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

Murray,
Sorry that I did not recognize that you had mentioned Zwingli. Yes, the
only Baptist church in their terminology are individual congregations.
The groups are commonly conventions or associations on this side of the
pond, whereas your group forms a union.

There is much to commend in Zwingli, but he is detested in Anabaptist
circles as the most vicious persecuter among the reformers. But it was
Catholics who almost exterminated the Hutterites.
Dave (ASA)

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:45:59 +1100 Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
writes:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I don't want to say too much about US Baptists as opposed to
> Australians because I'm not very well informed on the history of the
> former but I do get the feeling that there is a much stronger
> Anabaptist strain in US Baptist thought when contrasted with the
> Calvinistic and Liberal emphases typical of UK and Australian
> Baptists.
>
> This, at least to me, makes sense of some of the differences in
> outlook which I encounter.
>
> I will take friendly objection to your remark that nobody mentioned
> Zwingli as I actually DID mention him - although that's pedantry of
> the first order, of course, as I didn't DISCUSS his point of view
> <smile>. Good to bring him up, however, not just because I greatly
> admire Zwingli the man, but also because I wouldn't be the least
> surprised if his approach to biblical theology informs, and hence
> explain quite a bit about, some of the different Baptist approaches.
>
> If I might offer a very crude comparison of Zwingli and Luther (for
> the benefit of those not familiar with Zwingli), the former
> basically took the view that anything not permitted by scripture is
> forbidden, as opposed to Luther who took the view that anything not
> forbidden is permitted. In practical terms this meant that, for
> instance, as the New Testament nowhere says anything about musical
> instruments in church services Zwingli took that as cause for
> rejection, Luther took it as cause for acceptance. And it strikes me
> that there is something of that sort of distinction between some US
> Baptists (who we might label "Zwinglian Anabaptists") and others who
> are more "English Calvinist" or even "Modern Liberal".
>
> In respects of Zwingli, I'm not sure that I like how his biblical
> exegesis gave rise to a quite "reductionist" church order and I
> think Luther's more tolerant approach to such issues as art, music,
> liturgy and so on has much to commend it. However, I think Zwingli's
> pneumatology is excellent (it seems to lay much of the foundation
> for Calvin's) and as a pastor he simply can't be faulted - he was
> away from Zurich when the plague struck his congregation and his
> response was to RETURN to the city to discharge his spiritual
> duties. Quite remarkable when you think that every body else was
> running for their lives, that 25% of the population died, and
> Zwingli actually contracted the plague but survived. Ultimately,
> Zwingli died in battle NOT as a combatant but because he refused to
> allow his parishoners to go to war without the benefit of his
> pastoral ministry. Very much a "true shepherd" rather than a
> "hireling" (Jn 10:11b-12a). So I greatly admire some aspects of
> Zwingli's life a
>
>
> nd theology - but his view of the sacraments? Perhaps not so much. I
> think it notable that Calvin - in picking up Zwingli's mantle as the
> reformer of the Swiss church - chose to reject the Zwinglian
> position in favor of something closer to the Lutheran point of view.
>
> On the multiplication of Baptist groups - I personally have no
> problem with this whatsoever given that I hold a rather extreme
> notion of free church ecclesiology. I just don't think that
> organizational unity counts for all that much and think that it's
> simply a pragmatic reality that Christians don't (and won't ever)
> agree on a whole lot of issues. Indeed, I think it's only because
> Baptists acknowledge their differences that we APPEAR more divided
> than other Christian traditions. But if one really knew just how
> much theological variation exists within these other traditions,
> then one wouldn't be suckered into thinking that Baptists are
> somehow alone in exercising a degree of independence. To which one
> might add the point that two quite independent Baptist churches
> might be so for no other reason than adherence to a principle of
> congregational government. Indeed, in my own circles we make
> reference to the Baptist UNION - deliberately avoiding the term
> "denomination" and NEVER
>
>
> using the term "Baptist Church" as a collective description. So one
> has, in Victoria, about 150 independent Baptist churches which
> recognize enough common ground to form a union, but who would never
> consider becoming a denomination or merging to become "the" Baptist
> church (singular). Point being that the perspective on unity /
> disunity is quite different from where I sit than might be the case
> for others.
>
> Anyway, I have (as usual) digressed - all I really wanted to say is
> that proliferation of Baptist groups is simply non-problematic from
> the perspective of Baptist ecclesiology and, indeed, my personal
> outlook is simply to see other groups (even Roman Catholics) as just
> one more instance of people exercising their right to worship
> according to their own lights. But this is only to say that a
> Baptist ecclesiology frames discussions on church unity in a manner
> which makes church disunity at an organizational level quite
> unobjectionable. Rather, what's considered important is unity at a
> spiritual level. Which begs that sad acknowledgment that even there
> Christian unity can very often go unrecognized.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray
>
> D. F. Siemens, Jr. wrote:
> > Murray,
> > The point you make about the variety of Baptists may be expanded
> greatly.
> > My recollection is that some time ago the report was that there
> were some
> > 400 different Baptist groups, but I don't know if that was only in
> the
> > States. I recall a Primitive Baptist Church where they had no
> musical
> > instruments, but the hymnbook had shaped notes to help cue the
> singers.
> > Also, they would not have a local pastor, but depended on
> itinerant
> > teachers. The group with the most curious name that I have
> encountered is
> > the Two Seeds in the Spirit Predestinarian Baptists, countered by
> the
> > Free Will Baptists. Years ago there was a Northern Baptist
> Convention,
> > renamed American. It gave rise to the Conservative Baptist
> Convention. An
> > earlier split produced the General Association of Regular Baptist
> > Churches. I recall two groups that had ethnic roots, Swedish and
> German
> > respectively. A different ethnicity produced some Black groups. I
> have no
> > idea how many completely independent Baptist Churches exist.
> >
> > The discussion has noted the views of Luther and Calvin, along
> with those
> > of Roman Catholics, with a mere mention of Orthodox views. Nobody
> seems
> > to have mentioned Ulrich Zwingli, who had a notable debate with
> Brother
> > Martin. His view was shared by most of the Anabaptists, though
> they
> > recognize him as one of their chief persecuters. I think that the
> view
> > they shared would reject "means of grace," but recognize that
> remembering
> > the Lord's death is spiritually beneficial.
> > Dave (ASA)
> >
> > On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:28:31 +1100 Murray Hogg
> <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
> > writes:
> >> Hi Coope,
> >>
> >> You wrote:
> >> I mention the former possible meaning to clarify Murray’s citing,
>
> >>> which I suspected might be considered an erroneous view of the
> SB
> >>> church, which it is not, I feel safe to say. Just trying to
> >> eschew
> >>> obfuscation. J
> >> Just to help eschew obfuscation; my remarks had nothing whatever
> to
> >> do with the SB church.
> >>
> >> They were taken from our own Baptist Union of Victoria doctrinal
> >> statement/constitution and merely reflect the facts that (1)
> >> Baptists don't speak as as a monolithic entity on the question at
>
> >> hand; and (2) the idea of sacraments as a means of grace can lurk
>
> >> behind the use of language which we might initially see as quite
> >> antithetical to that sort of view.
> >>
> >> So, I was speaking as an Australian - more specifically a
> Victorian
> >> - Baptist in order to make the point that whatever US Baptists
> might
> >> think on the question of the sacraments, there is one stream of
> >> Baptist thought (mine!) which certainly does NOT think "symbol
> only"
> >> is a valid theological point of view.
> >>
> >> Actually, as an overly lengthy aside, I have quite a difficult
> time
> >> trying to convince people of two points: first, that our
> Australian
> >> Baptist tradition ought to be traced back to UK rather than US
> >> Baptists - which point is important because it determines how one
>
> >> might legitimately appropriate or appeal to Baptist tradition in
> the
> >> Australian context. Second, that the UK Baptists were reacting
> not
> >> against Roman Catholicism but Anglicanism - which is important
> given
> >> that our (Australian) formulations of sacramental theology (among
>
> >> other things) need to be seen as standing across from Anglican
> >> rather than RC formulations. My stream of Baptist tradition, in
> >> other words, never really cared to argue against the idea of the
> RC
> >> Mass, its metaphysical assumptions and its soteriological
> >> implications for the simple reason that this simply wasn't the
> issue
> >> at hand. Indeed, some early Baptist statements of faith - the
> London
> >> Confession of 1644, for instance - don't even discuss the Lord
> >>
> >>
> >> 's Supper. Those that do treat it tend to be VERY cursory and for
>
> >> any substantial treatment of the nature of the Lord's Supper one
> >> should really turn to those for whom the matter was a substantial
>
> >> issue: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al with the Lutheran treatment
>
> >> being perhaps the most substantial.
> >>
> >> Need I add that the early UK Baptists would have essentially
> taken
> >> the Calvinist line? Indeed, it's interesting to note that by the
> >> time of the Second London Confession of c.1677 the Lord's Supper
> IS
> >> mentioned and the discussion is almost identical to that of the
> >> Westminster Confession (almost a "cut and paste"). In the
> >> Westminster Confession the essential point seems to me to be
> >> maintaining some idea of the Lord's Supper as REALLY efficacious
> >> (i.e. not merely "symbolic") but without ascribing "magical"
> >> properties to the elements. Point being that early English
> Baptists
> >> don't seem to have had much problem with the Anglican view of the
>
> >> Lord's Supper - they recognized that something significant
> happens
> >> in this sacrament and this significance does not rely upon an
> >> Aristotelian metaphysic by which the elements are endued with
> >> properties over and above that of ordinary bread and wine. In
> >> short, they seem to have been quite comfortable with the Anglican
>
> >> notion of sacrament in as
> >>
> >>
> >> much as it accepted the idea of the sacraments as a means of
> grace
> >> but rejected the more fanciful Roman Catholic speculations on the
>
> >> nature of the elements as well as the ritualistic accretions of
> the
> >> Roman Catholic mass (lifting up of the host, etc).
> >>
> >> But, back to the main point: no I WASN'T trying to say anything
> much
> >> about Southern Baptists - indeed, my whole response centers on
> the
> >> fact that while my position is Baptist it's NOT Southern Baptist
> and
> >> I no more speak for SB believers than they do for me! Certainly
> no
> >> Southern Baptist would consider our Victorian doctrinal statement
>
> >> authoritative and so my citing same certainly doesn't constitute
> >> "evidence" in regards of SB views on the matter.
> >>
> >> Blessings,
> >> Murray
> >>
> >> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> >> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >>
> >>
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > Click here for free information on how to reduce your debt by
> filing for bankruptcy.
> >
>
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3nfvZeAk1NgU50EChTjGF7D
dRzAW9Mmst525pP6zpNIkw5NH/
> >
>
> 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 Fri Nov 7 14:47:58 2008