CatholicSteve,
I believe you are in error. Abraham was justified by faith "from first to last":
Romans 1:17 (NIV)For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
When Abraham was obedient to God's command to sacrifice Isaac his actions had the meaning of faith, the exact same faith that justified him in the first instance. Actions have meaning, just as Jesus observed regarding the men who lowered the man down through the roof to be healed. Jesus saw their behavior and denominated it as "faith".
There is not one word in scripture that indicates Abraham's faith prior to the time on Mountain in Moriah was inadequate in any way.
You would have done well to have "passed this one up".
God is green
Past/Present/Future justification
Dear Forum Readers,
Christ's Peace. It appears that some non-labeled Christians have never read my past posts or ignore them as ludicrous so they can't remember them. Abraham's justification was discussed already in previous posts as Past-Present-Future, but I will do it again for those who may never have heard/believed only one part of scripture.
Some people are surprised because they never think about salvation except only a future tense, such as Catholics will often do. Basically, something that is yet to happen. For that reason, when a Protestant says "Have you been born again" it can sound crazy to something that a Catholic thinks is supposed to happen in the future. Yet, this sounds quite normal to many non-labeled Christians and Protestants because they tend to conceive of salvation as a past event, something that happens to the believer at the very beginning of their Christian life.
In this passage: "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph 2:5) we can see salvation is presented in the past tense, something that has been done to us, it is conceiving of salvation as a past reality. But this is only one aspect of salvation. There is also an additional moving aspect to salvation, indicated here in this passage: " . . . Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving . . . the salvation of your souls." (1Pe 1:9). There is also the same idea of salvation as something that is taking place in the present found written by Paul: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12)
Biblical salvation shows itself in additional passages: "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Romans 13:11), "If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1Corinthians 3:15), " . . . deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Corinthians 5:5). All these verses all speak of salvation in the future tense, as something that will happen to us in the future. Therefore, salvation has past, present, and future dimension to it.
Therefore, if salvation has scriptural past, present, and future dimensions, we would say something like, "Salvation is a process which begins when a person first becomes a Christian, which continues through the rest of their life, and which concludes on the Last Day." This definition allows the faithful Christian to do justice to all of the scriptural passages by saying, "I have been saved; I am being saved; and I will be saved." It embraces all three aspects of salvation which are present in scripture.
So is there any scriptural person that has been justified past, present and future? How about Abraham? Would that be good enough for you? A classic OT passage on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). This passage very clearly teaches that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning his descendants as being as many as "the stars in the sky".
Therefore, if justification is a once-for-all event (non-labeled and Protestant position), rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. That creates a small problem because Scripture indicates otherwise. First, Hebrews tells us "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8). If you would argue that Hebrews 11 was not a "saving faith" then you would certainly be in the minority of believers.
Therefore, when did Abraham have this "saving faith"? Heb 11:8 tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go..." Abraham had this "saving faith" when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive. The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4 three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.
But if Abraham had "saving faith" back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event. Just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, as found in the book of James: "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)
James thus tells us "was not our ancestor Abraham justified . . . when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Abraham did receive justification, unfortunately the problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18 seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.
Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar. As a result, justification is not a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life. In fact, it is even a process which extends beyond the believer's life.
But, I digress because this is simply a repeat of an earlier post. I will continue with the thread about earliest Christian writings related to Infant Baptism. I don't want to shotgun these topics but this caught my attention especially when I read "You would have done well to have "passed this one up". Well, I did not "pass this one up". If you want to start another thread then please start another thread maybe titled "Multiple salvations?" and everyone can join in. Hopefully, I can get to early Christians and Infant Baptism tomorrow.
Peace out, Catholic Steve
Christ's Peace. It appears that some non-labeled Christians have never read my past posts or ignore them as ludicrous so they can't remember them. Abraham's justification was discussed already in previous posts as Past-Present-Future, but I will do it again for those who may never have heard/believed only one part of scripture.
Some people are surprised because they never think about salvation except only a future tense, such as Catholics will often do. Basically, something that is yet to happen. For that reason, when a Protestant says "Have you been born again" it can sound crazy to something that a Catholic thinks is supposed to happen in the future. Yet, this sounds quite normal to many non-labeled Christians and Protestants because they tend to conceive of salvation as a past event, something that happens to the believer at the very beginning of their Christian life.
In this passage: "even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)" (Eph 2:5) we can see salvation is presented in the past tense, something that has been done to us, it is conceiving of salvation as a past reality. But this is only one aspect of salvation. There is also an additional moving aspect to salvation, indicated here in this passage: " . . . Though now you do not see Him, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory, receiving . . . the salvation of your souls." (1Pe 1:9). There is also the same idea of salvation as something that is taking place in the present found written by Paul: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Philippians 2:12)
Biblical salvation shows itself in additional passages: "And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Romans 13:11), "If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1Corinthians 3:15), " . . . deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Corinthians 5:5). All these verses all speak of salvation in the future tense, as something that will happen to us in the future. Therefore, salvation has past, present, and future dimension to it.
Therefore, if salvation has scriptural past, present, and future dimensions, we would say something like, "Salvation is a process which begins when a person first becomes a Christian, which continues through the rest of their life, and which concludes on the Last Day." This definition allows the faithful Christian to do justice to all of the scriptural passages by saying, "I have been saved; I am being saved; and I will be saved." It embraces all three aspects of salvation which are present in scripture.
So is there any scriptural person that has been justified past, present and future? How about Abraham? Would that be good enough for you? A classic OT passage on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham "believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom. 4:3). This passage very clearly teaches that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning his descendants as being as many as "the stars in the sky".
Therefore, if justification is a once-for-all event (non-labeled and Protestant position), rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. That creates a small problem because Scripture indicates otherwise. First, Hebrews tells us "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8). If you would argue that Hebrews 11 was not a "saving faith" then you would certainly be in the minority of believers.
Therefore, when did Abraham have this "saving faith"? Heb 11:8 tells us that "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go..." Abraham had this "saving faith" when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive. The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4 three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.
But if Abraham had "saving faith" back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event. Just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, as found in the book of James: "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)
James thus tells us "was not our ancestor Abraham justified . . . when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.
Abraham did receive justification, unfortunately the problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18 seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.
Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar. As a result, justification is not a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life. In fact, it is even a process which extends beyond the believer's life.
But, I digress because this is simply a repeat of an earlier post. I will continue with the thread about earliest Christian writings related to Infant Baptism. I don't want to shotgun these topics but this caught my attention especially when I read "You would have done well to have "passed this one up". Well, I did not "pass this one up". If you want to start another thread then please start another thread maybe titled "Multiple salvations?" and everyone can join in. Hopefully, I can get to early Christians and Infant Baptism tomorrow.
Peace out, Catholic Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
early Christian writings on Infant Baptism
Dear Forum Readers,
I was asked to show the early Christians belief in Infant Baptism and in doing so tied that in with scripture. What do I get back? Stuff like …. “And, predictably….all of your earliest examples don't even mention infant baptism.” Excuse me? Let me give a quick review.
Irenaeus …. “ …Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).
Hippolytus of Rome …. “… Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Cyprian ….. “ …. and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant” ….. As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth…. Grace of God ought to be denied to no man born … For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" " (Letter to Fidus 64:2 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Carthage …. “Statement from this Council condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth.
Gregory of Nazianz …. “Do you have an infant child? …. let the infant be sanctified from childhood ….. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 381]).
Augustine …. “What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament [baptism]may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants …”(Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“….a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letter to Jerome 166:8:23 [A.D. 415]).
"The Church has always baptized children…... Infant baptism is a practice which is in harmony with the very firm and ancient Faith of the Church."
Gregory Dialogus …. “shall we baptize them [children] too?' Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid. 40:28).
Ambrose… [Regarding Baptism] “ ….No one is excepted, not [even] the infant." (On Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]).
So let’s see, forum readers …. From 180AD into 400AD we have the earliest Christian writing instructing us to baptize infants, to take the sacrament [baptism] to infants, it is a practice, to sanctify the infants with baptism…etc, yet only I see this? Did anyone read the post quotations? Is the anti-Catholic Christian hatred so deep that one can not see it through the scales over their eyes? Unfortunately for non-believers in Infant baptism the Christian writings only get greater and greater.
As for Tertullian (200 AD), one of the non-labeled Christians quoted him well. The context that Tertullian was writing about was how some of the earliest heretical quasi-Christian sects were simply baptizing infants without bringing them to God without the faith of the parents. The non-labeled Christian’s point is taken well, because if there is no faith, whether from the adult parents in lieu of the infant (just like the faith of others impressed Jesus so much he healed, cast out demons, raised the dead and even removed sin. To quote a recent non-labeled Christian post “Actions have meaning, just as Jesus observed regarding the men who lowered the man down through the roof to be healed. Jesus saw their behavior and denominated it as "faith") or the adult who comes with no faith (maybe just peer pressure) than there is no authentic baptism, merely a sham. Then again, God can see through that and He can discern as He needs to.
So Tertullian was a good try, but again, there must be even more, just gobs and gobs of anti-infant baptism writings by the early Christian Church out there if this was such a distasteful practice. Unfortunately, it just ain’t there. The Church (pillar and foundation of truth) has always supported Infant Baptism while many Christian.
Blessings be to you, Thomas, your family and your 2 day old son. May he be with God as the Catholic Christian Church believes. As a dentist, I review health histories daily and come across women regularly that have had miscarriages. During those times of miscarriage discussion, I felt sorry, but I never FELT their sorrow. That was until several years ago. My wife and I lost a baby in miscarriage. When my wife came out from the doctor to tell me what was happening I cried like a baby. I have no real conception of what it is like to lose a baby you held, but after my experience I am truly a little closer to what you must have gone through (still do?). As much as your theological position appears non-nonsensical to me, I will pray for you, your family and son tonight. May angels embrace you all.
Catholic Steve
I was asked to show the early Christians belief in Infant Baptism and in doing so tied that in with scripture. What do I get back? Stuff like …. “And, predictably….all of your earliest examples don't even mention infant baptism.” Excuse me? Let me give a quick review.
Irenaeus …. “ …Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things” (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]).
Hippolytus of Rome …. “… Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).
Cyprian ….. “ …. and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant” ….. As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth…. Grace of God ought to be denied to no man born … For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" " (Letter to Fidus 64:2 [A.D. 251]).
Council of Carthage …. “Statement from this Council condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after birth.
Gregory of Nazianz …. “Do you have an infant child? …. let the infant be sanctified from childhood ….. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!" (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 381]).
Augustine …. “What the universal Church holds, not as instituted [invented] by councils but as something always held, is most correctly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Since others respond for children, so that the celebration of the sacrament [baptism]may be complete for them, it is certainly availing to them for their consecration, because they themselves are not able to respond" (On Baptism 4:24:31 [A.D. 400]).
“The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants …”(Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
“….a child is able to be duly baptized as soon as he is born" (Letter to Jerome 166:8:23 [A.D. 415]).
"The Church has always baptized children…... Infant baptism is a practice which is in harmony with the very firm and ancient Faith of the Church."
Gregory Dialogus …. “shall we baptize them [children] too?' Certainly , if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated" (ibid. 40:28).
Ambrose… [Regarding Baptism] “ ….No one is excepted, not [even] the infant." (On Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387]).
So let’s see, forum readers …. From 180AD into 400AD we have the earliest Christian writing instructing us to baptize infants, to take the sacrament [baptism] to infants, it is a practice, to sanctify the infants with baptism…etc, yet only I see this? Did anyone read the post quotations? Is the anti-Catholic Christian hatred so deep that one can not see it through the scales over their eyes? Unfortunately for non-believers in Infant baptism the Christian writings only get greater and greater.
As for Tertullian (200 AD), one of the non-labeled Christians quoted him well. The context that Tertullian was writing about was how some of the earliest heretical quasi-Christian sects were simply baptizing infants without bringing them to God without the faith of the parents. The non-labeled Christian’s point is taken well, because if there is no faith, whether from the adult parents in lieu of the infant (just like the faith of others impressed Jesus so much he healed, cast out demons, raised the dead and even removed sin. To quote a recent non-labeled Christian post “Actions have meaning, just as Jesus observed regarding the men who lowered the man down through the roof to be healed. Jesus saw their behavior and denominated it as "faith") or the adult who comes with no faith (maybe just peer pressure) than there is no authentic baptism, merely a sham. Then again, God can see through that and He can discern as He needs to.
So Tertullian was a good try, but again, there must be even more, just gobs and gobs of anti-infant baptism writings by the early Christian Church out there if this was such a distasteful practice. Unfortunately, it just ain’t there. The Church (pillar and foundation of truth) has always supported Infant Baptism while many Christian.
Blessings be to you, Thomas, your family and your 2 day old son. May he be with God as the Catholic Christian Church believes. As a dentist, I review health histories daily and come across women regularly that have had miscarriages. During those times of miscarriage discussion, I felt sorry, but I never FELT their sorrow. That was until several years ago. My wife and I lost a baby in miscarriage. When my wife came out from the doctor to tell me what was happening I cried like a baby. I have no real conception of what it is like to lose a baby you held, but after my experience I am truly a little closer to what you must have gone through (still do?). As much as your theological position appears non-nonsensical to me, I will pray for you, your family and son tonight. May angels embrace you all.
Catholic Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Infant baptism and pride
Dear Forum Readers,
My thoughts were provoked by two earlier posts. One was about a Protestant father, Thomas, that lost his son at two days. The other was from a non-labeled Christian who questioned baptizing infants with his statement “If an infant who is unbaptized does not go to Hell, it begs the question, "Then why bother baptizing infants?"
This reminds me of the atheist arguing with the believing Christian about the existence of God. The atheist is basically right, we have never seen God. It is a step of faith of the Christian. Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, is merely history to an atheist, so God is a pretty ambiguous thing to the atheist. The Christian argues the point that “what do you [atheist] have to lose if you believe in Jesus and turn your life over to Him”? If you die and there is no God, then you were right and lost nothing. If you die and then there is a God, you have gained EVERYTHING. It is a wonderful and confounding argument to the atheist. Unfortunately, pride usually clouds the atheist’s spiritual reason and he may never come to the table set for him.
This reminded me of what Thomas said about Infant Baptism. Even though he questioned many aspects of the practice he said this about his own children “….In that I cannot prove [infant baptism] ,with absolute certainty , which view is the correct one , I chose to play it safe and baptize my daughter as an infant.” Wow. Thomas takes and embraces the atheist-Christian argument (above) but relates it to Infant Baptism.
What does Thomas have to lose? Nothing. If Infant Baptism is a sham then his daughter loses nothing. If Infant Baptism is right she gains EVERYTHING.
The non-labeled Christian’s position of infant death and no hell is slightly wrong from a Catholic Christian view because this is where Limbo comes from. The earthly Catholic Christian Church simply does not know with certainty what happens with the scenario that he presented. We hope and pray that God is a merciful God, but no one really knows what happens. Therefore, when Thomas baptized his daughter he wants “…to play it safe and baptize my daughter…”. It appears that Thomas has truly embraced Christianity and put pride aside so as not to cloud his spiritual reason.
My hat is off to you, Thomas. I can not say that I have always reached that level of spiritual reason. Very good!
Catholic Steve
My thoughts were provoked by two earlier posts. One was about a Protestant father, Thomas, that lost his son at two days. The other was from a non-labeled Christian who questioned baptizing infants with his statement “If an infant who is unbaptized does not go to Hell, it begs the question, "Then why bother baptizing infants?"
This reminds me of the atheist arguing with the believing Christian about the existence of God. The atheist is basically right, we have never seen God. It is a step of faith of the Christian. Jesus, the second part of the Trinity, is merely history to an atheist, so God is a pretty ambiguous thing to the atheist. The Christian argues the point that “what do you [atheist] have to lose if you believe in Jesus and turn your life over to Him”? If you die and there is no God, then you were right and lost nothing. If you die and then there is a God, you have gained EVERYTHING. It is a wonderful and confounding argument to the atheist. Unfortunately, pride usually clouds the atheist’s spiritual reason and he may never come to the table set for him.
This reminded me of what Thomas said about Infant Baptism. Even though he questioned many aspects of the practice he said this about his own children “….In that I cannot prove [infant baptism] ,with absolute certainty , which view is the correct one , I chose to play it safe and baptize my daughter as an infant.” Wow. Thomas takes and embraces the atheist-Christian argument (above) but relates it to Infant Baptism.
What does Thomas have to lose? Nothing. If Infant Baptism is a sham then his daughter loses nothing. If Infant Baptism is right she gains EVERYTHING.
The non-labeled Christian’s position of infant death and no hell is slightly wrong from a Catholic Christian view because this is where Limbo comes from. The earthly Catholic Christian Church simply does not know with certainty what happens with the scenario that he presented. We hope and pray that God is a merciful God, but no one really knows what happens. Therefore, when Thomas baptized his daughter he wants “…to play it safe and baptize my daughter…”. It appears that Thomas has truly embraced Christianity and put pride aside so as not to cloud his spiritual reason.
My hat is off to you, Thomas. I can not say that I have always reached that level of spiritual reason. Very good!
Catholic Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
CatholicSteve,
You wrote:
And you wrote:
Consider Romans 5:1-2 (New King James Version):
1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2. through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
I believe we are justified by faith, and remain justified as long as we continue in this faith. Faith includes belief of the Gospel testimony, trust, and faithfulness, although our faithfulness will not be perfect in this life; we are being perfected which will be completed when Christ returns.
The Greek word dikaioo, translated "justified", means to show or regard as innocent. If what you mean is that at one point a person may be declared justified by God and on another time may be shown, by his actions, to be a justified person, then we have no disagreement.
As I understand it, the official Catholic position is we are justified by a combination of faith and works. The Arminian and Calvinist believe we are justified by faith, and works are evidentiary, i.e. a demonstration of faith, while the Baptist position is that faith and works are not necessarily connected (or that one may remain "saved" regardless of their works). Perhaps you can clarify just what your position is regarding justification. I, for one, am not sure what it is.
You wrote:
Surprise! I agree with this statement. However I am puzzled by this statement:Therefore, if salvation has scriptural past, present, and future dimensions, we would say something like, "Salvation is a process which begins when a person first becomes a Christian, which continues through the rest of their life, and which concludes on the Last Day." This definition allows the faithful Christian to do justice to all of the scriptural passages by saying, "I have been saved; I am being saved; and I will be saved." It embraces all three aspects of salvation which are present in scripture.
I think you confuse the position of many of us with that of the "once saved, always saved", who are typically Baptist.Therefore, if justification is a once-for-all event (non-labeled and Protestant position), rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6.
And you wrote:
Are you saying that these are three separate justifications, as though Abraham was not justified in between them, or became unjustified?
But if Abraham had "saving faith" back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event. Just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, as found in the book of James: "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)
Consider Romans 5:1-2 (New King James Version):
1. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2. through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
I believe we are justified by faith, and remain justified as long as we continue in this faith. Faith includes belief of the Gospel testimony, trust, and faithfulness, although our faithfulness will not be perfect in this life; we are being perfected which will be completed when Christ returns.
The Greek word dikaioo, translated "justified", means to show or regard as innocent. If what you mean is that at one point a person may be declared justified by God and on another time may be shown, by his actions, to be a justified person, then we have no disagreement.
As I understand it, the official Catholic position is we are justified by a combination of faith and works. The Arminian and Calvinist believe we are justified by faith, and works are evidentiary, i.e. a demonstration of faith, while the Baptist position is that faith and works are not necessarily connected (or that one may remain "saved" regardless of their works). Perhaps you can clarify just what your position is regarding justification. I, for one, am not sure what it is.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Oh, I've got a'feeling
"As I understand it, the official Catholic position"
Got a citation/reference/catechism page or #for that, or just a feeling from what you've heard over the years?
Peace, Catholic Steve
Got a citation/reference/catechism page or #for that, or just a feeling from what you've heard over the years?
Peace, Catholic Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
CatholicSteve:
As I understand your view , justification and sanctification are linked together as a process. It was the reformation which separated these two concepts , and is the major source of our differences. Not surprising as sanctification is the essence of Christian life.
We begin in the same place , with baptism. This is a pure act of God and is the original justification. In so much as justification is the declaration by God of your righteousness. Theologically justification and forgiveness being the same. Therefore one loses justification by sin and must be constantly rejustified , i.e. forgiven anew. Since Abraham was a undoubtedly a sinner he would have been justified on more than one occasion.
As Homer pointed out:
We begin to part ways when it comes to the method of obtaining justification.It is my understanding that Catholics link together repentance , penance and charity , as a whole , in obtaining forgiveness. Whereas , I would let repentance stand alone. Repentance defined as:
"Repentance is more than a change of mind or feeling sorry for one's sins. It is a radical and deliberate turning or returning to God that results in moral and ethical change and action”
The end result being the same , but one is a cause and the other an effect of justification. Both of us would be skeptical of a claim of faith without evidence of good works.
I do not intend to get this thread off into another subject , other than baptism. Justification and Sanctification deserve a thread of their own.
Thomas
As I understand your view , justification and sanctification are linked together as a process. It was the reformation which separated these two concepts , and is the major source of our differences. Not surprising as sanctification is the essence of Christian life.
We begin in the same place , with baptism. This is a pure act of God and is the original justification. In so much as justification is the declaration by God of your righteousness. Theologically justification and forgiveness being the same. Therefore one loses justification by sin and must be constantly rejustified , i.e. forgiven anew. Since Abraham was a undoubtedly a sinner he would have been justified on more than one occasion.
As Homer pointed out:
As an infant we are innocent. As we sin we are no longer innocent and are again in need of this declaration from God.The Greek word dikaioo, translated "justified", means to show or regard as innocent.
We begin to part ways when it comes to the method of obtaining justification.It is my understanding that Catholics link together repentance , penance and charity , as a whole , in obtaining forgiveness. Whereas , I would let repentance stand alone. Repentance defined as:
"Repentance is more than a change of mind or feeling sorry for one's sins. It is a radical and deliberate turning or returning to God that results in moral and ethical change and action”
The end result being the same , but one is a cause and the other an effect of justification. Both of us would be skeptical of a claim of faith without evidence of good works.
I do not intend to get this thread off into another subject , other than baptism. Justification and Sanctification deserve a thread of their own.
Thomas
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
justification and Infant Baptism
My dear non-labeled Christian,
Where did I say “that these are three separate justifications”? I said “Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions [per scriptural references]. The Bible simply shows us three times that Abraham was justified, ie, a process.
What I said next was “As a result, justification is not a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life”. Justification is a process. There are no bang-bang-boom time(s) when this happens. It happens seamlessly throughout a Christians life. Many labeled Protestant Christians believe that justification occurs once when you have a “born-again” experience, but since some on this site are non-labeled Christians it is nearly impossible to get a reference point on their Christian doctrine. You said “I think you confuse the position of many of us with that of the "once saved, always saved", who are typically Baptist.”. I would have to disagree with you on that. A great majority (not just Baptist) of Protestants believe in “once saved, always saved”.
What you said was “There is not one word in scripture that indicates Abraham's faith prior to the time on Mountain in Moriah was inadequate in any way.” Who said Abraham’s faith was inadequate? I simply stated that he was justified [by faith] three separate times in the Bible … scriptural past, scriptural present and scriptural future. As a matter of fact, in scripture it appears that God felt his faith was quite adequate.
I like Thomas’ thoughts in your last post, 2nd paragraph. As for “Catholics link together repentance , penance and charity , as a whole , in obtaining forgiveness.”, I will try to look that up in the Catechism. I will agree that all three of those virtues are so closely related that at times they may be hard to separate.
I too, will try to keep us on thread. So is there anymore disagreement here that some significant early writings does exist about the Catholic Christian position related to Infant Baptism and that there appears to be very little early Christian writings against Infant Baptism?
Peace out, Catholic Steve
Where did I say “that these are three separate justifications”? I said “Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions [per scriptural references]. The Bible simply shows us three times that Abraham was justified, ie, a process.
What I said next was “As a result, justification is not a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer's life”. Justification is a process. There are no bang-bang-boom time(s) when this happens. It happens seamlessly throughout a Christians life. Many labeled Protestant Christians believe that justification occurs once when you have a “born-again” experience, but since some on this site are non-labeled Christians it is nearly impossible to get a reference point on their Christian doctrine. You said “I think you confuse the position of many of us with that of the "once saved, always saved", who are typically Baptist.”. I would have to disagree with you on that. A great majority (not just Baptist) of Protestants believe in “once saved, always saved”.
What you said was “There is not one word in scripture that indicates Abraham's faith prior to the time on Mountain in Moriah was inadequate in any way.” Who said Abraham’s faith was inadequate? I simply stated that he was justified [by faith] three separate times in the Bible … scriptural past, scriptural present and scriptural future. As a matter of fact, in scripture it appears that God felt his faith was quite adequate.
I like Thomas’ thoughts in your last post, 2nd paragraph. As for “Catholics link together repentance , penance and charity , as a whole , in obtaining forgiveness.”, I will try to look that up in the Catechism. I will agree that all three of those virtues are so closely related that at times they may be hard to separate.
I too, will try to keep us on thread. So is there anymore disagreement here that some significant early writings does exist about the Catholic Christian position related to Infant Baptism and that there appears to be very little early Christian writings against Infant Baptism?
Peace out, Catholic Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Mort_Coyle
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:28 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Hi Thomas,
Thanks for your reply of a few days ago. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I haven't been online the last few days.
I appreciate your thoughts and wanted to respond to some of them:
Faith, as it is generally used in scripture, is indicated by one's actions. This is also consistent with Hebraic thought (see James 2:18). These actions are, of course, preceded by the intellectual exercise of making a determination to act.
I should also clarify my position regarding baptism as it relates to salvation. I believe in Universal Reconciliation; that is, I believe that the salvation of all of mankind was accomplished by Jesus. As such, there is no act, be it baptism, saying the sinner's prayer, or whatever, which can add to what He has already done.
CatholicSteve,
You asked:
How do you explain this?
Thanks for your reply of a few days ago. Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but I haven't been online the last few days.
I appreciate your thoughts and wanted to respond to some of them:
There are a few things that trouble me about this statement. The first is the apparent dualism between the intellect and the spirit/soul. This is a topic that has been discussed at length previously on this Forum, but suffice it to say that I believe that, in the first place, the idea of a conflict between the intellect and the spirit (or soul) is a false dichotomy and is actually a vestige of Platonic dualism. Secondly, in scripture "soul" refers to the entire person. You are a soul. The Hebraic view of man is that we are a unified being with an unseen part (sometimes referred to as "spirit") and a seen part (sometimes referred to as "flesh").The idea that a person must reach a certain stage of development before being able to have faith , turns salvation into an intellectual exercise. Salvation is neither an intellectual nor an emotional act. It is spiritual and comes from the soul. Intellect an emotion tend to fight against God. Gods action on the recipient of baptism works on the soul and , as such , is independent of the state of the recipient.
Faith, as it is generally used in scripture, is indicated by one's actions. This is also consistent with Hebraic thought (see James 2:18). These actions are, of course, preceded by the intellectual exercise of making a determination to act.
I should also clarify my position regarding baptism as it relates to salvation. I believe in Universal Reconciliation; that is, I believe that the salvation of all of mankind was accomplished by Jesus. As such, there is no act, be it baptism, saying the sinner's prayer, or whatever, which can add to what He has already done.
Good point. On the other hand, I think the axiom "You shall know them by their fruit" can also be applied to doctrine. A good doctrine, such as "Love your neighbor as yourself" does not bear bad fruit. A flawed doctrine inevitably does.Yes , and the idea that infant baptism is invalid has led to the forcible re-baptism of people. That the the idea can be abused , does not invalidate it.
I agree, although rather than the doctrine of Original Sin, I prefer the doctrine of Chronic Sin.My experience with people , both Christian and non-Christian , and their capacity for sin and evil , has left me convinced that there is a basic flaw within the human race. It is a flaw that cannot be corrected without the intervention of God.
This is a nice synopsis. I appreciate you pointing out the "unresolvable question between the mercy of God and the requirement of baptism". This is something which CatholicSteve has not had either the courage, honesty or wherewithall to admit. As I stated, I fall into the last category, which has it's own challenges.Augustine , in consigning the innocent to Hell , was being very literal in his reading of the scriptures. He did not consider the mercy of God toward the innocent. There is an unresolvable question between the mercy of God and the requirement of baptism.
Augustine placed them in Hell
Some Catholics proposed Limbo
Many call upon the mercy of God to save the innocent.
Some say there is no original sin
Thank you for sharing this personal story. I will reciprocate. My wife, when she was a young adult, got pregnant out of wedlock and had an abortion. She regretted it and spent many years racked with guilt. She eventually became a follower of Jesus. One morning, while in a time of prayer and worship before the Lord, the question popped into her mind, "What happened to my aborted baby?" She immediately heard the Lord's voice (one of the few times she has heard Him so clearly and unmistakedly). He said, "Don't worry, I have him and he's looking forward to meeting you." This gave her great comfort. She looks forward to the day when they will be reunited and she firmly believes that all is forgiven. I'm grateful, by the way, that she was not aware of the teaching of Augustine on the matter.I had a son die at 2 days of age , unbaptized , so I believe in the mercy of God. Actually had a Catholic priest assure my wife and I of his salvation. (18 yrs. ago) In that I cannot prove , with absolute certainty , which view is the correct one , I chose to play it safe and baptize my daughter as an infant.
Amen to that!There is a gap of 2 centuries between the Apostle and the church fathers. We do not know what the original church practiced for certain. There are unresolved problems with both views. The Bible is not definitive on this question anymore than it is on the question of salvation itself. (Calvin vs. Arminius vs. Luther etc.) On the good side , it causes us to study the Bible , church fathers , doctrine etc. in order to increase our understanding.
CatholicSteve,
You asked:
It's been established quite clearly that the earliest Christian writings about infant baptism are from around 200 A.D. Writings prior to that time, such as Justin Martyr and, of course, scripture itself, point to a requirement of belief before baptism, which would negate infant baptism.So is there anymore disagreement here that some significant early writings does exist about the Catholic Christian position related to Infant Baptism and that there appears to be very little early Christian writings against Infant Baptism?
How do you explain this?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
baby, oh baby ...Infant Baptism
Dear Forum Readers,
To all my non-labeled Christian Ad Hominem “purists”, can you see any “Ad Hominey” in post regarding me “…This is something which Catholic Steve has not had either the courage, honesty or where-with-all to admit”, or am I just “too sensitive”? I think I have been on this board fairly courageously and honestly unlike the where-with-all of others.
Wow (again). I gave early Christian writing that actually used the words of Infant Baptism or the same rhetoric for Infant Baptism from Irenaeus (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]) and onward. The text above Irenaeus is so huge in Christian Apologetics (not just Catholic) that it speaks beyond simply Infant Baptism, yet non-labeled Christians throw it out like a baby in the bath water.
Therefore, my dear non-labeled Christian, you did not see the date of 180AD with Irenaeus which would satisfy your 200AD minimum or will you change that now? I checked out some previous posts and could not find the resource/citation for Justin Martyr that you used so quickly. I am pretty sure which one you are talking about but I do not want to put words into your mouth. When you find it would you please underline/highlight the words INFANT BAPTISM and not just the word faith or belief?
There is still a great deal of silence regarding Christian anti-Infant Baptism after 200AD. After 200AD this was a period of numerous writings on the doctrine in regular Christian worship and practice. Can I turn that “Ad Hominey” back on you as to who has the real lack of courage, fortitude, metal and honesty to show me all this anti-Infant Baptism writings that would have surely occurred if there was true dissent? Surely it would have been impossible to keep quiet the non-labeled Christians of that time about the numerous heretical Christian doctrines that were being bantered about? We know this because of the Christian Apologetic writings that are well documented, therefore, where is the anti-Infant Baptism writings?
As you can see Forum Readers, it is not I that lacks courage and honesty. It would be a couple of non-labeled Christians on this site. It is they that lack courage. They that lack honesty. They that lack true metal.
As to the death of a baby prior to any baptism, my non-labeled Christian friend, did you read my posts? If so, then go back and re-read because it appears you read it with spiritual sunglasses. Did you read the analogy that I related with Thomas & his son and the Christian & atheist? What do you have to loose? Have you read the Catholic Catechism about this very topic you brought up? Go to Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/) and pull up their resources and then cut/paste (with citations so we can keep you honest) what you find for all the forum readers. The site, Catholic Goldmine has even more sources that you can jump on.
I encourage all the Forum Readers to go to these sites. You can investigate these and numerous other topics that take these non-sensical argument bullet-points and drop kicks them into the heavens. You don’t have to become a Catholic Christian, just a well-informed Protestant Christian so you will know why your Catholic Christians are just that….Catholic.
Christ’s Peace,
Catholic Steve
To all my non-labeled Christian Ad Hominem “purists”, can you see any “Ad Hominey” in post regarding me “…This is something which Catholic Steve has not had either the courage, honesty or where-with-all to admit”, or am I just “too sensitive”? I think I have been on this board fairly courageously and honestly unlike the where-with-all of others.
Wow (again). I gave early Christian writing that actually used the words of Infant Baptism or the same rhetoric for Infant Baptism from Irenaeus (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 180]) and onward. The text above Irenaeus is so huge in Christian Apologetics (not just Catholic) that it speaks beyond simply Infant Baptism, yet non-labeled Christians throw it out like a baby in the bath water.
Therefore, my dear non-labeled Christian, you did not see the date of 180AD with Irenaeus which would satisfy your 200AD minimum or will you change that now? I checked out some previous posts and could not find the resource/citation for Justin Martyr that you used so quickly. I am pretty sure which one you are talking about but I do not want to put words into your mouth. When you find it would you please underline/highlight the words INFANT BAPTISM and not just the word faith or belief?
There is still a great deal of silence regarding Christian anti-Infant Baptism after 200AD. After 200AD this was a period of numerous writings on the doctrine in regular Christian worship and practice. Can I turn that “Ad Hominey” back on you as to who has the real lack of courage, fortitude, metal and honesty to show me all this anti-Infant Baptism writings that would have surely occurred if there was true dissent? Surely it would have been impossible to keep quiet the non-labeled Christians of that time about the numerous heretical Christian doctrines that were being bantered about? We know this because of the Christian Apologetic writings that are well documented, therefore, where is the anti-Infant Baptism writings?
As you can see Forum Readers, it is not I that lacks courage and honesty. It would be a couple of non-labeled Christians on this site. It is they that lack courage. They that lack honesty. They that lack true metal.
As to the death of a baby prior to any baptism, my non-labeled Christian friend, did you read my posts? If so, then go back and re-read because it appears you read it with spiritual sunglasses. Did you read the analogy that I related with Thomas & his son and the Christian & atheist? What do you have to loose? Have you read the Catholic Catechism about this very topic you brought up? Go to Catholic Answers (http://www.catholic.com/) and pull up their resources and then cut/paste (with citations so we can keep you honest) what you find for all the forum readers. The site, Catholic Goldmine has even more sources that you can jump on.
I encourage all the Forum Readers to go to these sites. You can investigate these and numerous other topics that take these non-sensical argument bullet-points and drop kicks them into the heavens. You don’t have to become a Catholic Christian, just a well-informed Protestant Christian so you will know why your Catholic Christians are just that….Catholic.
Christ’s Peace,
Catholic Steve
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: