'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

LifeSiteNews.com ^ | 12/4/2006 | John-Henry Westen

[Pyro7480]

'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

By John-Henry Westen

NEW YORK, December 4, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A review of New Line Cinema's The Nativity story by Fr. Angelo Mary Geiger of the Franciscans of the Immaculate in the United States, points out that the film, which opened December 1, misinterprets scripture from a Catholic perspective.

While Fr. Geiger admits that he found the film is "in general, to be a pious and reverential presentation of the Christmas mystery." He adds however, that "not only does the movie get the Virgin Birth wrong, it thoroughly Protestantizes its portrayal of Our Lady."

In Isaiah 7:14 the Bible predicts the coming of the Messiah saying: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel." Fr. Geiger, in an video blog post, explains that the Catholic Church has taught for over 2000 years that the referenced Scripture showed that Mary would not only conceive the child miraculously, but would give birth to the child miraculously - keeping her physical virginity intact during the birth.

The film, he suggests, in portraying a natural, painful birth of Christ, thus denies the truth of the virginal and miraculous birth of Christ, which, he notes, the Fathers of the Church compared to light passing through glass without breaking it. Fr. Geiger quoted the fourth century St. Augustine on the matter saying. "That same power which brought the body of the young man through closed doors, brought the body of the infant forth from the inviolate womb of the mother."

Fr. Geiger contrasts The Nativity Story with The Passion of the Christ, noting that with the latter, Catholics and Protestants could agree to support it. He suggests, however, that the latter is "a virtual coup against Catholic Mariology".

The characterization of Mary further debases her as Fr. Geiger relates in his review. "Mary in The Nativity lacks depth and stature, and becomes the subject of a treatment on teenage psychology."

Beyond the non-miraculous birth, the biggest let-down for Catholics comes from Director Catherine Hardwicke's own words. Hardwicke explains her rationale in an interview: "We wanted her [Mary] to feel accessible to a young teenager, so she wouldn't seem so far away from their life that it had no meaning for them. I wanted them to see Mary as a girl, as a teenager at first, not perfectly pious from the very first moment. So you see Mary going through stuff with her parents where they say, 'You're going to marry this guy, and these are the rules you have to follow.' Her father is telling her that she's not to have sex with Joseph for a year-and Joseph is standing right there."

Comments Fr. Geiger, "it is rather disconcerting to see Our Blessed Mother portrayed with 'attitude;' asserting herself in a rather anachronistic rebellion against an arranged marriage, choosing her words carefully with her parents, and posing meaningful silences toward those who do not understand her."

Fr. Geiger adds that the film also contains "an overly graphic scene of St. Elizabeth giving birth," which is "just not suitable, in my opinion, for young children to view."

Despite its flaws Fr. Geiger, after viewing the film, also has some good things to say about it. "Today, one must commend any sincere attempt to put Christ back into Christmas, and this film is certainly one of them," he says. "The Nativity Story in no way compares to the masterpiece which is The Passion of the Christ, but it is at least sincere, untainted by cynicism, and a worthy effort by Hollywood to end the prejudice against Christianity in the public square."

And, in addition to a good portrait of St. Joseph, the film offers "at least one cinematic and spiritual triumph" in portraying the Visitation of Mary to St. Elizabeth. "Although the Magnificat is relegated to a kind of epilogue at the movie's end, the meeting between Mary and Elizabeth is otherwise faithful to the scriptures and quite poignant. In a separate scene, the two women experience the concurrent movement of their children in utero and share deeply in each other's joy. I can't think of another piece of celluloid that illustrates the dignity of the unborn child better than this."

See Fr. Geiger's full review here:
http://airmaria.com/

[fortheDeclaration]

Paul preached faith alone because salvation was all of grace (Rom.11:6) and works could not be involved since works and grace do not mix.(Rom.4:3-5).

It seems that Gentiles are making the same mistake that the Jews did, 'stumbling' over the faith alone issue (Rom.9:30-32)

[fortheDeclaration]

A 'dead' faith cannot save one from physical death as stated in Jn.15:2, God will remove those not producing fruit. I'm not sure that I read the verse quite that way. : John 15:2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. KJV Now, the NIV, which I normally quote, says "cuts off" rather than "taketh away". That makes this a little more difficult for me. Nevertheless, I have taken either phrase to mean general discipline by God, or possibly death, as you see it. The problem I have with the death option is how to reconcile it with (POTS) verses like Phil. 1:6. He carries the good work on to completion. The death option appears to imply that man can thwart that good work begun. I don't think I can buy that because it would seem to destroy POTS. However, there is logic in your reading since "pruning" is specifically and separately mentioned. Frankly, I'm not sure what the best explanation of this verse is. :) Moreover, one can have a 'dead faith' and still be saved as shown by 2Tim.2:13, 'if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful; he cannot deny himself', indicating a believer who has lost his faith, yet remains saved. "Dead faith" is probably too strong for me. :) To me a dead faith is a false faith, is no faith. I don't think we can completely lose a once held true faith. We can wander or suffer, but I don't think the scriptures teach that we can totally abandon the gift of God. We are, after all, a new creation. We are permanently changed, for all time.

God will complete the good work He began by taking a believer to heaven once he has accepted the free gift of salvation.

There are clearly cases where believers have been dealt with with physical death, such as in Acts 5 and the believer turned over to Satan in 1Cor. 5 (but who avoided death by repenting of his sin).

Paul states that taking the Lord's supper lightly can result in death (1Cor.11:30-many sleep).

John states that there is a 'sin unto death' (1Jn.5:16).

One can lose his 'active' faith by quenching the Holy Spirit (1Thess.5:19), but not His salvation, since he is sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph.4:30).

What he loses is the rewards at the Judgement seat of Christ (1Cor.3:12-15, 2Jn.8)

The unbeliever does not have a 'dead faith' he never had any faith

[fortheDeclaration]

The RCC has always been one of the scriptures greatest enemies, as has been shown by your own distortion of them in these posts. The Church gave you the scripture. Some enemy. I may have failings, but reading "water" and seeing "flesh" is not one of them.

The RCC did not give the scriptures to anyone.

All church councils only recognized what local churches had already accepted as scripture and the local churches were not under any obligation to accept incorrect views on the scriptures.

Christians had the scriptures despite the RCC, as they do today.

'That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit'(Jn.3:6).

Christ explains the earlier verse in which Nicodomus asks if he must go back into his mother's womb to be 'born again'.

That is the flesh that Christ is referring to the intial birth that is connected to the water of the womb.

Just as Christ came by water and blood (1Jn.5:6), showing His two natures, human (water) and blood, God's blood (Acts.20:28)

[fortheDeclaration]

Mary has a role in the Redemption because she gave birth to Jesus and raised Him? And stayed with him throughout, participating in His passion, just as the encyclicals, perhaps using too florid a language, explain. The Catechism teaches that Mary has a mystical connection with the Church, and the church certianly has a redemptive role a she brings you the saving grace in the sacraments. So in this case when Jesus speaks to "the disciple", he means all humanity, but when He gives the Great Commission, He is only speaking to those specific disciples. In both cases Jesus speaks to the Church which is the communion of the disciples. Not to the individual disciples, and not to the entire human race. it is improper veneration to think that Mary's womb was blessed? It is not improper, and this is why Jesus does not stop the disciple from venerating her. He does, however, point out the right reason, and that is the custody of the incarnate Word. So correction of the object of veneration it is, disapproval it is not.

What Christ said was to honor the word of God, not Mary.

There is no scripture that states that Mary ought to be held in any special veneration, nor does Christ do so in the Gospels.

This is simply RCC mythology.

[fortheDeclaration]

the Lord explained what the water was referring to, the flesh When he wanted to say "flesh", he said "flesh". Why all of a sudden "water" refer to "flesh"? This is absurd, especially for someone who professes that he gets his understanding form the scripture alone.

Not when it explains the question that Nicodemos raises about going back into his mother's womb to be 'born again'.

There is such a thing as reading a verse in context with other verses.

The womb is in view as the first birth that Christ talks about and that first birth deals with coming from water.

The second birth comes from the Spirit and is spiritual not fleshly.

He explains Baptism is a figure and the water doesn't save anything, it only represents what already has been saved. He says, again, "baptism being of the like [water] form, now saveth you also", in direct contradiction to your fantasies.

Peter says that it is a figure of what happened to Noah and Noah was not put into any water.

Those who were put into water were drowned.

Noah was in the Ark (a type of Christ), which is what water Baptism represents, being identified with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. (Rom.6:4,Col.2:12)

The water represents death and it has no purifying abilities, as Peter states very clearly (1Pe.3:21)

[fortheDeclaration]

The RCC has always been one of the scriptures greatest enemies, as has been shown by your own distortion of them in these posts. Perception is everything, I suppose. Yet you should know that Pope Benedict XVI effected a change this year in the Stations of the Cross that RCs make a part of their Easter observance; a rather controversial change (and upsetting for some): He removed all reference to Saint Veronica who, according to legend and Catholic tradition, out of loving compassion wiped the bloody visage of our Lord with her veil as he struggled under the crushing weight of His Cross along the Via Dolorosa. The reason given: The traditional account of Saint Veronica does not have a scriptural basis.

And when will the Pope gets rid of the Papacy, which also doesn't have any scriptural basis?

[Forest Keeper]

FK: "I don't understand how a baptized infant can be fully justified in the eyes of God, when there is no belief."

Oh, I thought you believed that a person was saved and elect outside of anything he could do. Are you now suggesting that one must have a certain amount of self-generated faith to become saved???

No, I am not suggesting that. :) You are correct in your first statement about my belief. "Belief" in God comes only from God. Infants are not able to receive it, to our understanding. Now, while the saved and elect are thus, outside of anything they can do of their own volition, there is still a timing element to salvation as it occurs within time. That is belief, and it is caused by God. Self-generated faith is impossible towards God, but very possible towards satan. That's how we came into the world.

Being justified depends on our relationship with God. Are we in a relationship with Him or not? This is not about some irrevocable bus ticket good in 30 years... It is about a loving relationship, or lack of it, over the course of our lives.

It depends on who has the power and who is in control. If it is God, then that is one thing. If it is us, then another. Jesus gives us this parable:

Luke 18:9-14 : 9 To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10 "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men — robbers, evildoers, adulterers — or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.' 13 "But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.' 14 "I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

What is Jesus' message here? Is it that a man who has true faith is truly justified for all time, or is it that a man who does a good deed is justified for that day, only to be subject to losing his justification upon the next mortal sin? The latter I see as an extremely weak message. There is nothing profound in it at all. Ho-hum. Justification is a formal declaration by God that one is righteous in His eyes. It would be rendered useless if man has the power to override it. You would have man nullifying God's proclamation. I say we can't do that. :)

FK: "St. Paul wouldn't recognize himself after being run through the lens of the Church. :) He absolutely taught Sola Fide. Apparently, there are two separate Pauls."

Although that is humorous, you have hardly proven that Paul teaches sola fide. This would suggest that James and Paul taught opposite things, as James does NOT teach sola fide.

This does not suggest that Paul and James taught opposite things, it suggests that they taught similar things from very different perspectives. Both were equally inspired and both give us the true word of God. James may not teach sola fide in the way Paul did, but he doesn't teach against it either. James' focus was simply in a different direction, and there's nothing wrong with that. The works James speaks of as necessary, and I agree with him, are fully compatible with the concept of sola fide. God guarantees works following faith through His promises.

Of course, that explains why Luther wanted James removed...

And praise be to the Holy Spirit for preventing that from happening. The Spirit spoke through His Church to make sure that Luther would not be successful in that endeavor. What a testimony to the Spirit leading God's Church.

This thread is proof that the "core" concepts are not in agreement.

Like what? I consider a core concept necessary for Christian faith. Which core concepts are disagreed upon on this thread?

Other forums that I go to are even more separated on issues such as the trinity.

Perhaps over there you are not debating with Christians. :)

While there are a number of Protestants who share Catholic beliefs like the trinity, many do not see it in Scriptures.

Those who believe in sola scriptura DO see the Trinity in the scriptures.

While you may feel that a person can take the book and read it for himself and determine what it should mean, that has not been the way of Christianity found in the Bible.

No one on my side believes that. The Holy Spirit is the source of discernment. We disagree on whether the Spirit bothers to lead "Johnny Believer". On the subject you mention, we say He does, and you say He does not, but rather only leads a very few select men in the hierarchy. I do not believe this is the "way of Christianity found in the Bible" by just reading the greetings in the epistles. They were to all the believers, not just the high and mighty few in each particular church.

Look. Christ left a body of men and gave them authoritative powers - not a book that people would refer to and judge for themselves what Christians are to believe. That should give you cause to re-analyze your stand.

Christ did the former and caused them to produce the NT for later Christians to read and understand as guided by the Holy Spirit. Look at the tone of your own post. "Christ left MEN! Not some book." That's how it sounds. Men are flawed, God's Holy word is not.

[betty boop]

And when will the Pope gets rid of the Papacy, which also doesn't have any scriptural basis?

And why do you say it has no scriptural basis?

[stfassisi]

You said......
“I can imagine Calvin, mired in the dark ages of idolatry and lies, reading Scripture and exclaiming — “Here it is! Here is the Holy Spirit speaking to me personally.”

Augustine “Contra litteras Petiliana”, (Against the Letters of Petiliana) Bk.3, ch.6:
“If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and the Gospels, let him be anathema.”

“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH.”
Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.

Of course Calvin did preach lies- the most horrific one was Calvin,s denial of the real presence (Transubstantiation) in the Eucharist.
In doing so he was NOT guided by the Holy Spirit,Calvin was was guided by the devil.
Every single early Church Father and Saint believed In the true presence.
The whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist was at the center of their lives.

There can only be one truth and one Holy Spirit that guides someone

There are three spirits, anyone one of which could be the one who is prompting a person.
1. There is first the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, and His prompting is from GOD.
2. Then there is the human spirit which manufactures the prompts through the imagination and other human traits.
3. Finally, there is the evil spirit and its prompting is straight from Satan.

Dear sister, do you actually believe that ALL the Saints and Early Church fathers were the ones being guided by their human spirit or an evil spirit regarding the true presence?

If you believe this , you have just elevated John Calvin as as Prophet above the lives of All the Saints.

Where do you find this Prophet John Calvin in the Bible -:)

[Kitty Mittens]

Amen to your Wonderful Posts! I was gone for Many Hours Yesterday, so I’ve got a lot of Reading to do, but I So Love Following this Thread.

[annalex]

The church to them is translated to mean the clergy

The clergy is indeed the human core of the Church Militant. "As my father sent me I send you".

[Romulus]

And when will the Pope gets rid of the Papacy, which also doesn't have any scriptural basis?

And the Bible too! Don't forget the Bible; it also has no scriptural basis.

[annalex]

Agree or disagree, St. John Chrysostom does what a good theologian should: he reads the text closely and makes his conclusions strictly on what the text said, and taking into consideration other scripture. His is an example of properly reading the Bible. What I often have from the Protestants is reading something very precisely stated and elaborated in context, and leaping to a conclusion they like. For example, they will find a passage that praises the scripture and declare that it proves sola Scriptura, or, like here, a passage that says that faith is necessary for salvation and conclude that it is also sufficient.

[annalex]

The RCC did not give the scriptures to anyone

Yeah right. Zondervan gave you scripture. Sure.

water of the womb

If Jesus wanted to say "flesh" or "womb" in John 3:5, He would have said so: both words are used in the immediate context.

What Christ said was to honor the word of God, not Mary

He said, "Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it" (Luke 11:28). Mary is first among them.

Peter says ...

This is what he says: "Whereunto baptism being of the like form [water], now saveth you also" (1 Peter 3:21).

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Of course Calvin did preach lies- the most horrific one was Calvin,s denial of the real presence (Transubstantiation) in the Eucharist. In doing so he was NOT guided by the Holy Spirit, Calvin was was guided by the devil. Every single early Church Father and Saint believed In the true presence.

John Calvin was merely a man who read the Bible and understood it and commented upon it, by the will of God. Calvin took Matthew 23:9 to his heart -- "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."

He knelt to none but Christ.

JOHN CALVIN

"So Calvin was persuaded to stay and he began to preach in Geneva. Not long after this the Roman Catholic priests of the nearby city of Lausanne were challenged to a public debate by the Reformers. Of 337 priests only 174 arrived and only 4 had any ability to defend their doctrine. Farel and Viret, a foremost Swiss Reformer of those times, were the spokesmen for the Bible. They took Calvin with them as an observer as he had no experience of these debates. The debate went on for several days. One priest in defence of transubstantiation started to quote from the Early Church Fathers. Farel and Viret were unable to handle this and looked to Calvin for help. Standing up, the (Calvin) proceeded to quote from memory passages from the Early Church Fathers, giving the exact source in each case. It was an amazing display of learning and had an electrifying effect on the assembly. The opposition was completely confounded. One priest was converted immediately. As a result of this astonishing performance not only did Lausanne turn Protestant but 200 priests renounced the Roman Catholic Church."

Pity you and I weren't there.

Regardless, "early church fathers" are not Scripture, and Scripture is what determines our (and Calvin's) understanding of the Lord's Supper. I like this Q & A from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church website...

EARLY CHRISTIANS AND THE EUCHARIST

"Jesus promised to lead his church into all truth (John 16:13). But it is clear, from the entire history of the Church, that this was accomplished through a process of study, controversy, and trial. The results of this process have been the great creeds and confessions of the church, such as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed (these three are often called the Ecumenical Creeds of early church history) and such Reformation creeds as the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Standards. These later creeds were an urgently needed answer to the growing body of doctrines in the Roman Catholic Church that were not in line with the Bible as the early ecumenical creeds were.

So, in the final analysis it is not possible to arrive at final answers by going back to the "church fathers." It is interesting to do this. But final answers can only be found in the inspired foundational writings of the apostles and prophets. In this way, alone, can we really decide which views are really in accord with the Scriptures."

The reply then goes on to cite the Westminster Confession's declaration of what constitutes the Lord's Supper which I think is 100% Scriptural and sound.

For emphasis, please read the remarks of Calvin's brave student, John Knox, which further explain how the Roman mass errs in presuming to continually offer a sacrifice to God that has already been performed, accomplished and accepted by God, once for all the sins of His flock.

A VINDICATION OF THE DOCTRINE
THAT THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS IS IDOLATRY
1550

"...The Mass is Idolatry. All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry. The Mass is invented by the brain of man, without any commandment of God; therefore it is idolatry...

Disobedience to God's voice is not only when man does wickedly contrary to the precepts of God, but also when of good zeal, or good intent (as we commonly speak), man does anything to the honour or service of God not commanded by the express word of God...

I know you will say, it is no other sacrifice, but the selfsame, save that it is iterated [repeated] and renewed. But the words of Paul bind you more straightly than that so you may escape. For in his whole disputation, he contends not only that there is no other sacrifice for sin, but also that the selfsame sacrifice, once offered, is sufficient, and never may be offered again. For otherwise of no greater price, value, nor extenuation, should the death of Christ be, than the death of those beasts which were offered under the law ­ which are proved to be of none effect, nor strength, because it behooved them often times to be iterated.

The apostle, by comparing Jesus Christ to the Levitical priests, and his sacrifice unto theirs, makes the matter plain that Christ might be offered but once. First, the Levitical priests were mortal, and therefore it behooved them to have successors; but Christ is an eternal priest, and therefore is alone, and needs no successor. The Levitical priests offered the blood of beasts; but Jesus Christ offered his own body and blood. The Levitical priests, for impotence of their sacrifice, did iterate the same; but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, having in itself all perfection, needs not to be iterated. Yea, to affirm that it ought (or may be) iterated, is extreme blasphemy; for that were to impute imperfection thereupon, contrary to the whole religion, and the plain words of Paul, saying, "Such is our High Priest, holy, just, unpolluted, separate from sinners, and higher than the heavens; to whom it is not necessary every day to offer, as did those priests first offer for their own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for that he hath done once, when he offered himself" (Heb. 7:26-27). What words can be more plain? Here Paul shows all causes, wherefore it needs not Christ to be offered again; and would conclude, that he may not be offered again..."

Knox continues, every word Bible-based and true.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

God foresees all possible scenarios.

Just the "possible scenarios?" Not the actual occurrence, the true reality of what did and does occur?

If He predestined every step then there would be no need for His intervention.

Are God's "interventions" known to Him before they occur; before we pray for them?

If so, then they would be prefigured into His plan for creation before any actual intervention in time.

Nothing is unknown to Him, most especially our "choices." Thus every action that occurs in time is known by God in its entirety from before the foundation of the world.

His "interventions" aren't contemporaneous with our prayers. They are part of God's plan for creation, every speck ordained by God for His glory.

That's why even though we are reminded that "your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:8), we are to ask anyway.

Our prayers are not to inform God, but rather to conform us.

[reagandemocrat]

Thank you, Dr. E, for citing us to John Calvin’s writings—here-

http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book4/bk4ch18.html

Whenever I start questioning my Faith, I simply read Mr. Calvin’s vitriolic attacks on the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, and know I’m in the right spiritual place.

Thanks again.

RD

[jo kus]

I wrote: Magnetism exists. Yet, it occupies no space or takes up no mass. It is an effect on the visible universe.

You responded: In grammar school we are taught that nouns are persons, places, things, or ideas. I am only talking about the first three. I think of Magnetism as a description of a relationship between two or more "things". For the purposes of this discussion, I don't think ideas qualify as "things" in existence.

Magnetism is a force that is applied to an object. This effect, then, exists. Is it a thing? No. But it is a state of existence, which is what we are talking about. I disagree. Using your own terms, you appear to be saying God is more like an effect rather than a cause, in and of Himself. I contend that a cause requires space, not necessarily in a dimension observable to us.

Magnetism is not an effect, it is a cause of an effect. You are confused in what I am saying.

What is the difference between "state of existence" and "place", if "place" can include other dimensions?

A place suggests a physical location. Where would you suggest heaven be located? Is God there but not somewhere else?

Again, this is all speculation and attempts to work out the intellect of our faith - called theology. Rightly, we really don't know what the after-life will be like. Perhaps we are quibbling over an undefinable thing.

Regards

[jo kus]

Christ did the former and caused them to produce the NT for later Christians to read and understand as guided by the Holy Spirit. Look at the tone of your own post. "Christ left MEN! Not some book." That's how it sounds. Men are flawed, God's Holy word is not.

Where does the Bible make the claim that Jesus "caused" the Apostles to produce the NT? Sounds like a great big circular argument to me. Where is the evidence of that? Christ DID leave men. No circular argument there. Men who HE promised He would guide through the Holy Spirit. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit will lead these men astray?

The fact of the matter is that Christianity existed for at least 20 years without ANY New Testament whatsoever. Apparently, God was able to use clay vessels as His instruments to effectively begin the Church.

Now, to tweak you some more...I would say that the Scriptures were of very little effect in the conversion of the Gentiles in the first century. Why? Because the Scriptures had no authority for Gentiles. How could Paul or Peter argue from a book that had no special position to them? That would be like me arguing from the Iliad... Only the Jews would consider the Scriptures as authoritative. The conversion of Gentiles would depend on the acts of men guided by God, not the arguments from the Bible.

Think about that for awhile. It is historical fact - the way God allowed it to happen.

Regards

[Dr. Eckleburg]

FK, our "belief in Jesus Christ" occurs at a time of God's choosing and varies from person to person, as God wills. But our adoption by God was part of His determinant plan for creation.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." -- Ephesians 1:4-6

A Scriptural understanding of infant baptism is based on the premise that God ordained the elect and that group includes individuals from before the womb and into the grave.

It's fine for Christians to make a declaration of their faith as adults, but this declaration is not what redeems them. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world has already redeemed them.

If you find the covenant promises in Scripture, you find infants being baptized into His community of adopted sons.

Here's a fascinating essay by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon...

My Retraction:
A 15-year Baptist turns Paedobaptist and Becomes Reformed

"A little bit about my journey in understanding how Covenant Theology is the overwhelming theme of God's Redemptive plan, and how God sanctified me further.  A Baptist turns to be a theologian of Covenant Theology.  How could such a thing happen?...

And a short essay on Calvin and infant baptism is found here...

John Calvin: Infant Baptism