Christ instituted foot washing didn’t he?

Mike

Vlad: I’m picking this question up after some time…but I do have an answer.

It would be leaving too much on the table if it wasn’t for the fact that Jesus didn’t institute anything else. What else did Christ institute? Proclamation, Eucharist, and Baptism. That’s a pretty decent sized table, I think.

Well, I’ll be hearing more from you on the NT in 2009. Sounds great to me!

Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus. For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).

What are we then to accept as genuinely Jesus?

I would say that Form Criticism will help us to determine this but I agree that much NT form criticism has been performed by unhelpful people.

In 2009 I will be focussing on the NT, 2008 has been my OT year.

Fitzmyers sounds like those Jesus Seminar guys. I think some have given too much credit to the community of faith in shaping what we read in the Gospel narratives.

What are we then to accept as genuinely Jesus? Who decides? The Form critics?

The apathy and drunkenness and so honor did not produce the right atmosphere for celebrating the Supper, whether we view it as sacramental or symbolic. That’s my take.

1 Cor. 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. ESV

Makes me wonder if there is more to it than just symbolism. Any thoughts?

Not a bad definition from the divines. I concur with Stuart above that the Supper should not be seen as a mere symbolism.

Perhaps this discussion is better suited to another post as it is not really to do with Holy Communion.

Yes, let me work on that one.

Perhaps this discussion is better suited to another post as it is not really to do with Holy Communion.

I use the Westminsterian definition of sacrament, “Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him: as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.”

Mike, I do not believe in covenant theology from the Reformed understanding of it.

And neither do I see it as going hand-in-hand with the sacramental view. Maybe you can explain what you’re getting at.

Yes, it was “a visible sign of an invisible grace” or a “visible word” as was circumcision.

Richard, What is your definition of a sacrament? Because I don’t think I deny that in reference to the Supper…

Richard, whatever the Lord wants us to know was communicated to us through the inspired writers of the NT through the Spirit. That is what I mean.

I do not believe the NT was shaped by the community of faith. It was shaped by what Jesus wants us to get through the Spirit.

“Do this in remembrance of Me.” What is this statement point to? Sacramental or merely symbolic?

I’m not sure what the Jewish tradition calls the Passover, but I suppose you could call it sacrament, if it is indeed analogous in theological experience to the Christian sacraments. From my understanding it is. Of course, I speak from a non-Jewish standpoint, mainly from conversation and research.

According to the Exodus record, the Passover was to be celebrated as pointing backwards and forward, backwards for God’s deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and forward because of the ultimate deliverance from sin through the Lamb of God (1 Cor 5:7).

I am not getting what your point is.

Yes, it was “a visible sign of an invisible grace” or a “visible word” as was circumcision. The homilies note, “And so was circumcision a Sacrament, which preached unto the outward senses the inward cutting away of the foreskin of the heart, and sealed and made sure in the hearts of the Circumcised the promise of GOD touching the promised seed that they looked for.”

Do you believe in covenant theology? It would seem that the sacramental view would go hand in hand with it.

Mike

I don’t think the 1 Cor text has more a symbolic leaning than the gospel texts. They both have the potential for both, as I explained earlier.

I’m not sure what the Jewish tradition calls the Passover, but I suppose you could call it sacrament, if it is indeed analogous in theological experience to the Christian sacraments. From my understanding it is. Of course, I speak from a non-Jewish standpoint, mainly from conversation and research.

Sorry for the delayed reply.