Reformation Question, let's look at this

[notsmart]

Can you tell me more about why a Lutheran would not see participation in the sacrifice as you state here?
Is it for the same reason they reject the idea that man can participate in God’s love in marriage (thus, catholics say this is a sacrament, and Lutherans reject this?)
I can only wonder if the rejection is based on sound biblical pricipals and sound theology, or if it was an unintended consequence for Luther?
Your thoughts?

But without sharing in the fruit of that sacrifice, we cannot be saved.

I think the question is not whether we participate in the sacrifice–if we don’t it would do us no good–but whether the Church participates in the sacrifice in any way other than as a passive recipient of grace. My (quasi-Anglo-Catholic, liturgical-movement, Wesleyan) understanding of the Eucharist is that we offer ourselves and all that we have and are to God (an offering that is itself based on God’s gift to us, since everything we have and are is a gift to God) and God graciously transforms our gifts by uniting them with the one perfect sacrifice offered by Christ on Calvary.

This may not fit Lutheran theology. But I don’t think Lutheran theology is entirely orthodox–it’s too one-sided and too suspicious of the power of grace to transform nature. However, I’ve been getting into Barth recently, and he may change my mind on this. May, but probably not. (I need to do some serious reading of both Barth and von Balthasar.)

Edwin

 

[Steadfast]

But without sharing in the fruit of that sacrifice, we cannot be saved.

I think the question is not whether we participate in the sacrifice–if we don’t it would do us no good–but whether the Church participates in the sacrifice in any way other than as a passive recipient of grace. My (quasi-Anglo-Catholic, liturgical-movement, Wesleyan) understanding of the Eucharist is that we offer ourselves and all that we have and are to God (an offering that is itself based on God’s gift to us, since everything we have and are is a gift to God) and God graciously transforms our gifts by uniting them with the one perfect sacrifice offered by Christ on Calvary.

This may not fit Lutheran theology. But I don’t think Lutheran theology is entirely orthodox–it’s too one-sided and too suspicious of the power of grace to transform nature. However, I’ve been getting into Barth recently, and he may change my mind on this. May, but probably not. (I need to do some serious reading of both Barth and von Balthasar.)

Edwin

Well, if you begin with the assumption that Barth was Lutheran you’re setting yourself up for all kinds of trouble.

He was Reformed.

 

[Steadfast]

This is not true. Christ is our passover lamb. As you recall, everyone was required to participate in Passover by consuming the lamb.

Such a formulation seems to disregard the entire pre-figurement of Passover, of which Christ Himself is the fulfillment. There is no Jewish feast that involves so much participation!

It also denies the amanesis or memorial concept. When Jesus stated that we should eat and drink in memory of HIm, He meant that we should recreate the conditions, just as the Passover recreated the conditions of deliverance from Egypt.

We must be mindful that salvaton is from the Jews, and that which is concealed in the OT is revealed in the NT.

But you said it yourself. He is the fulfilment of the passover. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that he is the fulfilment of everything, its culmination and completion, its very sum and end.

Which is why there is no more sacrifice.

Edwin’s point is well taken, we are the beneficiaries of His sacrifice, if that implies a participation in it, then sobeit. We are even the ongoing beneficiaries of His sacrifice and the Sacraments are the normal means of bringing the benefit to us.

But it remains a casting back to Christ, a real anamnesis, a making present of Him. I do not believe that a sacrifice that has been explicitly described as completed and finished, can be spoken of as ongoing and recreatable.

 

[Steadfast]

Can you tell me more about why a Lutheran would not see participation in the sacrifice as you state here?

I hope i have above. It has to do with scripture’s clear statement that it is all finished and accomplished. But we don’t need to quibble because I also concede that in the sacraments we partake of Christ, He comes to us.

Is it for the same reason they reject the idea that man can participate in God’s love in marriage (thus, catholics say this is a sacrament, and Lutherans reject this?)

We don’t accept marriage as a sacrament because it has no element and the ceremony does not convey grace. Also it was not instituted by Christ though it was certainly blessed by Him.

I can only wonder if the rejection is based on sound biblical pricipals and sound theology, or if it was an unintended consequence for Luther?
Your thoughts?

Well, the principles at work wrt matrimony as a sacrament were originally Augustine’s so you may have to take it up with him whether they are sound or not.

What muddies all this is that it is absolutely true that many Protestants don’t do things your church does just because your church does them.

The saying about Luther is that when he left Rome he took much of the furniture with him. We have never been particularly fearful of continuing practices and ideas if they are good ones so, when we do reject them we have reasons for doing so.

 

[ralphinal]

Well, others have raised some good points.

I would add to it this factor: we are all partakers in the Royal Priesthood of Christ. We know that we are a priestly people, even though that in and of itself does not mean that we should have priests or that there is a sacrifice.

However, Paul also mentions a priesthood in the order of Melchizidek. He offered bread and wine, not animal. The OT story is a foreshadowing of the mass. If there is a priesthood in this vein, there must be something offered. We understand it to be the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of Bread and Wine.

Now, if we are a priestly people, and we have priests in the order of Melchezidek, is it not logical that there should be priests?

 

[Contarini]

Well, if you begin with the assumption that Barth was Lutheran you’re setting yourself up for all kinds of trouble.

He was Reformed.

I know that. But you’re Lutheran, and I was talking to you. Can you accept the possibility that reading a Reformed theologian might influence a Wesleyan/Catholic Anglican in a direction more amenable to Lutheranism, at least in one particular respect?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Well, others have raised some good points.

I would add to it this factor: we are all partakers in the Royal Priesthood of Christ. We know that we are a priestly people, even though that in and of itself does not mean that we should have priests or that there is a sacrifice.

However, Paul also mentions a priesthood in the order of Melchizidek. He offered bread and wine, not animal. The OT story is a foreshadowing of the mass. If there is a priesthood in this vein, there must be something offered. We understand it to be the Body and Blood of Christ in the form of Bread and Wine.

Now, if we are a priestly people, and we have priests in the order of Melchezidek, is it not logical that there should be priests?

But the question is whether we “have” priests in the order of Melchizedek, or whether we “are” priests in the order of Melchizedek by virtue of our union with Christ. It seems to me that Hebrews is saying the latter, not the former. I therefore believe that ordained priests are simply carrying out a ministry that belongs ontologically to all the baptized. (And that’s one reason why I believe in women’s ordination, though that’s a digression.)

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Can you tell me more about why a Lutheran would not see participation in the sacrifice as you state here?

The Reformers generally (Reformed as well as Lutherans, though some Reformed were a bit more willing to talk about a “sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving,” and this influenced Anglicanism) said that we never participate in offering the sacrifice, just in receiving its fruit. We receive grace–we don’t do anything to earn it. This is linked to justification by faith, of course. All we can ever do is receive grace–we can’t play an active role.

For more information, talk to Steadfast!

Edwin

 

[ralphinal]

But the question is whether we “have” priests in the order of Melchizedek, or whether we “are” priests in the order of Melchizedek by virtue of our union with Christ. It seems to me that Hebrews is saying the latter, not the former. I therefore believe that ordained priests are simply carrying out a ministry that belongs ontologically to all the baptized. (And that’s one reason why I believe in women’s ordination, though that’s a digression.)

Edwin

I see your point, and I am not so sure that I agree 100%. I do think that there is something to be said for all being joined to Christ’s priesthood (I did mention it), but I am not so sure that, in and of itself, can justify anything other than having priests that offer bread and wine.

Anyway, Hebrews does seem to discuss it in the singular, even though the letter was written to the Church as a whole (unlike say, Timothy or Titus).