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.
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
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"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:
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...
"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...