TBG, it is apparent that your reading of my posts is selective . I was discussiing pre-Fall conditions vs post-Fall conditions.

The description of "Dominon" in the Garden was modified by the terms "Tend" and "Keep". In the Garden, Adam and Eve were thus given the Earth as a Responsibility to look after and preserve, not as something they could freely Pillage.

The Technology for large scale agriculture and the building of settlements was neither available nor necessary in The Garden; Nature and Man were in Harmony. It was only Necessary after the Fall and the Expulsion. This unfortunately led to a very different approach by Mankind. No longer was "Dominion" tempered by the admonition to Steward the Earth.

Likewise, your answer to my posts regarding Marriage doesn't address any of my points, instead it repeats your previous post and also engages in Selective Reading .

I have already acknowledged that some denominations do not adhere to the 7 Sacraments.

But the reasons you gave, I have addressed without a Rebuttal from you, it should not be necessary for me to repeat myself .

You continue to indiscriminately use the terms Sacred and Sacrament with some sort of Distinction without a Difference.

I have pointed out that the 2 Sacraments you do recognize are no more (or less) Exclusive to Christianity than any of the others.

And I have offered two "proofs" for the Sacrament of Marriage within Christianity: It's presence in The Garden and it's Baptism in Christ.

And I have made any number of other points related to the above.

It would seem though, that you are of two minds yourself. Your last paragraph reveals that you believe "no part of life is really 'secular'". This sounds very similar to Eastern Orthodoxy, which posits that ANYTHING that is done within The Church can be considered a Sacrament .

GB

I have pointed out that the 2 Sacraments you do recognize are no more (or less) Exclusive to Christianity than any of the others.

But they are--as a Christian, I recognize marriages within other faiths as being legitimate. I do not, however, recognize their initiation ceremonies or secret rituals to be anything more than futile idolatry. Just because other faiths may have ceremonies bearing a passing resemblance to Christian ceremonies does not make the real thing any less unique.

And I have offered two "proofs" for the Sacrament of Marriage within Christianity: It's presence in The Garden and it's Baptism in Christ.

But it is not unique to the church. Again, I recognize marriage outside Christianity to be valid. "Sacraments" outside Christianity are not.

You continue to indiscriminately use the terms Sacred and Sacrament with some sort of Distinction without a Difference.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: sa·cred
Etymology: Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Anglo-French sacrer, from Latin sacrare, from sacr-, sacer sacred; akin to Latin sancire to make sacred, Hittite šaklāi- rite

1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament
2 capitalized a : communion 2a b : blessed sacrament
3 : something likened to a religious sacrament

While they share roots, they are distinct. Argue with the dictionary if you want to, but I try to use words in a precise manner.

TBG

TBG:
But they are--as a Christian, I recognize marriages within other faiths as being legitimate. I do not, however, recognize their initiation ceremonies or secret rituals to be anything more than futile idolatry. Just because other faiths may have ceremonies bearing a passing resemblance to Christian ceremonies does not make the real thing any less unique.

You still haven't actually adequately explained the distinction. Sure you see Marriage outside of Christianity as Valid in a Legal sense. So do I.

It is Marriage within it's Religious Context that must be considered Sacred/Sacramental.

And again, you haven't demonstrated that Marriage outside of Christianity is distinct from the Sacraments of other Religions, if they are idolatry outside of Christ then so is Marriage. You simply choose which Sacraments are legitimate in Christianity arbitrarily.

Main Entry: sa·cred
Etymology: Middle English, from past participle of sacren to consecrate, from Anglo-French sacrer

Main Entry: sac·ra·ment
Etymology: Middle English sacrement, sacrament, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin sacramentum, from Latin, oath of allegiance, obligation, from sacrare to consecrate

This is hilarious . That is PRECISELY what I posted. The dictionary definitions which follow each word are simply restating each other.

Sacred:
1 a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity (This is the very definition of Rite) b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose)

Sacrament:
1 a : a Christian rite (as baptism or the Eucharist) that is believed to have been ordained by Christ and that is held to be a means of divine grace or to be a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality b : a religious rite or observance comparable to a Christian sacrament

I don't have an argument with Webster, YOU do .

GB

And again, you haven't demonstrated that Marriage outside of Christianity is distinct from the Sacraments of other Religions, if they are idolatry outside of Christ then so is Marriage. You simply choose which Sacraments are legitimate in Christianity arbitrarily.

This simply demonstrates that you don't understand the Christian doctrine of common grace or general revelation. Marriage is not a sacrament because it is not a means of special grace for the believer--it is a means of common grace to all. It is not an arbitrary distinction. We view marriage as an institution set up by God, as the Church is an institution set up by God.

I already noted that the two words do share a common root, but in systematic theology, they mean two distinct things. There are only two sacraments, whereas everything a Christian does is supposed to be sacred. You are trying to conflate two terms that have similarities, but are nonetheless distinct. Remember also that objects and institutions may be sacred whereas a sacrament is a particular kind of act within the church.

TBG

Sure, Marriage outside of Christianity can be viewed as Common Grace. I'm not arguing against that .

My point is that Within Christianity it holds a Special Place. Plenty of Denominations agree with me (particularly those that consider themselves to be the Original Church , i.e. Catholicism, and "Eastern" Orthodox). The Anglican Communion recognizes some measure of Sacrament in Marriage (to varying degrees). Many American Protestants are currently embroiled in a Political Debate, and their position in that debate rests largely on the idea that Marriage is a Sacrament.

The distinctions you are attempting to make between Sacred and Sacrament, are only relevant to those Reformed Protestants (and some Anglicans) who happen to agree with you. Those distinctions are neither apparent in your explanation or theirs.

If anything, it is the distinction you are making that is based on colloquialism. In colloquial parlance, Sacred can apply to ANYTHING associated with religion, and Sacrament is usually believed to mean something ingested in a Ritual (which is clearly misinformation).

However, there is no difference between Sacred Objects and Acts or Sacramental Objects and Acts.

Churches of various denominations all consider themselves to be Consecrated Institutions. Thus the Rituals (Acts) performed within these Institutions, and the Accoutrements that accompany them are by definition Sacred and Sacramental. And thus the Institutions themselves are a Sacrament to God.

GB

I think I'm defining these terms as they have historically been defined--argue with Calvin and Luther. You are ignoring the distinction that the Church has historically made.

First let us be clear: when I say that something is "sacred" I mean that it is holy. To consecrate something is to set it apart for holy use. A sacrament is one particular kind of holy ritual. Again, I'm not quite sure why you're arguing over a distinction that all systematic theologians agree on.

Let me provide some definitions:

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.

[Sacraments are] ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world.

In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution.

GB, I think you're trying to make Christian theology fuzzy where it is, in fact, clear. You would like to see diversity of opinion where there is, in fact, nearly universal agreement. For all our differences over the sacraments, we can at least agree on this: not every sacred thing is a sacrament.

TBG

[

The Technology for large scale agriculture and the building of settlements was neither available nor necessary in The Garden; Nature and Man were in Harmony. It was only Necessary after the Fall and the Expulsion. This unfortunately led to a very different approach by Mankind. No longer was "Dominion" tempered by the admonition to Steward the Earth.
GB

Yes nature and man were in harmony in the garden, and agraculture was done differently after the garden. (Genesis 2:15 is specific that Adam worked, and tended the garden.) But you do not answer the why?

Again it was man's sin initially in the garden that caused his expulsion from it,

As for agraculture being somehow sinful, then we must ask if God initiated that sin since He gave Adam the task. (Gen. 3:17-19)

I will admit that modern abuses have destroyed much of God's creation, but I would say that just shows all the more man's sinful nature in being willing to damage that creation.

I will add this about native peoples who are deemed "in tune with nature". What would you say to the native peoples who are known to have caused extinction of native species long before the introduction of "civilization"?

Befor I forget. To TOM's question, yes I would recognize marriage within another religion as legitaiet.
My only concern, speaking in agreement with someone else's statement, that marriage has become all to meaningless without the sacred. No more than a business contract, with pre-nup agreements.

While I would respect a couples marriage as legit/Holy before God, I must ask, Do they?

TBG,
Au Contraire Mon Frere .

I could go back and quote some more from some of the links I provided. But it is very clear that the supposed semantic distinctions have been a source of Theological Contention between Protestantism and Catholicism and the Orthodox Church.

And claiming that "all systematic theologians agree" is belied by the many varied Historical Attempts to develop a Systematic Theology, including that of John of Damascus who attempted such within the Orthodox Church (you know, one of those with 7 Sacraments , like the Catholic Church). You appear to be "Fuzzing the distinctions" between the "Systematic Theology" of Protestant circles with that of other branches of Christianity.

My position in this particular debate is not to Fuzz distinctions, but to point out that arbitrary Semantic distinctions Obscure and Fuzz what should be very clear: that Marriage in a Religious Context should be held as one of the most (if not The Most) Sacred--or Sacramental--Acts one can engage in.

It doesn't really make a whit of difference whether one wants to use the term Sacred or Sacramental, Institution or Act. But I think MC and Puddleglum are right, stripping Marriage of it's Sacramental Status necessarily diminishes it's Sacredness.

Peace and Long Life

Gandalf's Beard

P.S. Puddleglum, I did actually answer why and address the Sin you mention :

Me:
I think it would be fair to say that it doesn't necessarily contradict your point regarding Adam and Eve's Sin of Disobeying God by eating of the Tree of Knowledge, even if taken literally.

I also made distinctions between "tending" The Garden and what came after The Fall which a complete quote demonstrates:

Me Again:
The description of "Dominon" in the Garden was modified by the terms "Tend" and "Keep". In the Garden, Adam and Eve were thus given the Earth as a Responsibility to look after and preserve, not as something they could freely Pillage.

The Technology for large scale agriculture and the building of settlements was neither available nor necessary in The Garden; Nature and Man were in Harmony. It was only Necessary after the Fall and the Expulsion. This unfortunately led to a very different approach by Mankind. No longer was "Dominion" tempered by the admonition to Steward the Earth.

I wholly agree with you that Abuses both by Moderns, and Pre-"Civilized" peoples alike are indicative of Mankind's "Sinful" nature.

EDIT:
TBG, Even some Theologians engaged in "Systematic Theology" admit that there is no consensus regarding teachings gleaned from this Practice:

Dr Mike Stallard Baptist Bible Seminary Dean:
SOME NOTES ON THE DEFINITION OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY
I have found over the years that students often do not understand the discipline of Systematic Theology (or for that matter, the discipline of Biblical Theology). It is not all the student’s fault on several scores.

1) First, there are as many definitions, it seems, as teachers.

2) Second, beyond that, there is an overlap, especially in the area of how things are to be done in the actual undertaking of these disciplines.

3) Third, there is a tradition that has been built up of seeing Systematic Theology as a kind of deposit of revealed truth rather than seeing it as a task to be done. The deposit of revealed truth is the Bible. My systematic theology, which expresses my Christian worldview, is not revealed truth. It is my expression and application of that revealed truth to all areas of life. I would never claim that my own systematic theology notes are inspired by God.

4) Fourth, related to # 2 above, there are some genuine semantic differences in the debate over definition. Therefore, it is important for the student to understand where each particular teacher is coming from in use of terminology. For example, the tracing of a particular theme throughout the entire Bible (son of God, arm of God, illumination, stars, blood, etc.) is to some interpreters a task called Biblical Theology. Others, because such tracing crosses authorial and historical boundaries, see this as more properly under the venue of Systematic Theology. What is clear about all of this is that there are levels to the entire process of recognizing inter-textuality with some even using the term “intermediate biblical theology” to describe the tracing of a theme through the entire Word of God. I will discuss this more below.

5) Fifth, different confessional faiths use terminology differently. The Presbyterians talk differently than Catholics about such issues. Baptists talk differently than Methodists, etc. All one has to do is read the systematic theology work Blessed Rage of Order by the liberal Catholic David Tracy to see readily that what he does in systematic theology is not what I do.

http://faculty.bbc.edu/mstallard/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/SysTheoNotes2.pdf

Thanks for agreeing that it is not only "civilized" peoples who are destructive. I have had quite an argument with others on another forum on that topic.
While we appear in agreement, my concern was with Wagga's statement about man's sin being his agrarian/urbanization.

I haven't been able to reply sooner. I quite simply was otherwise engaged, and without access to a PC.

GB, your reading of Genesis is selective. True, the Garden of Eden was where God put man--yet God commanded man to take dominion over it. The Biblical story begins in a garden, but it ends in a city.

Thank you, GB for being so gallant as to agree with me. I rest my case that if the Fall resulted in a city, any city or the multiplicity of cities we have had since then, obviously urbanization must be a distinct factor. Exactly why did city living come under such disapproval during the rest of the Old Testament?

Puddleglum, au contraire, I was saying that Man was obliged to adopt agrarian practices, permanent dwellings and urbanisation due to the Fall. Man's sin in the Garden of Eden was disobedience, pure and simple. He was told not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but he went and did it anyway. After that he was on the outer and on his own. And whereas beforehand he was in harmony with his surroundings, afterwards, his surroundings became his enemy. Before that, a little gardening to help things along was fun, not agriculture.

After the Fall, the eyes of Adam and Eve were opened (Gen 3:7). They needed clothes, suddenly learned to sew, and the leisurely pottering around in the Garden of Eden keeping things tidy, and enjoying the occasional raspberry or banana, or munching a nasturtium flower along the way, suddenly became Hard Work. Adam was told 'cursed is the ground for thy sake' and 'in sorrow shalt thou eat of it' (Gen 3:17) whilst Eve was also told heaps. And their sons Cain and Abel consequently became a tiller of the soil and a shepherd, as it states in Genesis.

I said that something similar happened with the Aborigines. The Aborigines also changed the environment over the millenia, whatever climate changes were involved. But they are not just any 'native' people. They are our 'native' people, who lived according to their own laws and religious beliefs which had a lot to do with how to live in harmony with the land. These people might not have had much more than stone and wooden tools plus the means to make a lot of cave art. But they had a very rich oral tradition, showing them what plants to live on, where water could be found and much else. Much of what they knew in explanation of their environment was embodied in a succession of tales of the Dreamtime, which they passed down through the Generations for entertainment, enlightenment and for instruction of the young. You can read about their laws and beliefs in books like Watkin Tench's diaries or Thomas Keneally's Commonwealth of thieves

According to Aboriginal law, which also governs into which tribes they are allowed to marry, you can't just hunt and fish in someone else's grounds without permission, or without sharing the proceeds, but how would a mob of outcasts, banished from their native land, due to their criminal records, and contemptuous of anyone appearing less technologically advanced than themselves understand that? Even their guards weren't much better, having arbitrarily taken possession of the land in the name of your very disliked George III, and the conciliatory efforts made by Phillip and others ended up by introducing the Aborigines to the temptations of alcohol, smallpox, white men's food and much else. And so they eventually became just as dispossessed, or more so, as the people sent out here in the first place. Just like Adam and Eve, and their son Cain, whose own son founded a city.

Furthermore, the division of labour among the Koori, Murri etc suggests one very real role Eve played in all of this. As in the Neolithic age, the men do the hunting for game, whilst women and children hunt for what else is edible. Honey, pepperleaf, wattleseed, and witchetty grubs among other things. If you find a patch where some usable plants grow regularly you might revisit that patch, learn to encourage its growth, then eventually start to deliberately plant such plants, to ensure there will be more next time. I learned in Archaeology that is what happened when Agriculture started in the Middle East. and it was probably due to the womenfolk, who subsequently passed the info onto the menfolk. So instead of 'God will provide', Adam and Eve would subsequently have to provide for themselves. And the Fertile Crescent is a lot more, well, fertile than the Wide Brown Land.

I agree with what you've said here. But I think you missed my point. The Pharisaism of Jesus’ day was “a letter-strictness which overlaid the law with traditional interpretations held to have been communicated by the Lord to Moses as oral explanations of equal authority with the law itself”

No, I haven't missed your point at all. The Talmud wasn't even finally compiled until 200 AD (the Mishna) with further additions in 500 AD. It wasn't even until 70 AD, the second destruction of the Temple, that such writings were even considered necessary, in what was tantamount to a Jewish Reformation. In the introduction to the copy I have, it has been endorsed and endeared to a people who 'were forbidden to add to or diminish from the Law of Moses', and is a jumble of rabbinical commentaries on the law, particularly the rather involved laws of Leviticus, plus additional tales and history which rounds out the Tanakh. And did I already mention that unlike the Bible, this commentary begins with a version of the tale of Cain and Abel?

Though your Scofield, whoever he may be, does have a point about Pharisaical 'letter-strictness' - doing everything literally without considering its meaning. The Pharisees obeyed all the Mosaic law, in the letter but not in the spirit.. That is what I am saying. The Pharisees said that picking grain on the Sabbath was work, and therefore the Disciples were Breaking the Sabbath, one of the 10 commandments of Moses. And so Jesus said what he did. The Pharisees might have thus similarly argued that giving help to someone who met with an accident or 'fell among thieves' on the Sabbath was also 'work'.

But as Jesus relates the parable of the Good Samaritan, one of the most beloved of his parables, I wonder if the passing scribe or priest who look the other way would have been any more helpful if it was any other day of the week than the Sabbath. It was the despised Samaritan who did the necessary, getting the poor bloke to help and paying costs as well. When I read a report in an Archaeology magazine (Biblical Archaeological Review?) that the Good Samaritan Inn might have been found, I even wondered if this beloved parable could have even been based on an actual contemporary incident.

There were other examples Jesus used of the Pharisees preaching the law, correctly as it happens, but being rather easy on how the law applied to themselves. No wonder he said "Do as they say but not what they do".

Indeed Puddleglum and Wagga, I think sometimes Metaphorical Readings of Genesis occasionally reveal a Core Truth that is also present in the Literal Reading .

So Puddleglum, even though we may differ on our approach, there are some things we can still agree on. I tend (like Wagga) to a metaphorical interpretation of the Genesis account of Creation. Though sometimes I think that taking the story at face value also tells a Spiritual Truth that would otherwise be missed if it were only read metaphorically.

Anthropology reveals that Humans have often had tendencies to despoil their surroundings and deplete their resources, whether they were "Primitives" or "Advanced". Though this is not always true of every culture across the board.

Some "Primitive" peoples did have a more or less Harmonious relationship with Nature, and others did not. And some people today do have a Rosy Coloured view of our Pre-Civilized ancestors, which often isn't warranted.

And Wagga, your views of the Fall and Expulsion from The Garden mirror my own regarding the increasing Harshness of the Climate leading Humans to alter their relationship with Nature.

I think there is a very Real sense that "eating from the Tree of Knowledge" did indeed break Man's Covenant with God and Nature. Our Knowledge has led to an increasing Alienation from the Source of Life and from Creation. And only through Spiritual Practice can we work through this Alienation and find our way back to the Source. Knowledge must eventually be paired with the Wisdom to use it properly, in Harmony with God and Nature.

I know that this interpretation isn't quite the same as believing in Original Sin Puddleglum. But I certainly agree that the Literal Reading can only lead to the conclusion that Man's disobeying of God's edict caused the Fall.

In my Metaphorical interpretation, I can also square it with the Literal interpretation of the stealing of Knowledge with the Fall of Man (as in The Magician's Nephew, the "Fruit" must be Freely Given by the Creator--though that fruit was clearly from the Narnian Tree of Life, not Knowledge )--it's squaring it with the Literal interpretation that ties it to the Fall of Nature I have trouble with . I just don't follow how Man's Sin could cause the Fall of Nature.

In any case, I think there is confluence between this Metaphorical interpretation and the Literal interpretation from the Fall of Man and Nature on. The results are the same either way.

Now TBG:
I have been examining your quoted "definitions" of Sacrament to see if they actually make the distinctions you claim they do. And frankly I don't see how they particularly support any of your points.

The Westminster Confession:
"Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,..."

I agree that this one is suggestive that Sacraments are a type of Sacred Rite and it's accoutrements, but it's not a very strong suggestion. One could conceivably argue that the formation of, and participation in, the Church itself was a Seal of the covenant of grace (which kind of blurs any distinctions between Sacred and Sacramental ). And Marriage certainly could fulfill that criteria.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession:
"[Sacraments are] ordinances of positive and sovereign institution,..."

Well this one straight-up says that Sacraments and Ordinances are one and the same . Though this is kind of odd, as most Baptists are so "paranoid" of appearing Idolatrous that they strive to avoid all usage of the terms Sacrament or Sacred . Indeed, I was under the impression they considered even The Lord's Supper and Baptism itself to be merely Ordinances .

So I found the REAL line, unaltered in Chapter 28 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession :

1. Baptism and the Lords Supper are ordinances of positive, and soveraign institution; appointed by the Lord Jesus the only Law-giver, to be continued in his Church (a) to the end of the world.

Well, that doesn't support your case at all regarding Universal Agreement in Christian Theology, when there is in fact MUCH Diversity of Opinion. Indeed, this particular opinion doesn't support my case for the Sacrament of Marriage either . But neither does it particularly hurt it, as one can't expect to find support for a Sacrament of Marriage from a denomination that doesn't recognize ANY Sacraments .

Catholic Encyclopaedia:
In every sacrament three things are necessary: the outward sign; the inward grace; Divine institution.

Wait...What the... ??? This supports your position HOW exactly?

It has all the criteria necessary to support the Sacrament of Marriage , and indeed it supports my contention that Sacred and Sacramental are interchangeable terms (at least in some denominations ).

TBG:
For all our differences over the sacraments, we can at least agree on this: not every sacred thing is a sacrament.

So basically, here you're saying, "At least we all agree to disagree" . And after you began that post claiming "universal agreement" .

Live Long and Prosper

Gandalf's Beard

I agree that this one is suggestive that Sacraments are a type of Sacred Rite and it's accoutrements, but it's not a very strong suggestion.

The suggestion isn't very strong until you consider the historic Covenant theology of the Church and realize the difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace.

It has all the criteria necessary to support the Sacrament of Marriage , and indeed it supports my contention that Sacred and Sacramental are interchangeable terms (at least in some denominations ).

Indeed it does ostensibly support marriage as a sacrament. However, it does provide criteria. In order for you to make your case, you must now prove Divine (I would say Christological) ordinance, outward sign, and inward Grace. That is, you would have to have a case that somehow marriage constitutes some kind of special grace for the believer (as opposed to common grace).

When I speak of "the Church" of course I mean the Church Invisible.

TBG

TBG:
The suggestion isn't very strong until you consider the historic Covenant theology of the Church and realize the difference between the Covenant of works and the Covenant of Grace.

How does it affect the particular quote you used? A "Seal of The Covenant of Grace" is used to describe a Sacrament. And as argued by Theologians of other Denominations, Marriage fits this criteria.

(And yes, I understand that Covenant Theology is largely Reformed/Protestant Doctrine Historically Speaking, but I'm just taking the quote as it stands).

And, I found any number of Catholic sites and Orthodox sites (and even a few Catholic leaning Anglican sites) which make the case for Marriage as a Sacrament, using all three criteria in the Catholic Encyclopaedia quote (which isn't surprising as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches both recognize Marriage as a Sacrament ).

The Church Invisible is a Hypothetical Concept. And no particular Denomination can categorically claim it as representing their particular set of Doctrines. Though of course, many do .

I am curious where you found the altered quote from the 1689 Baptist Confession . It would have thrown me for a loop if I hadn't been semi-familiar with Baptist Doctrine . Fortunately the Original was easy to find online.

GB

How does it affect the particular quote you used? A "Seal of The Covenant of Grace" is used to describe a Sacrament. And as argued by Theologians of other Denominations, Marriage fits this criteria.

The Covenant of Grace applies only to the elect--this is a basic tenet of Augustinian theology.

I am curious where you found the altered quote from the 1689 Baptist Confession . It would have thrown me for a loop if I hadn't been semi-familiar with Baptist Doctrine . Fortunately the Original was easy to find online.

You will note the brackets around "sacrament" as the original does not use this term. The reason, I suspect, is because of the connotations which the term may have carried of the high sacramental theology of Luther, Bucer, and many Anglicans of the day. In today's context, the term no longer carries said connotations and thus the quote may serve as a definition of the term.

On further review, though, I probably did take the quote a little out of context. The point was to show that all denominations would recognize a distinction between the sacred and the sacraments. A building may be sacred, but to call it a sacrament would be nonsense.

The Church Invisible is a Hypothetical Concept.

No, it is an actual reality that I pray you will one day see, by God's grace .

TBG

TBG:
The Covenant of Grace applies only to the elect--this is a basic tenet of Augustinian theology.

Yes, well presumably the persons getting Married in A Church would be the Elect, wouldn't they ?

TBG:
You will note the brackets around "sacrament" as the original does not use this term. The reason, I suspect, is because of the connotations which the term may have carried of the high sacramental theology of Luther, Bucer, and many Anglicans of the day. In today's context, the term no longer carries said connotations and thus the quote may serve as a definition of the term.

Yes, I did note the brackets . That and the misuse of the term Sacraments itself are what tipped me off. Many of the Baptist websites I perused would take issue with you, that the (altered) quote could serve as a definition of the term.

TBG:
On further review, though, I probably did take the quote a little out of context. The point was to show that all denominations would recognize a distinction between the sacred and the sacraments. A building may be sacred, but to call it a sacrament would be nonsense.

You'll let me know how that goes when you find some evidence of that, won't you ? I think I have ably demonstrated in my two large posts on the last page that your point regarding universal agreement is tenuous at best .

TBG:
No, it is an actual reality that I pray you will one day see, by God's grace .

Thank you TBG . In a sense, I feel like I already belong to The Invisible Universalist Church though .

GB