1 John 2:2 and 1 John 5:19

[Huiou_Theou]

I think it can be understood in light of the previous sentence: “No man, not even the holiest, was ever able to take on himself the sins of all men and offer himself as a sacrifice for all.” He is the greatest human who brings humanity with him when he reverses man’s futile condition of Adam.

So, if I am hearing you right – “embrace” – means to “bring humanity with”.
I like that; but something in the discussion is extremely elusive.

There are, listed in the paragraph you quoted, two main ideas (but replicated) given as the reason for sacrifice;* “redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction.”*

Oddly, none of these ideas are directly attributable to the (contingent) necessity of the incarnation; eg: Jesus says – “Father if it be possible; LET this cup pass from me.” and even after Jesus makes this command, the request is not honored showing that the “if” is false; because the human mind by itself does not know all that God does – and, therefore, in order to do the right thing in the face of inevitable ignorance; one must always appeal to him who is the “all” in “every-thing”.

The entire section on the CCC is infused with references to the Eucharist; and to this day – the Eucharist is substantially an incarnation; yet the passage quoted seems to focus on a legalistic reasoning for the necessity of the cross. I know it’s a mistake to say God must be repaid for every single sin – for the mercy of the Immaculate conception is precisely the answer to such a heartless/wrathful God of infinite need of vindication.

But – In Hebrews, without qualification, the author states that it is impossible that “the blood of” (animals) …“should take away sins”. And, in a merely legal sense, I am confronted with the rhetorical question ‘Are not animals “wealth” that they should have every ability in “paying” for something? (as would any other currency)?’

Yet, the passage in Isaiah which says ‘sin offering you did not desire’ – also says “a body” (soma & soul) you have prepared for me. (LO! I come to do your will!)

Isaiah does not say, “my spirit” alone – but “a body”. All animals and even man have bodies; and as the CCC says (clearly correct) that if not even the “holiest” man COULD take all the sins of all men upon himself; But then – the very attempt/notion – leads me to ask “why?”; and yet, there is no answer spelled out clearly in that passage of the CCC and careful consideration leads to a stalemate of simple logic of God’s bigness being the “Reason”…

The holiest of men had a human will and spirit; They also had the Holy Spirit whom spoke through them and informed them. Thus, they have a union of God and Man – although not a hypostatic one; none the less, the Spirit was present and so is a union. What, then, is the all important difference found in the incarnation?

The same kinds of questions can be applied to Adam in the Fall which lead to the “sin” of all man. The arguments of Job can be brought to bear (!!! what am I that I could possibly hurt YOU? !!!). How is Adam (esp in light of evolution) the “head” of all humanity such that his sin affects us all?

I don’t think we (as Catholics) have sufficiently addressed /clarified these questions (and somewhere in the CCC, I think, they are called mysteries). The very need to discuss the eternal fate of infants who die without baptism (sacramental) in terms of hope indicates that we don’t “SEE” the answer clearly.

The CCC is stuck, primarily, in a paradigm of cost and purchase/ re-purchase; but this paradigm has little explanatory power about the reason why God needed to prepare a “body”. (Isaiah, if he obeys – he will have a long line eg: children!)

It doesn’t even seem to notice that Genesis teaches the bringing into existence of a wife is through the sacrifice of the man’s body; eg: a woman who could not be “born” of a man, but who could be formed out of a man.

The original plan of reproduction of man was not restricted to sexual reproduction; For God directly entered into the sinless formation of the first human re-generation in a different way. But there is no hint of God entering into any other human reproduction (save as the Nazirites like Sampson, and John the Baptist – but not to the same degree) until the fullness of time wherein the purpose was the incarnation.

The OP is, perhaps, indirectly targeting the question of what Original sin is; so that we may discuss what its’ reversal (Chiasmus) is.

Facilely, St. Luke lists a Genealogy that Starts with Jesus Christ and Ends with Adam (Son of God.). So that we know a reversal is meant – but it isn’t obvious how such a reversal exists in terms of cause and effect and science. If his cross causes this Genealogy – I notice the genealogy does not include members such as “Cain”; nor is there hint that “all” men means anything more than those who were not wicked and to whom carried the promise from “the beginning”.

But, Judas was among the twelve, and yet not even he stayed for the last supper’s completion. It is precisely here – how did Jesus die for Judas – that the question of what it means that Jesus died for all men’s sins becomes urgent. In what way does Jesus die for Judas? Is it the same as he did for me or you, or Adam?

 

[MarcoPolo]

So, if I am hearing you right – “embrace” – means to “bring humanity with”.
I like that; but something in the discussion is extremely elusive.

There are, listed in the paragraph you quoted, two main ideas (but replicated) given as the reason for sacrifice;* “redemption and reparation, as atonement and satisfaction.”*

Oddly, none of these ideas are directly attributable to the (contingent) necessity of the incarnation; eg: Jesus says – “Father if it be possible; LET this cup pass from me.” and even after Jesus makes this command, the request is not honored showing that the “if” is false; because the human mind by itself does not know all that God does – and, therefore, in order to do the right thing in the face of inevitable ignorance; one must always appeal to him who is the “all” in “every-thing”.

But, Judas was among the twelve, and yet not even he stayed for the last supper’s completion. It is precisely here – how did Jesus die for Judas – that the question of what it means that Jesus died for all men’s sins becomes urgent. In what way does Jesus die for Judas? Is it the same as he did for me or you, or Adam?

I am honestly not sure at all if I follow your flow of thought from sentence to sentence. I usually do better with curt thoughts, but I’ll give it a go.

I am also not sure why you said it would be impossible for God to have redeemed mankind on the basis that Jesus said “if it be possible.” Because Jesus still died, I do not think we necessarily can conclude that God deemed it “impossible” to save mankind any other way. Rather, it was His will to show His love for the world. Such as, For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever should believe in him…etc…

As to your final question, I don’t think Christ died in a different “way” for Judas or, say, St. John the Apostle. Rather, his sacrifice is finally appropriated only to those who were saved. He didn’t die in different “ways” for different people. The appropriating factor throughout Scripture, I think, is said to be those who “believe” (and various other phrases tantamount to true belief, such as faith/works, love neighbor, etc…)

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I am honestly not sure at all if I follow your flow of thought from sentence to sentence. I usually do better with curt thoughts, but I’ll give it a go.

Yes; I appreciate your bearing with me. Where things don’t make sense to you, go ahead and ask for clarification. There are many details which I am trying to sort in my mind at once, and which are difficult to list out clearly. I am trying to learn about this myself, and so my thoughts are naturally imperfect.

I am also not sure why you said it would be impossible for God to have redeemed mankind on the basis that Jesus said “if it be possible.” Because Jesus still died, I do not think we necessarily can conclude that God deemed it “impossible” to save mankind any other way.

Since Jesus made the request; and Jesus can’t make a request “incorrectly” (he does not share our sinful nature) – then, anything he asks for the father would Grant; “eg: Do you not know if I would ask, my father would send more than a legion of Angels?” There is something very peculiar about Jesus not receiving the request; I may be over reading it – but the issue is that whatever specifically Jesus is asking for – either he receives it or he doesn’t. I was thinking he was referring to his death – but the scriptures themselves point to his agony in the garden where the Apostles are “sleeping” (aka, a death). The importance that I am beginning (if poorly) to examine is the incarnational reasoning for the crucifixion (eg: along the lines of giving us a body which is incorruptible for the purposes of resurrection – rather than as a “repayment” to God of “value” )

Again: Why is it that a mere holy man could not bear all the sins of the world as the CCC claims?

Matth 20:22 And Jesus answering, said: You know not what you ask. Can you drink the chalice that I shall drink? They say to him: We can. (James and John, but not Peter).
Matth 20:23 He saith to them: My chalice indeed you shall drink; but to sit on my right or left hand is not mine to give to you, but to them for whom it is prepared by my Father.

Then we have:

Matth 26:39 And going a little further, he fell upon his face, praying and saying: My Father, if power exists, take away from me the chalice (Pottery/PotErion). Nevertheless, never who I desire but who thou [desire].

Mark 14:35 And when he was gone forward a little, he fell flat on the ground: and he prayed that, if it might be, the** hour might pass** from him.
Mark 14:36 And he saith: Abba the Father, all power [is] of-you: remove this chalice (pottery/PotErion) from me; but not what I desire, but what thou.
Mark 14:37 And he cometh and findeth them sleeping. And he saith to Peter: Simon, sleepest thou? Couldst** thou** (singular) not watch one hour? (BUT: All of them slept.)

Sleep is a kind of death; and in Jonah – he first slept in the belly of the ship before being cast into the sea. There is a very strong connection here which I am uncertain how to evaluate but the purpose of the sacrifice in the upper room is said:

Mark 14:24 And he said to them: This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many.

and I am thinking (working hypothesis), that the previous statement is definitive of whom are and are not the “Many” for whom his blood was shed. It is not clear that Judas is included in this group, nor that (all/some) of those of the old covenant needed to be in this group (John the Baptist would be a good test case for logical reasons as he is an extreme.)

Rather, it was His will to show His love for the world. Such as, For God so loved the world that he sent his only son that whoever should believe in him…etc…

As to your final question, I don’t think Christ died in a different “way” for Judas or, say, St. John the Apostle. Rather, his sacrifice is finally appropriated only to those who were saved. He didn’t die in different “ways” for different people. The appropriating factor throughout Scripture, I think, is said to be those who “believe” (and various other phrases tantamount to true belief, such as faith/works, love neighbor, etc…)

hmmm… What you say is reasonable, but I think something is truly missing in what it means to “love” us to the end/purpose.

That’s why I am trying to figure out what is heretical in the Calvinistic interpretations of the arguments. So far, Matt Slick – on week #3; has mentioned double predestination as a reason for limited Atonement; And he cites Romans 9, and Proverbs 16:4 (Which is not in all versions of the Greek LXX, but I have found one.) I assume that Calvanist Matt Slick is referring to Romans 9:13 – but I have to finish listening to the tapes before I come to a conclusion.

Scott Hahn, also comes from a Calvinistic background – and what I am noticing also reflects on his popular idea of a/the “fourth cup” and its possible meanings.

Eg: something seems quite wrong with it…

Matth 26:29 And I say to you, I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.

For Jesus essentially says he will wait to drink that cup until he is with his disciples/apostles/twelve again – and since that does not happen until the road to Emmaeus after the resurrection; I am beginning to question “why”.

Since, again, this cup is for the purposes of a covenant – there is an aspect of it which is not tied to “sin” or “repayment” but goes beyond it into a new relationship.
hmmm… I don’t quite know yet what I am looking at in the CCC or scripture.

 

[E_Thrower_II]

The fundamental problem with the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement is that it presupposes that those who are not saved do not receive grace. When I speak to Reformed people they insist that grace is salvific and therefore only the saved receive grace. That is why the Baptist do not baptize babies because they say that a baby who is not elect will receive no baptism just water. This goes back to Calvin’s teaching that the sacrament is symbolic but made real by the faith of the elect believer. That is if one person who is elect receives the Table he gets the Body and Blood while a non-elect person gets bread and wine.

To that end they argue that the non-elect receive no grace from God and thus all the sacraments are symbolic and, though they would say not so, also meaningless.

So they would argue that Christ’s death which procures the grace of salvation, which is only for the elect, is therefore effective only for the elect and therefore only for the elect at all.

However this plainly contradicts Romans 1, 2Peter 3, etc. Many times the Apostolic Teaching affirms that grace is held out to all men and some appropriate it for salvation and some for condemnation because of the hardness of their hearts. While it is true the Bible says that only the elect will have faith it also says that men first are idolators and haters of God by their own hearts’ desires and so the lost are lost because of their own choosing and not God’s reprobation of them apart from their deeds.

“This is the condemnation of the world that light has come into the world but men love the darkness because their deeds are evil.”

God Bless

lol. I imagine I could be possibly subjecting myself to intense examination and thereby become associated with terms with which I may not be familiar BUT, I was raised in a baptist church though denomination doesn’t hold weight with me because of Rev. 5:9 Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

The reason baptists don’t baptize infants is because baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which babies cannot do (give an answer to a pure conscience). Personally, I see nothing wrong with religious ceremonies where parents offer their children to God for blessing, I intend to do the same. But I would not call it baptism because of the scripture.

As far as whether or not Christ died for the world. I suppose if he has a people of every nation, kindred, and tongue that would mean he has a people all over the world, so in that sense Christ did die for the world.

Though we are in the world, we are not of the world. So in that sense, I suppose Christ did not die for the world. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

 

[bogeydogg]

lol. I imagine I could be possibly subjecting myself to intense examination and thereby become associated with terms with which I may not be familiar BUT, I was raised in a baptist church though denomination doesn’t hold weight with me because of Rev. 5:9 Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

The reason baptists don’t baptize infants is because baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which babies cannot do (give an answer to a pure conscience). Personally, I see nothing wrong with religious ceremonies where parents offer their children to God for blessing, I intend to do the same. But I would not call it baptism because of the scripture.

As far as whether or not Christ died for the world. I suppose if he has a people of every nation, kindred, and tongue that would mean he has a people all over the world, so in that sense Christ did die for the world.

Though we are in the world, we are not of the world. So in that sense, I suppose Christ did not die for the world. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

Concerning the extent of Christ’s death…

I do not believe that the cross assures the salvation for the whole world. I believe the cross purchases the debt of sin of all men at all times and makes Christ the judge of the world. The first Adam gave away his right when he fell, and the second Adam won that right back by laying down His life as a ransom (which means the purchase price) to redeem (which means to purchase) the whole world. That redemption secures only the grace of salvation to those who will believe, but makes guilty of the Blood of Christ all those who will not.

Paul makes it plain that each time God condescends to men, men become more guilty not less. Christ is the ultimate condescension because He gave up His right to take on the form of a slave. In doing that He has held out a grace to all men. Those who will not come are guilty of His blood. This does not mean that His death condemns the world because (John 3) the world is condemned already.

This also does not mean that any other than the elect are saved St Paul makes it clear that is so, but it further deepens the guilt of the condemned who refuse the Lord who has died for them.

God Bless

 

[bogeydogg]

lol. I imagine I could be possibly subjecting myself to intense examination and thereby become associated with terms with which I may not be familiar BUT, I was raised in a baptist church though denomination doesn’t hold weight with me because of Rev. 5:9 Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

The reason baptists don’t baptize infants is because baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which babies cannot do (give an answer to a pure conscience). Personally, I see nothing wrong with religious ceremonies where parents offer their children to God for blessing, I intend to do the same. But I would not call it baptism because of the scripture.

As far as whether or not Christ died for the world. I suppose if he has a people of every nation, kindred, and tongue that would mean he has a people all over the world, so in that sense Christ did die for the world.

Though we are in the world, we are not of the world. So in that sense, I suppose Christ did not die for the world. I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.

As far as Baptism goes you yourself just said “Baptism now saves us” that being so we should baptize everyone. But remember that salvation is the end the Baptism is the beginning. Even those who only baptize “believers” must confess this because there are plenty in Baptist churchgoers who are baptized and “backslide”. I know that would be interpreted in Reformed language as “never having the faith they professed” but the point is that the Baptism they received did not save them in a full and final sense. So clearly even when the Reformed thinker uses the word “save” in relation to baptism they do not mean “fully and finally”.

However the Bible tells us that Baptism is more than a sign…

Romans 6:3-5 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. In Baptism we receive the death of Christ and are buried with Him to be raised to new life

Eph 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Baptism attaches us to the Body

Col 2:9-14 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.Baptism is the circumcision of the Church. Circumcision was given to children and conveyed the grace of being a part of Israel. Baptism makes us part of the Church and conveys the grace of washing of sin and salvation by making us part of the Body

1Pet 3:21-22 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.Baptism saves us by attaching us to the resurrection of Christ

Since all of this is the faith of the Apostels I think we are obliged to fall before it and believe it. Wouldn’t you agree? Baptism is the circumcision of the Church by which we are Baptized into Christ’s death, attached to the Body, saved in the resurrection, washed of sin and raised to new life.

Since it is obvious it is not a sign…

And that those who receive it can then “backslide” and lose it…

But it nevertheless conveys the grace of salvation on all who receive it…

Then, pray tell, why not give it to children?

God Bless

 

[E_Thrower_II]

Concerning the extent of Christ’s death…

I do not believe that the cross assures the salvation for the whole world. I believe the cross purchases the debt of sin of all men at all times and makes Christ the judge of the world. The first Adam gave away his right when he fell, and the second Adam won that right back by laying down His life as a ransom (which means the purchase price) to redeem (which means to purchase) the whole world. That redemption secures only the grace of salvation to those who will believe, but makes guilty of the Blood of Christ all those who will not.

Paul makes it plain that each time God condescends to men, men become more guilty not less. Christ is the ultimate condescension because He gave up His right to take on the form of a slave. In doing that He has held out a grace to all men. Those who will not come are guilty of His blood. This does not mean that His death condemns the world because (John 3) the world is condemned already.

This also does not mean that any other than the elect are saved St Paul makes it clear that is so, but it further deepens the guilt of the condemned who refuse the Lord who has died for them.

God Bless

That makes sense and clarifies the statement that God does not ‘send’ anyone to hell, he just leaves them where they are, in the world, without a body, and without His Spirit to guide them and thereby they are captives of Satan like those of faith in the old testament until Christ freed them.

 

[E_Thrower_II]

As far as Baptism goes you yourself just said “Baptism now saves us” that being so we should baptize everyone. But remember that salvation is the end the Baptism is the beginning. Even those who only baptize “believers” must confess this because there are plenty in Baptist churchgoers who are baptized and “backslide”. I know that would be interpreted in Reformed language as “never having the faith they professed” but the point is that the Baptism they received did not save them in a full and final sense. So clearly even when the Reformed thinker uses the word “save” in relation to baptism they do not mean “fully and finally”.

However the Bible tells us that Baptism is more than a sign…

Romans 6:3-5 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. In Baptism we receive the death of Christ and are buried with Him to be raised to new life

Eph 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.Baptism attaches us to the Body

Col 2:9-14 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. 13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.Baptism is the circumcision of the Church. Circumcision was given to children and conveyed the grace of being a part of Israel. Baptism makes us part of the Church and conveys the grace of washing of sin and salvation by making us part of the Body

1Pet 3:21-22 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.Baptism saves us by attaching us to the resurrection of Christ

Since all of this is the faith of the Apostels I think we are obliged to fall before it and believe it. Wouldn’t you agree? Baptism is the circumcision of the Church by which we are Baptized into Christ’s death, attached to the Body, saved in the resurrection, washed of sin and raised to new life.

Since it is obvious it is not a sign…

And that those who receive it can then “backslide” and lose it…

But it nevertheless conveys the grace of salvation on all who receive it…

Then, pray tell, why not give it to children?

God Bless

lol. Great post! But you stopped reading too quick.

I would have a ceremony, offering my child to God for a blessing just like I do with other aspects of my life. Go to Him in prayer or through a ceremony like marriage and ask for his grace and blessing. But in regards to a new born I wouldn’t call it baptism because baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which babies cannot do (babies cannot give an answer to a pure conscience).

Now, if my ‘young child’ says, “Daddy I want to be baptized.” then absolutely! Jesus said forbid not little children to come unto me. But babies cannot make these types of distinctions. The word believe in the new testament means to commit, a baby doesn’t have the ability to know what that means let alone acknowledge it.

Pretty much everything else you said I agree. I’d have to read the whole chapter but I was thinking that this…

Eph 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

… was referring to the Holy Ghost.

 

[bogeydogg]

lol. Great post! But you stopped reading too quick.

I would have a ceremony, offering my child to God for a blessing just like I do with other aspects of my life. Go to Him in prayer or through a ceremony like marriage and ask for his grace and blessing. But in regards to a new born I wouldn’t call it baptism because baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, which babies cannot do (babies cannot give an answer to a pure conscience).

Now, if my ‘young child’ says, “Daddy I want to be baptized.” then absolutely! Jesus said forbid not little children to come unto me. But babies cannot make these types of distinctions. The word believe in the new testament means to commit, a baby doesn’t have the ability to know what that means let alone acknowledge it.

Pretty much everything else you said I agree. I’d have to read the whole chapter but I was thinking that this…

Eph 4:4-6 4 There is one body and one Spirit–just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call-- 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

… was referring to the Holy Ghost.

Yes but Baptism, which saves us, is like the flood, not in that it washes our flesh of dirt (but implicitly of sin) and is an appeal to good conscience. That appeal may be directly to God for the conscience of the one being baptized, as in believers. Or may be an appeal for the sake of the good conscience of the parents. The verse is not clear. What is absolutely clear is that baptism does save. Since that salvation can be “backslidden” from, as baptized folks can fall away, then why say this group and not that group can receive the salvation baptism confers?

As far the Holy Ghost is concerned, we are baptized into the Holy Ghost. We receive the Holy Ghost in baptism. It is He who attaches us to Christ in His Body.

God Bless

 

[E_Thrower_II]

Yes but Baptism, which saves us, is like the flood, not in that it washes our flesh of dirt (but implicitly of sin) and is an appeal to good conscience. That appeal may be directly to God for the conscience of the one being baptized, as in believers. Or may be an appeal for the sake of the good conscience of the parents. The verse is not clear. What is absolutely clear is that baptism does save. Since that salvation can be “backslidden” from, as baptized folks can fall away, then why say this group and not that group can receive the salvation baptism confers?

As far the Holy Ghost is concerned, we are baptized into the Holy Ghost. We receive the Holy Ghost in baptism. It is He who attaches us to Christ in His Body.

God Bless

lol. I don’t know Bogey, lol…

I’m pretty sure the answer to the good conscience is from the person being baptized.

Good talk though.

God bless.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

That may be a form or the same thing as the Calvinist idea of the “outward call.”

The MP3’s on the page I cited are not playable on all MP3 players (I don’t know why…) but if you experiment around you will find ones that do work. Xine under Linux does work.

The first mention of this by Matt Slick, was in SlickBonocoreWeek6.mp3;
It’s 5minutes into the discussion;

Bonocore said “I dont think he [man] does lack everything because pagan men are able to do good things.”
Slick (as usual) replied “Nope. … The bible says Romans 3:12 No one does good…”
Bonocre replied: “a Hebraism!!!”

and I think that may be true – but doesn’t reflect that the psalm being quoted by St. Paul starts out with “THE FOOL, says in his heart”.
so that Pauls statement means, The fool says no one does good – not one."
(and I recall that Wisdom says, “who can argue with the fool, will he not be made to look a fool himself?!”)

So, I think Bonocore was too shallow; but the exchange which followed lit upon one point: Bonocore said: God lets his light shine on the Good and the Bad.

and Slick replied: That’s Matthew 5:4?-48, and that’s called common grace the generic love that God has for all people; and he does hate …

Bonocre: but he does call some people GOOOOOD.

Slick replies: well he does in one sense, … in the sense that …

Bonocore: AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH… … … … … were speaking in different senses…

Slick: In one sense people can do a good thing, like I can a person cross the street…
etc.

Does this sound like “outward call?”

It’s funny, because slick it tacitly admitting being “the fool” without realizing it!


St. Paul is a dangerous two edged sword, who wont put the sword away like peter did in the Garden under orders!!! eg: it isn’t safe to live by Paul when there are other ways to achieve the same results without confusion.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The fundamental problem with the Reformed doctrine of limited atonement is that it presupposes that those who are not saved do not receive grace. When I speak to Reformed people they insist that grace is salvific and therefore only the saved receive grace. That is why the Baptist do not baptize babies because they say that a baby who is not elect will receive no baptism just water. This goes back to Calvin’s teaching that the sacrament is symbolic but made real by the faith of the elect believer. That is if one person who is elect receives the Table he gets the Body and Blood while a non-elect person gets bread and wine.

Hi bogeydogg!
Umm, The same section of Bonocore and slick that I just mentioned applies – and I’m not saying you’re wrong; but I am saying that there is clearly an issue of emphasis going on which masquerades (perhaps) as a misunderstanding or an over-emphasis of “corruption”. Here’s the link, and know that there are other things you have said that I am pondering. (you make me think, OK. )

bringyou.to/SlickBonocoreWeek6.mp3

May I ask, what is “eldonia” in Lutheran circles? I haven’t heard that specific term before, though some of my neighbors differentiate between high and low Lutherans. A great couple, could almost be grandma and grandpa to my kids!

To that end they argue that the non-elect receive no grace from God and thus all the sacraments are symbolic and, though they would say not so, also meaningless.

So they would argue that Christ’s death which procures the grace of salvation, which is only for the elect, is therefore effective only for the elect and therefore only for the elect at all.

However this plainly contradicts Romans 1, 2Peter 3, etc. Many times the Apostolic Teaching affirms that grace is held out to all men and some appropriate it for salvation and some for condemnation because of the hardness of their hearts. While it is true the Bible says that only the elect will have faith it also says that men first are idolators and haters of God by their own hearts’ desires and so the lost are lost because of their own choosing and not God’s reprobation of them apart from their deeds.

Ohhh… I can’t quite wrap my head around that argument. I will spend some time tomorrow trying to adsorb some of what you have said.

“This is the condemnation of the world that light has come into the world but men love the darkness because their deeds are evil.”

God Bless

Sure, a man who calls Darkness “Light” is in a hopeless confusion until they can at least detect light.

But, I think an infant can be damaged by their mother and father – although they haven’t chosen “darkness” but rather have chosen attachment to their parents which is natural and without which they would die – they none the less can be attached to dead people and infected with sin. (eg: INFANT Baptisms in the Catholic Church include an exorcism to cast out devils.)

So, that, I have to believe that babies can HAVE (or at least be given) faith.
1Cori 7:14

God bless you too.

 

[bogeydogg]

HT,

the difference between what St Paul is saying about the fool doing no good and being unable to please God and what the Calvinist teaches is that even if a man attempted to do good and was not elect he could receive no grace and thus not be rewarded by God for his works.

Calvin taught that the non-elect cannot receive grace and therefore if they take the Table or are baptized they have received nothing else than water and bread and wine. They cannot receive the remission of sin or the Body or Blood because they cannot receive grace.

I think this contradicts Scripture because St Paul explicitly warns that those who take the Table without faith profane it and eat and drink to their own destruction. Well if I receive nothing but bread and wine and turn it into the Body and Blood by my own faith then I could eat and drink without penalty if I did not believer, right?

Eldona is the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America, it is a High Church diocese that broke off from the LCMS because they felt the LCMS was being to loose with the giving of the Sacrament. The LCMS teaches closed communion but has a “ministerial exception” which allows the pastor to give the Sacrament to anyone he feels is a Christian. Eldona said such an exception may allow a non-believer to take the Table and thus the Lords Body and Blood, which are the means of forgiveness and sustenance of our Faith, may be turned to the condemnation of those who receive it. This, they felt, is a misuse of the Table and a terrible slander against Christ. They pushed for closed communion period and were invited to leave so they did.

In other words we were to conservative for the LCMS.

God Bless

 

[Huiou_Theou]

HT,

the difference between what St Paul is saying about the fool doing no good and being unable to please God and what the Calvinist teaches is that even if a man attempted to do good and was not elect he could receive no grace and thus not be rewarded by God for his works.

But they appear to double speak on that point; for Matt slick calls it “common grace” when a Pagan does a good like helping someone cross the street.

Calvin taught that the non-elect cannot receive grace and therefore if they take the Table or are baptized they have received nothing else than water and bread and wine. They cannot receive the remission of sin or the Body or Blood because they cannot receive grace.

My personal, scriptural, understanding of Ggrace is that it is both “please” and “thank you” – therefore it is a reciprocal word of relationship.
The Eu-Charist, is both “thanking well” and the “good Gift”; for example.

Therefore, the Calvinist, at minimum is saying that the “non elect” can’t receive the Good gift, nor give Thanks for it or to him who is.

I think this contradicts Scripture because St Paul explicitly warns that those who take the Table without faith profane it and eat and drink to their own destruction. Well if I receive nothing but bread and wine and turn it into the Body and Blood by my own faith then I could eat and drink without penalty if I did not believer, right?

There is something subtle in what you’re discussing here: This is St. Paul – and Paul being a Pharisee, is dangerous to follow without becoming a hypocrite like he has been – and had to fight until the day he died. (eg: The Lord refused to take away his demon for a Good reason.) If you “turn” the bread by Faith – then, disbelief would have no penalty – correct ?

Roman 14:22 Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth.
Roman 14:23 But he that discerneth, if he eat, is condemned; because not of faith. For all that is not of faith is sin.
Roman 15:1 Now, we that are stronger ought to bear the infirmities of the weak and not to please ourselves.

If Adam and Eve were given the vegetarian rights in the Garden, but not forbidden the meat – or at least, as the man Naming even the serpent – Adam is the Zoo keeper who has the right to slaughter if necessary a mindlessly breeding animal;

Therefore, Christ – the new Adam – who came after such an example and gives us his own flesh to eat has something to say about what flesh is and isn’t appropriate for our consumption; eg: that which will poison us because it is toxic, vs. that which will give us life. (Serpent, rock, bread).

The scripture you are referring to is:

1Cori 11:25 In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood. This do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me.
1Cori 11:26 For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.
1Cori 11:27 Therefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.
1Cori 11:28 But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread and drink of the chalice.
1Cori 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
1Cori 11:30 Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you: and many sleep.

These ideas come immediately to mind from scripture:
Man does not live on bread alone, but on every “word” that falls from the mouth…
It is not right to give the food of the children to dogs…

John 13:26 Jesus answered: He it is to whom I shall reach bread dipped. And when he had dipped the bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
John 13:27 And after the morsel, Satan entered into him. And Jesus said to him: That which thou dost, do quickly.

They ate with their fingers, and bread was used in place of a napkin; so that Jesus had already been taking the bread (it was dipped) before Judas got it. Thus, any spittle from Jesus’ mouth, or on his fingers would also be on that bread.

Compare Judas vs. the Syro Phonecian woman. In both, something entered IN.
Also, think of what Adam TOOK that he was not given by God from the Tree but by the methods of another.

The Calvinist claim, in my eyes, appears to me more in error about who and when one is elect than about what one receives from the table. Jesus says to Peter in Vision – slaughter the unclean (devil like?) animals and eat. (Not an option – DO it.), and again – It is not what enters into the mouth of a man that makes him unclean; but that which comes out of him. (Which would include the lower end… if one doesn’t wash…)

The bread may be clean or not; but it is the Word that can separate the clean from the unclean even as it enters one’s mouth – and make it life giving and safe to eat.

 

[bogeydogg]

My problem with Calvinist claim is that they refute the reality of the Sacrament being the Body and Blood based solely upon the Word and Sacrament, and rather make it a subjective reality based upon the attitude/faith of the one receiving it. Which follows logically given that most Calvinists seek to do away with an authoritative priesthood altogether. For example they deny the real presence in the sacrament, the redemptive power of baptism, the right of the Church to bind and loose sins (usually stated as “No man has the right to forgive sins”), etc.

This is from, I believe, not a desire for an orthodox interpretation of Scripture, but rather from a determination to not have the individual be under the authority of the Church. Such teaching leads to heretical teachings such as individual revelation, personal salvation which needs no Church, “No creed but Christ”, and of course once saved always saved.

After all if there is no Church authority to maintain us in grace by giving us the sacraments then we need no salvation other than a prayer card right?

This notion that the sacrament is subjective rather than objective means that a non-believer or an impenitent believer may take the Sacrament without penalty. Of course Rome defines this as mortal sin and the Lutheran diocese I belong to defines this as worthy of excommunication, but for the Calvinist there is no need to fear profaning the sacrament since there is no sacrament unless first the person receiving it is of the elect.

This attitude is why so-called “liberal churches” will sanctify any number of gross lifestyles and teach there is no need for repentance of them and will commune any and all since after all faith is personal and not objective, therefore there is no risk in communing anyone who simply comes up to be communed since there is no penalty for false communion.

That is my objection.

God Bless