People are always born. People always have mothers. There is always blood and water.
Likewise, if people are to be re-born, they must have a new mother, and there must be blood and water.
Without a mother, without blood and water, there is no rebirth.
Or, outside the Church there is no salvation.
Showing posts with label Theology - Sacraments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theology - Sacraments. Show all posts
Monday, November 08, 2010
Birth and Rebirth
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Seeing into Creation
Speaking of the writings of Gerard Manley Hopkins, Anthony Esolen writes:
"Hopkins asserted with great ardor that man could approach his Lord by the inconsiderable trifles of the world, a love for irises and moths and falcons... Knowledge is everywhere to be be gleaned but only by those who love. The fault line severs those who can read the signs, often in the most unexpected places, from those who cannot because their love does not beat warmly enough... But if our hearts are open, we will see. Then it will be as if the veil of creation had been torn in two. We will not see beyond creation, leaving it behind in disdain, but into creation... We will see even unto the dangerous and loving Creator who awaits within and beside and beyond. God is no mere object of love, but the Lover who will tear through cloud and sky to grip the heart of man."
-Anthony Esolen, Ironies of Faith, 308-309.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Word as Sacrament
Word is as sacramental as the sacrament is "evangelical." The sacrament is a manifestation of the Word. And unless the false dichotomy between Word and Sacrament is overcome, the true meaning of both Word and Sacrament, and especially the true meaning of Christian "sacramentalism" cannot be grasped in all their wonderful implications. The proclamation of the Word is a sacramental act par excellence because it is a transforming act. It transforms the human words of the Gospel into the Word of God and the manifestation of the Kingdom. And it transforms the man who hears the Word into a receptacle of the Word and a temple of the Spirit...
-Fr. Alexander Schmemann, For the Life of the World, 33.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Beating the Future into the Present
A "type" in biblical literature is commonly understood as a kind of "preview." Paul says that Adam was a "type" of Jesus who was to come (Rom. 5:14). These previews can also work as "examples" or "patterns" to follow or learn from: the unbelieving Israelites in the wilderness are examples for Christians to warn them (1 Cor. 10:6), Moses saw the pattern of the tabernacle on the mountain and was to follow it in the construction of the house of God (Acts 7:44, Heb. 8:5)), and Paul will call upon believers to follow his "example" (Phil. 3:17, 2 Thess. 3:9) or commend others for becoming faithful examples (1 Thess. 1:7). A "type" is ultimately a sort of "image" (e.g. Acts 7:43). In this sense, the "image of God" in man is a replication of the "type" of God which comes to fulfillment in Jesus. It points to the origin; it refers to the archtype.
But the word tupos also means "mark" or "blow." It is only used once in the New Testament in this sense and refers to the "mark" of the nails in the hands of Jesus. Thomas says that unless he sees the "mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe" (Jn. 20:25). But the verb form of this word tupto occurs numerous times in the NT and means "beat" or "strike." Jesus is "struck" (Mt. 27:30, Mk. 15:19, Lk. 22:64), later Sosthenes is "beaten" (Acts 18:17), and Paul is beaten (Acts 21:32) and "struck" (Acts 23:2).
This suggests a couple of possible directions to run with this. First, to call people to follow the pattern/example of Jesus or the apostles, is to call them to be "pierced" or "struck" or "beaten" into conformity with the image. Jesus is the perfect image of the invisible God, the type of the image of God that we are striving to be conformed to. Second, this suggests that the "example" of Christ and the apostles and other believers so frequently associated with suffering should perhaps be taken more literally. To be "beaten" for Jesus, to be "struck" for His name is to bear in the body the "marks" of Christ. Paul uses a different word in Galatians 6:17, but the parallel seems unmistakable. The "type" is struck in the believer in so far as their suffering is suffering for good (like Christ) but the "mark" is not merely illustrative, it is also efficacious and transformative. Like a bit of soft wax pressed with the image of the King, the marks of Christ leave an indelible reality of God's Life pressed into the individual who suffers. No wonder the apostles call us to rejoice.
Lastly, and a bit more speculative, it seems like there is a temporal-eschatalogical promise implied in this picture. Given these previous points, "types" seem to function as prophetic signs. "Types" call upon God to fulfill them. Sacraments are the supreme types, but even people, persecution, and various patterns seem to function as invitations for God to interpose the reality into history to which the "type" points. Perhaps more provocatively, types strain forward into the future and at the same time pull the future back into the present. While God does know the end from the beginning and certainly orchestrates all things according to His good counsel, there is nevertheless clearly a mysterious way in which humanity is invited into influencing the course of history. Prophets speak in the divine assembly, and God listens to them. God changes His mind; the future is not fixed in an abstract filing cabinet in heaven. The future is held in the hand of our faithful Father.
This would mean that "pounding" an obedient type into the present is one of the ways that God invites our participation in the future. The imprint, the mark of faithfulness will remain, and more than that, perhaps we have far more impact on the future than we sometimes imagine.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Jacques Ellul: Not Radical Enough
Just started Jacques Ellul's Subversion of Christianity which I am told is vaguely reminiscent of Leithart's Against Christianity. We'll see where he goes, but the early returns are that he follows the anti-constantianism routine, in some fashion, suspicious that the Church sold out in the third and fourth centuries, a victim of its own success. While I'm open to being critical of the history of the Church, I'm generally a little dubious when these sorts of critiques romantically long for the simplicity and radical nature of the gospel, the teachings of Christ, and the tradition of the apostles and then immediately fail to take their own advice. Case and point here: frequently, it's claimed that one of the marks of this devolution in the Church is the transition from a fairly elaborate process of catechizing, testing, and proving of individuals leading up to baptism to a more haphazard, popularizing of entry into the church.
Ellul writes: "In the primitive church personal conversion brought entry and presupposed preparatory training. When the church became an affair of the masses, it became impossible to be sure of the authenticity of each convert. The process reversed itself. People entered the church first and then received the religious instruction that would guarantee the seriousness of their faith. Entry into the church was followed by spiritual training and the acquiring of knowledge. The net had to be cast wide so as to bring in as many as possible. But success put Christianity on a slippery slope. For fundamentally, why wait for deliberate entry into the church?" (30)
The problem with this is that this is actually a place where the movement is toward greater faithfulness to the New Testament and not less. Where Ellul is suspicious of the Church growing soft and trendy (which very well may be true is some ways during this era), the fact is that in the New Testament, all the incidents of baptism that we have present baptism as entry into the church with catechism to follow. In fact, in some of the instances, it's so rushed as to seem a little strange. Why does Paul baptize the Philippian jailer and his family in the middle of the night, for instance? Surely spiritual training would have to follow the baptism in this case. The Ethiopian eunuch is also a pretty short affair, and where Ellul is suspicious of mass baptisms, Pentecost is the great New Testament example of this very thing. A huge crowd hears one sermon, and Peter invites them to baptism. No catechumens, no waiting period, just baptize them. And they did, three thousand of them in one day. If mass conversions and baptisms is a slippery slope, we've got it starting on the birthday of the Church, the day of Pentecost itself.
Talk about radical. And here's where Ellul and folks like him seem to miss one of the most radical aspects of the Christian faith. God welcomes people who don't understand into His family. He welcomes everyone to join his family, and insists that it be full of babies, infants. And God claims His children by sprinkling a little bit of water on people who confess that Jesus is Lord. And when whole cities, tribes, and nations confess the faith, that will sometimes mean gloriously massive baptismal services. And yes that means that the church will quickly fill up with lots of immature, baby Christians who don't know a lick of the Bible or basic morality. But apparently that's part of the Church growing up into a mature man and being conformed to the image of Christ. In fact, that's how we must come to Christ, like little children hungry for the milk of the word, crying, inarticulate, and completely dependent.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Joachim on the Eucharistic Words
Joachim Jeremias says that a better translation of "Do this in remembrance of me" would be "This do, that God may remember me." (The Eucharistic Words Of Jesus, 251ff)
Monday, December 29, 2008
Wright on Pentecost, Scripture Reading, and Sacrament
A few excerpts from N.T. Wright's Simply Christian:
"The fulfillment of the Torah by the Spirit is one of the main themes underlying the spectacular description in Acts 2, or the day of Pentecost itself. To this day, Pentecost is observed in Judaism as the feast of the giving of the Law. First comes Passover, the day when the Israelites leave their Egyptian slavery behind for good. Off they go through the desert, and fifty days later they reach Mount Sinai. Moses goes up the mountain and comes down with the Law, the tablets of the covenant, God's gift to his people of the way of life by which they will be able to demonstrate that they are really his people.
This is the picture we ought to have in mind as we read Acts 2. The previous Passover, Jesus had died and been raised, opening the way out of slavery, the way to forgiveness and a new start for the whole world -- especially for all those who follow him. Now, fifty days later, Jesus has been taken into 'heaven,' into God's dimension of reality; but, like Moses, he comes down again to ratify the renewed covenant and to provide the way of life, written not on stone but in human hearts, by which Jesus's followers may gratefully demonstrate that they really are his people." (132-133)
On reading Scripture in worship:
"Reading scripture in worship is, first and foremost, the central way of celebrating who God is and what he's done.
Let me put it like this. The room I am sitting in at the moment has quite small windows. If I stand at the other side of the room, I can see only a little of what is outside -- part of the house opposite, and a tiny bit of sky. But if I go up close to the window, I can see trees, fields, animals, the sea, the hills in the distance.
It sometimes feels as though two or three short biblical readings are rather like the windows seen from the other side of the room. We can't see very much through them. But as we get to know the Bible better, we get close and closer to the windows (as it were), so that, without the windows having gotten any bigger, we can glimpse the entire sweep of the biblical countryside." (150-151)
On the sacrament:
"Like the children of Israel still in the wilderness, tasting food which the spies had brought back from their secret trip to the Promised Land, in the bread-breaking we are tasting God's new creation -- the new creation whose prototype and origin is Jesus himself." (154)
"...[T]here has been endless confusion over the relationship between the bread-breaking service and the sacrifice offered by Jesus on the cross. Catholics have usually said they were one and the same, to which Protestants have replied that Catholic interpretation looks like an attempt to repeat something which was done once and once only, and can never be done again. Protestants have usually said that the bread-breaking service is a different sacrifice to the one offered by Jesus -- they see it as a "sacrifice of praise" offered by the worshippers -- to which Catholics have responded that the Protestant interpretation looks like an attempt to add something to the already complete offering of Jesus, which (they say) becomes "sacramentally" present in the bread and the wine." (156)
Continual Sacrifice, Eucharist, and Hebrews
"For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect... But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (Heb. 10:1, 12-14)
The writer contrasts the sacrifices of the law which are offered continually but cannot make perfect (10:1) with the sacrifice of Christ which perfects forever those who are being sanctified (10:14).
What is striking is that the writer uses the same adjective to describe the continual offerings of the Law and the continual efficacy of Christ's sacrifice (translated 'forever'). In 10:1 the sacrifices are offered dianekes but can never bring to perfection. Likewise in 10:12, Christ has offered one sacrifice for sins dianekes and sat down at the right hand of God. And in 10:14, 'For by one offering he has perfected dianekes those being sanctified.'
The contrast then is most clearly on the number of the sacrifices which the the priests of the Law offered "frequently" (in 10:11 it's a different word than 10:1). Whereas the writer insists that Christ's offering was a single sacrifice (10:10, 12, 14). In 10:10, the offering of the "body of Jesus Christ" is described as ephapax which means once-for-all (cf. Rom. 6:10, Heb. 7:27, 9:12).
The word (dianekes) is used in one other place in Hebrews 7:3 where it describes Christs perpetual ministry as priest.
Of course all of this concerns issues which were significant in the Reformation. The Reformers all insisted that the Roman Mass had obscured the once-for-all character of the sacrifice of Christ. The concern was that the Mass had become a re-sacrifice of Christ which was both abhorrent to the glory of Christ who is seated at the right hand of the Father and also because of the kind of meritorious theology that seems to naturally flow from such ideas. If the one offering of Christ on the cross must be re-exhibited, re-offered, re-presented for sins to be forgiven, how does that not undermine the once-for-all sense in which Christ suffered on the tree under Pontius Pilate? How is it not in some sense insufficient for our salvation? It seems to imply that something more must be done. And further, if the Eucharist continually offers Christ as a sacrifice for sin, how are we not back in the same position as the people under the Law?
And yet, it does seem that the common translation of this word in Heb. 10 (as 'forever') may create a more severe contrast than is actually meant by the writer. Whatever the priests' many sacrifices could not do which were offered dianekes is what Christ's one sacrifice now actually accomplishes dianekes.
Monday, February 04, 2008
Littell on Bucer's Catholic Spirit
This is from an article by Franklin H. Little entitled What Butzer Debated with the Anabaptists at Marburg:
"Butzer's great strength was expressed in his doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Both Lutheranism and Calvinism speedily fell into legalism, the piling of precept upon precept, the savage persecution of those who read the script differently, the brutal wars of religion which destroyed 80 per cent of the people and reduced the German lands to poverty and disease for generations. Neither the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577) nor the Calvinist Canons of the Synod of Dort (1618-19) satisfactorily expressed a consensus fidelium. Both signified a willingness to settle for particularity long after the ability to discuss charitably had atrophied. Both required abandonment of universal perspectives, the canonization of particular formulas, the eclipse of eschatology. Both, in their lack of hope in things to come, lack of confidence in God's continuing purposes, derived from a scholastic mind-set which was insufficiently chastened and governed by a vital doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Butzer could have instructed the brethren, but even in his own time he was accused of "enthusiasm," of sympathy with the "Anabaptists of Münster," of spiritualizing tendencies. Because he remained open to discussion and was willing to learn even from those with whom he had little in common, he was condemned by the dogmatic and inflexible for supposed instability and uncertainty of stance. Actually, he believed that the ultimate decision rested neither with hierarchy nor professional theologians but with the whole body of believers." (P. 256-257)
Oyer on Bucer
In an article entitled Bucer Opposes the Anabaptists, John S. Oyer suggests that the early Bucer did not hold to infant baptism primarily for theological or sacramental reasons but rather for social and political motivations. It was the separatism of the Anabaptists that Bucer was primarily in conflict with; infant baptism insisted that all members of society were bound together through the church. Oyer suggests that Bucer sought to build a society with the roles of church and state interwoven and (in places) overlapping. The basis for this societal vision was found in identifying the Old and New Covenants closely. The Anabaptists, on the other hand, insisted that the two covenants were quite distinct and different. The identification of baptism as the New Covenant fulfillment of the Old Covenant sign of circumcision fit this hermeneutic beautifully and was at the same time utterly repugnant to the Anabaptist commitment to the separation of church and state. Oyer says that it was Bucer’s commitment to a unified society that drives his reluctance to give up infant baptism.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Promises and Election
Some in the recent presbyterian debates have suggested that God has given us the covenant and the sacraments, and that it is not really our responsibility to search the secret things of God. We don't have access to the list of the elect to glory. We have God's Word. We have baptism and the Eucharist, and these are God's sure promises to us. Bucer clearly taught similarly when he said regarding infant baptism, "It is the church's task to follow God's promises, not election, not attitude of the heart." Elsewhere, in a marginal notation, he says, "In conferring sacraments, regard is to be had to God's promise, not to election" (Wright, 101).
Early Bucer
More from D.F. Wright:
He quotes Bucer in his Ephesians commentary of 1527 as saying, "Faith and the Spirit are God's gift; he bestows them when he sees fit, not at our word. Certainly those who, as believers already, were baptized by the apostles, had previously been sealed by the Holy Spirit and received faith: what then did baptism or the word of the baptizer confer on them? So too our infants: if they were chosen of God before the foundations of the world were laid, the Lord will grant them the Spirit and faith when he sees fit, but our washing them with water will not for one moment grant them faith or God's Spirit - as some important persons affirm, no less ill-advisedly than irreligiously" (97). The rhetorical question in the above paragraph seems to imply a negative answer. To the adult already converted, baptism would seem to "confer" nothing.
Similarly, in the mid-1520s, Bucer explained to Luther that he found comfort in the fact that baptism was "external" for since the baptism of adults would "comply better with Scripture and the church's primitive usage, 'nevertheless we should not be too reluctant to concede this to the general consensus, that we baptize infants.'" (98).
Wright notes, as we have previously seen in Grund und Ursach, that Bucer attributed passages like Titus 3:5-6 and Ephesians 5:25-26 to "the baptism of Christ who baptizes with the Spirit, and not by baptism of a human being baptizing with water" (98).
In 1527, Bucer suggests that they baptize infants mostly for the peace of the church, but "if it required something different, we would not be at all reluctant to delay baptizing infants, while ever acknowledging that our children are holy and belong to Christ's until as adults by their own lives they show it to be otherwise" (98).
Likewise in Grund und Ursach, Bucer insists that this controversy over infant baptism is of minimal importance. He says that if there is "someone who delays baptism and desires to do so among those with whom he lives, without destroying love and unity, we in no way desire to quarrel with him about this, nor to condemn him... 'The kingdom of God is not eating or drinking,' neither is it baptism with water..."
Obviously things have changed between this point in the mid-1520s and the mid-1530s where infant baptism is required by church statute.
Bucer on Baptism and the State
Turns out I do have some of David Wright's work on Bucer in the form of Martin Bucer: Reforming Church and Community.
Wright notes that under Bucer's direction, the Strasbourg church ordinance of 1534required that "all children born to citizens must be baptized as infants" (96). Infants were required to be brought within six weeks of birth upon threat of punishment, including banishment, if parents refused. Bucer saw this requirement not merely as a theological necessity but more broadly as essential to the "preservation of the unified Christian community." Even appealing to Plato, Bucer justified the baptism of children of "godless parents" by appealing to the fact that children "belong more to the 'respublica' ('der gemein und stadt') than to their own parents" (97).
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
More Bucer on Baptism
What is quite striking about Bucer's theology of baptism is the differences between his Grund und Ursach (c. 1524) and his commentary on the Book of Common Prayer (c. 1549). As Steven pointed out in the comments below, it is generally recognized that there was considerable development in Bucer's baptismal theology throughout his ministry. Initially, he studied under Luther, then under Zwingli, and towards the end of his ministry was again working closely with Luther. In his early ministry, he faced the greatest hostility from Roman Catholics and (apparently) misunderstood Lutherans. Later, he faced the growing pressures of the Anabaptist movement.
Here are a few selections from his Commentary on the Book of Common Prayer:
1. Discussing the proper days for the baptism of infants, Bucer recommends having baptisms on feast days when the entire church is most likely to be present This is desirable so that the people of the church may be reminded of their own baptism and "the covenant of salvation [foederis salutis] which he undertook in his baptism." Furthermore, it is fitting that fellow members of Christ "should be present in good numbers when one of their children, born to eternal death, is to be born in the church to everlasting life and taken into the number of the sons of God. In this way they may pray God for that benefit and at the same time confer [una conferant] it upon him through the minister in the company of Christ's church..." Bucer goes on to say that at the same time, the infant and those witnessing the baptism are received into one another, being mutually bound by the "obligations of Christian fellowship." Presumably, Bucer has the "covenant of salvation" previously mentioned in mind here. Finally, on the same subject, Bucer says that these things ought to be taught to the ministers performing the baptisms since many of them are more interested in all the extra trappings and theatrics than "for the things which belong to baptism and rebirth [regenerationis]." Of note here is that while regeneration and baptism are distinguished, there appears to be little (if any) separation in time. Clearly, the "covenant of salvation" is contracted in the rite of baptism, but the congregation is also to pray for "that benefit," which presumably is "life everlasting" and adoption as a son of God, and that benefit is in fact to be conferred upon the infant by the minister "at the same time." Obviously, Bucer is not qualifying and distinguishing the "sign" and its "effects" with the same scrupulousness evidenced in the earlier writings found in Grund und Ursach.
2. Bucer comments on a later section and agrees that baptism of infants should be sought from a minister and it ought to be done so in a timely fashion. He also says that they ought to make their request "respectfully" since "unless men show the greatest respect for the mysteries of Christ they receive them to their judgment." This seems to be quite a bit different from the earlier sentiment where Bucer suggested that improper baptisms or baptisms of non-elect were just "wasted water," nothing but "water and prayer." Here, there is not merely the risk of getting wet and wasting a few words; here Bucer says that one risks judgment if proper respect is not offered the "mysteries of Christ."
3. Bucer says that there is no need to retain the older practice of baptizing infants at the door of the church. Bucer seems to think that this part of the ceremony was meant to underline the fact that infants are conceived and born in sin. Bucer says that while this is true and in fact explicitly recognized by the prayers and very act of baptism, the fact that the children of the faithful are "holy" should also be emphasized and "therefore [they] have the right to be taken into the church and to be sanctified in baptism." For this reason Bucer favors bringing the infant all the way into the church, into the midst of the gathered assembly. He says that baptizing at the door is among those "theatrical actions" which merely complicate the ceremony, and "the proper duty of Christians is to worship the Lord in spirit and in truth, and to do nothing on any occasion, least of all at the holy mysteries of our redemption and rebirth [regenerationis] to eternal life, which is imprudent and careless..." Preserving this simplicity and performing the baptism in the midst of the people will increase the common understanding of the sacrament and "reverence for this first and greatest [huius summi, et primi] sacrament" will be restored. It is rather striking that Bucer calls baptism the "first and greatest sacrament."
4. Against the consecration of baptismal water, Bucer insists that "baptism is the sacrament of washing away sins ... because the Lord gained it for us not only by his baptism in the Jordan but also and much more by the baptism of the cross." And Bucer explains that "although water is used in baptism to confer [conferendam] the washing away of sins, yet this effect is not the work of water but of the Lord Christ." Later, commenting on another section with regard to the same idea, he explains that sacraments are not material elements which may be charged (consecrated) with some kind of power that is then transferred to people, but rather "sacraments exist in their use, they are actions, by which the Lord gives remission of sins and the communion of himself to his people, not to water, not to bread and wine: and these gifts are made when these signs are set out and received in conjunction with his word and in obedience to his commands." Clearly, Bucer has continued to preserve some of his old baptismal theology in so far as the action of the sacrament is dependent upon the work of God and not some quality resident in the sacramental elements.
5. Finally, it is interesting that towards the end of Bucer's comments on baptism, where he focuses his attention on catechesis and confirmation, he suggests that many confirmations result from merely parroted answers to questions and not necessarily true professions of faith. While he says that these children ought to be prayed for and given access to the common prayers and praises of God's people (regardless of "their age and degree of faith"), until they are obviously displaying "the fruits of the spirit, the giver of new birth [Spiritus Regeneratoris fructus, lit. "the fruits of the Spirit of Regeneration"]." He explains that they should not yet make confessions of faith since "the covenant of salvation [foedus salutis] is established by God by people who understand it and desire it..." Again, with regard to children/catechumens Bucer insists that they ought not be permitted to the Eucharist or "full communion of Christ" those who show by their lives either an abundance of the works of the flesh or a lack of the fruits of the spirit and ought to remain among the catechumens "until the Lord directs them to receive fully the rebirth [regenerationem] which he offered them in baptism and to make progress in their behavior [vita]." Here, Bucer comes closer to reestablishing some of those older distinctions, but they appear to be in some tension with his other comments in this document. Perhaps the most obvious is the "covenant of salvation" language. Earlier he identified entrance into that covenant as occurring at baptism, and explicitly at the baptism of infants. Here he says that the covenant is with those who have sufficient understanding to make an intelligent and meaningful profession of faith. Likewise, it is unclear how regeneration/the new birth is conferred in baptism on the one hand but also merely offered to be received fully at some later point in life. Bucer says that this distinction between the "undoubted people of God and those who in effect declare that they are not yet of his people [i.e. children/catechumens]" will not be harmful to the state or society since "this distinction is commanded by God, who cannot command anything which is not beneficial..." Bucer then cites 2 Cor. 6 and Matthew 18 for the need for church discipline as well as Lev. 26, Acts 2 and 5, and 2 Thess. 3 in support of his claim. And yet one wonders how baptism can be a means of uniting the infant to the people of the church, being received by those already in communion and regarded as a "son of God" and at the same time still be considered "not yet of his people."
Bucer on Baptism
I just got back from a week-intensive course down in Columbia, SC with Hughes Oliphant Old. The course was on Baptism in the Reformed Tradition. One of the Reformers we looked at was Martin Bucer. Bucer was a pastor in Strasbourg for a number of years, mentored Calvin for the few years he was there, and later spent time in England as Cramner was preparing to publish the first edition of the Book of Common Prayer. Old pointed us to Bucer's Grund und Ursach as one of the most important works of Bucer on his reforms of worship and the sacraments. The translation of this work is titled Basic Principles by Ottomar Frederick Cypris. We also looked at Bucer's commentary on the Book of Common Prayer translated by E.C. Whitaker.
Several things that I found interesting:
1. In Grund und Ursach Bucer insists that there are in fact two baptisms spoken of in the New Testament. He defends this claim from the words of John the Baptist which distinguish his baptism of water with Christ's baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. He also notes that Jesus repeats this same idea just prior to his ascension in Acts 1. Bucer says that John, the apostles, and the Church throughout the ages baptize with water, but the baptism with the Spirit is only performed by Christ. He follows this up with a brief overview of the passages which speak of baptism throughout the rest of the New Testament, identifying which baptism is being spoken of in each. So for instance, Bucer says that the baptism to which Peter invites the crowd in Acts 2:38 is a the spirit baptism of Christ, "that is, admit that you are in need of repentance and be baptized in the name of Christ, that is, with faith through the name of Christ you will receive forgiveness of sins, and then you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Likewise, 1 Peter 3:21, Ephesians 5:26, and Titus 3:5 are references to the baptism of Christ. Bucer explains that "if one reads concerning pardon or forgiveness of sins, it should be ascribed to the baptism of Christ."
2. As noted above Bucer argues that John's baptism was the same as our water baptism. Therefore, with regard to the much argued text in Acts 19:5 where disciples of John are said to be (re)baptized, Bucer strains the Greek to suggest that there is a significant difference between being baptized "with" the baptism of John and being baptized "into" (Gk. "eis") the baptism of John. The latter, which is the language of Acts 19:5, Bucer insists, means that they did not have a full understanding of what John taught. They "had not been baptized with the baptism of John but only, as the text says, into the baptism of John, just as if the baptism of water were sufficient in itself. For this reason the Apostle had to point them to Christ and therefore he also allowed them to be baptized into Him." (emphasis his) Otherwise "they would have had a greater knowledge of Christ and His baptism, which is done through the Spirit." Bucer points out that John clearly preached concerning the Spirit and yet these disciples did not know anything about the Holy Spirit.
3. Bucer cites Romans 6:3-4 and Galatians 3:27 to emphasize the fact that Christ cleanses people through faith in his death and resurrection. It is not absolutely clear but appears that Bucer means for his readers to understand baptism in those passages to refer to the inner, spiritual baptism that Christ alone performs. At the same time, Bucer at one point says that "he who is baptized correctly confesses that he is a child of anger, thoroughly unclean, but believes that Christ will cleanse him from all sins." This almost sounds like he's referring to the "correctness" of water baptism. And again later, he says that "the enlightened achieve this faith through baptism. And therefore, to the external baptism we should ascribe the forgiveness of sins as nothing more than a symbol." Likewise, with regard to the words of Ananias to Paul, "Arise and be baptized and cleansed from your sins and call on the Name of the Lord," Bucer says that Ananias "referred not only to the baptism with water alone, but rather through it to the baptism of the Spirit." This sounds rather close to the language of Westminster regarding the "spiritual union" in sacraments bewteen "the sign and the thing signified" where the names and effects of one may sometimes be attributed to the other (WCF 27.2).
4. One of the challenges that the Reformers faced was the popular understanding of many in their day that baptism was absolutely necessary for salvation. Thus, it became increasingly common for midwives to baptize newborn infants moments after birth to ensure that the grace of baptism had been conferred and salvation secured. The Reformers generally rejected this practice and while they insisted on the importance of baptism as soon as possible after birth, simultaneously maintained, as Bucer says, that "God does not limit his mercy to water."
5. The other extreme that the Reformers faced came in the form of the Anabaptists who rejected the baptism of infants. To this, Bucer points out not only the household baptisms in Acts, but also the swiftness of baptism in the New Testament. He notes that the Philippian jailor was baptized immediately after hearing the gospel and could not have had much understanding. We could point to the Ethiopian eunuch in this same regard. Likewise those who came to the baptism of John surely had a fairly limited understanding of the Kingdom that John was proclaiming. Bucer says that the disciples even baptized people like Simon the magician who had no faith at all, and the disciples themselves are said to have had only "childlike faith." Bucer says that since we do not know who God has chosen and who God has rejected, "we should refuse no one whose godless life is not immediately known to us, whom we could no longer consider to be a little lamb." Bucer basically says that we should baptize anyone who asks or is willing who does not show obvious signs of being in open rebellion or high-handed sin. He closes his case for baptizing children by saying that children are to be baptized "regardless of the fact that with some the water is wasted, as it was wasted on Simon the magician and many others." He seems to being saying that Anabaptists are making too big of a deal about baptism since it is merely a sign or a symbol. He asks, "Why make such a fuss about over a lot of water? . . . And even if we should baptize some billy-goats whom Christ would not have baptized through His Spirit, all that is involved is a lot of water and prayer." Again, he says, "for we prove most diligently that baptism with water does not save, but only the spiritual baptism of Christ, which is its true meaning, and for which one we should pray."
Monday, February 03, 2003
Where is Faith?
Where is faith? In a faithful person, you might say. But where is faith, in that person? My gut tells me that for most, explicitly or implicitly, faith, as a fruit of the Spirit's work in man, is thought to be found in a person's brain. This is not surprising since it is relatively easy to manipulate the thoughts of your brain, but it is a mysterious mission (at best) to attempt to control the thoughts of your hands and legs. We, however reformed we claim to be, still want to have some power over God. It seems what is meant by a lot of folks saying, 'sola fide' is really 'faith alone in my brain.' And then it's no wonder that hearty affirmations of efficacious sacraments make them choke. And yet the work of the Spirit is in the whole man: renewing the mind throughout our bodies. If faith is only needed in our brains, St. Paul should seem odd for all his insistance on the subduing of our bodily members to Christ. Lastly, if we as the Church make up Christ's body, and our bodies will one day be made like his body, then this has to inform not only our ecclesiology and eschatology but our ontology and epistemology. There is more going on than our brains can tell us. Not only do we need faithful brains, but we need faithful eyes, faithful knee caps, and faithful finger nails. And that, my friend, is why it's important to dance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
