 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Open Table | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/25/2004 12:44 AM (GMT -6) |   | JEE, since this is a discussion board, you will have to do more than assert. 
I'd written "lacks Trinitarian emphasis" and "lacks in this Trinitarian dynamism." I did not say, as you assert, anything about "anti-trinitarianism"; nor was a I contrasting Hopko's statement with Zwingli! The discussion was in contrasting a trinitarian dynamism with Evangelicalism that I knew growing up.
The position you called "the memorial view" is not "anti," but it appears to be sequential; and the made-up term "dynamism" meant for me the simultainaity I was seeing in such a statement from Hopko's book where it explains: "communion with God the Father by the power of the Holy Spirit through Christ the Son who is present in the Word of the Gospel and in the Passover Meal of His Body and Blood eaten in remembrance of Him." and "movement. . .towards the Father through Christ the Word and the Lamb, in the power of the Holy Spirit -- is the living sacramental symbol of our eternal movement in and toward God, the Blessed Trinity." It is this simultineity that I contrasted with common Evangelical thinking which often considers the persons of the trinity in issolation (and sometimes just one-per-decade).
However, it appears to me that this dynamic is different in sort than what you described as "the memorial view", which while certainly not "a remembrance of what Christ did for us on Calvary, what the Spirit does for us in the present (as oft as) and Christ's eventual return (at the Father's bidding" (But that was your own rhetoric!) Care to discuss this more?
But, then, your own assertion that Hopko was biased was not discussion anyways -- just name-calling. Lets have discussion, and not ad hominum.
My own post (whatever the length) was a supplying of contextualizing this traditional view within another person's words (Fred P. Edie, a United Methodist pastor and Ph.D. candidate at Emory University) -- since you were making ad hominims about Dr. Hopko. Comparing the views of different people is a valuable form of discussion.
JEE, I enjoyed the early posts of yours in this thread. I haven't enjoyed your tone recently. I'm not convinced at this point that you do, as you say, want to look at persuasions. There are persuasions right in Hopkos's and Edie's schrifts. PROOVE that this is what you are here for. Read them, and interact with them. Rather than ad hominum. 
I'm making sincere contribution to the discussion of this thread.
I had thoughts during my workday, considered them, and carefully orgainized them into a post. But you only seem to have been heckling. Asserting dispersions, and not discussing.
You may want to begin by explaining more your "memorial view" -- which I did not say was ant-trinitarian, but did say now to appear sequential and not "dynamic" in the way Hopko was describing. (Keep in mind, though, JEE, that I originally, was comparing Hopko to 'Jesus only revivalist Evangelicalism.' So don't get defensive.) Explain and flesh out your position a bit more.
Then compare and contrast it with what Hopko and Edie said.
THAT would be discussion.
No more ad hominums.
I'm off to work.
PotOnWheel
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/25/2004 12:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | JEE, keep in mind too that I was primarily responding to BBBCanada's REQUEST in his post: "I ...am especially interested in POW's orthodox position." The comparision/contrast with revivalist trinitarian thinking pertained to that. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/25/2004 7:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
"The Eucharist." (I can e-mail you some scans if you want, BBB.)
Yes, please send me some of what he says about the ingredients in the elements as this seems equivalent to salvation itself in mind of a RC. "Marriage requires a man and a woman, not two men, or a man and a sheep. Baptism requires water, not champagne or milk. Communion requires wheat bread and grape wine. That's just the way it is."
quote:
Churches tend to examine faith.
and quote:
Baptism wasn't done right away.
Interesting. In Acts 16, there was no examination of faith for the jailor’s family repentance was likely to be permanent. They was just baptized between midnight and breakfast. There was certainly no time to investigate their character. Nor did it seem necessary to check out their good intentions, or obtain assurance that they would all persevere in their teaching. Evidently it was the jailor's decision that was decisive. He wanted them all to learn about the Jesus that Paul preached, and that was sufficient. Similarly, when Lydia, the businesswoman from Philippi, opened her heart to Paul's preaching, she was quickly baptized, with her household. For the three thousand on the day of Pentecost there was no probation, no checking out the reality of the faith of the baptized. Baptism was immediate and what counted was the instruction given by the Holy Spirit to the learners after their enrollment. The fact that acceptance into the church was to be open to all without question was also clearly implied in the parables of Jesus. In Matthew's account of the marriage feast, the first invited guests did not bother to come, so others were to be invited. "Go therefore to the thoroughfares and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find." Jesus expressly adds the words, "And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, BOTH GOOD AND BAD" (Matt. 22:9, 10). In Luke's account of the parable the invited guests made trivial excuses. To take their place, the servant was ordered to "go out quickly to the streets and lanes of the city, and bring in the poor and maimed and blind and lame." When there was still room in the banquet hall, the invitation was made even more strongly persuasive. "Go out to the highways and hedges, and compel people to come in, that my house may be filled" (Luke 14:16-23). In the light of such parables we should not be surprised that the early church took in all comers for instruction and invited them immediately to share in the church's feast. Which all of this brings up a point which is this. Is not the concern about those who “walk away” from the faith and not letting them back in so soon, historically located? As you say, they simply could not waltz back into fellowship for the protection of the community of faith was at stake.
Regardless, in terms of an open table, what I see is that one DISTINCTIVE feature of Jesus’ ministry was his practice of a radically INCLUSIVE and NON-HIERARCHICAL table fellowship as a CENTRAL STRATEGY in his announcement and redefinition of the inbreaking rule of God. By doing this, Jesus challenges the exclusivism and status consciousness of accepted social and religious custom and presented a LIVING PARABLE of a renewed Israel. Just this alone is a study worth looking at. Were there not women at this Last Supper who had accompanied the disciples throughout their journeys? Was not Judas Iscariot the would-be traitor, whom Christ KNEW would betray him at the table? This gives me grave concern about excommunication and how it should be the last in a line of ways in which we do church discipline.
But it seems to me that when the church sits together to hear the preaching of God’s word, when the church sings together, when the church prays together, when the church discusses things together, when she shares her concerns and resources, etc, etc, etc, she parts company with so many at the moment of the Eucharist or Communion service (look out Gaaaads people, I feel my black side UH! Rising UP! Outta the depths of my soul! HA!). It seems to me that while the communion service is a celebrating a memorial of Christ‘s death, it is also a PROCLAIMING the FUTURE CONSUMATION OF THE REIGN OF GOD. 1 Cor 11:26. We are not only celebrating but we are PROCLAIMING as well a Kingdom that has already come, is coming now (even as I type in this Dounut shop) and will come in it’s fullness at the end of time. So it seems that communion is about evangelization as well. Luke 22:19, Mark14:24, Matt 26:28, Luke 22:17. This was the very first form of telling the story BEFORE THE STORY was written!
As one scholar said, “But we still have a long way to go until we fully recognize that we are not the owners of the table. It is the Lord’s Table and we have no right to reject anyone he wants to receive and claim as his own.”
quote:
I of course agree that they were partaking in an unworthy manner; however, that does not do away with the imperative of self-examination and repentance and reconciliation.
Right. As Fee says, because the Corinthians by their division and gluttony based on sociological distinction of rich and poor, they were profaning the Lord’s Supper and not “discerning the body.” So what they had to look at was their attitude toward the Supper itself, not some inward introspection of, “is there sin in my life?” They were suppose to be in unity. And so this may be God’s word for us today.
Brandon
"Corporations are simply the kind of structure that rises when hordes of people need to be managed, and after spending some time in a large church, I've found that our spirituality does not exempt us from these inefficient and dehumanizing practices."--Steve Lansingh's review of "The Office" at The Film Form | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/25/2004 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: Baptism wasn't done right away.
BBBBBBCanada  : Interesting. In Acts 16, there was no examination of faith for the jailor’s family
Tom: There are other examples as well. I think it's a fundamental mistake and crime against new believers to make them wait until they've proved themselves before baptizing them. This makes batism a "reward" for good behavior when, biblically speaking, baptism is an "incentive" to good behavior.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 8/25/2004 4:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
POW: Baptism wasn't done right away.
BBBBBBCanada : Interesting. In Acts 16, there was no examination of faith for the jailor’s family
Tom: There are other examples as well. I think it's a fundamental mistake and crime against new believers to make them wait until they've proved themselves before baptizing them. This makes batism a "reward" for good behavior when, biblically speaking, baptism is an "incentive" to good behavior.
Tom
Tom and Brandon, there are differences that fit different circumstances. And it is a pastoral issue. Not one cut and dried! Infants of believers are not made to wait -- unlike Baptist churches. But where converts are coming from outside, and show themselves to be still on-the-way, catechism is a good thing.
Like I said, not cut and dried.
On another note, confession and absolution are "on the road" to taking communion. And that is for everyone. Likewise, thow who are not Christians...they can confess their sins. Revivalists call THAT a "tent meeting!" And it is a good thing. But there too, it is a postoral thing to know when to pronounce absolution (that the Lord forgives, and not that the pastor forgives). How do you know? Its a postoral thing, full of awe and care. Guidance.
And, following that thought, how would one dare give communion to one who has not confessed and received absolution?
Bring on the tent meeting, the anxious seat of Wesley's day!!! Bring on the Service of Confession from Strassburgh Germany in the 1400s or 1500s. Seek the Lord while he may be found.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:59 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|