Comments for Regula Fidei

Comment on On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7 by irenology

irenology — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:25:37 +0000

yeah i think so too, I just still have the Yeago judgement/concept distinction rolling around in my head. So the average interpretation remains merely at the conceptual level, i.e. what does “father” mean? (Thank you HC)

Rather, then the level of judgment, i.e. why “Father”? “Why “Son” Why “Spirit” Why three and not one (or two)? etc… Why did Matthew believe we should baptize in the name of all three?

How far of a stretch would it be to say that Matthew and Irenaeus both believe (in the words of Irenaeus):

“And for this reason the baptism of our regeneration proceeds through these three points: God the Father bestowing on us regeneration through His Son by the Holy Spirit.”

So when we (whoever “we” is) baptize in the name of all three does this mean that we believe all three are active in our regeneration (forgive the broader theological implications for the moment)? Or does that language just function as a sort of pronouncement. Some nice words. Nothing theological, just the names/words we’re supposed to say at that moment.

This also means that the PCUSA ought to be careful if they tinker with this Father, Son, Spirit language. When one starts to call the Trinity: Mother, Child, Womb, the theological implications of the FSS language really comes to the forefront.

Comment on On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7 by Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:02:20 +0000

I think we have to say that these men have made explicit what was implicit. Of course it’s always interpretation, but making explicit what is inherent and implicit is what makes it a better reading/ interpretation among other lesser readings!

Comment on On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7 by irenology

irenology — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:06:42 +0000

excellent. so do you think we could go so far as to say Justin, Irenaeus, Augustine, Calvin, to one degree or another, made explicit what was implicit in Matthew? Thus, this is not an interpretation imposed upon the verse, but a distilling of the implicit Trinitarian theology embedded within the use of the three-fold name (if this is the case using the name “Trinity” might not be as anachronistic as we have been led to believe!)

I mean why those names? He could have easily said “Father, Son, and the boogie man.” Those names must have some king of theological judgement informing them (yes don’t tell Funk and Co. this!)

Comment on On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7 by Aaron

Aaron — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:00:22 +0000

Hope I understand the question before I answer, but I think you’re right. I think that the apostles must surely have caught the significance of the three-fold name, and Matthew surely must have had some trinitarian thought (if that’s not anachronistic terminology) at the time of his writing. It seems that the hermeneutic of skepticism used in critical scholarship drastically underestimates the ancients’ (esp. the apostles’) ability to notice detail!

Surely baptism in the Trinitarian formula signalled trinitarian theology for the infant church prior to the 4th cent. But don’t tell that to anyone well-published like Funk, Crossan, Ehrman or even Dan Brown…they might mourn the thought of substantial Christian thought prior to Constantine!

But all that is to say, I think you’re right. Scripture portrays Trinitarian relationship and involvement in human redemption. The Father gives the Son a people (Jn 10) The Son sends the Spirit (Jn 4) The Son glorifies the Father in his redeeming work (Phil 2). It is fitting then, that the Lord has ordained our baptism, our very introduction into the faith and discipleship, to be an introductory Trinitarian contemplation.

Comment on On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7 by irenology

irenology — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:04:10 +0000

Good words. I like the thoughts and i think your distinction is helpful (especially for us Protestants!). You are also right the wide distinction has resulted, in some cases, in complete apathy toward baptism altogether (ironically this can even be found in baptist circles!)

What are you thoughts on Matt 28:19 and the work of the Trinity in salvation? It seems that the contemplation on the baptism in the three-fold name naturally lends itself to some kind of theological contemplation? Matthew must have thought something when he wrote it?

Comment on On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7 by Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:49:06 +0000

And, I probably should have said that his identification of one for the other serves as a helpful reminder to those of us who do separate them. I don’t think the distinction is wrong, but our wide separation of the two as moderns is unfortunate and foreign to the mysteriously close tie they seem to share in Scripture’s presentation. The name of the reality is often applied to the sign and vice versa.

Comment on On Apostolic Preaching chapter 7 by Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:44:36 +0000

Well put! I think in one sense I have to say that baptism is necessary for salvation, but that’s because I distinguish between water baptism and the Spirit’s regenerative work, also referred to in Scripture as baptism. It’s a distinction that I think is correct, but you’re right to point out that we can’t ask Irenaeus to mediate his discussions on the terms that have arisen from his time to the present!