Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: AnalogReigns
The non-baptist Christians that were the first to proclaim the "solas": salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ alone, with the absolute authority of scipture alone, to the glory of God alone, all taught that scripture indicates baptism and communion are A means of grace (but not the only means) if received in faith.

There is no "means of grace" save for the faith of the believer in Jesus Christ. But your comment was interesting. Who are you talking about when you say non baptist?

225 posted on 02/15/2006 12:28:26 PM PST by Full Court (Keepers at home, do you think it's optional?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies ]


To: Full Court

I am talking about the magisterial Protestants, with the exception of Ulrich Zwingli, a contemporary of Luther.

Your theology, and much of that of most American evangelicals is Zwinglian, though most have never even heard the name. It denys that Jesus' grace through faith can be given to anyone with tangible means. Interestingly Zwingli was a great Humanist in his day, relying on Aristitolean logic nearly as much as he did scritpture.

The "magisterial" Protestants are those groups, Lutheran, Reformed (this includes Presbtyerian), and Anglican of which magistrates (governments) took up their cause, hence the title. I know there are many very liberal-bible-rejecting members of these groups today--(just as there are not a few Baptists that way too), and I am not writing about the away-from-the-bible theology of those groups, but of the old classical theologies these groups have held for 400+ years, based, very thoughtfully with thorough scholarship on the Bible.

When Jesus said, "This is my body, take eat..." and "this is my blood shed for many...drink" I think He meant it, no hint of metaphor there, however Zwinglian theology, being overly rational and lacking faith, in my opinion, insists one must think a "symbol for" be inserted there. Menno Simons, founder of the pacifist Mennonites, also thought Jesus was speaking in metaphor, because he could not understand it otherwise.

I don't understand it as well, but I do accept Jesus' description as is...and I don't accept the complex Greek-philosophical-Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation either. The classical doctrines taught by Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians, ALL ascribe everything to grace through faith, since of course as do the scriptures. Just because we believe scripture teaches God can use bread and wine (and water too) to help fill us through faith with His grace, and you deny that He does...does not make us somehow less reliant on faith.

To me, if you can't understand something in the Bible...so much so that "symbol for" has to be imagined in the text, just so your mind can accept it, that is a failure of faith. I certainly admit Baptists and others as my brothers, however, I think for biblical reasons, they are wrong for denying God will use tangible means to give us His grace, which of course must be received through the gift of faith.


246 posted on 02/15/2006 1:10:32 PM PST by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson