I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[sandusky]

things of heaven yse but heaven it’s self no…but then again you are assured you can see heaven…

Neither can I see heaven!

Now explain to me, what it is with what I say concerning hope, that clearly makes no sense whatever?

 

[fbl9]

Neither can I see heaven!

Now explain to me, what it is with what I say concerning hope, that clearly makes no sense whatever?

heaven in it’s self is not salvation which you can not see either but have no hope for because you are “assured” you are saved…by being assured of your salvation you can "see"that you are saved…

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I’m not interested in engaging you in your carp.

Wow, I’m glad I re-read that. I saw another not-so-nice word at the end of that sentence at first glance.

Don’t go to carping about sola scriptura, which it seems, along with common grace, you don’t understand.

I understand that neither are found in Scripture. Believe me, I adhered whole-heartedly to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, only I was an independent, fundamental Baptist so we didn’t use those high-falutin’ Latin words, we just said the (KJV) Bible Alone was our sole rule of faith and final authority. If it means something else to you, enlighten me.

 

[sandusky]

Wow, I’m glad I re-read that. I saw another not-so-nice word at the end of that sentence at first glance.

I understand that neither are found in Scripture. Believe me, I adhered whole-heartedly to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, only I was an independent, fundamental Baptist so we didn’t use those high-falutin’ Latin words, we just said the (KJV) Bible Alone was our sole rule of faith and final authority. If it means something else to you, enlighten me.

Sola Scriptura

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Sola Scriptura

James White: *The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. *

Yep, that’s pretty much what I said.

 

[sandusky]

Yep, that’s pretty much what I said.

.
:doh2:
.

 

[Peter_J]

Then please explain this previous statement of yours:

This post is the first time I have seen you affirm that infants are saved by grace (it’s a long thread, so forgive me if I missed something). I’m glad that you think this, but I wonder what you meant by the statement above. When you say “it’s by grace,” are you talking about common grace? So you are saying that common grace suffices to save infants but not adults? Could you explain the nature of common grace (in your understanding) a little better? I usually see this phrase used by Calvinists to explain why unbelievers do not in fact behave in thoroughly and consistently evil ways. I have never before seen a claim that people can be saved by common grace alone.

Edwin

I, too, was a little confused by what Sandusky was saying; but I think he meant that infants have only common grace prior to the moment of death.

 

[sandusky]

heaven in it’s self is not salvation which you can not see either but have no hope for because you are “assured” you are saved…by being assured of your salvation you can "see"that you are saved…

Biblical hope is confident hope, it’s not “I hope so,” hope.

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul states the believer’s “citizenship is in heaven” (Php 3:20), and elsewhere, he encourages every believer to be hopeful with a confident hope.

I don’t see a problem.

 

[fbl9]

Biblical hope is confident hope, it’s not “I hope so,” hope.

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul states the believer’s “citizenship is in heaven” (Php 3:20), and elsewhere, he encourages every believer to be hopeful with a confident hope.

I don’t see a problem.

confident hope=unwavering hope…ie.i hope in Jesus’s forgiveness…does not say i am assured i am saved though…because i need forgiveness means i am unworthy to enter heaven,so if i die in the need of forgiveness then i am not saved…

 

[guanophore]

For heaven’s sake Edwin, I was involved in a discussion on this forum over the summer in which the half-dozen Catholics participating insisted, and attempted to prove that grace is a “substance” that’s infused.

No, actually, you are the only one that has brought in the word “substance”, and continually tries to push this word into what Catholics believe.

For some reason, you seem to believe that, since grace can be “poured” or infused, then it must be a substance, which is false.

Nothing I say is made up, but brought up in discussion from things I’ve read and heard Catholics say. :ehh:

I agree that this came up in the course of the discussion, but you did make up the word “substance” on your own.

Catholics, even the old dead ones, speak of grace as being infused. Didn’t you read that in grad school?

How does that make it “substance”?

Catholics are the first to say that the “channel” of grace is through the sacraments—normatively.

It would be more correct to say that the sacraments are the “substance”. They involve actual physical elements through which the grace is poured. Maybe this is what you were trying to capture?

They also insist that God is not bound by sacraments

Is that a problem?

If God’s not bound by sacraments, He’s not bound by Pelagian either.

Do you think the blind man, with whom Jesus used mud on his eyes to heal his blindness, was “working” for his healing? Do you think allowing Jesus to apply mud to his eyes made him a Pelagian?

 

[sandusky]

confident hope=unwavering hope…ie.i hope in Jesus’s forgiveness…does not say i am assured i am saved though…because i need forgiveness means i am unworthy to enter heaven,so if i die in the need of forgiveness then i am not saved…

**Philippians 1:6

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good… will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.**That’s not from the CCC, it’s from the testimony of God, which is much better—the ultimate authority. :aok:

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Forgive me; you don’t believe that grace is “substance.”

NO, Grace is an undeserving gift from God to his Children. The question here is how do you believe one can recieve this wonderful Gift of Grace from God?

Infants receive the same grace as any other unbeliever—none, (other than common grace) until they are able to believe the gospel. If they die in infancy, they’re immediately with the Lord.

Infants and any other unbeliever cannot recieve grace as you put it above “none”. Only unless they live to the age of reason to believe the gospel message then and only then the infant can be saved.
**What type of god do you serve who cannot save infants or unbelievers? Why is your god limited to offer salvation only to those who can speak for themselves? Why did Jesus while an infant; got taken to the temple for his circumcision and precepts of the law as an infant to God, and yet your god does not allow infants to recieve his gift of Grace in your Christianity? **

If he is that incapable of anything, my belief is that he will be with the Lord at the instant of his death.

Yeah, but what happens up until his death? This mentally handicapped person is not deserving of God’s Grace in life?

Assumes (wrongly) that deaf mutes are unable to communicate.

So, am I to understand that your church gives altar calls to the deaf and mute? until then, they are without Grace?

 

[benedictus2]

Because grace is sufficient.suf•fi•cient \sə-ˈfi-shənt\ adjective[Middle English, from Latin *sufficient-, sufficiens,

from present participle of sufficere]

(14th century)

1 a : enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end

<sufficient provisions for a month> (Or, in this case, for eternity).

b : being a sufficient condition

Because of Christ’s sacrifice, God is free to give grace to whomever He pleases, in whatever manner He pleases, and no one can dictate to Him otherwise (cf Ps 115:3; Dan 4:35).

The way prescribed for those who’s reasoning is intact is by faith; nevertheless, that doesn’t preclude God from bringing an infant into His presence, by grace alone, at the moment of that infant’s death.

Excellent definition but if you actually read my post it was never about sufficiency but how one gets hold of this grace if he cannot profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

Minor point on your first paragraph, It was not because of Christ’s sacrifice that God was free to dispense of His grace. He was free to dispense of His grace even before that but I know what you mean. And yes, good point, God can freely dispense of His grace as He wishes and that may well extend to infants.

However, nowhere in Scripture does it say that infants will be brought to Him by grace, but that everyone else in full possession of their reasoning faculties must confess Jesus as Lord. There just was no distinction of that kind made in Scripture.

In Acts it is mentioned that they went baptising whole households. There was no mention of baptisng only grown ups of the age of reason. This is only your conclusion based on those passages. A kind of of development of doctrine by Sandusky.

For what then of those unreached by the Gospels. They have never heard Christ proclaimed to them so how can they believe (as per St Paul). Their reasoning is intact but just have not been reached by the good news (yes, because you and I are much to busy preaching to each other )

The muslims are a very good example. They don’t know any better because they have never heard the truth about Christ.

How do they fit into this little doctrine of yours?

 

[cazayoux]

Infants receive the same grace as any other unbeliever—none, (other than common grace) until they are able to believe the gospel. If they die in infancy, they’re immediately with the Lord.

So … in the old covenant founded with Abraham, the sign of that covenant was circumcision. We read that households were circumsized. Were babies and children below the age of reason excluded?
In fact, babies were circumsized and brought into God’s covenant when they were eight days old.

So … this is the practice from Abraham to Jesus.

Your take is that once Jesus came, babies need not apply anymore?

Why would God allow babies in the old covenant and not the new?

I’m betting the early Christians didn’t debate infant baptism as a ‘do we or don’t we’, but rather a 'do we have to baptize them on the eighth day.

We see God’s covenantal relationship with man expand over time.
His first covenant was with Adam and Eve (a marriage), then Noah (a family), then Abraham (a tribe), then Jacob (a kingdom), then David (an international kingdom), then we see Jesus who has opened up His relationship to ALL men.

Allowing babies since the covenant with Abraham and excluding them from Jesus just doesn’t seem logical.
I just don’t see that He would constrict the scope of that relationship.

michel

 

[sandusky]

Gabriel of 12:

So, am I to understand that your church gives altar calls to the deaf and mute? until then, they are without Grace?

We don’t engage in altar calls; however, we have an area reserved for the deaf, and a signer.

As far as living without grace sufficient to salvation, no one possesses unless God gives it them, and until they believe.

 

[sandusky]

benedictus2:

Excellent definition but if you actually read my post it was never about sufficiency but how one gets hold of this grace if he cannot profess Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

As I’ve said, In the case of infants, and those whose reasoning abilities are extremely impaired, grace is gifted to them; however, it’s not on the basis of faith, but purely grace. (Why is that so difficult for you to understand?)

benedictus2:

However, nowhere in Scripture does it say that infants will be brought to Him by grace, but that everyone else in full possession of their reasoning faculties must confess Jesus as Lord. There just was no distinction of that kind made in Scripture.

I disagree with you, and would direct you to 2 Sam 12:21-23, and Dt 1:34-40.

Furthermore, I remind you, that although they are wrong, your church teaches the notion of “invincible ignorance.”

benedictus2:

In Acts it is mentioned that they went baptising whole households. There was no mention of baptisng only grown ups of the age of reason. This is only your conclusion based on those passages. A kind of of development of doctrine by Sandusky.

And it’s your conclusion that “baptizing households” means infants as well, so where does that leave us?

Scripture instructs that salvation, and the reception of the HS is predicted upon 1) Grace, and 2) FAITH.

Included in belief is the necessity of repentance; infants are incapable of either; therefore, baptizing them may make the baptizers feel “warm and fuzzy,” however, I don’t find that it profits the infant.

benedictus2:

For what then of those unreached by the Gospels. They have never heard Christ proclaimed to them so how can they believe (as per St Paul). Their reasoning is intact but just have not been reached by the good news (yes, because you and I are much to busy preaching to each other )

The muslims are a very good example. They don’t know any better because they have never heard the truth about Christ.

How do they fit into this little doctrine of yours?

Your difficulty issues from the incorrect Gospel proclaimed by your church.

The biblical gospel clearly states that God has elected a group of people for Himself.

Since God has ordained that faith must come through the hearing of the Gospel (Rom 10:17), it’s an easy progression to the truth that He will ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He intends to save.

My God is powerful enough to ensure that the hearing of the Gospel by the elect occurs, and He has no need of loopholes and clauses, such as invincible ignorance; ISTM, yours doesn’t.

 

[sandusky]

cazayoux:

So … in the old covenant founded with Abraham, the sign of that covenant was circumcision. We read that households were circumsized. Were babies and children below the age of reason excluded?

The baby girls were not circumcised. Were they excluded from the covenant?

cazayoux:

In fact, babies were circumsized and brought into God’s covenant when they were eight days old.

The girls weren’t.

cazayoux:

Your take is that once Jesus came, babies need not apply anymore?

Why would God allow babies in the old covenant and not the new?

Because the covenants are different covenants, dealing with different people.

The OT covenant was based upon God’s election of Israel as a Nation.

The New Covenant is based upon the inclusion of the Gentiles, and is based upon God’s election of individuals from every Nation, Tribe and Tongue (cf Rev 5:9).

Therefore, anyone born of Hebrew parents was included, by birth, into the Covenant of God with Israel.

cazayoux:

I’m betting the early Christians didn’t debate infant baptism as a ‘do we or don’t we’, but rather a 'do we have to baptize them on the eighth day.

I’m betting they didn’t as well. The early church blundered in believing that she had replaced the nation, Israel, and established her worship and liturgy on a revamped and tweaked OT sacrificial system of ritual and works under the guise of sacraments.

For a good, historical presentation of that, see Israel and the Church; the Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology by Ronald Diprose.

We see from the OT to the NT, a progression of election from one of National Election to one of Individual election.

Therefore, being born of Christian parents does not ensure the salvation of the children, but grace through faith alone.

 

[cfrancis]

Your difficulty issues from the incorrect Gospel proclaimed by your church.

The biblical gospel clearly states that God has elected a group of people for Himself.

Since God has ordained that faith must come through the hearing of the Gospel (Rom 10:17), it’s an easy progression to the truth that He will ensure the hearing of the Gospel by those He intends to save.

My God is powerful enough to ensure that the hearing of the Gospel by the elect occurs, and He has no need of loopholes and clauses, such as invincible ignorance; ISTM, yours doesn’t.

1 Tim 2:1-6:
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires **all men **to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

 

[sandusky]

1 Tim 2:1-6:
1 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men,
2 for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.
3 This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
4 who desires **all men **to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
6 who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

**2 Timothy 2:10

For this reason I endure all things for the sake of the elect…**You’re not getting it, IMO.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Biblical hope is confident hope, it’s not “I hope so,” hope.

But “confident hope” is not the same thing as an absolute assurance of personal salvation either.

sandusky:

In his letter to the Philippians, Paul states the believer’s “citizenship is in heaven” (Php 3:20), and elsewhere, he encourages every believer to be hopeful with a confident hope.

You really see OSAS in this passage?

[8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that** I may gain Christ **
[9] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith;
[10] that** I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
[11] that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.
[12] Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. **
[13] Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead,
[14] **I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. **
[15] Let those of us who are mature be thus minded; and if in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that also to you.
[16] Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
[17] Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.
[18] For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, live as enemies of the cross of Christ.
[19] Their end is destruction, their god is the belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things.
[20] But our commonwealth is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,
[21] who will change our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power which enables him even to subject all things to himself. (Phil. 3:8-21)

Far from saying (or even implying) that “citizenship in heaven means an absolute assurance of salvation,” Paul is speaking of his salvation in the future tense, and exhorting his fellow christians to endure and have hope in the Savior. He is not saying they can presently be absolutely assured that they are going to inherit the prize. He is saying that they can hope to attain salvation in Christ by their steadfast faith and by following Paul’s example.

Peace,
-Robert