tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post717784390437089741..comments2024-03-24T05:54:23.612-05:00Comments on Weedon's Blog: Cutting Short the Conversation with the AnabaptistWilliam Weedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-54009690587112435992009-08-08T20:57:58.511-05:002009-08-08T20:57:58.511-05:00John 15:16.
True for the disciples; true for us!John 15:16.<br /><br />True for the disciples; true for us!William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-5269043552469417312009-08-08T20:52:29.656-05:002009-08-08T20:52:29.656-05:001.Jesus himself was baptised as an adult.Will you ...1.Jesus himself was baptised as an adult.Will you be editing this out of the bible? <br /><br />2.A baby cannot believe but an adult can.How can a newborn baby or a 2 month old baby comprehend the sacrifice Jesus made never mind choose to make a decision to become Chistian?<br /><br />3.If a child is brought up believing that they were baptised and assuming therefore that the are Christian, they will not realise that they themselves have to make that choice- no one else can make that choice for them. No one (adult, child, baby) is a Christian just because they were baptised. Baptism alone does not get one into heaven.One needs to chose to whether or not to become Christian first.I know too many people who claim to be Christian solely because they were baptised as babies.These people do not attend church on a regular basis and rely on a baptism that was decided for them to reach heaven.<br /><br />4.Christianity is meant to be our decision.This is a part of the free will God granted us. Infant baptism rejects free will and individual choice.<br /><br />5.Because we Anabaptists are all willing members to Christianity we have a strong retention rate.My Presbyterian,Lutheran,Anglican, Catholic and Orthodox friends say they are having the opposite, and one of the reasons is today's Protestants and Catholics did not have the option of joining the church and the faith they grew up in.It was decided for them and so they leave. <br /><br /><br />Anabaptist convert in process, who feels rather.. put out by your "ignorant Anabaptist" post.We don't put down the Protestants for their theologian beliefs or for how they treated Anabaptists in the past, so what makes you so free to mock us?Lucyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10832572614630264634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-73066259892350565372009-08-01T13:15:39.488-05:002009-08-01T13:15:39.488-05:00Mr. Weedon,
I heed your point about the Romans co...Mr. Weedon,<br /><br />I heed your point about the Romans commentary and I do agree with you about a change in Luther's thought on certain issues, I'm just not sure we can say that his mind changed on double predestination. He was a thorough Augustinian on this point at least.<br /><br />Thanks for citing this passage in Luther. Of course Calvinists would agree with everything Luther has said here, including calling it the comforting doctrine of predestination for those whom Christ clings to and for those who cling to Christ.<br /><br />Lutheran or Calvinist or Orthodox or Anglican we all should be humbled by the free sovereign grace of God.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792859741684071277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-75535167634075073652009-08-01T08:34:36.288-05:002009-08-01T08:34:36.288-05:00John,
No, of course not. I was just cautioning a...John,<br /><br />No, of course not. I was just cautioning against a citation from the Romans commentary by itself demonstrating Luther's mature position. In 1522 and again the last year of his life, his preface to the book of Romans appears in which he has written:<br /><br />"In chapters 9, 10, and 11 he teaches of God’s eternal predestination—out of which originally proceeds who shall believe or not, who can or cannot get rid of sin—in order that our salvation may be taken entirely out of our hands and put in the hand of God alone. And this too is utterly necessary. For we are so weak and uncertain that if it depended on us, not even a single person would be saved; the devil would surely overpower us all. But since God is dependable—his predestination cannot fail, and no one can withstand him—we still have hope in the face of sin.<br /><br />Here, now, for once we must put a stop to those wicked and high flying spirits who first apply their own reason to this matter. They begin at the top to search the abyss of divine predestination, and worry in vain about whether they are predestinated. They are bound to plunge to their own destruction, either through despair, or through throwing caution to the winds.<br /><br />But you had better follow the order of this epistle. Worry first about Christ and the gospel, that you may recognize your sin and his grace. Then fight your sin, as the first eight chapters here have taught. Then, when you have reached the eighth chapter, and are under the cross and suffering, this will teach you correctly of predestination in chapters 9, 10, and 11, and how comforting it is. For in the absence of suffering and the cross and the perils of death, one cannot deal with predestination without harm and without secret anger against God. The old Adam must first die before he can tolerate this thing and drink the strong wine. Therefore beware that you do not drink wine while you are still a suckling. There is a limit, a time, and an age for every doctrine."<br /><br />He clearly seems to still hold to some form of an election to reprobation. It was one of his personal opinions (among many others!) that the Lutheran Church itself has not adopted; though his counsel on how to deal with anxiety over predestination IS how the Formula of Concord proceeds.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-64746626689738567362009-08-01T07:53:59.928-05:002009-08-01T07:53:59.928-05:00Mr. Weedon,
I have read the FoC's statement a...Mr. Weedon,<br /><br />I have read the FoC's statement already. Of course I disagree with it, but that is not the point at present.<br /><br />Do you think that Luther even commented on the last part of 1 Peter 2:8? Again, in his "mature" thinking, I don't think he even commented on that part of the verse. Because of this, couldn't one simply assume that Luther's view of double predestination did not change? I agree with you that Luther's thought on some issues did change over time, but that does not mean that everything changed necessarily, does it?Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792859741684071277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-31888365897304742732009-07-31T20:12:30.872-05:002009-07-31T20:12:30.872-05:00Anastasia - Thanks! I've got a bit of reading...Anastasia - Thanks! I've got a bit of reading from you to do. It was helpful for you to post those links.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-7154815803408067542009-07-31T11:47:35.287-05:002009-07-31T11:47:35.287-05:00"I’m trying to figure it out rationally, whic..."I’m trying to figure it out rationally, which, as Pr. Weedon points out, is where I keep making my mistake. I keep forgetting it isn’t meant to be that way. It’s intended just to be faithful to the Scriptures."<br /><br />Maybe Luther's distinction between the magisterial and the ministerial uses of reason is helpful here.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360602965070109675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-85988243836961879462009-07-31T11:02:11.680-05:002009-07-31T11:02:11.680-05:00Past Elder said,
"No-one is saying the baby ...Past Elder said,<br /><br />"No-one is saying the baby "believes".<br /><br /><br />As you are probably aware,in the Large Catechism, Luther says that "infants too believe". This believing is no doubt believing in the simple sense of barak in the Hebrew, meaning to trust or rely upon. Babies are able to trust their earthly parents; the former even know the latter's voice in utero. <br /><br /><br />William said,<br /><br />"I don't think the Lutheran Church will be in a position to wrestle with the implications of the church's historic practice with respect to the communion of baptized infants until she returns to the norms witnessed in her own Symbols: the weekly celebration of the Eucharist (and on the other holy days) and understanding the implications of examining and absolving penitents for communion as not necessitating a delay to a fixed and arbitrary age. Once those two things have become the norm, rather than the exception, in our parishes, the question of the theology behind the ancient church's practice on this will be worthwhile to pursue; until then, well, urinating in the wind, if you will. ;)"<br /><br />Understood, but possibly the answer is to reverse this and to first practise the historic rites of initiation in proper sequence, then the Eucharistic and Confesssional rites will flow forth from this. Either way may God bless your desire to practise all of these according to His will.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04351586738869558601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-88381551676158549032009-07-31T07:58:24.267-05:002009-07-31T07:58:24.267-05:00P.S.
Actually, more likely, Pr. Weedon is refer...P.S. <br /><br />Actually, more likely, Pr. Weedon is referring to this post, which drew the most comments on this issue.<br /><br />http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2009/03/mystery-and-nonsense-discussion-of-quiz.htmlAnastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-4812696742466486392009-07-30T22:21:18.466-05:002009-07-30T22:21:18.466-05:00Okay, in response to all of you, I’ll write one mo...Okay, in response to all of you, I’ll write one more time and then it’ll be past time for me to bow out.<br /><br />I really am very interested in this subject.<br /><br />And I’m not trolling, I’m trying to figure it out rationally, which, as Pr. Weedon points out, is where I keep making my mistake. I keep forgetting it isn’t meant to be that way. It’s intended just to be faithful to the Scriptures.<br /><br />So I read stuff (as in this current post) about how it’s God who chooses who will be saved, but somehow choosing whom to save is not the same as choosing whom not to save because you are not Calvinists. And how once we have heard the Gospel rightly proclaimed, we have the ability not to reject it, but apparently not rejecting the Gospel doesn’t mean accepting it, because that would be “Decision Theology”. And how those who aren’t elect can be baptized and behave ever so virtuously, but they still won’t make it to heaven, yet this is not because they are not elect. Meanwhile, the elect will be saved will even if they commit terrible crimes, but that isn’t the same is Irresistible Grace.<br /><br />Pr. Cwirla, you just wrote a post on “Foolish Contradictions” in which you said there are no contradictions in the Bible, and I agree with you, and you even provided a good explanation for perhaps the most blatant of the supposed contradictions. Yet this whole business of election in Lutheranism seems to make the Bible contradict itself right and left; every statement I hear or read seems to cancel out another. So in my head it all turns to meaningless mush. I can’t make anything coherent out of it.<br /><br />So I keep asking, and the more I ask the more bewildered I become, and as Pr. Weedon has said, this has happened before, all because I keep forgetting that in Lutheran minds, this stuff isn’t necessarily meant to be logical; it’s only meant to be faithful. (Probably I keep forgetting this because I cannot wrap my mind around the idea that a faithful interpretation of the Bible could turn it into a welter of contradictions could be a faithful one.) <br /><br />So, Pr. Weedon, taking your admonition to heart, I’m going to slink away now into my “time out” corner and repeat 500 times, “It isn’t supposed to make sense, it isn’t supposed to make sense, it isn’t supposed to make sense.”<br /><br />Oh – my blog posts on the subject. I imagine Pr. Weedon is alluding to my little series entitled “Free Will in Conversion.” It’s in five posts in order not to make any of them too lengthy:<br />http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-i.html<br /><br />http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-ii.html<br /><br />http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-iii.html<br /><br />http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/10/free-will-in-conversion-part-iv.html<br /><br />http://anastasias-corner.blogspot.com/2007/11/free-will-in-conversion-part-v-final.htmlAnastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-59793006339074023112009-07-30T21:33:48.843-05:002009-07-30T21:33:48.843-05:00John,
Luther's Romans commentary is rather ea...John,<br /><br />Luther's Romans commentary is rather early in his works and generally regarded as not reflecting his mature reformation theology, so I'd hesitate to use it (unlike the later work I cited from 1 Peter). <br /><br />But the Lutheran Symbols DO address Romans 9:22-23 specifically in the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration, XI, par. 79-81:<br /><br />79 Therefore, the apostle distinguishes with special care the work of God (who alone makes vessels of honor) and the work of the devil and of people. By the instigation of the devil, not God, a person has made himself a vessel of dishonor. For it is written, “[God] endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of His glory for vessels of mercy, which He has prepared beforehand for glory” (Romans 9:22–23).<br />80 Here, then, the apostle clearly says that God endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath. But He does not say that He made them vessels of wrath. If that had been His will, He would not have required any great long-suffering for it. The reason that they are fitted for destruction belongs to the devil and to people themselves, and not to God.<br />81 All preparation for condemnation is by the devil and a person, through sin. In no way does it come from God, who does not want any person to be damned. How, then, should He Himself prepare any person for condemnation? God is not a cause of sins. He is also not the cause of punishment or damnation. The only cause of damnation is sin. “For the wages of sin is death” [Romans 6:23]. Just as God does not will sin and has no pleasure in sin, so He does not desire “the death of the wicked” [Ezekiel 33:11], nor has He pleasure in his condemnation. He is not willing “that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance” (2 Peter 3:9). So, too, it is written in Ezekiel 33:11, “As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.” (See also Ezekiel 18:23.) 82 St. Paul testifies in clear words that from vessels of dishonor, vessels of honor may be made by God’s power and working. He writes, “Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work” (2 Timothy 2:20–21). A person who should cleanse himself must first have been unclean and a vessel of dishonor. He says clearly about the vessels of mercy that the Lord Himself has prepared them for glory. He does not say this about the damned. They themselves, and not God, have prepared themselves as vessels of damnation.<br /><br />So far the Lutheran Symbols. This is the position of the Lutheran Church.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-14500524621894644262009-07-30T21:19:39.169-05:002009-07-30T21:19:39.169-05:00Mr. Weedon,
I'm not intending to troll, but I...Mr. Weedon,<br /><br />I'm not intending to troll, but I went back and examined Luther on 1 Peter 2:8.<br /><br />Does Luther even comment on the last clause of the verse in his comments? Would you be so kind to point out exactly which words of Luther you think are commenting on the last words, "as they were destined to do"? I don't think he addresses the question in this verse. I clearly see that he is commenting on the first part, but I see him make no reference to the idea of "appointing" or "destining" in his comment. Thus, I don't think he is even answering the question. <br /><br />Maybe you would like to quote Luther on Romans 9:22-23. I have not been able to pull it up yet. Thanks.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04792859741684071277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-77163106926919333372009-07-30T10:23:28.433-05:002009-07-30T10:23:28.433-05:00Anastasia - I try not to address other commentator...Anastasia - I try not to address other commentators, but your comments leave me a bit puzzled. I didn't think there was any significant difference between the Lutheran and Orthodox teaching regarding Baptism and it place in salvation. Your questions would indicate otherwise.<br /><br />Please post a reference to your blog (mentioned by Weedon) where you articulate the Orthodox position so that we can understand what lies behind your questions. Or at least make that explicit here. Otherwise, it just appears as trolling.WM Cwirlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12317197804776939257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-7992435335467122009-07-30T07:39:54.809-05:002009-07-30T07:39:54.809-05:00Anastasia,
Since leaving the RC I have little tas...Anastasia,<br /><br />Since leaving the RC I have little taste for playing the games that the RC and the Orthodox do.<br /><br />I've said recently that the RC just about theologizes everything to death. I'm beginning to suspect that the Orthodox are a close second.<br /><br />You aren't really interested in what I have to say. Let's give it a rest, shall we? <br /><br /><br />ChristineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-61622952540830942652009-07-29T21:20:57.980-05:002009-07-29T21:20:57.980-05:00Anastasia,
You already know what we teach on this...Anastasia,<br /><br />You already know what we teach on this, and regard it as foolish nonsense. You've written as much on your blog - more than once. Why do you persist in chasing it down here. <br /><br />Yes, as Lutherans we believe that God wills all to be saved. <br /><br />Yes, as Lutherans we believe hat those who are lost are lost through their own fault in stopping up their ears against the Word of God and NOT because they were not elected. <br /><br />Yes, we believe that no Christian dare claim any credit for believing, for faith is always gift of the Lord. <br /><br />Yes, we specifically REJECT an election in view of anything in us, but we rejoice in an election that is always only because of Jesus Christ and the love that the Father has given the world in Him. <br /><br />No, we can't make the above all fit together into a neat, rationalist package in the way of those who teach an "in view of faith predestination" or of those who teach a double predestination. Furthermore, we don't feel a need to try to sort it out. It is enough for us to know that Scripture teaches each part and that God is no liar. What may appear as foolishness to fallen reason, when it is revealed in the Sacred Scriptures, is the wisdom of God that far exceeds all we could imagine or conceive. <br /><br />And, as I've told you numerous times, in Lutheranism the ACCENT is always on the universality of grace, and to one and all we urge: Look to the Cross, trust Christ and live!William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-34096923108275105262009-07-29T20:31:59.878-05:002009-07-29T20:31:59.878-05:00Okay, Christine, so now I’m thoroughly confused, w...Okay, Christine, so now I’m thoroughly confused, which of course is a healthy state to be in.<br /><br />Of course, not everybody hears the Gospel, either. Presumably God decides who does and doesn't?<br /><br />Are you saying everyone who hears the Gospel and/or is baptized has the genuine ability to reject God or (by not rejecting Him) to accept Him? If so, what is the difference between that and the “Choice Theology” I regularly see Lutherans blasting?<br /><br />Or are you saying ultimately the choice is God’s?<br /><br />If so, do you mean He chooses according to His foreknowledge? IOW that He chooses those who choose Him, who He already, from forever, knew would choose Him? If so, that’s both scriptural (Rom. 8:29) and patristic and we’re in agreement.<br /><br />Or do you mean He chooses for no known reason? If so, where is any discernible difference between that and Double Predestination?Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-44622090393365198052009-07-29T16:00:51.370-05:002009-07-29T16:00:51.370-05:00I don't have a problem with that sense either,...I don't have a problem with that sense either, but I didn't find that the sense that seemed to be used in Daniel's comment, at least as distinct from a person over the age of reason who "made a decision for Christ".Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-68463450841473737572009-07-29T15:49:43.785-05:002009-07-29T15:49:43.785-05:00"...what God has in fact done for me in time,..."...what God has in fact done for me in time, He has chosen to do for me from eternity in Christ Jesus."<br /><br />Kind of like how Christ was "begotten of His Father before all worlds" and was "incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary." Incomprehensible things seem to happen when eternity and history intersect.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09360602965070109675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-74280019042259282642009-07-29T15:43:04.608-05:002009-07-29T15:43:04.608-05:00what God has in fact done for me in time, He has c...<i>what God has in fact done for me in time, He has chosen to do for me from eternity in Christ Jesus. What a comfort indeed! Key to election as to so much else: "in Christ Jesus." Which is exactly how Ephesians puts it.</i><br /><br />And to which I would subscribe heartily, rather than the idea that God has chosen some for salvation and some for perdition from the beginning.<br /><br />ChristineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-62355583487881229852009-07-29T15:40:39.936-05:002009-07-29T15:40:39.936-05:00Not everyone comes to the baptismal font. So Holy ...<i>Not everyone comes to the baptismal font. So Holy Baptism is effectual only for those who receive it, not for everyone in the whole world.</i><br /><br />Very true. I will let the teachings of the Synod speak:<br /><br /><i>Lutherans do not believe that only those baptized as infants receive faith. Faith can also be created in a person's heart by the power of the Holy Spirit working through God's (written or spoken) Word. Baptism should then soon follow conversion (cf. Acts 8:37) for the purpose of confirming and strengthen faith in accordance with God's command and promise. Depending on the situation, therefore, Lutherans baptize people of all ages from infancy to adulthood.<br /><br />The LCMS does not believe that baptism is ABSOLUTELY necessary for salvation. The thief on the cross was saved (apparently without baptism), as were all true believers in the Old Testament era. Mark 16:16 implies that it is not the absence of baptism that condemns a person but the absence of faith, and there are clearly other ways of coming to faith by the power or the Holy Spirit (reading or hearing the Word of God). Still, baptism dare not be despised or willfully neglected, since it is explicitly commanded by God and has his precious promises attached to it. It is not a mere "ritual" or "symbol," but a powerful means of grace by which God grants faith and the forgiveness of sins.</i><br /><br />Wherever the Holy Gospel is preached the Holy Spirit offers salvation through Christ. That not all receive it has been evident from the beginning and will be judged by Christ who alone knows the secrets of every man's heart.<br /><br />Lutherans do not teach predestination nor uphold Calvinism.<br /><br />ChristineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-87968589521749204422009-07-29T15:36:41.495-05:002009-07-29T15:36:41.495-05:00Wow, I'm away for a bit you guys take off!
A ...Wow, I'm away for a bit you guys take off!<br /><br />A few comments:<br /><br />Dan (and -C), <br /><br />I don't think the Lutheran Church will be in a position to wrestle with the implications of the church's historic practice with respect to the communion of baptized infants until she returns to the norms witnessed in her own Symbols: the weekly celebration of the Eucharist (and on the other holy days) and understanding the implications of examining and absolving penitents for communion as not necessitating a delay to a fixed and arbitrary age. Once those two things have become the norm, rather than the exception, in our parishes, the question of the theology behind the ancient church's practice on this will be worthwhile to pursue; until then, well, urinating in the wind, if you will. ;)<br /><br />Past Elder,<br /><br />No problem at all with speaking of infants as believers in the sense that God has given them faith.<br /><br />Bryce, <br /><br />Compare the prayer you cited with Luther's original and note the loss of every reference to believing/unbelieving and the gift of faith! You still have volume 53? Or you can see the redaction that appears in LSB if you held onto that. The Lutheran prayer was first and foremost a prayer that the baptizand be delivered from unbelief and delivered into faith.<br /><br />Anastasia,<br /><br />Of COURSE, when God offers the Gospel to anyone (and He offers it to all!), with the Gospel itself comes the grace to believe it, or the freedom to reject it. <br /><br />Christine,<br /><br />I don't share your aversion to speaking of predestination, but I love the way the Formula teaches us to view it: what God has in fact done for me in time, He has chosen to do for me from eternity in Christ Jesus. What a comfort indeed! Key to election as to so much else: "in Christ Jesus." Which is exactly how Ephesians puts it.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-57265719155218081392009-07-29T15:18:21.282-05:002009-07-29T15:18:21.282-05:00Anastasia (by the way, if you don't mind my as...<i>Anastasia (by the way, if you don't mind my asking -- is that the name you took when you became Orthodox?)</i><br /><br />Yes, it's my baptismal name. <br /><br /><i>I think I've made it abundantly clear that in Lutheran belief and practice we read the Scriptures to say that Jesus died for the life of the world, for all, and that God offers salvation to ALL, bar none, he does not "predestine" some to salvation and others to damnation. He does, in His omniscience, know, and has known from before the beginning of time, who will be saved and who will not yet does not force His gifts on anyone.</i><br /><br />Yes, that much you have indeed made very clear. What still isn't clear is whether God offers the genuine possibility of faith to everyone. By which I mean, makes everyone able to do anything with faith other than reject it. <br /><br />If not, then can anyone show any material difference, any difference at all, between that and the Calvinist doctrine of predestination?<br /><br />Not everyone comes to the baptismal font. So Holy Baptism is effectual only for those who receive it, not for everyone in the whole world.Anastasia Theodoridishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16092531121989260111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-48465906306228883732009-07-29T15:04:16.797-05:002009-07-29T15:04:16.797-05:00No-one is saying the baby "believes".
T...No-one is saying the baby "believes".<br /><br />That's the whole thing, it's about what Christ does, not what we have done or do.<br /><br />Communion is a different sacrament. That's why there's closed Communion but not closed Baptism.Past Elderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10541968132598367551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-77530612966267477222009-07-29T14:01:04.799-05:002009-07-29T14:01:04.799-05:00If a baby believes as a regerated child of God in ...If a baby believes as a regerated child of God in Christ, what then forbids him from receiving communion? A study of the early Church Fathers demonstrates that the Church communioned infants (such as St. Cyprian speaking of a baby taking communion who was still "suckling at his mother's breast). Or read Saint Hyppolytus' Apostlic Tradition [240AD]which clearly demonstrates the tripartite initiatory rites of baptism, chrismation and communion even for infants.<br /><br />It seems to me that the arguements made by anabaptists againsts infant baptism are the same arguements made by most Lutherans against infant communion. Why or more importantly HOW can an infant (or anyone for that matter)be able to comprehend in order to receive the gift of salvation in BOTH of these means of grace?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04351586738869558601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7291232.post-66982164450283039642009-07-29T10:02:41.138-05:002009-07-29T10:02:41.138-05:00Last time I looked the LCMS wasn't ordaining w...<i>Last time I looked the LCMS wasn't ordaining women or putting up with the wacky likes of John Shelby Spong.</i><br /><br />All of us have things to revel in and pat ourselves on the back for.<br /><br />But seriously, if I may be so bold to redirect the discussion back to the matter at hand. At least I will redirect my attention there.Bryce P Wandreyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06790969884859851988noreply@blogger.com