Not to bring up the Catholic thing again, but...

[BobRyan]

Your right, I can't find the term 'faith alone'

In all fairness to Lori's case - she should do a Bible word search on "faith alone" in the New Testament. It is only found in James 2 - and there it is preceeded by the word "not".

James 2
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
22 You see that faith was working with his works[b/], and as a result of the works, faith was perfected;
23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "" AND ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS,'' and he was called the friend of God.
24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?

I do not believe this teaches that a lost sinner can earn their way to acceptance with God - or salvation - since clearly Abraham was not "lost" at the time that he chose to obey God and offer up his son. But since the question is put to Lori about "faith alone" -- here is the only Bible text that actually uses that phrase.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Scripture states our flesh cannot inherit Heaven, so whether Enoch or Elijah did not die in the same manner as us, their flesh died nonetheless. It has been appointed unto man once to die...this is for every man (and woman)

1Cor 15 is where the statement is made that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven".

That is also where the Bible says "WE shall not all SLEEP but we shall all be CHANGED in a moment in the twinkling of an eye" 1Cor 15:51-52.

The living saints are "translated" just as were Enoch and Elijah. They receive new glorified bodies instantly at the 2nd coming of Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob
No, Lutherans do not believe in OSAS. They leave that open because of things like the parable of the sower and the talk about enduring until the end.

Good for them. That fits the Bible teaching well.

They do believe election of course, but they do not believe in double predestination, because that goes against John3:16.

I think they believe that some things are just mysteries, but they wont speak where the bible does not.

Again - they find a good solution.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

In all fairness to Lori's case - she should do a Bible word search on "faith alone" in the New Testament.

In all fairness she should do a word search on "trinity" as well, shouldn't she Bob?
Not every concept or truth is found word for word in the Bible as we believe it in the English language.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by annsni
You are entirely wrong on this. Consistently in Scripture, we read "believed and was baptized".

Secondly, not once does Scripture say baptism saves. I'm sorry but it's just not there.

You are kidding, right?

1 peter 3:21
Acts 2:38-39
Romans 6:3

Its there.

It is the baptists who explain it away.

1 Peter 3:21 (with a little paraphrase for emphasis) -- "baptism now saves you NOT THE magical touch of sacramental water to the skin - but the APPEAL TO GOD for a CLEAN conscience"

1.-- this is not an act that is available to an infant.
2.-- the sinner appeals to God for a Clean conscience long before he chooses to enter into the waters of Baptism.

Acts 2:38-39 "let each of you REPENT and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE the GIFT of the Holy Spirit"

1. Repent AND THEN be baptized. An option not available to an infant.
2. The only thing "received" at baptism was the "gift of the Holy Spirit" -- the baptism of the Holy Spirit and/or possibly 1Cor 12 Spiritual gifts.

Romans 6:1-5 starts with "are we to CONTINUE in sin" and then gets to "How shall we who DIED to sin still live in it?" --

1. This decision to TURN from sin and toward obedience - is not available to an infant.

Paul argues in Rom 6 that baptism is a symbol of the death burial and resurrection of Christ. Clearly in Romans 6 - beyond all other texts - baptism is explained as being a symbol.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I can only say that while there isnt a specific infant being baptized in the bible, there are cases of entire households. Households wouldnt be like my household back then. It would have included many people, and there were most likely infants in those houses. If there were not (of course the bible doesnt say), then it still does not take away the fact that it makes perfect sense for christian parents to baptize their children.

1. There are no examples in the bible of parents baptizing their children.
2. There is no example in the bible of a "household" being baptized where that SAME "household" is not ALSO said to "have the Word of the Lord spoken TO Them" (Acts 16:32) in the way of speaking to an adult,

In Acts 10 --- the household hears and then begins speaking in tongues - and Peter argues that they who are speaking in tongues should be baptized since clearly the Holy Spirit has accepted them.

Clearly - not an action infants were engaged in.

It all depends on what you see baptism as. If you see it as an act of obedience towards God, then of course and infant cannot participate in that.

That is the form it takes in the Command Christ gives in Matt 28 - preach the Gospel - Make Disciples, Teach what I have commanded you - Baptize them.

It is also the form we see in Acts 2 where the command is "REPENT and be baptized"

Without an explicit example of "no teaching, no repentance" and just the sacramental waters applied to an infant (the very thing missing from scripture) we have not room for infant baptism.

Infants of course cannot repent, but the commands to repent were given to adult believers--then their households were baptized.

There is not even one example in scripture of someone who did not repent - getting baptized.

Given the ceremonial washings that were going on at that time THAT INCLUDED INFANTS, it would have made much more sense that infants were to be included in this new baptism. We have evidence from the earliest of Christianity that infants were in fact baptized and while other heresies were fought against very early on, we have no evidence of any fight for believers only baptism until the 16th century! This tells me that this is how it was always done--and given what the bible says about baptism, it makes sense.

Catholic Digest did a report on that - showing that infant baptism was not being practiced by the early church. In fact the church under persecution developed a highly complex and involved ritual for baptism - that could not possibly have accomodated infants. So if we are looking for early history to tell us something - the evidence runs entirely contrary to infant baptism.

ANd yes, sometimes it is by osmosis.

There is no salvation by osmosis in scripture.

As Romans 10 points out -- first you believe then you confess "resulting in salvation".

Paul does not say "it only works like that sometimes".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We do read "believe and are baptized"

because this scripture was speaking to adult believers...who had not been baprtized of course. They were not talking to infants.

Infants are not mentioned.

Which leaves us with the explicit commands "Repent and be baptized"

Along with "believe" then "confess" in Romans 10.

But infants were brought to the ceremonial washings and other baptisms of the times. Baptism was not new. THIS baptism was new.

It is consistent with how God has done things (think circumcision, think children brought to priests.. unborn children even, dedicated to God, without them having a say at all) that christian parents would also bring their children to baptism-and then raise them in the faith.

In Romans 2 -- Paul makes it clear that circumcision is of the heart - by the Holy Spirit Rom 2: 29 - and in that work the LAW of God is "written on the heart" for they "SHOW the works of the Law written in their heart" Rom 2:15 -- Paul's argument is that true spiritual circumcision is of the heart "he is a Jew who is one inwardly" based on the change of heart - where the one who is of the new heart - walks in obedience to God's word.

Not even remotely applicable to infants.

I cant give you a scripture that says specifically that infants should be baptized. I agree. Its not there.

Granted.

But the bigger problem is that the action in the believer that baptism is said to symbolize is not even possible for an infant. And that means that infant baptism is totally inconsistent with scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But infant baptism isnt inconsistent with scripture, it isnt inconsistent with the culture and what was going on, and we have no record of there being any fight until...dun dun dun dun... the baptists come to town! It wasnt mentioned I believe, because it didnt need to be. It was how it was always done.
[/quote]

1. They could never have started out with "it was always done this way" someone had to START it.

2. The opposition to something usually accompanies the introduction of it. Check out Christian church vs Jewish Church and Protestant vs Catholic. Each introduction results in some kind of opposition. You are in fact arguing for a late introduction of infant baptism by your argument above.

There is a lot of evidence that the early church did not practice infant baptism.

1. We have the record of scripture "REPENT AND be baptized"
2. We have the complex baptismal process of the early church.

Ø Leonard Verduin (himself not even a Baptist, but Reformed) observed that the label "Anabaptist" (which means "re-baptizer") was already old by the time of the Reformation and had been applied to the Donatists, Waldensians, and other groups centuries beforehand.

In the 3rd century we finally see the Christian Church start working out the details for infant baptism.

Cyprian of Carthage "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. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

Didache on BELIEVER’s Baptism by Immersion:

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water.
]
Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm.
Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Didache 7:4 But [b]before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

Tertullian (160-225)
And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children.

Justin Martyr (100-165) offered a bare-bones description:"

"the candidate prays and fasts "-
"the church community prays and fasts with him"
"the candidate enters the water"
"the minister asks him the three Trinitarian questions"
"the candidate now is introduced into the assembly"

 

[lori4dogs]

Emily said: " Anyhow, today I am a happy almost Lutheran. I am enjoying much deeper, much more thorough exegesis of scripture and I am loving the traditions of ancient liturgy. And I am not at all confused about the gospel. God did it all!! Its amazingly freeing to know that God did it all for my salvation and I dont have to doubt that anymore. Its not muddled with my efforts or decisions. It is finished. Praise the Lord!"

Thank you for sharing your experience with us. We have quite a few Lutherans in our part of the woods. Most of the ones I know can tell you what they believe and why they believe it. The ELCA church was growing well but I think some are seeking out more conservative synods to associate with since the decision to ordain 'gay-in-a-relationship' clergy thing.

I have attended a lot of Lutheran services, most of them were the Eucharist, and the 'true' gospel was always preached. It is interesting that my interest in looking 'elsewhere' really began after attending my first liturgical service. It was mattins (morning prayer) in Grace Lutheran Church of Visalia, LCMS, a thriving evangelical church.

 

[lori4dogs]

Just a quick sidetrack for information to BB. There is a website maintained by Calvin College (Reformed I think) with a pretty good link to ECFs. I'm finding it very helpful, maybe some of you will too.


http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

 

[webdog]

1Cor 15 is where the statement is made that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven".

That is also where the Bible says "WE shall not all SLEEP but we shall all be CHANGED in a moment in the twinkling of an eye" 1Cor 15:51-52.

The living saints are "translated" just as were Enoch and Elijah. They receive new glorified bodies instantly at the 2nd coming of Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

I completely agree...however since death is referred to biblically as separation, we will be separated from our flesh. That is death, plain and simple. It's not the norm in how humans shed their flesh, but the flesh is gone all the same.

 

[BobRyan]

Well I agree that this decaying tent - the mortal corruptible body is not what the living saints will take to heaven. Rather their body will be "transformed" - "changed" as 1Cor 15 saints "We shall all be changed" -- just exactly how that happens for the living -- what molecules go where etc... I really don't know.

But in 1Thess 4 BOTH groups are mentioned "the dead in Christ will rise first - THEN those who are alive and remain will be caught together with them in the air"

Dying and then being resurrected is not the same thing as being directly translated as a living person. But I don't know how that works right down to what molecules go where.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Just a quick sidetrack for information to BB. There is a website maintained by Calvin College (Reformed I think) with a pretty good link to ECFs. I'm finding it very helpful, maybe some of you will too.


http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html

Thank you for that online link! :thumbs:

 

[targus]

That is also where the Bible says "WE shall not all SLEEP but we shall all be CHANGED in a moment in the twinkling of an eye" 1Cor 15:51-52.

Then why do the SDA believe in the fiction of soul sleep?

 

[BobRyan]

Because "we shall not all sleep but we shall all be changed" is a reference to the fact that we are not all dead at the time of the 2nd coming -- some will be "the DEAD in Christ" who "have fallen asleep" (to quote Paul in 1Thess 4) and others will be the "those who remain and are alive" that are not dead.

Thus in 1Cor 15 Paul describes the condition of death as soul sleep.

in John 11 Paul does the same thing "Lazarus SLEEPS I go that I may wake HIM". (Not Lazarus' body SLEEPS I go that I may wake IT")

In 1Thess 4 Paul refers to "those who have fallen asleep".

Repeatedly Paul describes the saints - as persons -- who have died - as being asleep.

But in 1Cor 15 Paul makes it clear that it is not the body that sleeps - for the body that you sow in this life at death - is NOT the body that is taken to heaven - according to 1Cor 15.

In fact in 2Cor 5 Paul describes it as TWO bodies. One that decays and goes to nothing here on earth -- and another that is prepared for us at the resurrection.

The hope and comfort for the saints regarding the loss of loved ones to death - is in view of the resurrection

1Thess 4
13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, so that you will not grieve as do the rest who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus.
15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede [b]those[/b] who have [b]fallen asleep.[/b]

16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
17 Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.[/b]
18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

Paul here argues that the difference between the Christian and the non-christian who has no hope -- is that the Christian has the hope of the resurrection.

(recall that Paul made it clear in 1Cor 15 that without the resurrection - Christians have nothing)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[sag38]

I guess God woke up Moses and Elijah to talk with Him on the Mount of Transfigiration then put them back to sleep again. And, I guess Father Abraham was just sleep walking when the rich man called out in torment for a drop of water to be placed on his tongue for relief. And, I guess when Jesus descended into the depths of the earth that He preached to sleeping people. In other words Bob, your "theory" does not fit into the context of the entire Word of God. You are lifting verses from the context of the Bible and making them fit into your false and cultic SDA theology.

 

[BobRyan]

You have a good point about the Luke 16 story of the rich man -in death -- praying directly to Abraham asking for Abraham's sovereign decision on whether to send Lazarus to warn the living about hell. That is a good example of the dead praying to the dead and Abraham being in sovereign control of the dead saints.

Good thing it is just a parable illustrating the point (as Christ said) that if they do NOT listen to Moses then neither will they listen though one rise from the dead.

Funny thing about that - I have a thread that looks at the rich man and Abraham question in a lot of detail. Wanna talk about it?

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1508894&postcount=1

(I have added your comment and this response to that thread listed above in case there is a wish to have an entire thread dedicated to that subject - and so this thread can stay on focus)


There we see that Christ in fact argues that it would take a literal resurrection for Lazarus to warn the living -- even though the rich man never asks that Lazarus be resurrected.

How cool is that? (click the link to comment on that point).

------

As for Elijah -- never died - so he can speak to living in Matt 17 without any trouble at all. It meets Christ's Luke 16 criteria for talking to the living.

----

As for Moses -- Jude 1 affirms the account of the "Assumption of Moses" when it refers to the contest between Michael and Satan regarding the body of Moses (Moses being resurrected as per the document that it is referencing).

And of course - a resurrected Moses would meet Christ's Luke 16 criteria for speaking to the living in Matt 16.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

As for Moses -- Jude 1 affirms the account of the "Assumption of Moses" when it refers to the contest between Michael and Satan regarding the body of Moses (Moses being resurrected as per the document that it is referencing).

And of course - a resurrected Moses would meet Christ's Luke 16 criteria for speaking to the living in Matt 16.

in Christ,
Bob

Your argument for this is tenuous at best.

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

When and where did this take place. It is a reference to an apocrypha story and/or a Jewish tradition, neither of which is very reliable. The contention could be referring to the body of Moses right where it was buried by the Lord in Moses time, and not a resurrected body at all.

 

[Zenas]

Your argument for this is tenuous at best.

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

When and where did this take place. It is a reference to an apocrypha story and/or a Jewish tradition, neither of which is very reliable. The contention could be referring to the body of Moses right where it was buried by the Lord in Moses time, and not a resurrected body at all.

Jude 1:9 by itself is a very weak case for the assumption of Moses. A much stronger case is made in the synoptic passages that relate the Transfiguration.

 

[BobRyan]

Your argument for this is tenuous at best.

Jude 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

When and where did this take place. It is a reference to an apocrypha story and/or a Jewish tradition, neither of which is very reliable.

1. Almost all Bible scholars admit that this is a reference to the book "The ASSUMPTION of Moses".

2. Your argument above is an argument for why Jude should NOT have made that reference to that book.

But this is not a debate about how to write the book of Jude.

in Christ,

Bob