language.

In that respect, I was prompted to have a look at the "Doctrinal Basis of
the Baptist Union of Victoria" - which is the doctrinal statement that
member congregations of the BUV officially affirm (although, it has to be
said, one does see quite a bit of interpretive leeway!);

<cite>
The two ordinances of the Lord Jesus Christ, namely, Baptism and the Lord's
Supper, which are of perpetual obligation: Baptism being the immersion of
believers upon the profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and a
symbol of the fellowship of the regenerate in His death, burial and
resurrection; the Lord's Supper being a memorial, until He come, of the
sacrifice of the body and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. \"
</cite>

On the surface this appears to advocate a very minimal sacramentalism - with
baptism being spoken of only as a "symbol".

BUT (wait for it!)

From later in the same document;

<cite>
Christian Baptism, by which is meant the immersion of believers as
instituted by our Lord, is a personal, public confession of the believer's
identification with Christ, AND ALSO AS A MEANS OF GRACE TO THE CHRISTIAN.
(emphasis added)
</cite>

When it comes to elucidating the idea of the Lord's Supper, the actual words
"means of grace" aren't found, but one can see the idea is certainly
present;

<cite>
The Fellowship of the Lord's Supper.
(a) To Baptists the Church is not so much an organization as a fellowship;
effective only as there is spiritual association with the Head of the
Church.
(b) The Lord's Supper is a service of spiritual fellowship whereby, through
remembrance of His Life and Death believers may experience in supreme degree
the reality and influence of His Presence.
(c) It is an opportunity of entering into close fellowship with the Lord in
the Holy of Holies, where there is a re-kindling of love and a
reconsecration of life to His service.
</cite>

I suppose one would have to look in detail at the sacramental theology of
particular groups in order to understand how they are using the various
terms. And an understanding of how such terminology was appropriated in a
given theological context would be very helpful.

I agree, incidentally, that this sort of discussion ought to be seen as very
fruitful in the context of science/faith dialogue and it would be
interesting to draw out the implications. I imagine it would be somewhat of
particular interest for one in the Lutheran tradition and I wonder if you've
written anything on the subject?

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

George Murphy wrote:
> What "most protestants" believe depends on, among other things, who one
> includes as "protestant." But to get to the issue itself, yes, I think
> that those who reject the idea that the sacraments are means of grace,
> however they're categorized, are wrong. For whatever it's worth, the
> term "protestant" was first used of those who later would be called
> "Lutheran" because of their protest against imperial/Roman policy at the
> Diet of Speyer in 1529. The confession of the same group at the Diet of
> Augsburg the next year says, in its 9th article on baptism that "grace
> is offered through it," and in Article 13 that the sacraments are
> instituted not only as outward signs but "in order thereby to awaken and
> strengthen our faith."
>
> This discussion may get interdicted soon as being off-topic but I've
> always felt that the sacraments, precisely because of their material
> (and even technological) character are relevant to theology-science
> dialogue.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:47:22 -0600