Justification

[Briguy]

Dom, The KJV I use online does not use itallics like my home Bible does. Your are very much right that the second of is what the KJV writers put in to show what they believe was the intended meaning. I am not KJV-only and like many different translations. Whether the second of is there or not does not change the context and the reponse of Nicodemus. There are two births going on here as made clear by verses 6 (I said 7 on an earlier post, sorry about that). One flesh birth and one spiritual birth. BTW, Grant I come to the conclusion that since the water is in the womb since conception that the first birth is at conception, therefore eliminating the problem you pointed out. Catholic's believe that life starts at conception so this should not be a stretch. Anyway, you are right topoint out how the Greek is worded, the second "of" was introduced by the interpreters not the Greek. However, I will take there word for the proper thought on the verse because I believe there was 70 men working on the KJV. Either way I hold to what issaid in the other verses to make the meaning of that verse clear. Nicodemus talks about climbing back into his mothers womb so he understood Jesus to say born a second time and then jesus clears it up by saying No the second birth is in the Spirit, it is not flesh and water but from the heart. Baptism is only brought up in the end of Chapt. 3 long after the conversation with N. is over and then it was the Baptism of repentance that John taught not the NT Baptism that the early church was doing. No water is water in the context unless you make silly putty out of the words.

Cure, on matters of dire dispute, we go to the local Assembly. If a brother has lied about me and now I am in trouble with someone else the elders of the local assembly can get involved. If I think a verse means one thing and a fellow church member believes a verse menas something else then we can either agree to disagree, we can study the verses in question more and present the findings to eachother or we can if we feel like it get a pator/teacher's opinion. I believe God does not want us to dispute minor issues. The passage you referred two is for disputes which involve Sin being commited by one of the people. We are told in scripture that instead of going to court, settle the dispute with the help of believers. I don't think verse interpretation is what Matthew had in mind.

More to come,
In Christ,
Brian

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Sep 28 2004, 10:21 AM'] As to the "born of water" meaning "physically born," you do realize, Brian, that you'd have to hold to the view that only infants who are "born" could be saved. Therefore, you believe that infants that die in the womb do not see Heaven.

So long as you realize you implicitly hold to this view! [/quote]
That view is correct, if he holds it, but for a completely differemt reason. An infant in the womb cannot be forgiven of Original Sin because he is not baptized (born of water), not because he is not physically born. How would you come to the conclusion that an unbaptized infant, either born or unborn, could be saved?

[Azriel]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 30 2004, 08:55 AM'] That view is correct, if he holds it, but for a completely differemt reason. An infant in the womb cannot be forgiven of Original Sin because he is not baptized (born of water), not because he is not physically born. How would you come to the conclusion that an unbaptized infant, either born or unborn, could be saved? [/quote]
'round and 'round the mulberry bush....

[DojoGrant]

I'm going to have to side with Hartford this once...

Not so much that the infant "cannot" be saved, but one would have to hold to the belief in limbo, or that God saves the child through some other unknown means, neither of which are Biblical, and Brian believes in Sola Scriptura.

I'm still waiting for his response.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Sep 30 2004, 05:46 PM'] I'm going to have to side with Hartford this once...

Not so much that the infant "cannot" be saved, but one would have to hold to the belief in limbo, or that God saves the child through some other unknown means, neither of which are Biblical, and Brian believes in Sola Scriptura.

I'm still waiting for his response. [/quote]
So you think an unbaptized unborn infant can be saved?

[Briguy]

Grant, interesting side topic you guys are having. You do have a problem when making Baptism the entrance key for Heaven. You have to find a place for those who don't have the keys (have not been Baptized) but you say are not accountable. Maybe even a place for me, who has faith yet doesn't accept Baptism as anything more then a "sign" in this dispensation. The Catholic Church created Limbo to deal with this problem. That has to bother you just a little, right? Doctrine fails in a point and so another doctrine is put in place to deal with the failed one? - just a thought to ponder. Anyway I posted this in my last post:

"BTW, Grant, I come to the conclusion that since the water is in the womb since conception that the first birth is at conception, therefore eliminating the problem you pointed out. " That is one way for me to answer you. I still believe Jesus was speaking in a concept and the concept is that if a person is going to go to Heaven, something more must happen then just being born-living their life-and dying. A person must a re-birth, not of flesh but of the Holy Spirit. The second birth brings the Holy Spirit into the being of the person, i.e born of the Spirit is spirit.

Cure, you spoke of Calvin and Luther but you believe thrie doctrine as a whole is wrong so why use them to make a point. You are using what you believe is error to make me see a point. In this case I agree with you Luther and Calvin are wrong. Here is the thing, going back to when Revelation's was written the early assemblies had doctrine problems and issues that John pointed out painfully; assembly after assembly. My point is that right from the earliest assemblies Satan was able to distort thinking and aletr good doctrine. We must discern what God's word says ourselves but at the same time learn from our elders and pastors, it is a difficult but needed balance because anyone can fall into bad doctrine. I believe what I see in scripture and in a way I must go boldly to the throne of grace with what I believe, trust, and hold dear.

More later,
Brian

[DojoGrant]

Brian,

I maintain that you are dodging the issue. Being conceived is not being born. If Jesus meant phyiscally born by "born of the Spirit," then He meant "physically born," not conceived. If He was speaking of physical birth, but didn't really mean "physical birth," then when He's talking about spiritual birth, He's not really talking about "spiritual birth."

You can't have it both ways. He means what he says or He doesn't.

EDIT
PS: Brian, do you believe that an unborn infant goes to Heaven or hell? As Scripture is silent, what do you base this belief on?

Edited October 1, 2004 by DojoGrant

[DojoGrant]

[quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Sep 30 2004, 08:46 PM'] So you think an unbaptized unborn infant can be saved? [/quote]
Limbo, or the opportunity for an unborn child to be saved, both have no basis Sacred Scripture or Tradition. Limbo has been theorized by various theologians of the Church, but the Church has never taught it as doctrine; therefore, it is not a part of the deposit of faith that must be held by all Catholics.

Thus, one can hold to either belief, for both beliefs are based on human reason, not divine revelatio, so long as they do not teach it as a truth of the Church.

[HartfordWhalers]

[quote name='DojoGrant' date='Oct 1 2004, 09:10 AM'] Limbo, or the opportunity for an unborn child to be saved, both have no basis Sacred Scripture or Tradition. Limbo has been theorized by various theologians of the Church, but the Church has never taught it as doctrine; therefore, it is not a part of the deposit of faith that must be held by all Catholics.

Thus, one can hold to either belief, for both beliefs are based on human reason, not divine revelatio, so long as they do not teach it as a truth of the Church. [/quote]
I would have to disagree. Although, as you said, Limbo is not defined, and yes, it can be adhered to, saying that a baby can be saved unbaptized is against the Church's teaching. She has taught in various councils that Baptism is necessary, especially the Council of Trent. And even those who believe in "baptism" of desire and "baptism" of blood admit that no one can have either without having reached the age of use. A baby certainly has not reached the age of use. Moreover, the Council of Lyons II: "The souls who depart this world in a state of mortal sin or in a state OF ORIGINAL SIN ONLY, descend immediately into Hell, to be punished with different punishments." That could be taken as one goes to Limbo and the other the Hell of the Damned, or it can be taken to mean they both go to Hell (that there is no Limbo), and the one with only original sin suffers less, as the pains of hell are proportinate to what we do on earth, just as the glory in Heaven is based upon the same.

[DojoGrant]

Hartford,

Actually, your quotation does damage to your support of limbo, simply because Limbo is a place of perfect natural happiness, outside of Heaven, but not at all a part of hell. One cannot be "punished less" if one is in "natural happiness."

[Cure of Ars]

I had to go to Grand Junction Colorado this weekend for m best friends engagement party. He has a lot to learn. But anyway back to the discussion.

[quote]Cure, on matters of dire dispute, we go to the local Assembly. If a brother has lied about me and now I am in trouble with someone else the elders of the local assembly can get involved. If I think a verse means one thing and a fellow church member believes a verse menas something else then we can either agree to disagree, we can study the verses in question more and present the findings to eachother or we can if we feel like it get a pator/teacher's opinion. I believe God does not want us to dispute minor issues. The passage you referred two is for disputes which involve Sin being commited by one of the people. We are told in scripture that instead of going to court, settle the dispute with the help of believers. I don't think verse interpretation is what Matthew had in mind.[/quote]



Where in scripture does it say that it is ok for Christians to agree to disagree on fundamental revealed doctrines?

In fact Jesus prayed the following;

[quote] I do not ask that you take them out of the world but that you keep them from the evil one. They do not belong to the world any more than I belong to the world. [b]Consecrate them in the truth. Your word is truth.[/b] As you sent me into the world, so I sent them into the world. [b]And I consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in truth. "I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, [u]that the world may believe that you sent me.[/u]And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, [u]that they may be brought to perfection as one, that the world may know that you sent me, and that you loved them even as you loved me.[/u][/b] (John 17:11-23)[/quote]


So when we deny fundamental truth we rip apart the body of Christ. When this happens it is a sin against truth. It is a sin that hurts the body of Christ and it ultimately is a sin against humanity because Christian unity is supposed to be how the world can come to know that it is from God and it is supposed to show God’s love. It is a great sin.

The Catholic Church, in its wisdom has been able to keep unity for its first thousand years. It had done this through using the word of God in both sacred scripture and apostolic tradition and the fundamental truths have been defined by the Church when the truth has been challenged or when an issue threatened to rip apart the body of Christ.

The Bible does not say what teachings are minor and which ones are fundamental so this is not a very good distinction biblically although it does have to be made. The Bible does list Baptism as a basic teaching, which I would think would mean that it is a fundamental teaching. So we have a big problem.

So when Jesus talked about a brother sinning against another brother about some truth I think that apostasy would be something that he is talking about. Especially when Jesus first talks about the parable of the lost sheep before he gives this command and then ends it by saying to treat the brother who does not follow the truth as someone outside the Church.

[quote]Cure, you spoke of Calvin and Luther but you believe thrie doctrine as a whole is wrong so why use them to make a point.  You are using what you believe is error to make me see a point. [/quote]

I did it because it shows a bigger problem. I do not believe that Calvin and Luther are wrong as a whole. In fact I agree with Luther when it comes to baptism. There is really only one issue and that issue is authority and whether there is a united spiritual authority that Christ established or if every Christian is an authority unto himself.


[quote]Here is the thing, going back to when Revelation's was written the early assemblies had doctrine problems and issues that John pointed out painfully; assembly after assembly.[/quote]

Not true the council of Jerusalem ended the issue. And if you look at the early history of the church there has been only one Christian Church. Look at Protestantism and there are a lot of Churches teaching different doctrines and more are created ever day. And there is no way to end the splintering under sola scriptura.

[quote] We must discern what God's word says ourselves but at the same time learn from our elders and pastors, it is a difficult but needed balance because anyone can fall into bad doctrine. I believe what I see in scripture and in a way I must go boldly to the throne of grace with what I believe, trust, and hold dear.[/quote]

Peter says that scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation, “but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit”. (2 Peter 1:21-21) And to do this one needs to look at what the holy Spirit has been saying to the Church throughout history and what the Holy Spirit has said in the teaching authority that Christ established. Protestants reduce the Bible to relativism because the bible only says what they think it says or what they want it to say. The Bible cannot be cross-examined if there is a question that is dividing the Church. I would like to talk with you about the authority issue and sola scriptura because this is the fundamental question that separates us. But anyway to connect this back with baptism the following shows the Unanimous Consent of the Church Fathers on the issue of what being “born again” means and it means being baptized;

[url="http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/borna.htm"]http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/borna.htm[/url]

Edited October 4, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Briguy]

Cure, we are one in Christ, and we put on the Father's holiness when whe put on Jesus (so-to-speak). When Jesus said to be Holy as His Father is Holy, he was not talking about a oneness that comes from actions, for we cannot achieve absolute holiness while we are in these bodies. He was speaking of the holiness that the Father has, being our holiness when we trust Christ by faith. We are one in unity with Christ when we have been declared forgiven and the Holy Spirit indwells us. We are Holy with the holiness of the father because we have trusted the perfect holiness of the son to free us from sin. It is the same thought in John 17. We, believers or the elect, are given as a gift from Father to son. We are a perfect gift because we are cleansed by the blood of He who we are being given to.

Paul and Peter diagreed on the doctrine of the Gentiles, and where they fit in. Disagreements are part of the imperfection that comes with these bodies of flesh. There is one salvation in Christ Jesus alone and it is that doctrine that is used as the main line to be drawn. I am drawing a blank(I have a bad cold) but there is a scripture towards the end of the NT that says that if anyone comes along preaching a different Jesus then they did to not be lieve them. The test of the Bible is that Jesus must be taught to others as he was presented by Paul and the other NT writers. That is the bottom line doctrine. Heaven or Hell will not depend on the interpretation of a parable but it will depend on the condition of ones heart, and the heart condition can only be changed by Jesus. That is clear bible teaching.

On infants going to Heaven and such I must be honest that it confuses me and my feeling play more on my belief then they should. I think the "age of acountability" thing was made up by people trying to makes sense in their minds and hearts of what happens to infants and profoundly retarded folks. Could infants go to Heaven because they are not accountable - sure, do I have a verse that steas that, well, not really. On the matter, the Bible says that all people, this would include just conceived, come into being deserving Hell and that belief in Jesus is what saves a person (John 3:16). Therefore if people get what they deserve does that make God unfair or unjust? No, it doesn't. The Biblically correct position, meaning the easiest to believe is that only people who repent, have faith, and are washed by Jesus, go to Heaven. So, since infants, young children, foks that can't think for themselves, are not able to have saving faith it stands to reason they would go to hell, that they are not part of the elect. Do i believe that?, well, no, because I have a sensitive heart, I cling to the hope of accountability and that Jesus will wash clean whom he choses, including those which I mentioned. I have heard Biblical proof for this but it is thin, to say the least. It seems many a doctrine has been developed because of this issue that should and does prick deeply at our hearts. I have no clue if I answered Cure's or Grants question with this but i will go back in a little bit and try to be more direct. You guys have been great! Very kind and thought provoking and I want to give you has good of answers as I am able.
God's blessing for a great day,
Brian

[Briguy]

Grant, I don't think I have dodged your question, really. I have said that Jesus was talking of a concept here. The concept that just existing is not enough to get to Heaven. Jesus was having a one on one coversation with an adult and so phrased the concept in adult type of terms. He said "except a man be born again". He did not say child or woman, he said man. Now did he mean mankind? Any man (person) or specifically an adult? Could the statement of Jesus been directed at those of the religous order of the day, of which Nic. was one? What I am saying is that you may be looking for something here that is not here. I am thinking out loud here but it seems to me that Jesus was making a point and not addressing such a wide issue as we (me included) may sometimes assume. Again, if taken as concept and not literal word for word definition, I am still on solid ground. If that is still "bobing and weaving" let me know.

What about "Repent and be Baptized" from purely just what the words say? I believe you did not respond to that question when I rose it.

Take care Grant,
In Christ,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Brian,

Finally have some time before going to RCIA with Teresa tonight to type. Teresa will be discussing recieving her first confession with her teacher tonight.

[quote]When Jesus said to be Holy as His Father is Holy, he was not talking about a oneness that comes from actions, for we cannot achieve absolute holiness while we are in these bodies[/quote]

One of the things that confuses me about about many Fundamentalists is that they agree nothing unclean (unholy) can enter heaven, yet also say that perfect holiness cannot be achieved on earth. And yet they deny a purgation of unholiness when we die before we enter heaven. They refuse to accept that God would make us prepared to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Most citing simply "well that's a Catholic term so it can't be right". What are your feelings on the process of purgatory?

You are also right that the Bible provides little evidance to what happens to aborted infants and mentally retarded folks. Those that die without recieving baptism the Church entrusts to the Lord. You and so many other folks such as my wife and I could not come to believe that infants and young children who die go to hell. This topic is intimately tied to the sacrament of baptism and the idea of cupalibility which we will have to discuss further sometime. God is just, but he is also perfectly loving.

You also again tie the idea of redemption and being born again to an intellectual action that we make towards God. And while, yes the Bible states that belief is tied to our salvation, it goes much further beyond that. Obedience to the Lord's will in everything he calls us to is tied back to our redemption. Those who cry Lord Lord, but do not do the Father's will are cast away.

I believe our redemption depends on our familial status with God. No other relationship with God in the Bible is ever formed or broken simply by nodding the head yes or no. Covenants took actions on the part of both God and man.

In the old covenants though man was saved through a system of law. In the new covenant man is saved by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ. Our redemption is through the atoning work of Christ on the cross, and our adoption is through the washing away of our sins in the covenantal action of baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ. I'd even point you to Luther's writing on baptism in his large catechism which makes a strong case for baptism as both conveying God's favor to man and for infant baptism.

Well, that is all for now. Thanks for chatting with us. You have provided so much to the forum already by coming in a loving and charitable manner. I appreciate it so much!

God Bless,
Bro. Adam

[Briguy]

Hi Cure, My point about there being problems in the earliest of assemblies is that right off the bat there was the chance that when Christians were gathered that Satan could use believers or even non-believers to corrupt good teaching. Church (meaning assembly) after church had Jesus finding faults in what they were teaching and doing. These are churches in 90AD and already problems were arising and Jesus had a “few” things against them all. Read an example below. Yes there were problems with the early churches, writers, theologians, and so we can’t rely on the works of the “early fathers” to be truth or proof of anything. The Bible is our proof on earth because men so easily corrupt as we see by 90AD in church after church.

Revelation 2 KJV

[12] And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;
[13] I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.
[14] But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.
[15] So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate.

Below we have the test for basic doctrine. A belief in a real Jesus who had flesh that could be sacrificed and that believers are indwelled by Jesus, who overcame and overcomes the world. I am making the point that there are basic salvation issues that have salvation consequences and other issues of scripture that we may have some differences of but won’t make or break us in any meaningful way. For example, I am confident that Tongues, as a gift ended by 100AD but I will not let that issue damage my fellowship with someone, if they speak in what they think are tongues now. Let me know if I missed responding to anything today. Thanks!

1 John 4 (KJV)

[1] Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
[2] Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
[3] And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
[4] Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

In Christ,
Brian