The response to my last post from the Monroe
Doctrine author (MDA) can be found here. Please take a moment to read it,
because I would affirm the assumptions made by MDA in his opening paragraphs. I
think that this is a fair series of statements that do well in framing the
discussion. Prior to getting to the first hypothetical, I would take a moment to
respond to the five points listed.
1.
Concerning sacramental rites, while these are
not true sacraments in the sense of Baptism and the Eucharist, they warranted
preservation in the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) as useful rites. Indeed, a
church without marriage would just not do at all. But even marriage is not a
true sacrament, a view shared by both sides in this debate. While the language
to which MDA referred may be confusing, the terminology is no more than a nod
to our Romish roots. There are only two sacraments.
2.
Concerning Chapter 27.3 of the Westminster
Confession of Faith, I would refer you to Article 26 of the 39 Articles,
remembering that it predates Westminster, and you will see similar language.
The issue of Christ in the sacrament is a slippery slope and I would question
MDA here on the meaning a “pneumatic presence” that I understand to be the
Presbyterian position. Anglicans use of “real presense,” while clearly not
meaning transubstantiation, has come to mean something very akin to Lutheran
consubstantiation. Nonetheless, my personal view, although admittedly in the
minority of all Anglicans, but likely the majority of my Reformed Episcopal
Church (REC,) would be more in line with the “pneumatic presence” as I
understand it and described before. Here, I must admit to Anglican heterogeneity
while defining my position within the most Reformed branch of the stream.
3.
Concerning point 3 and regeneration, this is
clearly going to be a lynchpin of our discussion and one in which I will have
to be careful to observe stringent definitions during our debate. Much of what
will follow later will hinge upon these differences. I do think that MDA has
correctly understood what I have suggested as a position consistent with most
Anglican theologians on this point.
4.
Concerning point 4, there is not much here to
discuss, I am charged with underestimating Presbyterian valuation of the Lord’s
Supper, and that may be true. But relative to the Anglican position in terms of
theology, service order, architecture, frequency and emphasis, any non-catholic
(small “c” intended) view of the Eucharist will seem to be a devaluation. So, I
will concede the point.
5.
Concerning the episcopate, it might be helpful
here to draw parallels on the issue of parity. Bishops have been the seat of
authority in the church since at least the third century. The Holy Sees of the
early Church are mentioned in kind if not specifically by that name in
Revelation. It was common to use the term bishop to refer to the seat of
authority within that principality. Of course, parity among bishops was an
Eastern assumption, one that Rome countermanded leading to the Great Schism in
1054. Anglican history, in addition to issues over theology, is far better
known for this issue of parity. While the Archbishop of Canterbury has a place
of honor among bishops, it is still a place among equals. There exists within
Anglican hierarchy absolute independence of authority between diocese. An
Archbishop is an administrative position over a province, but has no greater
authority than the other bishops. This is probably similar to a Metropolitan in
the Eastern Church. Clergy are ordained to be the local agents of the bishop.
As such, they perform the sacraments by authority of their bishop. This is why
there is a hierarchical distinction between bishops and priests. Nonetheless,
this parity of elders that is so highly valued by the Presbyterians is not
unlike the Anglican parity of bishops. Indeed, the idea of parity has been
preserved from the early church and is consistent with the Eastern side of the
Great Schism.
First Hypothetical
In order to flesh out this discussion, it would seem best to
follow through a number of hypothetical situations and then comment on the
theology at work at each step. It will be necessary in this regard to make
assumptions, but this is acceptable within the world of hypotheticals.
Nonetheless, the viewpoint of man will need to be considered necessarily as a
part of this debate, and I will be harping on this issue to some degree. Let us
begin with the easiest situation.
Describe the
theological sign posts of a covenant child, baptized at infancy (obviously on
or after the eighth day,) brought up in the church, who becomes a member in
good standing in his church where he lives throughout his life until his death.
I’ll go first as both example and a starting point for debate.
This child has communicant parents in the church. What can
be said about the parents is that they are certainly covenant members and have the appearance of being among the
elect. Covenant membership through baptism is reasonably extended to children
of covenant members without much reservation. The Baptismal Covenant set forth
in the BCP, assigns responsibility for the proper Christian education of the
child, not only to the parents and godparents, but also to the whole
congregation present. Whether this plays out in practice is another issue, but
the words set forth in the sacrament are clear on this point. Theologically,
that child is a covenant member. Through the doctrine of election, there are
two possibilities. If the child is elect, the view of baptism becomes similar temporally
to Lutheran theology. This is still not the same as the Lutherans, as the
moving of the Holy Spirit cannot be known to act in one way or the other for
the Anglican, while the Lutheran assumes that the Holy Spirit gives through the
sacrament what is promised by the sacrament. Regeneration is in this case simultaneous
with the sacrament. This is an important point if the child were to die. We
stand in agreement with Lutherans on this issue.
If, instead, the child were not of the elect, by baptism, he
is still deserving of all the rights and privileges of covenant membership. He
might still be raised in the church and indeed spend his whole life in the
church. The difference is regarding the lack of regeneration. Instead, by
baptism, he has essentially blasphemed against the Holy Spirit, sealing his
fate from the start. In every appearance, he may seem to be elect from the
perspective of man, and yet there is a hidden and unknown to man lack of
repentance and true faith. He has taken Communion thousands of times and his
fate cannot be clearer to God.
Both children go through confirmation classes, essentially a
catechism though not called that. Confirmation is the laying on of hands by the
bishop conferring upon the individual full standing within the church. This is
the transfer of responsibility for one’s own Baptismal vows back to the
individual in the case of both children and adults. Adults who are baptized in
the church will also go through Confirmation as their Baptismal vows are also
jointly held by the congregation at the time of Baptism. This transference by
the laying on of hands also confers apostolic succession from the Bishop to his
charges, making the person in communion with the one catholic and apostolic
church on this earth. However, this is, importantly, not a true sacrament in
the Protestant world as it is in the Roman world. As a part of fencing the
table, first Communion is usually at this time for Roman Catholics.
In contradistinction, Anglicans hold to the controversial
practice of paedocommunion, the giving of communion to children before
confirmation. I am calling this controversial, as it was introduced to the
Episcopal Church (USA) about 40 years ago, about a decade after the ordination
of women. To be fair, I’ll have to ask my current priest or bishop whether this
is even done in the REC. Nonetheless, to follow through this process logically,
I will start with the adult who is baptized. We invite all baptized Christians to
our table. This includes adults before they have received confirmation. The
theological position of a child aged 9 who has not been confirmed is similar to
the adult who has not been confirmed. Separate classes or instruction are given
through Sunday School to children, usually at around first or second grade, for
the receiving of communion. This is not akin to confirmation in any way. The
elect child receives the benefits of the sacrament, while the non-elect child
receives all of the dire consequences of 1 Corinthians 11. But to all
appearances, these children would be of the same situation. The adult who is
baptized but not yet confirmed is in the same boat. The emphasis here is on the
sacrament of Baptism. By inclusion into the visible church, the assumption is
made that the person is worthy to receive Communion. We cannot know otherwise
from the viewpoint of man.
Rather than introduce a specific sin at this point, I’ll
yield the floor to MDA for his response. This will certainly have generated a
number of issues to which he will likely want to respond.
- Troll -
No comments:
Post a Comment