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

Murray said: Hi Layman Coope, ;)

Thanks for the appropriate emphasis, as it bears repeating; tis humbling but
pertinent.

Just 2 cents? How do you SB's live on 20c a week? :p

Ok, that one went by so fast I hardly felt the breeze, and I wish to feel
the tickle.

Just to make very clear (in case I need to?), when "our" doctrinal statement
says baptism is a means of grace that DOESN'T mean one has to be baptised to
be saved.

Rather the common view (by which I mean the view that my fellow Victorian
Baptists express to me in our various discussions on such matters) is that
baptism is "helpful" - that one obtains some genuine spiritual benefit from
it. And as this benefit comes from God, then it is by definition a gift of
grace. And, voila, Baptism is seen as a means of grace. Something similar is
said of the Lord's Supper.

Yes, but some might take it to mean more of a cause and effect action, which
may not be true as in the case that the person, for some reason, is not
acting on faith. It doesn't seem to be the case that anyone here is
arguing this, admittedly.

In getting back to Christine's original question, then, I think we need to
appreciate that the sacraments bring together faith and action. It's not as
if the presence of faith makes the sacraments of no value. Quite the
opposite. It's the enacting of the sacraments which literally gives
substance to faith. It's when there's no faith to which to give substance,
no faith to "act" out, that the sacraments reduce to mere ritual. In this
context it's simply wrong to speak of the sacraments as "symbol only"
because - even if one rejects the idea that something "magic" happens in the
sacraments - the sacrament is ALSO a concrete expression of faith.
Agreed.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 6 16:03:49 2008