Michael Hranek wrote:
WayneM
Such a catholic Reformed view sets on its head what God says in
John 12,13
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Somehow I simply cannot believe parents can recieve Jesus Christ for their children in their place. And I certainly do not believe sprinkling them as babies garentees they will be saved.

I am not saying parents receive Jesus Christ for their children in their place. I simply pointed out the scripture in Acts 2:38,39 where God said the promise of salvation includes the children of believers. This promise is a great comfort for believing parents whose child might die as an infant or child before they reach the age of understanding, the parent knowing that they are with the Lord in heaven.

Nathan wrote:
Regarding infant Baptism I believe it holds no value as I see no biblical validity for this practise and Roman Catholic infant baptism is more or less an exorcism.

Would you agree that the promise of salvation includes the children of believers regardless of their age?

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 2:38,39

Reformed people believe God made a promise that he would establish his covenant with believers and included their children in the covenant. So it seems reasonable that the children of believers and infants should be baptized too. Baptism does not guarantee a person will be a believer or has any power to regenerate or save a person as Roman Catholics believe. The parent as a believer has a special office to raise his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Would anybody suggest we don't have fire insurance on our homes? How is not having fire insurance being good stewards of what God has given us?

If one works for 30 years to pay off his mortgage and provide a home for his family and the house burned down, how is not having fire insurance in accordance with God's Word? Same with medical insurance and car insurance. If someone does not have minimum insurance, he shouldn't be driving.

Luke 12 wrote:
Or maybe the Lord didn't mean what he said in Luke 12.... "take no thought" for these things. Or maybe it doesn't apply to us who are his disciples?
I'm still ready to go whenever he calls me. He'll take care of my family if I go before them. This world isn't all that attractive or appealing, really.

Jesus did not say you should not take care of your responsibilities in life such as auto insurance, health insurance, etc. These things are necessary to fulfil your responsibilities to society, your family, and your neighbour who we are commanded to love. If you cause an accident and injure your neighbour, he is entitled to whatever compensation the court orders you to pay, which would be paid by insurance coverage. Medical insurance may help keep you alive until God decides it is your time. You are needed by loved ones and others.

Opaque wrote:
You are excluding God from your premise.
There is Truth in the Bible which cannot be received except by the Elect.
If the atheist says, "You cannot prove God exists" to the Christian; - the answer is - That is correct. It is God who proves and reveals Himself to any mortal. This is not a human power to give OR receive.
Only God's Elect are saved.
And only BY God!
"4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"

Luke 12 wrote:
For Christians, do we ever ask how many show their distrust of God's provision and sovereignty by spending his money on insurance policies?
When he calls me home, I'm ready to go!

"Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Provideth her meat in the summer, and gathereth her food in the harvest." Prov. 6:6-8

compassionate conservative wrote:
If money were the solution to the problem, the problem would have been fixed by now.

I saw Obama's speech on TV the other night and it sounded reasonable to me.

But there seems to be a lot of distrust of gov't in the U.S. I am not sure how you solve the various problems he outlined with your current health care if it is not reformed by gov't legislation. Millions of people appear to have serious problems accessing affordable health care.

As far as your fear that there would be a lot of corruption, the present system seems to be rampant with exploitation, abuse and unfairness.

Not sure if you have heard of it, but mother Teresa suffered from a crisis of faith according to one of her closest confidants. A book was written about this and an article was published (cover story) in Time magazine.
You can read various websites and see talks on YouTube about it.

One such website commentary on it:

"You should read your history more closely. The Church did not slaughter anyone."

Have you not heard of the Huegonots in France and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre? Between 5000 and 30,000 Huegonots were assasinated. You can read about it on Wikipedia.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
In that context, I believe that in verse 63, Jesus is telling them not to consider verses 53 through 58 from the position of mortal beings – “the flesh is of no avail” – but from the position of their spirit – “It is the spirit that gives life”. He continues “the words I have given you” (53 – 58) “are spirit and life”. This is a prediction of the creation of the Eucharist at the Last Supper as Jesus’ Body and Blood.

In the meantime a thought occurred to me. I know in Acts, the eating of blood and fornication is forbidden for christians. I wonder how Rome gets around that.

There are many things you have not really considered. Did you read Hebrews chapters 9, 10, and 11 or better yet the whole book carefully?
Hebrews makes it clear there is no more need for an earthly priesthood as in the Old Testament. The Roman religion is a kind of re-enactment of the Old Testament sacrifices for sin. But this is contrary to what Paul said in Hebrews. Read it and see. You could not possible have read it properly.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
But, as I mentioned to Wayne, this topic is mentioned in many passages and in all of them the context implies that the statements are to be taken literally.

If Jesus was speaking literally about eating his flesh and blood, then why did he say in John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing"?

Secondly, this discussion with the disciples took place long before the last supper? There were two more passovers (over a year passed) before the last supper occurred. What makes you connect this with the communion service when it was not instituted until the last supper?

Jesus said "if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever" vs51a
If He meant eating his literal flesh in the form of bread was necessary, where was this done in the time period between when he said this and the last supper? If it was necessary to literally eat his flesh to have eternal life, who had eternal life before the last supper occurred? Nobody had communion bread until the last supper.

You have difficulty understanding why Jesus would allow a large part of his listeners to be lost. (John 6:66)

But Bert, most of Israel did not believe in or accept Christ as the Messiah. Some Jews were saved, but not a lot. That is a fact taught in the N.T. God turned to the gentiles with the gospel. I can't explain why Jesus did not save everybody that heard Him speak in John ch6 or anywhere else during His ministry on earth. The reason why He did not save everyone is not explained. The reason why God has not saved everybody in the world is not explained.

Why does everyone not have faith? The scripture does not explain why everyone in the world is not saved. God is calling out a people to himself. Remember God is completely sovereign and does not have to save anybody, or explain his actions to anyone. All are fallen sinners. Why did God destroy the world with a flood? The fact he does save some by his grace (unmerited favour) demonstrates his mercy. The gospel is preached but not all believe.

"For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." Romans ch9:15,16

"1 Cor 11:27 “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord.” doesn’t sound very figurative to me either. Why would Paul say that if Jesus meant it figuratively?"

The phrase "body and blood" is a reference to the broken body and shed blood of Christ which he offered as a complete atonement for His people.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
And, why did Jesus let so many of His followers leave? If He meant it as a symbol, don’t you think He would have clarified things for them?

You are missing the parts of chap 6 which answers your question.

"Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" vs60

These disciples thought Jesus meant eating his flesh and blood literally, just like you. That is why they said this is a hard saying.

Jesus responded "Doth this offend you?" vs 61

What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" vs62

Jesus asks what they will think when his physical body ascends to heaven?

Then Jesus explains that He is not talking about physically eating and drinking his body by saying:

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." vs63

He tells them he is speaking of eating and drinking his flesh SPIRITUALLY Bert. This is what you do when you believe on Him. vs47/vs54

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
At no point does He even suggest that it is anything but His actual Body and Blood. And He tells us to do this in remembrance of Him.

If we accept your interpretation, then Jesus must be saying there must be two ways to receive eternal life; one my believing in Jesus (vs47) and the second way, by eating his physical body (vs51 as you interpret it). There is only one way to receive eternal life. By believing, not eating.

Again 1 Cor 11:27 is speaking figuratively. Jesus and the N.T. writers often spoke figuratively. That was the syle of writing in those days.

Same in Luke 22:19-20. The bread and wine Jesus gave REPRESENTED his shed body and blood. At the moment he said that, he was present physically in his body, not in the elements. The elements represent Christ's sacrifice of his body and blood on the cross. Again this is the Jewish style of using figurative speech.

DisplacedMaritimer (Bert) wrote:
Wayne,
Yes, I have read Hebrews. The Sacrifice being offered is the Sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary. After God transforms the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus, that Body and Blood are offered up as the Sacrifice they were intended to be and directed to do by Jesus.

I recommend you listen to this sermon "Was Peter Really the First Pope?" at: