What is the "purpose" of VBS? Obviously CC here...

[MercyA]

Most prepackaged VBS programs are doctrinally neutral. Except one (that I know of).

We are OE Christians and the program was done by Answers in Genesis. The goal of our church (as I saw it) was to promote a YE view. There has been a very hard push in our church that says "if you aren't a YE christian you aren't really a christian". This view of teaching a 6,000 old earth WAS the point of this VBS. I don't know if Jesus was even discussed? The friends I had that helped had a really HARD time with the teaching portion. 

 

That is so wrong. So, so wrong, and sad, and tragic.  :(

[MercyA]

I don't have a problem with VBS in summer if it's truly Bible School.  If churches want to teach Bible stories, have fun activities and songs based on them, eat some snacks, and invite children in the community to join them, and then invite the parents to come back with their kids for regular church services so they can learn more about the faith, I'm all for it. Walk Through the Bible and Life of Jesus types of things can be well done in fun and substantive ways.  But the heavy handed evangelism with kids is something I'm theologically opposed to.  I think Jesus' command to weigh the cost before making any sort of profession of faith is largely ignored by a lot of churches and is something children cannot really do. Kids often believe what the adults tell them, not because of genuine conversion, but because kids are hard wired to believe what adults tell them.  I also think warnings against taking communion unworthily is ignored.  Because of this lack of caution and discernment The Church is corrupted by it-wheat and tares and all.

 

I don't want people mistaking the cult of Churchianity for the conversion of Christianity-white washed tombs and all.

 

Not a Calvinist (okay, maybe like a 1.5 point Calvinist), but otherwise couldn't agree with you more. Well said.

Edited June 21, 2017 by MercyA

[winterbaby]

Reformed in name or in doctrine? Modern century or back when infant mortality was through the roof? I haven't found almost any outside of the conservative Presbyterians and Lutherans who do.

 

But I'm also non-denom, with strong Reformed Baptist leanings (no congregations up here but we identify with them very much) and that's not a thing in that denomination :)

 

John Calvin practiced infant baptism, had a whole theology of it. He opposed the anabaptists of his day so I think it's the melding of those two ideas, whatever its inherent theological merits, that's more modern.

 

[vonfirmath]

But if your faith teaches that believing in Jesus and God is the path to salvation, wouldn't the end goal of teaching them about God, and encouraging them to go to church, be to have them grow up to be Christian, and thus saved?  

 

I grew up Episcopalian, which is a little more confusing on the salvation issue since many Episcopalians believe that non-Christians can go to heaven, but even there the goal of VBS was for children to have fun but also to learn about Jesus, with the goal that they would be more likely to believe in Jesus.  

 

 

 

Not at 4 years old. We do not encourage 4 year old kids to make this decision.

 

[Guest]

John Calvin practiced infant baptism, had a whole theology of it. He opposed the anabaptists of his day so I think it's the melding of those two ideas, whatever its inherent theological merits, that's more modern.

 

There's a whole host of reasons why the support of it in that century isn't something that can be theologically justified so much as culturally justified. I don't really want to get into it on here, but my theological reasons for refusing infant baptism or consecration to the church are well formed and supported. We can agree to disagree on that point.

[Frances]

My mother was a children's minister for awhile when I was a kid so I got to be on that end of VBS a couple of years. I think it works best by far when it's kids from the community and the focus is the community and community building. When I've heard about VBS as a recruitment tool I've really cringed. Like, no way.

This is how it is now in the small Midwest town where I grew up. All of the churches do it together. Having been raised Catholic, I was surprised to hear that even the Catholic Church participates, as we never had VBS growing up. But all of the churches also do a joint sunrise Easter service and breakfast, community Thanksgiving dinner, and run a thrift store/teen center together. And people regularly attend special events and sometimes services at other churches.

[winterbaby]

There's a whole host of reasons why the support of it in that century isn't something that can be theologically justified so much as culturally justified. I don't really want to get into it on here, but my theological reasons for refusing infant baptism or consecration to the church are well formed and supported. We can agree to disagree on that point.

 

Well, I'm coming from a radically different theological perspective, so we both disagree with Calvin, if for very different reasons. But I don't think there's any arguing that he didn't think his theology through in extreme rigor and detail, qua theology - not cultural habit, which he challenged radically. You can think someone's wrong (as do I) and still grant that they really did think about it and have real reasons.

 

[Bluegoat]

There's a whole host of reasons why the support of it in that century isn't something that can be theologically justified so much as culturally justified. I don't really want to get into it on here, but my theological reasons for refusing infant baptism or consecration to the church are well formed and supported. We can agree to disagree on that point.

 

Calvin absolutly gave theological reasons for infant baptism. 

[Bluegoat]

Lutheran here - I've always understood "Reformed" to refer particularly to the Calvinistic branch of the Reformation, not to both the Calvinistic branch and the Lutheran branch. Also, I thought a sizable chunk of the Reformed practiced infant baptism - at the very least, I thought most all Presbyterians did? But I have no idea the ratio of Presbyterians to other Reformed churches.

At least for Lutherans (and Catholic and Orthodox), we do believe that God gives salvation through baptism, and we do consider baptized infants to be fellow believers. For us baptism is first and foremost *God's* commitment to the child.

 

What you wrote matches how I've seen (Calvinistic) Reformed beliefs about infant baptism described, though.

 

Yes, Lutherans aren't Reformed, and classically the Reformed practiced infant baptism.  Later you see a merging among some of some baptist and some reformed ideas, and so you get Calvinists who don't practice infant baptism.  Presbyterians generally practice infant baptism.

 

And yes to salvation being real through baptism among those traditions.  It isn't that they do not think baptism is efficacious in that way - it is they do not see "salvation" as a simple one time thing, but at the same time something that is complete and universal on God's side but ongoing and incomplete on the side of individuals.  This makes it look quite different than the idea that you do something, then you are saved.

[DawnM]

Our church didn't do VBS, but as a kid I once attended one of the Purple Protestant denomination's VBS at the urging of our neighbor friend. I didn't need saving since Jesus was already in my heart, and I was already active in our church. It was a ton of fun. Without that VBS experience my opinion of the Purple group would be on the negative side of neutral. Because of it, my opinion is on the positive side of neutral. The people running it were such darn nice people.

 

At our last house, the city we lived in tended toward the MegaChurchs. They all had VBS programs. But, every VBS was in the same week, which I thought was smart. Something seems wrong to me about signing your kid up for 8 VBS programs as free childcare. One the same level of wrongness as eating all of the food samples that are put out.

What is a purple Protestant church?

[Bluegoat]

And what is a tulip church? And what am I if I attend a Methodist church? I feel incredibly stupid when it comes to these labels. ðŸ˜

 

TULIP is a particular interpretation of Calvinism. They stand for Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, irrisistable grace, perseverence of the saints.

 

I have no idea what a purple protestant is.  When I was in the military, a purple trade was one that was likely to be trasnsfered between elements (so if you were in the army you could sill be transfered to a navy unit, for example, because the work is about the same.)  Perhaps it means protestant groups that are fairly transferable between denominations?

 

Methodism is usually considered a mainline church, as opposed to an evangelical or fundamentalist type of protestantism.

[PeachyDoodle]

Churches who practice infant baptism do not typically believe it actually functions to "save" the child like a Baptist thinks of salvation and they don't think it means the child is a believer. It's really not the same thing at all. In the churches I've been a part of, infant baptism is a way of welcoming the child into the community and of the congregation saying they will look out for the well being of the child. It's the church's commitment to the child, not the child's commitment to the church, kwim? 

 

I was raised Baptist and it was all down on infant baptism, and I was taught it was terrible, but it's really like the churches are using the word to mean very different things. 

 

I only say "typically" because I'm not familiar with every church and perhaps there's some that differ, but I've never seen it. 

 

Not exactly, at least not in the Lutheran tradition of infant baptism. We believe that baptism is God's work, not ours. As such, it's not simply a symbolic profession of an existing faith, but it actually confers faith upon the recipient. Or, rather, the Word/promise of God that's attached to baptism (that we are raised from death to life, called God's children, and given his own name) accomplishes the regeneration. We simply accept and believe those promises that are attached to the sacrament. That's the very definition of faith -- believing what God has said.

 

The rest of what you said is accurate as well, though. Faith must be nurtured and cared for; the child must be nurtured and grown spiritually just as he or she is nurtured and cared for physically, and that is the job of the family and the church. Faith left without spiritual care CAN die -- and the promises of God be rejected -- which is why Lutherans do not believe that all who are baptized as infants remain in the faith as adults.

 

I used to be very much against paedobaptism for the same reasons some other posters have cited, but once I understood the Lutheran view I saw that it is the only one that makes complete sense with a monergistic theology.

 

ETA: Just to reiterate what's been said above, Lutheran and Reformed are NOT the same thing.

Edited June 21, 2017 by PeachyDoodle

[Daria]

Not at 4 years old. We do not encourage 4 year old kids to make this decision.

But it's the long term goal, right? You have them come to VBS in the hope that one day they will be Christians (and thus saved) in the same way that we teach 4 year olds the alphabet in hopes that one day they'll be readers.

[ktgrok]

But it's the long term goal, right? You have them come to VBS in the hope that one day they will be Christians (and thus saved) in the same way that we teach 4 year olds the alphabet in hopes that one day they'll be readers.

 

Yes. So in that sense, salvation is part of it. But not in the same sense as the VBS where they have altar calls and such. Yes, we want the kids to have salvation, we just don't plan on it happening by friday. Of course, we also don't have a "sinners prayer" approach to salvation. It's something to be worked on every day. 

[vonfirmath]

Churches who practice infant baptism do not typically believe it actually functions to "save" the child like a Baptist thinks of salvation and they don't think it means the child is a believer. It's really not the same thing at all. In the churches I've been a part of, infant baptism is a way of welcoming the child into the community and of the congregation saying they will look out for the well being of the child. It's the church's commitment to the child, not the child's commitment to the church, kwim?

 

Actually in the Baptist churches I have been in, they have been very clear in that baptism does NOT save the child or other recipient.  It is why even someone who was baptized as an infant must be baptized -after- they have personally accepted Jesus as their savior.  Getting wet does not save you. It is a step of obedience and a picture to your faith community that you have repented and intend to follow a new path now.  My son was not baptized until several years after he accepted Jesus as his savior --  but that does not make him less saved during that intervening time. He just wasn't ready to do that and my church does not encourage that it be rushed into. They want it to be a decision made by the individual, not pushed by outside influences.

Edited June 21, 2017 by vonfirmath

[winterbaby]

Actually in the Baptist churches I have been in, they have been very clear in that baptism does NOT save the child or other recipient.  It is why even someone who was baptized as an infant must be baptized -after- they have personally accepted Jesus as their savior.  Getting wet does not save you. It is a step of obedience and a picture to your faith community that you have repented and intend to follow a new path now.  My son was not baptized until several years after he accepted Jesus as his savior --  but that does not make him less saved during that intervening time. He just wasn't ready to do that and my church does not encourage that it be rushed into. They want it to be a decision made by the individual, not pushed by outside influences.

 

It's hard for me to hear that kind of dismissive expression about the means that have been consecrated by Divine institution. The waters of baptism are holy. Clearly the Word saves us, and in baptism God's Word is powerful to do what it says. God's joining of the power of his Word to this physical means is real; faith in his Word tells me it's not just water. 

 

[DawnM]

And what is a tulip church? And what am I if I attend a Methodist church? I feel incredibly stupid when it comes to these labels. ðŸ˜

What does it make you? It makes you WRONG!!!!!!!!

 

Hahahaha

[Bluegoat]

But it's the long term goal, right? You have them come to VBS in the hope that one day they will be Christians (and thus saved) in the same way that we teach 4 year olds the alphabet in hopes that one day they'll be readers.

 

 

Yes. So in that sense, salvation is part of it. But not in the same sense as the VBS where they have altar calls and such. Yes, we want the kids to have salvation, we just don't plan on it happening by friday. Of course, we also don't have a "sinners prayer" approach to salvation. It's something to be worked on every day. 

 

One thing I think is important about this, but isn't always mentioned, is that these kinds of groups have a strong communitarian element.  Salvation isn't something that is just individual, we do it as part of a community, the church.  The individual and the community (both the church militant and triumphant,) the spiritual and the physical body, are related - interdependent, or a unity, or embedded within each other.  To be baptized happens to an individual who is both soul and body, and so it acts both spiritually and on their physical person, and that exists within the physical community of the church. 

 

So a child who is coming to VBS, may not be baptized, living within a Christian family and church community, but they are in the most basic way coming into a kind of relationship with that community by simply going to VBS.  So sure, that is part of having a relationship with Christ, the Word made flesh, and that is the very substance of being "saved." 

 

Strictly speaking, groups that practice infant baptism are happy to baptize a child of any age if he or she wants it, but they won't do it without the family being involved in some way.  And VBS isn't going to be the time to do that - it's like getting married the day you meet someone.

[Lawyer&Mom]

One thing I think is important about this, but isn't always mentioned, is that these kinds of groups have a strong communitarian element. Salvation isn't something that is just individual, we do it as part of a community, the church. The individual and the community (both the church militant and triumphant,) the spiritual and the physical body, are related - interdependent, or a unity, or embedded within each other. To be baptized happens to an individual who is both soul and body, and so it acts both spiritually and on their physical person, and that exists within the physical community of the church.

 

So a child who is coming to VBS, may not be baptized, living within a Christian family and church community, but they are in the most basic way coming into a kind of relationship with that community by simply going to VBS. So sure, that is part of having a relationship with Christ, the Word made flesh, and that is the very substance of being "saved."

 

Strictly speaking, groups that practice infant baptism are happy to baptize a child of any age if he or she wants it, but they won't do it without the family being involved in some way. And VBS isn't going to be the time to do that - it's like getting married the day you meet someone.

As much as I don't like the peer-pressure aspect, I think you've pin-pointed my real discomfort with the kids and altar calls. It's the focus on the individual that is foreign to me. We're Catholic because our parents and grandparents were Catholic. When we affirm our faith we chant the creed together in unison. In my experience, religion is more about fellowship, donuts and youth basketball than my personal beliefs. Just a different worldview.

[Guest]

Calvin absolutly gave theological reasons for infant baptism.

Except he was not consistent in them with the rest of hermeneutical structure he adhered to, and that was not the only point on which he had inconsistency in his arguments. He was not infallible in his thinking, as are none of us. His reasoning on this subject is flawed.

 

As for me, if everything else is okay I can attend a congregation that believes strongly in covenentalism and adds in a side of a infant baptism, so long as it isnt their hill to die on. But I'd absolutely argue the scriptural support for it as anything but a sacrament for a believer is extremely weak and more church custom than anything prescribed in holy scripture. It's not a hard case to defend, either.

[Guest]

It's hard for me to hear that kind of dismissive expression about the means that have been consecrated by Divine institution. The waters of baptism are holy. Clearly the Word saves us, and in baptism God's Word is powerful to do what it says. God's joining of the power of his Word to this physical means is real; faith in his Word tells me it's not just water.

 

Wait wait wait. You're coming at this from an angle that the water used is somehow blessed or holy as an element in a sacrament?

 

Now I see why we are using the same terms differently.

[Guest]

Not exactly, at least not in the Lutheran tradition of infant baptism. We believe that baptism is God's work, not ours. As such, it's not simply a symbolic profession of an existing faith, but it actually confers faith upon the recipient. Or, rather, the Word/promise of God that's attached to baptism (that we are raised from death to life, called God's children, and given his own name) accomplishes the regeneration. We simply accept and believe those promises that are attached to the sacrament. That's the very definition of faith -- believing what God has said.

 

The rest of what you said is accurate as well, though. Faith must be nurtured and cared for; the child must be nurtured and grown spiritually just as he or she is nurtured and cared for physically, and that is the job of the family and the church. Faith left without spiritual care CAN die -- and the promises of God be rejected -- which is why Lutherans do not believe that all who are baptized as infants remain in the faith as adults.

 

I used to be very much against paedobaptism for the same reasons some other posters have cited, but once I understood the Lutheran view I saw that it is the only one that makes complete sense with a monergistic theology.

 

ETA: Just to reiterate what's been said above, Lutheran and Reformed are NOT the same thing.

For my part, when I was speaking of reformed lutherans I actually meant those who were monergistic in their thinking. As in, I have more in common with some very traditional and conservative members of another denomination I usually wildly disagree with than theologically liberal members of my own 'group'. There are plenty of Lutherans who like the high church custom but are in closer identification with predestination/election/total/depravity than not.

 

There isn't a good way to describe them though, except that not all Lutheran members are synergists and I am comfortable among the monergists, even if they still like sprinkling little people :lol:

 

Paedobaptism is only a deal breaker for me if it is considered a sealing in the faith and non-negotiable. As a church custom, if everything else is in line, I can hold my figurative nose and just agree to disagree on that point. Plenty of wonderful churches hold to it and aren't flaming heretics for doing so, it's not that big of a deal (but I still contest it on the basis of scripture if asked).

Edited June 21, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Bluegoat]

Except he was not consistent in them with the rest of hermeneutical structure he adhered to, and that was not the only point on which he had inconsistency in his arguments. He was not infallible in his thinking, as are none of us. His reasoning on this subject is flawed.

 

As for me, if everything else is okay I can attend a congregation that believes strongly in covenentalism and adds in a side of a infant baptism, so long as it isnt their hill to die on. But I'd absolutely argue the scriptural support for it as anything but a sacrament for a believer is extremely weak and more church custom than anything prescribed in holy scripture. It's not a hard case to defend, either.

 

I don't think Calvin was particularly inconsistant on this point.  I'm not a Calvinist by any means, rather the opposite really, so it isn't like I somehow think he was infalliable.

 

If you adhere to universal election, your faith in no way causes your salvation, and if you are among the elect its as much the case when you are an infant as when you are older.  As for knowing for sure someone is elect, that is simply unknowable at any age.  Calvin had a communitarian understanding of the Church and the sacraments were related its good order, not a sign of individual faith.

Edited June 21, 2017 by Bluegoat

[winterbaby]

Wait wait wait. You're coming at this from an angle that the water used is somehow blessed or holy as an element in a sacrament?

 

Now I see why we are using the same terms differently.

 

Well that depends on what you mean. It's being used by God for a holy purpose. It doesn't mean I would venerate it apart from that, as some do with what they consider "holy water." Nor do I venerate the bread and wine apart from their instituted use in the Lord's Supper. But the sacraments themselves, which includes the physical means, are holy, and the physical element should not be spoken of, regarded, or handled in a disrespectful or minimizing way.

 

What terms do you see that we're using differently?

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by winterbaby

[PeachyDoodle]

Wait wait wait. You're coming at this from an angle that the water used is somehow blessed or holy as an element in a sacrament?

 

Now I see why we are using the same terms differently.

 

I don't want to speak for winterbaby, but I think we have a similar perspective. The water is holy because it is attached to the promise and Word of God. That's what a sacrament is -- a physical element to which God has attached his promise. It is not the water that saves (otherwise you'd be baptizing yourself every time you take a shower, LOL), it's the Word of God ATTACHED to the water.

 

That is not to say that baptism is the only conveyance of faith. Certainly one can have faith prior to baptism as well. But faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ. It's the Word saves, but in baptism we have the comfort and promise of that Word applied directly to US, as individual beloved children of God. Faith is, in essence, grasping on to the promise God has made us and trusting that He keeps His promises.

 

Arctic Mama, because I know you are interested in theology, I think you would find a study of Lutheran doctrine fascinating -- not trying to change your mind, but just saying I think you would enjoy the different perspective. (Maybe you've done that before, I don't know, just a friendly suggestion from a fellow Bible geek :).)

 

[Guest]

I don't think Calvin was particularly inconsistant on this point. I'm not a Calvinist by any means, rather the opposite really, so it isn't like I somehow think he was infalliable.

 

If you adhere to universal election, your faith in no way causes your salvation, and if you are among the elect its as much the case when you are an infant as when you are older. As for knowing for sure someone is elect, that is simply unknowable at any age. Calvin had a communitarian understanding of the Church and the sacraments were related its good order, not a sign of individual faith.

Except there is precious little in the way of actual scriptural support for baptism outside of the public proclamation of someone who is already in active recognition of their salvation in the body of scripture. I'm not against covenentalism and the church as family and active in one another's faith and encouragement at all. But baptizing as a baby dedication doesn't pass the smell test from the written word of God as a pattern for believers.

 

Like I said, we will disagree on this. I need to go to VBS and don't want to spend the time to go point by point on an argument for this today. So you can have the last word and whatever else, but I follow scripture above all else, not John Calvin, and where his thinking and scripture depart I go with the book. It's the main reason I'm non-denominational now, aside from my preferred denomination not having a presence in this state.

[winterbaby]

For my part, when I was speaking of reformed lutherans I actually meant those who were monergistic in their thinking. As in, I have more in common with some very traditional and conservative members of another denomination I usually wildly disagree with than theologically liberal members of my own 'group'. There are plenty of Lutherans who like the high church custom but are in closer identification with predestination/election/total/depravity than not.

 

There isn't a good way to describe them though, except that not all Lutheran members are synergists and I am comfortable among the monergists, even if they still like sprinkling little people :lol:

 

Paedobaptism is only a deal breaker for me if it is considered a sealing in the faith and non-negotiable. As a church custom, if everything else is in line, I can hold my figurative nose and just agree to disagree on that point. Plenty of wonderful churches hold to it and aren't flaming heretics for doing so, it's not that big of a deal (but I still contest it on the basis of scripture if asked).

 

Lutherans have our own tradition of monergistic theology, which is independent from, and to large degree opposed to, the Reformed tradition. Our doctrine of the sacraments is tied to our form of monergism - they're something God does for us, not that we do for God. While I am conservative, this doesn't really line up on a liberal/conservative axis. To say not all Lutherans are synergists is a vast understatement - if any Lutheran is a synergist in the slightest, it's by virtue of misunderstanding or dissent from the Lutheran tradition.

 

[Guest]

I don't want to speak for winterbaby, but I think we have a similar perspective. The water is holy because it is attached to the promise and Word of God. That's what a sacrament is -- a physical element to which God has attached his promise. It is not the water that saves (otherwise you'd be baptizing yourself every time you take a shower, LOL), it's the Word of God ATTACHED to the water.

 

That is not to say that baptism is the only conveyance of faith. Certainly one can have faith prior to baptism as well. But faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ. It's the Word saves, but in baptism we have the comfort and promise of that Word applied directly to US, as individual beloved children of God. Faith is, in essence, grasping on to the promise God has made us and trusting that He keeps His promises.

 

Arctic Mama, because I know you are interested in theology, I think you would find a study of Lutheran doctrine fascinating -- not trying to change your mind, but just saying I think you would enjoy the different perspective. (Maybe you've done that before, I don't know, just a friendly suggestion from a fellow Bible geek :).)

 

I'm familiar with it, hence my disagreement ;)

 

We view baptism slightly differently - I'm extremely hesitant when one gets into anything holy in sacraments but symbolism and obedience to God.

[PeachyDoodle]

Lutherans have our own tradition of monergistic theology, which is independent from, and to large degree opposed to, the Reformed tradition. Our doctrine of the sacraments is tied to our form of monergism - they're something God does for us, not that we do for God. While I am conservative, this doesn't really line up on a liberal/conservative axis. To say not all Lutherans are synergists is a vast understatement - if any Lutheran is a synergist in the slightest, it's by virtue of misunderstanding or dissent from the Lutheran tradition.

 

 

THIS.

[Guest]

Lutherans have our own tradition of monergistic theology, which is independent from, and to large degree opposed to, the Reformed tradition. Our doctrine of the sacraments is tied to our form of monergism - they're something God does for us, not that we do for God. While I am conservative, this doesn't really line up on a liberal/conservative axis. To say not all Lutherans are synergists is a vast understatement - if any Lutheran is a synergist in the slightest, it's by virtue of misunderstanding or dissent from the Lutheran tradition.

 

I'm aware of this, but explaining poorly. Never mind. I'm going to my conservative, reformed VBS now. And I'm totally right :p Edited June 21, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Bluegoat]

Except there is precious little in the way of actual scriptural support for baptism outside of the public proclamation of someone who is already in active recognition of their salvation in the body of scripture. I'm not against covenentalism and the church as family and active in one another's faith and encouragement at all. But baptizing as a baby dedication doesn't pass the smell test from the written word of God as a pattern for believers.

 

Like I said, we will disagree on this. I need to go to VBS and don't want to spend the time to go point by point on an argument for this today. So you can have the last word and whatever else, but I follow scripture above all else, not John Calvin, and where his thinking and scripture depart I go with the book. It's the main reason I'm non-denominational now, aside from my preferred denomination not having a presence in this state.

 

Perhaps - I thinkl Calvin also considered it important what the pattern of worship had been historically, how the early church understood the Scriptures - though he was sometimes factually wrong on those things.  The idea that Scripture could be understood outside of that kind of context seems to have come later, historically.

[winterbaby]

I'm familiar with it, hence my disagreement ;)

 

We view baptism slightly differently - I'm extremely hesitant when one gets into anything holy in sacraments but symbolism and obedience to God.

 

The idea of physical things embodying holiness may be repugnant to reason, but I think that obedience to and faith in God includes believing that the sacraments he instituted really do what he says they do (namely bring us his grace). God, after all, created a physical world, and us with physical bodies, and himself took on a physical human body, so there is nothing contrary to the Christian faith in physical elements having a real role in our receiving his grace.

 

[Bluegoat]

The idea of physical things embodying holiness may be repugnant to reason, but I think that obedience to and faith in God includes believing that the sacraments he instituted really do what he says they do (namely bring us his grace). God, after all, created a physical world, and us with physical bodies, and himself took on a physical human body, so there is nothing contrary to the Christian faith in physical elements having a real role in our receiving his grace.

 

 

On the contrary - one of the most central ideas in Christianity is the unity of the spiritual and physical.  There is a reason we believe we are resurrected with our bodies, or that the Fall was not only spiritual event but physical.  The idea that salvation, in its concrete actions, would be only spiritual seems odd.

[MercyA]

And what is a tulip church? And what am I if I attend a Methodist church? I feel incredibly stupid when it comes to these labels. ðŸ˜

 

You shouldn't feel stupid! I've attended Calvinist / Reformed / T.U.L.I.P. churches and Armenian churches and have benefitted from both. I don't think these issues are something Christians should divide over. 

 

Here is a discussion of Calvinism (and the T.U.L.I.P. acronym) and Arminianism from a Methodist perspective:

http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/do-united-methodists-believe-once-saved-always-saved

 

[Hmm...I'm not sure why I can't get this link to work correctly. Just skip down to the question: Do United Methodist believe "once saved, always saved" or can we "lose our salvation"?]

Edited June 21, 2017 by MercyA

[MercyA]

The idea of physical things embodying holiness may be repugnant to reason, but I think that obedience to and faith in God includes believing that the sacraments he instituted really do what he says they do (namely bring us his grace). God, after all, created a physical world, and us with physical bodies, and himself took on a physical human body, so there is nothing contrary to the Christian faith in physical elements having a real role in our receiving his grace.

 

Going off on a tangent here: I often compare the wearing of a head covering to baptism and communion--it is a physical symbol of a spiritual reality. It no doubt seems illogical to some people, but Scripture tells me to wear it when I pray "because of the angels"--among other reasons--so I do. God uses physical symbols and physical means throughout all of Scripture. 

 

(I'm not trying to disparage anyone's belief in the real presence by using the word symbol, BTW. It's just the best word I can think of at the moment, when I need a nap.  :) )

Edited June 21, 2017 by MercyA

[vonfirmath]

It's hard for me to hear that kind of dismissive expression about the means that have been consecrated by Divine institution. The waters of baptism are holy. Clearly the Word saves us, and in baptism God's Word is powerful to do what it says. God's joining of the power of his Word to this physical means is real; faith in his Word tells me it's not just water. 

 

 

I'm sorry this hurt you.

 

If it helps, I also do not believe that any words you say save you.  Yes, I point at the prayer I said in a particular location and time as the moment I was saved. But those words did not save me. The Sinner's Prayer is not a magical incantation of specific words one has to say to get saved. You don't have to say any words out loud at all. It just helps with what I mentioned above -- when you start doubting your salvation, you can remember "Where you were"  Salvation is about your heart and your personal relationship with Jesus and, in the end, only God knows for sure who is really Saved and who is just mouthing the words. 

 

From God's point of view, God knows every person who will ever be saved (though yes, he DOES want all of us in Heaven.) From our point of view, we think we are accepting it. But we can't accept what was not offered.  So it gets a bit sticky and confusing there.

 

My favorite is this comfort Romans 8:38-39: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

³⁹ Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." -- and one of those creatures is me. NOTHING I do can separate me from the love of God either.

 

 

[winterbaby]

I'm sorry this hurt you.

 

If it helps, I also do not believe that any words you say save you.  Yes, I point at the prayer I said in a particular location and time as the moment I was saved. But those words did not save me. The Sinner's Prayer is not a magical incantation of specific words one has to say to get saved. You don't have to say any words out loud at all. It just helps with what I mentioned above -- when you start doubting your salvation, you can remember "Where you were"  Salvation is about your heart and your personal relationship with Jesus and, in the end, only God knows for sure who is really Saved and who is just mouthing the words. 

 

From God's point of view, God knows every person who will ever be saved (though yes, he DOES want all of us in Heaven.) From our point of view, we think we are accepting it. But we can't accept what was not offered.  So it gets a bit sticky and confusing there.

 

My favorite is this comfort Romans 8:38-39: "For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

³⁹ Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." -- and one of those creatures is me. NOTHING I do can separate me from the love of God either.

 

God's Word saves. "The word of God is living and powerful" (Hebrews 4:12). When ministers of the Gospel speak the Word of God as He has commanded them to do, those are His words, and they really do something. The sinner's prayer, unlike the words of baptism and the Lord's Supper, is not commanded in Scripture. I don't understand the low view of tangible means generally, but it's doubly strange to me that a tradition that takes such a low view of the means God actually instituted would substitute a means not found in Scripture. If I doubt my salvation, I can look to something that truly comes from outside myself - my baptism - that is vouchsafed in Scripture and given to me through the Body of Christ, rather than to a private subjective action of my own.

[Guest]

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrchcurmudgeon/status/877593361003061248

 

Timely topic :D

[athomeontheprairie]

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrchcurmudgeon/status/877593361003061248

 

Bwahaha...

 

Timely topic :D