Colin on the Real Presence in the Eucharist

[phatcatholic]

in the apologetics board, colin had this to say about the Eucharist:[list]Dear Linz,
if I as a Baptist can contribute a few thoughts?
You are right to be "working out your own faith in fear and trembling"! Its important to know what and why you believe!
One question I do have is, is your fiance doing the same, looking up, for example, Baptistboard etc, to see where you are coming from, and how they deal with issues you are questioning?

Moving beyond that, to add my own 2 cents worth, it seems to me that following Jesus is essentially a very simple thing - Jesus delights that God has hidden these things from the wise in this world, and revealed them to the simple. Peter and Paul likewise in their sermons give very simple and clear instructions for how to be saved, and how to live.

Jesus is called the breaker in Micah, and he is our beloved who breaks down all walls which would seperate us from him. He desires intimacy with us - God the Father sends his Spirit to dwell in us, to lead us into all truth etc. Praying to saints, adoration of Mary, saying you must eat bread a priest blesses to be saved, thinking dropping water on a baby achieves anything, fast days, this is all human clutter/distraction which seeks to come between us and a personal love relationship with God.

We worship in spirit and in truth.

God bless you, Colin

PS, I have copied my comments on John 6 from another thread, in case you are interested.

Your question revolves around how to understand John 6:53-58.
Two good ways to examine this are firstly to look at the literary context in John, and secondly, to look at the theological context within the New Testament.

Firstly, then, John 6:25 has Jesus telling the crowd to labor not for bread, but for meat which endures until everlasting life. He is picking up on the theme of bread, and the crowd following only to fill their stomachs. Catching on that this is now a spiritual question, the crowd ask; “what must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answers very clearly that there is only one work they must do, “believe in the one he has sent”. This is all they must do to fulfill God’s requirements for them. Jesus then either immediately contradicts himself, by adding two new conditions to pleasing God, or he expands upon what it means to believe by means of continuing the food theme, in a new and radical way. He states (6:35) “he who comes to me will never be hungry and never be thirsty.” This again links back to John 4, where Jesus told the woman at the well, “he who drinks the water I give him will never be thirsty” (more of this later). Back in John 6:40, Jesus again qualifies what is necessary for salvation- “for my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the son and believes in him shall have eternal life.” So, if we believe in Jesus we will do what God requires, and we will never be hungry or thirsty. Jesus continues/repeats the central teaching in verse 47, “he who believes has everlasting life” Again, he then puts this into metaphor: “I am the bread of life”. Then comes his most radical image “unless you eat the flesh of the son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you”. Now, as seen, three times in this passage Jesus states that the only, the one thing we must do is believe on him (verses 29, 40 and 47), and also speaks of us never being hungry or thirsty, and that he is the manna from heaven and we must feed on him. Continuing in chapter 6, having said we must eat his flesh (either to be taken literally, or as a metaphor for a spiritual truth), Jesus gain states unambiguously, and concerning this very saying (verse 63) “the Spirit gives life, the flesh is nothing, the words I have spoken to you are Spirit, and they are life.” Its Jesus words which give life, something Peter picks up on in verse 68, “Lord, to whom shall we go, you have the words of eternal life”.
The question then, is 6:51 a radical image of what it is to believe on Jesus, an explanation of what it is to depend upon utterly, draw our life from etc, or it is a literal new condition, as well as believing we must also physically eat Jesus body and drink his blood?
How does the Gospel of John help with this question?

As noted, in John 4, Jesus tells the woman at the well if she asks, he will give her living water which will well up inside her to eternal life. Was he speaking literally or using the metaphor of water, using the situation at hand? Here, the answer is given in John 7:39, “whoever is thirsty, let him come to me and drink … thus he spoke of the Holy Spirit who those who believed in him were later to receive” That is, here, the expression “you must come to me and drink” is explicitly speaking, not of literal drinking, but as a metaphor for receiving the Holy Spirit.
Returning to the woman at the well, Jesus tells her “we worship in Spirit and in truth”, and when the disciples return and want him to eat, he again uses this as a teaching moment, “I have food to eat you know nothing about,… my food is to do the will of my father.” Was Jesus eating his father’s will?
For a quick excursion, in Matthew 16:16, Jesus first says to the disciples, after they had left the bread behind, “beware the leaven of the Pharisees”, then, when they think he is talking about literal bread, says to them its not about bread, and in verse 12 the disciples realize that Jesus is talking about the teaching of the Pharisees, just as in John 6:63, Jesus says its not about flesh, its about my words/teaching. Likewise in Mark 7:19 Jesus states that what a person eats does not go into his heart but his stomach, and then goes out of his body, and cannot affect him spiritually.

Returning to John, in 3:3 Jesus states that a man MUST be born again to see the kingdom of God (is this yet another condition to be added to Jesus statement that only one thing, belief, is needed?). Nicodemus takes this literally (he would have made a good Catholic?), and asks how a man can re-enter his mother’s womb and be reborn.
Jesus again replies (like in 6:63) that what is flesh is flesh and what is Spirit is Spirit. He is not talking about a physical rebirth, but about dying to self, being raised to new life in union with Jesus, Romans 6 etc. That is, as with the leaven, the living water and John 6, the person Jesus is speaking to again interprets him literally and makes a mistake from which Jesus corrects him. Again, in John 15, Jesus says “am the true vine, abide in me” that is, feed off, draw your life from etc,. John 10:7 Jesus says “I am the door” and so we could go on. It should be clear that Jesus isn’t talking literally when he uses everyday images in John to convey spiritual truths. This should not be confusing, as he clearly states three times in John 6 that the one thing needed is to have faith in him. The flesh is nothing, its not about bread, what you eat has no impact on you spiritually etc.

This leads into the other way to test what Jesus means, that of looking at the doctrinal context of the New Testament. Again, if it is necessary to literally eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood to be saved, then this aught to be confirmed in the New Testament doctrines about how a person is saved. Equally, if Jesus was correct that the ONE work necessary is to believe on him, then this aught to be confirmed.
Without getting too long, Romans 10:9, “if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved, for it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” “We are saved by grace through faith” (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 3:21-31, 5:2,), not by bread through digestion.
The New Testament clearly teaches that we are saved, not by eating communion, but by faith/trust/believing, just as Jesus states three times in John 6.

Do you honestly think that to be saved you need to eat some bread a priest had said certain words over (salvation by ritual)? Do you know the Catholic feast of Corpus Christie? In some parts of Europe (I don’t know about elsewhere), all the left over communion bread is placed in a box, carried through the streets where people kneel down and worship it, then it is buried. If you asked a child in the procession, “where is Jesus?”, he would answer, “in that box of moldy bread”. My Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father, where he continually intercedes for me, and from where he is coming to rescue me. He is not in a box of moldy bread. In a communion service, I obey Jesus words explicitly, I “remember” his death till he comes. There is a spiritual blessing in this as I contemplate what he did for me, not an objective blessing I get by digestion. “The Spirit gives life, the flesh is nothing.”

Why then would a church have such a doctrine? My only thoughts here are that it gives power to an elevated priesthood. For me, Jesus lives in my heart (John 14:23) not stomach, he speaks to me through his word, he called me to Pakistan, he has blessed me, cared for me, been my closest friend most of my life. He lives to intercede for me. He is my one mediator. I have a love relationship with Jesus, I know him and love him and my faith is built on him alone (Jeremiah 31:34). I love meeting with fellow believers to pray and worship and for teaching, not to be saved. God doesn’t want us at a distance, he personally calls and loves each one of us (Acts 2:38-39).
To repeat, I have Jesus, according to his promise, in my heart. Why would I want him in my stomach? Where, according to Jesus own words, whatever is there simply passes on and out of the body?

Note Jesus also says in John 6, "He who BELIEVES on me will never thirst."
[/list]
now that its here in the debate table, we can properly engage it. who shall take the first crack at it?

Pax Christi,
phatcatholic

[Dust's Sister]

that shed some light for me, thank you for posting that. Now I can explain to people better about it. It's too bad I don't have each verse memorized though.

[rkwright]

The verses in question... just to reference off of...

John 6
[quote] 30
    So they said to him, "What sign can you do, that we may see and believe in you? What can you do?
31
    16 Our ancestors ate manna in the desert, as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'"
32
    So Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven.
33
    For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world."
34
    So they said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."
35
    17 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.
36
    But I told you that although you have seen (me), you do not believe.
37
    Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me,
38
    because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me.
39
    And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it (on) the last day.
40
    For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him (on) the last day."
41
    The Jews murmured about him because he said, "I am the bread that came down from heaven,"
42
    and they said, "Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph? Do we not know his father and mother? Then how can he say, 'I have come down from heaven'?"
43
    Jesus answered and said to them, "Stop murmuring 18 among yourselves.
44
    No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him on the last day.
45
    It is written in the prophets: 'They shall all be taught by God.' Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me.
46
    Not that anyone has seen the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father.
47
    Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life.
48
    I am the bread of life.
49
    Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
50
    this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
51
    I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world."
52
    The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?"
53
    Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
    Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
    For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
    Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
    Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
    This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."
59
    These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.
60
    20 Then many of his disciples who were listening said, "This saying is hard; who can accept it?"
61
    Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, "Does this shock you?
62
    What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? 21
63
    It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
64
    But there are some of you who do not believe." Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
65
    And he said, "For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."
66
    As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
67
    Jesus then said to the Twelve, "Do you also want to leave?"
68
    Simon Peter answered him, "Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
69
    We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God."[/quote]

[rkwright]

I'll take a quick jump on it, although none of my answers are going to be extremely in depth, hopefully they'll provide a starting point.

Why is the 'Bread of Life' Literally Jesus and not a symbol?

1- Jesus repeats himself 3 times, each time saying that He is truly the Bread of Life, telling His followers to eat his flesh. He doesn't provide an 'explaination' like he does for the other parables. He doesn't say 'I am the Bread of Life' three times, and then say oh wait I meant that symbolically

2- Going off that point, Jesus actually lets some of His followers go after they cannot accept this. This is pretty huge, that Jesus would let some of His people that have come to Him go. If He meant it only symbollically (in the words of Scott Hahn) He would have a moral obligation as a teacher to say 'hold on there, you don't need to stop following me over this, becuase I didn't really mean it like that'. No, instead Jesus knows that some people will have a hard time with this saying, and He lets them walk away, because this is crucial to the new convenant He is about to seal in His own Blood.

3- The early Church accepted it as literally true. Only small pockets in the Early Church questioned it, and it wasn't until the reformation that large groups began to. Did the early apostles and Church get it wrong from Day 1?? No way!

4- Pauls writings show that the earliest of Church's held to this belief of the real presence of the Eucharist. Why would someone get blamed and bring judgement on themselves if it wasn't actually Christ??


Contray to what Colin has said, it is not about a power trip for the priest. If anything this is what the Priests lives are all about, they give up a lot to serve the people, to provide them with this sacrament.

[Colin]

Hi again,
thanks for the serious discussion. I think I should add that clearly there are many areas of agreement here, we all find deep spiritual blessing in what Baptists call communion and you call mass, we all believe the Bible and love Jesus etc. That is, while genuine areas of disagreement do exist, so do lots of areas of genuine unity.
One question I would like to ask, as Im not sure about the reasoning, is; do you believe the sacrements convey objective grace, or subjective grace? I would go for subjective, I think you would go for objective?
That is, communion, baptism etc are special times for me because of how I am thinking, praying, opening up my life to God. There (for me) is nothing intrinsically holy in the water or bread, but by faith, these things have great spiritual benifit.
Obviousley, these factors are also in play for you when you recieve the bread etc, but if a person were not praying, thinking, meditation on Jesus sacrifice for them, would you feel that simply by consuming them, they recieved grace? Again, Paul says a person who does these things unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, whereas in John 6:54 Jesus says "[b]whoever[/b] eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day".
So my question is, do you see these things as intrinsically grace giving, or as being dependant on the spiritual state of the person who recieves them?
Curious as to what your beliefs here are,
God bless, Colin

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Colin' date='Feb 8 2006, 08:49 PM']One question I would like to ask, as Im not sure about the reasoning, is; do you believe the sacrements convey objective grace, or subjective grace? I would go for subjective, I think you would go for objective?
So my question is, do you see these things as intrinsically grace giving, or as being dependant on the spiritual state of the person who recieves them?[right][snapback]881174[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]We say that the sacraments convey grace effectively, but the fruit of that grace depends on the disposition of the person. So in a word: both. The sacraments "give" a certain grace objectivly, but the fruit and use of the grace is subjective on the disposition and state of the person who receives.

Edited February 9, 2006 by Paphnutius

[lindsaynf]

hey colin! i didn't get to read your post while it was over in "my" thread, so i just wanted to reply, since this started out addressed to me.

yes, he is studying my certian denomination. i split from the baptist church for certian reasons, and now i go to an evangelical covenant church, which is very open to religion and most practices as long as it's biblical. but he comes with me every sunday since we both volenteer in the childrens ministry. we're both going on missions trips through them, and though his mom doesn't fully support my church like i would want her too, she's a convert so she understands where i'm coming from. i've attended mass twice (honesty it freaks me out, but i'm getting better), and she sits next to me and explains everything.

and we have had numerous discussions about theology, so we'll be fine.

anyways, i just wanted to say these guys are awesome and they'll direct you towards the truth, not just tell you.

thanks again,
~linz

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Colin' date='Feb 8 2006, 10:54 PM']One question I would like to ask, as Im not sure about the reasoning, is; do you believe the sacrements convey objective grace, or subjective grace? I would go for subjective, I think you would go for objective?
[right][snapback]881180[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As Paphnutius stated, it's a bit of both.

First and foremost, I wanted to underscore that, in Catholic theology, Sacraments are the action of God, not us. That is, the Sacraments depend upon God, not upon us. Yes, it is still our choice to "be open" to the reception of that grace--but grace is poured out nonetheless.

That's why we can baptize babies, have imperfect priests offer the Mass, etc... because God's grace (thank God!) is not dependent upon me, or anyone else, but only on He who is the Source of all Grace. Grace flows out, and is there, until/unless we reject it.

[Brother Adam]

[quote]One question I would like to ask, as Im not sure about the reasoning, is; do you believe the sacrements convey objective grace, or subjective grace? I would go for subjective, I think you would go for objective?[/quote]

As Fides mentioned, grace is effected sacramentally because it is the work of God. Specifically, liturgy is the work of our great high priest (notice here, that Christ is priest, as well as prophet and king) and our participation in that work. Liturgy itself has its root in 'the public work or service for the people'. Reception of that grace is dependant on the disposition of the person receiving the sacrament. If I have obstacles for my reception of grace than it may not be received. More specifically, if I am not disposed to receive the sacrament, especially the Eucharist, I very well may drink condemnation unto myself (hard to do if the Paschal meal is merely figurative).

[quote]That is, communion, baptism etc are special times for me because of how I am thinking, praying, opening up my life to God. There (for me) is nothing intrinsically holy in the water or bread, but by faith, these things have great spiritual benifit. [/quote]

Reformed Protestants create a complicated error becuase they take what is true (disposition) and mix it in with error, reducing the Eucharist to a 'spiritual function' that denies the good of the physical that is before us (i.e. God created man body and soul, and created the body as good, not bad).

Further, to clarify one common and perpetuated error, there is nothing magic about 'holy water'. Holy water is blessed and has been set aside for a special use. There is nothing magic about it, nor does the Church teach that there is. That is why you can baptize a person any water, holy or not. Holy signifies the use that it has been set aside for.

[quote]Obviousley, these factors are also in play for you when you recieve the bread etc, but if a person were not praying, thinking, meditation on Jesus sacrifice for them, would you feel that simply by consuming them, they recieved grace? [/quote]

If they are not disposed to receive grace, as the scriptures point out, they may very well receive condemnation. That is why we do not allow you to receive the Eucharist as a Baptist.

[quote]Again, Paul says a person who does these things unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, whereas in John 6:54 Jesus says "[b]whoever[/b] eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day". [/quote]

"whoever" is of course qualified, I think you know that. Lest you believe that Jesus really will leave us "at the end of the age.

[quote]Curious as to what your beliefs here are,[/quote]

The question should not be 'what are our beliefs here' but, what are the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Even I could, in the course of discussion get something wrong regarding the teaching of Christ, the teaching of the Church.



Now my question to you, by what authority do you interpret the Scriptures, and how do you know your interpretation, even on issues of monumental importance, such as salvation, are accurate.

Blessings,
Adam

[Myles Domini]

I like this thread. I'm going to bide my time give it time to cook before I get involved. I'll be watching meanwhile...

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Myles' date='Feb 9 2006, 05:46 PM']I like this thread. I'm going to bide my time give it time to cook before I get involved. I'll be watching meanwhile...
[right][snapback]882252[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Like a tiger ready to pounce?

[dairygirl4u2c]

Also to address colin's point about "whosoever *believes*".

He thinks that means believes in Jesus's act and that's all.

Catholics think that means believes in what Jesus says. ie eat and drink his flesh and blood. why you ask? it's an intimacy thing, like sex.

Also, I'd like to see colin address the early church issues more.

[Colin]

Hi there,
my concern with objective grace is how it relates to faith. As we know, we are saved by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8, Romans 5:2 "Through Him we also have access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice on the hope of the glory of God" etc).
To shift the discussion to baptism (yes, I am a baptist), when, through God's grace a person encounters Jesus, has faith and is born again, baptism becomes both a beautiful reinactment of what has happened, and a profound proclamation of the Gospel. To see a new believer, face shining with joy and faith, publicly declare their new life in Jesus, then to see them go under the water, dying to self, and being raised up to new life in Christ, these are great and encouraging things. (As 1 Peter 3:21 remind us, its not the water that saves, but "the answer of a good concience towards Christ". ie, faith is again in focus). Equally, Scripture is clear that we must believe on Jesus to be saved/born again. John 6:29, " Jesus answered and said to them, This is the work of God, that you believe on Him whom He has sent."
Now, if it is an objective liturgy which imparts saving grace, then the need for personal belief/faith seems to be abrogated. As Fides-et-Ratio stated, imperfect priests offer mass/baptise. If a priest were to confess he had not believed in God for some years, and therefore wished to resign, his earlier baptisms would not be seen as invalid. I think it was Tertullian who stated that even a Marcionite baptism was valid if the correct form of words was used. Equally, the faith of the child's parents is not the issue. An orphan can be baptised with no knowledge of the religion of his/her parents, and that baptism is valid. Finally, the child has shown no evidence that it has repented, desires to follow Jesus, or has any faith. But suddenly, an orphan of Moslem parents, baptised by an unbelieving priest, is born again, recieves the Holy Spirit, etc., all because the correct form of words is used. This is salvation without faith, salvation by ritual, and is unBiblical.
The beauty of a believers baptism is lost, and a crying child is apparently "saved" contrary to all New Testament teaching. Objective grace therefore, to me, seems to remove the role of faith in salvation.
Act 8:36-9 And as they passed along the way, they came on some water. And the eunuch said, See, here is water, what hinders me from being baptized?
Philip said, [b]If you believe with all your heart, it is lawful[/b]. And he answered and said, [b]I believe [/b]that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
And he commanded the chariot to stand still. And they both went down into the water, both Philip and the eunuch. And he baptized him.
And when they had come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more. And he went on his way rejoicing.
God bless, Colin

[phatcatholic]

this thread has actually strayed off topic slightly. personally, i'm only concerned with the Real Presence. that is afterall what your opening post was about, until you switched course to objective vs. subjective grace. so, in order to bring us back on course, i would like a point-by-point rebuttal on this post:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=47214&view=findpost&p=879114"]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...ndpost&p=879114[/url]

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Colin' date='Feb 9 2006, 09:54 PM']Now, if it is an objective liturgy which imparts saving grace, then the need for personal belief/faith seems to be abrogated. This is salvation without faith, salvation by ritual, and is unBiblical.[/quote](this may apply to all sacraments so I found it within topic. if it is not please let me know)

I would first like to point to miracles that Christ did. In some He spoke and it was done (words in the Liturgy known as form), in others he performed an action such as making mud and applying it to eyes (using matter in the sacraments), and yet still in others He told others to do an action such as at the wedding. The point is that Christ used what we call form (words) and matter (actions or physical matter) in His miracles to convey grace so it is quite biblical.

You might say, "but in all those He said that their faith had healed them or faith was some way involved with it. Yet Catholics believe in an objective grace not contingent upon the faith of the participant." To this I must respond in the following way:

We believe that an objective grace is always present in a valid sacrament ex opero operare (from the very act being done). This is because, as others before me have pointed out, it is God (specifically Christ) acting and presiding over the sacraments that makes an objective grace present. Would you say that when Christ acted in His miracles that grace was not objectively present? I would hope not. Anytime that God acts grace is there, but as I stated earlier the fruits depends on the faith and disposition of the person. This is where you and we can meet. The grace may be present but the fruits of that grace depends on the person. This is not to say that the grace is not effective, but that grace can only work in us so far as we allow it. We see this in the Bible. Christ could not act in His own town because the people lacked faith. He could have worked miracles, of course, but the miracles would have been fruitless because there was no acceptance among the people. Whereas others He could heal because of their faith. The grace in those cases were fruitful. The very act of Christ produces grace, but it is only fruitful so far as the person has faith.

Not meaning to go on a tangent but I will answer your question about Baptism of infants that cannot voice their own faith. In certain miracles we see others coming on behalf of another (centurian, publican, etc...) and Christ cures the girl and the servant not because of their own faith, but because of the faith of another. This is what happens in infant Baptism. The parents (if availible) voices their faith for those that cannot as the centurion and publican did. The objective grace then is fruitful because of the presence of faith. What happens in the case of orphans? Well then why does it have to be a parent? There is no special reason in the case of dire emergencies. A person may speak in faith for another when the former is not able to and there is reason to believe that the person would normally profess that faith. Such a case is with infants that it is within reason that if the child knew of Christ the child would have faith. That is the power and glory of Christ. We see it in the case of Christ's miracles and so we do know that it is quite biblical.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Paphnutius