Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

----- Original Message -----
From: "D. F. Siemens, Jr." <dfsiemensjr@juno.com>
To: <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2008 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

>
> On Sat, 8 Nov 2008 20:53:58 -0500 <gmurphy10@neo.rr.com> writes:
>> [in small part]
>>
>> Your final statements seriously misrepresent my view of the
>> sacraments. I never said that they work inexorably to produce
>> faith, any more than I would say that about the preached word. Why
>> some people don't come to faith when God "desires that all men be
>> saved & come to the knowledge of the truth" is a tough question but
>> not one that particularly strikes the idea that the sacraments are
>> means of grace.
>>
>> Shalom,
>> George
>>
> You are lumping preaching and sacrament as producing faith. But I was
> trying to note a difference. Preaching involves the Word passing through
> the understanding of the preacher. This means that it may be distorted by
> said individual's misunderstanding. Additionally, it involves intake
> through the understanding of the listener. The work of the Spirit is also
> involved in the production of faith rather than mere understanding. In
> contrast, as I understand the Lutheran teaching, the sacraments involve
> the deity's action through the elements, and so do not depend on human
> understanding. On the other hand, if faith is necessary to the
> appropriation of the Eucharist's benefits, we're close to the Reformed
> view. But this cannot hold for the infant's appropriation of the gift of
> the Spirit in Baptism. I simply do not see how the Lutheran view of the
> sacraments is consistent.

Dave -

Several things here. Of course sacraments aren't identical with preaching - one is "visible word" and the other "audible word." But both are communication, & we all know that sometimes non-verbals communicate more, & more accurately, than what is spoken."

Then there are two aspects of a sacrament - the objective reality of God's gift and the reception of it. The first doesn't depend on faith but on God's command & promise. That is why Lutherans, & the catholic tradition more broadly, has said that baptism in the name of the Trinity is valid baptism whether the person baptized believes it or not, & that even unbelievers receive the true body & blood of Christ. The latter is an historical difference between the Reformed & Lutherans - Calvin's idea that it is by faith that communicants are able to receive the body & blood of Christ over against the Lutheran teaching of the manducatio impiorum. But the "imious," even though they receive the body & blood of Christ, reject the gift of forgiveness just as when they refuse to believe the preached word.

& "valid baptism" doesn't automatically ensure salvation. I've sometimes compared it to being given a check for a large sum. It's a valid check but you won't get any real money if you don't endorse it & take it to the bank. & those latter actions are analogous (crudely) to the role of faith.

Then, especially in connection with infant baptism, there's the question of what we mean by faith. There has always been a tendency in western Christianity to overly intellectualize faith, & I think you're tending that way with your emphasis on "understanding." But the crucial element in faith (at least when we speak of "justification by faith" &c) is trust. & babies start being able to trust their parents very quickly even though their intellectual understanding is minimal. In view of that we should be very careful about claiming that they simply can't trust God. Of course I'm not suggesting that understanding has no place in faith but it should be understanding at an age-appropriate level.

BTW, the over-intellectualization of faith has certainly afflicted Lutherans too. That's why until recently young people weren't admitted to communion until they were confirmed at an age of 13 or 14 & they could learn the catechism.

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 19:28:13 2008