I was somewhat taken aback with the change in tone by the
Monroe Doctrine Author (MDA) in his
last post that was written in response to me. So, I needed time to walk
away and then come back to our discussion. Let me start by responding and
clarifying a small amount before we get into the second hypothetical.
While MDA claims that I made a “pedantic” statement
concerning the nature of the sacraments, it clearly is not a point of minutia
to me, and thereby we can see a fairly large point of departure. What I have
tried to do is to pin down exactly what it is that is the nature of a sacrament
in the Presbyterian world, and it still seems elusive to me. Where I am accused
in finding “virtue in confusion” is in actual fact my attempts at clearing my
own confusion on the issue, a point that I am no further along than I was three
months ago.
What I have attempted to do in my own posts is to point to a
decided difference in ecclesiology that is reflected in the practices of the
two churches. Since the sacraments are marks of the church in both systems, it
stood to reason that these issues needed to be sorted prior to tackling the
Presbyterian third mark. I have failed utterly in making my own points clear as
instead I have been characterized as a champion of confusion. Therefore, let me
make my own points clear once more.
Baptism in the Anglican world is not the same as in the
Lutheran world. “The reformed understanding is that there should neither be
confusion (as with Rome) nor separation (as in Zwingli) between the sign and
the thing signified.” We agree on this point. MDA asserts that I believe in an
ex opere relationship of baptism to regeneration, while I have asserted quite
differently. His assertion is consistent with the Lutheran tradition, and I
have stated that this is not the Anglican tradition, at least as I understand
it. I have tried to make a distinction between the sign and seal of covenant in
Baptism with regeneration despite simultaneous occurrence of these
events in the elect. This is a distinction that MDA does not seem to
recognize in my writing, so I will attempt it again. The example that is useful
is the covenant member who is not elect. Baptism brings this person into the
covenant community, but no regeneration occurs. This is why this person might
be seen to fall away from the church. This example makes plain that the
Anglican understanding of baptism is different from the Lutheran understanding.
The ontological separation of these events, baptism and regeneration, does not
require temporal separation, however. This is an important point, and not at
all of minutia.
Similarly, my long dwelling on baptism, ecclesiology and
liturgy was in fact to demonstrate a lack of need to fence the table in the
Anglican world. I view fencing the table a form of discipline, and in this I
may be in error from the mindset of the Presbyterian. But I have not been
explicitly told so as of this writing, and it may be that this is accurate in
certain circumstances, but not in others.
The question that I have left on the table was basically this:
what is the nature of the Presbyterian meaning of “pneumatic presence” in the
Lord’s Supper as it is clearly different from that meant by the Anglicans,
though I have not been able to articulate either side with sufficient clarity
to further the discussion. Perhaps MDA will finally take up this point.
Now, moving on the MDA response to the second hypothetical,
I would start with this statement. I chose a particular sin knowing it was difficult.
MDA answered the particular question very well, but not the spirit of the
question. In directing an appropriate next step in our discussion, I would ask
MDA to change the habitual sin to any other one he chooses, so long as it
requires the formal discipline process within the church. This will best give
MDA an opportunity to forward his view of the discipline process as he
understands it.
Remembering that we are both brothers in Christ Jesus, I put
the ball back into your court, sir.
No comments:
Post a Comment