Christians believe that Jesus commanded us to baptize new Christians. However, there is a fundamental division in views: some Christians (such as Catholics and the Orthodox) have a sacramental view of baptism, on which baptism as such leads to an actual supernaturally-produced change in the person baptized, while others hold a symbolic view of it.
Here is an argument for the sacramental view. We learn from Paul that there is a radical change in God’s law from Old to New Testament times. I think our best account of that change is that we are no longer under divinely-commanded ceremonial and symbolic laws, but as we learn from the First Letter of John, we are clearly still under the moral law.
On the symbolic view, however, baptism is precisely a ceremonial and symbolic law—precisely the kind of thing that we are no longer under. On the sacramental view, however, it is easy to explain how baptism falls under the moral law. Love of neighbor morally enjoins on us that we provide effective medical treatment to our neighbor, and love of self requires us to seek such treatment for ourselves. Similarly, if baptism is crucial to the provision of grace for moral healing, then love of neighbor morally enjoins on us that we baptize and love of self requires us to seek baptism for ourselves.
The same kind of argument applies to the Eucharist: since it is commanded by God in New Testament times, it is not merely symbolic.
7 comments:
St. Thomas and St. Robert Bellarmine (and I assume many others) taught that circumcision actually remitted original sin, and was not *merely* a sign or symbol. This of course furnishes a different argument for the sacramental view: If the precursor to baptism in the old law actually remitted original sin, how much more certain is it that it's replacement will remit original sin? Surely very much more.
Couldn't the same argument support a traditional Reformed view of the sacraments, which holds that Christ is spiritually present in the sacraments?
It's striking that although the Lord commanded the disciples to baptize in the triune name they never did so! They only immersed people in the one name - the Lord or the Lord Jesus (Acts 2:38; 19:5; 1 Corinthians 1:12-13). In the last reference the teacher of the gentiles actually downplays the importance of baptism by contrasting it with the proclamation of the gospel! In regards to 1 John the author of course was one of the 12 sent to the 12 tribes of Israel and in Galatians agreed to only go to the circumcision while Paul went to the gentiles. Peter similarly after kicking open the door of the kingdom for the first gentile Cornelius is never recorded as preaching to gentiles again. The aforementioned agreement with Paul in Galatians 2:7-10 confirms that statements in 1 Peter 1:1,17; 2:9 really are technical terms for 'messianic Jews ' not gentiles.
So, in conclusion the apostle and teacher of the gentiles never seems to place any great importance on baptism at all and in his post-acts letters (Ephesians & Colossians) does he not say there is "one" baptism that is 'made without hands" and is in contrast to the ordinances that are merely a "shadow of what is to come "
(Did Luke just cut short the end of Acts with Paul's judgement on the Jews in Rome or do the events in Rome actually indicate a fundamental change in the ages and purposes of God with post-acts letters like Ephesians Colossians opening a new age (Ephesians 3:1-10)? See the booklet ACTS 3:17-21 A KEY TO UNDERSTANDING THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES by the mathematician Michael Penny)
John:
If spiritual presence is real and not merely symbolic, then yes. But it is difficult to see what the spiritual presence consists in if it is non-symbolic and yet NOT a divine activity on the person receiving the sacrament.
Wydaje mi się, że ten schludny podział na prawo rytualne i moralne jest dość arbitralny, Alex. W końcu Dekalog jest stricte kodeksem moralnym. Ale, pomijając to, każdy pogląd zbliżony do Twojego, promujący sakramentalno-mistyczny wymiar chrztu, nakłada na jego zwolennika, dość niewygodne zadanie pokazania, że ex opere operato tego rytu, stanowi wartość dodaną dla wyznawcy. Czy jednak da się wykazać, że katolicy lub prawosławni (lub luteranie) są en masse bardziej uszlachetnieni duchowo względem reszty chrześcijan, że tak powiem? A jeśli wiara w symboliczny vs ontologiczny status chrztu (lub eucharystii) nie ma znaczenia dla skuteczności transformującej mocy Boga w wierzącym, to po cóż kruszyć kopie o to, czy akt ten jest symboliczny czy ontyczny?
Nummatus makes some objections to my arguments. One of them is to raise the question whether Catholics, the Orthodox or Lutherans are on the whole spiritually better, as we would expect if the sacraments were truly changing souls.
First, this argument does not apply to baptism, at least on the Catholic view. Valid baptism, we believe, makes a metaphysical difference to the person whether or not the recipient *believes* it makes a difference. And we recognize baptism by all the major Christian denominations as valid, including in the case of denominations which believe baptism to be merely symbolic.
In the case of the Eucharist, the argument is more serious, since the Eucharist requires an ordained priest, and priestly ordination requires valid apostolic succession, and that is mostly found among Catholics, the Orthodox, and some Anglicans. That said, sanctity is difficult to measure. Moreover, God is free to give grace outside the bounds of sacraments.
Post a Comment