When I say mystical, I am not really talking about "mysticism" in the sense of speaking in tongues or similar type practices. Its difficult to explain. More globally, I am referring to the core theology, the understand of salvation as an ontological act vs. a forensic act, not speaking in tongues or snake handling or stuff like that. The understanding of everything then, from prayer to acts such as baptism, is influenced by that core "mystical" theology.
...the actual moment of salvation has to happen beforehand or the act is meaningless. ??? Says who? No, the act is not meaningless if "the actual moment of salvation" didn't happen beforehand.
Of course, the moment of salvation is a relative observation on the part of the saved. The Lord being, no doubt, capable of speeds beyond the speed of light, will have a different sense of this moment. Please forgive....
Well, what would you consider Baptism be for a non-believer? If someone didn't believe in Jesus as their Lord and Saviour, what would Baptism be to them other than just a dunk in the water? I have specifically answered that very question above. It has to do with community rites and a sense of belonging and commitment. It can definitely be more than just a dunk in the water. This, along with a prior comment about how the power of the Holy Spirit is null and void until one is already a believer, leads me to the conclusion that a lot of theology here is subjective and home-grown, as in whatever one wants it to be. Which is really not surprising, since that's essentially the condition of most competing church denominations.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I believe the same about Baptism concerning the 'sense of belonging and commitment'. Well then it seems that you've answered, and refuted, your own question then. Right? The "point" is, again, a sense of social and public "belongingness". Not everyone who is a church member believes all the dogma hook, line, and sinker, you know. As for the Holy Spirit's power, I thought we have already cleared that up. Perhaps. I was referring your original remark about the Holy Spirit which I found rather odd and not supported in Scripture. But there are other categorical statements that I find odd as well. When someone, usually and especially a layman, declares that something is "definitely" the case one can be pretty sure that it's not, imo. It's a diffusion: each denomination has their interpretation of Scripture and what is important and what is obiter dicta, by the wayside. Then this diffusion happens again with the individual's interpretation of their church's interpretation. In the end, all you have are people arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And look at the very nature of this thread: baptism. This has been said: the Holy Spirit wouldn't "save" someone merely because they were Baptized, yet had no Faith in Christ. Well, if the Holy Spirit won't save someone in this case will Jesus save them instead? Or how about God? Are you saying that infants, baptized or not, won't go to heaven? Infants cannot have "faith" in Christ. But we create a religious construct that imputes functional belief to them, don't we? I know this has been asked and answered before but my point with bringing it up now is that despite what Scripture says, or doesn't say, people will fill in the gaps (as in is baptism required? faith too? what if you're too young to have faith?) so that, in their mind, an unjust outcome will be avoided. In this case, sending infants to hell, I guess. Or the resolution is "Well, that's up to God." But if that's the resolution then why waste time on the technicalities and legalities that seem to preoccupy so many?
...but what does anything that we do on Earth matter unless it has some Eternal significance? What? That's a very narrow way to look at life. Being a nice person, kind to children and animals, caring for the environment are all things that matter, yet has no "eternal significance".
What, are we going to turn to the thread into a cut and past discussion where we each reference our website of choice? Suffice to say, I think we probably disagree on the way in which we should read the Scriptures. They are not a source for proof texting, and they are not without context. The same is true, even perhaps to a greater extent, when reading patristic writings. And as an aside, why do these fundamentalist sites insist on appending "research institute" to their names, is that suppose to make people take them seriously?
Anastasis, instead of belittling the way I post or whom I quoted... how about you respond to the content? Seriously, how do we know which patristic fathers are authoritative when on any given topic they disagree. The link was full of 365 essays of contradictions. Good grief. Which father and at which time should we trust??? Just those from the east and not those from the west?? They even contradict previous writings of their own at times. Furthermore, many of them support the view of scripture that I hold. (some of course do not) Why don't you agree with Cyril of Jerusalem? Or does he not support your particular flavor of the fathers? Sorry to sound harsh, but I truly don't see where you are coming from.
