Baptism is only a symbol? [Archive]

View Full Version : Baptism is only a symbol?

maylor

22nd June 2008, 05:40 PM

I attended the baptism of my 9 week old niece today. It was at a Reformed Presbyterian church. The pastor explained that baptism is only a symbol. If baptism was only a symbolic act then how can it benefit the baby? I’m thinking the symbolism of being baptized is gonna be lost on the child. So who is baptism for? According to Calvinists, it’s for the parents and everyone else who is watching.
I am so grateful to hold membership in a confessional Lutheran church that has real Sacraments and not just symbolic acts. The pastor did baptize in the name of the triune God, and I believe that my niece was born again and the Holy Spirit planted the seed of faith through the water poured on her, and that her sins were forgiven, even if the pastor doing it doesn’t think so.

deepgreen11

22nd June 2008, 06:03 PM

DaRev

22nd June 2008, 06:44 PM

There is a great study on the matter of Baptism in the following posts:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46836651&postcount=3

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=46836684&postcount=4

Edial

23rd June 2008, 12:26 AM

I myself am somewhat confused on this issue. I do not attend a church that even practices the act of infant baptism, in fact, they hold that it should be done when one is "accountable" and instead children are dedicated and it is more for parents, which concurs with the Calvinist belief. If that is the case, I do agree, why attach something that is attached to salvation so closely to a belief of dedication, taking the act of baptism as a mere symbol?
I had a struggle with this too, since I came from a Baptist background.

However, once one looks at the context of the NT one realizes that the emphasis is put on the adult converts and it does not address infants.
This does not mean that infant baptism is not to be practiced.

Infant baptism is "a given" in the NT.

This is how we know that.

1CO 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered over the desert.

About 2,000,000 family type Israelites were baptized into Moses. There were certainly infants among them.

The word here is baptizo, same Greek word that is used throughout the NT.

It was expected that they would baptized into Moses and the Bible has no problem with that.

If infants could be baptizo into Moses, why not into Christ? They did not know Moses intellectually.

Also, by about 200AD baptism was already commonly practiced in Christian church.
If by 200AD it was commonly practiced, it means it was already implemented some years prior to it. It takes years of implementation for something to be commonly practiced.

And, if infant baptism would be wrong, the disciples of the disciples that were there would probably rebuke them for doing that.

But they said nothing.

To say that one must intellectually understand who Christ is in order to be baptized in Him makes no sense, since there are mentally sick people who cannot understand.

If one understands, confess your faith and be baptized.
If one cannot understand, be baptized even before you understand. If you undertand later on and then reject baptism, or the faith in Christ, then you reject it.

The Bible tells us to baptize all.

Thanks, :)
Ed

MarkRohfrietsch

23rd June 2008, 07:17 AM

Your are correct!

While Reformed Churches look upon Baptism as a symbol only, Scripture and our confessions speak clearly. "Word and Sacrament remain efficacious even when administered by evil men." (this may not be verbatim, I quoted it from memory). If someone is baptized in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the baptism is valid, and conveys all the Grace and the forgiveness of sins, regardless of the faith of those administering it.

I wish your niece a warm welcome into the family of Christ's Church.

Blessings to her, to you, and her family!

Mark

filosofer

23rd June 2008, 07:18 AM

To set a different tone on this: Is this how we read the texts?

Matt. 28:19-20
[Jesus said:] “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations over the age of accountability, baptizing those who are over the age of accountability in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching those over the age of accountability to observe all that I commanded you who are over the age of accountability; and lo, I am with you who are over the age of accountability always, even to the end of the age.”

Romans 3:10
... as it is written, There is none over the age of accountability who is righteous, no not even one;

Romans 3:23
for all over the age of accountability have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

Ephesians 2:4-5
But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we who were over the age of accountability were dead in our transgressions, made us who were over the age of accountability alive together with Christ (by grace you over the age of accountability have been saved)

John 20:31
But these (signs) have been written that you who are over the age accountability may believe ...

Seems that part of the problem with “age of accountability” is that it equates sin with outward acts and faith with head knowledge. What about sin as a condition of being descendants of Adam (Romans 5:12)? Or does the text read: “... and so sin entered into the whole world for those over the age of accountability”? BTW, when do you have to teach children to do things wrong?

Notice in Luke 18:15-18, Jesus says about the “babies” that are brought to him: “Permit the children to come to me ... for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.”

The logical extension of “children automatically being saved before the age of accountability” is that we hope the child dies prior to reaching the age of accountability, at least the salvation rate would be 100%.

... yep, no doubt about, the Bible is very clear on the age of accountability. ;) :D

deepgreen11

23rd June 2008, 09:23 AM

I find this enriching and interesting! Thank you.

DominusIesus

30th June 2008, 05:39 AM

The Reformed pastor was out of step with his own confessions. Traditional Reformed teaching is that Baptism is far more than just a symbol.

I would point out Peter J. Leithart’s The Baptized Body which can be read in full online! Just look on Googlebooks. :)

Albion

30th June 2008, 11:35 AM

Part of the the problem may be that the word "symbol" can be used, theologically, in several ways, not just to indicate a "sign" or "representation." But there very definitely is a reason why infants are baptised in churches which do not believe in baptismal regeneration...and it's not just for the benefit of the parents. The child is ushered into the family of faith, dedicated to God, and recognized as an inheritor of the new covenant, all discussion of a forgiveness of sins or regeneration aside.

RadMan

30th June 2008, 11:51 AM

Albion

30th June 2008, 12:35 PM

As you say the benefit is not for the parents or congregation but for the child and the work of God through baptism. It is not about us but about God but..... it is for forgiveness of sins.

Not disputing that especially, just saying that churches which do not accept baptismal regeneration do have a reason for thinking that the infant is benefitted in other ways.

LilLamb219

30th June 2008, 01:11 PM

Not disputing that especially, just saying that churches which do not accept baptismal regeneration do have a reason for thinking that the infant is benefitted in other ways.

Children aren't automatically saved...otherwise it would be by a different Gospel that says we are saved "by grace through faith". So, baptism brings them salvation by giving them faith because of God's Word and the Holy Spirit received in baptism.

Albion

30th June 2008, 02:16 PM

Children aren't automatically saved...otherwise it would be by a different Gospel that says we are saved "by grace through faith". So, baptism brings them salvation by giving them faith because of God's Word and the Holy Spirit received in baptism.

Baptism automatically confers faith? Being baptised guarantees salvation?

I have to think that those are rather unusual views, ones that seem outside the pros and cons expressed about infant baptism up to now.

LilLamb219

30th June 2008, 02:25 PM

DominusIesus

30th June 2008, 03:45 PM

A baptized child will go to heaven...but if that child rejects the faith given in baptism, then no, it's not an automatic guarantee into heaven. And yes, we are given faith in baptism...remember that it's GOD'S WORD with the water. The Word applied to us along with the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit means that faith is given.

So, if I am interpreting correctly, you are saying that the sacrament of baptism is the union of the Word of God with Water. Therefore just as at Creation, when Yahweh spoke he brought forth the heavens and earth into being, so, in the New Creation, when Yaweh's creative word sounds forth at baptism, faith is bought into being (created) in the young infant. Sounds good to me! :thumbsup:

Albion

30th June 2008, 03:54 PM

A baptized child will go to heaven...but if that child rejects the faith given in baptism, then no, it's not an automatic guarantee into heaven.

OK, so that's the POV of those who accept regeneration, which itself was the original idea expressed here that there could be no possible meaning or worth in baptising infants unless baptismal regeneration were part of it.

And yes, we are given faith in baptism...remember that it's GOD'S WORD with the water. The Word applied to us along with the promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit means that faith is given.

Faith must have no connection to any affirmation or understanding, in that case, right? Usually, we say that whether or not forgiveness is associated with baptism, it is necessary for the person to accept Christ, make a personal commitment, at some point.

LilLamb219

30th June 2008, 03:56 PM

Sounds good! When God attaches a promise (such as life) to an earthly mean, He doesn't take away that promise but fulfills it...life in Adam, rebirth in baptism.

Melethiel

30th June 2008, 03:57 PM

So, if I am interpreting correctly, you are saying that the sacrament of baptism is the union of the Word of God with Water. Therefore just as at Creation, when Yahweh spoke he brought forth the heavens and earth into being, so, in the New Creation, when Yaweh's creative word sounds forth at baptism, faith is bought into being (created) in the young infant. Sounds good to me! :thumbsup:
You got it. :thumbsup:

LilLamb219

30th June 2008, 03:58 PM

OK, so that's the POV of those who accept regeneration, which itself was the original idea expressed here that there could be no possible meaning or worth in baptising infants unless baptismal regeneration were part of it.

Faith must have no connection to any affirmation or understanding, in that case, right? Usually, we say that whether or not forgiveness is associated with baptism, it is necessary for the person to accept Christ, make a personal commitment, at some point.

Faith is a gift given to us by God so that we may believe. Faith grasps onto truth...the truth that we are reconciled to Him and are forgiven. Any sort of "decision" later on, isn't what gives salvation. It may be an acknowledgment that faith is there though...which is what Lutheran children do at confirmation...confirming what happened at their baptisms.

DominusIesus

30th June 2008, 04:03 PM

Sounds good! When God attaches a promise (such as life) to an earthly mean, He doesn't take away that promise but fulfills it...life in Adam, rebirth in baptism.

This is where I think Luther et al can be improved upon. It is not life in Adam, rebirth in baptism but rather life in Adam, rebirth in the second Adam (Christ) through baptism. Guess where I got this from? Yep, Tom Wright ;)

I can't provide links but Google "Space, Time and Sacraments" and you should locate the talks!!

Albion

30th June 2008, 04:05 PM

Faith is a gift given to us by God so that we may believe. Faith grasps onto truth...the truth that we are reconciled to Him and are forgiven. Any sort of "decision" later on, isn't what gives salvation. It may be an acknowledgment that faith is there though...which is what Lutheran children do at confirmation...confirming what happened at their baptisms.

If I'm not mistaken, it's the vows taken on their behalf that are reaffirmed in confirmation. That aside, I am not trying to dissuade anyone from whatever view of the sacrament they might have. My purpose was only to answer the idea that no one could possibly believe that baptism of an infant is of any value UNLESS forgiveness of sins is thought to be part of it.

filosofer

30th June 2008, 04:40 PM

If I'm not mistaken, it's the vows taken on their behalf that are reaffirmed in confirmation. That aside, I am not trying to dissuade anyone from whatever view of the sacrament they might have. My purpose was only to answer the idea that no one could possibly believe that baptism of an infant is of any value UNLESS forgiveness of sins is thought to be part of it.

No, no one "takes vows" for someone else. The vows that parents and sponsors speak is to continue nurture the child in the faith into which the child has been baptized.

Albion

30th June 2008, 04:55 PM

No, no one "takes vows" for someone else. The vows that parents and sponsors speak is to continue nurture the child in the faith into which the child has been baptized.

Oh no. Please read the language itself. You'll see that this is not all that they (and the congregation) promise.

RadMan

30th June 2008, 05:04 PM

Visitors to the Lutheran forum should refrain from proselytizing and arguing. Please read the rules above. We don't mind answering questions but pushing your own views here is forbidden.

RadMan

30th June 2008, 05:06 PM

Oh no. Please read the language itself. You'll see that this is not all that they (and the congregation) promise.This is humorous considering that you are arguing with a seminary president. :doh:

seajoy

30th June 2008, 05:44 PM

This is humorous considering that you are arguing with a seminary president. :doh:
What I was thinkin' :)

LilLamb219

30th June 2008, 06:17 PM

It is not life in Adam, rebirth in baptism but rather life in Adam, rebirth in the second Adam (Christ) through baptism.

You misread what I was trying to say. I have no argument with what you wrote above.

What I was trying to state concerned the means. You brought up Adam and life was given to Him. That's why I stated life in Adam. Our new life (rebirth) is connected to the righteousness that we are covered in that belongs to Christ the second Adam.

Albion

30th June 2008, 09:27 PM

This is humorous considering that you are arguing with a seminary president. :doh:

If you think so.

But when the sponsors renounce the Devil and his works, etc. that is not merely a promise to rear the candidate in the faith. It's as plain and undeniable as that.

DaRev

30th June 2008, 09:33 PM

If you think so.

Uh...we know so.

But when the sponsors renounce the Devil and his works, etc. that is not merely a promise to rear the candidate in the faith. It's as plain and undeniable as that.

But those aren't "promises." They are statements made on behalf of the baptismal candidate by those who have the authority to speak for him/her.

Albion

30th June 2008, 09:39 PM

[/color][/color]

Uh...we know so.

But those aren't "promises." They are statements made on behalf of the baptismal candidate by those who have the authority to speak for him/her.

That's wrong. The sponsors are asked--and they reply affirmatively--when asked if they will do this.

Turning to another matter, I don't appreciate being baited and badgered so that I can be accused, falsely, of pushing any of my own views or even more ridiculously, of "proselytizing." I have done none of that but only responded what others put out in my direction. There are other forums on which the participants don't feel threatened by so little, so I'll unsubscribe and go there.

DaRev

30th June 2008, 10:47 PM

That's wrong.

No, I don't think so.

seajoy

1st July 2008, 12:00 AM

Turning to another matter, I don't appreciate being baited and badgered so that I can be accused, falsely, of pushing any of my own views or even more ridiculously, of "proselytizing." I have done none of that but only responded what others put out in my direction. There are other forums on which the participants don't feel threatened by so little, so I'll unsubscribe and go there.

Disagreeing is one thing, but trying to tell us what we believe, is another. We've had enough of that as of late. You are telling pastors just "how it is." We don't feel threatened, just annoyed at your lack of respect for our Lutheran faith.

DominusIesus

1st July 2008, 04:32 AM

You misread what I was trying to say. I have no argument with what you wrote above.

What I was trying to state concerned the means. You brought up Adam and life was given to Him. That's why I stated life in Adam. Our new life (rebirth) is connected to the righteousness that we are covered in that belongs to Christ the second Adam.

Cool :thumbsup:

filosofer

1st July 2008, 10:31 AM

That's wrong. The sponsors are asked--and they reply affirmatively--when asked if they will do this.

[B]Turning to another matter, I don't appreciate being baited and badgered so that I can be accused, falsely, of pushing any of my own views or even more ridiculously, of "proselytizing." I have done none of that but only responded what others put out in my direction. There are other forums on which the participants don't feel threatened by so little, so I'll unsubscribe and go there.

I am sorry you feel that way. My personal intent was not to engage in this type of interaction but to discuss. I think you raise legitimate questions. Unfortunately I travel so much, I am unable to pursue this discussion on a regular basis.

May God bless your continued search of Scriptures and the Christian faith.

DominusIesus

1st July 2008, 10:38 AM

Would you agree with what follows?

At creation we find three key ingredients; water, the Spirit of God and the word of God. At our new creation we find these same three ingredients, the water of baptism, the Spirit of God hovering over the waters and the creative word of God. In the sacrament of baptism the Word of God is united with Water by the Spirit and so just as at Creation, when Yahweh spoke, the heavens and earth were brought forth into being, so likewise at the New Creation, when Yaweh’s creative word sounds forth at baptism, faith is bought into being (created) in the young infant.

At creation Yahweh brought forth order out of chaos, so likewise we, through union with the death and resurrection of Christ, leave the old creation to become a part of the new creation, a member of Christ the new Israel, a part of true humanity. Our lives, once chaotic by sin are renewed by Yahweh’s creative word at baptism to become ordered and Spirit led, the torah written upon our hearts.

In our baptism Yahweh declares to you, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” and to the World he declares, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”. This is then a statement of our identity. Just as Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4) so when we are baptized into his resurrection we say with Jesus, “I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” (Psalm 2:7). Through our baptism “the Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16, 17), we are assured that Yahweh is our Father and so address him appropriately.

The union of water, word and Spirit at baptism marks our departure from the old creation to the new and so acts as an eschatological sign of our new-exodus through the death and resurrection of Christ. Just as Israel passed through the waters of the Red Sea and escaped the bondage of Egypt, so we pass through the waters of baptism and are set free from the bondage of sin to new life, a more abundant life.

deepgreen11

1st July 2008, 10:50 AM

Edial

1st July 2008, 11:01 PM

Faith comes from hearing. Yet it comes not only from hearing.
Hearing is one of the ways how one gets faith.
There are many people that are deaf and blind and many who are mentally incapable of understanding.

For some reason we have a tendency to associate faith with intellect.
Yet intellect has nothing to do with believing, heart does. (Rom.10:9-10)

For example, how could Timothy as an infant (Greek for infant) know the Scriptures from infancy? :)

2TI 3:14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

Because Scriptures apparently could penetrate the heart of an infant who cannot even understand a language. His mother and grandmother were probably reading the Scriptures to the baby Timothy.

Is the Bible a sacrament? No.
Yet the words of God are living. And "living" means it could penetrate it's own way.

If we reject sacramental and supernatural application of Christianity, then faith becomes that what one understands with one's mind and not heart.

I have no idea what is happening during communion and baptism. Oh, I understand what is written by the Confessions, but I cannot explain it with my heart.
Yet I accept these as sacraments.
And, if I accept something as a sacrament, I certainly would not disassociate the supernatural from it.
I believe these with my heart, although I cannot explain them with my heart.

I will not worship the communion elements like the Catholics do, because it is made of bread and wine.
Yet I will not exclude the supernatural from it, since Christ said "This is my body".

So is with Baptism.

I cannot understand why there are so many mothers from symbolically taught churches who have this inner yearning to have their children baptized ... they usually settle for a dedication after a counselling.

Why are their hearts so bothered? Why?
Because they have faith in Christ and that faith is in their hearts and their hearts are telling them to baptize their babies.

Baptism and Communion are sacraments that have something in themselves. Something supernatural.

Every infant should be baptized and every believer should partake in communion.

This much I know ... with my heart.

Thanks,
Ed

LilLamb219

2nd July 2008, 08:08 AM

I cannot understand why there are so many mothers from symbolically taught churches who have this inner yearning to have their children baptized ... they usually settle for a dedication after a counselling.

Why are their hearts so bothered? Why?
Because they have faith in Christ and that faith is in their hearts and their hearts are telling them to baptize their babies.

Great points, Ed!

I tried to wander from the faith as I've stated on this board before! God doesn't allow it, of course.

When my daughter was born, that yearning to have her baptized was SO strong! I know it's the work of the Holy Spirit leading us to this. The promises in baptism are so great and who are we to say that God lies?

I did wait for about 4 months before my daughter was actually baptized. At her birth, she was born with Group B Strep which is a blood infection and was VERY ill. I struggled with God about it because I was angry that I had to go through a hard birth and then have a child who was ill and I didn't know would live or die. I thought that if I had her baptized it would mean I was giving him permission to allow her to die and be taken to heaven...I didn't want her to die...so He and I talked it out...Ok, I talked and cried and He comforted me. Isn't that usually how it is?

I've rambled...sorry. I just thought it was wonderful of you to bring up the fact that mothers have a strong yearning to have their children baptized.

filosofer

2nd July 2008, 09:36 AM

Thanks for the reflection, Lamb. Honesty and openness like are very much appreciated.

filosofer

2nd July 2008, 09:36 AM

Double post

If a mod wants to delete, this would be fine.

DaRev

2nd July 2008, 01:27 PM

Do I hear an echo?

LutheranMafia

2nd July 2008, 04:03 PM

Great points, Ed!

I tried to wander from the faith as I've stated on this board before! God doesn't allow it, of course.

When my daughter was born, that yearning to have her baptized was SO strong! I know it's the work of the Holy Spirit leading us to this. The promises in baptism are so great and who are we to say that God lies?

I did wait for about 4 months before my daughter was actually baptized. At her birth, she was born with Group B Strep which is a blood infection and was VERY ill. I struggled with God about it because I was angry that I had to go through a hard birth and then have a child who was ill and I didn't know would live or die. I thought that if I had her baptized it would mean I was giving him permission to allow her to die and be taken to heaven...I didn't want her to die...so He and I talked it out...Ok, I talked and cried and He comforted me. Isn't that usually how it is?

I've rambled...sorry. I just thought it was wonderful of you to bring up the fact that mothers have a strong yearning to have their children baptized.When I was 7 my Catholic grandfather took me briefly to his church on a weekday when no one was there. I don't have a clue what was going through his mind but he was grinning from ear to ear like something was up. There was nothing there but folding chairs, a podium and a baptismal bowl. He dipped his hand in the water, said this is what the priest does when he baptizes you, and put his hand on my head. All of a sudden something shot through me and I was engulfed in a peaceful euphoria that felt somehow much more stable and solid. I don’t know what that was all about exactly, it was rather odd actually, but it left a very strong spiritual impression on me.

My parents’ families actually fought over my baptism and I ended up being baptized twice, Lutheran and Catholic.

deepgreen11

2nd July 2008, 09:12 PM

.

My parents’ families actually fought over my baptism and I ended up being baptized twice, Lutheran and Catholic.

Interesting! I've been baptized a total of three times now. Once as a tiny infant in the hospital (I was ailing pretty badly) in Catholic tradition, once more in Catholic tradition as an eight year old girl (because someone argued that the first was not legitimate) , and once during catechism in a non-denominational church when I was thirteen. Interesting stuff.

Melethiel

2nd July 2008, 10:18 PM

I was baptized once, as an infant, in the Eastern Orthodox church. The second time, when I was 8 in a nondenom church, I got wet.

RevCowboy

2nd July 2008, 10:19 PM

Interesting! I've been baptized a total of three times now. Once as a tiny infant in the hospital (I was ailing pretty badly) in Catholic tradition, once more in Catholic tradition as an eight year old girl (because someone argued that the first was not legitimate) , and once during catechism in a non-denominational church when I was thirteen. Interesting stuff.
Well, as long as the first one was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is all you need.

deepgreen11

2nd July 2008, 10:36 PM

Well, as long as the first one was done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that is all you need.

it sure is! I'm so glad i know that now.

LutheranMafia

2nd July 2008, 10:41 PM

I was baptized once, as an infant, in the Eastern Orthodox church. The second time, when I was 8 in a nondenom church, I got wet.:D How wet, did it involve dunking?

Melethiel

2nd July 2008, 10:43 PM

:D How wet, did it involve dunking?
Yup.

deepgreen11

2nd July 2008, 10:44 PM

:D How wet, did it involve dunking?

you weren't asking me, but mine did. :P Ha.

DaRev

3rd July 2008, 12:27 AM

I was baptized once, as an infant, in the Eastern Orthodox church. The second time, when I was 8 in a nondenom church, I got wet.

Had a nice swim in church, eh?

Edial

3rd July 2008, 01:01 AM

I was also baptized twice.

Once after I was born in the EO church and once when I became a believer in a Baptist church.

I respect both baptisms.

The one after I was born as a real one in a sacramental way and the one after I became a believer as a symbolic one, since that's what they taught there.

Thanks,
Ed

BabyLutheran

3rd July 2008, 09:28 AM

I was dunked and the water had just been run. It was freezing cold, I guess I will never forget my baptism.

Mary of Bethany

3rd July 2008, 11:13 AM

I was "baptized" twice - the first (real) time at 8 years old in our Baptist church. The 2nd time, I was 13 and decided that I hadn't really been "saved" the first time, so I had to "get saved" again and re-"baptized". I was confused. :blush:

Mary

Levahddi

3rd July 2008, 12:13 PM

I was baptized once as a Roman Catholic. :wave:

Zecryphon

3rd July 2008, 12:52 PM

I was dunked and the water had just been run. It was freezing cold, I guess I will never forget my baptism.

You want cold? Check out this Siberian Baptism.

http://www.wayofthemasterradio.com/photos/russian_baptism.jpg

Edial

6th July 2008, 02:41 PM

jamescarvin

8th July 2008, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by DominusIesus http://img.christianforums.com/style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=47665462#post47665462) Would you agree with what follows?

At creation we find three key ingredients; water, the Spirit of God and the word of God. At our new creation we find these same three ingredients, the water of baptism, the Spirit of God hovering over the waters and the creative word of God. In the sacrament of baptism the Word of God is united with Water by the Spirit and so just as at Creation, when Yahweh spoke, the heavens and earth were brought forth into being, so likewise at the New Creation, when Yaweh’s creative word sounds forth at baptism, faith is bought into being (created) in the young infant.

At creation Yahweh brought forth order out of chaos, so likewise we, through union with the death and resurrection of Christ, leave the old creation to become a part of the new creation, a member of Christ the new Israel, a part of true humanity. Our lives, once chaotic by sin are renewed by Yahweh’s creative word at baptism to become ordered and Spirit led, the torah written upon our hearts.

In our baptism Yahweh declares to you, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased” and to the World he declares, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased”. This is then a statement of our identity. Just as Jesus “was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead” (Romans 1:4) so when we are baptized into his resurrection we say with Jesus, “I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” (Psalm 2:7). Through our baptism “the Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16, 17), we are assured that Yahweh is our Father and so address him appropriately.

The union of water, word and Spirit at baptism marks our departure from the old creation to the new and so acts as an eschatological sign of our new-exodus through the death and resurrection of Christ. Just as Israel passed through the waters of the Red Sea and escaped the bondage of Egypt, so we pass through the waters of baptism and are set free from the bondage of sin to new life, a more abundant life.

What is the source of this text?

Thanks,
Ed

I liked this view. It seemed to come from the heart of one reading the texts, reflecting on the sacraments, and being impacted by revelation.

I am interested in Lutheran views. Asking what the source is makes me wonder how Lutherans view tradition (their own) as a source of authority and something to safeguard. There is obviously a very well-defined set of dogma. The Bible, I think, is rich with words that enlighten and refine confessions.

I would also like to know how my own thinking on baptism, which does not come from a Lutheran source specifically, but does support infant baptism, fits in with Lutheran thought.

My thinking is that the churches have completely missed a core truth with respect to the notion that there is only one baptism. I suspect that the same idea of sharing only one cup, which is similar to the one cloud under which the whole nation of Israel was under, in the one baptism into Moses, is the same cloud we are under in Christ's baptism. We all die together in Him and rise together in Him by the One Spirit. Christ is not divided.

So when people speak of being baptised a second or third time, my gut reaction is to think that they are missing something more fundamental, that they are simply reexpressing or entering more deeply through time into the one eternal baptism they personally share in Him.

Baptism, as I see it is a lifelong process. The rite expresses this process. The length of life is eternal in Him by the rebirth to eternal life.

The power of the baptism is in Christ. The intellect is ultimately given over to Him. The faith comes from Him. All comes from and ends in Him.

Subsequent sacraments, chrismation, communion, matrimony, healing, orders - these are also expressions of the same power and reality. Yes, they are symbols, but the power is real because the salvation and the rebirth and the life in the Spirit are real.

I would say that we get the cart before the horse with respect to efficaciousness of sacraments as it is the fact of Christ that is the essence of the power, rather than the performance of the rite, but all of these expressions are also effective prayers that ought to be performed in His will, escpecially as commandments. My first response to anyone who does not believe in infant baptism is to ask whether or not they believe in the effective power of prayer.

This is not a place to present any views other than Lutheran. But I want to ask you by way of expressing my understanding, whether or not this view would be considered Lutheran, and if not, how so and why.

DominusIesus

8th July 2008, 11:23 AM

What is the source of this text?

A lot of reading and study on my part (original here (http://biblicalthoughts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/baptism-new-creation-water-word-and-spirit/)).

filosofer

8th July 2008, 11:52 AM

I liked this view. It seemed to come from the heart of one reading the texts, reflecting on the sacraments, and being impacted by revelation.

I am interested in Lutheran views. Asking what the source is makes me wonder how Lutherans view tradition (their own) as a source of authority and something to safeguard. There is obviously a very well-defined set of dogma. The Bible, I think, is rich with words that enlighten and refine confessions.

I would also like to know how my own thinking on baptism, which does not come from a Lutheran source specifically, but does support infant baptism, fits in with Lutheran thought.

My thinking is that the churches have completely missed a core truth with respect to the notion that there is only one baptism. I suspect that the same idea of sharing only one cup, which is similar to the one cloud under which the whole nation of Israel was under, in the one baptism into Moses, is the same cloud we are under in Christ's baptism. We all die together in Him and rise together in Him by the One Spirit. Christ is not divided.

So when people speak of being baptised a second or third time, my gut reaction is to think that they are missing something more fundamental, that they are simply reexpressing or entering more deeply through time into the one eternal baptism they personally share in Him.

If you read carefully, those in this thread who said they had been "baptized a second time" were referring to their membership in non-Lutheran churches which do not accept infant baptism. Thus, their membership hinged on "baptized again" thinking, not Lutheran theology.

Baptism, as I see it is a lifelong process. The rite expresses this process. The length of life is eternal in Him by the rebirth to eternal life.

The power of the baptism is in Christ. The intellect is ultimately given over to Him. The faith comes from Him. All comes from and ends in Him.

Subsequent sacraments, chrismation, communion, matrimony, healing, orders - these are also expressions of the same power and reality. Yes, they are symbols, but the power is real because the salvation and the rebirth and the life in the Spirit are real.
As Lutherans, we do not accept "subsequent sacraments" as you have defined it - that is RCC teaching.

I would say that we get the cart before the horse with respect to efficaciousness of sacraments as it is the fact of Christ that is the essence of the power, rather than the performance of the rite, but all of these expressions are also effective prayers that ought to be performed in His will, escpecially as commandments. My first response to anyone who does not believe in infant baptism is to ask whether or not they believe in the effective power of prayer.
As Lutherans we understand sacraments as Gospel: that is, something that God does for us and for our salvation (including forgiveness of sins), "in, with, and under" the visible signs. Prayer, on the other hand, is Law: something that we do in response to God's work. Thus, to put prayer into the same category as sacraments would not reflect Lutheran theology.

See Luther's Small Catechism (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=686359) for how we express these Biblical truths.

jamescarvin

9th July 2008, 01:56 PM

filosofer

9th July 2008, 02:00 PM

You are free to discuss Biblical passages.

Edial

9th July 2008, 10:32 PM

I have lots of thoughts about your reply. I could supply the Biblical and theological basis for my own thinking, which obviously didn't just appear out of nowhere, but do not believe that I am allowed by forum rules to post these thoughts. I thank you for your response. I would be interested in the thoughts of other Lutherans on this subject.
Thank you for your consideration.

You are certainly free to present and even debate your differning thoughts on this.

Just try not to quote other writers nor link references to other works (books, sites etc) in support of your view.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6904145

Just Scriptures.

Welcome to TCL.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Edial

9th July 2008, 10:43 PM

A lot of reading and study on my part (original here (http://biblicalthoughts.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/baptism-new-creation-water-word-and-spirit/)).
Thanks. I thought it did not come from Lutheran sources.
Nothing against it. It is just that Sticky we discussed.

But this matter was addressed already after you posted that.

Thanks,
Ed

jamescarvin

10th July 2008, 11:26 AM

Thank you for your consideration.

You are certainly free to present and even debate your differning thoughts on this.

Just try not to quote other writers nor link references to other works (books, sites etc) in support of your view.
http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6904145

Just Scriptures.

Welcome to TCL.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Thank you for welcoming me! :)

:pray:To ask me to limit myself to Bible quotes strikes me in an interesting way. While I love the Scriptures, I love them the more because of the Sacraments which are the Word of God incarnate to begin with. The Sacraments for me illumninate the Scriptures. I could only read the Scriptures the other way around by blinding myself to my personal experience, which is in unity with the earliest church, as an Orthodox Christian. And that would not be very easy to do, nor do I think it would be desirable.

I don't have a problem not quoting other people such as church fathers, not that these would be irrelevant. What I have a problem with is divorcing myself mentally from the Sacraments so that I can re-read the Scriptures from scratch, pretending that they were written in isolation from a people who expressed the revelation of Christ through sacraments, which present to me a multidimensional picture of the Word of God.

The scriptures are like photographs of the early church. They are not a full representation of it any more than my photo album is a full representation of my own family. The revelation was to the church by word, in hearts, memories and minds in practices which expressed this truth shared by the apostles. Being a family member, knowing the family, is the more direct way to discern the revelation of Christ. Unfortunately, we have no time machines to go be there together (other than the sacraments).

Bottom line, many centuries have passed, and so my approach to Scripture is that these are the photographs and old letters, but we also have other evidence to look for. On the one hand we have the sometimes abusive, and certainly apostate in many ways living churches which claim succession from the apostles. On the other hand we have early evidence. And the task is to me a combination of personal reflection in my own theological and sacramental reflection and experience plus an investigation into the writings of the apostolic fathers of the church, where the greatest weight of authority with respect to revelation goes to the earlier accounts, most especially the scriptures. To me this is just sensible sleuthing.

I find it difficult to understand how Martin Luther went from being RC and attempting to reform it from within, to starting a whole new religion based on the Bible alone. It seems to me he threw out the baby with the bathwater as he gave up on them. Had he simply sought to restore the church to the fathers he would not have taken a two-dimensional Biblical view of the sacraments, where Bible speaks to sacraments but Sacraments cannot speak to Bible. I can certainly understand how in the need to reform that he would have been up against a degree of apostasy that warranted starting all over from scratch. But to resort to the Bible alone as an authority seems to be very arbitrary to me. It goes too far.

To grasp at where I am coming from you would have to first address this more basic question, on the one hand, and then know the blessings I have known from my experience of the sacraments on the other hand. If we don't agree on hermeneutics and ecclesiology we probably won't get very far in a discussion of the scriptures. My departure from your thinking is not about whether or not to take the Bible literally. We're probably on the same page on that. It is about the authority, context, and mode of the deposit of faith given to the saints. As I see it, the Last Supper is not just a command to carry out. It is a Communication that points to the principal principles of the faith, wherin the Word of God is carried forth not just in eloquence but in Power. So also is Baptism. And again in these other Sacraments I mentioned, which I count, we find the same Communication. Not just I, but we. But unfortunately, now it is a "them" for you because of this schizm, which you know from Romans 12 and 1 Cor. 1:12 and 1 Cor. 10 cannot be real.

16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ?
17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread. (1 Cor 10:16-17)

All that said, I am certain that the teaching of the Lutherans on these subjects has been institutionalized. There is an old saying that you can't argue with city hall. One mistake I am reluctant to make is to debate principal principles with a principality. That was what Luther did. We know how far it got him. It cuts both ways.

Actually, I am willing to debate, (though a discussion is more how I'd like to carry on any discourse). But either way I need to open up the parameters to a wider hermeneutic because this is my own disposition. My understanding comes primarily from worship, rather than from following after the teaching of anybody, as if I was speaking in the blind faith of loyalty to men, rather than from personal knowledge in relationship with Christ. So I have no problem not linking to others. But there are also early sources available on the web, such as NewAdvent. And I also love OSIS for scripture study. Are these prohibited?

Till

10th July 2008, 01:55 PM

I find it difficult to understand how Martin Luther went from being RC and attempting to reform it from within, to starting a whole new religion based on the Bible alone.

Because he got kicked out! but in fact your understanding of Luther's approach to Scriptures is - I belive - mistaken.

It seems to me he threw out the baby with the bathwater as he gave up on them. Had he simply sought to restore the church to the fathers he would not have taken a two-dimensional Biblical view of the sacraments, where Bible speaks to sacraments but Sacraments cannot speak to Bible. I can certainly understand how in the need to reform that he would have been up against a degree of apostasy that warranted starting all over from scratch. But to resort to the Bible alone as an authority seems to be very arbitrary to me. It goes too far.

Luthers intention was to question the teachings and practice of the Church as to whether they are in accordance with Scriptures. So Srciptures are indeed having a higher priority. Above liturgy. You are no doubt aware of the expression Lex orandi, lex credendi. Let me quote frrom Wikipedia:

Lex orandi, lex credendi (Latin loosely translatable as the law of prayer is the law of belief) refers to the relationship between worship and belief, and is an ancient Christian principle which provided a measure for developing the ancient Christian creeds, the canon of scripture and other doctrinal matters based on the prayer texts of the Church, that is, the Church's liturgy. In the Early Church there were about 300 years of liturgical tradition before there was a creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed) and about 350 years before there was a biblical canon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon). These liturgical traditions provided the theological framework for establishing the creeds and canon.

seajoy

10th July 2008, 03:15 PM

LilLamb219

10th July 2008, 05:18 PM

Scripture in no way reduces the sacraments...at least in the way that Lutherans believe in them. We can rely on scripture, but we cannot rely on tradition as it is too muddied by sinful humans.

jamescarvin

10th July 2008, 05:20 PM

There lies the crux of the problem....putting Divinely inspired Scripture on the same plane with tradition. The Sacraments were taught to us in Scripture - how are you divorcing yourself from them by using only Scripture to back up your views, jamescarvin?

I, by no means, know a ton about theology. I haven't even read much of anything by Luther. I enjoy reading my Bible and hearing through it, what the Holy Spirit wants me to know. I have read the catechism, and Scripture is used all the way through it to support why we believe what we Lutherans do. I would be petrified at the thought of traditions of men being used as an authority alongside the Bible.

Sorry if I confused you with my words. I did not say that Tradition is on the same plain as Scripture. It is not my view. For hermeneutics I believe I gave the example of sleuthing. The Scriptures are like a photo collection book of the inspired early church that contains a few of their letters. It is what we have that remains, along with the early writings of the fathers and an obvious set of practices that were carried on, which we call liturgy. I think I said that the farther back you go the greater weight of authority I place on it. Looking back to the beginning, historical evidence suggests liturgical practice and the sacraments were the norm from the start.

I certainly agree with Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. What do you think the first Christians went by before the canon of Scripture was compiled? The word of God to them was the liturgy and the sacramental practices given to them by the apostles and the bishops who they anointed and entrusted with the mysteries of salvation. Some feel that the Word of God must be in writing, but in the early church faith came by hearing. I experience the faith and read that Writing under the lambstand of the Living Sacraments. I can't do otherwise and would find it very arbitrary to limit my knowledge that way.

Sorry if this seems repetitious. But it seems to me that the Sacraments ought to have for this very reason a place in the canon, right next to the four Gospels. And sure enough, they do. You just can't fit them inside the pages. And they are a part of the canon that Martin Luther rejected.

If it is proposed to me that I must prove my viewpoint of the Sacraments by use of what few letters we were able to retain through the persecutions of the early church, I can't be persuaded to do that, even though I do believe that the Bible supports my views. I know that no thought was given in those writings to defend or fully explain these Sacraments. Those who wrote the New Testament thought the Lord's return was right around the corner so no need to keep and store extensive records. They also knew they had those in authority to verify what was true and what not anyway. No emphasis was given to writing until it was too late. So we only wound up with four Gospels and a handful of letters.

It would be like me trying to prove that I was not an adopted child when my parents are now dead so that no chromosome test can be given and saying that since I have no test results therefore I am illegitimate. Lack of evidence is no proof or disproof of truth.

1) CONFIRMATION: I find no need to see a special command in any of these arbitrarily preserved letters or Gospels to pray that either an infant or an older child should be anointed with oil in a prayer to receive the Holy Spirit. I already know from what information I can gather that there is power by the Spirit given at Pentacost and that we must not only be baptised in water but fire. I know that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that I am united to Christ, that I live, and by whom I prophesy. In my own tradition this is done right after baptism. All of the Sacraments very closely connected because there is just one Spirit of Truth. And because our Savior Lives.

Sacraments are higher than prayer, of course, unless you find in prayer this same Spirit's urgency, Goodwill and Omnipotence. When one walks in the Spirit all of Life is a Sacrament. My own tradition does not limit the sacramants to seven. That is RCC teaching which developed after the schizm. But it seems to me there is much truth in the RCC teaching.

2. CONFESSION: I don't really need any priest besides Jesus to confess to, however, the truth remains that in my contrite repentance before the Lord, who lives, is manifest the merciful Truth of my redemption and restoration in the cleansing of the Spirit that brings me these tears and convictions concerning righteousness, judgment and sin. What I call a "Sacrament" is anything in which I find the mystery of our Lord present and doing his Work in this world. There is no need to look for a command if the Work is of the Lord. The Bible itself does not use the word Sacrament.

I do not deny the reality of a Christian priesthood. It is given in Peter's epistle that we are a nation of priests. I understand that confession is appropriate to give to the elders of the church. I find in the Spirit filled church administering its calling in Christ the principle that Christ is present. Therefore I unabashedly acknowledge a Christian priesthood whereby Christ is present in the calling to announce the absolution that only the Lord can give and that in the good stewardship of the mysteries of salvation that the overseers of the church assign certain individuals to pronounce the good news of salvation and absolution to the repenant. If someone gave me these words supposing it was by their own power that I would be absolved, then I would only be absolved by men. But I know that Christ alone can forgive, as do they. And knowing that my Savior lives I find reason to celebrate these times as a Sacrament because the Mystery of Salvation is made manifest in these pronouncements of absolution, and made real in the Truth of my transformation of heart as I acquire the Spirit, working out my salvation in fear and trembling.

3. ORDINATION: We are all a priesthood of believers, but some are leaders and given assignments by the overseers who are stewards of the mysteries of Christ. The practice of laying on of hands in prayer is a sign of the same empowerment that Christ gave to his disciples and as such, where the Holy Spirit genuinely empowers these prayers and actions, there is the remanifestation of Christ Himself sending out and ordaining, making Vessels of His Spirit, and by His Spirit multiplying Himself in all. The ordination emphasizes the carrying on of His will and proclaims His authority given in the Spirit by the laying on not of our hands, but His in ours. For authority can only come from above. It is necessarily then a manifestation of the true Presence of Christ in the action of ordination. For if the commission is not from Christ, then it is worthless. But if it is of Christ, then it is Christ Himself who lays hands of commissioning - for which reason I have to acknowledge that this is a Sacramental action as I have explained it.

And no one ought to question that this was the practice from the time of the earliest church. With the exception of the use of the term "priest" which was only slowly introduced there is not the slightest bit of historical evidence that it was ever otherwise. But with respect to this term, I have no objectin to it. For if the whole nation of believers are priests, then how much more so those who are specifically ordained as its leaders? And while all may be sheep, so also must all be fed by someone. And if the overseers of the church saw fit to shift at some point the way they thought it best to organize their titles in liturgy, I do not find this overly offensive. I rather like the term priest and find it to be most appropriate - certainly, having the perfect sacrifice, we are more of a priesthood than the Levites ever were!

All of this is sufficient reason, with or without New Testament support, to accept a New Testament priesthood to call ordination a Sacrament and another declaration of the mystery of salvation.

4. MATRIMONY: I don't know what Lutherans accept or don't as sacraments, but as for me, I have been married twice to the same woman, first in a Roman Catholic Church and the second time, by requirement of canon law, in an Orthodox Church after I was converted there. The really Sacramental part of this matrimony has not been during the rite, as appropriate as those rites may both have been, as it has been in the continuing renewal of our vows by making decisions to honor the covenant we were given (in Orthodoxy) and made with eachother (in the RCC). Here in this matrimony is the call to love, to commit to death, to be a sign for the world, and to somehow, in a way we cannot understand, be truly united by God, understanding by His Scriptures, that the two have become one flesh.

I cannot fully understand this mystery. But it certainly serves to teach me much about the love of the Lord. He loves me and forgives me more than Hosea loved and forgave Gomer. And He expresses His love for the Church, His bride, with the same severity of covenant as we did when we danced around the pulpit with wreaths over our heads to symbolize our martyrdom, by being faithful and true to death.

There is a mystery of Divine Action in this world that is revealed through this covenental relationship. It is hard to miss. And it encourages us when we are down, and fallen out of love, to look up, knowing that that same love can come alive in us again, by the One who wills it so - that we are not just united by the will of the flesh, but bonded in the true love of God, so that this is not just an answer to prayer, but a real story of Grace. To me that is what Sacraments are.

5. COMMUNION: I know that the Lutherans accept Holy Communion and would not argue about this Action being a Sacrament. I don't mind that they prefer to be less specific about defnining it. The Orthodox did not develop a doctrine of transubstanciation. I believe some 14th century theologians started teaching metousiosis. The truth is that while the practice of this sacrament was from the beginning, the teaching on it was not much different than what I am hearing taught by Lutherans, which may be why the Lutheran priest who got in my taxi cab one day suggested that I would feel very comfortable with the Lutheran faith. Maybe he was right.

I don't know how the body and blood of Christ are made manifest in this Sacrament. I know that it rubs against the grain of the teaching of the church from the beginning to suggest that it is just a symbol, and that the Bible does not support that view either, as out of the five places where it is described, only two even use the word "remembrance." And it would have been most irresponsible of the church to lead us to worship and object as God without ever clarifying that this was not really so. I see no instance in any records of church history where there was any controversy over this. So I am led to believe that the Mystery of Christ is made manifest, as we relive the incarnation in the epiclesis, seeing what was ordinary material, even made with human hands, become transformed as a New Creation.

What sometimes perplexes me is the fact that we place more emphasis on whether the bread and wine are changed into the body of Christ than we do over whether we ourselves and the church are being changed into the body of Christ.

If we do not believe that these elements can be changed or that Christ can somehow be in them, (at the very least), then do we carry this same lack of faith over to the church? Do we believe also that Christ is not really in our midst? IS he alive? Do we believe also that the church is not really the body of Christ? Do we believe also that the church receives no real change from on high? That we are not born again from above?

It seems to be a much more critical issue. The Orthodox do not define this change in the bread and wine. They do believe that there is a change and that it is a true change. But how would they or anybody know what exact kind of change this is? Can they fathom the depths of God? Do they have some special knowledge that I don't also have?

Perhaps it is their Christology. For if Christ is truly human and divine, unconfusedly, then as the Logos becomes flesh and dwells among us in this Holy Communion Supper then we should see the nativity before our eyes, the sacrifice of the cross, and the receiving of our Lord and Savior. We should declare his Word True and Unchanging to the end of the Age. We should see also in this same Logos of God made flesh His returning to us as bridegroom and King. Everything, in fact, from Genesis to Revelation should be found there, even the consummation of all things because He is Alpha and Omega. If the Word of God is being manifest in the flesh and blood, then maybe what we need to do is just ask who He is. Then we will know how it is that the bread and wine are changed.

And that is what I see and believe.

6. UNCTION: The Orthodox actually call this the Sacrament of Healing. I have seen some rise from the dead in this Sacrament. And all will be raised in it. And because the Lord is true, because He is the resurrection and the life, who could think of it as anything other than a Sacrament? It is not man who heals. It is the Lord. He manifests Himself as Healer because He heals. This is rather elementary. It is my very simple explanation for why I consider this a "Sacrament." My definition of this term is apparently different than that of others.

7. In addition to Baptism there may be others. The core liturgical actions of the church are perhaps perecieved as such because of their repetition. Nobody gets started without baptism. And communion is celebrated whenever there is a gathering. With respect to confirmation, when the practice was divided between East, which chrismated babies at baptism, and the West, which waited for an age of accountability so that it could be accompanied by a profession of faith, its percpetion as a sacrament was obfuscated. But I honor it. That is why I call myself James James. Those are my two chrismation names. I was baptized twice, chrismated twice and married twice (to one wife). But its all One Spirit.

seajoy

10th July 2008, 05:37 PM

RadMan

10th July 2008, 06:52 PM

Thank you for welcoming me! :)

The scriptures are like photographs of the early church. They are not a full representation of it any more than my photo album is a full representation of my own family. The revelation was to the church by word, in hearts, memories and minds in practices which expressed this truth shared by the apostles. Being a family member, knowing the family, is the more direct way to discern the revelation of Christ. Unfortunately, we have no time machines to go be there together (other than the sacraments).

Bottom line, many centuries have passed, and so my approach to Scripture is that these are the photographs and old letters, but we also have other evidence to look for. On the one hand we have the sometimes abusive, and certainly apostate in many ways living churches which claim succession from the apostles. On the other hand we have early evidence. And the task is to me a combination of personal reflection in my own theological and sacramental reflection and experience plus an investigation into the writings of the apostolic fathers of the church, where the greatest weight of authority with respect to revelation goes to the earlier accounts, most especially the scriptures. To me this is just sensible sleuthing.

I find it difficult to understand how Martin Luther went from being RC and attempting to reform it from within, to starting a whole new religion based on the Bible alone. It seems to me he threw out the baby with the bathwater as he gave up on them. Had he simply sought to restore the church to the fathers he would not have taken a two-dimensional Biblical view of the sacraments, where Bible speaks to sacraments but Sacraments cannot speak to Bible. I can certainly understand how in the need to reform that he would have been up against a degree of apostasy that warranted starting all over from scratch. But to resort to the Bible alone as an authority seems to be very arbitrary to me. It goes too far.

To grasp at where I am coming from you would have to first address this more basic question, on the one hand, and then know the blessings I have known from my experience of the sacraments on the other hand. If we don't agree on hermeneutics and ecclesiology we probably won't get very far in a discussion of the scriptures. My departure from your thinking is not about whether or not to take the Bible literally. We're probably on the same page on that. It is about the authority, context, and mode of the deposit of faith given to the saints. As I see it, the Last Supper is not just a command to carry out. It is a Communication that points to the principal principles of the faith, wherin the Word of God is carried forth not just in eloquence but in Power. So also is Baptism. And again in these other Sacraments I mentioned, which I count, we find the same Communication. Not just I, but we. But unfortunately, now it is a "them" for you because of this schizm, which you know from Romans 12 and 1 Cor. 1:12 and 1 Cor. 10 cannot be real.

It's sad to hear you express the Bible and apostolic church as "old hat" and some thing from the old past that doesn't have much relevance for today. I guess you would rather rely on your own intellect and others from this age. Obviously you think they are more 'with it" and smarter than God.

Another thing Luther didn't start a new religion. All he wanted to
do was reform the RCC. Thats' where the word reformation came from. :doh:

LutheranMafia

10th July 2008, 11:19 PM

Scripture in no way reduces the sacraments...at least in the way that Lutherans believe in them. We can rely on scripture, but we cannot rely on tradition as it is too muddied by sinful humans.Belief in the Trinity and that Christ is God comes entirely from traditional interpretations of Christ's teachings which are manifestly absent from the Bible. Christ refers to everyone as the children of God, refers to himself as our brother and also refers to everyone as "gods", so based on scripture alone the issue is rather muddled and nowhere near as clear as it is from Christian teachings derived from tradition.

Non-Christians who are at least passingly familiar with the Biblical verses generally take a very different view of what they think Jesus was saying, because their first step is to disregard all Christian traditions in their interpretation. Tradition in interpretation is impossible to escape, only non-Christians truly eschew all tradition in Biblical interpretation.

I must be misunderstanding something here, what is the relationship between tradition and orthodoxy? I thought Lutherans were very orthodoxy, i.e. traditional?

DaRev

10th July 2008, 11:25 PM

Belief in the Trinity and that Christ is God comes entirely from traditional interpretations of Christ's teachings which are manifestly absent from the Bible. Christ refers to everyone as the children of God, refers to himself as our brother and also refers to everyone as "gods", so based on scripture alone the issue is rather muddled and nowhere near as clear as it is from Christian teachings derived from tradition.

Non-Christians who are at least passingly familiar with the Biblical verses generally take a very different view of what they think Jesus was saying, because their first step is to disregard all Christian traditions in their interpretation. Tradition in interpretation is impossible to escape, only non-Christians truly eschew all tradition in Biblical interpretation.

Have you ever read the Gospel of John?

I must be misunderstanding something here, what is the relationship between tradition and orthodoxy? I thought Lutherans were very orthodoxy, i.e. traditional?

Eastern Orthodoxy, like the RCC, puts Tradition on par with the Scriptures and in some cases it even trumps the Scriptures.

LutheranMafia

10th July 2008, 11:45 PM

Have you ever read the Gospel of John?
The most explicit reference that I can find is John 10:30, "I and the Father are one." While I think the elements of the Trinity are clearly present even in the OT, it is not clearly expressed anywhere in scripture, no less so in the NT than in the OT.

Eastern Orthodoxy, like the RCC, puts Tradition on par with the Scriptures and in some cases it even trumps the Scriptures.How much of it can definitively be ruled out as being a reflection of what Jesus said or did? I tend to wonder how much good stuff the RCC and EO threw out near the beginning that we'll never know about.

Edial

10th July 2008, 11:46 PM

Sorry if I confused you with my words. I did not say that Tradition is on the same plain as Scripture. It is not my view. For hermeneutics I believe I gave the example of sleuthing. The Scriptures are like a photo collection book of the inspired early church that contains a few of their letters. It is what we have that remains, along with the early writings of the fathers and an obvious set of practices that were carried on, which we call liturgy. I think I said that the farther back you go the greater weight of authority I place on it. Looking back to the beginning, historical evidence suggests liturgical practice and the sacraments were the norm from the start.
What we have are indeed the letters that have survived (Scriptures) and the writings of Church Fathers.
I personally respect the Scriptures as having the constant authority regardless of the 2000 year (NT account) time gap. Or about 3500 years for the full Bible.
I agree with you however, that the autority of church fathers' writings are more relevant to the times that they were written in.
(One should consider that early church fathers moght not have had other letters at hand, since the Bible was not compiled till later on).

I certainly agree with Lex Orandi Lex Credendi. What do you think the first Christians went by before the canon of Scripture was compiled? The word of God to them was the liturgy and the sacramental practices given to them by the apostles and the bishops who they anointed and entrusted with the mysteries of salvation. Some feel that the Word of God must be in writing, but in the early church faith came by hearing. I experience the faith and read that Writing under the lambstand of the Living Sacraments. I can't do otherwise and would find it very arbitrary to limit my knowledge that way.
The word of God to the early Christians was not necessarily only the liturgy and sacramental practices as passed on by the Disciples.
Many of the letters that we have now were obviously written by the disciples then. And any true and hungry Christian group would try to obtain copies of these letters. It is just common sense.
And I am certain that these early congregations had these letters in their possession, since Christians were eager to share these letters.

And concerning the early church, the Scriptures plainly state that they got their information from the teachings of the disciples and the Sacraments.

AC 2:42 They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.

... it seems to me that the Sacraments ought to have for this very reason a place in the canon, right next to the four Gospels. And sure enough, they do. You just can't fit them inside the pages. And they are a part of the canon that Martin Luther rejected.
I am not certain I understand.

The Sacraments are inside the pages of the canon that we have now.
What did Luther reject since he followed that same canon?

If it is proposed to me that I must prove my viewpoint of the Sacraments by use of what few letters we were able to retain through the persecutions of the early church, I can't be persuaded to do that, even though I do believe that the Bible supports my views.
I think I understand the dilemma you might be experiencing.
Yet the Scriptures that we have are the source of the practice of the Sacraments.

I know that no thought was given in those writings to defend or fully explain these Sacraments. Those who wrote the New Testament thought the Lord's return was right around the corner so no need to keep and store extensive records. They also knew they had those in authority to verify what was true and what not anyway. No emphasis was given to writing until it was too late. So we only wound up with four Gospels and a handful of letters.
It would be like me trying to prove that I was not an adopted child when my parents are now dead so that no chromosome test can be given and saying that since I have no test results therefore I am illegitimate. Lack of evidence is no proof or disproof of truth.
The Scriptures certainly did not expect the return of the Lord in their own time. They hoped for it, but did not expect it. (Yes, I am prepared to address the word "generation").

Peter plainly states that the 2nd Coming of the Lord will come whenever He decides on it.
Peter is presenting that the Lord is delaying His 2nd Coming, so more people would be saved.
When He will come, we do not know. He knows.

2PE 3:3 First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, "Where is this `coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2PE 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

1) CONFIRMATION: I find no need to see a special command in any of these arbitrarily preserved letters or Gospels to pray that either an infant or an older child should be anointed with oil in a prayer to receive the Holy Spirit. I already know from what information I can gather that there is power by the Spirit given at Pentacost and that we must not only be baptised in water but fire. I know that it is by the power of the Holy Spirit that I am united to Christ, that I live, and by whom I prophesy. In my own tradition this is done right after baptism. All of the Sacraments very closely connected because there is just one Spirit of Truth. And because our Savior Lives.
I do not know about the confirmation procedures.
I would let the pastors handle this part.
Yet I do know that during the confirmation the child who turned into a young man or woman are confessing their faith, hopefully in a sober and truthful way.

Also, I cannot explain what it means to be baptized with fire. Maybe you could.
The obvious reference that comes to mind are the flames that came upon the Disciples at the Pentacost.

Sacraments are higher than prayer, of course, unless you find in prayer this same Spirit's urgency, Goodwill and Omnipotence. When one walks in the Spirit all of Life is a Sacrament. My own tradition does not limit the sacramants to seven. That is RCC teaching which developed after the schizm. But it seems to me there is much truth in the RCC teaching.
OK. Your tradition has more Sacraments than even the RCC. No problem.
Lutherans have 2 Sacraments.

2. CONFESSION: I don't really need any priest besides Jesus to confess to, however, the truth remains that in my contrite repentance before the Lord, who lives, is manifest the merciful Truth of my redemption and restoration in the cleansing of the Spirit that brings me these tears and convictions concerning righteousness, judgment and sin.
Lutherans also do not have any need to confess to a priest. Some feel comfortable doing that, some do not.
I will let pastors answer this question more adequately.

I would note however, that tears we sometimes have after a confession are not necessaily a sign of contrition.
some have tears simply because the consequences of a particular sin are so troublesome to one's person.

What I call a "Sacrament" is anything in which I find the mystery of our Lord present and doing his Work in this world. There is no need to look for a command if the Work is of the Lord. The Bible itself does not use the word Sacrament.
Well, Wikipedia defines Sacraments about what you define.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament

It also states that the EO have more than 7 Sacraments that the RCC have. Some non-Eo traditions also have more than 7.

I personally have a problem with a personal definition of Sacraments as any individual sees fit.
Some might say that going to church, or giving a tenth to the church are Sacraments. But that's an opinion.
Do I get divine benefits each time I go to church? Am I declined any such benefits when I skip a Sunday?
I don't know.
But you address the specific Sacraments that you follow below.

I personally follow 2 Sacraments, since Scripturally it is presented as having a power in themselves.

I do not deny the reality of a Christian priesthood. It is given in Peter's epistle that we are a nation of priests. I understand that confession is appropriate to give to the elders of the church. I find in the Spirit filled church administering its calling in Christ the principle that Christ is present. Therefore I unabashedly acknowledge a Christian priesthood whereby Christ is present in the calling to announce the absolution that only the Lord can give and that in the good stewardship of the mysteries of salvation that the overseers of the church assign certain individuals to pronounce the good news of salvation and absolution to the repenant. If someone gave me these words supposing it was by their own power that I would be absolved, then I would only be absolved by men. But I know that Christ alone can forgive, as do they. And knowing that my Savior lives I find reason to celebrate these times as a Sacrament because the Mystery of Salvation is made manifest in these pronouncements of absolution, and made real in the Truth of my transformation of heart as I acquire the Spirit, working out my salvation in fear and trembling.
Lutherans also believe that the absolution that is announced by pastor is not by his power.
He just announces that what Christ has done.

1JN 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

However, I do not agree that the pronouncement of absolution in itself has Sacramental power, since one could lie when confessing one's sins in order to receive the absolution.

3. ORDINATION: We are all a priesthood of believers, but some are leaders and given assignments by the overseers who are stewards of the mysteries of Christ. The practice of laying on of hands in prayer is a sign of the same empowerment that Christ gave to his disciples and as such, where the Holy Spirit genuinely empowers these prayers and actions, there is the remanifestation of Christ Himself sending out and ordaining, making Vessels of His Spirit, and by His Spirit multiplying Himself in all. The ordination emphasizes the carrying on of His will and proclaims His authority given in the Spirit by the laying on not of our hands, but His in ours. For authority can only come from above. It is necessarily then a manifestation of the true Presence of Christ in the action of ordination. For if the commission is not from Christ, then it is worthless. But if it is of Christ, then it is Christ Himself who lays hands of commissioning - for which reason I have to acknowledge that this is a Sacramental action as I have explained it.

And no one ought to question that this was the practice from the time of the earliest church. With the exception of the use of the term "priest" which was only slowly introduced there is not the slightest bit of historical evidence that it was ever otherwise. But with respect to this term, I have no objectin to it. For if the whole nation of believers are priests, then how much more so those who are specifically ordained as its leaders? And while all may be sheep, so also must all be fed by someone. And if the overseers of the church saw fit to shift at some point the way they thought it best to organize their titles in liturgy, I do not find this overly offensive. I rather like the term priest and find it to be most appropriate - certainly, having the perfect sacrifice, we are more of a priesthood than the Levites ever were!

All of this is sufficient reason, with or without New Testament support, to accept a New Testament priesthood to call ordination a Sacrament and another declaration of the mystery of salvation.

4. MATRIMONY: I don't know what Lutherans accept or don't as sacraments, but as for me, I have been married twice to the same woman, first in a Roman Catholic Church and the second time, by requirement of canon law, in an Orthodox Church after I was converted there. The really Sacramental part of this matrimony has not been during the rite, as appropriate as those rites may both have been, as it has been in the continuing renewal of our vows by making decisions to honor the covenant we were given (in Orthodoxy) and made with eachother (in the RCC). Here in this matrimony is the call to love, to commit to death, to be a sign for the world, and to somehow, in a way we cannot understand, be truly united by God, understanding by His Scriptures, that the two have become one flesh.

I cannot fully understand this mystery. But it certainly serves to teach me much about the love of the Lord. He loves me and forgives me more than Hosea loved and forgave Gomer. And He expresses His love for the Church, His bride, with the same severity of covenant as we did when we danced around the pulpit with wreaths over our heads to symbolize our martyrdom, by being faithful and true to death.

There is a mystery of Divine Action in this world that is revealed through this covenental relationship. It is hard to miss. And it encourages us when we are down, and fallen out of love, to look up, knowing that that same love can come alive in us again, by the One who wills it so - that we are not just united by the will of the flesh, but bonded in the true love of God, so that this is not just an answer to prayer, but a real story of Grace. To me that is what Sacraments are.

5. COMMUNION: I know that the Lutherans accept Holy Communion and would not argue about this Action being a Sacrament. I don't mind that they prefer to be less specific about defnining it. The Orthodox did not develop a doctrine of transubstanciation. I believe some 14th century theologians started teaching metousiosis. The truth is that while the practice of this sacrament was from the beginning, the teaching on it was not much different than what I am hearing taught by Lutherans, which may be why the Lutheran priest who got in my taxi cab one day suggested that I would feel very comfortable with the Lutheran faith. Maybe he was right.

I don't know how the body and blood of Christ are made manifest in this Sacrament. I know that it rubs against the grain of the teaching of the church from the beginning to suggest that it is just a symbol, and that the Bible does not support that view either, as out of the five places where it is described, only two even use the word "remembrance." And it would have been most irresponsible of the church to lead us to worship and object as God without ever clarifying that this was not really so. I see no instance in any records of church history where there was any controversy over this. So I am led to believe that the Mystery of Christ is made manifest, as we relive the incarnation in the epiclesis, seeing what was ordinary material, even made with human hands, become transformed as a New Creation.

What sometimes perplexes me is the fact that we place more emphasis on whether the bread and wine are changed into the body of Christ than we do over whether we ourselves and the church are being changed into the body of Christ.

If we do not believe that these elements can be changed or that Christ can somehow be in them, (at the very least), then do we carry this same lack of faith over to the church? Do we believe also that Christ is not really in our midst? IS he alive? Do we believe also that the church is not really the body of Christ? Do we believe also that the church receives no real change from on high? That we are not born again from above?

It seems to be a much more critical issue. The Orthodox do not define this change in the bread and wine. They do believe that there is a change and that it is a true change. But how would they or anybody know what exact kind of change this is? Can they fathom the depths of God? Do they have some special knowledge that I don't also have?

Perhaps it is their Christology. For if Christ is truly human and divine, unconfusedly, then as the Logos becomes flesh and dwells among us in this Holy Communion Supper then we should see the nativity before our eyes, the sacrifice of the cross, and the receiving of our Lord and Savior. We should declare his Word True and Unchanging to the end of the Age. We should see also in this same Logos of God made flesh His returning to us as bridegroom and King. Everything, in fact, from Genesis to Revelation should be found there, even the consummation of all things because He is Alpha and Omega. If the Word of God is being manifest in the flesh and blood, then maybe what we need to do is just ask who He is. Then we will know how it is that the bread and wine are changed.

And that is what I see and believe.

6. UNCTION: The Orthodox actually call this the Sacrament of Healing. I have seen some rise from the dead in this Sacrament. And all will be raised in it. And because the Lord is true, because He is the resurrection and the life, who could think of it as anything other than a Sacrament? It is not man who heals. It is the Lord. He manifests Himself as Healer because He heals. This is rather elementary. It is my very simple explanation for why I consider this a "Sacrament." My definition of this term is apparently different than that of others.

7. In addition to Baptism there may be others. The core liturgical actions of the church are perhaps perecieved as such because of their repetition. Nobody gets started without baptism. And communion is celebrated whenever there is a gathering. With respect to confirmation, when the practice was divided between East, which chrismated babies at baptism, and the West, which waited for an age of accountability so that it could be accompanied by a profession of faith, its percpetion as a sacrament was obfuscated. But I honor it. That is why I call myself James James. Those are my two chrismation names. I was baptized twice, chrismated twice and married twice (to one wife). But its all One Spirit.
OK. If that is what you personally believe.

Thanks,
Ed

Edial

11th July 2008, 12:03 AM

...
Actually, I am willing to debate, (though a discussion is more how I'd like to carry on any discourse). But either way I need to open up the parameters to a wider hermeneutic because this is my own disposition. My understanding comes primarily from worship, rather than from following after the teaching of anybody, as if I was speaking in the blind faith of loyalty to men, rather than from personal knowledge in relationship with Christ. So I have no problem not linking to others. But there are also early sources available on the web, such as NewAdvent. And I also love OSIS for scripture study. Are these prohibited?
I do not really understand what wider heremneutics means, but if you mean you want to argue, or discuss from your own experiences, this certainly is not prohibited here.
If you get responses concerning something that we believe and you have Scriptures proving your differing point, we could discuss.
If you do not have Scriptures and points and counterpoints were already made, there is no reason to continue and keep on making the same point. Let's just stop. It could eventually turn into a violation.
If you would just be saying that Lutherans are wrong in what they believe yet cannot support this view Scripturally, this is in the violation of the Sticky.
You are not to refer to sites or works of other people either via links or quotes.
Just be yourself .. and discuss. :)

You read the Sticky.

Thanks, :)
Ed

Edial

11th July 2008, 12:10 AM

Belief in the Trinity and that Christ is God comes entirely from traditional interpretations of Christ's teachings which are manifestly absent from the Bible. Christ refers to everyone as the children of God, refers to himself as our brother and also refers to everyone as "gods", so based on scripture alone the issue is rather muddled and nowhere near as clear as it is from Christian teachings derived from tradition.

...
No, no, nyet, no. :) Come on.

Trinity is one of the most Biblically based doctrines that there is.

There are a bunch of clear verses that state that God is one.
There is another bunch of verses that plainly state that the Father if God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God - hence Trinity, one God in three distinct persons.

And the fact that Christ is God is plainly stated so in the NT on a number of occasions.

Come on now ...

Edial

11th July 2008, 12:25 AM

Well, if I wanted to read a book, I'd get out the Bible. Your posts are kinda long, if I may be so bold. :)

You make Christianity sound like it's a whole lot of work. I don't find that anywhere in Scripture.

As for what the early Christians used before the NT....it was probably the OT. That's filled with Christ.
Absolutely.
They used the OT and in the first church in Jerisalem they had the very disciples to listen to.
The churches were spreading gradually from Jerusalem and on.
And as the church spread through the visits of the disciples, they certainly preached many sermons in churches they planted or assigned their students who were repeating the thoughts of the disciples.

And then, when there were many churches that they could not handle, they were writing letters to them (Scriptures) and the churches were eagerly copying these letters to pass them on to each other, since churches kept in constant contact with each other.

Even today we have something like 20,000 manuscripts that reached us due to diligent copying. Can one just imagine how many were there at that time? I am certain that each visit by an Apostle was a BIG event and people were making all types of efforts to record their sermons.

Paul is coming! Barnabas is preaching next Sunday!

Line up the scribes and assign the boys to make certain their ink wells are always full !! :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

LutheranMafia

11th July 2008, 12:54 AM

There are a bunch of clear verses that state that God is one.Well, there are a number of verses that say "one God", but only one that says "God is one", Galatians 3:20, and it isn't a reference to the Trinity. On the other hand God refers to, I'm not sure who exactly, as "Us" with a capitol U, in Genesis 3:22.

There is another bunch of verses that plainly state that the Father if God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God - hence Trinity, one God in three distinct persons.

And the fact that Christ is God is plainly stated so in the NT on a number of occasions.

Come on now ...Where does it say explicitly that Christ is God? All I can find are circuitous references that hint at it but don't make it explicit.

Edial

11th July 2008, 01:18 AM

Well, there are a number of verses that say "one God", but only one that says "God is one", Galatians 3:20, and it isn't a reference to the Trinity. On the other hand God refers to, I'm not sure who exactly, as "Us" with a capitol U, in Genesis 3:22.
How many Gods are there? Three or one?

Where does it say explicitly that Christ is God? All I can find are circuitous references that hint at it but don't make it explicit.
2PE 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

TIT 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope--the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

JN 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
...
JN 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

PHP 2:5 Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
PHP 2:6 Who, being in very natureGod,

RO 9:5 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.

DominusIesus

11th July 2008, 08:08 AM

Where does it say explicitly that Christ is God? All I can find are circuitous references that hint at it but don't make it explicit.

1 Timothy 3:16 "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

Hebrews 1:8 "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom."

DaRev

11th July 2008, 10:40 AM

John 1:18, "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

The whole of John's Gospel speaks of the Divinity of Christ.

jamescarvin

11th July 2008, 10:52 AM

I am sorry I shifted the topic away from infant baptism to hermeneutics. I love you guys. I was actually here to learn, which necessarily has to take place from my current place of understanding. My desire also is for unity so I do prefer a discussion to a debate. I wanted to clarify what I meant by Sacraments. Sorry for my long post. I will try to focus on the subject of baptism from here on out and move from theory to Scriptures. But some people made comments I'll respond to.

By "wider hermeneutic" I mean looking at the Scriptures in the context of a liturgical early church that did perform various actions that later came to be called "sacraments," and interpreting the texts which refer to the sacraments, (or whatever you prefer to call various liturgical actions), in the light of the practice of the church.

By sacraments as canon, I am talking about canons of councils attended by bishops who wrote them affirming sacraments. These Councils' canons are not authoritative to those who go by Sola Scriptura, I understand. But they have some authority for me because I see those who are appointed as bishops as being charged with the safekeeping of the mysteries of salvation. Their concern is the same as mine, which is to preserve the faith once handed to the saints and to preach no other Christ.

I agree that people did grasp at letters written by apostles. But I the picture of the early church I am starting to get in this forum is one in which everything had to be written to be believed. This is not something I can agree with. It only makes sense to me that 99% of what was being carried on was oral rather than written. And what made it authoritative is who the people were that were speaking - the apostles and their appointed ministers. History, (starting with the Bible), shows they assigned overseers and deacons and there were elders. These were later in charge of the Councils which developed canons, or rules for the church, including which texts to call Scripture.

Whoever said it was right that the OT was used in that day. But I should note that this did not excluded the deuterocanonical books, as the LXX (Greek OT) did not exclude these, and was normative in the Jewish communities leading to and including the first century.

Following Jerome, who followed the Pharisee Council of Joppa (90 C.E.) Luther later rejected these books on the basis that they were not written in Hebrew. They were also derided as containing historical inaccuracies. It's not a big beef of mine. Truth is what matters. I would like to have retained the book of Wisdom. It contains some very accurate prophecy. But whatever. The church's canons regarding the Bible were overridden by Luther. It's what reformers do. Hurray reformers!!

I am a reformer within the Orthodox Church attempting to assess by being here what can be gleaned from the Lutheran experience that would help them. Some here have said that the Orthodox place Tradition on a par with Scripture and possibly above it. Some Orthodox do. Most have been taught there was never a change - no apostasy. So they see no need to make this distinction. I do think that the centuries did much to change the original faith handed to the saints and seek to help bring the church back to that and to help the churches see Christ in one another.

When I say I think the right approach is to be a "sleuth" I mean to put the clues of what the first century church was probably truly like together. It seems clear to me from the evidence that nobody had to wait around for someone to write a letter that said something about baptism in order to know why they ought to do it. All they needed was for someone to talk to them who was associated with the apostles. We do not have a record of their explanations. We can go by the Scriptures. And we can go by the fathers.

Someone also said that there was no biblical bases for the Trinity. The Councils I am referring to were very useful in establishing it. But the idea was to determine the truth and the Bible was integral to the discussion, which I can't help but imagine took on a mentality much as my own, which was to search the evidence as the means of determining why the various epistles or Gospels ought to be considered as Christian Canon. They would have considered the authenticity of their own episcopal succession and history - in other words the AnteNicene Tradition, as they knew it, and knew it even better through conference.

That aside, I didn't see any mention of John 1 or Hebrews 1. So with these texts I would bring my thoughts full circle to a reflection on what Sacraments are and of who Christ is, which I see as the same question.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

For to which of the angels did He ever say, “You are My Son, Today I have begotten You”?

And again, “I will be a Father to Him And He shall be a Son to Me”?

And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.”

And of the angels He says, “Who makes His angels winds, And His ministers a flame of fire.”

But of the Son He says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom. (Hebrews 1:1-8)

It strikes me how the passage is introduced. We are spoken to in many ways. We are also "spoken" to "in His Son." I find in this both Scriptural evidence that Jesus is God, and what I view as Sacrament. I see in this the wider hermeneutic in which Sacrament speaks to Bible, not just Bible to Sacrament. Moreover, the fact that we are spoken to "in many ways" shows me that the authority of God is not scripture alone. This is not to say that it belongs to popes instead. I mean it belongs also to the Sacraments that were practiced in the community of believers. It seems to me that these were traditions of God, not of men in the pejorative sense.

It seems to me that John also describes both Sacraments and the deity of Christ together in his opening passage.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

I particularly like the Greek text here, which says Logos, not Rhema. We get the word "Logic" from "Logos." It implies reason, science, wisdom, intelligence, Truth.

I have had Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and claim that the missing article in καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος means they can say "a" God rather than "the" God. This seems to miss the point of the whole passage, which is that God is the eternal Word/Logos and unchanging Truth. The Word of God is God - not the Word "God", which can be pronounced, but True God, which was in the beginning and from whom all life came.

This is the very thought that feeds my understanding as I consider the Sacraments, and explains well what I initially stated, as I asked whether it fit in with the Lutheran way of thinking. My baptized life springs forth in Christ, the author of all life. This is the mystery of salvation.

I will refrain from going into another explanation of how this is so for numerous other Actions I don't mind attributing the title "Sacraments" to. I simply observe that there is plenty to go by to develop the very Trinitarian Christology that the councils of bishops affirmed by their tradition. And since this is determined to be truth, I cannot help but take the light of this knowledge back again to my reading of the Scriptures and to what I see in various actions, which by the light of this truth I will go ahead and put on them a capital "A".

Mmmm, Actions. Seems to take seriously the notion of walking in the Spirit.

BigNorsk

11th July 2008, 12:07 PM

It's gotten to where so many things are being covered at the same time, but I'd kind of like to focus just on a part of your statement.

First the reference that Jerome and hence Luther followed a Council of Joppa, also called synod of Jamnia and so on. You don't find a lot of historical debate about that because the theory that that council set the Jewish canon was popularized by a single person in the 1800's. It was pretty popular for awhile, but has pretty well been discounted now for the simple reason that there is no evidence that the council did much of anything but discuss a couple of the books.

If you get past the terminology for a second what you find is quite strong agreement between the Orthodox and Lutherans on the canon. While Orthodox would say the canon is broader, in practice, most do not use the deuterocanonicals for doctrine. And so the majority of Orthodox and Lutherans have a narrower canon that is used for authoritative doctrine, and a wider canon used for reading in the churches.

And if you follow the early regional councils that took up the question, the question was not what books to use for doctrine but what books to read in the church.

And we don't have a lot of early Septuagints but you seem to be of the opinion that there was some sort of universal agreement as to which books should be in it. What we have even from around the times of those regional councils don't completely agree. I believe the standardized Septuagint actually occurred after the time when people basically agreed to which books to read in the church. Note that the councils never reference the Septuagint as the authority as to what should be read, I believe the reason is there was no standard Septuagint at the time.

Luther and Lutherans did not remove the deuterocanonicals, they continued to read from them. What they did was once again to make clear the distinction in authority between the books. This distinction was well known among the highly educated in the RCC. You can see the Glossa ordinaria that make the clear distinction, or the other translations done contemporaneously with Luther. Even Cardinal Cajetan, sent to deal with Luther was in agreement on this as he clearly states in his commentary on the Old Testament.

So we are left with a very strong agreement in practice.

Marv

jamescarvin

12th July 2008, 04:36 AM

…
And we don't have a lot of early Septuagints but you seem to be of the opinion that there was some sort of universal agreement as to which books should be in it. …

…Luther and Lutherans did not remove the deuterocanonicals, they continued to read from them. What they did was once again to make clear the distinction in authority between the books. This distinction was well known among the highly educated in the RCC. You can see the Glossa ordinaria that make the clear distinction, or the other translations done contemporaneously with Luther. Even Cardinal Cajetan, sent to deal with Luther was in agreement on this as he clearly states in his commentary on the Old Testament.

So we are left with a very strong agreement in practice.

Marv

This is sweet to my ears. I have spent much