1517 wrote:
I would remind you that scripture does not contradict, which I assume you know

1517 wrote:
Wording in Scripture does matter. Plus, you can't merely say someone is manipulating something like the scripture without presenting proofs. I am not a presby, but am a Christian who focuses on the object of the seal ( regeneration) than on the symbolic seal.

Go back and read my first post and then read our interaction through again. If you read with your eyes and mind, you might just discover the proof that you seek.

You invert the order of the wording of the commission with your theological belief and think that this is not a problem because you can accommodate infant baptism? Oh, please!

1517 wrote:
Query,
The point is regeneration. If Presby's or any other think their children are under the covenant is irrelevant to actual regeneration. Absalom was under the covenant, being the circumcised son of David, but, again, the matter is regeneration. I believe infant baptism does not go against scripture because of the reasons I highlighted in my earlier post. If the child grows up and becomes regenerated, his baptism is a true seal. If he/she doesn't, then they got wet in a church as a baby.

1517 wrote:
Not all baptized professors are saved, much like not all circumcised on the 8th day Jews were Israel. Like the scriptures state, circumcision or non-circumcision account for nothing, only the circumcision of the heart. Therefore, if a baptized infant grows up and becomes regenerate, then their baptism has been proven, if not, they were merely immersed in water. Baptism does not save, therefore it doesn't matter when a person is baptized, it is the internal regeneration that is matter.

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned

Did the Lord Jesus (and the Holy Spirit when inspiring the Word) not know the Abrahamic covenant and that by virtue of it everyone would be baptized and therefore the order of the words should have been:

SteveR wrote:
I am a witness to posts attacking Christians here, quite possibly to determine the temperature for the part of hell reserved for you.

What venom you spewed out over an innocent query!

SteveR wrote:
Kinda harsh
What makes you think PP is a Catholic? A 10 yr reader who compliments OPC pastors for their sermons doesnt sound like a Catholic to me
btw- A thorn & brier inspector would be busier than a fruit one on this mb

Lurker wrote:
....Actually, I looked up your history....,

Frank wrote:
My main thought was that praying for God to destroy someone was not against scripture. Now if it isn't against scripture then it isn't against God. Also, if I don't kill them myself, then I am simply leaving it up to a perfectly loving and "just" God and since I have permission to do this from scripture, it can't be wrong in and of itself. You and I would agree that God is not going to destroy anyone because Frank wants Him to. The worst case is that He would get upset with me if I didn't do what was morally correct.
A good example was the article itself. I have never prayed for God to destroy Hillary Clinton, but I think she would be a good candidate. I think she is demonically possessed and she is trying to destroy Christ's church. If she turned out to be one of God's elect, then God would simply ignore me.
I always enjoy differences of opinion. That is one of the ways we sharpen our doctrines. "iron sharpens iron".
Not angry!

Frank wrote:
I am one of the few that believe it has a place in our Christian thoughts and prayers. I sort of look at it this way. I pray that if someone isn't one of the elect (the Lord knows) and they fit a category that is clearly demonic in their conduct towards Christ and His church, then I sometimes pray that God will destroy them.
But, I will admit it is a difficult concept and I'm glad you brought the issue up. I'm not sure how the Lord answers this prayer, but I believe it is one we should offer up on occasion.
Also Psalm 139:21-22 is very interesting when compared with 139:23.
Thanks for the comment!

Christ taught us to pray ***for*** our enemies, not against them.

fuzzy logic wrote:
http://www.fivesolas.com/cal_arm.htm

Jim Lincoln wrote:
This is one topic that Catholic Church loves to cover up---probably because there is so much of it--such as on the opposite end of the U.S., q.v., [URL=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/handofgod/view/]]]Hand of God[/URL]. Mahony has had his hand in several things, such as supporting illegal immigrants, q.v., [URL=http://www.ianpaisley.org/article.asp?ArtKey=immigration]]]Romanizing America Through Illegal Immigration[/URL].

Dave wrote:
This is more of the "Could God make a rock so big He couldn't lift it" nonsense.

Walt wrote:
...Once you explain what it means to you, perhaps you could explain again how Christ was baptised first, then the Holy Spirit came upon Him in that order. You seem to teach His example was either not correct teaching, or we should not look at His example for baptism?

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
Notice that the verse states nothing about salvation. blah!.. blah!.. blah!

If he was not chosen for salvation then what? Just so that God could make a nation of him - just for the fun of it!

Of course only someone who calls himself WOMI can completely miss that all God's dealings in the OT since the proto-evangel announced in Gen 3 were to do with salvation!

And then he disparages the calvs hermeneutic!

JD wrote:
The weapon does not usually like to deal with 4th grade mentality in English grammar and I am sure he would not mind my involvement here....

So you think that you are competent to address 4th graders?

Well, try reading through the posts again! This discussion has not been about faith or justification, but about unconditional election (or God's unconditional choosing)!

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
I take it to mean that I am right and you do not allow God's word to be sovereign enough to state what it means and mean what it states. You only added the extra information that we all knew but were waiting for you to state: viz. that you do not care.
You even provided proof below. Instead of appealing to God's Word you appeal to your perverted logic. Do you really expect me to answer seriously to a ridiculous question as the one you propose?

That is as dumb as asking "Does the husband seek the wife, or does the wife seek the husband?"
Hellow! Is there a Doctor in the house?!?!.....blah! blah! blah!..

Try this:

Nehemiah 9:7
Thou art the LORD the God, ****who didst choose Abram***, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham..

Actually there are lots of similar verses re: other individuals and Israel. What do you suppose is the importance of these for doctrine?

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
Blah.. blah.. blah...blah

If you answer God sought Abraham, then I would ask what for? Just so that he could make a nation of him?

Your preferred theology appears to color your understanding of every passage of scripture. Why was he called the God of Abraham? Just so that we could know that he was going to make a nation of him? Or that Abraham served Him?