Baptism is only a symbol?

[filosofer]

You are free to discuss Biblical passages.

 

[Edial]

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

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

Just Scriptures.

Welcome to TCL.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

A lot of reading and study on my part (original here).

Thanks. I thought it did not come from Lutheran sources.
Nothing against it. It is just that Sticky we discussed.

But this matter was addressed already after you posted that.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[jamescarvin]

Thank you for your consideration.

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

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

Just Scriptures.

Welcome to TCL.

Thanks,
Ed

Thank you for welcoming me!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Till]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[seajoy]

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

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

 

[LilLamb219]

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

 

[jamescarvin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is what I see and believe.

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

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

 

[seajoy]

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

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

As for what the early Christians used before the NT....it was probably the OT. That's filled with Christ.

 

[RadMan]

Thank you for welcoming me!





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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LutheranMafia]

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

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

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

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

 

[DaRev]

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

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

Have you ever read the Gospel of John?

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

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

 

[LutheranMafia]

Have you ever read the Gospel of John?

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

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

How much of it can definitively be ruled out as being a reflection of what Jesus said or did? I tend to wonder how much good stuff the RCC and EO threw out near the beginning that we'll never know about.

 

[Edial]

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

What we have are indeed the letters that have survived (Scriptures) and the writings of Church Fathers.
I personally respect the Scriptures as having the constant authority regardless of the 2000 year (NT account) time gap. Or about 3500 years for the full Bible.
I agree with you however, that the autority of church fathers' writings are more relevant to the times that they were written in.
(One should consider that early church fathers moght not have had other letters at hand, since the Bible was not compiled till later on).

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

The word of God to the early Christians was not necessarily only the liturgy and sacramental practices as passed on by the Disciples.
Many of the letters that we have now were obviously written by the disciples then. And any true and hungry Christian group would try to obtain copies of these letters. It is just common sense.
And I am certain that these early congregations had these letters in their possession, since Christians were eager to share these letters.

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

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

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

I am not certain I understand.

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

If it is proposed to me that I must prove my viewpoint of the Sacraments by use of what few letters we were able to retain through the persecutions of the early church, I can't be persuaded to do that, even though I do believe that the Bible supports my views.

I think I understand the dilemma you might be experiencing.
Yet the Scriptures that we have are the source of the practice of the Sacraments.

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

The Scriptures certainly did not expect the return of the Lord in their own time. They hoped for it, but did not expect it. (Yes, I am prepared to address the word "generation").

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

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

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

I do not know about the confirmation procedures.
I would let the pastors handle this part.
Yet I do know that during the confirmation the child who turned into a young man or woman are confessing their faith, hopefully in a sober and truthful way.

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

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

OK. Your tradition has more Sacraments than even the RCC. No problem.
Lutherans have 2 Sacraments.

2. CONFESSION: I don't really need any priest besides Jesus to confess to, however, the truth remains that in my contrite repentance before the Lord, who lives, is manifest the merciful Truth of my redemption and restoration in the cleansing of the Spirit that brings me these tears and convictions concerning righteousness, judgment and sin.

Lutherans also do not have any need to confess to a priest. Some feel comfortable doing that, some do not.
I will let pastors answer this question more adequately.

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

What I call a "Sacrament" is anything in which I find the mystery of our Lord present and doing his Work in this world. There is no need to look for a command if the Work is of the Lord. The Bible itself does not use the word Sacrament.

Well, Wikipedia defines Sacraments about what you define.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament

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

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

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

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

Lutherans also believe that the absolution that is announced by pastor is not by his power.
He just announces that what Christ has done.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is what I see and believe.

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

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

OK. If that is what you personally believe.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

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

I do not really understand what wider heremneutics means, but if you mean you want to argue, or discuss from your own experiences, this certainly is not prohibited here.
If you get responses concerning something that we believe and you have Scriptures proving your differing point, we could discuss.
If you do not have Scriptures and points and counterpoints were already made, there is no reason to continue and keep on making the same point. Let's just stop. It could eventually turn into a violation.
If you would just be saying that Lutherans are wrong in what they believe yet cannot support this view Scripturally, this is in the violation of the Sticky.
You are not to refer to sites or works of other people either via links or quotes.
Just be yourself .. and discuss.

You read the Sticky.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

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

...

No, no, nyet, no. Come on.

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

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

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

Come on now ...

 

[Edial]

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

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

As for what the early Christians used before the NT....it was probably the OT. That's filled with Christ.

Absolutely.
They used the OT and in the first church in Jerisalem they had the very disciples to listen to.
The churches were spreading gradually from Jerusalem and on.
And as the church spread through the visits of the disciples, they certainly preached many sermons in churches they planted or assigned their students who were repeating the thoughts of the disciples.

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

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

Paul is coming! Barnabas is preaching next Sunday!

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

Thanks,
Ed

 

[LutheranMafia]

There are a bunch of clear verses that state that God is one.

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

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

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

Come on now ...

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

 

[Edial]

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

How many Gods are there? Three or one?

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

2PE 1:1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:

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

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

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

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

 

[DominusIesus]

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

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

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