Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Life. It is a breath from God; it is eternal. We should treate is as sacred.
Our existenceis not just a soul; it is bodysoul. That is our created state. We are not angels (spirits). Our "natural" state is animated clay. That's why the saved and condemned get new bodies at the end. That's why souls of the departed are considered in discomfort even if they have been saved. That's why the Orthodox Church conducts panikhidas (memorials), offering prayers that may sooth their seperated state while they wait for their ne bodies.
Even the souls of the damned live, and even they shall be resurrected to be bodysouls again. Yet, they shall live in eternal separation from God. Sometimes life is not life.
This is my understanding, too, dear kosta50: Separation from God is not life.
Yes. Now, delve into what this concept says implicitly...
That the saints in heaven are not only watching you, but can also aid you, as well... If they were merely watching and not able to influence or effect anything, than we wouldn't care if they were watching or not.
I believe that the angels are not the only ones rejoicing in heaven when a sinner turns back to God.
Regards
Thank you betty boop. We believe that God is Life. That which is not of God is death, the way darkness is the absence of light.
But our "natural" state is body and soul, not just the soul.
The breath of god is, of course, a metaphor.. and can easily be a superstitious canard.. No science can currently define "life"..
Who says human are essentially not angels?.. Maybe fallen angels thats seen the error of their ways(following Satan) and wanting a second chance.. as the spirit of a human.. You know, like the metaphor of the prodigal son suggests, seen in another light.. Prompting the book of GENESIS..
However, if tomorrow you had an infant child, and then had him baptized, I would not make such a bet because I would have no idea whether he would come to faith or not. Are you saying that we should be able to make this type of prediction?...I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith.
Here we have the core of our distinctions. I would ask you who created your children? Who gave you those children? Who named them and numbered their days and determined their path in life?
It was the same God who promised you salvation as part of His covenant family. Infant baptism declares that God creates families as well as individuals. Our families are to be a smaller version of God's family.
The problem I have with adult baptism is exactly how you defined it -- that a person is not saved or a person doesn't know he's saved somehow until he makes a public declaration of the fact. That sentence is contrary to Reformed thinking which declares a person is saved, not by his own choice or even by his own awareness, but only by Christ on the cross.
I fully agree with you that the people of God are the people of God from before the beginning. But if part of Baptism is recognizing and celebrating that fact about any individual, I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith.
Well, which is it? Are God's people named from the beginning or is it "done with at least an honest profession of faith?"
See the problem?
Infant baptizers aren't adverse to adult professions of faith. You and I do that every day on FR. But baptism, in Scripture ("But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." - Matt. 19:14) and throughout the church and its Reformation, has always been acknowledged as a sign of the covenant God made with ALL His people, from the beginning of their lives, not from the point at which they understand their lives.
Baptism is not regeneration. Baptism is a confirmation of God's sign and seal made with His children from before the foundation of the world. Regeneration is God breaking into time and making us aware of that fact.
Plus, and this is no small argument, to require a spoken oath of an individual in order to be made a part of a community, smacks of certain secret societies which is not really a good thing. We can announce our membership and be welcomed into a particular congregation, but this is an act of fraternity. Our adoption into God's family occurred from before time and is an act of paternity.
Finally, I understand your questions about not knowing if our children are saved. There are a lot of things in life we don't know, especially tomorrow's trials. But we do know that it is all of God and therefore, it is all for His glory and our welfare, which most especially includes the lives of our children and their walk with God. As parents, we trust Him to lead them just as He leads us.
Therefore the purpose of baptism is not our declaration to God of faith. Baptism is God's declaration to us of His abiding love. Baptism is more grace, from Him to us.
I've pinged a few other baby-splashers for their input.
I just ordered what looks to be a great book edited by Gregg Strawbridge, "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism," although two "g's" in "Gregg" is a little unsettling. 8~) Per Amazon...
These are some of the issues surrounding the question of whether to baptize infant children of believers. The sixteen contributors to this volume make a thorough biblical and theological case for covenant infant baptism. Contributors include: Gregg Strawbridge, Mark E. Ross, Cornelis P. Venema, Bryan Chapell, Joseph Pipa, Lyle D. Bierma, Dan Doriani, Jeffrey D. Niell, Peter J. Leithart, Joel R. Beeke, Richard L. Pratt, Douglas Wilson, Ray B. Lanning, Randy Booth, R. C. Sproul Jr., and Jonathan M. Watt. About the Author Gregg Strawbridge is pastor of All Saints' Presbyterian Church (CRE), in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, and director of an Internet audio library. He has taught college-level courses at several campuses and has written on a variety of issues related to theology, apologetics, and worship." "The place of children in the church is something of an enigma among Christians. Should the children of believers be regarded as part of the covenant community, with the privileges and responsibilities that accompany that status? Or are they simply unbelievers, like children in the non-Christian world? What promise does God give believing parents and their children? What was the place of children in the Old Testament, and how does that compare with their position in the New?
My arguments here should be a lot clearer after the mail arrives. 8~)
And your tag is GREAT! 8~)
We say "I trust God that my child is a member of His family."
That sounds gnostic. Seems to be a lot of that (especially lately).
In context, 2 Timothy is referring to the writings that Timothy read as a youth. That would be the Old Testament, wouldn't you agree? Here is what Barnes writes about this verse: ...
HA! Trying to use my own commentary against me, eh? That's no fair! :) Well, in this case I happen to disagree with Barnes, that is, if his overall belief was that scripture itself does not support that all was God-breathed (I don't know). No, in this case I will agree with such unimpeachable sources as:
The Council of the Vatican (1869-1870): They determined: "The books of the Old and New Testament, whole and entire, with all their parts, as enumerated in the decree of the same Council [Trent] and in the ancient Latin Vulgate, are to be received as sacred and canonical. And the Church holds them as sacred and canonical not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without errors, but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their Author."
Pope Leo XIII (1893): excerpt from encyclical letter "Providentissimus Deus" : "For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Spirit; and so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church..."
It was interesting in looking this up because I found that some Catholics believe exactly as I do, that every word of the scripture is inerrant and exactly as God wished. But there are other Catholics who believe that the Bible is only inerrant concerning the "big stuff" (limited inerrancy), and is otherwise filled with errors. I didn't know that.
So, it appears that we may both agree on inerrancy, but we would disagree as to why it is true. I believe that inerrancy is self-evident not only because of some verses, but that it can also be inferred from the scriptures for reasons such as Jesus' recognition of them as inerrant. He quotes from them, and wouldn't change a word, etc. Also, there is fulfilled prophecy.
God has given us a pillar and foundation for knowing the truth, and it is not our own minds "interpreting" what the "spirit" tells us. Such an idea disagrees with Protestant anthropology of the totally corrupt man who cannot think of anything good.
But you are talking about a lost person. In that case, you would be right, the Truth is nonsense to a lost person. However, once the Spirit indwells, then growth is possible. God promises that it will happen, so that's how we can know the Truth.
Sorry, Sola Scriptura is offensive and is not found anywhere in the Bible. I have asked this question to many Protestants, including you, and have not received a satisfactory answer from even ONE verse.
I wouldn't expect you to take scripture verses as a satisfactory answer. Your Church has substituted scripture verses with the will of men. In many cases they conflict. I would have to convince you that what the men of your Church want the scriptures to mean (for whatever reasons) is wrong, and I know that's not happening. :)
Nothing new was added to the Scriptures. The writings only address what was already taught. For example, from the NIV: For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. 2 Cor 1:13
OK, great. Then why in the world do you argue against perspicuity of scriptures?
The writings were based on what Paul had ALREADY taught, but NOWHERE do we get the indication that EVERYTHING was written down in what we now call Scriptures.
That's right, and John says as much. Sola Scriptura is also fine with this since it says that the Bible only gives us everything we NEED to know, not everything there IS to know.
Yes, the Scripture became authority for God's chosen. Which tells us that the Scripture is not self-authenticating. If they were, then men would have no choice but to follow them.
God's chosen DO have no choice but to follow them:
Phil 2:13 : ... for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read Paradise Lost or not, but it is a magnificent work. The scene where God hurls Lucifer and his band of demons to hell is so masterfully done. And the dialogue between Lucifer and Beelzebub shows the latter sort of arguing with Lucifer’s contention that reigning in hell is better than serving in heaven.
I love the memory of my baptism. And my godmother was very faithful even though she lived 6,000 miles a way. She took her responsibility seriously.
Here's a little food for thought from Paul Owen, Anglican, me thinks:
From Calvin's Exposition of the Heads of Agreement in the Consensus Tigurinus:“We next proceed to say [in the Consensus] that the effect of the spiritual blessings which the sacraments figure, is given to believers without the use of the sacraments. As this is daily experienced to be true, and is proved by passages of Scripture, it is strange if any are displeased with it [Note: Calvin has some Lutherans in mind here]. When martyrs shut up in prison CANNOT take the external sign, shall we say that those in whom Christ is triumphantly magnified are without Christ? Nor can anyone altogether devoid of Christ make a due approach to the Supper [i.e., they get the sign, but not the thing signified]. The reality of baptism was not wanting to Cornelius, who, previous to the washing of water, had been sprinkled with the Holy Spirit, just as Moses was not devoid of the divine unction, of which he communicated the sign to others, though he himself never received it. By thus teaching, we by no means intend that we are to lay aside the use of the signs, and be contented with secret inspirations. Although the Lord OCCASIONALLY, TO PROVE THAT HIS VIRTUE IS NOT TIED TO ANY MEANS, performs without sign what he represents by sign, it does not follow that we are to cast away anything which he ordained for our salvation, as if it were superfluous. Far less will this be lawful for us, whose faith ought to be intent on his word and seals. For it has been truly said by Augustine, that although God sanctifies whom he pleases without the visible sign, yet whoso contemns the sign is justly deprived of invisible sanctification.”
That last sentence is crucial. God is not bound by the word and the sacraments–but we ARE. God can bestow salvation on a person without baptism, but according to Augustine and Calvin, a person who seeks salvation without baptism will not be saved. Saving faith looks to the blessings which God offers to us in his word, and bestows upon us through the sacraments. This is entirely consistent with Calvin’s statements throughout this Exposition of the Heads of Agreement.
“[T]he sacraments are neither empty figures nor mere external badges of piety, but seals of the divine promises . . . they are instruments by which God acts effectually in his elect . . . although they are signs distinct from the things signified, they are neither disjoined nor separated from them.”
“It is asked [by the Lutherans] what is the efficacy of the sacraments? . . . we deny not that they are part of that power which God exerts for our salvation, and that the ministry of our reconciliation with God is also contained in them.”
“[B]y distinguishing between the signs and the things signified, we disjoin not the reality from the signs, but confess that all who by faith embrace THE PROMISES THERE OFFERED receive Christ spiritually, with all his gifts.” [T]hey [i.e., the sacraments] are not only badges of all the blessings which God once exhibited to us in Christ, and which we receive every day, but . . . THE EFFICACY OF THE SPIRIT IS CONJOINED WITH THEIR OUTWARD REPRESENTATION, lest they should be empty pictures.”
Finally, in a letter to the pastors of Zurich, Calvin, commenting on the criticisms of the Lutheran party against the Reformed teachings, writes:
“I pray you, do we leave nothing but empty signs when we affirm that what is figured is AT THE SAME TIME given, and that the effect takes place?”
My sense is that your statement is profoundly true.
At least within the "parameters" of four-dimensional spacetime reality, body and soul are indivisible. And I expect beyond our spacetime reality, body-soul relations will persist and be found valid and true: The Holy Scriptures speak of "risen" bodies, by implication bodies not subject to space-time categories.
But we need to consult with hosepipe about such abstruse matters....
Why not, betty boop? It wasn't the body that sinned in Adam, but his will.
Yes, but Vatican 1 was 1800 years after Paul wrote to Timothy. Vatican 1 was a recognition of what Paul wrote, but there was no New Testament when Paul wrote to Timothy, just a bunch of different collections of a few Christian letters floating around. Scripture, to Paul, referred to the OT - in Timothy's case, the Septuagint.
It was interesting in looking this up because I found that some Catholics believe exactly as I do, that every word of the scripture is inerrant and exactly as God wished. But there are other Catholics who believe that the Bible is only inerrant concerning the "big stuff" (limited inerrancy), and is otherwise filled with errors. I didn't know that.
The Church teaches that the Bible is inerrant. However, that does NOT mean that the Bible literally tells us historical information in every case. Parables and fictional tales MAY exist in the Bible - and it is STILL considered inerrant. We have discussed this once before. Something is inerrant based on the author's INTENT. Everything that GOD INTENDS is inerrant.
But you are talking about a lost person. In that case, you would be right, the Truth is nonsense to a lost person. However, once the Spirit indwells, then growth is possible. God promises that it will happen, so that's how we can know the Truth.
So apparently, there are many truths now, some diametrically opposed... Where does the Spirit guarantee that every individual will be shown the full truth that God has revealed? God guarantees this truth to the Church as a Body, not as an individual.
OK, great. Then why in the world do you argue against perspicuity of scriptures?
Why in the world are there so many denominations of Protestantism, all claiming to be 'Spirit-led'? What gives?
That's right, and John says as much. Sola Scriptura is also fine with this since it says that the Bible only gives us everything we NEED to know, not everything there IS to know.
That is a matter of opinion. The Bible doesn't even make THAT statement - that it tells us EVERYTHING we need to know.
God's chosen DO have no choice but to follow them: Phil 2:13 : ... for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.
Where does that say that the "saved" have no choice but to follow God? It only says that God works in us the will to act according to His purpose, not that our will is totally destroyed.
Regards
(Clipping fingernails)
If life is God in some form, say breath, then the living carrot I just ate is transubstantiation..
Sounds like anamism .. i.e. my brother the buffalo, sister the grass, cousin the bird..
Could even be cannibalism.. Muslims do not like pork because Islam forbids cannibalism..
It's time to study Gen 2:7 over and over (avoid KJV fraud) until you begin to uderstand it, hosepipe. :)
Actually the Book of Genesis is what caused me to think we had a spirit or really "were" spirits riding the vehicle(body) God created for us and the metaphor of "breathing into us" was code for adding the spirit to the body suit... Its all about the metaphor..
The Bible really is all about code/metaphor.. Jesus spoke in metaphor(usually) as did God(Jesus, Father, Holy Spirit) in the old testament.. Jesus existed long before Mary was even born.. You miss the "metaphor" you miss the "message".. You take the literal you gloss over the hidden meaning which is not hidden.. Spirits speak metaphor..
You look into the mirror what you see is not you, thats your transportation.. mere flesh.. casket fodder.. The spirit, your spirit, who you are, is looking back at you thru your eyes(metaphorically)..
Thats NOT gnostic.. The gnostics were/Are too caught up in fatalism and Flesh.. what they called spirit is soul as do every other religion including christian ones..
The truth is its not what you believe its whom you Are that counts.. for "You MUST be born again"- Jesus.. Therefore you can be a heretic and still be born again.. yes even a gnostic.. Family is family, funny beliefs are just mental flesh games.. the human brain is flesh you see.. No casket ever buried has a spirit in it.. because thats what baptism is, a burial.. Where the "old man" is symbolically(metaphorically) buried..
Are you deliberately being dishonest or just obtuse?
Did I say one can be saved with a 'dead' faith?
No, I said that one can still be saved even though one has a 'dead faith'.
Thus, one was saved with a live faith and 'born again'.
If that individual doesn't yield to the Holy Spirit (Rom.6), that faith will die and that individual will not produce fruit.
He remains a saved person, however, since he is one with Christ (Eph.5) and sealed by the Holy Spirit (Eph.4:30)
And as 2Tim.2:13 says very clearly, Christ will not reject one who has a 'dead' faith, once that person has received Him as His personal saviour.
As for the Orthodox faith being a dead Church, that is true since they do not preach the correct Gospel of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone.
And that goes for the RCC as well.
Paul placed an 'anathema' on anyone, including an angel from heaven who taught any other Gospel than salvation by grace through faith and not of works.
You are fit to be made fun of. Certainly not to be taken seriously. Don't waste my time anymore.
It is you who are wasting my time with your ignorance of the various views of sanctification.
In all of the posts put forth by the Romanists and Orthodox you will note one thing lacking, the ability to handle scripture.
And like any Cultist, you ignore that which is inconvenient with your religious system, which is supported by a few select proof text, wrested out of context.
If you cannot handle religious issues, than you ought not to trying to put forth the Romanist view, which is a false one.
It is only funny to those who mock scripture.
(Pr.13:13)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.