Re: [asa] Anabaptist error (Was Re: sacraments as means of grace.....)

Hi George,

Just a background question for one not very informed on Lutheran / Anabaptist discussions: is it the case that the major point of distinction (at least from the Lutheran perspective) is "the Anabaptist error" you mention? That is, would majority Lutheran opinion be that Anabaptists are essentially far too insufficiently sacramental - using "sacramental" in a very broad sense? Not asking for any great development of the theme, or a defense of the Lutheran position, I'm just intrigued if this point might be "the" central theological issue. Although I guess how God actually works in the world is almost always "the" central theological issue, isn't it <smile>?

George Murphy wrote:
> A new subject line may get a bit more attention to a thread that has
> moved a good deal from its original topic.

Who? Us? Get off topic? Nah..... :)

> But with all those qualification, I think that Christians who reject any
> of these 3 ideas (the state as a minister of God, Word & sacraments as
> means, evolution as the means by which God creates living things) ought
> to reflect seriously on just how they think God acts in the world &
> whether or not their views on the matter are consistent.

Interesting observation - and it prompts the realization that I don't recall ever seeing any development of the question of divine action in the world from a YEC perspective. Perhaps we might, in one regard, turn this around and say that an acceptance of biological evolution raises the question of divine action in the world in quite new and important ways. And, speaking hypothetically, this leads theistic evolutionists to investigate this question of divine action in ways which go well beyond the scope of YEC interests?

Going further, perhaps this is in large part why adherents of YEC simply can't grasp the "theistic" component of TE? And perhaps - as you suggest - there's a broader 'Anabaptist error' at play here which makes some folk unable to grasp the "sacramental" nature of TEism?

I have no idea, but it's an interesting line of thinking...

> The Anabaptists in the 16th century were right to object to the
> automatic baptism of infants as a cultural practice as then practiced in
> western Europe, and refusal to baptize babies might have been a
> legitimate protest against abuses. But it's a very different matter to
> deny the _validity_ of baptism that is administered to infants.

Quite - even as a Baptist, I can recognize that ones context determines a great deal here. We find very few Lutherans in Victoria (the majority German immigration was to the vineyard regions of South Australia) so my theological interaction with children's baptism has been largely informed by Presbyterian understandings. Here the theological context is really important and a large part of the distinction between Presbyterian and Baptist views (speaking ONLY of my immediate experience) boils down to a difference in ecclesiology - does one see the church as something one joins voluntarily or as the new covenant community? The answer determines to that question determines a very great deal.

As a result, I've tended to place more emphasis on people's understanding of how their baptism relates to their relationship with God (i.e. how they appropriate their own baptism in their daily experience of God in Christ) rather than worrying about the mode of baptism or the age at which it occurred. This is, by and large, to ask the question of how God is involved in one's everyday Christian experience rather than a "historical" question about when, where, how, and why one got baptised in the first place.

And occurs to me in light of your remarks above that it is to ask exactly the same question of divine action in the world. It's all well and good to ask how God might have acted "back in the day" (whether in creation or baptism) but another thing altogether to ask how God is acting now - whether in his creation or in the life of the believer.

So, as you say, the question of sacraments and the question of creation are really very closely related. Nice observation.

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

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Nov 9 17:27:55 2008