What the Early Church Taught on Sacraments (what the sources say) - Dean Taylor

The Anabaptists have some things to say that, uh, into the whole ecumenical discussions of the sacrament that needs to be heard. Frankly, it really needs to be heard. And without this, the some of the, the things that they stood for, I honestly don't think we have a true patristic understanding of the sacraments usually said by people, either from the Catholic or Orthodox or, or others that are there.

Salvation by grace through faith is a bedrock to the early Church and the Scriptures, and that yes, these sacraments are then reflections of that, but without faith—and hear this—without faith, the sacraments are invalid. And that's, uh, an early Christian view, certainly an early Anabaptist view.

Well, Dean, welcome back to the podcast. Uh, we did a previous episode with you on the sacraments, and what is that, what are the different, uh, ideas and views and debates, and all of these things, it's a it's a lot to unpack there. And we touched on a lot of things, but we want to go deeper with a specific aspect of the sacraments and get into what was some of the early Church teaching on things like baptism, communion, how did they look at this stuff. Uh, so we're going to do that. And before we jump too far into the deep end of early Church writings, do you want to give us a bit of a backdrop, uh, a little context before we do that?

And of course, we encourage people, go listen to that other one. They don't have to if they want to, but, um, that would give some good context for today. Yeah, I think that'd be needed. So yeah, um, last the last episode was, was great, and I was able to say some preliminary things there, so I should probably say a few things. Um, today, yes, we're going to be looking at the early Church, but I, I will say this, and it's not intended to be like a complete the early Christian view. Uh, what I'm trying to do is, um, how do these topics engage with the Anabaptists of the 16th century? And we're looking at the Anabaptists and sacraments.

I'm deliberately not calling it the Anabaptist view of sacraments or, or that kind of thing, but why I am digging into the Scriptures in the last episode and to the, uh, the early Church today is to how that reflects upon and what kind of reasoning were the 16th-century Anabaptists, you know, making when they were arguing back from the early Church. So yeah, I should probably say a few things that, um, preliminary things that I, I mentioned there. Um, one thing, again, I, I just want to say again, this topic is very, um, a hot topic, okay, and, and a very sometimes complicated topic. And I won't go through all the names again. I did in the last one.

But I, I don't want to give the impression that I've done all this research and that I'm very indebted to, um, this list of, uh, this and many more of the different theologians and churchmen who have, have looked into the subject. And I've, I'm and I'm going to be quoting a lot from them today. And so I wanted to give a little bit of credit there right from the beginning that, um, I really do appreciate the scholarship both from the Anabaptist, you know, um, writers and as, as well as, um, early Church writers and, and then even, um, patristic scholars from Catholic and Orthodox people as well. So I say that. I go into a little more detail in the last episode, but just saying that.

So the I started the last episode. I'm going to go ahead and start it again, this one. They have to really try hard to not be affected by modern arguments placed back on them. The word we talked about last episode was the anachronisms. And so getting into context, I have this picture again that I wanted to just stress. I won't go into as much detail this time. But, um, the, the idea here is that when you look at the way the early Anabaptists were discussing these issues of what's the real presence and, and, you know, is Christ present in the in the wafer and all those kind of things, you have to think of this picture of how here this in this case, this Simon Kramer Den Kramer was killed because burnt at the stake because he didn't agree with the, the view of the, the sacraments as, as it was handed to him by the Roman Catholics in his in his era.

The Martyr's Mirror goes into a, a very touching detail on how the, the bailiff himself, who had him executed, was very just torn apart by the whole thing. Very touching. And I do want to say, particularly this in this episode, I'm, I'm going to be saying and looking at some of the ways that the, the Catholics and the Orthodox still to this day, um, have some, um, abuses to the theology that I'm going to discuss. But I, I want to in saying that, I want to be very careful to say this, is that I'm not here to set the Anabaptist view of the sacraments over and against everyone else as if the 16th-century Anabaptists finally solved the riddle correctly.

I do not believe the early Anabaptists themselves spoke that way, and, uh, and I don't think we should either. We don't have like this, you know, they didn't have the time or the luxury to make this very detailed discussion of the sacraments. You know, what we're gaining from it is how they fought, uh, and answered questions where they were going to be killed from one side and then, you know, from the others. As a matter of fact, uh, we're going to be hearing a lot today about Pilgrim Marpeck. And he, his writings weren't even hardly, uh, discussed until the 1950s. And so we only have his things. It brings up a very rich sacramental theology with communion from him arguing against the spiritualist.

So usually they were arguing against the, the Roman Catholics and, and that kind of a thing. But here he's fighting against the spiritualist, and it gives us, oh, no, they had a much deeper understanding of that, um, as well. So we're going to be looking at that. I'd say this. It was one of my favorite axioms that I say in my classes. If an argument has lasted over 500 years, it's probably not stupid.

Um, I want to respect the different positions that are here. And, uh, and I think that a lot of times what's happening is when people get into the discussions on the real presence, we're talking about incredible mysteries, you know. And to be all dogmatic about this, boy, we have to be very careful. And so I want to be very careful, and I want to apologize from the start if I say anything too harshly, um, that it's this. And so while I don't want to say that the Anabaptists had it all right and we don't need anything else, uh, I do, however, do want to say that I believe the corrections and the, um, the things that they stood for in the 16th-century Anabaptists and that they challenged the doctrines of, uh, in the sacraments to the Catholic Church are more needed today than they ever have been.

And so the it while they don't have I'm not saying that's all you can have. You shouldn't read anything else. But I am I'm not saying that. But I am saying that the Anabaptists have some things to say that are into the whole ecumenical discussions of the sacrament that needs to be heard.

Frankly, it really needs to be heard. And without this the some of the, the things that they stood for, I honestly don't think we have a true patristic understanding of the sacraments, um, usually said by people, either from the Catholic or Orthodox or, or others that are there. So I'd like to say we should be unified until we can't. And so I like to look for bridges and, and things where I can, uh, and, and not unified only by accident. In other words, I don't I'm I am I don't like sectarian, um, you know, discussions that try to make your group against everybody else and all the other groups. I think that's very unhealthy, and particularly when it comes to the sacraments.

We have to be careful with these things and, and the way we discuss them. So I hold, as we mentioned in the last episode, this idea of Vincent de Lorenz has this beautiful, um, axiom, which I had my students read on day two in historical theology. We hold that faith which has been delivered, which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. So this idea of being Catholic with a small c, I think, is very important. Um, and so we're going to dig in right now, uh, to some of the passages in the early Church, looking at that. And so we need to ask ourselves, and we believe the Vincent, uh, code here, um, when we read the DDK, when we read these early, uh, Christian writings, is that the same could you say that today in a Catholic Church or any other Church at, you know, and, and say, yep, that could still say that today, or has it changed?

And I think that to, to apply Vincent's, uh, code here, we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. I, I try to do, if possible. And we've talked, I guess, with my hermeneutic about trying Scripture and Christocentric and antiquity and, and real. Again, let's watch out for anachronisms. I'm going to be trying to dispel some of the anachronisms as we look into that and try to understand the Anabaptists' position and what they were fighting against, um, as we discuss this topic. So we mentioned the sacraments and how the different names for that is, but we're going to be focusing primarily on baptism and communion. And, uh, and I'll quote again from Hubmeyer, Beltasar Hubmeyer's quote, uh, and he says this, and just these two, why it's, it's, it's fitting to just discuss the two.

He says, "Now if we possessed now if we possessed no other word of Scripture, but only possessed an accurate understanding of water baptism and the supper of Christ, we would possess God and all His creatures, faith and love, the law and all the prophets." I think it's a bit overstated, but, uh, again, it just, uh, brings up these, these two as we look into sacraments and, um, and what that is. So, so all right. So let's get into faith and baptism. We looked at the Scriptures in the last episode. Now we're going to just dive into the early Church and then from there where that affected the Anabaptists. Mm-hmm. So this is interesting because a lot of your, say, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, uh, et cetera, et cetera, churches would make the claim that they're the ones that are going back to the early Church understanding, right?

So I assume we're going to be a you're going to be addressing that at some point, right? But that, that is another piece of this puzzle. I'm assuming the early Church then must be interpreted multiple different ways because not these people don't agree, you know, on these things. And yet if each one's claiming the early Church is on, quote-unquote, "their side," we're missing something. Yeah. Am I getting that about right? That's like big picture stuff. And I know we're going to get narrow here, but I want to start broad. Same will said. Yeah. And again, this is why I'm I'm not going to pretend like I don't enjoy the writings of many Orthodox scholars and Roman Catholic scholars that discuss to them the sacraments are huge, you know.

Yeah. And, uh, and so they dive into areas that I, I, I, um, I really appreciate. So it's like if you're going to really study the sovereignty of God, boy, you can get some of the Reformed stuff, and you can really dig in deep. You know, these are these are bedrock points to them. And so yes, I, I, I appreciate some of their thoughts. Where I'm going to make the argument, um, is they are reading the early Church very anachronistically, that they're reading back their understanding of, uh-huh, of what this mass has come to become. And to try to put this is what we're calling is happening on the early Church is ridiculous.

And so when they're doing this, I'm going to say, okay, let's try the let's go back to the Vincent, uh, canon and say, okay, so let's ponder these early Christian thoughts and say, okay, is this can this be said, uh, in a modern setting or not? Uh, I, I don't think it can be. Um, or it can be. Uh, we don't it can be, and it should be, but it's often not. So yeah, I, I, um, I do appreciate their, their criticism. They have a very strong view in the real presence and the communion. I think we touched on that a little bit in the last episode, but I'm very challenged by it. And, and, and they when they look at they read Ignatius, and they read, you know, Irenaeus, and when they read these passages, and they're saying, okay, they're calling it the body of Christ.

And the Gnostics were not doing it, and they are. And so you guys who have this, you know, wrong view of the sacraments, you know, then they try to say we're doing this wrong and the other wrong. And so I, I take some of these challenges. And I certainly would say that within our circles, um, you're going to see some of the quotes that I mention are valid. You know, there are some things that that were said there that I, I don't think are healthy. Um, however, I, I, I will say again that the, the points that the Anabaptists stood on, and I think to this day stand on, that the real presence is manifested in not only the bread, some would say, and the, the sacraments of baptism, not only in the act of doing the baptism, but it's in evidence that this makes us like Christ.

You're going to hear me talking about that they're talking about this communion in the bread. Yes, that's one thing. But the gathered community, the real presence in the gathered community of the saints is a kind of incarnational theology that Pilgrim Marpeck gets into that is very rich and very real. And they don't call it he and you'll see him saying, I'm not calling this a mere symbol. I'm literally calling it an incarnation within the believers themselves. And that's the challenge that they're bringing to the, the, the Orthodox and the and the Catholics right from the very beginning. Um, I think this is hugely important. And while we we mentioned the Scriptures there in 1 Corinthians 11, where Paul is rebuking the Church and saying, okay, here's a Church that had, you know, assumingly proper ordination, apostolic succession, proper all these things.

We're doing their things that they they heard from the apostles. Yet because of their behavior, class distinctions or whatever they were doing, getting drunk or whatever, he's saying, what you're doing doesn't count. When you gather, it's not the Lord's Supper. That's an important point to the Anabaptists, that becoming like Christ, um, having this co-witness of us with Christ in the communion is very essential for the real presence to be to be there, and that the change is occurring in us, not just the bread. You make your arguments, and some went one side and one to the other, on what exactly happened in the bread. But a reductionist attitude towards it is focusing on the bread and not on the gathered body with the bread.

And so I think I think that's become some of the distinctions there. Yeah. Well, so let's let's start looking at the early Church writings then. I'm I'm really curious. Like, what what do they say? And, um, and then I think you're going to go into a bit of this. Then how do the early Anabaptists use these writings as well for for their, uh, arguments as well? Exactly. Exactly. All right. So, um, I I think of just some that I I think of right from the beginning, um, that are very strong. Um, and Irenaeus, he says, "When we come to refute them," that is the Gnostics, "we shall show in its proper place that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to the denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God.

Thus they have renounced the whole faith, for the baptism instituted by the visible Jesus was for the remission of sins." It's a very strong word. Uh, I love how Irenaeus, uh, and Justin Martyr do this very much. They tie this into the incarnation. Incarnational theology comes out of them all the time. Hmm. Happy Tertullian writes, "Happy is our sacrament of water, and that by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. We, like little fishes, after the example of our ictus," you know, they had the ictus of Jesus, "Jesus Christ are born in water." And so we see some of these, um, passages here.

So reading these passages, you you you can very clearly see that the the the whole idea that in baptism and and salvation being connected to baptism was was very, you know, very much part of the conversation. And these are just some of the examples, and there's there's others. But there's something that's happening here that you have to watch out for. Uh, what happens with these arguments later on in Church history is that these are taken like this in isolation of faith, away from faith. In other words, what I mean by is that we can have these sacraments of baptism without faith, uh, ex opera operato, you're going to see me talking about in a little bit here, where the very act itself is the sacrament.

The early Church we're going to see, and the early Anabaptists as well, made it the idea that faith, faith is the prerequisite. So when we're reading Acts 2:36, 7, and 8 in the last episode, and when Peter is preaching in Acts 2:36, we get the order. The preaching of the word of God is given. They are pricked to the heart, cried out with conviction, "What shall we do? You should repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins." This order of the preaching of the Gospel, the, uh, conviction of sin, there and and the receiving of faith in that time, and then crying out for repentance and repentance, and then crying out for baptism and receiving that baptism for the forgiveness of sin in that order.

And so if you take out the first part, it's a it's a quick road to, well, then, you know, what really matters is that you have this sacramental, um, theology here and the sacramental act. And suddenly, even not definitely, um, not always said, but the faith part disappears. Mm-hmm. Um, and this is where I see people going wrong, is that is that we have to embrace that faith. Salvation by grace through faith is a bedrock to the early Church and the Scriptures. And that yes, these sacraments are then reflections of that, but without faith and hear this without faith, the sacraments are invalid. And that's an early Christian view, certainly an early Anabaptist view. And I think it will help us today as people start getting in, um, people in kingdom circles, which I'm myself in, who get very excited about the sacraments and such, they get so caught up in it that it's all about this sacramental thing that's happening and then lose faith in what faith was supposed to be accomplishing in the Church and then the individual just so they can have these this this sacramental thing.

And I and I don't think that the early Church or the Scriptures ever separated those. It was together. Now, granted, they in the beginning, it was always very soon they were convicted of sin, they were preached, they believed. And what prevents me from being baptized, you know, being baptized? They they believe. Um, and then baptism followed very quickly. So it makes it a little easier when we don't separate it the other way. Mm-hmm. But here, let me just hit on that point a little harder. Um, here's Clement of Alexandria and talking about this order and why this order is important. So when is he writing this? Clement of Alexandria also writing, uh, around, uh, 190, uh, a teacher, a big teacher in, um.

Less than 200 years after Jesus. Yeah. So, like, this is very, very early. Very early. Consider the Antonicine fathers, very early. Um, was a teacher in, in, uh, Alexandria, um, had a school there. Uh, and just this this primary thought of faith that we can sometimes lose in all this discussion about sacramental theology. And I'm just going to keep bringing it back that this is a bedrock in the early Church and in the early Anabaptists. And if you lose this, you're going to find yourself losing the faith, pardon the expression. So, all right. Clement of Alexandria, "We have discovered faith to be the first movement towards salvation. After faith, fear, hope, and repentance, accompanied by temperance and patience, lead us to love and knowledge."

So again, I just the idea this this this faith is a primary, um, a primary one. What a challenging, um, passage by origin, um, writing 250-ish, uh, of probably the most prolific writer in the early Church, uh, and certainly one that would advocate, uh, baptisms and, um, and different things like this. Um, even he is mentioning this this place of faith is is a necessity.

Uh, and when he's dealing with his passage on Romans, it's interesting how he he talks about it. And here he's talking about the the famous passage in Romans chapter 3, um, um, that we're we're not saved by our works and where we have where's the boasting then? Is it excluded? By what? By faith. And so he's commenting on this point. And so as we dive into sacramental theology with the early Church in the in the 16th century and the 16th century also, I I just want to keep hammering this a little bit, how faith is necessary. And he says this is origin speaking. He said, "In this current passage, the apostles, as if establishing the conclusion of his previous arguments, now says, where's then your boasting?

It is excluded. Through what law? That of works? No, but through the law of faith. We are told that a man is justified through faith without the works of the law." He is saying that the justification of faith alone suffices, and yes, he wrote alone, so that the one who only believes is justified, even if he was not even if he has not accomplished a single work.

It is incumbent upon us, therefore, as those who are attempting to defend the harmoniousness of the apostles' writing and to establish that they are entirely consistent in their argument, that we should ask, well, who's been justified by faith alone? And he goes into an interesting discussion where he talks about the thief on the cross. He talks to the woman caught in adultery. He mentions these different ones. It had done nothing. But Jesus said, "You are saved."

So remember why I'm bringing this up, to bring the context of the sacrament theology in its right context. And then origin goes on and he says, "Now then, let us return to our theme," after he describes those different guys and girls, "Um, a human being is justified through faith. The works of the law contribute nothing to his being justified. But where there is no faith which justifies the believer, even if one possesses works from the law, nevertheless, because they have not been built upon the foundation of faith, although they may appear to be good things, nevertheless, they are not able to justify the one doing them, because from them, faith is absent, which is the sign of those who are justified by God.

This is what we have said above. Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness." Now I want to go quickly to say he goes on to say, "Now, wait a minute. Is this meaning that someone who has this would then be lax in works and not follow a righteous life?" He's not saying that. It's an anachronism to say that he's talking like Luther or something that believes I don't know if any of Luther said this, but anyway, modern American evangelicals or whatever, that that faith is a theological idea of the atonement or something like that, and that's our salvation.

He's not saying that. He's saying that, but faith, however, this converted person, this faith, is he's talking about it very strongly, and that this requirement so it's very typical for people who are getting involved with the sacraments and these type of thing, and they go back and read the early Church, and they've read it just through an apologist, and they find this view of the sacraments and that view of the sacraments, and, "Oh, see, it saves, and it's this and the other." And I argue that they're not really understanding and reading the early fathers enough, um, and in its context, and they end up with a very skewed, uh, presentation. In my, uh, historical theology class, I spend the entire first semester doing nothing but reading through the first 150 years of the Church.

For this reason, I want them to know not only what's said, but what is not said, because of all the anachronisms that are built back onto the early Church. Say, "Oh, they thought this, and they thought this." And you read it, and you when you just swim in the fathers, in the apostolic fathers, you're like, "Uh, that's not what I'm reading."

Yeah. We're taking our terms and frameworks, and then it's easy to read those back into something 2,000 years ago. Exactly. Basically. Exactly. Right. Okay. Yeah. But that's interesting because your critics or detractors, whatever, say that's, you know, the the the orthodox priest that's listening to this or something. He's going to say, "Now, hold on. You're the one who's doing that. We're the one with the right view." Right? Is that? Exactly. And again, I appreciate the challenge. I do. Um, so let's look at some of this. And I'm going to get to some of those quotes, but let's let's look at this one on Tertullian and on on baptism. And, um, and so again, we're talking about an issue of baptismal regeneration.

Okay? So, you know, as we look at that, does is you are you completely enlightened in the water? Do you not have any faith before you're entering the water? As if someone who's giving birth, are they at least do they have life in them before they give birth, you know, or does it all happen in the water? A lot of times when people are studying sacramental theology in the early Church, they get they catch they latch onto um how this salvific language, uh a surrounding baptism and communion. Right. But then they they go off and and realizing, well, wait a minute, but faith is required, and this faith that was from the apostles. So. And and that's the big dividing line right there.

Isn't it? That's the dividing line. Because then you this is where the early Anabaptists are saying this, right? And the rest of, you know, the Reformed Church, the Catholics, are saying, no, infant baptism. Right. Exactly. And that's that's the split point. So if you can finally get your mind that and and somehow either actually or or accidentally, you know, making faith unimportant, and it all comes down to a faith that's in this sacramental act, Mm-hmm that changes everything. Oh, yeah. And no longer, as we will see, looks like Jesus. Hmm. And then you can baptize babies. You can baptize criminals. You can um you can baptize emperors um without repentance. And and in any of that, the the the faith of Jesus Christ, the inward faith of conversion, is not there.

And so you come into the Middle Ages where they're literally baptizing, you know, troops and and and people. And it's just that's the thing that the the early Anabaptists are speaking to when we get to the 16th century and go, "I don't care what you're talking about. That's not valid. You have no faith. You need faith." So look at some examples then of of how even in the early Church, you you have this kind of language. This is Tertullian on baptism. And he says this. He says, "Moreover, a presumptuous confidence in baptism introduces all kinds of vicious delays and evasions with regard to repentance. For feeling sure of undoubted pardon of their sins" in the baptism "men meanwhile steal the intervening time and make it for themselves into a holiday time for sinning, rather than a time for learning not to sin.

Further, how inconsistent is it to expect pardon of sins to be granted to a repentance which they have not fulfilled?" So he's saying, do you think you're going to get that forgiveness of sins in baptism when you haven't repented of your sins? No.

He goes on, "Is there one Christ for the baptized and another for the learners? Have they some different hope or reward, some different dread of judgment, some different necessity for repentance? That baptismal washing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun and is commended by the faith of repentance." So it's taking something that's already the Holy Spirit is working in a person's life and faith, and then co-witness with them in baptism. "We are not washed" watch this. "We are not washed in order that we may cease sinning, but because we have ceased, since in heart we have been bathed already."

Because in heart we have been bathed already. We've received an inner baptism. "For the first baptism of the learner is this, a perfect fear. Thenceforward, insofar as you have understanding of the Lord, faith is sound, the conscience having once for all embraced repentance." You're born again. Or you're you're at least however you word the the born again. You have this baptism, this inner baptism before, and then you walk into the and again, I'm not going to pretend that Tertullian then I've already quoted from Tertullian that this completion, the end of the beginning, is certainly the sealing of the faith Mm - hmm is needful in baptism and certainly needful. Origin. Let's go to Origin again.

He says this, "Now then, because he wants to show in these matters what it means to be dead to sin, he says, do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? For we have been buried with him through baptism into death, teaching through these things that if someone has first died to sin, he has necessarily been buried with Christ in baptism. But if a person does not die to sin beforehand, he cannot be buried with Christ. For no one will who is still alive is ever buried. But if one is not buried with Christ, he is not" watch it, "validly baptized." Oh, wow. I'm really curious.

Like, oh, I hope there's maybe a Catholic priest or some orthodox or something listening to this. I'd love to hear their response to these quotes. Maybe they could put those in the comments because I'm curious how they would interpret some of this. Yeah. Or would they just say Tertullian or I mean, sorry, Origin in this case is just he's not correct.

And they just disagree. No, no. It depends on what you're asking. You know, an honest scholar, let's say a John Baer or, you know, uh some of the different Roman Catholic scholars that are tend to be a little bit more open-minded and honest, admit a development of doctrine. Um Unfortunately, most of the internet is is is loaded with these apologists who who have never read or many of them have not read the early Church. And and if they have, it's been very it's done in very sectarian eyes. Okay And so they they hardly let themselves I mean, I I for one can say, I definitely read through the early Church, and there's some things I'm like, uh no, no.

Sorry, no. Um I'll read some of Origin. I go, no. Yeah. He had some odd. Yeah. Exactly. Uh And so, yeah, I I I bring this out because actually, because this is a passage the the Anabaptists literally quote, Um and and that's in Tertullian's as well. Um But so, yeah, I I I um bring it on, and let's talk about it. And. Oh, yeah. Let's get the conversation going down in the comments or something because I I would I'd love to hear. Like. But at the end of the day. How do they look at this? And then and I'm and I'm sure they would say, well, yes, but then you missed this over here or this over there.

You know. True, true, true, true. That's fair. Right? Is that fair? That's certainly fair. Okay. At the end of the day, I'll I'll I'll beg for this as the debates go through this. At the end of the day, let's not miss what he's saying. Mm-hmm. Let's truly have Christ-like lives that are walking in repentance and genuine. And if we can all come to that, and this is where the Anabaptists were going, then maybe we can have a a a common discussion. Um But if it's just your sectarian um sacramentalism versus my sectarian, I don't know, Christocentric stuff, I don't think we're going to accomplish as much. I see what you're saying. Yeah. Because then you can just devolve into, like, battle lines being drawn.

I'm trying to I'm going to beat the other guy with more quotes or something. And that's not really the the goal here. And remember, any argument that's lasted 500 years is not stupid. There has been probably whole colleges, almost want to say cities, maybe countries, you know, not that far, but, you know, colleges at least, you know, built upon reading Tertullian in a Catholic sense, you know, um in a Latin sense or whatever. So there's lots of good discussions that challenge this this way of thinking. And again, let's not call it stupid. Yeah. Let's learn from it and say, okay, yeah, he said this. Okay. Guess what? As Anabaptists, we have nothing that would stop us from having to uh to understand things in those different ways.

Our emphasis is on different things. Um And so. Yeah. Yeah. All right. So that was baptism. So so that I mean, and again, this is just a very thin sampling of the voluminous amount of material that's there, but but kind of give a sample and to to to emphasize the point that you're trying to make instead of trying to say, this is what all the early Church writings would have said. Mm-hmm. Right? So so that's helpful. That lays some groundwork for baptism, right? Now, what about communion? Because you mentioned those two at the beginning, right? And then communion would have been the other one in the Reformation. That was a huge splitting point. Exactly. For the Anabaptists and and the other groups.

Talk to me about that. Okay. So let's go into communion. Communion, again, remember the Vincent Code? Everywhere, always, and by all. Mm-hmm. So our earliest work outside of the New Testament is a Dedicé. Amazing document. I just love it. Uh And, you know, I I've been to the I've been to the library where the Dedicé was discovered in Istanbul and, you know, read through the the I just love it. Okay? And I love scholarship surrounding it, and it's very important. Um And it gives us some of the earliest liturgies. It gives us some of the early understanding of what they actually said and what they actually did. Like early Church life, we're saying. Early Church life.

And this is this is the this is year 90. Whoa. Year 90. So this is. Some argue some argue that some parts of the Dedicé could be written before Revelation. It's it's incredibly early stuff. Like the Apostle John would about still he would have still been alive. Yeah. It's debatable. A scholar's. I mean, yeah. I'm sure. Okay. Yeah. Maybe we shouldn't say that strong. But as in, we're really close to the last apostle of Jesus. And one thing you definitely get um is a very high view of communion. You get. uh And so you're like, okay, you can't just read that. I don't have the quote here, but you also get a high view of baptism.

Um It's interesting. He actually goes in as early as that on the mode of baptism. There's a a contentious one where. Well, I mean, you got it. What is what is he. Where he actually says he gives he gives an acceptance of of triune immersion. He also gives a an acceptance of pouring.

Um He's like, yeah. Oh. Oh, man. I'm Okay. I'm sure this is. So here are those think of all the debates and everything. And here in the early Church. Wow. Um Their emphasis was was still very powerful about what baptism did and and this kind of a thing. And it was very strong it was a very high view of it. Um But yet on the mode. That's. We're not going to fight on that. Because the amount of fights, quote-unquote, and theological ink spilled over mode of baptism is I mean, it's kind of almost funny. Like it I don't know. I mean, that's a whole nother conversation for a whole nother day. Yeah. But that's interesting that that is in here.

Okay. So back to main track. So now we have the actual liturgy given to us in the Dedicé and he says, "Let's concerning the Eucharist, the Thanksgiving." So now we're back to communion, right? And the Dedicé. He said, "Give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup, we thank you, God, for the holy vine of David, your servant, which you've made known to us through Jesus, your servant. To you be glory forever. Next, concerning the broken bread, we thank you, our Father, for the life and the knowledge which you've made known to us through Jesus, your servant. To you be the glory forever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills and was gathered together and become one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.

To you is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever. Allow no one" watch this "allow no one to eat or drink of your Eucharist unless they have been baptized in the name of the Lord. For concerning this, the Lord has said, do not give what is holy to dogs." And there's some more descriptions on there. But in brief, there's some it's a beautiful passage.

Obviously interesting that they have this prayer and they talk about it. But it's also interesting of what's not said. What was not there that becomes huge. Mm-hmm. Uh There was no words of institution. There was no epiclesis. The Greek Orthodox would say, well, you we don't see the change occurring at uh at the words of institution so much. Um But you do we do in the actual prayer of to receive the Holy Spirit from the epiclesis to the communion. Right. Okay. And that's not in here. Neither are there.

So okay. You have a high view. You have this concept of becoming one, uh the local community. Uh And and speaking of local community, when it comes to their ordination, they said you should appoint for yourselves elders. And it's it's a very simple, a very robust uh life that's congregational, but not on its own. It was very connected to bishops and things that were there. But yet you you could see them working out life there locally in their Church. Beautiful passage. Beautiful passage. And and and but you know what does come out in the Dedicé?

From the very beginning, when you read the Dedicé, if there's one thing you would say, it looks like the Reader's Digest or the Sermon on the Mount. Hmm. That is so important. When you read the when you just swim in the the ancient fathers and start reading them, what you get is that it looks like Jesus. That the faith, the emphasis of what they, you know, talked about and geeked out on or whatever was that we're supposed to be living out this life of Christ. This is where we put our emphasis. And I will say that I think why I'm an Anabaptist today is because I like studying different theological topics and all this kind of thing.

However, at the end of the day, if it doesn't look like Jesus, if that's not the core thing that we're actually geeking out on, then, you know, I think we're missing it. So maybe in these conversations about the sacraments, in the literally millions of pages of stuff that's been written about this, maybe the a question to ask is, okay, wonderful, but is it pointing back to Jesus? Is it deeply in alignment with the life and teachings of Christ? Like as in not just from an intellectual level, but as in a lived thing? It is a lived thing. Is that a way of saying it? I'm not sure. I'm making sure I'm tracking with you well.

You're doing it. And more than that. It's a little deeper even than that. Okay. That's it. Yes. So when it comes to the sacramental theology of the early Church, Mm-hmm what is the sacraments doing? Where is the emphasis? Yeah. Or is the emphasis on this monastrance or this wafer and a worship for that? The emphasis is on the incarnation and how Christ through that Eucharist and through baptism creates Christ in us in reality. So what they'd be pointing to is saying, you're not acting like Christ. The emphasis keeps coming back. So we talk a lot about Christocentric, and you go to many even, you know, Orthodox and Catholic Churches, oh, it's all about Christ. It's all about Christ.

Is it? I don't know. I mean, is is is the emphasis on the teachings of Christ truly the emphasis that your Church is making? And if it's there, hey, I don't care, you know, what group you're with. I can talk with you and say, let's let's let's talk. And that's what I want to see propagated around the earth. And that's what I read from the Dedicé. So. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense. Okay. Oh, here's another one. The next page. After the Eucharist, when you are filled, give thanks in this way. We thank you, holy God, for your holy name, which you enshrined in our hearts. Hmm.

That you were enshrined in our hearts. This is an important point. And for the knowledge of faith and immortality that you made known to us through Jesus, your servant. To you be glory forever. You, Master, Almighty, have created all things for your name's sake. You gave food and drink to all people for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to you. But to us, you freely give spiritual food and drink and life eternal through Jesus, your servant. Before all things, we thank you because you are mighty. To you be the glory forever. Remember, Lord, your Church. Deliver it from all evil and make it perfect in love. And gather it from the four winds, sanctified for your kingdom, which you have prepared for it.

For yours is the power and the glory forever. I love this quote. Let grace come and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David. If anyone is holy, let him come. If anyone is not holy, let him repent. Maranatha. Lord, come quickly. Amen. But permit the prophets to speak much thanksgiving as much as they desire. Mm-hmm. So it's an interesting passage. Again, no epiclesis. And so let me ask you, to the to the to those you were asking me earlier on, well, they're claiming that they have the early Church and they're and so, okay, can I say this at your Mass and let it count for for communion?

Oh, that's an interesting. Yeah. No. Okay. So why why not, though? Like with. Because there's no epiclesis. There's no words of institution. Right. But why wouldn't they accept this as as valid? Like would they just say, well, this is this is good reference, but there's there's more here that's missing basically? Yeah. What you'd say is that, well, this is a summary. This is a paraphrase. And what what was there is that guys were really saying, so if you notice, there's other passages that mention sacrifice language. And so what that really means in the high priests and they come to all together and try together an entire document that's that's not there, that's behind all this to to explain it away.