A conversation between Dwight and me
Dwight: I don't know if it weren't for tradition if I'd ever come up with the idea of sacraments
David: sacraments
Dwight: a formal religious act conferrring a specific grace on those who receive it
no
David: that seems reasonable
Dwight: I think baptism would be around
lords supper?
not so sure
I'm not anti-eucharist, but... it seems that tradition is where you begin arguing from
Jesus said do this in rememberance of me
sure
but making that "confer grace"?
David: well, both baptism and lords supper were things we were directly instructed to participate in
Dwight: and discipling all nations
and confessing our faith
are those sacraments?
confessing and baptism seem to be on the same level at least
David: oh yeah, that whole go forth and make disciples
hmmm
Dwight: which is better translated "as you go"
rather than "go forth"
"as you go, disciple all nations"
(the go is not imperative)
David: hmmm
are any of these things necessary for recieving grace though?
Dwight: I think there are 2 kinds of people in the world... those that have been forgiven and those who know they have been forgiven
David: those who accept forgiveness?
and those who don't?
Dwight: I think that Jesus died and rose and all sin was dealt with then
some people know it
some don't
some hear about it and reject it
but then they just flow into the don't know it
David: you speak of know then in an experiencial sense?
Dwight: or something
?
know it as in have heard the gospel and believe
I'm not a decision theologist
David: I think we're talking about the same two types of people
Dwight: those who accept forgiveness=?
and those who don't=??
I'm saying those who don't reject what they have heard and everyone else
David: Ah
I see the distinction
in the end though, ignorance is no excuse
Dwight: yeah, I'm not sure about the end
I think some people say "ignorance is no excuse" to comfort themselves that they never proclaim the gospel
David: this is also true
I'm willing to operate under your distinction
Dwight: so then proclaiming and baptism seem to be obviously from scripture "sacraments"
except some people add "visible element" so proclaiming is out
David: explain again. what is a sacrament?
Dwight: Eucharist has a visible element, but what conclusively says "this confers grace"?
a formal religious act conferring a specific grace on those who receive it
is from dictionary.com
David: what does it mean to "confer grace"? does that equate with salvation?
Dwight: I dunno
In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
(another b) definition
)
sanctifying grace
so not salvific?
David: the necessity of such things would seem to go against the whole, grace through faith alone thing
Dwight: right...
although I'm not too worried about bare necessity...
David: I don't think one would be damned if one's circumstances prohibited partaking of the eucharist or baptism
Dwight: yeah...
David: I'm not sure circumstance could prohibit proclaiming the gospel, unless one maybe lost one's tongue or something, but even then ones presence itself would bear witness (i.e. as one persecuted for the sake of the gospel)
and there are other ways beyond speaking
the definition did say "specific grace", so maybe there's something else
that its refering to
Dwight: yeah, salvific vs sanctifying?
or something
David: salvific being the "you're not going to hell" bit, and sanctifying being the "making you clean" bit?
Dwight: yeah
but that is from a dictionary, not form the bible
David: so are the sacraments necessary for a man to be purified?
Dwight: I dunno?
David: Job was a righteous man, and he did not have the sacraments
Dwight: but is righteous the same as sanctified
David: maybe righteousness is the end of sanctification?
Dwight: not justification?
David: so righteousness and purity would be different things. righteousness being the end of justification and purity being the end of sanctification
salvation is that by which a man is justified, thus making him righteous.
Dwight: was job justified?
David: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
but then in what sense was he "righteous"
Dwight: faith?
David: like Abraham?
Dwight: sure
Abraham was definately not works righteous
why would job be?
David: and we say that Job wasn't either?
Dwight: you did
"all have sinned"
David: that would, by necessity, include Job, correct?
Dwight: pretty sure
David: then why is it problematic that God allows all those bad things to happen to him?
Dwight: is it?
wait?
would it be a problem if he was righteous and bad things happened to him?
because I think he was faith righteous
was
was
(not focusing on the past tense, but on the being)
David: I don't find it problematic. frustrating, maybe. sad, and unfortunate, but I don't think theologically problematic
David: sacraments
Dwight: a formal religious act conferrring a specific grace on those who receive it
no
David: that seems reasonable
Dwight: I think baptism would be around
lords supper?
not so sure
I'm not anti-eucharist, but... it seems that tradition is where you begin arguing from
Jesus said do this in rememberance of me
sure
but making that "confer grace"?
David: well, both baptism and lords supper were things we were directly instructed to participate in
Dwight: and discipling all nations
and confessing our faith
are those sacraments?
confessing and baptism seem to be on the same level at least
David: oh yeah, that whole go forth and make disciples
hmmm
Dwight: which is better translated "as you go"
rather than "go forth"
"as you go, disciple all nations"
(the go is not imperative)
David: hmmm
are any of these things necessary for recieving grace though?
Dwight: I think there are 2 kinds of people in the world... those that have been forgiven and those who know they have been forgiven
David: those who accept forgiveness?
and those who don't?
Dwight: I think that Jesus died and rose and all sin was dealt with then
some people know it
some don't
some hear about it and reject it
but then they just flow into the don't know it
David: you speak of know then in an experiencial sense?
Dwight: or something
?
know it as in have heard the gospel and believe
I'm not a decision theologist
David: I think we're talking about the same two types of people
Dwight: those who accept forgiveness=?
and those who don't=??
I'm saying those who don't reject what they have heard and everyone else
David: Ah
I see the distinction
in the end though, ignorance is no excuse
Dwight: yeah, I'm not sure about the end
I think some people say "ignorance is no excuse" to comfort themselves that they never proclaim the gospel
David: this is also true
I'm willing to operate under your distinction
Dwight: so then proclaiming and baptism seem to be obviously from scripture "sacraments"
except some people add "visible element" so proclaiming is out
David: explain again. what is a sacrament?
Dwight: Eucharist has a visible element, but what conclusively says "this confers grace"?
a formal religious act conferring a specific grace on those who receive it
is from dictionary.com
David: what does it mean to "confer grace"? does that equate with salvation?
Dwight: I dunno
In most other Western Christian churches, the two rites, Baptism and the Eucharist, that were instituted by Jesus to confer sanctifying grace.
(another b) definition
)
sanctifying grace
so not salvific?
David: the necessity of such things would seem to go against the whole, grace through faith alone thing
Dwight: right...
although I'm not too worried about bare necessity...
David: I don't think one would be damned if one's circumstances prohibited partaking of the eucharist or baptism
Dwight: yeah...
David: I'm not sure circumstance could prohibit proclaiming the gospel, unless one maybe lost one's tongue or something, but even then ones presence itself would bear witness (i.e. as one persecuted for the sake of the gospel)
and there are other ways beyond speaking
the definition did say "specific grace", so maybe there's something else
that its refering to
Dwight: yeah, salvific vs sanctifying?
or something
David: salvific being the "you're not going to hell" bit, and sanctifying being the "making you clean" bit?
Dwight: yeah
but that is from a dictionary, not form the bible
David: so are the sacraments necessary for a man to be purified?
Dwight: I dunno?
David: Job was a righteous man, and he did not have the sacraments
Dwight: but is righteous the same as sanctified
David: maybe righteousness is the end of sanctification?
Dwight: not justification?
David: so righteousness and purity would be different things. righteousness being the end of justification and purity being the end of sanctification
salvation is that by which a man is justified, thus making him righteous.
Dwight: was job justified?
David: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
but then in what sense was he "righteous"
Dwight: faith?
David: like Abraham?
Dwight: sure
Abraham was definately not works righteous
why would job be?
David: and we say that Job wasn't either?
Dwight: you did
"all have sinned"
David: that would, by necessity, include Job, correct?
Dwight: pretty sure
David: then why is it problematic that God allows all those bad things to happen to him?
Dwight: is it?
wait?
would it be a problem if he was righteous and bad things happened to him?
because I think he was faith righteous
was
was
(not focusing on the past tense, but on the being)
David: I don't find it problematic. frustrating, maybe. sad, and unfortunate, but I don't think theologically problematic
