When Is An Infant Saved?

[Light of the East]

exactly-that why babies can't be baptized. Repentance requires a lot more than just saying you're sorry.

One of the principles of covenant making is HIERARCHY. In this principle, the one who is the covenant head acts on behalf of those who are under his headship.

This is why all mankind was severed from God by the sin of Adam.
It is why the household of Korah suffered the judgment of God along with Korah.
It is why the Jews are no longer in covenant with God, having killed their Messiah through the actions of the high priest, who acted as covenant head on their behalf.
It is why when a Jewish man was circumcised, that circumcision was counted as being good for the females in his family. He was circumcised for and on behalf of them.

And it is why infants are baptized. The faith of the father as covenant head is sufficient faith for the infant. The father acts on behalf of the infant child. The child is made a member of the Kingdom of God, the Church, and is under obligation to accept the vows of faithfulness made on his/her behalf.

If the child matures into adulthood and is faithful to the end, at the Judgment of Christ, that person will receive eternal life. If not -- eternal death. This is the same thing that we all face. Until we have heard the words of Christ telling us that we have been faithful and that we are to enter into the joy of the Lord, we are not guaranteed eternal life. The awesome and fearful Day of Judgment determines our final destiny.

 

[Hawkiz]

"...and that's why fire engines are red."

Seriously?!? You asked for Scripture in a previous post, and so I provided a small sampling. And THIS is the best you could come up with? The OP asked what seemed to be a legitimate question, and you demanded Scripture to 'prove' what I and others believe with regard to infant Baptism. I have provided Scriptural support for our beliefs. Where are the Scriptures that say it is impossible or otherwise forbidden?

Peace in Christ

 

[jacobs well]

One of the principles of covenant making is HIERARCHY. In this principle, the one who is the covenant head acts on behalf of those who are under his headship.

This is why all mankind was severed from God by the sin of Adam.
It is why the household of Korah suffered the judgment of God along with Korah.
It is why the Jews are no longer in covenant with God, having killed their Messiah through the actions of the high priest, who acted as covenant head on their behalf.
It is why when a Jewish man was circumcised, that circumcision was counted as being good for the females in his family. He was circumcised for and on behalf of them.

And it is why infants are baptized. The faith of the father as covenant head is sufficient faith for the infant. The father acts on behalf of the infant child. The child is made a member of the Kingdom of God, the Church, and is under obligation to accept the vows of faithfulness made on his/her behalf.

If the child matures into adulthood and is faithful to the end, at the Judgment of Christ, that person will receive eternal life. If not -- eternal death. This is the same thing that we all face. Until we have heard the words of Christ telling us that we have been faithful and that we are to enter into the joy of the Lord, we are not guaranteed eternal life. The awesome and fearful Day of Judgment determines our final destiny.

New Testament-New Covenant.
Baptism is for all mankind who desire it and meet the criteria. For gentiles and Jews. For everyone - Col 3: 9-10
We live a new life in Christ after baptism. Baptism is symbolic of putting off the old self or man and walking in newness of life. Romans 6:11
In the Old Testament the ritual washings or baptisms were done to cleanse from impurities. These were forerunners of baptism.
Baptism is just the beginning of the conversion process.
It's about making a decision about committing your life to the obedience (keeping the Law) and service of God. No one else can do that for you, in the New Testament.
He who believes and is baptized will be saved -Mark 16:16
Jesus commanded the church to baptize all nations teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. - Matt 28: 19-20
There is no example in the NT of an infant or child being baptized.
There are many examples showing those being baptized old enough and mature enough to understand repentance.

 

[bling]

[/font][/size]

He took death upon himself voluntarily. "God made him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Because human nature was united directly to the divine in Christ, he had no sin, nor any desire to sin, thus it was not fitting that he be held captive to death. The Devil had no claim on him, and this was shown to all when he was raised from the dead.

The early Fathers...heck, all the fathers so far as I can tell...made much of this great reversal and overthrow of Satan's dominion. Many fathers--Chrysostom, Pope Gregory I, pleny of others--portrayed it as Christ "baiting" the devil with his humanity, and the devil thinking he had a claim over him, swallowed the bait and was "pierced with the fishhook of divinity." It's a very poetic metaphor, obviously, but it captures their thinking.

We are bound to die. Christ died voluntarily, despite not having inherited the curse of Adam.

How can you be sure Christ will not come again in your life time, since you say: “We are bound to die.”?

You did not address the question: “Is death in and of itself “bad”?

Did Christ inherit from Adam the curse of ground yielding up weeds?

Just because we “inherit” a “curse” from God would that automatically mean that curse would not help us in fulfilling our objective?

Right next to where it says "trinity" and "hypostatic union." It's a way of summarily phrasing our sinful condition. I can make a list if you like, of passages citing our bondage to sin, the evil inclination of our desires, and so forth. But I'm sure you already know the passages I'd list.

Yes, I most likely would.

Adam and Eve sinned prior to inheriting death, so where did their desires and passions come from?

Does God have the power and Love to gift us with the same nature as Adam and Eve prior tp their sinning and if not why not?

It is. But even if one were to live a sinless life, one would still die, and the devil still "wins." It's humanity that is given over into bondage. I know you'll disagree, but in Orthodoxy it's held that Mary lived a sinless life. Yet she still died. Only by union with God in Christ can anyone be saved from death.

Elijah did not die, so did he live a sinless life?

How do you get around what John said about “all have sinned” and say “Mary did not sin”?

Do you think Mary was born with Godly type Love (like Christ)?

With Christ deity dwelled unquenched in a human body and deity cannot sin, so did Mary from birth have the indwelling portion of the Holy Spirit?



How does the devil “win” if we die?

Do you see sin as having “purpose” for the nonbeliever in this world that will help him/her fulfill their earthly objective?

Not sure where you're going with that. No it's not the devil's fault, it's our fault. And no I can't explain how that is. I always fall back to the mystery of Judas' betrayal. Passages in various gospels very clearly say his sin was (a) his own, (b) due to the devil "entering into him," and (c) the fullfilment of prophecy. It's him...it's Satan...it's God...huh?

We just go with it.

I do not see that big of a difference between Peter’s sin and Judas’ sin, but there is a huge difference in how they reacted to this opportunity (repenting and not repenting). The “sin” was not the problem, since both prior to their “sin” were sinning sinners in need of repentance. Once a person (including Judas or Peter) turn from humbly surrendering to Christ and go out on their own, they are sinners and the sins they do will only get worse spiraling down, but that can be good in helping them to look up to Christ (the only way out). Now do not accuse me of teaching: “We should go on sinning that grace may abound”, since we are talking about nonbelievers and not committed Christians.

 

[Light of the East]

New Testament-New Covenant.
Baptism is for all mankind who desire it and meet the criteria. For gentiles and Jews. For everyone - Col 3: 9-10
We live a new life in Christ after baptism. Baptism is symbolic of putting off the old self or man and walking in newness of life. Romans 6:11
In the Old Testament the ritual washings or baptisms were done to cleanse from impurities. These were forerunners of baptism.
Baptism is just the beginning of the conversion process.
It's about making a decision about committing your life to the obedience (keeping the Law) and service of God. No one else can do that for you, in the New Testament.
He who believes and is baptized will be saved -Mark 16:16
Jesus commanded the church to baptize all nations teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. - Matt 28: 19-20
There is no example in the NT of an infant or child being baptized.
There are many examples showing those being baptized old enough and mature enough to understand repentance.

If there is no example of an infant or child being baptized in the NT, then why do we have sermons from first and second century pastors which not only speak of it, but instruct the faithful in the proper way to do it?

The first believers in Christ were Jews, who were deeply covenant people. They would have had a covenant view which came from the OT, where the infant males were circumcised on the eighth day. That act was not just symbolic. It actually accomplished something -- the person was made a member of the nation of Israel with all the attendant privileges that went with it. Show me one instance or command where an infant child was made to wait until he could recite the Torah and give a reason of faith before he was baptized.

Baptism works the same way, and the Jews of the first century would have thought along those lines. In fact, if Paul or the Apostles had said "Uh huh. YOU can be baptized, but your kids have to wait until they can make a declaration of faith....they would have had a riot on their hands. The Jews understood that children and infants were welcomed into the covenant kingdom.

BTW -- I notice that Jesus didn't have to wait until He was old enough to "make a decision for Jehovah" or any such nonsense like that.

You need to think like a first century Jew and you will understand!

 

[jacobs well]

If there is no example of an infant or child being baptized in the NT, then why do we have sermons from first and second century pastors which not only speak of it, but instruct the faithful in the proper way to do it?

The first believers in Christ were Jews, who were deeply covenant people. They would have had a covenant view which came from the OT, where the infant males were circumcised on the eighth day. That act was not just symbolic. It actually accomplished something -- the person was made a member of the nation of Israel with all the attendant privileges that went with it. Show me one instance or command where an infant child was made to wait until he could recite the Torah and give a reason of faith before he was baptized.

Baptism works the same way, and the Jews of the first century would have thought along those lines. In fact, if Paul or the Apostles had said "Uh huh. YOU can be baptized, but your kids have to wait until they can make a declaration of faith....they would have had a riot on their hands. The Jews understood that children and infants were welcomed into the covenant kingdom.

BTW -- I notice that Jesus didn't have to wait until He was old enough to "make a decision for Jehovah" or any such nonsense like that.

You need to think like a first century Jew and you will understand!

I'm thinking more like a 1st century gentile. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised. Circumcision was no longer part of the law-it had been replaced by the more important spiritual " circumcision of the heart "
Ritual temple-based practices were no longer valid as a demonstration of righteousness. Paul showed that a person did not need to be a physical Israelite to be saved, as Christ's sacrifice was offered to all mankind.
Before Christ people were cleansed or baptized with water-now with Jesus we are baptized with fire-the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was the Son of God, the author of the Law and was baptized at the beginning of His ministry by John with the Holy Spirit- Matt 3:16-17
I can't explain why Pastors earlier on and today preach doctrine that is not consistent with scripture but we have a responsibility to " prove all things"
rather than accept everything as truth.
In the NT infant baptism was not an issue and you won't find instances referring to it.

 

[Light of the East]

I'm thinking more like a 1st century gentile. Gentiles were not required to be circumcised. Circumcision was no longer part of the law-it had been replaced by the more important spiritual " circumcision of the heart "
Ritual temple-based practices were no longer valid as a demonstration of righteousness. Paul showed that a person did not need to be a physical Israelite to be saved, as Christ's sacrifice was offered to all mankind.
Before Christ people were cleansed or baptized with water-now with Jesus we are baptized with fire-the Holy Spirit.
Jesus was the Son of God, the author of the Law and was baptized at the beginning of His ministry by John with the Holy Spirit- Matt 3:16-17
I can't explain why Pastors earlier on and today preach doctrine that is not consistent with scripture but we have a responsibility to " prove all things"
rather than accept everything as truth.
In the NT infant baptism was not an issue and you won't find instances referring to it.

Wow. You miss the entire point of why Gentiles were not required to be circumcised.

A.) It was part of the Old Covenant and the Old Covenant was no longer in force.

B.) There were Jews running around insisting upon circumcision in order to be a "true believer". These were the Judaizers, whom Paul fought doctrinally all his life. The whole book of Galatians is a rebuke to their false doctrine.

C.) Circumcision is a denial of Christ. Circumcision pointed to the coming Messiah. It was a prophetic act, stating that a male would come, shed his blood, and be cut off (as the foreskin was cut off) for his people. Every circumcision pointed forward to Christ, thus, to circumcise after Christ died and was resurrected is saying "Nope. He wasn't the One. We are still prophesying the coming of the Messiah."

D.) Baptism, on the other hand, points back to the Messiah and says "Yep. He was the one who died, was buried, and rose again."

E. ) We live in a covenant, therefore, there must be a ritual of covenant making to enter that covenant. Just as the infants of the Old Covenant were not excluded from covenant participation, neither are the infants of the New Covenant. How is the New Covenant a "better covenant which speaketh of better things" when it excludes our infant children?"

F.) Not all of God's truth is found in the writings of the Apostles we call "the Bible." The preaching of the Early Fathers shows us how they understood and interpreted these writings, and for the first 1500 years of Christianity, infants were baptized into the covenant.

 

[South Bound]

Where are the Scriptures that say it is impossible or otherwise forbidden?

Do you know the difference between a regulative practice in scripture and a normative practice?

 

[jacobs well]

Wow. You miss the entire point of why Gentiles were not required to be circumcised.

A.) It was part of the Old Covenant and the Old Covenant was no longer in force.

B.) There were Jews running around insisting upon circumcision in order to be a "true believer". These were the Judaizers, whom Paul fought doctrinally all his life. The whole book of Galatians is a rebuke to their false doctrine.

C.) Circumcision is a denial of Christ. Circumcision pointed to the coming Messiah. It was a prophetic act, stating that a male would come, shed his blood, and be cut off (as the foreskin was cut off) for his people. Every circumcision pointed forward to Christ, thus, to circumcise after Christ died and was resurrected is saying "Nope. He wasn't the One. We are still prophesying the coming of the Messiah."

D.) Baptism, on the other hand, points back to the Messiah and says "Yep. He was the one who died, was buried, and rose again."

E. ) We live in a covenant, therefore, there must be a ritual of covenant making to enter that covenant. Just as the infants of the Old Covenant were not excluded from covenant participation, neither are the infants of the New Covenant. How is the New Covenant a "better covenant which speaketh of better things" when it excludes our infant children?"

F.) Not all of God's truth is found in the writings of the Apostles we call "the Bible." The preaching of the Early Fathers shows us how they understood and interpreted these writings, and for the first 1500 years of Christianity, infants were baptized into the covenant.

I thought I mentioned circumcision is no longer required-but Paul sums it up in Galatians 6:15-circumcision or uncircumcision amounts to nothing in the New Covenant-it really doesn't matter. Christ is totally sufficient for any and all who come to Him regardless of heritage, rituals and customs.
Children are primary with Jesus Christ. We cannot interpret scripture based on assumptions without instructions or examples.
Gal 1:6-9 explains along with warnings from Christ that false teachers will try to corrupt the gospel and preach doctrine that differs from God.
Today in our age over 2,000 years of different beliefs much of which are not even based on the Holy Bible, the Word of God, and the teachings of the true Church of God are prevalent
To re-iterate-Baptism symbolizes the renunciation of our past sinful way of life-something a 6 day old baby does not have- the burial of our old man and ways into a watery grave (immersion) and then the emergence of a new, Spirit-led man living with Christ's mind and following in His footsteps.
Romans 6:1-8

 

[Light of the East]

I thought I mentioned circumcision is no longer required-but Paul sums it up in Galatians 6:15-circumcision or uncircumcision amounts to nothing in the New Covenant-it really doesn't matter. Christ is totally sufficient for any and all who come to Him regardless of heritage, rituals and customs.
Children are primary with Jesus Christ. We cannot interpret scripture based on assumptions without instructions or examples.
Gal 1:6-9 explains along with warnings from Christ that false teachers will try to corrupt the gospel and preach doctrine that differs from God.
Today in our age over 2,000 years of different beliefs much of which are not even based on the Holy Bible, the Word of God, and the teachings of the true Church of God are prevalent
To re-iterate-Baptism symbolizes the renunciation of our past sinful way of life-something a 6 day old baby does not have- the burial of our old man and ways into a watery grave (immersion) and then the emergence of a new, Spirit-led man living with Christ's mind and following in His footsteps.
Romans 6:1-8

I had to laugh when I saw the above. Protestantism was birthed by interpreting scripture on assumptions and false ideas that have nothing to do with the teachings that Christ gave to the Apostles. Those teachings are only found in the Holy Catholic Church.

You refuse to take the Bible as a whole, even though I have shown you that we are in a covenant ("This is the New Covenant in my Blood") and therefore covenant rules and principles apply to our relationship to God and our worship of Him.

One of the foundational principles of covenant is that one must go through a ritual of covenant making in order to be joined to the other party. Circumcision was this ritual in the Old Covenant.

What do you think is the ritual of covenant making for the New Covenant if it is not baptism? Show me from the scriptures anything that you think could be a ritual of covenant making.

Baptism does not symbolize the renunciation of our sinful life. Where do you get such an idea? Baptism is the making of covenant between our Divine Spouse and ourselves.

In the Jewish religion, the bride to be would be entered into a ritual bath, called the "mikveh bath" It represented a change of life (not renunciation of sin) inasmuch as the woman's life would be soon changed as she entered into the married state. She then would go through the marriage ceremony, which we see in scripture where Jesus turned the water into wine.

After that, the marriage was consummated (and was not considered valid and legal unless consummated) when the two became one flesh. This corresponds to the Eucharist, in which we become one flesh with the Divine Spouse.

So, analogous to the Jewish wedding, we have our Christian mikveh (baptism) and our ceremony of wedding (the Liturgy) and then the marriage of the soul to Christ is consummated (The Eucharist).

Learn to do more than just read the Bible. There are analogies, metaphors, and parables that have to be understood and interpreted. Your methodology (I am assuming that you are a literalist) is flawed and has resulted in a panoply of religions all claiming to be from Christ and all believing different things.

 

[jacobs well]

I had to laugh when I saw the above. Protestantism was birthed by interpreting scripture on assumptions and false ideas that have nothing to do with the teachings that Christ gave to the Apostles. Those teachings are only found in the Holy Catholic Church.

You refuse to take the Bible as a whole, even though I have shown you that we are in a covenant ("This is the New Covenant in my Blood") and therefore covenant rules and principles apply to our relationship to God and our worship of Him.

One of the foundational principles of covenant is that one must go through a ritual of covenant making in order to be joined to the other party. Circumcision was this ritual in the Old Covenant.

What do you think is the ritual of covenant making for the New Covenant if it is not baptism? Show me from the scriptures anything that you think could be a ritual of covenant making.

Baptism does not symbolize the renunciation of our sinful life. Where do you get such an idea? Baptism is the making of covenant between our Divine Spouse and ourselves.

In the Jewish religion, the bride to be would be entered into a ritual bath, called the "mikveh bath" It represented a change of life (not renunciation of sin) inasmuch as the woman's life would be soon changed as she entered into the married state. She then would go through the marriage ceremony, which we see in scripture where Jesus turned the water into wine.

After that, the marriage was consummated (and was not considered valid and legal unless consummated) when the two became one flesh. This corresponds to the Eucharist, in which we become one flesh with the Divine Spouse.

So, analogous to the Jewish wedding, we have our Christian mikveh (baptism) and our ceremony of wedding (the Liturgy) and then the marriage of the soul to Christ is consummated (The Eucharist).

Learn to do more than just read the Bible. There are analogies, metaphors, and parables that have to be understood and interpreted. Your methodology (I am assuming that you are a literalist) is flawed and has resulted in a panoply of religions all claiming to be from Christ and all believing different things.

i gave you Romans 6;1-6 illustrating old man before baptism versus the new man after baptism. There are many references in the Bible regarding that issue-I thought that one would be the clearest for you-obviously not.
Baptism is a ceremony indeed.
It's the effects that are different in our New Covenant that is different. We now experience a change in our hearts and minds through the transforming power of God's Spirit of the New Covenant versus only the physical blessings like prosperity and protection of the Old Covenant.
The promise of the New Covenant is eternal life.
And the Laws of God are now infused in our hearts and minds instead of on stone and scrolls.
Do you keep the seventh day Sabbath? Or God's Holy days?
Baptism by immersion, not sprinkling?
Belief in a coming Kingdom of God, not heaven or hell?
the Biblical dietary laws?
All those and many others are part of the teachings in the NT with examples.
I choose to keep them all. Do you follow the Bible or traditions of men?
the Bible is my guidebook for living in faith and hope.
Covenants are promises in the form of agreements made with man by God.
The New Covenant made " better promises ' yet to come but will be confirmed or fulfilled with spiritual Israel after the return of Jesus Christ.
This New Covenant we are under makes God's laws even more relevant by expanding it to include one's mental attitude and spiritual intent
We are the spiritual Israel versus the physical Israel of the Old Covenant.
Hebrews 8:6-13

 

[South Bound]

If the child matures into adulthood and is faithful to the end, at the Judgment of Christ, that person will receive eternal life.

Could you please tell us what you mean by "is faithful"? How are you defining "faithful"?

we are not guaranteed eternal life.

Are you familiar with 1 John 5:13?

 

[Light of the East]

I gave you Romans 6;1-6 illustrating old man before baptism versus the new man after baptism.

Okay. I have no problem with Romans 6: 1-6. It is my understanding that because we are baptized into Christ (Rom. 6:3) that we are indeed made a new creature by baptism. Is this what you are saying also?

There are many references in the Bible regarding that issue-I thought that one would be the clearest for you-obviously not.

Baptism is a ceremony indeed.

Okay. Seems that we are agreed on this.

It's the effects that are different in our New Covenant that is different. We now experience a change in our hearts and minds through the transforming power of God's Spirit of the New Covenant versus only the physical blessings like prosperity and protection of the Old Covenant.

Okay. But the principles of a covenant and how it works do not change. To be a covenant, an action has to meet five principles of covenant which we see in the scriptures.

The New Covenant is a "better covenant" precisely because the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes with the New Covenant. There is that change of hearts and minds, but is that a permanent and fixed change or is it a change in which we cooperate with God in the development of our holiness? It seems to me that Protestantism doesn't like to speak about the journey of faith and holiness, but rather of the "completed work of Christ" meaning that you have an iron-clad promise of heaven.

The promise of the New Covenant is eternal life.

True, but like all promises of blessing found in covenants, it is a conditional promise, that is, it is based on covenant faithfulness on our part. An example of this is found in Deut. 28, where God makes covenant with Israel.

And the Laws of God are now infused in our hearts and minds instead of on stone and scrolls.

Yes, but that does not mean that we always remain covenantally faithful to them, does it?

Do you keep the seventh day Sabbath? Or God's Holy days?

The Seventh Day Sabbath belongs to the Old Covenant:

Exo 31:16 Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the sabbath, to observe the sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant.

The Old Covenant is fulfilled and the Seventh Day Sabbath, which looked forward to the Sabbath rest of Christ for believers, is replaced with the celebration of Christ's Resurrection on Sunday.

Baptism by immersion, not sprinkling?

Yes.

Belief in a coming Kingdom of God, not heaven or hell?

The Kingdom is here. It is called the Holy Catholic Church. All that remains is for Christ to return and bring in the fullness and completeness of the Kingdom.

the Biblical dietary laws?

Didn't know there were any, especially in light of Peter's experience in Acts.

All those and many others are part of the teachings in the NT with examples.
I choose to keep them all.

Do you follow the Bible or traditions of men?
the Bible is my guidebook for living in faith and hope.

Then you should be Catholic, if the Bible is your guide. Christ only established one Church, put it under the headship of Peter on earth, establishing the office of the papacy. He promised that the gates of hell would not overcome the Church, thus guaranteeing the protection of the Holy Spirit in matters of doctrine and moral teaching. Only the Catholic Church follows the teachings of the Apostles which may be found in the writings of the Early Fathers, who were taught by the Apostles.

Covenants are promises in the form of agreements made with man by God.

Nope. The Bible teaches that a covenant is an intimate relationship and analogizes and describes it in terms of marriage. (Ezek. 16:8) That is why our Lord used the analogy of us as the Bride of Christ and He is the Divine Bridegroom. The relationship is made following certain patterns of behavior, which are the principles of covenant:

T -- Transcendence (The greater offers covenant to the lesser)

H -- Hierarchy (Covenant leadership or headship)

E -- Ethics (Rules of the covenant relationship, which are kept or broken and thus make one either a covenant keeper or covenant breaker)

O -- Oaths/sanctions (The promise to keep the ethics of the covenant relationship and the sanctions (punishments) that will follow breaking those ethical rules.

S -- Succession (The covenant relationship continues through generations)


The New Covenant made " better promises ' yet to come but will be confirmed or fulfilled with spiritual Israel after the return of Jesus Christ.
This New Covenant we are under makes God's laws even more relevant by expanding it to include one's mental attitude and spiritual intent
We are the spiritual Israel versus the physical Israel of the Old Covenant.
Hebrews 8:6-13

Very much agree with that last sentence.

 

[Light of the East]

Could you please tell us what you mean by "is faithful"? How are you defining "faithful"?

Faithful means that you keep the oaths which you made upon entering into the covenant relationship. For instance, in a covenant of marriage between a man and a woman, each promises sexual fidelity to the other. Turning from that breaks the covenant and ends the covenant relationship.

In our covenant with Christ/God, we promise fidelity to Him. Infidelity to God is called "adultery" (see the connection to marriage?) and breaks our covenant because we give ourselves to another -- a false spouse called "sin."

Now...if repentance is offered and forgiveness is given in turn, the covenant can be renewed. We are blessed to have a Divine Spouse who loves us so much that He will ALWAYS forgive if we repent, and he will renew His covenant with us when we do.

We are not guaranteed eternal life.

Are you familiar with 1 John 5:13?

Yes. And it is NOT a guarantee of eternal life. If it was, then why are believers judged at the end of time and either given eternal life or condemned? (Rev. 20: 12-13; Matt. 25: 31-43; John 5: 28-29; Romans 2: 5-10)

When it says that we have eternal life, it means that we have the "downpayment" Here is the verse that shows this:

Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

Eph 1:14 Which is the earnest DOWNPAYMENTof our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

A downpayment is not the full amount. It is an amount of the full portion, given as a promissory of more to come IF THE CONDITIONS ARE MET.

The conditions which are to be met to get the full amount are that we are covenant faithful to the end. Eternal life is the full inheritance of the saints.

1Pe 1:4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

Eternal life -- waiting in heaven for us, if we remain faithful to the end. We only have the downpayment now, which is the Holy Spirit.

 

[South Bound]

Faithful means that you keep the oaths which you made upon entering into the covenant relationship.

I see. What oath did you make?

What about those of us who didn't make an oath, but merely repented, received, and submitted, like the Bible says?

In our covenant with Christ/God, we promise fidelity to Him. Infidelity to God is called "adultery" (see the connection to marriage?) and breaks our covenant because we give ourselves to another -- a false spouse called "sin."

I see. So, if you can keep from sinning, then you'll have salvation on Judgment Day?

Now...if repentance is offered and forgiveness is given in turn, the covenant can be renewed. We are blessed to have a Divine Spouse who loves us so much that He will ALWAYS forgive if we repent, and he will renew His covenant with us when we do.

Sounds kind of like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill.

Yes. And it is NOT a guarantee of eternal life.

Really? So "..that you may know you have eternal life" doesn't mean "...that you may know you have eternal life"? What does it mean, then?

When it says that we have eternal life, it means that we have the "downpayment"

Where in the passage does it say that?

The conditions which are to be met to get the full amount are that we are covenant faithful to the end.

By keeping the law?

 

[Light of the East]

I see. What oath did you make?

The same oath that all Christians throughout the ages have made: to be obedient to Christ and His teachings, and to have fidelity to the teachings of the Church as expressed by the Ordinary Magisterium and the Holy Father.

What about those of us who didn't make an oath, but merely repented, received, and submitted, like the Bible says?

Since I am not God, I cannot speak to your condition nor your eternity, however, you have not made a covenant with Christ in the normative manner as following covenant principles.

I see. So, if you can keep from sinning, then you'll have salvation on Judgment Day?

No one can keep from sinning. That is not the question (Nice strawman). The question is whether or not you keep repenting and working to cooperate with God's grace to overcome your sin. You keep saying your sorry and repenting and Christ keeps forgiving because He loves you.

Sounds kind of like Sisyphus rolling the boulder up the hill.

Sorry. I'm not making the connection here. Carre to explain that a little further for me?

Really? So "..that you may know you have eternal life" doesn't mean "...that you may know you have eternal life"? What does it mean, then?

You have to take the Bible as a whole, not jerk verses out of context to try to prove your chosen theology. At the time that John wrote this, the Jews of the "Circumcision Party" were going about telling Gentiles that unless they were circumcised, they did not have eternal life. John was rebuking the notion of the necessity of circumcision.

As I said and showed you, however, you have the downpayment. A downpayment is a part of the whole. If one has the Holy Spirit as a downpayment, then one does have He Who is eternal life. But the fullness of it only comes after Judgment.

Where in the passage does it say that?

Did you read what I wrote? The word "earnest" means downpayment. Downpayment of what? If you would run a word search, you would find that eternal life is spoken of as "the inheritance." We have the promissory downpayment of eternal life in the form of the Holy Spirit. The fullness comes later.



By keeping the law?

No. By keeping the covenant oath you made to Christ. That oath is the "Law of Love" not the OT Law. Big difference.

 

[South Bound]

The same oath that all Christians throughout the ages have made: to be obedient to Christ and His teachings, and to have fidelity to the teachings of the Church as expressed by the Ordinary Magisterium and the Holy Father.

Do you have the text of this oath handy?

No one can keep from sinning. That is not the question.

Actually, that's exactly the question I asked. Do you have an answer?

You have to take the Bible as a whole, not jerk verses out of context to try to prove your chosen theology.

That's true. Now, would you mind answering my question?

At the time that John wrote this, the Jews of the "Circumcision Party" were going about telling Gentiles that unless they were circumcised, they did not have eternal life. John was rebuking the notion of the necessity of circumcision.

Where is that in the text?

Did you read what I wrote?

I did. I saw how you ignored the passage we're talking about and then jumped to another, unrelated passage. But I'm asking you about 1 John 5.

No. By keeping the covenant oath you made to Christ. That oath is the "Law of Love" not the OT Law. Big difference.

Could you please cite the verse you're referring to?

 

[Light of the East]

Do you have the text of this oath handy?

V. Do you reject Satan?
R. I do.

V. And all his works?
R. I do.

V. And all his empty promises?
R. I do.

V. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
R. I do.

V. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
R. I do.

V. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
R. I do.

V. God, the all-powerful Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has given us a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and forgiven all our sins. May he also keep us faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
R. Amen.

Actually, that's exactly the question I asked. Do you have an answer?


As I said, no one can keep from sinning, so the question is not whether you can keep from sinning and have salvation on the Judgment Day. The question is whether you repent or not when you sin.

Where is that in the text?

The same place where in the Bible it says that the only things we believe and practice about God are only found in the Bible. I heard this when I was a Protestant. It's called Christian History and it has a lot to do with understanding some of the writings of the Bible correctly. Time and culture are important in understanding what is being said. For instance, why was there a prohibition against boiling a kid in its mother's milk? Can you answer that?

I did. I saw how you ignored the passage we're talking about and then jumped to another, unrelated passage. But I'm asking you about 1 John 5.

It is not "unrelated." The Bible is to be understood as a whole. When you have a passage that states that the Holy Spirit is the "downpayment" of our inheritance, you then need to find out what that means. You, on the other hand, appear to wish to ignore this and concentrate upon a single verse, which is the way that Mormons, JW's, and other cultists promote their false teachings.

Could you please cite the verse you're referring to?

Remember when Jesus boiled down the Law of the OT to two verse distinct laws of love? "Thous shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart.....and thy neighbor as thyself."

The Law is really all about loving God and your neighbor. When we do so, we in essence are keeping the covenant of God.

 

[South Bound]

Do you have the text of this oath handy?

V. Do you reject Satan?
R. I do.

V. And all his works?
R. I do.

V. And all his empty promises?
R. I do.

V. Do you believe in God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth?
R. I do.

V. Do you believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was born of the Virgin Mary was crucified, died, and was buried, rose from the dead, and is now seated at the right hand of the Father?
R. I do.

V. Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Catholic church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting?
R. I do.

V. God, the all-powerful Father of our Lord Jesus Christ has given us a new birth by water and the Holy Spirit, and forgiven all our sins. May he also keep us faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ for ever and ever.
R. Amen.

That's actually a baptismal vow, usuall]y recited by the parents, not the infant being "baptised".

As I said, no one can keep from sinning

So then, how can they remain faithful?

The question is whether you repent or not when you sin.

I see. So, why repent?

The same place where in the Bible it says that the only things we believe and practice about God are only found in the Bible.

So, after insisting that it's in the text, you now say it's not in the text?

It is not "unrelated."

Actually, it is. It's addressing a different topic and is in a different context. That's the very definition of "unrelated".

You, on the other hand, appear to wish to ignore this and concentrate upon a single verse, which is the way that Mormons, JW's, and other cultists promote their false teachings.

Actually, I believe very strongly in the analogy of scripture. However, in this case, we're talking about one, specific verse, which you keep ignoring.

Remember when Jesus boiled down the Law of the OT to two verse distinct laws of love? "Thous shalt love the Lord they God with all thy heart.....and thy neighbor as thyself."

Yes. That's the law. Just like I said.

The Law is really all about loving God and your neighbor. When we do so, we in essence are keeping the covenant of God.

So, you believe one is saved by keeping the law, just like I said.

 

[Light of the East]

The parents, with the father acting as the covenant head, recites the vows for the child. It is the responsibility of the parents to teach the child these vows and the importance of keeping them. The goal is that at a time in the child's future, the child will take those vows to him/herself.

The covenant head always acts on behalf of those who are under his headship, whether for curse or blessing.