1192Why the objections to 'material' grace?
- Jun 1, 2001From: praisinjc@m...
Date: Fri Jun 1, 2001 11:57 am
Subject: Re: Infant Baptism......for Don :)
--- In Churchianity@y..., John Schwery <jschwery@n...> wrote:
<<One thing I have against the practice of infant baptism is that to
me, it supports a works, salvation.>>
For one thing, in the Sacraments God GIVES something.
The Sacraments are not works..they are Gifts, free gifts.
I think the real stumbling block for many evangelicals is that they
object to the idea of real graces being recieved through material
elements. However this objection is clearly thwarted throughout Holy
Did Not God become a MAN, flesh and blood, in order redeem us and
atone for our sins? God ACCOMPLISHED our salvation through the
necessity of the Incarnation. He HAD to take on full human nature,
material and immaterial to save us, as Hebrews 2 points out well.
Hence MATTER is essential to our salvation!
Baptism and the Lords Supper are materials that the Lord gives and
communicates graces through. Why is this so defensive really?
Everything He made is good.
The mud He put on the blind mans eyes prior to healing them, for
example, Ever wonder why He did that?
He was fully able to heal the man simply by His touch, yes?
I believe there was a sacramental revelation hidden in that event..
God healing and giving something by way of a material element.
Of course, it is plain also that Gods graces are not subject only to
the sacraments, in the same way as the Lord also healed men and women
throughout scripture simply by His touch and without using anything
HOWEVER, He was incarnate and those healings most often occured
through touch/contact..material again;)
As i am a Christian and not a gnostic, i have no problem with
sacramental grace, but i rather rejoice in it.
- Next post in topic >>