Welcome to the Redeemer Cafe, the BlogSite of the Anglican Church of the Redeemer, Chattanooga, Tennessee !
We are an Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) Church, and this site is a place for members, friends, or inquirers to make comments, share or seek news or information, make prayer requests, and to create an On-Line Community of the Body of Christ.
So find a comfortable seat, share a warm cup of Rwandan Coffee with us, and lets chat for a while.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Theology Table
Interested in discussing or inquiring about some fine point of theology ? Then this table is for you !
QUESTION FOR THE THEOLOGY TABLE ============================== Eligibility to Receive Holy Communion: A few decades ago, Episcopalians were required to be both Baptized and Confirmed before being able to come to Communion.
Then, years later, it was changed to a single requirement of being Baptized before being able to receive Communion.
(( I assume that is now the current AMiA standard. ))
Now, over in the Episcopal Church, there is a concerted effort to remove even the Baptismal requirement prior to being able to come to Communion.
The basic theological principal of this entire debate is - to what degree is the individual involved in the process of communion ? Is any sort of "preparation" required ? Is the individual a "receiver" only ? To what degree is shared beliefs with fellow communicants a factor, if any ? Fellow table-mates of the Theology Table, what in your opinion should be the "prerequisites" for taking Communion:
(1) none
(2) baptism
(3) baptism and confirmation
(4) baptism, confirmation, and reasonable congruity of beliefs with fellow communicants
Wow. In my opinion this is an incredibly difficult subject to discuss. Not because the final answer is less than clear (again, my opinion), but rather because of the complex way the Eucharist focuses and intensifies all that we claim about ourselves and the message we proclaim. To talk about the sacraments- the Eucharist in particular- is to discuss implicitly all that we are and are called to do. Lot of territory there.
Another way of saying that is to point out that we get the gospel right or wrong in how we draw the lines of Christian table fellowship. (This cuts a little against the grain of much protestant thinking in which Pelagianism or “Work Righteousness” is made the ultimate enemy of the Christian gospel) The question is: Who are we willing to sit down and eat with- in the context of Christian community? What stipulations do we require of those who desire to share in the common covenant renewal meal with the king? This is precisely what the book of Galatians was written to address. Who are you going to eat with? Who do you count as your brothers and sisters? Ultimately, who has Christ invited to his table? Paul told Peter that he denied the gospel by simply pulling up a chair (or refusing to pull up a chair) at a particular table for principled reasons. Scary stuff, that.
It seems to me that coming to a settled opinion requires discussion of who are to be counted as belonging to God, what is the shape and purpose of our common meal of communion (and the liturgy that culminates in it- why has Christian worship always taken the basic shape that it has), and the thorny historical question of why the Western Church distinguished and separated those who are eligible for Baptism, Confirmation and Communion. In short “who are we, why do we do what we do on Sundays, and who really (really, really) is one of us?”
Without unpacking all of the foundations, my reply would be: 1) We (considered as a single organic people, not individual marbles gathered in a common box) are an alternative city- colonies of the promised “age to come” existing now- in this age. 2) We are identified as belonging to that one people by the King’s claim of our personal allegiance. (We are who we are because God says we are.) 3) God claimed us as his own at our baptism. 4) Everyone (unbelievable, but literally everyone) who belongs to the King is given the privilege of renewing Covenant with him per the pattern laid down in the Old Covenant. This culminates in a meal with the King, himself, and all the others he has called his own.
All baptized Christians ought to eat with the King because we have been invited. Incidentally, it also seems to me that they are invited to eat and drink (“to do THIS in remembrance of me”), not understand or contemplate the meaning of what it is they are doing- as if anyone can understand all the mystery that is Communion.
Would love to talk about particulars, but ya’ll can see I’m long winded. I’ll shut up and give someone else a chance.
Dick, I’m sorry. You got me all excited and I read right over your questions. You asked to what degree is the individual involved in the process of communion ? I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’ll wait on this one.
Is any sort of "preparation" required ? It’s my understanding that education of a propositional kind historically took place before baptism, not Communion. In the case of the children of believers, they were admitted immediately to Communion. This is still done in the Eastern Church, and seems right to me.
To what degree is shared beliefs with fellow communicants a factor, if any ? We know who belong to God’s people by their faith in Christ- not some other cultural, racial or…whatever. This is the point of Justification by Faith alone. It is faith in Christ that Justifies- not faith in a particular understanding of how justification works, for example. But that being said, it is allegiance to the Christ of the Christian gospel that distinguishes his people, not faith in some other person or thing that goes by the name of “Jesus” or “Christ.” The Nicene and Apostle’s Creed fence in that particular personal story.
It also seems to me that we need to guard against narrowing faith down to propositional knowledge. This doesn't seem scriptural- and owes more than a little bit to modernity's tendency towards rationalism. According to David’s use of the term, for example, faith is something an infant is capable of.
I missed one: Is the individual a "receiver" only ? I don't think this is possible unless something has gone horribly wrong. God has set creation up so that it images his own Trinitarian life. God exists by pouring himself into another and receiving the other back into himself. God IS love.
Preeminent among these images are men and women- and the relationship they enjoy together. Though the bodies of men and women are both created to proclaim the wonderful fact that we were made to be “gift” to another, the man’s body declares this truth in a way that emphasizes the “giving” and the woman’s body makes clear the joy of “receiving.” But both make clear the glorious truth that the way to receive is to give and the way to give is to receive. In the marriage feast, who can truly tell the difference? Giving is receiving and vice versa. This is hardly by accident, and is terribly important, it seems to me, for contemporary Ethical debates, but that another Post.
The point being that if any action is pure giving or total receiving, something has gone terribly wrong. The image is broken and selfishness reigns.
In worship we serve God. That’s why we call it a Service and “Liturgy,” but the initiation is always with God. We serve him because he first serves us. We offer back, what was first given. The circle shouldn’t be broken, but it must be initiated. In a sense our whole lives are an attempt to participate fully in the dance that always begins with (and often falls back into) God’s solitary nursing of us to a state of health, so that we can respond to a proper “wooing.”
A table isn’t for satiating hunger or for fellowship. A sincere host knows that what is done at the meal depends on the guest.
“Come and eat,” God says. Sometimes because we’re so famished, that’s all we can manage. Our God understands that and is happy to feed us. Sometimes, though, we appreciate the company as much as the meal. He enjoys the conversation.
A table isn’t for satiating hunger OR for fellowship. was meant with an emphasis on "OR" to convey something along the lines of "You don't have to choose eating to the exclusion of fellowship"
Phil and others, lots of interesting insights to ponder ! My background prior to becoming an Episcopalian ==> Anglican was Lutheran, and, when I was a small kid, I remember that you were supposed to "prepare" yourself well before you came to the Altar. Lots of that involved Confession, Repentance, Examination of conscience, etc. Not only baptism, but confirmation was required before coming to the table. ( Confirmation in the Lutheran Church (LCMS) typically age 14 or so). I believe that this practice was also the Episcopal Standard at some point in the past. I believe that there is a sufficient biblical basis for seeing this in terms of baptism, rather than baptism and confirmation, but, for purposes of this discussion, here is the Bible passage that forms for Lutherans (and once formed for Episcopalians) the basis for the need of some sort of preparation prior to coming to the table:
1 Cor. 11: 28-29
"Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
That last phrase, of course, opens up a discussion on "Real Presence" !
So, esteemed scholars, is there any way to find a logical solution, or do we concede that Holy Communion is a Sacrament, and contains much of Mystery within its Theology ?
Dick, it’s so good to be able to talk about these things. Again, thank you.
You’ve thrown out two items for discussion: Can what takes place in the sacrament be logically explained (and implicitly, would that be a good thing?), and should children receive communion.
I’ll skim over the first for now, as it brings up huge related issues. But I would have to say that mystery is something built into creation and guaranteed by both the greatness of our God and the finitude of man. It seems to me that we don’t get rid of it by placing scientific sounding names on that which we still don’t or can’t understand. (Gravity is no less mysterious because we call it “gravity”.) The human heart knows this and requires some experience and affirmation of the “numinous.” Modernity’s penchant for reducing everything down to rational stuff and time has stripped the world of enchantment. Human beings can’t exist in such a place and so along with exploding scientism comes a seemingly contradictory flirtation with things occult, irrational and superstitious. It seems to me that modern rationalism guaranteed the arrival of “New Age” flirtations. Surely, if it is to be found anywhere, an encounter with the true, living and transcendent God should provide a healthy dose of mystery. But I’ll leave that for another day- unless ya’ll choose otherwise.
Obviously, with six children, the second question is near and dear to my heart. There’s no question that the anti-paedocommunion position you mention has been the majority position in the Western church for a long, long time. You’re in good company, for sure. But it has never been the practice of the Eastern Church, and even Calvin acknowledges that it was not the practice of the ancient church. It appears to be an innovation and as such, the burden of proof would seem to fall on those who “went a different way.” You understand this in advancing your question as you do. “This is how it used to be done in the Lutheran and Episcopal church; it’s not being done that way any more; someone tell me why not.” That’s certainly fair, and you’re right to do so, but in answering your concerns I’d want to push it a bit further back and point out that the Western practice appears to be an innovation- first children who were acknowledged to be part of the body of Christ were barred from his table because of fear that the elements might end up on the floor, then Chrismation, which originally accompanied baptism, was put off until an age of discernment, then the cup was actually taken away from the congregation (this practice persisted in the Roman church until the 1960’s). I believe that this was for reasons identical to the ones that first justified barring children.
At some point we’ll need to talk about why children of believers (who through baptism have been grafted into the body of Christ) should have access to Christ- although to me the asking of the question seems to point to the answer, but you’ve understandably asked about Paul’s direction in 1 Cor. 11: 28-29. Isn’t the loving and responsible thing to keep the kids back from the edge of the cliff?
I don’t want to wear anyone out, so I’ll take a crack at that question later.
IT's commonplace to say that context is king. That’s true for the immediate context of the passage in question, but also for the totality of the scripture that surrounds I Cor 11-28-29.
Where do we start when we approach the passage? The presumption in my mind is that children should be welcomed to the Lord’s table. Perhaps the passage will undermine that, but that's where I begin. This follows from 1) what the Lord’s table is and 2) that children are counted as part of God’s people.
I don’t think I have to argue the last point since we belong to the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Infant Baptism is simply "plain vanilla catholic" Christianity, and as such the practice of our parish. The first point might be an issue (although I believe that the minimum position that we truly receive the body and blood of Christ is another point of "plain vanilla" Christianity which was affirmed by all- from the earliest Fathers through the Reformation of Luther and Calvin), because there are so many accurate ways of seeing what is going on at the table. But at the core, Communion is…well, communion. And as such is necessary for a healthy life in Christ. That, in a nutshell, is what it means to be a Christian- union and communion with Christ.
So, the Eucharist is (among other things) a set apart time in which God has promised to unite himself (This is the point of eating- we take him into ourselves and he becomes us and we, him) and commune with his people in a special way. The children of believers are claimed by him as his people, therefore the Eucharist is for the children of believers.
This is further implied by the Old Covenant counterpart of which the Eucharist is fulfillment- Passover.
“Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed for us! Therefore let us keep the feast,” we declare every Lord ’s Day. Certainly Passover didn’t exclude the children that belonged to God. In fact, it had a special place for them- “when your children ask…” If God had decided that he no longer wished to eat with children any longer, surely he would have said so somewhere. Seeing that fellowship and friendship with God are the end and material of salvation, we need to be careful before implying that God is not interested in the salvation (fellowship and friendship) of those who haven’t reached a certain level of mental ability, and its not just children we’re talking about. This would include the mentally disabled.
Surely, we’d see such a counterintuitive direction clearly stated somewhere, but we don’t. From Genesis 3 through the New Testament books, we see God working with and through families- claiming the children of believers as his own. They are welcomed and their barring is explicitly forbidden “Let the little children come,” he once said. Are we to think that he has changed his mind or that when we declare during the Eucharist “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest” that the Messiah isn’t really coming? One must be denied, because if he’s present and if he’s invited children to his knee, then…
I know the motive (at least the modern motive) is to protect the children, but given scripture as a whole the presumption ought to be towards their admission. St. Paul was dealing with a particular problem in a particular place. I Cor’s is “occasional", and if we are to understand it rightly, we need to keep that in mind. Paul’s purpose wasn’t to teach them what the Lord’s Supper was about in the epistle (itrospection). Rather he reminded them of that part which they seemed to have forgotten. We shouldn’t expect I Cor’s to be the end all of what we understand the Eucharist to be. Treating it in that way seriously warps what our God intended, in my opinion. It is the foretaste of the great Wedding Supper of the Lamb. It is a feast (as we declare), but by looking only at I Cor’s we’ve turned it into a time of dark and scary introspection. Far from celebrating the fact that the King has invited us to eat with him, the tradition I came from played sad dirges and we all acted like we were at a funeral.
So, the passage is directed to a particular problem. The whole letter deals with the contention and factions within that congregation. It came to a head in the passage in question. The rich were excluding the poor. Check me out. They were denying by the way they attempted to commune with the Body and Blood of Christ the fact that they were the body of Christ. It was this failure to see that the weak and despised were indeed part of them that called down God’s judgment. The body they failed to discern was the one that they made up. Given this perspective, excluding the most vulnerable and lowly among us (children and all other mentaly challenged individuals) is a violation of the very point Paul is trying to make. There is much more that could be said; if anyone is interested this is a helpful resource.
Acts 5 tells the story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira. We have very clear testimony that God is liable to strike you dead for giving money in an unworthy manner. But we allow, even encourage, our children to put money in the offering plate as it passes by. How do we justify this when it’s possible that many are sick and we know for a fact that at least two are asleep for doing so unworthily?
Dick,The focus on the verse you gave is self examination; it is not referring to church restrictions. Also on the matter of real presence any real serious study of the early church and the early writings will find that the real presence was believed and taken as a fact. It seems to me that because one can not explain it or totally understand it does not change whether it is true or not. My opinion is that the child being a part of the Lords Family is invited to the meal. State of coming to the table is not that one is pure with out sin, but that one is not abusing the meal thus abusing ones brother. Either we hold that infant Baptism is the real thing and they are in the family or our Baptist brothers have it right and one can not be a Christian till the age of accountability. I believe it is better to err on the open communion than to find out before the Lord that we held brother and sister from the table. There is one unifier and that is Christ, he is what brings us to the Table, at the Table we are neither, Greek, Jew, Baptist, Lutheran or any other fraction, all are Christ Body. But I do believe the Table can be denied to those who are under the final step of Church discipline.
Just checked the e-mail. Dick, do you suppose you could ask a harder question? Ouch!! Not being a cradle Anglican, I come from a different direction on this. I was raised Southern Baptist, which approaches Communion from a totally different angle, very Zwinglian. We only had it quarterly and, as it was considered only a memorial, by Anglican standards, very perfunctorily. By Southern Baptist standards, you only had to be a believer to take Communion. Baptism was, as far as I am aware, not required. No inquiry was made anyway, it was left up to the conscience of the individual. Dick, the questions you have asked raise a host of other questions along with them. Is baptism necessary for salvation (except in the case of impossibility, such as the thief on the cross)? What is, in fact, required for salvation? As Phil has already raised the point, should children be baptised? You asked about confirmation-confirmation is an unnecessary ritual unless you are practicing infant baptism. Baptists do not baptise children until they have reached an age that they can make a conscious profession of faith, there is no confirmation in Baptist practice. I could go on for a while. To return to the original question, in the light of Anglican practice and of my current thoughts on the matter, I would require baptism and "reasonable congruity of beliefs" (reasonable minds could differ considerably on the meaning of that one!). I would not require confirmation, except in the case of those baptised as infants. If confirmation in the Anglican church were a requirement, I could not now take Communion. I am still waiting for Bishop Barnum to come here to conduct another confirmation service. For those baptised as infants, though, confirmation is the only way to ascertain a "reasonable congruity of beliefs" (or at least a verbal statement of such). Look at the word Communion. Where does it come from? Community. How can there be a community (in the Christian sense), unless there are common beliefs about what we are about? Anything less reduces the word to nonsense. I have had to totally revise my thinking on Communion since becoming Anglican and my beliefs on this are still in flux. That being said, for me Communion is the community of God coming together to meet with its Lord, and in a sense that is a mystery, to meet with all those believers that have gone before, in a very special and unique way. I am not going to get into the discussion of the Real Presence too far here. At one time I should have said it was nonsense, I now realize that was a product of the poverty stricken way Baptists do Communion. I am not sure that I need to know how Christ is present in Communion, I only need to know that He is there, and that I do know, now. As for baptism, it appears to me, in Anglican practice (as opposed to theory?), baptism is necessary to salvation (again, with an exception for impossibility). I do not see how you can practice infant baptism unless you hold this to be true. If you do, infant baptism makes perfect sense. As a Baptist, I would have choked on this. Now, I am not so sure. Assuming no impossibility, can you really have saving faith and refuse Christ's first commandment (which doesn't speak to infant baptism, obviously, but infant baptism becomes a logical extension with the innocence of the child replacing a profession of faith)? That being said, you can not become a part of the community of God unless you have entered through the door of baptism (again, absent impossibility). If you are not part of the community, how can you participate in Communion in any meaningful way? The Episcopalians want to dump the baptism requirement because they have so expanded their definition of the word "community" so as to render it entirely meaningless. They are in the process of turning the sacrament into a species of 1960's love-in. Dick, I am running out of space here. I will tackle more of this in my next post.
As to the question of preparation: I speak more from experience here than from theology. I can not, not will not, come to the Lord's table without preparation. I usually make it a point to sit far enough back in the congregation to have some time before my pew gets up. I spend this time in prayer. I can not come to the table if there is sin in my life and I have been forced to repent on the spot more than once before participating in Communion. It is the best thing I have ever found for keeping your life straight. I would find it incredible that any Christian does not find this to be true in his or her own life. 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 has a real bite to it. I would be and am actually afraid to approach the table if God was telling me I needed to repent of something beforehand. As to the question of being a receiver: Primarily yes, but not entirely. We receive in Communion: first, the invitation to enter into a relationship with our Creator, second, the worthiness to approach our Creator, third, an entering in to a very special relationship with our Creator, fourth, an entering in to a relationship with all those who have participated in the past, fifth, spiritual strength for daily living. We do, however, offer something in return, the only offerings we can give that are pleasing in God's sight. We offer our love, our praise, our worship, our gratitude, and our obedience. Therefore, we are not solely receivers. How can there be a relationship that is totally one-sided? It is not possible. Dick, as to your last comment, Communion is a sacrament and it does contain a great deal for which there is no logical explanation. That does not excuse us from understanding as much as we can and moreover, it warns us to guard it well. Let us not "cast pearls before swine".
As to children participating in Communion: This goes back to the first part of my posting. Are the children part of the community of God? If not, why do we baptise them? If so, on what logical basis do we deny them Communion? Do we make them a second class part of the community? There is no Scriptural basis for it. Christ said "Suffer the little children to come unto Me." If the verse about raising your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord has any meaning, we can not cripple them by denying them full participation in our worship. Especially in these dark times, if we receive spiritual strength from Communion, do we dare weaken the children by denying them that strength? I do not think so. If nothing else, simple logical consistency dictates that if we consider children a part of the community of God, if we baptise them to bring them into the door of the church, than we must also allow them to participate in Communion, at least until they reach an age of accountability at which point we reach again the question of confirmation and requiring them to make a decision for themselves to remain eligible (a troubling question as all children do not reach accountability at the same age).
There is much to mull over here. I see enough variations in viewpoints that I am going to suggest this as a research topic - do we have any early church documentation or accounts as to whether baptized children came to the Table or not ? I do know that the earliest accounts of Christian services detail that the Service was divided into two parts. Part I was for everyone. Part II, in which Holy Communion was celebrated, included only the baptized from that point forwards. So I think it would be safe to say that for the early church, the Eucharist included the "Baptized." But what age range constituted the "Baptized" who came to the Table at that time period in the early Church ? I am going to look through my Eusebius and see if he sheds any light on this. I also have a pretty good Pelikan History which might be useful. It would also be interesting, just for the record, to look back at the 39 Articles and see what the text is in regards to Holy Communion / Eucharist. Thanks to all for the excellent thoughtful analysis so far !
I’m with you fella’s regarding the real presence. That much I’m committed to. Can’t look under the hood, so I’m not willing to endorse a particular theory regarding how it works. Christ is truly offered and received during communion. This is the catholic faith.
Coming from a reformed background, it was very frustrating to be part of a group of people who referred to themselves as Calvinists, but ridiculed Calvin in regards to his sacramental theology. If a ministerial candidate spoke about baptism and Communion as Calvin did, he’d be accused of being a closet Papist. That’s not a good thing on a Presbytery floor.
Although Zwinglians refer to their position as a memorial, I don’t think they understand the concept in a Biblical way. The Old Testament is filled with memorials. They had a very clear purpose. “Do this “as a memorial to me” doesn’t mean “try to conjure up meaningful thoughts and emotions.”
By the way, this is a good thing. I’m looking forward to more interaction.
If we are taking this thread off onto the subject of infant baptism, I must say that, when all is said and done, I still do not think it is appropriate, even if I am up against the early church practice. I do not see anything in the Scriptures about infant baptism, the story of the Philippian jailer notwithstanding. That is an argument from silence at best. There is no way to know if the jailer's household included children or not, and if it did, it could just as easily be a collective reference to all of the household capable of believing. Christ said, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me", but does that refer to baptism? Not necessarily. Having been baptised as a teenager, I can say that I would have missed something I would not give up for anything had I been baptised as an infant. It is a far different thing to experience the baptism of new life when old enough to know what is happening than to do so as an infant. It is a radical, shattering change. Had I any children, I would not want them baptised until old enough to decide for themselves and make their own profession of faith. I believe that, if God is willing to save children too young to make a profession of faith at all, He will do it without baptism also. If God can make an exception for those who find it impossible to be baptised, why not for children? For that matter, if someone is baptised as a child and, when he or she comes to age, refuses confirmation and walks away from the faith, where does Hebrews 10:26-31 come into play? Is that person, who may never have had any faith to begin with, forever lost because of a ritual that took place when he or she was an infant? If not, is infant baptism really baptism? Is the infant left in some sort of limbo, half way home, until confirmation? If so, then should children take Communion and what Scriptural justification do we have for this limbo state? What is the meaning of those verses in relation to infant baptism? Do we gut those verses of meaning because we do not like the implications like the reappraisers?
In the light of what has been happening in the Episcopal church lately, I would like to continue the discussion of Dick's original question. For instance, if a set of requirements is to be maintained for admission to Communion, how is it to be enforced? One may assume that we will have records of our own people, but what of visitors? If someone profanes the sacrament by taking it unworthily, or if no effort is made to enforce the requirements, what effect does that have on Communion as a sacrament? I have a few other side questions on this subject but I do not want to get too far off topic.
Phil, you made a comment about Christ being "truly offered and received" in Communion. What do you mean by that? Layman's explanation there, please. I do not have anywhere near the theological knowledge you have. I suspect that I may not be in agreement with you there. I have seen that phrase before, usually in conjunction with theories of the Real Presence I can not agree with.
Going back to part of Dick's original question: "to what degree is the individual involved in the process of communion?" It would seem to me that involvement is total, regardless of the role one may have in the sacrament. Communion is the unique thing that we do that marks us as Christian. We should be meeting with God with our whole being, body, soul, and spirit. That is the whole point of having a liturgy-so that the believer may meet with God and worship God with his whole being. It is one reason I became Anglican. I was tired of being an audience. If someone is taking Communion and is not participating with his or her whole being, at least part of the time (none of us are doing this perfectly), something is very wrong somewhere.
J.P., this is what I meant by the difficulty of discussing the Eucharist. In many ways it forms the hub of the wheel of our Christian life (because of what it is). You can move up a particular spoke, around the rim and back down on an entirely spar. It’s difficult to stay put, but you can’t say you’ve thoroughly explored the hub, if you do stay put. The problem is that we could fly around this thing forever without noticing where we’ve been.
In light of that I appreciate your asking me about a comment I made regarding Real Presence. Seems to me that that is the sort of thing we need to do, in order to pace ourselves and get somewhere- even if that is simply an accurate appreciation of where the other is standing. But I’m going to save my answer for another day.
So, it’s in that spirit of slowing down that I’d like to bring up yet another issue. ;-)
I understand exactly where you are coming from in relation to your appeal to “show me in the bible”, and I know it arises from a desire to be faithful to God and his word. I was raised in a Fundamental Baptist church. Believe me, I know. Let me share some of the thoughts that brought me to a new place. The first is the most foundational and is lying under the surface fo everything you and I discuss..
Perhaps a good place to start would be to clarify what I’m up to here, and more importantly, what I’m not up to. I’m a member of the church. The church precedes me. I haven’t the authority to speak for her, nor do I see it as my job to act as her judge or gatekeeper. Sometimes this is forgotten or misunderstood when these types of discussions take place.
I believe along with the Reformers in sola scriptura. This is in distinction to what has been called solo scriptura. In other words, I believe that scripture is the only infallible and final authority in matter of faith and practice. I don’t believe it is the only authority.
Rather, we have one ultimate authority from whom a lesser (yet very real and august) and fallible body derives its authority. We have scripture, and we have the church. This is the doctrine promulgated by the Reformers.
Let me try a legal analogy. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Does that imply that local and State governments have no authority? More to the point, is the Constitution self interpreting? No, we have a body of men and women who have the authority to declare to us what the Constitution means. To settle disputes.
Does the Supreme Court make mistakes? Yes.
Do they ever misunderstand the Constitution? Certainly.
Do these limitations nullify their authority? Ought we to submit to their decisions only when we believe they “get it right?”
What would be the outcome if it were otherwise?
It seems to me that the result would be constant revolution and anarchy.
This is unstable situation is how I view the state of much of those in the Evangelical Free Church world. An appeal to “scripture only” really means regard for my opinion only. This doesn’t imply a challenge to the primacy of scripture. It simply recognizes that authority is always mediated.
In other words, “Children obey your parents”, doesn’t imply “instead of the Lord.”
Submission to authority isn’t difficult when the authority is perfect; it’s a test when the authority is flawed. Every child with a parent knows that.
Now, I can imagine a situation where I might conspire to spirit a child away from her parents because of abuse, but I hope and pray that I’m never faced with such a situation. I know the “injustices” I’ve witnessed in other families and my own don’t constitute such a situation. I can imagine a nightmarish future in which taking up arms against a tyrant is obedience to God, but the daily opportunity for feeling contempt at a particularly aggravating yahoo in Washington isn’t a call to arms.
I mention all of this to make clear where I’m coming from in regards to issues like infant baptism, and … the full divinity and humanity of Christ (against a plausible Arian telling of the story), “One God the Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding,” worship on Sunday, Bishops and whether a New Testament exists and if so what actually ought to be part of it.
All of these things and many others I ultimately receive through Christ’s church. By that I don’t mean to say that they are not congruent in scripture or of various shades of explicit mention in scripture. Rather, I mean that they can be and have been denied from a certain perspective of scripture.
The most egregiously silent matter is the most obviously fundamental. The problem with being a “New Testament only Christian” is that you end up without a New Testament. No where in scripture are we told which books should be included in the New Testament. This is no small thing, as the recent Gospel of Judas and Da Vinci Code embarrassment make clear. There are challenges. The fact is, before you can get to the Bible, you have to pass through a Creed (tradition with a large T). We call this creed “The table of Contents.”
To dismiss the universal practice of the church from a principle of “we don’t see anything in the New Testament in regards to it” is to have both feet planted in midair. On that principle, you don’t have- much less can use- the New Testament.
Those who deny the biblical nature of paedobaptism are a very small minority (if we allow the dead a vote) in Christ’s church. Surely someone thought it was biblical. There are whole books on the topic, if you are interested. I’d be glad to recommend some from my limited experience. I say this because I don’t believe we’ll have the time to cover all the bases here, but I do believe they’ve been covered, and there’s no question what the catholic and Anglican (because catholic) position is.
In a nutshell:
St Paul instructed the Thessalonians “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” How do we know that infant baptism was the tradition of the apostles? (By the way, did you notice that Tradition is here spoken of in positive terms?) The church teaches it was so and history bears it out, it is in keeping with God’s redemptive program, it is demanded by a consideration of what baptism is and the place of children within the church.
I'll try to unpack my understanding (misunderstanding?), but I'll still have to paint in the broadest of strokes. The church practices infant baptism because…this is what the church of Christ does- and has always done.
A general takes his commanders into the HQ tent for a meeting and they exit hours later. They return to their respective units. At the sound of a bugle each separate unit instantly wheels into an intricate maneuver so that they replaced each other in line and confused the enemy. If after the battle, someone said, “That was glorious. I only wish we were inside that Tent and knew just what the commander instructed them to do.” What would you think of his question? We know for a fact what they were instructed to do, because we saw them all do it.
I know that you see this as an argument from silence. But I don’t think you’re feeling the strength of the situation. The Donatist controversy threatened to split the church. It took the genius of St Augustine to finally argue it down. There were many issues, but the rubber met the road in the question of ministers- especially, who could baptize. It’s unbelievable to me, that the question of “who had the authority to Baptize” would result in countless debates, ultimately threatening the existence of the one church, but the more basic question of “who ought to be baptized” was experimented with and altered without anyone taking notice or mentioning it. When we first find it explicitly discussed, it’s spoken of as the universal practice. In light of Donatism, does this seem likely to you?
We know that God has always worked through families. The promise that he "would be our God and we would be his people"- the very heart of what we proclaim- was made "to you and to your children." Because of this the seal of righteousness that comes by faith (see Paul in Romans) was given to the male children of believers. God was their God by virtue of the covenant he had made to them, and so they were marked with the covenant seal. For those coming from outside the covenant community, God stipulated “Believer’s Circumcision”, but once the relationship was entered into, “Infant Circumcision” became the norm. At Pentecost Peter explained that the covenant promise that was first made to Abraham was now agressively extending towards the gentiles, and lest anyone thought that God’s new covenant was going to leave the children out, Peter added “And to your children.” The old Covenant seal of our faith was replaced with a non-bloody one. We are told this explicitly in Colossians 2. We were circumcised by being baptized in Christ.
The argument is straightforward. Children were part of God’s covenant people and so received the sign of his covenant. Children are still part of his people and receive the new sign of his covenant.
There is nothing going on here that the church doesn’t also apply to its female members. How do you know that it is proper for women to receive communion. There are functions that women do not participate in. Traditionally- ordination. Currently- acting as a husband in a civil union. How do you know that communion isn’t one of those things? It’s ridiculous to ask, because... we understand 1) who women are in relation to the church. They belong every bit as much as men do, and 2) what communion is. When you put the two together you see that it would be a sin to forbid a woman communion.
The point to notice is that this is not based on 1) an explicit biblical command. No one says women belong at the communion rail explicitly. Or 2) an explicit biblical example. We don’t know that women communed- unless we appeal to an argument from silence. In fact we could say that we don't see anything about this practice in the New Testament, but we’d be wrong.
The inclusion of children is God’s way. If he had changed it, he would have let us know and someone would have noticed. Especially among a young church that was largely Jewish. Given this situation we would expect to find exactly what we do find- an assumption in the New Testament, not a new directive. We would have examples of individuals being baptized. Likewise we would find examples of households being baptized. This is what we find.
Furthermore, we find the church acting in exactly this manner throughout its history. Again, including children in its numbers is just what God’s people do- from the time of Abraham up until today. We teach them to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven”, because we believe it to be true. They belong to him and have a right to that objective assurance, which is baptism.
The burden is on those who teach that children are now, under a more gracious covenat, excluded. That's the case a Baptist must make from the biblical direction, then they have to explain the historical problem.
I can’t speak to your experience of baptism, and I don’t want to question the incredible significance of it. I'm thankful for it, but I would put it up against that of my children who know that before they even knew who God was, he took them in his arms, called them by name and committed himself to them- as individuals. Powerful stuff, that. No wonder Luther would fight doubts by telling himself “I’m a baptized Christian.” But I know you’ll agree that subjective experience isn’t the standard.
Something to think about, one of the greatest hurdles to my “Baptist formed mind” to coming to the historic understanding of Baptism was my conception of baptism as a profession of faith. (Where is that taught in the bible?) The rest of the church has understood it to be God’s act, not mine. This is the difference between a Baptist’s infant dedication and a Christian infant baptism. Dedications are from man upward. Baptism is from God downward. In dedication we speak. In baptism God speaks to us. These two different conceptions lead to very different practices.
That’s what I mean when I say that the question (apart from authority, submission etc) hinges on 1) Are children (and those who are child like) really, really part of God’s people and 2) what is baptism and communion.
The interesting theological topics are multiplying ! We can "multiplex" on this single thread on all these multiple topics, or I can extract these other topics and create other "Tables" for the discussion on that specific topic to continue. We can already see, though, that several different issues surfaced as we continued our discussion. I will email two of you specifically for authorization to open up a new "Table" on your topic. Thanks !!!
I knew when I published my last post that I would get a barge load from one of you!
Phil, let me try to work through your post item by item.
I wouldn't argue with you that the church or "Tradition" is a source of aurhority. I agree. It is, however, as you yourself pointed out, a fallible one. It doesn't always get it right-or Anglicanism wouldn't exist and we would all still be Eastern Orthodox. That said, I greatly respect the tradition and practice of the church over the centuries. However, when dealing with the major doctrines of the faith (and, however you may define that, I think we can agree that baptism qualifies) I tend to start looking for something in the Scriptures to justify what Tradition has done with that doctrine-and choke when I can't find it.
I have to disagree with the aptness of your legal analogy. in the first place, our government is a representative democracy. God's kingdom is an absolute monarchy. The governing principles are totally different. Having studied constitutional law extensively in school, I would argue that, for the most part, the Constitution is self explanatory. If you study the Supreme Court, it was not until the Depression era New Deal legislation that constitutional decisions became at all frequent and we didn't get what is called the "activist" Court until after WWII. You may not be aware of this, but the Founding Fathers came within a hairsbreadth of creating no federal judiciary at all. I happen to believe, if, the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would see our current governmental mess as a call to arms. They would be planning the Second American Revolution. I also believe that the current role of the Supreme Court results more from the spinelessness of the other branches of government, particularly Congressional unwillingness to use the proper amendment process. Someone taking on what an old attorney I knew called "the Supreme Joke" would be no bad thing in my opinion.
Yes, we do submit to the authority of the Church-or do we? In fact, each of us, especially if coming from a non-Episcopal background, have placed what the Church (in this case the Anglican Church) believes and practices against what we believe-and have decided for ourselves. If it ever does not stack up, we try to change it-or leave. Have we then truly submitted to the authority of the Church? By your view, logically extended, no one should be leaving the Episcopal church, no matter how apostate it becomes. Everyone should submit to the authority of the Church-even though that authority is entirely wrong.
I am not what you call a "New Testament only" Christian. It's impossible anyway. I would agree with you that the faith is what it is because it has been shaped over the centuries by the Church.
Let us not push that argument about dismissing "the universal practice of the Church" too far, or we will have no Reformation. We do not venerate (or worship if you prefer) the saints or the Virgin Mary-but the pre-Reformation Church did and I haven't seen anything to indicate that this was not a regular practice back to the earliest times. The reformers threw it out. How about the Mass (going back to the question you passed over)? The reformers threw it out, at least in the form it had been practiced in for centuries. If we are to judge everything by the "universal practice of the Church" we had all better convert back to Eastern Orthodoxy. Unless we consider the Tradition of the Church as infallible (which is, in fact, the Eastern Orthodox position), "we've always done it" isn't an entirely sound argument. If it is infallible, we're in a heap of trouble.
I had to review the Donatist controversy to see where you were headed with it. I think what you are saying is, that if there were violent divisions over who could give baptism, there should have been equally violent divisions over who could receive it if anyone had changed who could receive. Since I don't deny that infant baptism was practiced in the early Church, this seems to be a bit of a straw man?
Incidentally, St. Augustine didn't argue this down. He tried and failed. The Donatists were put down by force in an alliance of Church and Emperor. The persecuted Church became a persecuting Church. I'm not a big fan of St. Augustine anyway, nor am I sure that the Donatists were entirely wrong. That's a debate for a different thread.
It's late and I'm going to work on the rest of this later. To be continued.
As a Reformed pastor who accepts the concept of "prima scriptura," I have generally summarized the teaching of scripture and tradition in giving the invitation to the Lord's Supper. In doing so I have found it helpful and sufficient to "fence the table" (without reference to age) by clarifying for all present that this sacrament of the Eucharist is uniquely for baptized Christians (those who have entered into a covenant relationship with God in Christ on His terms)... and specifically it is NOT FOR the UNBELIEVER (faith in Christ is prerequisite), the UNREPENTANT(examination of conscience and confession are essential preparation), and/or the UNDISCERNING (the elements are sacramentally Christ's Body and Blood).
This general approach seems consistent with and applicable to orthodox Anglican theology, liturgy and practice. I commend it for consideration in dealing with this sensitive, and often emotionally charged, topic.
Your writing is a model of succinct clarity. I’m paying attention and hope to emulate it…I'm sure everyone would appreciate that! I guess my thoughts aren't as clearly formed. I work them out as I write, and then am too lazy to distill them down. Anyway, thanks for joining us.
I was reminded of something when reading your post. Dick’s original question related to the historic practice and need of withholding Christ (sorry, I couldn’t help myself)…er, Communion from children based upon Paul’s letter to the Corinthian’s. It has often struck me that the remedy has nothing to do with the proposed problem. We wait until children reach an “age of discretion,” with out any specific reference to what they must discern.
Paul says that judgment has come because people failed to discern the “body of Christ.” If “body of Christ” refers to the elements of Communion (as the more modern Western application necessitates), then how does waiting until they are able to discern equate with making sure that they discern. Dick’s initial question indicates that Western Christians do not agree about what is to be discerned.
There are many options: Is it the body and blood? It definitely isn‘t the body and blood. It’s both bread and body, wine and blood. We truly receive the body and blood, etc. Then there’s the whole issue of what we’re up to: Is God really offering himself, is it simply for generating subjective feelings? Is it a legally binding covenantal ritual, is it instructional only- God’s flannel graph?
Imagine having a bank of switches that control the floodwaters of a dam. “Many have perished by failing to pull the right switch”, we are told. “You must discern the proper switch.” In response to this we only allow people who are old enough to discern that switches differ and that it's a grave matter to pull a switch to get into the control room. But we have no idea which one ought to be thrown. Have we solved the problem?
Paul doesn’t say that the participants aren’t old enough. He says they did not discern the body of Christ. How does making sure they have the ability, while withholding how it is done help?
What body…where?
J.P. you write well. I envy that legal mind of yours, and I appreciate your civil tone. We obviously care very much about the issues here. I suspect that it’s because all of this is a treasure that we’ve just discovered. Because we are not “Cradle-Anglican” we understand how precious it is…and how barren and compromised the alternatives are.
I don’t want to go back… whether by moving my family to a modern baptistic evangelical congregation, nor by waking up to find that the modern evangelical baptistic identity has replaced the Anglican identity I so desperately sought out.
That’s why you rightly expected “a barge load from one of us”. Anglicans baptize their children. That’s simply what we do and have done for slightly under two thousand years. I get a little antsy when someone is up front about coming in with the purpose of changing us or leaving.
That is something that must be noted. To argue against the baptism of infants is to argue against- what is by your own admission- a major doctrine of the body you’ve been welcomed into. “A barge load” of response is fair, don’t you think?
I think you missed the point of the Supreme Court anology. Like all analogies, the subjects compared differ somewhere or it wouldn’t be an analogy. The question is in regard to the aptness of their point of contact.
I agree with you on the state of the Supreme Court. I’m a big Bork fan. In fact, I’m more of a Calhounian and believe the original intent was for the States, not the Supreme Court, to be the final arbiters, but that doesn’t affect the aptness of the analogy. I chose a popularly understood situation to illustrate that a commitment to an ultimate authority does not contradict the reality of lesser authorities- and more to the point, the need to interpret that authority, even if fallibly. It was authority per se, which I meant you to notice. Not the form that authority took. That’s why I offered up fallible parents as another example.
So, while I’m glad to hear that you respect the authority of tradition and the church, and have no desire to question the sincerity of that claim, I’m just not sure what you mean by it. If I can fiddle with an elder brother’s comments, Faith in the authority of the church without works is dead.
If I, a fallilbe parent, tell my children to do something and they respond with “Let me think about whether you are right to ask me to do such a thing, because…you know, sometimes you really blow this parent thing.” Has my authority been respected? What ought I to expect of my children. Would it fix things if they prefaced the remarks above with, “I really respect you, but…” What does respect for authority look like?
I don’t deny that their may be a time for my children to disobey me, but I believe that God expects children, citizens and parishioners to be forbearing towards much injustice, mistakes and incompetence before revolution is declared. But, even then it ought to be done in such a way that parental, civil and ecclesiastical authority in general is not undermined. I meant that to come through in the last post.
That’s why I respect the fact that the members of our Parish held on as long as they could in the EPUSA. They loved the branch of Christ’s church they were a part of and they endured much injustice and unbelievable ineptness- even wickedness. The departure and the contention that followed was the last radical straw, not business as usual. You and I both know which predominates “out there” in evangelicalism.
(Incidentally, It's my belief that the Anglican Church began when the gospel first came to Britain. God simply allowed her to wash herself off at the time of Ole’ Henry. The King meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.)
As for me, if it can be demonstrated that the practices of the Eastern Church were “from the beginning,” I’d thank God for her and pray that those who are responsible for guiding the Western branch would come in line with her. The standard isn’t “because this is simply the way things have always been done”, but rather “any practice that was universally practiced from the beginning is clearly congruent with apostolic tradition”. I must trust millions of Christians, many of whom knew the apostles, or I trust my own limited, two thousand-year distanced thinking. Which is the wiser course? More so, I trust the mercy and faithfulness of the Husband of this messed up Bride. He loves me because he loves me, not because I get every question right.
As it is, I’m a western Christian. I stay with her not because I believe she is perfect or even right most of the time, but because I believe she is truly the church into which Christ has placed me. Perhaps things could progress to the point where I must leave her in order to be faithful to God, but the fact that she’s going to get things wrong isn’t such a situation. If that is the criterion, where would I go?
Anyway, this is what I hear you saying. Forgive me if I’ve misheard you: You believe my historical argument is a strawman. Does this not imply that you believe the church got off on the wrong foot in regards to baptism immediately and no one seemed to notice or care, even though “wars” were fought over lesser things. And this compromise and irresponsibility (what else could it be) by those who often sealed their commitment to the truth by martyrdom, and sacrificed lives, family and fortune in order to preserve and transmit the very faith we proclaim, is evident because you don’t see what they were getting at in the book which they compiled?
I’m going to be tied up. Can’t promise I will be able to continue at this rate for a while. I’ll do my best to keep up.
In a previous post someone asked for some historical data concerning admittance to the Lord's Supper. Let me start by offering the prototype standards listed by Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, which have been widely accepted and practiced in the church. Indeed, the Catholic Church has always applied his three conditions for receiving Holy Communion --(i.e., BAPTISM, RIGHT FAITH and RIGHT LIVING). Let me quote him directly: "...this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined" (First Apology, Chapter LXVI).
Following this precedent BAPTISM, ORTHODOXY and HOLINESS are to be expected of communicants.
You've read considerably more into my posts than I meant when I posted them. I have no intention to try to change Anglican practice on baptism, or of leaving, either. I'm not convinced it's 100% right, but I also realize that I'm up against a lot of evidence the other way. I'm not dogmatic at all on this, I'm still thinking about it. Nor do I want to turn Anglicanism into an "evangelical baptistic" faith. I just left that myself. You can relax! I expected a barge load of response because I've got one every time this particular issue has arisen. It seems to be a very volatile one. I'd actually rather be discussing Dick's original question. I knew none of you would agree with me and I'm still thinking about the issue, myself. I thought your historical argument a straw man simply because I concede the point. The early Church did practice infant baptism, there's no getting around it. I did not understand the necessity of arguing a point I don't dispute. I know there's 2000 years of practice out there on this. That's precisely why I am not prepared to speak for anyone but myself on this and certainly not prepared to try to change Anglican practice. I respect that 2000 years of practice immensely and realize I could be dead wrong on this. I'm just not convinced of it yet. There are, as I pointed out, other matters where the reformers have thrown out previous practice. Is it necessary to accept every scrap of Anglican doctrine (when there actually is one) before you join the Anglican Church? I hope not. I doubt anyone would qualify. I knew I would have to reconsider my beliefs when I became Anglican. I'm still working on it.
As for the Eastern Church, that's precisely what they will tell you-and then proceed to give you chapter and verse from the Church fathers to prove it. Try talking to a knowledgeable Orthodox one of these days, particularly a Western convert. Hang on to your shoes though, or you might find yourself swimming the Bosphorus. There's been quite a few of those lately-including a good many ex-Anglicans.
I would point out, as I did previously, that you are trusting your own limited, two thousand year distanced thinking. Why else leave the Baptist denomination for Anglicanism, unless you thought the Anglican way more correct than the Baptist one? You decided for yourself, with the light that God gave you, who was more right or, to focus it more sharply, whose doctrine was more right. We all do this. If we didn't, no one would ever leave the denomination they began in. All the arguments are simply evidence, on which we base a decision. Is this bad? God did give us minds. He surely expects us to use them. How else do we discern the spirits?
I'd agree with you about the beginning of the Anglican Church. A good case can be argued that the Anglican Church got pulled off course at the Council of Whitby and not even "ol' Henry" managed to pull it completely back on track. Try studying the pre-Whitby British Church, and the pre-English conquest Irish Church if you haven't before. I find we lost a lot there that would be invaluable today.
I couldn't agree more with Justin Martyr's qualifications for Communion. If we enforce them like we should, however, that last one would keep a lot of people away from the Communion table. They actually had that problem in the 19th century English and Scottish churches. The Holiness requirement was so heavily emphasised that no one would take Communion, being too afraid to. Anything in Justin Martyr about how they made those standards stick?
I so appreciate your spirit. Electronic communication seems to be designed to start fires. You can’t hear my tone of voice or see the smiles I’d be sending your way, and yet you assumed that they were there. Thank you for that.
I do have a great deal of baggage- perhaps, even bitterness- that comes with my backstory. I’m quite sure it goes into how I read people. That’s not always fair, and I ask your forgiveness.
I served as an elder in a Reformed denomination for many years. During that time I watched as godly men, who advocated positions that were clearly in line with the substandards of our denomination (because identical with the views of some who wrote them), being challenged, ridiculed and charged as Crypto-Papists. American culture as a whole is Baptistic, and it has so influenced the thinking of American Presbyterians that they’ve come to confuse the modern Bapto-Presbyterain Hybrid with historic Presbyterianism. I doubt Calvin could be ordained today.
Anyway, I understand differences of opinion. I appreciate and value the insights that my Baptist brothers and Sisters bring to the table in regards to the need for true faith, but I get aggravated when one wasn’t allowed to be a Presbyterian because it was asserted that the true Presbyterian faith consists of Baptist Principles clothed in Presbyterian practice. Doesn’t seem just.
I have looked into Eastern Orthodoxy. I’m very sympathetic, but God has placed me in this branch of the Apostolic Church. For better or worse, I’m a Western Christian. Without doubt, she needs all the help she can get. This isn’t the time to bail. That’s been my thinking up until this point, anyway.
I understand your point about the need to decide personally. But it seems to me that the things being decided are radically different. I can decide to recognize the authority of my parents and submit even when I believe they are wrong- or over reaching. Or I can decide on a case by case basis, when they will be obeyed. I agree that both scenarios involve a decision (even a continual decision) on my part, but they also seem to be different in very important ways.
I’m glad to find I have a fellow admirer of the Celtic Church! Amen to all you said there.
Bill, I too can endorse these qualifications, but it’s important that we don’t read Modern Evangelical definitions back into them. I think this is particularly the danger in regards to “Orthodoxy” and “Faith.” For many modern evangelicals orthodoxy is summarized in one tenet- justification by faith alone. Faith is limited to a mature even full conscious acceptance of revealed truth. While I agree that this is what we aim for, I disagree that this exhausts the category of “true faith.” This has huge pastoral ramifications, to say the least.
I’d assume that Justin Martyr’s opinions were in keeping with the rest of the church. Here are some other quotes that were readily available to me. They can help us understand whether small children were indeed counted among those who have been Baptized, have Faith and are Holy.
Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-210) writes,
As soon as we (baptized), we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest. . . receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food. The Instructor, ch. VI
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. (c. A.D. 250) writes,
But to many their own destruction was not sufficient. With mutual exhortations, people were urged to their ruin; death was pledged by turns in the deadly cup. And that nothing might be wanting to aggravate the crime, infants also, in the arms of their parents, either carried or conducted, lost, while yet little ones, what in the very first beginning of their nativity they had gained. Will not they, when the day of judgment comes, say, "We have done nothing; nor have we forsaken the Lord's bread and cup to hasten freely to a profane contact; the faithlessness of others has ruined us. We have found our parents our murderers; they have denied to us the Church as a Mother; they have denied God as a Father: so that, while we were little, and unforeseeing, and unconscious of such a crime, we were associated by others to the partnership of wickedness, and we were snared by the deceit of others?" On the Lapsed, chapter 9
Learn what occurred when I myself was present and a witness. Some parents who by chance were escaping, being little careful on account of their terror, left a little daughter under the care of a wet-nurse. The nurse gave up the forsaken child to the magistrates. They gave it, in the presence of an idol whither the people flocked (because it was not yet able to eat flesh on account of its years), bread mingled with wine, which however itself was the remainder of what had been used in the immolation of those that had perished. Subsequently the mother recovered her child. But the girl was no more able to speak, or to indicate the crime that had been committed, than she had before been able to understand or to prevent it. Therefore it happened unawares in their ignorance, that when we were sacrificing, the mother brought it in with her. Moreover, the girl mingled with the saints, became impatient of our prayer and supplications, and was at one moment shaken with weeping, and at another tossed about like a wave of the sea by the violent excitement of her mind; as if by the compulsion of a torturer the soul of that still tender child confessed a consciousness of the fact with such signs as it could. When, however, the solemnities were finished, and the deacon began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup. Still the deacon persisted, and, although against her efforts, forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup. Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lord's power, so great is His majesty. The secrets of darkness were disclosed under His light, and not even hidden crimes deceived God's priest. This much about an infant, which was not yet of an age to speak of the crime committed by others in respect of herself. On the Lapsed, ch. 25-26
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
Let none of the catechumens, let none of the hearers, let none of the unbelievers, let none of the heterodox, stay here. You who have prayed the foregoing prayer, depart. Let the mothers receive [or, take] their children; let no one have anything against any one; let no one come in hypocrisy; let us stand upright before the Lord with fear and trembling, to offer. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.12
. . . . let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub-deacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.13
St. Augustine writes,
They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves. Works, Vol. 5, Sermon 174:7
Why is the blood, which of the likeness of sinful flesh was shed for the remission of sins, ministered that the little one may drink, that he may have life, unless he hath come to death by a beginning of sin on the part of some one? And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper life, than that which is written: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;" and "The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;" and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?" If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin. . . On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants, Bk. I, ch. 33
This Communion standard of RIGHT LIVING, or as I put it "HOLINESS," does not anticipate or expect perfection, but rather repentance (i.e., an active/current state of repentance from sin). It has been broadly enforced through the centuries by including in the Eucharistic Liturgy a segment for examination of conscience and confession of sin, prior to receiving the Blessed Sacrament. In the case of serious/severe sin (read: "mortal" sin), Roman Catholics have always required prior sacramental confession (i.e., ...to a priest ...followed by absolution -- IAW John 20:23). Protestants generally rely on private confession (1 John 1:9), since they only hold to and practice the two dominical sacraments -- Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Also ...most of the time, in most of the church, throughout most of its existance... a fast was also included/expected in preparation for Holy Communion. My personal practice is to fast from mid-night the night before. I believe the RC's now require fasting for only one hour before reception of the Eucharist.
The point of all this is to stress the solemnity of this sacrament which is central to the worship and life of the church. It is reserved for Christ-followers only! Just as Baptism is the sacrament of entry into the Covenant of Grace, so The Lord's Table is the sacrament of abiding in that covenant with God through Christ.
Let there be no confusion of "orthodoxy" with the ecclesiastically autonomous, subjective theological constructs of modernity (and for that matter, the last half-millennium, which threw the baby out with the bath water -- e.g., the Zwinglian Radical Reformers on the continent; the Puritans in Reformation England; or the pop-evangelicals of 21st century America). No, indeed! "Orthodoxy" must be derived from the days of the undivided church. As Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (the so-called mentor of Reformed Catholicism, 1555-1626) wrote, "ONE CANON reduced to writing by God Himself, TWO TESTAMENTS, THREE CREEDS, FOUR GENERAL COUNCILS, FIVE CENTURIES and the series of fathers in that period -– the three centuries, that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith." This five-fold dictum is a good, long-standing, shorthand definition of Orthodoxy.
This definitive period of orthodoxy culminates in the oft-quoted (albeit hyperbolic) summarization of the "faith once delivered to the saints" in the VINCENTIAN CANON (c. 445), by which Peregrinus (Vincent of Lerins) hoped to be able to differentiate between true and false tradition: "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" ("what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all").
Such "Orthodoxy" emanates from the early church fathers who passed down the "received" faith, believing that the ultimate source of Christian truth was Holy Scripture and that the authority of the Church was to be invoked to guarantee the correct interpretation of Scripture. In such orthodoxy, "RIGHT FAITH" consists.
Backing up a post, its my understanding that the efficacy of confession/ absolution was not “gotten rid of” with the reformers. Their heirs get credit for that.
Both Calvin and Luther, among others, held forth the importance of absolution. They denied, however, that this was distinct from Baptism. Confession/absolution wasn’t a second plank extended for those who have sinned after baptism, rather it was the same plank reapplied.
Luther’s thoughts on this are commonly known, but it’s surprising to people when they read Calvin saying things like:
“We now see the reason why Christ employs such magnificent terms, to commend and adorn that ministry which he bestows and enjoins on the Apostles [and their successors, pastors]. It is, that believers may be fully convinced, that what they hear concerning the forgiveness of sins is ratified, and may not less highly value the reconciliation which is offered by the voice of men, than if God himself stretched out his hand from heaven. And the church daily receives the most abundant benefit from this doctrine, when it perceives that her pastors are divinely ordained to be sureties for eternal salvation, and that it must not go to a distance to seek the forgiveness of sins, which is committed to their trust.”
“[The forgiveness of sins] is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the Gospel [including the declaration of absolution] or by the administration of the sacraments; and herein chiefly stands the power of the keys, which the Lord has gifted to the society of believers. Accordingly, let each one of us count it his own duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it.”
“When Christ enjoins the Apostles to ‘forgive sins,’ he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his Name, to declare the forgiveness of sins, that through their instrumentality he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers”
“The entire power [of the keys] rests in the fact that, through those whom the Lord had ordained, the grace of the Gospel is publicly and privately sealed in the hearts of believers” If sacraments are considered as those actions of the church which sign and seal God’s grace to us (even instrumentally per Calvin above), then absolution certainly qualifies as a sacrament. Calvin and Luther simply understood it as part and parcel of Baptism.
Rich Lusk summarizes it helpfully in this way:
Calvin’s view is not substantially different from the classic Lutheran view of absolution. Consider Scaer, Baptism, 29: “It would be hardly accurate to say that Luther or the Confessions eliminated the third sacrament, Penance. In the Large Catechism, Luther, rather than disposing of Penance, incorporates it into Baptism, so that Baptism is not only an isolated sacramental act initiating the Christian into the fellowship of the church, but a sacrament to which the Christian can daily return. The distance between the time of Baptism and the time when sin is committed does not diminish Baptism’s efficacy in offering forgiveness. Luther could confidently say, ‘Therefore Baptism remains forever.’ Whether Penance is embraced by Baptism (as for Luther in the Large Catechism) or whether as the continued life of repentance it remains a separate sacramental action, as for Melanchthon in the Apology (XIII.4), is immaterial for the faith life of the church. Even though Luther saw Penance as part of Baptism and not as a separate act, it was Luther and not Melanchthon who provided as part of the Small Catechism (V) a section on how the people are to confess their sins and receive absolution. This absolution was to be followed by ‘amendment of life and forsaking of sin’ (AC XII.6). Luther placed his section on confession and absolution after his section on Baptism to show that they were a continuation of Baptism….[H]e viewed confession and absolution as sacramental, since he saw in them the extension of Baptism into the life of the church.” At least on this point of the relationship of baptism, confession, and absolution, Calvin and Luther structure the Christian life in an identical way. Compare Lutheran Harold Senkbeil’s Dying to Live, 83-4 on absolution, as well: “Christ calls every Christian to be his witness, but he doesn’t call every Christian to be his minister, or agent. Through his witnesses Christ bears testimony to all mankind regarding His life for our dying world. But he works uniquely in the church through His ministers for the forgiveness of sins. The church calls pastors from her own midst, but it is Christ himself who stands behind the office of the ministry. They are earthly agents for our heavenly Lord. He gives His called servants power of attorney, as it were. When they forgive, He forgives. When they withhold forgiveness, He withholds forgiveness. Their word is to be regarded as His word. And His word is the Word from the Father. ‘He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me‘ (Mt. 10:40)…God has so arranged it in His church that when appointed servants of Christ speak His word of forgiveness, it is to be regarded as Christ’s very own Word.” This is the classical Protestant view: the initial forgiveness granted in baptism is continually received and maintained through confession and absolution.
Given the original topic of this debate, I did not intend to expound on the differences between protestant and RC belief and practice concerning confession and absolution. Perhaps we can stipulate that they are distinct, and include considerable differences on the principle of Justification by Faith and the extent of its efficacy in Baptism. I mentioned it only in reference to the questioned communion standard of "RIGHT LIVING."
Concerning Phil's comments on absolution, it is useful to keep in mind that Jesus repeatedly demonstrated his authority to heal the sick and to forgive sins, etc... and he also delegated such authority to his disciples, as he saw fit... including the cited reference to John 20:23. Some argue this was delegated authority to do it ... to actually effect the result, but others hold it was simply general authority to declare the gospel wherein it is already accomplished.
The quotes from Luther and Calvin notwithstanding, the sacramental understanding and application of this in the church generally and predictably seems to differ in direct relationship to views/practice concerning the Historic Episcopate and importance of maintaining the faith and form in Apostolic Succession of Holy Orders. The spectrum of understanding on this point need not alter the general standard of a "RIGHT LIFE" as one of the prerequistes for Holy Communion.
Bill, you’re absolutely right about this being irrelevant to “Right Life” as prerequisite for communion. Was meaning to converse, not necessarily argue a point on the table. I’ll try to stay more on target.
But let me ask your opinion, do you not think there is a connection peripherally in that the question of who ought to receive both communion and baptism is very much dependent on what a person believes they are. The more historic position, as I understand it, maintains that they are God’s action, his speaking. The modern baptistic understanding sees them as actions exclusively performed by the believer. The latter view makes paedobaptism and paedocommunion very unlikely. (I know that’s an understatement)
Tied very closely to the idea of sacraments as God’s work is the idea of God working objectively through the words and actions of his ministers. I don’t see how you can have one without the other.
It might be helpful to recall that the classical protestant position (whether accepting or rejecting of the Historic Episcopacy) doesn’t deny this fact, but indeed requires it.
It seems to me (and I truly mean that as a disclaimer), that the Luther and Calvin quotes (among many others) point out that the demarcation between those who believe God objectively “does things” through his ministers and those who believe His ministers simply point and say “Hey, look what God has done.” isn’t the endorsement of the Historic Episcopacy, but rather a view of reality that isn’t radically modern. The maintenance of tactile Orthodox Apostolic Succession is most likely to be zealously protected by those who are the least modern in their outlook. This keeps us from treating the Reformers who were classically protestant/catholic on the minister issue as anomalies. Presbyterians used to (and Lutheran’s still do) affirm the objective nature of the sacraments (West Short Cat. Question 92, for example), not because they really were closet Episcopalians, but because they hadn’t been chewing on the root of Modernity- they were positively medieval (and I mean that in a good way).
Might be off my rocker, just wondering at the keyboard.
I’ve got a wonderful quote from Robert Rayburn of Covenant Seminary that illustrates the classical catholic/protestant view. Since it pertains to baptism, I’ll stick it over there.
Phil, No question about it... what a person believes the Dominical Sacraments to be, will greatly influence who they would accept as a recipient. If we take the orthodox position of historic Christianity -- God is the primary actor imparting the grace He intended in the sacrament, when faithfully administered according to the scriptures -- then we would arrive at a substantially different conclusion about who should be eligible to receive the sacrament(s), than those who take a man-centered "profession" viewpoint. Since this thread is getting quite long and was intended to deal only with the Eucharist, I will keep my comments brief and limit them to that one sacrament.
If one takes the Zwinglian position and sees Communion as a mere memorial of Christ's death on the cross, then virtually anyone could be admitted to an "open communion." In fact I would argue that they would have little reason to restrict admittance. However, if the Eucharist is understood to be and to convey the actual (even "Real") presence of Christ (anywhere on the continuum from spritual to physical), then His sacramental Body and Blood should be withheld from the unbeliever, the unrepentent, and the undiscerning, as the church catholic has historically done.
This brings me back to where I started in this thread five posts ago. So I'm going to find a different subject .. maybe Baptism.
BTW Phil, great quote from Robert Rayburn on the Theology Table 2 ...it makes the point precisely and dramatically. Thanks for posting it.
And also with you, Bill. (I love this Anglican stuff)
One of the phrases that both Roman and Protesting Catholics share is “means of grace.” in reference to the sacraments. I thought of this when you spoke of God imparting grace in the sacraments. This makes sense to me as in the case of “water is a means of washing” or “sex is a means of love making.” But Peter Leithart has pointed out that a problem can arise from such phrases in that we begin to see a separation between sex and lovemaking, for example. One oughtn’t have to decide between the two. Sex is lovemaking- or that was the intent. When we make the “delivery system” separate from that “which is delivered” we end up with all sorts of artificial quandaries- especially ethical ones. This is precisely the state of the Introspective Western mind.
Grace isn’t an energy or power distinct from God, which is delivered to us. For example, as I read him, Aquinas makes the sacraments into a sort of syringe with which the minister injects spiritual medicine. If I’m remembering right, he even speaks of a habitus for grace within the Christian soul.
The problem with that view is that it makes grace distinct from God himself. The more ancient view (still maintained by the Orthodox whom I’ve read) is to understand grace as relational. God himself is the grace which he conveys. We don’t get a spiritual equivalent of Ovaltine at communion; we get to be held by, claimed by, assured and spoken to…we get to eat with God himself. Luther called the sacraments the “trysting places” of God. (I love that man)
If this is what is conveyed at communion, then “discernment” as introduced in the West, makes little sense. The elements aren’t spiritual bombs that require that we handle them just so, lest we loose a hand in the resulting explosion, rather communion itself (not simply the elements. He told us to “Do this” not “look at these”) is the place and time were the Nazarene fisherman who called for infants to be brought to his lap, shows up with a smile and an invitation to sit down and eat.
The question then is “who has been invited.” The answer that is being recovered in the West is “All those who belong to Christ- his entire body, all of his people,” and of course in baptism Christ objectively makes an individual his own.
I was talking to Bill at church, and really enjoyed hearing some of the journeys he's taken to arrive where he has. Thought it might be interesting if we posted some of the most significant books in our lives- a list of the reading that brought us to where we are.
Would be a great way to find out where each of us are and have been, and ought to lead to some good conversation, too. What do ya’ll think? Anybody willing to go first.
36 comments:
QUESTION FOR THE THEOLOGY TABLE
==============================
Eligibility to Receive Holy Communion: A few decades ago, Episcopalians were required to be both Baptized and Confirmed before being able to come to Communion.
Then, years later, it was changed to a single requirement of being Baptized before being able to receive Communion.
(( I assume that is now the current AMiA standard. ))
Now, over in the Episcopal Church, there is a concerted effort to remove even the Baptismal requirement prior to being able to come to Communion.
The basic theological principal of this entire debate is - to what degree is the individual involved in the process of communion ? Is any sort of "preparation" required ? Is the individual a "receiver" only ? To what degree is shared beliefs with fellow communicants a factor, if any ? Fellow table-mates of the Theology Table, what in your opinion should be the "prerequisites" for taking Communion:
(1) none
(2) baptism
(3) baptism and confirmation
(4) baptism, confirmation, and reasonable congruity of beliefs with fellow communicants
Thanks ....
Wow. In my opinion this is an incredibly difficult subject to discuss. Not because the final answer is less than clear (again, my opinion), but rather because of the complex way the Eucharist focuses and intensifies all that we claim about ourselves and the message we proclaim. To talk about the sacraments- the Eucharist in particular- is to discuss implicitly all that we are and are called to do. Lot of territory there.
Another way of saying that is to point out that we get the gospel right or wrong in how we draw the lines of Christian table fellowship. (This cuts a little against the grain of much protestant thinking in which Pelagianism or “Work Righteousness” is made the ultimate enemy of the Christian gospel) The question is: Who are we willing to sit down and eat with- in the context of Christian community? What stipulations do we require of those who desire to share in the common covenant renewal meal with the king? This is precisely what the book of Galatians was written to address. Who are you going to eat with? Who do you count as your brothers and sisters? Ultimately, who has Christ invited to his table? Paul told Peter that he denied the gospel by simply pulling up a chair (or refusing to pull up a chair) at a particular table for principled reasons. Scary stuff, that.
It seems to me that coming to a settled opinion requires discussion of who are to be counted as belonging to God, what is the shape and purpose of our common meal of communion (and the liturgy that culminates in it- why has Christian worship always taken the basic shape that it has), and the thorny historical question of why the Western Church distinguished and separated those who are eligible for Baptism, Confirmation and Communion. In short “who are we, why do we do what we do on Sundays, and who really (really, really) is one of us?”
Without unpacking all of the foundations, my reply would be: 1) We (considered as a single organic people, not individual marbles gathered in a common box) are an alternative city- colonies of the promised “age to come” existing now- in this age. 2) We are identified as belonging to that one people by the King’s claim of our personal allegiance. (We are who we are because God says we are.) 3) God claimed us as his own at our baptism. 4) Everyone (unbelievable, but literally everyone) who belongs to the King is given the privilege of renewing Covenant with him per the pattern laid down in the Old Covenant. This culminates in a meal with the King, himself, and all the others he has called his own.
All baptized Christians ought to eat with the King because we have been invited. Incidentally, it also seems to me that they are invited to eat and drink (“to do THIS in remembrance of me”), not understand or contemplate the meaning of what it is they are doing- as if anyone can understand all the mystery that is Communion.
Would love to talk about particulars, but ya’ll can see I’m long winded. I’ll shut up and give someone else a chance.
Dick, I’m sorry. You got me all excited and I read right over your questions. You asked to what degree is the individual involved in the process of communion ? I’m not sure what you’re asking. I’ll wait on this one.
Is any sort of "preparation" required ? It’s my understanding that education of a propositional kind historically took place before baptism, not Communion. In the case of the children of believers, they were admitted immediately to Communion. This is still done in the Eastern Church, and seems right to me.
To what degree is shared beliefs with fellow communicants a factor, if any ? We know who belong to God’s people by their faith in Christ- not some other cultural, racial or…whatever. This is the point of Justification by Faith alone. It is faith in Christ that Justifies- not faith in a particular understanding of how justification works, for example. But that being said, it is allegiance to the Christ of the Christian gospel that distinguishes his people, not faith in some other person or thing that goes by the name of “Jesus” or “Christ.” The Nicene and Apostle’s Creed fence in that particular personal story.
It also seems to me that we need to guard against narrowing faith down to propositional knowledge. This doesn't seem scriptural- and owes more than a little bit to modernity's tendency towards rationalism. According to David’s use of the term, for example, faith is something an infant is capable of.
By the way, thank you for this.
I missed one: Is the individual a "receiver" only ? I don't think this is possible unless something has gone horribly wrong. God has set creation up so that it images his own Trinitarian life. God exists by pouring himself into another and receiving the other back into himself. God IS love.
Preeminent among these images are men and women- and the relationship they enjoy together. Though the bodies of men and women are both created to proclaim the wonderful fact that we were made to be “gift” to another, the man’s body declares this truth in a way that emphasizes the “giving” and the woman’s body makes clear the joy of “receiving.” But both make clear the glorious truth that the way to receive is to give and the way to give is to receive. In the marriage feast, who can truly tell the difference? Giving is receiving and vice versa. This is hardly by accident, and is terribly important, it seems to me, for contemporary Ethical debates, but that another Post.
The point being that if any action is pure giving or total receiving, something has gone terribly wrong. The image is broken and selfishness reigns.
In worship we serve God. That’s why we call it a Service and “Liturgy,” but the initiation is always with God. We serve him because he first serves us. We offer back, what was first given. The circle shouldn’t be broken, but it must be initiated. In a sense our whole lives are an attempt to participate fully in the dance that always begins with (and often falls back into) God’s solitary nursing of us to a state of health, so that we can respond to a proper “wooing.”
A table isn’t for satiating hunger or for fellowship. A sincere host knows that what is done at the meal depends on the guest.
“Come and eat,” God says. Sometimes because we’re so famished, that’s all we can manage. Our God understands that and is happy to feed us. Sometimes, though, we appreciate the company as much as the meal. He enjoys the conversation.
A table isn’t for satiating hunger OR for fellowship. was meant with an emphasis on "OR" to convey something along the lines of "You don't have to choose eating to the exclusion of fellowship"
I'll really shut now.
Phil and others, lots of interesting insights to ponder ! My background prior to becoming an Episcopalian ==> Anglican was Lutheran, and, when I was a small kid, I remember that you were supposed to "prepare" yourself well before you came to the Altar. Lots of that involved Confession, Repentance, Examination of conscience, etc. Not only baptism, but confirmation was required before coming to the table. ( Confirmation in the Lutheran Church (LCMS) typically age 14 or so). I believe that this practice was also the Episcopal Standard at some point in the past. I believe that there is a sufficient biblical basis for seeing this in terms of baptism, rather than baptism and confirmation, but, for purposes of this discussion, here is the Bible passage that forms for Lutherans (and once formed for Episcopalians) the basis for the need of some sort of preparation prior to coming to the table:
1 Cor. 11: 28-29
"Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."
That last phrase, of course, opens up a discussion on "Real Presence" !
So, esteemed scholars, is there any way to find a logical solution, or do we concede that Holy Communion is a Sacrament, and contains much of Mystery within its Theology ?
Dick, it’s so good to be able to talk about these things. Again, thank you.
You’ve thrown out two items for discussion: Can what takes place in the sacrament be logically explained (and implicitly, would that be a good thing?), and should children receive communion.
I’ll skim over the first for now, as it brings up huge related issues. But I would have to say that mystery is something built into creation and guaranteed by both the greatness of our God and the finitude of man. It seems to me that we don’t get rid of it by placing scientific sounding names on that which we still don’t or can’t understand. (Gravity is no less mysterious because we call it “gravity”.) The human heart knows this and requires some experience and affirmation of the “numinous.” Modernity’s penchant for reducing everything down to rational stuff and time has stripped the world of enchantment. Human beings can’t exist in such a place and so along with exploding scientism comes a seemingly contradictory flirtation with things occult, irrational and superstitious. It seems to me that modern rationalism guaranteed the arrival of “New Age” flirtations. Surely, if it is to be found anywhere, an encounter with the true, living and transcendent God should provide a healthy dose of mystery. But I’ll leave that for another day- unless ya’ll choose otherwise.
Obviously, with six children, the second question is near and dear to my heart. There’s no question that the anti-paedocommunion position you mention has been the majority position in the Western church for a long, long time. You’re in good company, for sure. But it has never been the practice of the Eastern Church, and even Calvin acknowledges that it was not the practice of the ancient church. It appears to be an innovation and as such, the burden of proof would seem to fall on those who “went a different way.” You understand this in advancing your question as you do. “This is how it used to be done in the Lutheran and Episcopal church; it’s not being done that way any more; someone tell me why not.” That’s certainly fair, and you’re right to do so, but in answering your concerns I’d want to push it a bit further back and point out that the Western practice appears to be an innovation- first children who were acknowledged to be part of the body of Christ were barred from his table because of fear that the elements might end up on the floor, then Chrismation, which originally accompanied baptism, was put off until an age of discernment, then the cup was actually taken away from the congregation (this practice persisted in the Roman church until the 1960’s). I believe that this was for reasons identical to the ones that first justified barring children.
At some point we’ll need to talk about why children of believers (who through baptism have been grafted into the body of Christ) should have access to Christ- although to me the asking of the question seems to point to the answer, but you’ve understandably asked about Paul’s direction in 1 Cor. 11: 28-29. Isn’t the loving and responsible thing to keep the kids back from the edge of the cliff?
I don’t want to wear anyone out, so I’ll take a crack at that question later.
IT's commonplace to say that context is king. That’s true for the immediate context of the passage in question, but also for the totality of the scripture that surrounds I Cor 11-28-29.
Where do we start when we approach the passage? The presumption in my mind is that children should be welcomed to the Lord’s table. Perhaps the passage will undermine that, but that's where I begin. This follows from 1) what the Lord’s table is and 2) that children are counted as part of God’s people.
I don’t think I have to argue the last point since we belong to the one holy, catholic and apostolic church. Infant Baptism is simply "plain vanilla catholic" Christianity, and as such the practice of our parish. The first point might be an issue (although I believe that the minimum position that we truly receive the body and blood of Christ is another point of "plain vanilla" Christianity which was affirmed by all- from the earliest Fathers through the Reformation of Luther and Calvin), because there are so many accurate ways of seeing what is going on at the table. But at the core, Communion is…well, communion. And as such is necessary for a healthy life in Christ. That, in a nutshell, is what it means to be a Christian- union and communion with Christ.
So, the Eucharist is (among other things) a set apart time in which God has promised to unite himself (This is the point of eating- we take him into ourselves and he becomes us and we, him) and commune with his people in a special way. The children of believers are claimed by him as his people, therefore the Eucharist is for the children of believers.
This is further implied by the Old Covenant counterpart of which the Eucharist is fulfillment- Passover.
“Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrificed for us! Therefore let us keep the feast,” we declare every Lord ’s Day. Certainly Passover didn’t exclude the children that belonged to God. In fact, it had a special place for them- “when your children ask…” If God had decided that he no longer wished to eat with children any longer, surely he would have said so somewhere. Seeing that fellowship and friendship with God are the end and material of salvation, we need to be careful before implying that God is not interested in the salvation (fellowship and friendship) of those who haven’t reached a certain level of mental ability, and its not just children we’re talking about. This would include the mentally disabled.
Surely, we’d see such a counterintuitive direction clearly stated somewhere, but we don’t. From Genesis 3 through the New Testament books, we see God working with and through families- claiming the children of believers as his own. They are welcomed and their barring is explicitly forbidden “Let the little children come,” he once said. Are we to think that he has changed his mind or that when we declare during the Eucharist “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest” that the Messiah isn’t really coming? One must be denied, because if he’s present and if he’s invited children to his knee, then…
I know the motive (at least the modern motive) is to protect the children, but given scripture as a whole the presumption ought to be towards their admission. St. Paul was dealing with a particular problem in a particular place. I Cor’s is “occasional", and if we are to understand it rightly, we need to keep that in mind. Paul’s purpose wasn’t to teach them what the Lord’s Supper was about in the epistle (itrospection). Rather he reminded them of that part which they seemed to have forgotten. We shouldn’t expect I Cor’s to be the end all of what we understand the Eucharist to be. Treating it in that way seriously warps what our God intended, in my opinion. It is the foretaste of the great Wedding Supper of the Lamb. It is a feast (as we declare), but by looking only at I Cor’s we’ve turned it into a time of dark and scary introspection. Far from celebrating the fact that the King has invited us to eat with him, the tradition I came from played sad dirges and we all acted like we were at a funeral.
So, the passage is directed to a particular problem. The whole letter deals with the contention and factions within that congregation. It came to a head in the passage in question. The rich were excluding the poor. Check me out. They were denying by the way they attempted to commune with the Body and Blood of Christ the fact that they were the body of Christ. It was this failure to see that the weak and despised were indeed part of them that called down God’s judgment. The body they failed to discern was the one that they made up. Given this perspective, excluding the most vulnerable and lowly among us (children and all other mentaly challenged individuals) is a violation of the very point Paul is trying to make. There is much more that could be said; if anyone is interested this is a helpful resource.
Acts 5 tells the story of Ananias and his wife Sapphira. We have very clear testimony that God is liable to strike you dead for giving money in an unworthy manner. But we allow, even encourage, our children to put money in the offering plate as it passes by. How do we justify this when it’s possible that many are sick and we know for a fact that at least two are asleep for doing so unworthily?
Dick,The focus on the verse you gave is self examination; it is not referring to church restrictions. Also on the matter of real presence any real serious study of the early church and the early writings will find that the real presence was believed and taken as a fact. It seems to me that because one can not explain it or totally understand it does not change whether it is true or not. My opinion is that the child being a part of the Lords Family is invited to the meal. State of coming to the table is not that one is pure with out sin, but that one is not abusing the meal thus abusing ones brother. Either we hold that infant Baptism is the real thing and they are in the family or our Baptist brothers have it right and one can not be a Christian till the age of accountability. I believe it is better to err on the open communion than to find out before the Lord that we held brother and sister from the table. There is one unifier and that is Christ, he is what brings us to the Table, at the Table we are neither, Greek, Jew, Baptist, Lutheran or any other fraction, all are Christ Body. But I do believe the Table can be denied to those who are under the final step of Church discipline.
Just checked the e-mail. Dick, do you suppose you could ask a harder question? Ouch!! Not being a cradle Anglican, I come from a different direction on this. I was raised Southern Baptist, which approaches Communion from a totally different angle, very Zwinglian. We only had it quarterly and, as it was considered only a memorial, by Anglican standards, very perfunctorily. By Southern Baptist standards, you only had to be a believer to take Communion. Baptism was, as far as I am aware, not required. No inquiry was made anyway, it was left up to the conscience of the individual.
Dick, the questions you have asked raise a host of other questions along with them. Is baptism necessary for salvation (except in the case of impossibility, such as the thief on the cross)? What is, in fact, required for salvation? As Phil has already raised the point, should children be baptised? You asked about confirmation-confirmation is an unnecessary ritual unless you are practicing infant baptism. Baptists do not baptise children until they have reached an age that they can make a conscious profession of faith, there is no confirmation in Baptist practice. I could go on for a while.
To return to the original question, in the light of Anglican practice and of my current thoughts on the matter, I would require baptism and "reasonable congruity of beliefs" (reasonable minds could differ considerably on the meaning of that one!). I would not require confirmation, except in the case of those baptised as infants. If confirmation in the Anglican church were a requirement, I could not now take Communion. I am still waiting for Bishop Barnum to come here to conduct another confirmation service. For those baptised as infants, though, confirmation is the only way to ascertain a "reasonable congruity of beliefs" (or at least a verbal statement of such).
Look at the word Communion. Where does it come from? Community. How can there be a community (in the Christian sense), unless there are common beliefs about what we are about? Anything less reduces the word to nonsense. I have had to totally revise my thinking on Communion since becoming Anglican and my beliefs on this are still in flux. That being said, for me Communion is the community of God coming together to meet with its Lord, and in a sense that is a mystery, to meet with all those believers that have gone before, in a very special and unique way. I am not going to get into the discussion of the Real Presence too far here. At one time I should have said it was nonsense, I now realize that was a product of the poverty stricken way Baptists do Communion. I am not sure that I need to know how Christ is present in Communion, I only need to know that He is there, and that I do know, now.
As for baptism, it appears to me, in Anglican practice (as opposed to theory?), baptism is necessary to salvation (again, with an exception for impossibility). I do not see how you can practice infant baptism unless you hold this to be true. If you do, infant baptism makes perfect sense. As a Baptist, I would have choked on this. Now, I am not so sure. Assuming no impossibility, can you really have saving faith and refuse Christ's first commandment (which doesn't speak to infant baptism, obviously, but infant baptism becomes a logical extension with the innocence of the child replacing a profession of faith)? That being said, you can not become a part of the community of God unless you have entered through the door of baptism (again, absent impossibility). If you are not part of the community, how can you participate in Communion in any meaningful way? The Episcopalians want to dump the baptism requirement because they have so expanded their definition of the word "community" so as to render it entirely meaningless. They are in the process of turning the sacrament into a species of 1960's love-in.
Dick, I am running out of space here. I will tackle more of this in my next post.
Part 2
As to the question of preparation: I speak more from experience here than from theology. I can not, not will not, come to the Lord's table without preparation. I usually make it a point to sit far enough back in the congregation to have some time before my pew gets up. I spend this time in prayer. I can not come to the table if there is sin in my life and I have been forced to repent on the spot more than once before participating in Communion. It is the best thing I have ever found for keeping your life straight. I would find it incredible that any Christian does not find this to be true in his or her own life. 1 Corinthians 11:28-29 has a real bite to it. I would be and am actually afraid to approach the table if God was telling me I needed to repent of something beforehand.
As to the question of being a receiver: Primarily yes, but not entirely. We receive in Communion: first, the invitation to enter into a relationship with our Creator, second, the worthiness to approach our Creator, third, an entering in to a very special relationship with our Creator, fourth, an entering in to a relationship with all those who have participated in the past, fifth, spiritual strength for daily living. We do, however, offer something in return, the only offerings we can give that are pleasing in God's sight. We offer our love, our praise, our worship, our gratitude, and our obedience. Therefore, we are not solely receivers. How can there be a relationship that is totally one-sided? It is not possible.
Dick, as to your last comment, Communion is a sacrament and it does contain a great deal for which there is no logical explanation. That does not excuse us from understanding as much as we can and moreover, it warns us to guard it well. Let us not "cast pearls before swine".
See my next post.
Part 3
As to children participating in Communion: This goes back to the first part of my posting. Are the children part of the community of God? If not, why do we baptise them? If so, on what logical basis do we deny them Communion? Do we make them a second class part of the community? There is no Scriptural basis for it. Christ said "Suffer the little children to come unto Me." If the verse about raising your children in the fear and admonition of the Lord has any meaning, we can not cripple them by denying them full participation in our worship. Especially in these dark times, if we receive spiritual strength from Communion, do we dare weaken the children by denying them that strength? I do not think so. If nothing else, simple logical consistency dictates that if we consider children a part of the community of God, if we baptise them to bring them into the door of the church, than we must also allow them to participate in Communion, at least until they reach an age of accountability at which point we reach again the question of confirmation and requiring them to make a decision for themselves to remain eligible (a troubling question as all children do not reach accountability at the same age).
There is much to mull over here. I see enough variations in viewpoints that I am going to suggest this as a research topic - do we have any early church documentation or accounts as to whether baptized children came to the Table or not ? I do know that the earliest accounts of Christian services detail that the Service was divided into two parts. Part I was for everyone. Part II, in which Holy Communion was celebrated, included only the baptized from that point forwards. So I think it would be safe to say that for the early church, the Eucharist included the "Baptized." But what age range constituted the "Baptized" who came to the Table at that time period in the early Church ? I am going to look through my Eusebius and see if he sheds any light on this. I also have a pretty good Pelikan History which might be useful. It would also be interesting, just for the record, to look back at the 39 Articles and see what the text is in regards to Holy Communion / Eucharist. Thanks to all for the excellent thoughtful analysis so far !
Dick, here’s a good place to start regarding the practice of the early church, although it’s not exhaustive by any means.
I’m with you fella’s regarding the real presence. That much I’m committed to. Can’t look under the hood, so I’m not willing to endorse a particular theory regarding how it works. Christ is truly offered and received during communion. This is the catholic faith.
Coming from a reformed background, it was very frustrating to be part of a group of people who referred to themselves as Calvinists, but ridiculed Calvin in regards to his sacramental theology. If a ministerial candidate spoke about baptism and Communion as Calvin did, he’d be accused of being a closet Papist. That’s not a good thing on a Presbytery floor.
Although Zwinglians refer to their position as a memorial, I don’t think they understand the concept in a Biblical way. The Old Testament is filled with memorials. They had a very clear purpose. “Do this “as a memorial to me” doesn’t mean “try to conjure up meaningful thoughts and emotions.”
By the way, this is a good thing. I’m looking forward to more interaction.
There must be something wrong in the hyperlink code above. Instead of bothering Dick, I'll just try it again.
If we are taking this thread off onto the subject of infant baptism, I must say that, when all is said and done, I still do not think it is appropriate, even if I am up against the early church practice. I do not see anything in the Scriptures about infant baptism, the story of the Philippian jailer notwithstanding. That is an argument from silence at best. There is no way to know if the jailer's household included children or not, and if it did, it could just as easily be a collective reference to all of the household capable of believing. Christ said, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me", but does that refer to baptism? Not necessarily. Having been baptised as a teenager, I can say that I would have missed something I would not give up for anything had I been baptised as an infant. It is a far different thing to experience the baptism of new life when old enough to know what is happening than to do so as an infant. It is a radical, shattering change. Had I any children, I would not want them baptised until old enough to decide for themselves and make their own profession of faith. I believe that, if God is willing to save children too young to make a profession of faith at all, He will do it without baptism also. If God can make an exception for those who find it impossible to be baptised, why not for children? For that matter, if someone is baptised as a child and, when he or she comes to age, refuses confirmation and walks away from the faith, where does Hebrews 10:26-31 come into play? Is that person, who may never have had any faith to begin with, forever lost because of a ritual that took place when he or she was an infant? If not, is infant baptism really baptism? Is the infant left in some sort of limbo, half way home, until confirmation? If so, then should children take Communion and what Scriptural justification do we have for this limbo state? What is the meaning of those verses in relation to infant baptism? Do we gut those verses of meaning because we do not like the implications like the reappraisers?
In the light of what has been happening in the Episcopal church lately, I would like to continue the discussion of Dick's original question. For instance, if a set of requirements is to be maintained for admission to Communion, how is it to be enforced? One may assume that we will have records of our own people, but what of visitors? If someone profanes the sacrament by taking it unworthily, or if no effort is made to enforce the requirements, what effect does that have on Communion as a sacrament? I have a few other side questions on this subject but I do not want to get too far off topic.
Phil, you made a comment about Christ being "truly offered and received" in Communion. What do you mean by that? Layman's explanation there, please. I do not have anywhere near the theological knowledge you have. I suspect that I may not be in agreement with you there. I have seen that phrase before, usually in conjunction with theories of the Real Presence I can not agree with.
Going back to part of Dick's original question: "to what degree is the individual involved in the process of communion?" It would seem to me that involvement is total, regardless of the role one may have in the sacrament. Communion is the unique thing that we do that marks us as Christian. We should be meeting with God with our whole being, body, soul, and spirit. That is the whole point of having a liturgy-so that the believer may meet with God and worship God with his whole being. It is one reason I became Anglican. I was tired of being an audience. If someone is taking Communion and is not participating with his or her whole being, at least part of the time (none of us are doing this perfectly), something is very wrong somewhere.
J.P., this is what I meant by the difficulty of discussing the Eucharist. In many ways it forms the hub of the wheel of our Christian life (because of what it is). You can move up a particular spoke, around the rim and back down on an entirely spar. It’s difficult to stay put, but you can’t say you’ve thoroughly explored the hub, if you do stay put. The problem is that we could fly around this thing forever without noticing where we’ve been.
In light of that I appreciate your asking me about a comment I made regarding Real Presence. Seems to me that that is the sort of thing we need to do, in order to pace ourselves and get somewhere- even if that is simply an accurate appreciation of where the other is standing. But I’m going to save my answer for another day.
So, it’s in that spirit of slowing down that I’d like to bring up yet another issue. ;-)
I understand exactly where you are coming from in relation to your appeal to “show me in the bible”, and I know it arises from a desire to be faithful to God and his word. I was raised in a Fundamental Baptist church. Believe me, I know. Let me share some of the thoughts that brought me to a new place. The first is the most foundational and is lying under the surface fo everything you and I discuss..
Perhaps a good place to start would be to clarify what I’m up to here, and more importantly, what I’m not up to. I’m a member of the church. The church precedes me. I haven’t the authority to speak for her, nor do I see it as my job to act as her judge or gatekeeper. Sometimes this is forgotten or misunderstood when these types of discussions take place.
I believe along with the Reformers in sola scriptura. This is in distinction to what has been called solo scriptura. In other words, I believe that scripture is the only infallible and final authority in matter of faith and practice. I don’t believe it is the only authority.
Rather, we have one ultimate authority from whom a lesser (yet very real and august) and fallible body derives its authority. We have scripture, and we have the church. This is the doctrine promulgated by the Reformers.
Let me try a legal analogy. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Does that imply that local and State governments have no authority? More to the point, is the Constitution self interpreting? No, we have a body of men and women who have the authority to declare to us what the Constitution means. To settle disputes.
Does the Supreme Court make mistakes? Yes.
Do they ever misunderstand the Constitution? Certainly.
Do these limitations nullify their authority? Ought we to submit to their decisions only when we believe they “get it right?”
What would be the outcome if it were otherwise?
It seems to me that the result would be constant revolution and anarchy.
This is unstable situation is how I view the state of much of those in the Evangelical Free Church world. An appeal to “scripture only” really means regard for my opinion only. This doesn’t imply a challenge to the primacy of scripture. It simply recognizes that authority is always mediated.
In other words, “Children obey your parents”, doesn’t imply “instead of the Lord.”
Submission to authority isn’t difficult when the authority is perfect; it’s a test when the authority is flawed. Every child with a parent knows that.
Now, I can imagine a situation where I might conspire to spirit a child away from her parents because of abuse, but I hope and pray that I’m never faced with such a situation. I know the “injustices” I’ve witnessed in other families and my own don’t constitute such a situation. I can imagine a nightmarish future in which taking up arms against a tyrant is obedience to God, but the daily opportunity for feeling contempt at a particularly aggravating yahoo in Washington isn’t a call to arms.
I mention all of this to make clear where I’m coming from in regards to issues like infant baptism, and … the full divinity and humanity of Christ (against a plausible Arian telling of the story), “One God the Father begetting, the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding,” worship on Sunday, Bishops and whether a New Testament exists and if so what actually ought to be part of it.
All of these things and many others I ultimately receive through Christ’s church. By that I don’t mean to say that they are not congruent in scripture or of various shades of explicit mention in scripture. Rather, I mean that they can be and have been denied from a certain perspective of scripture.
The most egregiously silent matter is the most obviously fundamental. The problem with being a “New Testament only Christian” is that you end up without a New Testament. No where in scripture are we told which books should be included in the New Testament. This is no small thing, as the recent Gospel of Judas and Da Vinci Code embarrassment make clear. There are challenges. The fact is, before you can get to the Bible, you have to pass through a Creed (tradition with a large T). We call this creed “The table of Contents.”
To dismiss the universal practice of the church from a principle of “we don’t see anything in the New Testament in regards to it” is to have both feet planted in midair. On that principle, you don’t have- much less can use- the New Testament.
This, anyway, is how my thinking developed.
Those who deny the biblical nature of paedobaptism are a very small minority (if we allow the dead a vote) in Christ’s church. Surely someone thought it was biblical. There are whole books on the topic, if you are interested. I’d be glad to recommend some from my limited experience. I say this because I don’t believe we’ll have the time to cover all the bases here, but I do believe they’ve been covered, and there’s no question what the catholic and Anglican (because catholic) position is.
In a nutshell:
St Paul instructed the Thessalonians “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” How do we know that infant baptism was the tradition of the apostles? (By the way, did you notice that Tradition is here spoken of in positive terms?) The church teaches it was so and history bears it out, it is in keeping with God’s redemptive program, it is demanded by a consideration of what baptism is and the place of children within the church.
I'll try to unpack my understanding (misunderstanding?), but I'll still have to paint in the broadest of strokes. The church practices infant baptism because…this is what the church of Christ does- and has always done.
A general takes his commanders into the HQ tent for a meeting and they exit hours later. They return to their respective units. At the sound of a bugle each separate unit instantly wheels into an intricate maneuver so that they replaced each other in line and confused the enemy. If after the battle, someone said, “That was glorious. I only wish we were inside that Tent and knew just what the commander instructed them to do.” What would you think of his question? We know for a fact what they were instructed to do, because we saw them all do it.
I know that you see this as an argument from silence. But I don’t think you’re feeling the strength of the situation. The Donatist controversy threatened to split the church. It took the genius of St Augustine to finally argue it down. There were many issues, but the rubber met the road in the question of ministers- especially, who could baptize. It’s unbelievable to me, that the question of “who had the authority to Baptize” would result in countless debates, ultimately threatening the existence of the one church, but the more basic question of “who ought to be baptized” was experimented with and altered without anyone taking notice or mentioning it. When we first find it explicitly discussed, it’s spoken of as the universal practice. In light of Donatism, does this seem likely to you?
We know that God has always worked through families. The promise that he "would be our God and we would be his people"- the very heart of what we proclaim- was made "to you and to your children." Because of this the seal of righteousness that comes by faith (see Paul in Romans) was given to the male children of believers. God was their God by virtue of the covenant he had made to them, and so they were marked with the covenant seal. For those coming from outside the covenant community, God stipulated “Believer’s Circumcision”, but once the relationship was entered into, “Infant Circumcision” became the norm. At Pentecost Peter explained that the covenant promise that was first made to Abraham was now agressively extending towards the gentiles, and lest anyone thought that God’s new covenant was going to leave the children out, Peter added “And to your children.” The old Covenant seal of our faith was replaced with a non-bloody one. We are told this explicitly in Colossians 2. We were circumcised by being baptized in Christ.
The argument is straightforward. Children were part of God’s covenant people and so received the sign of his covenant. Children are still part of his people and receive the new sign of his covenant.
There is nothing going on here that the church doesn’t also apply to its female members. How do you know that it is proper for women to receive communion. There are functions that women do not participate in. Traditionally- ordination. Currently- acting as a husband in a civil union. How do you know that communion isn’t one of those things? It’s ridiculous to ask, because... we understand 1) who women are in relation to the church. They belong every bit as much as men do, and 2) what communion is. When you put the two together you see that it would be a sin to forbid a woman communion.
The point to notice is that this is not based on 1) an explicit biblical command. No one says women belong at the communion rail explicitly. Or 2) an explicit biblical example. We don’t know that women communed- unless we appeal to an argument from silence. In fact we could say that we don't see anything about this practice in the New Testament, but we’d be wrong.
The inclusion of children is God’s way. If he had changed it, he would have let us know and someone would have noticed. Especially among a young church that was largely Jewish. Given this situation we would expect to find exactly what we do find- an assumption in the New Testament, not a new directive. We would have examples of individuals being baptized. Likewise we would find examples of households being baptized. This is what we find.
Furthermore, we find the church acting in exactly this manner throughout its history. Again, including children in its numbers is just what God’s people do- from the time of Abraham up until today. We teach them to pray, “Our Father who art in heaven”, because we believe it to be true. They belong to him and have a right to that objective assurance, which is baptism.
The burden is on those who teach that children are now, under a more gracious covenat, excluded. That's the case a Baptist must make from the biblical direction, then they have to explain the historical problem.
I can’t speak to your experience of baptism, and I don’t want to question the incredible significance of it. I'm thankful for it, but I would put it up against that of my children who know that before they even knew who God was, he took them in his arms, called them by name and committed himself to them- as individuals. Powerful stuff, that. No wonder Luther would fight doubts by telling himself “I’m a baptized Christian.” But I know you’ll agree that subjective experience isn’t the standard.
Something to think about, one of the greatest hurdles to my “Baptist formed mind” to coming to the historic understanding of Baptism was my conception of baptism as a profession of faith. (Where is that taught in the bible?) The rest of the church has understood it to be God’s act, not mine. This is the difference between a Baptist’s infant dedication and a Christian infant baptism. Dedications are from man upward. Baptism is from God downward. In dedication we speak. In baptism God speaks to us. These two different conceptions lead to very different practices.
That’s what I mean when I say that the question (apart from authority, submission etc) hinges on 1) Are children (and those who are child like) really, really part of God’s people and 2) what is baptism and communion.
The interesting theological topics are multiplying ! We can "multiplex" on this single thread on all these multiple topics, or I can extract these other topics and create other "Tables" for the discussion on that specific topic to continue. We can already see, though, that several different issues surfaced as we continued our discussion. I will email two of you specifically for authorization to open up a new "Table" on your topic. Thanks !!!
I knew when I published my last post that I would get a barge load from one of you!
Phil, let me try to work through your post item by item.
I wouldn't argue with you that the church or "Tradition" is a source of aurhority. I agree. It is, however, as you yourself pointed out, a fallible one. It doesn't always get it right-or Anglicanism wouldn't exist and we would all still be Eastern Orthodox. That said, I greatly respect the tradition and practice of the church over the centuries. However, when dealing with the major doctrines of the faith (and, however you may define that, I think we can agree that baptism qualifies) I tend to start looking for something in the Scriptures to justify what Tradition has done with that doctrine-and choke when I can't find it.
I have to disagree with the aptness of your legal analogy. in the first place, our government is a representative democracy. God's kingdom is an absolute monarchy. The governing principles are totally different. Having studied constitutional law extensively in school, I would argue that, for the most part, the Constitution is self explanatory. If you study the Supreme Court, it was not until the Depression era New Deal legislation that constitutional decisions became at all frequent and we didn't get what is called the "activist" Court until after WWII. You may not be aware of this, but the Founding Fathers came within a hairsbreadth of creating no federal judiciary at all. I happen to believe, if, the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would see our current governmental mess as a call to arms. They would be planning the Second American Revolution. I also believe that the current role of the Supreme Court results more from the spinelessness of the other branches of government, particularly Congressional unwillingness to use the proper amendment process. Someone taking on what an old attorney I knew called "the Supreme Joke" would be no bad thing in my opinion.
Yes, we do submit to the authority of the Church-or do we? In fact, each of us, especially if coming from a non-Episcopal background, have placed what the Church (in this case the Anglican Church) believes and practices against what we believe-and have decided for ourselves. If it ever does not stack up, we try to change it-or leave. Have we then truly submitted to the authority of the Church? By your view, logically extended, no one should be leaving the Episcopal church, no matter how apostate it becomes. Everyone should submit to the authority of the Church-even though that authority is entirely wrong.
See Part 2
Part 2
I am not what you call a "New Testament only" Christian. It's impossible anyway. I would agree with you that the faith is what it is because it has been shaped over the centuries by the Church.
Let us not push that argument about dismissing "the universal practice of the Church" too far, or we will have no Reformation. We do not venerate (or worship if you prefer) the saints or the Virgin Mary-but the pre-Reformation Church did and I haven't seen anything to indicate that this was not a regular practice back to the earliest times. The reformers threw it out. How about the Mass (going back to the question you passed over)? The reformers threw it out, at least in the form it had been practiced in for centuries. If we are to judge everything by the "universal practice of the Church" we had all better convert back to Eastern Orthodoxy. Unless we consider the Tradition of the Church as infallible (which is, in fact, the Eastern Orthodox position), "we've always done it" isn't an entirely sound argument. If it is infallible, we're in a heap of trouble.
I had to review the Donatist controversy to see where you were headed with it. I think what you are saying is, that if there were violent divisions over who could give baptism, there should have been equally violent divisions over who could receive it if anyone had changed who could receive. Since I don't deny that infant baptism was practiced in the early Church, this seems to be a bit of a straw man?
Incidentally, St. Augustine didn't argue this down. He tried and failed. The Donatists were put down by force in an alliance of Church and Emperor. The persecuted Church became a persecuting Church. I'm not a big fan of St. Augustine anyway, nor am I sure that the Donatists were entirely wrong. That's a debate for a different thread.
It's late and I'm going to work on the rest of this later. To be continued.
As a Reformed pastor who accepts the concept of "prima scriptura," I have generally summarized the teaching of scripture and tradition in giving the invitation to the Lord's Supper. In doing so I have found it helpful and sufficient to "fence the table" (without reference to age) by clarifying for all present that this sacrament of the Eucharist is uniquely for baptized Christians (those who have entered into a covenant relationship with God in Christ on His terms)... and specifically it is NOT FOR the UNBELIEVER (faith in Christ is prerequisite), the UNREPENTANT(examination of conscience and confession are essential preparation), and/or the UNDISCERNING (the elements are sacramentally Christ's Body and Blood).
This general approach seems consistent with and applicable to orthodox Anglican theology, liturgy and practice. I commend it for consideration in dealing with this sensitive, and often emotionally charged, topic.
Bill,
Your writing is a model of succinct clarity. I’m paying attention and hope to emulate it…I'm sure everyone would appreciate that! I guess my thoughts aren't as clearly formed. I work them out as I write, and then am too lazy to distill them down. Anyway, thanks for joining us.
I was reminded of something when reading your post. Dick’s original question related to the historic practice and need of withholding Christ (sorry, I couldn’t help myself)…er, Communion from children based upon Paul’s letter to the Corinthian’s. It has often struck me that the remedy has nothing to do with the proposed problem. We wait until children reach an “age of discretion,” with out any specific reference to what they must discern.
Paul says that judgment has come because people failed to discern the “body of Christ.” If “body of Christ” refers to the elements of Communion (as the more modern Western application necessitates), then how does waiting until they are able to discern equate with making sure that they discern. Dick’s initial question indicates that Western Christians do not agree about what is to be discerned.
There are many options: Is it the body and blood? It definitely isn‘t the body and blood. It’s both bread and body, wine and blood. We truly receive the body and blood, etc. Then there’s the whole issue of what we’re up to: Is God really offering himself, is it simply for generating subjective feelings? Is it a legally binding covenantal ritual, is it instructional only- God’s flannel graph?
Imagine having a bank of switches that control the floodwaters of a dam. “Many have perished by failing to pull the right switch”, we are told. “You must discern the proper switch.” In response to this we only allow people who are old enough to discern that switches differ and that it's a grave matter to pull a switch to get into the control room. But we have no idea which one ought to be thrown. Have we solved the problem?
Paul doesn’t say that the participants aren’t old enough. He says they did not discern the body of Christ. How does making sure they have the ability, while withholding how it is done help?
What body…where?
J.P. you write well. I envy that legal mind of yours, and I appreciate your civil tone. We obviously care very much about the issues here. I suspect that it’s because all of this is a treasure that we’ve just discovered. Because we are not “Cradle-Anglican” we understand how precious it is…and how barren and compromised the alternatives are.
I don’t want to go back… whether by moving my family to a modern baptistic evangelical congregation, nor by waking up to find that the modern evangelical baptistic identity has replaced the Anglican identity I so desperately sought out.
That’s why you rightly expected “a barge load from one of us”. Anglicans baptize their children. That’s simply what we do and have done for slightly under two thousand years. I get a little antsy when someone is up front about coming in with the purpose of changing us or leaving.
That is something that must be noted. To argue against the baptism of infants is to argue against- what is by your own admission- a major doctrine of the body you’ve been welcomed into. “A barge load” of response is fair, don’t you think?
I think you missed the point of the Supreme Court anology. Like all analogies, the subjects compared differ somewhere or it wouldn’t be an analogy. The question is in regard to the aptness of their point of contact.
I agree with you on the state of the Supreme Court. I’m a big Bork fan. In fact, I’m more of a Calhounian and believe the original intent was for the States, not the Supreme Court, to be the final arbiters, but that doesn’t affect the aptness of the analogy. I chose a popularly understood situation to illustrate that a commitment to an ultimate authority does not contradict the reality of lesser authorities- and more to the point, the need to interpret that authority, even if fallibly. It was authority per se, which I meant you to notice. Not the form that authority took. That’s why I offered up fallible parents as another example.
So, while I’m glad to hear that you respect the authority of tradition and the church, and have no desire to question the sincerity of that claim, I’m just not sure what you mean by it. If I can fiddle with an elder brother’s comments, Faith in the authority of the church without works is dead.
If I, a fallilbe parent, tell my children to do something and they respond with “Let me think about whether you are right to ask me to do such a thing, because…you know, sometimes you really blow this parent thing.” Has my authority been respected? What ought I to expect of my children. Would it fix things if they prefaced the remarks above with, “I really respect you, but…” What does respect for authority look like?
I don’t deny that their may be a time for my children to disobey me, but I believe that God expects children, citizens and parishioners to be forbearing towards much injustice, mistakes and incompetence before revolution is declared. But, even then it ought to be done in such a way that parental, civil and ecclesiastical authority in general is not undermined. I meant that to come through in the last post.
That’s why I respect the fact that the members of our Parish held on as long as they could in the EPUSA. They loved the branch of Christ’s church they were a part of and they endured much injustice and unbelievable ineptness- even wickedness. The departure and the contention that followed was the last radical straw, not business as usual. You and I both know which predominates “out there” in evangelicalism.
(Incidentally, It's my belief that the Anglican Church began when the gospel first came to Britain. God simply allowed her to wash herself off at the time of Ole’ Henry. The King meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.)
As for me, if it can be demonstrated that the practices of the Eastern Church were “from the beginning,” I’d thank God for her and pray that those who are responsible for guiding the Western branch would come in line with her. The standard isn’t “because this is simply the way things have always been done”, but rather “any practice that was universally practiced from the beginning is clearly congruent with apostolic tradition”. I must trust millions of Christians, many of whom knew the apostles, or I trust my own limited, two thousand-year distanced thinking. Which is the wiser course? More so, I trust the mercy and faithfulness of the Husband of this messed up Bride. He loves me because he loves me, not because I get every question right.
As it is, I’m a western Christian. I stay with her not because I believe she is perfect or even right most of the time, but because I believe she is truly the church into which Christ has placed me. Perhaps things could progress to the point where I must leave her in order to be faithful to God, but the fact that she’s going to get things wrong isn’t such a situation. If that is the criterion, where would I go?
Anyway, this is what I hear you saying. Forgive me if I’ve misheard you: You believe my historical argument is a strawman. Does this not imply that you believe the church got off on the wrong foot in regards to baptism immediately and no one seemed to notice or care, even though “wars” were fought over lesser things. And this compromise and irresponsibility (what else could it be) by those who often sealed their commitment to the truth by martyrdom, and sacrificed lives, family and fortune in order to preserve and transmit the very faith we proclaim, is evident because you don’t see what they were getting at in the book which they compiled?
I’m going to be tied up. Can’t promise I will be able to continue at this rate for a while. I’ll do my best to keep up.
Christ’s Peace, brother.
In a previous post someone asked for some historical data concerning admittance to the Lord's Supper. Let me start by offering the prototype standards listed by Justin Martyr in the middle of the second century, which have been widely accepted and practiced in the church. Indeed, the Catholic Church has always applied his three conditions for receiving Holy Communion --(i.e., BAPTISM, RIGHT FAITH and RIGHT LIVING). Let me quote him directly: "...this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined" (First Apology, Chapter LXVI).
Following this precedent BAPTISM, ORTHODOXY and HOLINESS are to be expected of communicants.
Phil,
You've read considerably more into my posts than I meant when I posted them. I have no intention to try to change Anglican practice on baptism, or of leaving, either. I'm not convinced it's 100% right, but I also realize that I'm up against a lot of evidence the other way. I'm not dogmatic at all on this, I'm still thinking about it. Nor do I want to turn Anglicanism into an "evangelical baptistic" faith. I just left that myself. You can relax! I expected a barge load of response because I've got one every time this particular issue has arisen. It seems to be a very volatile one. I'd actually rather be discussing Dick's original question. I knew none of you would agree with me and I'm still thinking about the issue, myself. I thought your historical argument a straw man simply because I concede the point. The early Church did practice infant baptism, there's no getting around it. I did not understand the necessity of arguing a point I don't dispute. I know there's 2000 years of practice out there on this. That's precisely why I am not prepared to speak for anyone but myself on this and certainly not prepared to try to change Anglican practice. I respect that 2000 years of practice immensely and realize I could be dead wrong on this. I'm just not convinced of it yet. There are, as I pointed out, other matters where the reformers have thrown out previous practice. Is it necessary to accept every scrap of Anglican doctrine (when there actually is one) before you join the Anglican Church? I hope not. I doubt anyone would qualify. I knew I would have to reconsider my beliefs when I became Anglican. I'm still working on it.
As for the Eastern Church, that's precisely what they will tell you-and then proceed to give you chapter and verse from the Church fathers to prove it. Try talking to a knowledgeable Orthodox one of these days, particularly a Western convert. Hang on to your shoes though, or you might find yourself swimming the Bosphorus. There's been quite a few of those lately-including a good many ex-Anglicans.
I would point out, as I did previously, that you are trusting your own limited, two thousand year distanced thinking. Why else leave the Baptist denomination for Anglicanism, unless you thought the Anglican way more correct than the Baptist one? You decided for yourself, with the light that God gave you, who was more right or, to focus it more sharply, whose doctrine was more right. We all do this. If we didn't, no one would ever leave the denomination they began in. All the arguments are simply evidence, on which we base a decision. Is this bad? God did give us minds. He surely expects us to use them. How else do we discern the spirits?
I'd agree with you about the beginning of the Anglican Church. A good case can be argued that the Anglican Church got pulled off course at the Council of Whitby and not even "ol' Henry" managed to pull it completely back on track. Try studying the pre-Whitby British Church, and the pre-English conquest Irish Church if you haven't before. I find we lost a lot there that would be invaluable today.
Bill,
I couldn't agree more with Justin Martyr's qualifications for Communion. If we enforce them like we should, however, that last one would keep a lot of people away from the Communion table. They actually had that problem in the 19th century English and Scottish churches. The Holiness requirement was so heavily emphasised that no one would take Communion, being too afraid to. Anything in Justin Martyr about how they made those standards stick?
J.P.,
I so appreciate your spirit. Electronic communication seems to be designed to start fires. You can’t hear my tone of voice or see the smiles I’d be sending your way, and yet you assumed that they were there. Thank you for that.
I do have a great deal of baggage- perhaps, even bitterness- that comes with my backstory. I’m quite sure it goes into how I read people. That’s not always fair, and I ask your forgiveness.
I served as an elder in a Reformed denomination for many years. During that time I watched as godly men, who advocated positions that were clearly in line with the substandards of our denomination (because identical with the views of some who wrote them), being challenged, ridiculed and charged as Crypto-Papists. American culture as a whole is Baptistic, and it has so influenced the thinking of American Presbyterians that they’ve come to confuse the modern Bapto-Presbyterain Hybrid with historic Presbyterianism. I doubt Calvin could be ordained today.
Anyway, I understand differences of opinion. I appreciate and value the insights that my Baptist brothers and Sisters bring to the table in regards to the need for true faith, but I get aggravated when one wasn’t allowed to be a Presbyterian because it was asserted that the true Presbyterian faith consists of Baptist Principles clothed in Presbyterian practice. Doesn’t seem just.
I have looked into Eastern Orthodoxy. I’m very sympathetic, but God has placed me in this branch of the Apostolic Church. For better or worse, I’m a Western Christian. Without doubt, she needs all the help she can get. This isn’t the time to bail. That’s been my thinking up until this point, anyway.
I understand your point about the need to decide personally. But it seems to me that the things being decided are radically different. I can decide to recognize the authority of my parents and submit even when I believe they are wrong- or over reaching. Or I can decide on a case by case basis, when they will be obeyed. I agree that both scenarios involve a decision (even a continual decision) on my part, but they also seem to be different in very important ways.
I’m glad to find I have a fellow admirer of the Celtic Church! Amen to all you said there.
Bill, I too can endorse these qualifications, but it’s important that we don’t read Modern Evangelical definitions back into them. I think this is particularly the danger in regards to “Orthodoxy” and “Faith.” For many modern evangelicals orthodoxy is summarized in one tenet- justification by faith alone. Faith is limited to a mature even full conscious acceptance of revealed truth. While I agree that this is what we aim for, I disagree that this exhausts the category of “true faith.” This has huge pastoral ramifications, to say the least.
I’d assume that Justin Martyr’s opinions were in keeping with the rest of the church. Here are some other quotes that were readily available to me. They can help us understand whether small children were indeed counted among those who have been Baptized, have Faith and are Holy.
Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 150-210) writes,
As soon as we (baptized), we are honoured by receiving the good news of the hope of rest. . . receiving through what is material the pledge of the sacred food. The Instructor, ch. VI
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage. (c. A.D. 250) writes,
But to many their own destruction was not sufficient. With mutual exhortations, people were urged to their ruin; death was pledged by turns in the deadly cup. And that nothing might be wanting to aggravate the crime, infants also, in the arms of their parents, either carried or conducted, lost, while yet little ones, what in the very first beginning of their nativity they had gained. Will not they, when the day of judgment comes, say, "We have done nothing; nor have we forsaken the Lord's bread and cup to hasten freely to a profane contact; the faithlessness of others has ruined us. We have found our parents our murderers; they have denied to us the Church as a Mother; they have denied God as a Father: so that, while we were little, and unforeseeing, and unconscious of such a crime, we were associated by others to the partnership of wickedness, and we were snared by the deceit of others?" On the Lapsed, chapter 9
Learn what occurred when I myself was present and a witness. Some parents who by chance were escaping, being little careful on account of their terror, left a little daughter under the care of a wet-nurse. The nurse gave up the forsaken child to the magistrates. They gave it, in the presence of an idol whither the people flocked (because it was not yet able to eat flesh on account of its years), bread mingled with wine, which however itself was the remainder of what had been used in the immolation of those that had perished. Subsequently the mother recovered her child. But the girl was no more able to speak, or to indicate the crime that had been committed, than she had before been able to understand or to prevent it. Therefore it happened unawares in their ignorance, that when we were sacrificing, the mother brought it in with her. Moreover, the girl mingled with the saints, became impatient of our prayer and supplications, and was at one moment shaken with weeping, and at another tossed about like a wave of the sea by the violent excitement of her mind; as if by the compulsion of a torturer the soul of that still tender child confessed a consciousness of the fact with such signs as it could. When, however, the solemnities were finished, and the deacon began to offer the cup to those present, and when, as the rest received it, its turn approached, the little child, by the instinct of the divine majesty, turned away its face, compressed its mouth with resisting lips, and refused the cup. Still the deacon persisted, and, although against her efforts, forced on her some of the sacrament of the cup. Then there followed a sobbing and vomiting. In a profane body and mouth the Eucharist could not remain; the draught sanctified in the blood of the Lord burst forth from the polluted stomach. So great is the Lord's power, so great is His majesty. The secrets of darkness were disclosed under His light, and not even hidden crimes deceived God's priest.
This much about an infant, which was not yet of an age to speak of the crime committed by others in respect of herself. On the Lapsed, ch. 25-26
Constitutions of the Holy Apostles
Let none of the catechumens, let none of the hearers, let none of the unbelievers, let none of the heterodox, stay here. You who have prayed the foregoing prayer, depart. Let the mothers receive [or, take] their children; let no one have anything against any one; let no one come in hypocrisy; let us stand upright before the Lord with fear and trembling, to offer. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.12
. . . . let the bishop partake, then the presbyters, and deacons, and sub-deacons, and the readers, and the singers, and the ascetics; and then of the women, the deaconesses, and the virgins, and the widows; then the children; and then all the people in order, with reverence and godly fear, without tumult. Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, 8.2.13
St. Augustine writes,
They are infants, but they receive His sacraments. They are infants, but they share in His table, in order to have life in themselves. Works, Vol. 5, Sermon 174:7
Why is the blood, which of the likeness of sinful flesh was shed for the remission of sins, ministered that the little one may drink, that he may have life, unless he hath come to death by a beginning of sin on the part of some one? And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper life, than that which is written: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;" and "The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;" and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?" If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. Moreover, if it be only sins that separate man from salvation and eternal life, there is nothing else in infants which these sacraments can be the means of removing, but the guilt of sin. . . On the Forgiveness of Sins and the Baptism of Infants,
Bk. I, ch. 33
J.P.,
This Communion standard of RIGHT LIVING, or as I put it "HOLINESS," does not anticipate or expect perfection, but rather repentance (i.e., an active/current state of repentance from sin). It has been broadly enforced through the centuries by including in the Eucharistic Liturgy a segment for examination of conscience and confession of sin, prior to receiving the Blessed Sacrament. In the case of serious/severe sin (read: "mortal" sin), Roman Catholics have always required prior sacramental confession (i.e., ...to a priest ...followed by absolution -- IAW John 20:23). Protestants generally rely on private confession (1 John 1:9), since they only hold to and practice the two dominical sacraments -- Baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Also ...most of the time, in most of the church, throughout most of its existance... a fast was also included/expected in preparation for Holy Communion. My personal practice is to fast from mid-night the night before. I believe the RC's now require fasting for only one hour before reception of the Eucharist.
The point of all this is to stress the solemnity of this sacrament which is central to the worship and life of the church. It is reserved for Christ-followers only! Just as Baptism is the sacrament of entry into the Covenant of Grace, so The Lord's Table is the sacrament of abiding in that covenant with God through Christ.
Soli Deo Gloria...
Phil, et al...
Let there be no confusion of "orthodoxy" with the ecclesiastically autonomous, subjective theological constructs of modernity (and for that matter, the last half-millennium, which threw the baby out with the bath water -- e.g., the Zwinglian Radical Reformers on the continent; the Puritans in Reformation England; or the pop-evangelicals of 21st century America). No, indeed! "Orthodoxy" must be derived from the days of the undivided church. As Bishop Lancelot Andrewes (the so-called mentor of Reformed Catholicism, 1555-1626) wrote, "ONE CANON reduced to writing by God Himself, TWO TESTAMENTS, THREE CREEDS, FOUR GENERAL COUNCILS, FIVE CENTURIES and the series of fathers in that period -– the three centuries, that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith." This five-fold dictum is a good, long-standing, shorthand definition of Orthodoxy.
This definitive period of orthodoxy culminates in the oft-quoted (albeit hyperbolic) summarization of the "faith once delivered to the saints" in the VINCENTIAN CANON (c. 445), by which Peregrinus (Vincent of Lerins) hoped to be able to differentiate between true and false tradition: "quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" ("what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all").
Such "Orthodoxy" emanates from the early church fathers who passed down the "received" faith, believing that the ultimate source of Christian truth was Holy Scripture and that the authority of the Church was to be invoked to guarantee the correct interpretation of Scripture.
In such orthodoxy, "RIGHT FAITH" consists.
Pax
I'm with you on the Orthodoxy thing, Bill.
Backing up a post, its my understanding that the efficacy of confession/ absolution was not “gotten rid of” with the reformers. Their heirs get credit for that.
Both Calvin and Luther, among others, held forth the importance of absolution. They denied, however, that this was distinct from Baptism. Confession/absolution wasn’t a second plank extended for those who have sinned after baptism, rather it was the same plank reapplied.
Luther’s thoughts on this are commonly known, but it’s surprising to people when they read Calvin saying things like:
“We now see the reason why Christ employs such magnificent terms, to commend and adorn that ministry which he bestows and enjoins on the Apostles [and their successors, pastors]. It is, that believers may be fully convinced, that what they hear concerning the forgiveness of sins is ratified, and may not less highly value the reconciliation which is offered by the voice of men, than if God himself stretched out his hand from heaven. And the church daily receives the most abundant benefit from this doctrine, when it perceives that her pastors are divinely ordained to be sureties for eternal salvation, and that it must not go to a distance to seek the forgiveness of sins, which is committed to their trust.”
“[The forgiveness of sins] is dispensed to us through the ministers and pastors of the church, either by the preaching of the Gospel [including the declaration of absolution] or by the administration of the sacraments; and herein chiefly stands the power of the keys, which the Lord has gifted to the society of believers. Accordingly, let each one of us count it his own duty to seek forgiveness of sins only where the Lord has placed it.”
“When Christ enjoins the Apostles to ‘forgive sins,’ he does not convey to them what is peculiar to himself. It belongs to him to forgive sins. This honor, so far as it belongs peculiarly to himself, he does not surrender to the Apostles, but enjoins them, in his Name, to declare the forgiveness of sins, that through their instrumentality he may reconcile men to God. In short, properly speaking, it is he alone who forgives sins through his apostles and ministers”
“The entire power [of the keys] rests in the fact that, through those whom the Lord had ordained, the grace of the Gospel is publicly and privately sealed in the hearts of believers”
If sacraments are considered as those actions of the church which sign and seal God’s grace to us (even instrumentally per Calvin above), then absolution certainly qualifies as a sacrament. Calvin and Luther simply understood it as part and parcel of Baptism.
Rich Lusk summarizes it helpfully in this way:
Calvin’s view is not substantially different from the classic Lutheran view of absolution. Consider Scaer, Baptism, 29: “It would be hardly accurate to say that Luther or the Confessions eliminated the third sacrament, Penance. In the Large Catechism, Luther, rather than disposing of Penance, incorporates it into Baptism, so that Baptism is not only an isolated sacramental act initiating the Christian into the fellowship of the church, but a sacrament to which the Christian can daily return. The distance between the time of Baptism and the time when sin is committed does not diminish Baptism’s efficacy in offering forgiveness. Luther could confidently say, ‘Therefore Baptism remains forever.’ Whether Penance is embraced by Baptism (as for Luther in the Large Catechism) or whether as the continued life of repentance it remains a separate sacramental action, as for Melanchthon in the Apology (XIII.4), is immaterial for the faith life of the church. Even though Luther saw Penance as part of Baptism and not as a separate act, it was Luther and not Melanchthon who provided as part of the Small Catechism (V) a section on how the people are to confess their sins and receive absolution. This absolution was to be followed by ‘amendment of life and forsaking of sin’ (AC XII.6). Luther placed his section on confession and absolution after his section on Baptism to show that they were a continuation of Baptism….[H]e viewed confession and absolution as sacramental, since he saw in them the extension of Baptism into the life of the church.” At least on this point of the relationship of baptism, confession, and absolution, Calvin and Luther structure the Christian life in an identical way. Compare Lutheran Harold Senkbeil’s Dying to Live, 83-4 on absolution, as well: “Christ calls every Christian to be his witness, but he doesn’t call every Christian to be his minister, or agent. Through his witnesses Christ bears testimony to all mankind regarding His life for our dying world. But he works uniquely in the church through His ministers for the forgiveness of sins. The church calls pastors from her own midst, but it is Christ himself who stands behind the office of the ministry. They are earthly agents for our heavenly Lord. He gives His called servants power of attorney, as it were. When they forgive, He forgives. When they withhold forgiveness, He withholds forgiveness. Their word is to be regarded as His word. And His word is the Word from the Father. ‘He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me‘ (Mt. 10:40)…God has so arranged it in His church that when appointed servants of Christ speak His word of forgiveness, it is to be regarded as Christ’s very own Word.” This is the classical Protestant view: the initial forgiveness granted in baptism is continually received and maintained through confession and absolution.
Given the original topic of this debate, I did not intend to expound on the differences between protestant and RC belief and practice concerning confession and absolution. Perhaps we can stipulate that they are distinct, and include considerable differences on the principle of Justification by Faith and the extent of its efficacy in Baptism. I mentioned it only in reference to the questioned communion standard of "RIGHT LIVING."
Concerning Phil's comments on absolution, it is useful to keep in mind that Jesus repeatedly demonstrated his authority to heal the sick and to forgive sins, etc... and he also delegated such authority to his disciples, as he saw fit... including the cited reference to John 20:23. Some argue this was delegated authority to do it ... to actually effect the result, but others hold it was simply general authority to declare the gospel wherein it is already accomplished.
The quotes from Luther and Calvin notwithstanding, the sacramental understanding and application of this in the church generally and predictably seems to differ in direct relationship to views/practice concerning the Historic Episcopate and importance of maintaining the faith and form in Apostolic Succession of Holy Orders. The spectrum of understanding on this point need not alter the general standard of a "RIGHT LIFE" as one of the prerequistes for Holy Communion.
Bill, you’re absolutely right about this being irrelevant to “Right Life” as prerequisite for communion. Was meaning to converse, not necessarily argue a point on the table. I’ll try to stay more on target.
But let me ask your opinion, do you not think there is a connection peripherally in that the question of who ought to receive both communion and baptism is very much dependent on what a person believes they are. The more historic position, as I understand it, maintains that they are God’s action, his speaking. The modern baptistic understanding sees them as actions exclusively performed by the believer. The latter view makes paedobaptism and paedocommunion very unlikely. (I know that’s an understatement)
Tied very closely to the idea of sacraments as God’s work is the idea of God working objectively through the words and actions of his ministers. I don’t see how you can have one without the other.
It might be helpful to recall that the classical protestant position (whether accepting or rejecting of the Historic Episcopacy) doesn’t deny this fact, but indeed requires it.
It seems to me (and I truly mean that as a disclaimer), that the Luther and Calvin quotes (among many others) point out that the demarcation between those who believe God objectively “does things” through his ministers and those who believe His ministers simply point and say “Hey, look what God has done.” isn’t the endorsement of the Historic Episcopacy, but rather a view of reality that isn’t radically modern. The maintenance of tactile Orthodox Apostolic Succession is most likely to be zealously protected by those who are the least modern in their outlook. This keeps us from treating the Reformers who were classically protestant/catholic on the minister issue as anomalies. Presbyterians used to (and Lutheran’s still do) affirm the objective nature of the sacraments (West Short Cat. Question 92, for example), not because they really were closet Episcopalians, but because they hadn’t been chewing on the root of Modernity- they were positively medieval (and I mean that in a good way).
Might be off my rocker, just wondering at the keyboard.
I’ve got a wonderful quote from Robert Rayburn of Covenant Seminary that illustrates the classical catholic/protestant view. Since it pertains to baptism, I’ll stick it over there.
Phil, No question about it... what a person believes the Dominical Sacraments to be, will greatly influence who they would accept as a recipient. If we take the orthodox position of historic Christianity -- God is the primary actor imparting the grace He intended in the sacrament, when faithfully administered according to the scriptures -- then we would arrive at a substantially different conclusion about who should be eligible to receive the sacrament(s), than those who take a man-centered "profession" viewpoint. Since this thread is getting quite long and was intended to deal only with the Eucharist, I will keep my comments brief and limit them to that one sacrament.
If one takes the Zwinglian position and sees Communion as a mere memorial of Christ's death on the cross, then virtually anyone could be admitted to an "open communion." In fact I would argue that they would have little reason to restrict admittance. However, if the Eucharist is understood to be and to convey the actual (even "Real") presence of Christ (anywhere on the continuum from spritual to physical), then His sacramental Body and Blood should be withheld from the unbeliever, the unrepentent, and the undiscerning, as the church catholic has historically done.
This brings me back to where I started in this thread five posts ago. So I'm going to find a different subject .. maybe Baptism.
BTW Phil, great quote from Robert Rayburn on the Theology Table 2 ...it makes the point precisely and dramatically. Thanks for posting it.
The LORD be with you!
And also with you, Bill. (I love this Anglican stuff)
One of the phrases that both Roman and Protesting Catholics share is “means of grace.” in reference to the sacraments. I thought of this when you spoke of God imparting grace in the sacraments. This makes sense to me as in the case of “water is a means of washing” or “sex is a means of love making.” But Peter Leithart has pointed out
that a problem can arise from such phrases in that we begin to see a separation between sex and lovemaking, for example. One oughtn’t have to decide between the two. Sex is lovemaking- or that was the intent. When we make the “delivery system” separate from that “which is delivered” we end up with all sorts of artificial quandaries- especially ethical ones. This is precisely the state of the Introspective Western mind.
Grace isn’t an energy or power distinct from God, which is delivered to us. For example, as I read him, Aquinas makes the sacraments into a sort of syringe with which the minister injects spiritual medicine. If I’m remembering right, he even speaks of a habitus for grace within the Christian soul.
The problem with that view is that it makes grace distinct from God himself. The more ancient view (still maintained by the Orthodox whom I’ve read) is to understand grace as relational. God himself is the grace which he conveys. We don’t get a spiritual equivalent of Ovaltine at communion; we get to be held by, claimed by, assured and spoken to…we get to eat with God himself. Luther called the sacraments the “trysting places” of God. (I love that man)
If this is what is conveyed at communion, then “discernment” as introduced in the West, makes little sense. The elements aren’t spiritual bombs that require that we handle them just so, lest we loose a hand in the resulting explosion, rather communion itself (not simply the elements. He told us to “Do this” not “look at these”) is the place and time were the Nazarene fisherman who called for infants to be brought to his lap, shows up with a smile and an invitation to sit down and eat.
The question then is “who has been invited.” The answer that is being recovered in the West is “All those who belong to Christ- his entire body, all of his people,” and of course in baptism Christ objectively makes an individual his own.
I was talking to Bill at church, and really enjoyed hearing some of the journeys he's taken to arrive where he has. Thought it might be interesting if we posted some of the most significant books in our lives- a list of the reading that brought us to where we are.
Would be a great way to find out where each of us are and have been, and ought to lead to some good conversation, too. What do ya’ll think? Anybody willing to go first.
Post a Comment