Re: [asa] Anabaptist (alleged) error

George,
I find your statement about the large check interesting, but it doesn't
match what I've heard the Lutheran pastor say during the ceremony.
Another Lutheran pastor years ago told me that baptism makes one eligible
for salvation. What is thereby explained seems little different in effect
than the Presbyterian claim that baptism brings the infant into the
covenantal relationship. Whether a check to cash or eligibility seems to
give Baptists no grounds whatever for coming to faith. On the other hand,
all evangelicals affirm "the just shall live by faith," and specify,
whatever ceremonies the individual has gone through, that no
understanding individual can be redeemed without personal faith. The
innocent young are another matter. I have read that even the Roman
Catholics have abandoned limbo.

Consider three young children of Lutheran, Reformed and Baptist parents,
respectively, who are transferred to the houses of atheists or agnostics
to be raised. Will either of the former two have an advantage over the
third, or over each other? There should be a marked difference if baptism
is truly a sacrament. However, though the language in the several
denominations is different, the nitty-gritty seems to be pretty much the
same.
Dave (ASA)

On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:27:32 -0500 "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
writes:
----- 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.
____________________________________________________________
Find the apartment of your dreams by clicking here now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3miihANCs5lRwL3eJghJRphEqiWvukCXnJbzjinQQ512TRYJ/

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Nov 11 16:12:48 2008