Baptists Believe...

Christ dwells in the baptized believer by sanctifying grace, a share in the divine nature. Mortal sin makes the person lose sanctifying grace. Therefore, Jesus Christ no longer dwells in that soul. Jesus Christ didn't chose to break the relationship, the human person made that choice by choosing mortal sin over a relationship with Jesus.

This is all about relationship.

To be a Christian is to be in relationship with God. Heaven, eternal life, is union with God. To live there, one has to be in relationship with Him. Mortal sin breaks that union, that relationship. So no one in mortal sin can go to heaven.

Pauline

 

Pauline...

Doesn't your view violate John 10:28 ? I'll let you look it up.

It tells me that not even I could break this bond.

Respectfully.....Curtis

 

Ed, Thank you again for the information. I too will be studying more over the weeks ahead to get a better feel for the whole covenant issue. I will take what you said into consideration while I study it out.

Pauline writes:
"Jesus Christ didn't chose to break the relationship, the human person made that choice by choosing mortal sin over a relationship with Jesus."

First point - Mortal sin as a concept is not really driectly Biblical so I would like to leave that out of this discussion.

Second point - The problem with your statement Pauline is that it directly contrasts the idea that Christ is the head and the church is the Body, which makes a full person. Think about it logically, You have a whole person with Jesus as the head and believers as the arms, legs, etc... Your statement implies, no says it outright, that Jesus himself would allow part of His body to be chopped off. Is that logical? No, absolutely not.
Pauline, If my relationship with Christ was dependent on me it would be in serious trouble as I sin daily. Fortunetly, My relationship is sealed and kept in the hand of God himself, where noone, not even me can get at it.

Pauline, If you choose to reply please respond directly to my argument, the way that Brother Ed did. Thanks so much!!

In a great Savior,
Brian

 

Mr. Curtis --

It seems that the promise of Christ in John 10:28 is an assurance to believers that OTHER PEOPLE can do nothing to affect our relationship with God through Christ Jesus.

In similar manner, Romans 8 is pointed to as a "absolute assurance that we can never lose our salvation".

But is it really saying that, or is that being "read into" the verses?

You see, all the things which are mentioned, life, death, principalities, powers, etc. are external objects to the believer. But DO NOTICE.....the one thing which St. Paul does NOT discuss in the Romans passage is SIN.

As Sis Pauline said.....we can sin ourselves right out of relationship with God. Why? Because we break our unity of relationship with Him by choosing to clutch to our bosom that which is contrarty to His will. Once we accept that which is against His will, we are no longer in union with Him.

Being out of union with Him is eternal death. Being in union with Him is eternal life. It is really that simple.

John 10:28 is promising us that OTHERS cannot break our union. But we ourselves have to care for it, grow in it, and nurture it.

Cordially in Christ,


Brother Ed

 

Hi Briguy,

You wrote, "Mortal sin as a concept is not really driectly Biblical so I would like to leave that out of this discussion.

Mortal sin is so directly Biblical that St. John in the 5th chapter of his first catholic epistle speaks of it verbatim.

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

I disagree with most of what you said. Upon being born again, I became a child of God. When my daughter does something that she knows is wrong, it upsets me, makes me mad, makes me sad, but she is still my daughter. She is my daughter for all of eternity, nothing can change that.

I do not condone Christians sinning on a regular basis. In fact, if you can sin without conviction by the Holy spirit, you better check you'r salvation. But I believe my chastisement for my sins takes place here on earth. (Hebrews 12:5-11)

Respectfully, what you and Pauline are telling me, I cannot find in my Bible. My Bible is my only authority.

That, my friend, is what Baptists believe.

 

Hi Mr. Curtis,

You wrote, "My Bible is my only authority. That, my friend, is what Baptists believe."

I think it would be more appropriate to designate the Bible as your only source of revelation and yourself as your final authority.

Baptists may believe what they wish, but they will be hard pressed to find their Anabaptist faith practiced by any Christian in the first centuries after Christ's resurrection.

J.N.D. Kelly, the prominant English Christian historian and Principal of St. Edmund Hall in Oxford, writes in his Early Christian Doctrines, Rev. ed. (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) 216-217:

"With the dawn of the third century the rough outlines of a recognized penitential discipline were beginning to take shape. In spite of the ingenious arguments of certain scholars, there are still no signs of a sacrament of private penance (i.e. confession to a priest, followed by absolution and the imposition of a penance) such as Catholic Chirstendom knows today. The system which seems to have existed in the Church at this time, and for centuries afterwards, was wholly public, involving confession, a period of penance and exclusion from communion, and formal absolution and restoration - the whole process being called exomologesis. The last of these was normally bestowed by the bishop, as Hippolytus's prayer of episcopal consecration implies, but in his absence might be delegated to a priest. There is plenty of evidence that sinners were encouraged to open their hearts privately to a priest, but nothing to show that this led up to anything more than ghostly counsel. Indeed, for the lesser sins which even good Christians daily commit and can scarcely avoid, no ecclesiastical censure seems to have been thought necessary; individuals were expected to deal with them themselves by prayer, almsgiving and mutual forgiveness. Public penance was for graver sins; it was, as far as we know, universal, and was an extremely solemn affair, capable of being undergone only once in a lifetime ... In the last decades of the second century, adultery, homicide, and idolatry/apostasy seem to have been treated in practice, if not in theory, as unforgiveable, even by means of the once-for-all exmologesis described above."

The current Catholic practice of penance was formulated by Irish monks in the 8th century, who gave absolution before penance in private as opposed to absolution after penance in public - as it was in the early Church, which was much harsher in asceticism and rigorism.

I suggest reading a Christian historian for an outlook of what the Church of Christ looked like in the first three centuries of Christendom before the Edict of Milan in 313 A.D. (when supposedly the Church was corrupted by paganism due to its legalization by Constantine and Licentius) - and compare it to the Catholic Church of today. It's honest, it's historical, and it's an act of good will.

One of my Baptist friends did it, and he eventually came home to the Catholic Church.

His website is http://www.catholicoutlook.com

God bless,

Carson Weber

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Sorry Carson, I disagree again. Respectfully, I cannot in good faith go to books or writings that will contradict the King James Bible.
I'm not trying to argue you or anyone else into becoming baptists. My prayer is that I would get the same respect. The name of this thread is "What Baptists Believe" that is why I looked. If you have to go ouside the Bible to argue your point, then you will lose me. (Pretty hard-headed, I know)

I do kinda resent the comment about me holding myself as an authority. But won't hold onto it for long. If you noticed, I post here a lot less than I used to.

I believe in once saved is saved once.

 

Carson,

You said, "Baptists may believe what they wish, but they will be hard pressed to find their Anabaptist faith practiced by any Christian in the first centuries after Christ's resurrection."

Their faith was practiced by the first century, New Testament church, though, and in the early second century. The steam is purest at the source; the farther you get from the source, the more polluted the stream becomes.

 

Hi Curtis,

Christian history should be a prime subject of any student of the Bible.

You said, "I do kinda resent the comment about me holding myself as an authority."

Of course you're an authority. In practice, the Magisterium of the Church is my authority and you're your own authority. You believe your own interpretation.. not the interpretation of others with whom you disagree with - is this not correct?

God bless,

Carson Weber

[ February 07, 2002: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi Michael,

You wrote, "Their faith was practiced by the first century, New Testament church, though, and in the early second century. The steam is purest at the source; the farther you get from the source, the more polluted the stream becomes."

If the canon of the NT wasn't formulated until the end of the 4th century, then the composition of the 27 books that comprise the Christian NT must be extremely polluted.

Which Christian in the early second century practiced your Anabaptist faith?

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

Carson, like I said, I'm not trying to talk you out of anything. And I don't feel the need to study church history, visit your sites, or continue this conversation. I have a good church, and a firm grasp on my bible. I wish you weel. Good-bye.

 

Hi Mr. Curtis,

You wrote, "I have a good church, and a firm grasp on my bible. I wish you well"

I'm glad to hear this. Thank you, and I pray that you continue to grow and learn in God's grace.

God bless,

Carson Weber

 

At the request of Javalady, the person who started this thread, I am closing this thread. She requested this because she does not have time to respond at this time.

Thank You,

Joseph Botwinick
Moderator