I shortened your convoluted and excessively verbose question. Have you calmed down enough yet to read my answer?
|
I shortened your convoluted and excessively verbose question. Have you calmed down enough yet to read my answer?
The reader should note what has gone on so far in what is, I assure you, a vain attempt to answer a very simple, straightforward question. It makes a root canal quite simple in comparison. If you are laughing, then we can laugh together. It is about the only humor to be found on this board.
(He doesn't seem to be calmed down enough yet. I will wait patiently -- while sipping from a mug of hot chocolate.)
Don't wait too long, lest the laughter turn into howling.
Oh well. We can just forget it. It's not worth all this.
I believe, and have believed since my Baptism when I was an infant.Quote:
Does a person born as a Muslim in the Middle East have the same opportunity for salvation as a person born in America?
Thank you for answering a question no one asked. And it's complete nonsense to say you believed as an infant. Totally ridiculous.
At Baptism, God worked faith in my heart, and my parents obeyed His command to bring me up in the knowledge of Him and in His love.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Baptism is a sacrament, a visible means of an invisible grace.
Total nonsense supported nowhere in the Bible. As you often do, you are simply making it up as you go along.
The question remains unanswered, and we all know why. You cannot say "yes" since that would be agreeing that God does judge people, and yet you can't say "no" since it would be an open admission to what is plainly evident, that you don't agree with what Jesus said, so you just duck and dodge.
Having read, as you claim, the John 3 passage that was quoted many moons ago, do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined? I have posted it below to help.
I believe God judges us on the Last Day.
That's Protestant theology.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I answered the question.Quote:
The question remains unanswered, and we all know why. You cannot say "yes" since that would be agreeing that God does judge people, and yet you can't say "no" since it would be an open admission to what is plainly evident, that you don't agree with what Jesus said, so you just duck and dodge.
Absolutely not.Quote:
That's Protestant theology.
Nowhere have you answered the question. But to be fair, I'll repost the question, and you can simply cut and paste your answer. "Having read, as you claim, the John 3 passage that was quoted many moons ago, do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined? I have posted it below to help."Quote:
I answered the question.
Yes, that's Protestant theology. I'm guessing you are a Pentecostal.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
The content of John 3 has to do with Nicodemus. The context is regeneration.
That is Lutheran theology, but not for the rest of Protestant denominations.
And again, an answer to a question not asked.Quote:
The content of John 3 has to do with Nicodemus. The context is regeneration.
I rest my case. Other readers will note that you could not copy/paste any relevant answer you have given. It's a perfect example of what I have been saying.
Yes, Protestant.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I answered your question. Post #210. You are saying, "No comprendo"?Quote:
And again, an answer to a question not asked.
Nope. Not Protestants in general. Only Lutherans.
This is what passed for your "answer". You plainly did not even come close. The last two comments certainly are not answers. The first one did not answer the question.
"I believe God judges us on the Last Day.
That's Protestant theology.
I answered the question."
Nice try, but no cigar. I'll give you the last desperate comment. I'm done. You've demonstrated what I said all along. You are fearful of answering questions.
The still unanswered question. "... do you agree with its content, especially the portion that is underlined?"
The Catholic Church and many mainline Protestant churches, such as the Episcopal, Reformed, Methodist, and Lutheran churches, practice infant baptism. Babies as young as a few days old are baptized, and godparents make the baptismal promises for the baby.
I had said: The content of John 3 has to do with Nicodemus. The context is regeneration.
En masse? No. God deals with individual hearts. Paul addressed this in Acts 17:Quote:
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
I accept Jesus' statements that he's the only way, and belief - a terrible word for it in today's American English, "trust" would be much better - in him is crucial to reconciliation with God.
Thank you for replying.
A follow-up question: How then do you explain the millions who lived before Jesus and never heard of him? And the billions who lived since Jesus and never heard of him? Does Jesus' statement that he's the only way, and is crucial to reconciliation with God apply to those groups? Do they go to hell?
29 “Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man’s design and skill. 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent."
Obviously they can't repent toward something they haven't heard, so every person who looked at their culture's idol deity and said "I don't want to worship a rock. I want to know who made the rock" God will be merciful because they're doing the best they can to trust in him.
Foreknowledge need not be causation. But to address your question directly, after decades of study I have come to a definitive conclusion:Quote:
I'm sure you've heard this before and I anticipate your answer.
Another thought is: If they go to hell for not accepting Jesus/God, why did Jesus/God create them in the first place, knowing they would spend eternity in terrible suffering? Being omniscient, Jesus/God must have foreseen that they would be sinners or non-believers, but he created them anyway.
I don't know.
I figure any God worthy of the title is going to be as far above my comprehension as Kiergegaardian philosophy is above my cat's. There's no way the finite mind can comprehend the infinite, and I suspect that if he/she/it did explain it to us, our heads would explode. Maybe literally.
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
Your thinking on this is interesting. I'm not wild about the Acts passage. I would prefer the parable Jesus told of the Pharisee and Publican who went to prayer. The publican prayed, "God have mercy on me, a sinner." His plea for mercy, said Jesus, resulted in him going away "justified". Now it's a parable, but it does seem to me to open the door perhaps a bit for those who haven't heard the Gospel and yet still appeal to a God of mercy. And then there is Abraham, the example of justification by faith used by Paul, and yet unaware of the name of Christ. It seems to me he was looking towards the one he knew was there and yet, to him, unnamed.Quote:
God will be merciful because they're doing the best they can to trust in him.
I can't agree with the idea of our "best". Man's best is never even close to being good enough to please God. Romans 3 closes that door pretty emphatically. Mercy is our major plea.
Thanks for the post. It is thought provoking. The whole foreknowledge argument is a tough one. Like you, I suspect the answer is perhaps beyond our ability to understand.
I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.Quote:
fm Athos
How then do you explain the millions who lived before Jesus and never heard of him? And the billions who lived since Jesus and never heard of him? Does Jesus' statement that he's the only way, and is crucial to reconciliation with God apply to those groups? Do they go to hell?
fm dwashbur
Obviously they can't repent toward something they haven't heard, so every person who looked at their culture's idol deity and said "I don't want to worship a rock. I want to know who made the rock" God will be merciful because they're doing the best they can to trust in him.
When foreknowledge is combined with the power of creation, it definitely IS causation.Quote:
Foreknowledge need not be causation.
Fair enough. My position is that God is not self-contradictory. Therefore, there is no hell as it is commonly thought of today - a place of eternal torture as punishment for sin or non-belief.Quote:
But to address your question directly, after decades of study I have come to a definitive conclusion:
I don't know.
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.Quote:
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
Good reply. Thank you.
So the "not self-contradictory" God is now OK with the worship of other idolatrous gods? That would certainly toss the first two commandments out the window.Quote:
. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.
This is just a rehashing of the "good conscience" idea, that whatever we do, if it is done in good conscience, is acceptable to God. So human sacrifice, for instance, can pass muster as long as it is done in a genuine practice of sincere worship by "good people".
I'm not sure I can go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to God being that merciful. It's all about the heart condition.Quote:
I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.
For some reason I'm reminded of a scene in a TV miniseries I saw some time in the late 60's or early 70's, I can't remember for sure and I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment. It was called Moses the Lawgiver. Pharaoh is standing in front of one of his idols, couldn't tell you which one, holding his dead firstborn in his arms. He looks up at the idol and gives what I considered one of the great classic lines in all of cinema: "What do I do now?" I laughed so hard at that line I almost missed the next one: "You can't do anything, you have the head of a chicken." Best we can tell, people such as the Canaanites and Egyptians genuinely believed these statues were the deities. Were there individuals for whom a chunk of rock wasn't good enough and their hearts reached for something higher? You bet! Those are the ones that I believe received mercy.
I do believe in a literal Hell, though not the kind that has come to us in art and literature with the flames and demons poking with pitchforks and all that mishmash. "Hell" at its core is the absence of God. Being completely separated from the Ultimate Source Of Life. My view looks more like what Randy Alcorn described in his book Deadline. I won't give any spoilers.
So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them? Give them what they want. They don't realize it'll be about as pleasant as being in a lake of fire.
That's my total take on Hell.
That's why we need both people like you and people like me. Show me a good irregular Hebrew verb and I'm occupied for the next 3 hours. Tell me to work out a systematic theology of blah blah and I'll probably stare at you like you have two heads.Quote:
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.
Understanding God as much as we can is a good thing. My big problem with current methods of doing theology is, most of the categories are nothing but pigeon-holes. I don't see how any finite being can pigeon-hole God. Right about the time some theologian says "I've got it all figured out" another one comes along and shoots holes in it. Having spent some time in that level of academia, I can say with certainty that at some point, it becomes more about the theologian than about the Theos.
When I was in seminary I took a series of New Testament courses called Exegetical Theology of XYZ. We looked for common themes in individual books. What we found might or might not comport with established systematic theology categories and I for one didn't care. I learned more from Exegetical Theology of the Gospels than I did from any other course I took in my two years there.
Plus, I was a big fan of the Muppets and the professor's name was Kermit. How can you not love it??
Seriously, those are my issues with theology. But I'm thankful there are those who have the interest to do that part of it. It just ain't for me.
I'll try to limit my reply to your good comments, just touching on the important stuff. (The father of a girlfriend of mine once referred to me as a flannel-mouthed Irishman - 'tho I'm Irish-American, not a real Irishman. I couldn't tell if that was a compliment or an insult.)
Quote:
fm Athos
I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.
fm dwashbur
I'm not sure I can go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to God being that merciful. It's all about the heart condition.
John Henry Newman said something very similar, "...conscience is 'the primordial word of God' written in human hearts". However, he later seems to backtrack by saying (to Catholics) "...if one is a Catholic, on must USE the teachings of the Magisterium to inform one's conscience."
Absence of God is becoming more mainstream among Christians regardless of denomination. Even literal fundamentalists are beginning to support it. Wikipedia has a very good article on "Annihilationism".Quote:
I do believe in a literal Hell, though not the kind that has come to us in art and literature with the flames and demons poking with pitchforks and all that mishmash. "Hell" at its core is the absence of God.
I have to thank you for addressing the idea so clearly. Better than what I have been saying for two years here that Jesus spoke figuratively and that the Bible - especially Genesis - is filled with allegories. In John's Gospel, Jesus himself is quoted as saying that very thing about his speaking figuratively. He does not mean every word out of his mouth obviously, but it's fairly clear when he does mean it. Those who are mired in "that old time religion" need to see Jesus' figurative way of expression for a deeper appreciation of their faith.Quote:
So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
I find that personally difficult to comprehend - that some, having knowledge of God - reject him. That would seem to put evil on a par with the good. Just my way of thinking.Quote:
But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them?
Yes, each way has value. When the exchange is civil like this one, each can learn from the other. Here's a link that illustrates some of what we have been discussing.Quote:
fm dwashbur
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
fm Athos
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.
fm dwashbur
That's why we need both people like you and people like me.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...en#post3884258
The last line of the link is a nice summary.
Gotcha. Kermit - haha.Quote:
Show me a good irregular Hebrew verb and I'm occupied for the next 3 hours. Tell me to work out a systematic theology of blah blah and I'll probably stare at you like you have two heads.
Understanding God as much as we can is a good thing. My big problem with current methods of doing theology is, most of the categories are nothing but pigeon-holes. I don't see how any finite being can pigeon-hole God. Right about the time some theologian says "I've got it all figured out" another one comes along and shoots holes in it. Having spent some time in that level of academia, I can say with certainty that at some point, it becomes more about the theologian than about the Theos.
When I was in seminary I took a series of New Testament courses called Exegetical Theology of XYZ. We looked for common themes in individual books. What we found might or might not comport with established systematic theology categories and I for one didn't care. I learned more from Exegetical Theology of the Gospels than I did from any other course I took in my two years there.
Plus, I was a big fan of the Muppets and the professor's name was Kermit. How can you not love it??
Seriously, those are my issues with theology. But I'm thankful there are those who have the interest to do that part of it. It just ain't for me.
Thought this would be shorter. Once a flannel-mouth.....
Except that Jesus never spoke of it that way. It just seems to be a large measure of speculation that has to begin with an assumption that all the talk of, "the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" was just so much pretense. That's quite a stretch. But in saying, "They are attempting to describe the indescribable," you might have a good point. And yet it would be wise to note that whatever the "indescribable" is, it is terrifying, and that still makes hell a very bad place, thus leaving the "anit-hellers" at about the same place they were to begin with.Quote:
So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
What Alcorn described is more terrifying to me than any fire you could show me.Quote:
So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
Except that Jesus never spoke of it that way. It just seems to be a large measure of speculation that has to begin with an assumption that all the talk of, "the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels" was just so much pretense. That's quite a stretch. But in saying, "They are attempting to describe the indescribable," you might have a good point. And yet it would be wise to note that whatever the "indescribable" is, it is terrifying, and that still makes hell a very bad place, thus leaving the "anit-hellers" at about the same place they were to begin with.
That could very well be true, and your point is well taken, but the issue is that I'm not trying to show you anything. I'm just referring to the text.
Athos
When my sister named her son Kevin my dad threw a fit because "That's a flannel-mouthed Irishman's name". I never knew what that meant, especially since my mom was almost pure Irish.Quote:
I'll try to limit my reply to your good comments, just touching on the important stuff. (The father of a girlfriend of mine once referred to me as a flannel-mouthed Irishman - 'tho I'm Irish-American, not a real Irishman. I couldn't tell if that was a compliment or an insult.)
I'd like to see the context of that, but from a Catholic perspective I understand why he said it. It reminds me of the seven Noachic laws vs. the 613 Mitzvot in Judaism. I don't think I'd like a God with double standards, but that's just me.Quote:
fm Athos
I agree with you. I would add that God's mercy also applies to those who, in good conscience, worship their deity even though others may see it as a rock idol.
fm dwashbur
I'm not sure I can go that far, but I wouldn't be adverse to God being that merciful. It's all about the heart condition.
John Henry Newman said something very similar, "...conscience is 'the primordial word of God' written in human hearts". However, he later seems to backtrack by saying (to Catholics) "...if one is a Catholic, on must USE the teachings of the Magisterium to inform one's conscience."
Absence of God as I understand it isn't the same as annihilationism. One exists, but totally alone. Annihilationism as taught by, e.g. the 7th Day Adventists, is just what it says: complete cessation of existence. Unless I've misunderstood you, which is always possible.Quote:
I do believe in a literal Hell, though not the kind that has come to us in art and literature with the flames and demons poking with pitchforks and all that mishmash. "Hell" at its core is the absence of God.
[Athos]
Absence of God is becoming more mainstream among Christians regardless of denomination. Even literal fundamentalists are beginning to support it. Wikipedia has a very good article on "Annihilationism".
Quite so. Even when he mentioned the fire prepared for the devil and his angels as JL cited, we're talking about fire that doesn't oxidize fuel so the individuals are burned forever. But if the fire doesn't oxidize, how does it create pain or torment? Reading it literally creates more problems than it solves. And if we realize that Jesus is describing something that is so indescribably much worse even than the imagery he uses, it can give one pause and cause one to ask "How do I cancel my reservation?"Quote:
So what's with all the language of fire and such? Jesus, John, Peter Paul and Mary - wait, that was somebody else - used the most terrifying language they could come up with. Why fire? Because everything is afraid of fire. Jesus could point to the valley of Hinnom and say "Imagine being in THAT for eternity" and get his point across, whether that's literally what it looked like or not. The point is the terrifying idea. They are attempting to describe the indescribable by doing what Jesus always did: finding points of contact that the people understand.
[Athos]
I have to thank you for addressing the idea so clearly. Better than what I have been saying for two years here that Jesus spoke figuratively and that the Bible - especially Genesis - is filled with allegories. In John's Gospel, Jesus himself is quoted as saying that very thing about his speaking figuratively. He does not mean every word out of his mouth obviously, but it's fairly clear when he does mean it. Those who are mired in "that old time religion" need to see Jesus' figurative way of expression for a deeper appreciation of their faith.
I wish it were otherwise, but I've met a few.Quote:
But there are those who simply do not want to live in eternity with God, any god. What's the Almighty supposed to do with them?
I find that personally difficult to comprehend - that some, having knowledge of God - reject him. That would seem to put evil on a par with the good. Just my way of thinking.
[Quote]
fm dwashbur
The other conclusion I came to: I hate theology.
Very well said. As far as I'm concerned, legalizing Christianity way back when was a mistake. It gave theologians and church leaders too much time to sit around and think things up that had nothing to do with actual worship of Jesus, and create an impossibly complicated religion that builds on uncertainty and fear to make and keep converts. What Jesus brought was so simple, people like Cornelius and his household didn't even have to say a word and He accepted them. C.S. Lewis has no idea when he became a Christian. He said he was on a trip from point A to point B. When he started out, he wasn't, and by the time he reached his destination, he was.Quote:
fm Athos
I find the study of God fascinating. To each his own.
fm dwashbur
That's why we need both people like you and people like me.
Yes, each way has value. When the exchange is civil like this one, each can learn from the other. Here's a link that illustrates some of what we have been discussing.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showth...en#post3884258
The last line of the link is a nice summary.
WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me. But I don't believe it's what they said it is. Mark 16 says if you're not baptized you're condemned, but Jesus didn't say that. Somebody else threw that stuff in when they discovered their copies of Mark didn't have the actual resurrection account. It's not authoritative in any way. But this is what professional theology has given us: two different methods of salvation. And they can't even bring them to us in English, they have to use the Latin phrase Ordo salutis, which sounds like the scientific name of some kind of insect. To me it's more of the pigeon-holing I mentioned. I don't care how it happens. Jesus is merciful. All I have to do is cry out "God, be merciful to me" like the tax collector, or listen and understand the message like Cornelius, or be practical and say "Well, here's some water, let's do this" like the Ethiopian with Philip. We see it happen a dozen or so different ways, so as far as I'm concerned the theologian can keep their idle speculations and go get a real job.
I've eaten some foods that tasted like flannel, but I don't think it's the same thing <biggrin>Quote:
Show me a good irregular Hebrew verb and I'm occupied for the next 3 hours. Tell me to work out a systematic theology of blah blah and I'll probably stare at you like you have two heads.
Understanding God as much as we can is a good thing. My big problem with current methods of doing theology is, most of the categories are nothing but pigeon-holes. I don't see how any finite being can pigeon-hole God. Right about the time some theologian says "I've got it all figured out" another one comes along and shoots holes in it. Having spent some time in that level of academia, I can say with certainty that at some point, it becomes more about the theologian than about the Theos.
When I was in seminary I took a series of New Testament courses called Exegetical Theology of XYZ. We looked for common themes in individual books. What we found might or might not comport with established systematic theology categories and I for one didn't care. I learned more from Exegetical Theology of the Gospels than I did from any other course I took in my two years there.
Plus, I was a big fan of the Muppets and the professor's name was Kermit. How can you not love it??
Seriously, those are my issues with theology. But I'm thankful there are those who have the interest to do that part of it. It just ain't for me.
[Athos]
Gotcha. Kermit - haha.
Thought this would be shorter. Once a flannel-mouth.....
You shudda called me. Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
That I can agree with. It is largely symbolic with no real impact on the infant.Quote:
Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.
These were ELCA, I don't know if that makes a difference. One told me baptism "places you into the family of God." I asked what that meant and he couldn't really come up with an explanation. RC says it removes original sin. I don't buy it, but at least Father Tim was able to give me a definitive answer.Quote:
WG
Quote Originally Posted by dwashbur View Post
WG, I've served under several Lutheran pastors. Not one of them could truly explain baptism to me.
You shudda called me. Infant baptism has more to do with the sponsors/godparents and the baby's parents than anything going on inside the baby's heart and soul. The sponsors and parents pledge to guide the baby into the Christian faith as it grows up, enriching its life with knowledge about God and His love and goodness, pray for the child as it grows up, be in loving contact as much as possible.
I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.
Quote:
I agree with JL that it's a symbolic act. In the New Testament it's an expression of one's faith as well as an initiation into local church bodies.
I think that's fair. I would only add that baptism is a public declaration of what might have occurred in private. In my case, I became a Christian while kneeling by my bed at night, but I was baptized in the light of day in a swimming pool at Bible college with about thirty others.
My dad was a LCMS pastor and believed that infant baptism was a public acknowledgement that the baby would be raised as a Christian and thus was a way to begin to work faith in the child. And that "work" would mainly be done by supportive baptismal sponsors and the baby's family -- plus congregation members.Quote:
Originally Posted by dwashbur
I think your dad made a really good statement. It's actually more of a dedication service. It would have nothing to do with the infant repenting, believing, or being born again at that point of baptism. Perhaps we have come to one of our rare moments of agreement.
Confirmation classes begin in 8th grade and are a review of Christian (and specific Lutheran) beliefs. The culmination of confirmation classes is a special ceremony, an affirmation of baptism, a public reaffirmation of faith.
Unless, of course, the individual had never placed his/her faith in Christ to begin with.Quote:
a public reaffirmation of faith.
If the individual hasn't, he will privately express that to the pastor and/or refuse to participate in the confirmation ceremony. (Remember, the individual is around 13 years old and has yet to experience many challenges to his/her beliefs.)Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I have no doubt that the woods are full of former Lutherans who went through the classes you mentioned without ever making a genuine decision to follow Jesus.Quote:
If the individual hasn't, he will privately express that to the pastor and/or refuse to participate in the confirmation ceremony.
We were confirmed in the 8th grade in the big church with the Bishop lightly slapping us as we gave him our confirmation name on a piece of paper. He told us we were now Soldiers of Christ so we went out and beat up a bunch of Protestants!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
JUST KIDDING, JUST KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I don't remember when I became a Christian. I do not remember a time when I wasn't. A little weird, but there it is. When I was 7 I was talking with my mom about believing in Jesus and all the rest and she explained to me what baptism was. Our pastor baptized me the following Sunday night, after which my oldest sister planted a huge glob of orange lipstick on my cheek. It was all I could do not to scream. Even so, I knew I had done something important, and my shirt had a long sleeve so I could wipe the goop away. Good enough.Quote:
I think that's fair. I would only add that baptism is a public declaration of what might have occurred in private. In my case, I became a Christian while kneeling by my bed at night, but I was baptized in the light of day in a swimming pool at Bible college with about thirty others.
The things you remember...
See, THAT makes sense. What Pastors Ken and Eunice told me didn't. Thanks!Quote:
My dad was a LCMS pastor and believed that infant baptism was a public acknowledgement that the baby would be raised as a Christian and thus was a way to begin to work faith in the child. And that "work" would mainly be done by supportive baptismal sponsors and the baby's family -- plus congregation members.
I have no doubt that's true, but I think we would agree that you were not born a Christian, nor became a Christian at 6 months. There is an issue of volition involved here that infants are not capable of. I tell the guys at the rehab that it's somewhat like agreeing to heart surgery. The surgeon does the work, but I have to recognize my need and get on the table.Quote:
I don't remember when I became a Christian. I do not remember a time when I wasn't.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:44 AM. |