The Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration

[BobRyan]

Here again it would be hard to argue historically that Baptists ever taught transubstantiation, or that they ever believed the bread BECOMES confected into God (by some unknown process lets say).

So using their statements AS if they did - is to actually infer MORE into their words than they ever claimed and is to in fact insert statements taht they explicitly denied in the 1700's.

This raises another problem. If it is so easy to put words in their mouth as they appeal to the same symbolism Christ used - then when that is done with Clement for the Lord's Supper (EVEN though he INSISTS on symbolism and metaphor in John 6) could that not be the SAME principle at work?

In other words - might it not turn out that Clement was no more thinking of the "Confection of God" than were the Baptists of the 1700's??

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Matt Black]

I think the Baptist Confessions quoted are far from being transubstantive in character, but then again I'm not convinced that the ECFs were talking about full-blown transubstantiation in the classic Thomist terms either. But it does seem clear that they are far more sacramentalist in terms of both the Real Presence and effectual baptism than later, much more Zwinglian Baptists

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

It is the carnal mind that focuses on the elements amd misses the "sublime truth" of Christ's "real presence" in US; especially as we gather together. Just to attribute it to "the supernatural" and deny reason is to turn it into esoteric mysticism. Of course there are things about god that defy reason; but too often this is used to try to justify any teaching one cannot completely substantiate with the scriptures.

Eric, what is this 'lost century' you are talking about?

Jesse Lyman Hurlbut The Story of the Christian Church p.41

We would like to read of the later work of such helpers of St. Paul as Timothy, Apollos, and Titus., but all these...drop out of record at his death. For 50 years after St. Paul's life a curtain hangs over the church through which we strive vainly to look; and when at last it arises, about AD 120, with the writings of the earliest church fathers [Justin], we find a church in many aspects different from that in the days of Peter and Paul

William J. McGothlin The Course Of Christian History

But Christianity itself had been in [the] process of transformation as it progressed and at the close of the period was in many respects quite different from the apostolic Christianity -

Samuel G. Green, A Handbook of Christian History:

The 30 years which followed the close of the New Testament Canon and the destruction of Jerusalem are in truth, the most obscure in the history of the Church. When we emerge in the second century, we are, to a great extent, in a changed world

William Fitzgerald Lectures on Ecclesiastical History:

over this period of transition, which immediately succeeds upon the era properly called apostolic, great obscurity hangs...

Philip Schaff History of the Christian Church

The remaining 30 years of the first century are involved in mysterious darkness, illuminated only by the writings of John. This is a period of church history about which we know least and would like to know most.

 

[Matt Black]

Eric, thanks for clarifying that for me! I do however take issue with this whole thing of there being a 'lost century'.

First, even on the quotes you posted, at most we are talking 50 years from the destruction of the temple in 70AD to the quoted time of 120AD, so straight away we're down to a 'lost' half century at worst.

Secondly, it's a bit much to put the word 'only' before John's writings: one gospel, three letters and Revelation! These were probably written in the years 81AD to c.100AD - in the case of Revelation certainly written in the reign of Domitian (81-96) - with John dying early in the reign of Trajan (98-117). In addition, you have the following patristic writings dating from that same period: the Epistle of Barnabas (c70AD) and the letters of Clement of Rome (c95AD). So, we're down to a 'lost' 20-25 years at best now.

Lastly, although Justin Martyr is later than 120AD (150s in fact), Ignatius, John's disciple and appointee as Bishop of Antioch wrote several letters in the years 107-110AD. Then we have Polycarp a little later and the rather strange (IMO!) Shepherd of Hermas c140.

So, at worst we are talking about a 'lost decade'. Not quite the same as a 'lost century', is it?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Eric B]

You must remember that "Barnabas" is not the apostle; but an Alexandrian who wrote sometime in the middle of the 2nd century; probably around the time of Hermas. I know from the debates with preterists; that they try to make it AD70 based on some reference to the Temple; but I believe that was probably a symbolic reference. The Alexandrian school was heavily into allegorization.

The dates of the writings are not unanimously agreed upon. Clement may have been believed or at least assumed to be sometime right after 100, and that quote says "the remaining 30 years of the first century are...illuminated only by the writings of John". If Clement was written after 100; then that would be true.

"Century" is a rounded off generalization that I basically got from Herbert Armstrong. It is not meant to be eaxctly literal, but does have a nice ring to it. The first quote even admits that the gap was 50 years (probably assuming both Clement and Irenaeus wrote in 120. I think I put Justin in the brackets, since I had once heard that date for him).

 

[BobRyan]

Matt said
with John dying early in the reign of Trajan (98-117). In addition, you have the following patristic writings dating from that same period: the Epistle of Barnabas (c70AD) and the letters of Clement of Rome (c95AD). So, we're down to a 'lost' 20-25 years at best now.

Even the RCC admits that the unknown author of second century document "The Epistle of Barnabus" is NOT the Barnabus of the first century and the letter is dated no earlier than 130 AD.

It is hard to understand how one can get farther behind on this than is the RCC itself.

Bob