Subject: Was it complete? |
Bible Note: Emmaus: I was wondering where you were during this discussion! Just to encourage you, my prayers have been with the Catholic church a great deal lately in light of the current crisis. You wrote: "If one acknowledges Christ and his redemption through His shed blood on the cross as being our one and only means for justification, does that of necessity rule out water baptism as an effective and ordinary means of transmitting the grace of justification won by Christ's sacrifice on the cross?" There are two main problems I have with that orientation: 1. The case of the Old Testaments saints (especially the case of Abraham) being clearly declared righteous on the basis of belief. 2. When one says that baptism is an "ordinary" means of justifying grace, that leaves the door open to saying that there are a number of ways that we can be justified. I am not saying that it is impossible for God to work that way, only that there doesn't seem to be any biblical support to suggest He does. I see that the work of Christ on the Cross as the grounds of my justification (the reason why I am justified). God's grace is the cause and my faith is the means by which I am declared righteous. You wrote: 'But I sense something more at work here. I sense a particular priciple at work in this debate, which I have followed in only a cursory manner. That principle is the principle of exclusion or separation; the principle of "either or." It is the priciple of "faith or works", "Scripture or Tradition", "spiritual or physical."' At least in my case, it is not one to the exclusion of the other. It is putting everything in its proper place. Tradition encapsulated in and grounded in Scripture. Works of obedience as a result of justifying faith. Physical elements of the sacraments pointing to and sealing spiritual realities rather than being/causing them ex opare operato. I take a much more sacramental view of baptism and the Lord's Supper than many other Protestants do. While I obviously disagree with you on transubstantiation, I also believe that the Lord's Supper is not just a bare memorial, but is a sacrament that conveys "confirming grace." Likewise, baptism is a mystery that is inextricably linked to our justification but not to be confused as an element of it. We see this in other aspects of our common beliefs as well, such as in the Definition of Chalcedon. Is Christ God or man? He is both. However, he is not a mix of the two. The physical nature of Jesus Christ is forever united to His divinity, but distinct from it. No separation between the two natures, even communication between the two natures, but still two distinct natures. That is similar to how I view the sacraments: linked by virtue of the words of institution to the spiritual realities to which they are connected, but not the same thing. I do agree that many Protestants have a much too Platonic/gnostic view toward the physical. The fact is, however, that Jesus was very physical not only in the incarnation, but in His ministry. He constantly made use of matter to convey truths about Himself. The feeding of the five thousand in John 6 and His subsequent comments is one of my favorites. --Joe! |