Welcome to Christianity Haven, thank you for visiting! If you have not already, we invite you to create an account and join in on the many discussions we have!
Please be aware that when registering you must not register while using a VPN. Any registrations made using a VPN will be rejected.
Additionally, registration emails are not being sent out which is an issue that is being worked on. Your registration may go into an approval queue for admin approval. We work to send manual emails to the email on file, so please ensure the email you use is one you can readily access!
I’ve seen a small Lutheran Church break up and dissolve over the question of “When does the real presence of Christ‘s Body occur during the Sacrament?”…when it’s in the mouth of the recepient or during the Words of Institution? You make it sound quite clean and simple but it is not.
You had said, "It is a ceremony/act/observance that uses physical elements in order to convey a spiritual meaning,..."
Where does that 'spiritual meaning' come from except God's Word?
Do Sacraments have a meaning apart from God's Word?
Why do different Church bodies have differing views of a...
Whatever meaning it conveys, that meaning must be explained with words, so we’re back to God’s Word except there is no ceremony involved but there is a blessing attached to the intake of it.
I suppose it can be argued that the concept of ‘sacrament’ is an accretion as well.
It is interesting that God’s Word is not included as a sacrament, but then with Rome, ‘faith’ is not required with a Sacrament as they have their own concept of ‘ex opere operato’
“Ex opere operato is a Latin...
I’m still waiting on a clear verse supporting infant baptism, or at least your clearest verse…that’s what can be done.
Looking back at these three pages, not once have you given Scriptural support…just logic and Church history.
If I’m wrong, please list the post number.
Unless you can produce a clear passage from Scripture supporting infant baptism, I have nothing more to say. This thread is about accretions and imho that is one of them.
No, he was speaking to an Eunich. Unless infants can ride chariots etc...
Acts 8:27 And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship...
Which clear Scripture?
I know it was practiced early on as the archaeologist's spade has uncovered what is believed to be baptismal fonts for infants.
But Scripture please.
I wouldn't reject clear Scripture on the matter, and you would think it would be clear if it's a matter of salvation as infant baptism alleges with baptismal regeneration.
But you did say, "The Church settled the issue" (39), that to me is appealing to 'Scripture plus'. Even the Church Fathers had disagreements among themselves concerning infant baptism. It wasn't til about the 3rd century that the practice became widespread.
No my point is in v.37. How would we...
I’m sorry if I sound like a biblicist, but I see no other rule/authority when it comes to spiritual matters.
Since I don’t see I.B. in Scripture, I can only view it as another Gospel…especially concerning regeneration.
Ok, so it’s Scripture plus tradition?
I don’t believe I mentioned an age requirement, but there is this…
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou...
Again, I don’t hold so tenaciously to baptizing adults as some hold to baptizing infants, especially when it comes to expecting regeneration from the application.
It doesn’t much matter how old a practice is but rather how true.
Justification by faith alone seemed to be missing in the writings...
I guess I'm not following, what notation? What's clear in Scripture? Certainly not infant baptism.
Right, it's missing in Scripture, so why do we get so dogmatic about infant baptism by resorting to non apostolic authority?
isn't this an appeal to history/tradition?
My point is being made by a litany of Church Father's quotes.
I wonder where, from scripture, Irenaeus comes up with 'that baptism which is regeneration to God'?
I never was baptized until about 30 months after regeneration.
I guess my point is you can't separate 'ones who are predestinated' from "Christ died for some'.
You can say 'Scripture never says Christ died for some' all you want, but unless 'predestinate' takes on a different meaning from what is commonly taught, the two concepts work out with the same result.
I’ve never said faith is irrelevant but only God supplies the faith needed to be justified.
Let me pose the question differently, so predestination is tied in with the issue of ‘who Christ died for?’
”Who are the ones predestined unto salvation that Christ did not die for “?
and conversely...