-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
Are You A Child of God?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
Walpole
Member
- Sep 9, 2018
- 1,350
- 477
Part II of IV
Yes, precisely.
The "amniotic fluid" theory is novel and I think it is demonstrably erroneous for a couple of reasons. First, if it does refer to natural birth, Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of being born again. Secondly, NOWHERE in Scripture is being born synonymous with being "born of water." Lastly, our Blessed Lord says man must be born "of" water. The Greek word for "of" is ἐk, which means from / of / an origin of something. (Source) Man is not birthed from water, but rather from a mother; that is, a person. Man is not born from water / amniotic fluid. In other words, water is not the origin of man's natural birth and Scripture never refers to it as such. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-11)
This amniotic fluid idea is always put forth by anti-Sacramentalists. I am fond of saying that in Christianity, matter...matters.
Not exactly. Water by itself does nothing; for of and by itself it exercises no spiritual influence upon man. But baptism, by definition, involves BOTH water AND the Holy Ghost. (cf. John 3:5) Because it is a sacrament, the water in baptism is the material sign of what is communicated invisibly / spiritually in the soul.
Once again, in Christianity, matter...matters.
No, I agree and I don't think anyone has argued to the contrary.
Yes, I do believe all baptized babies do go to heaven. They have been regenerated and furthermore are guilty of no actual sin (since they are incapable of even committing actual sin).
Do you believe baptized babies do not go to heaven? (Be careful, as this is a sola fide trap.)
While St. Augustine may have written much and helped develop the understanding of original sin, I have demonstrated that the doctrine long preceded him.
Yes, precisely.
The "amniotic fluid" theory is novel and I think it is demonstrably erroneous for a couple of reasons. First, if it does refer to natural birth, Jesus would be affirming Nicodemus' erroneous understanding of being born again. Secondly, NOWHERE in Scripture is being born synonymous with being "born of water." Lastly, our Blessed Lord says man must be born "of" water. The Greek word for "of" is ἐk, which means from / of / an origin of something. (Source) Man is not birthed from water, but rather from a mother; that is, a person. Man is not born from water / amniotic fluid. In other words, water is not the origin of man's natural birth and Scripture never refers to it as such. (e.g. Matthew 1:1-11)
This amniotic fluid idea is always put forth by anti-Sacramentalists. I am fond of saying that in Christianity, matter...matters.
Not exactly. Water by itself does nothing; for of and by itself it exercises no spiritual influence upon man. But baptism, by definition, involves BOTH water AND the Holy Ghost. (cf. John 3:5) Because it is a sacrament, the water in baptism is the material sign of what is communicated invisibly / spiritually in the soul.
Once again, in Christianity, matter...matters.
No, I agree and I don't think anyone has argued to the contrary.
Yes, I do believe all baptized babies do go to heaven. They have been regenerated and furthermore are guilty of no actual sin (since they are incapable of even committing actual sin).
Do you believe baptized babies do not go to heaven? (Be careful, as this is a sola fide trap.)
While St. Augustine may have written much and helped develop the understanding of original sin, I have demonstrated that the doctrine long preceded him.
Walpole
Member
- Sep 9, 2018
- 1,350
- 477
Part III of IV
Yes, which we call original sin. He does so again in 1 Cor. 15:21-22.
To demonstrate the doctrine of original sin preceded St. Augustine.
Great.
He did not make it acceptable throughout the Church, since we see it being taught long before St. Augustine arrived on the scene. However, I concede he was instrumental in helping develop the doctrine.
I don't disagree. However, it is important to remember that some of St. Augustine's thoughts on original sin were never accepted by the Church. (e.g. the fate of unbaptized infants)
Yes, which we call original sin. He does so again in 1 Cor. 15:21-22.
To demonstrate the doctrine of original sin preceded St. Augustine.
Great.
He did not make it acceptable throughout the Church, since we see it being taught long before St. Augustine arrived on the scene. However, I concede he was instrumental in helping develop the doctrine.
I don't disagree. However, it is important to remember that some of St. Augustine's thoughts on original sin were never accepted by the Church. (e.g. the fate of unbaptized infants)
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
- Dec 26, 2015
- 30,018
- 11,949
- Thread starter
- #44
W, this is very interesting.
You know it's late here and this is serious stuff.
Tomorrow...
I'll only say this:
I think you're getting the sin nature mixed up with total depravity which IS calvinistic.
And God is not doing the creating of man anymore...
man is creating man.
This is called the seed something or other, can't remember right now. IOW, the sin is in the seed. It's our own fault now.
More tomorrow....
Walpole
Member
- Sep 9, 2018
- 1,350
- 477
Part IV of IV
Yes, in reference to original sin, not actual sin. "But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another." - St. Cyprian, Epistle 58:5
History testifies otherwise. (There is a succession that precedes Nicea and succeeds it.)
The Church has affected the world, not just Western Civilization. Since Christianity entered into history, we see its influence Western culture, whereby man had built a culture reflecting the transcendentals, with the end being communion with God and with his fellow man in love. That's right out of St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei! This was exemplified in the patrimony of Christian Western Civilization.
"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" (1 Peter 3:21)
Once again, it wasn't until the anabaptists came on the scene did attacks on baptism begin. (Zwingli famously stated the Apostles and the Fathers actually were wrong about baptism.) Some Protestants are shocked when I quote them the words of Martin Luther from his Large Catechism...
"This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, 'to be saved'. To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ's kingdom, and to live with him forever. " - Martin Luther, Large Catechism (Source
That is where you can point to St. Augustine, for he was an absolutist and believed and taught that unless you were born again (baptized), you could not be saved. This included infants and did not think Jesus made any exceptions in John 3:5.
Yes, in reference to original sin, not actual sin. "But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted — and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace— how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins— that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another." - St. Cyprian, Epistle 58:5
History testifies otherwise. (There is a succession that precedes Nicea and succeeds it.)
The Church has affected the world, not just Western Civilization. Since Christianity entered into history, we see its influence Western culture, whereby man had built a culture reflecting the transcendentals, with the end being communion with God and with his fellow man in love. That's right out of St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei! This was exemplified in the patrimony of Christian Western Civilization.
"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" (1 Peter 3:21)
Once again, it wasn't until the anabaptists came on the scene did attacks on baptism begin. (Zwingli famously stated the Apostles and the Fathers actually were wrong about baptism.) Some Protestants are shocked when I quote them the words of Martin Luther from his Large Catechism...
"This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, 'to be saved'. To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ's kingdom, and to live with him forever. " - Martin Luther, Large Catechism (Source
That is where you can point to St. Augustine, for he was an absolutist and believed and taught that unless you were born again (baptized), you could not be saved. This included infants and did not think Jesus made any exceptions in John 3:5.
Walpole
Member
- Sep 9, 2018
- 1,350
- 477
The doctrine (teaching) is found among the Fathers long before St. Augustine was even born. You even commented on them in your previous posts!
- Jul 13, 2012
- 38,515
- 8,075
Wouldn’t it mean that the sin nature is reproduced in the natural birth process, rather than God creating it afresh in each person?
Maybe you could explain a little more about what you mean.
Thanks JLB
- Jul 13, 2012
- 38,515
- 8,075
The flesh of the born again Christian contains sin.
Man has the choice to live and express the righteous life of the Spirit of Christ, from within his inner man, or he can express the lustful desires of the sin (nature) within his flesh.
Man is certainly guilty of practicing the the works of the flesh, where the sin (nature) dwells.
The born again Spirit empowered Christian must live out of the new divine nature that dwells within his heart; his inner man.
JLB
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
I'm sorry, it's a limitation of the board. It only allows 10,000 characters. Space and punctuation counts as characters.
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
Yes, doctrines are the teachings of the Church.
BTW, even John Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration. Ill search around and find which institute he wrote that
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
- Dec 26, 2015
- 30,018
- 11,949
- Thread starter
- #55
Walpole,
I just got here.
Do you know how to handle the word limitation problem?
If not, I'll tell you....
If you try to "post reply" and it advises you it's too much...
copy the bottom half
then delete it.
now send PART 1
Go to a new empty posting box...
paste PART 2 (which you had saved)
"post reply"
It's easy.
All sites have this...
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
- Dec 26, 2015
- 30,018
- 11,949
- Thread starter
- #56
The Institutes of Calvin....I think
Or the Westminster.....something..I'd have to check.
I don't think Walpole and I have a problem with regeneration...I think we're discussing what the early church taught and how it changed with Augustine.
Just got here...Have to check with him.
P.S. The Westminster Confession of Faith
Good with Inst. of John Calvin
stovebolts
Member
- Nov 4, 2004
- 18,905
- 7,268
Post 56
Calvinism
Your a riot lol :lol: Tell me, does on have to have a "correct" view on baptism to recieve this free gift? :o One can make a mistake as to who can be baptized and how they should be baptized. Baptism is merely the sign of that which it signifies: the washing of our sins by the Holy...
christianforums.net
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
- Dec 26, 2015
- 30,018
- 11,949
- Thread starter
- #59
StoveBolts
I'm no fan of calvinism because I think it changes the nature of God...that theology, I mean.
However, John Calvin did write some really good commentaries...such as the ones you posted in no. 56 of the Calvin thread.
It refers to baptism exactly like I've been telling Walpole. This is how it was believed to be in the early church....It was changed with Augustine. He came up with Original Sin and babies going to hell and all that...which the church now contradicts (about the babies only).
Thanks for the post.
I'd have a lot to say on the first one....but not today!
I'm no fan of calvinism because I think it changes the nature of God...that theology, I mean.
However, John Calvin did write some really good commentaries...such as the ones you posted in no. 56 of the Calvin thread.
It refers to baptism exactly like I've been telling Walpole. This is how it was believed to be in the early church....It was changed with Augustine. He came up with Original Sin and babies going to hell and all that...which the church now contradicts (about the babies only).
Thanks for the post.
I'd have a lot to say on the first one....but not today!
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
- Dec 26, 2015
- 30,018
- 11,949
- Thread starter
- #60
In a previous post, I explained to you how to do something you already know how to do. No harm done....
Concupiscense and the sin nature is the same idea.
The sin nature is an effect of Original Sin. There are different names for this...some call it The Flesh. Some call it the nature of sin.
It's just what's left over from Adam's sin. Before we were perfect...now we have this "thing" in us that makes us tend toward evil if God is not present in the person's life.
I've studied in both the Catholic and Protestant church.
Conc. really refers to lust or sexual sin....but it could mean any natural condition of man that tends toward evil.
"In Sin Was I conceived"...O.T.... Psalm 51:5
The sin the CC understands this to be, is the sin of concup.
I'd rather not get into this,,,,but if you insist, I will.
I believe I've already said this...
I think you're confusing the sin nature with total depravity, which is calvinism. The T in TULIP.
Calvin believed man was so depraved that he could not lift himself up to see God....this is why God has to choose whom He will save with His grace and mercy (in calvinism). This is not the same as the sin nature....which only hinders man but he is still able to see God.
Romans 1:19-20
No.
God made the first man.
Each subsequent man is made by man.
Man has the sin nature or Conc. in him...thus it is passed on from one human to the next.
Romans 5:12
I'd agree with number 2 except I feel you're not understanding about concup.
as to no. 3
The seed is passed on by the father in the human race.
Jesus did not have a human father....
He was not born with the sin nature...as you well know.
Part I of IV
[/QUOTE]