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

Murray -

Differences on the sacraments were & are certainly a significant difference
but there are implications of that (again understanding "sacramental" very
broadly) for the nature of the church &c. Attitudes toward civil authority
were often a more immediate issue in the 16th century, & while, as I
indicated, I think that's connected with sacramental issues, the former
isn't simply a subset of the latter.

Article 12 of the 1580 Formula of Concord dealt with "Other factions,
heresies and sects which never embraced the Augsburg Confession," and the
first group to be dealt with is the Anabaptists. You can find it at
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-sects.php . There are a several things
things to note here. 1st, this is from 1580, a generation after Luther's
death. 2d, I don't think any attempt was made to find out how widely
accepted among Anabaptists some of these rejected views were. While some
may indeed have taught "That a Christian cannot with a good conscience be an
inn-keeper, merchant, or cutler" or "That Christ did not assume His flesh
and blood of the Virgin Mary, but brought them with Him from heaven," not
all did. I'm no expert on this. (Paragraph 27 recognizes the diversity
among Anabaptists.) 3d, while some Anabaptist views about baptism are
rejected here, more emphasis is given to views about the civil order.

Shalom
George
http://home.neo.rr.com/scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Murray Hogg" <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
To: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:27 PM
Subject: 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Nov 10 17:51:06 2008