Michael Hranek wrote: Brother John UK You have said a lot. Few are the pastors such as the church my daughter visited in Tennessee where the pastor began his Sunday message and ended up weeping over the lost in his city...and calling his congregation to praying for the lost (his church gets out and witnesses) with prayer every day in Dec
Brother, that was a most encouraging post! It is indeed rare, in these last times, to find a pastor who is weeping over lost souls and encouraging evangelism with much prayer.
Somewhere "out there", there will be sinners who are struggling through life, with no Saviour, no Holy Ghost, no hope, without God in this world. Christians generally steer clear of them, sticking rather to holy huddles where they can debate theology, drink tea together, and condemn heroin users and murderers.
One day we shall all be standing before the Judgment Seat of Christ, to give account of how we have used the gifts God has given to us. If we have quenched or grieved the Spirit, that is our own responsibility not God's.
Thankfully, we can praise God daily for his grace and mercy toward such undeserving wretches, and every day I thank Christ that he "died for the ungodly".
That would be question number 637 on the list Christopher. Not quite sure how many numbers are on the list, but it's a bunch. It is extremely sad how much they have to distort the facts to make evolution look true. What's sadder is that this theory of Darwin's gave rise to eugenics, Margaret Sanger and planned parenthood, Karl Marx, hitler, Pol Pot, communist china (Mao), and Stalin. (To name a few). That's about a quarter of a billion or more people killed in the 20th century alone because people believe man came from apes and pigs. (Not what the scientific theory states explicitly, but the theory eliminates absolute morality, which these dictators believed and swayed ppl to believe their moral opinions, hence genocide)
Jim Lincoln wrote: Well, of course, the KJV isn't a good Bible for adults, let alone children.
Speak for yourself. While the KJV has obvious archaisms & some translation deficiencies, including Dynamic Equivalence like the NIV, it's not as bad as you claim. This is why I avoid your embarrassing, silly debates with KJV jihadists, for you have managed to find the worst possible arguments against it (e.g., Genetic Fallacy, Appeal to Novelty) in spite of there being much better ones (e.g. Double-Standard, Petitio Principii).
It is ironic that many secular, unbelieving humanities scholars have far more respect for the KJV than you do. At least they admit its lasting literary significance, which you despise. I'll take their word for it.
I think you mock the KJV for the same reason you mock Repubs: to spite fanatics.
John UK wrote: ... after reading such a story, I saw that maybe their position on amount of water required, actually had a reasonable biblical basis. With no recourse to tradition, historians, or greek, the argument was made solely from biblical accounts, which I found most impressive and persuasive. Inded, after reading such, I found myself no longer in the assured position I previously held, but was open to further illumination by the Holy Ghost, as and when he chose to give such. However, I have remained in that state of openness ever since, and would never argue concerning the quantity of water, immersion, sprinkling, whatever, from scripture, as that would be rather difficult to do, seeing there be plenty of good arguments against immersion. .....
John, spend some time reading Carson on Baptism and all your doubts will disappear!
You'll also come to appreciate how fatuous the story is.
didactually wrote: Gs. The problem is that you Baptists cannot read ie interpret or exegete the Scriptures properly.
Didactually Excuse me did you actually mean to say something more along the lines of -
the problem with you baptists is that you refuse to exegete the Scriptures the way "we" (sacramental infant baptizers/sprinklers) instruct you to interpret them.
GsTexas wrote: Any thing other than Scripture for proof of doctrine is shaky ground, and not proof at all
Too which if I might add an observation, it would be this: I have never found a Roman Catholic, and I do not believe I've ever seen a (hyper?) Calvinist/Reformed telling or instructing anyone along the lines of:
Read the Bible for yourself Trust what God Himself says because He says what He means and means what He says and He speaks to us in words we can understand (especially by His grace and the ministry of the Holy Spirit) He cannot lie Pray, seek Him, ask Him to give you understanding of what He says for He will And ask Him for the grace to do what He tells you because He will help you to do His will We indeed have the wonderful promise of Jesus Christ Himself John 8:31,32 for those who abide in His word
J4J, you keep playing hide and seek with your statements. Simply, a sinner CANNOT believe, choose, draw near, or desires God unless God effectually calls, quickens, and grants faith. It is not the other way around. A sinner doesn't believe THEN is saved. He is saved and his suppose choice or believe is the result of the work of God in him. Apart from me (Jesus) you can do nothing. I am the one who is saying that God doesn't sit around, wringing his hands, and hopes people will believe they are saved by Christ. He is not subject to time or his creation, he predetermined all that will come to pass, including salvation and belief.
Hi James, no matter what forum one may hang out in, no matter what focus or Bible group, etc, a person might take part in, there will always be differing opinions. I scrolled throught the thread and noticed Jim saying he might be in Hell, but other than that, I read more observations and facts than anything else. For me, I know the type of charlaitains he has had on in the past which surprises me now that I know much more about them, but other than that, I know nothing of the man. I'm sure he's done a lot of good and TBN consisted of other good content aside from some of his guests. For all I know, he had some of those people on once and then said never again. As for his spiritual status...far be it from me to ever judge and condemn anyone...
First. History records that paedobaptism is the mode of baptism in the early church who came out from the Apostles/Disciples. Second. Baptist mode theory was invented in the year 1521, by a bunch of heretics called Anabaptists. Third. Over the 16/17th centuries the so called "Baptist church" developed from that Anabaptist basis in complete contradiction to 16 centuries of paedobaptism.
You know, it is hard to have a discussion when you keep posting misinformation that has no factual backing. It is one thing to misunderstand and quite another to mislead. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you are just parroting what you were taught. Even the people who you use as disseminaters of your doctrinal position acknowledge I am correct.
John UK and others may continue to address this issue if they wish but I will bow out of this discussion
J4J, a new twist, not all the chosen people chose to believe, would you be so kind as to elaborate. Thanks
didactually would do well to follow J4J good example of a civil discussion.
1517 wrote: 1)You are perpetuating the classic "God looked down the corridors of time and saw who would believe" error. 2)Sheep do not choose their Shepperd, not do slaves choose their Master. 3)The Jews did not choose to be the CHOSEN people of God. 4)The scripture is blatantly clear and only the blind, ignorant, or willfully disobedient try to infuse the murkiness of man's righteousness into the true interpretation of them. I will not judge which one you are...you must CHOOSE that for yourself.
1) So are you saying God doesn't know who will believe?! How ignorant! Not that I even said God knows who will believe, though He does. 2) Sheep don't sin either, we are not really sheep, baah. Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that oneâ€™s slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? (Romans 6:16 NKJV). 3) Not all the chosen people chose to believe either. 4) Where have I infused the righteousness of people into salvation?! I've been consistent to point out that there are none righteous but Jesus and that salvation is of the Lord. The righteousness which comes from our faith is the righteousness of Christ, not ours. Faith is not a work of righteousness.
The way I see it is that their blood has been in the supply line already for a very long time. Whether it's a result of a person's sexuality never being checked before, people lying if it was, heterosexual men who have been with men, and vice versa, women who have been with homosexual or bi men, and so on. I think the angry homosexuals will give blood anyway, out of spite, lying on the questionaires if anything were ever written into law. Afterall, it would work on the honor system anyway, wouldn't it?
GsTexas wrote: Any thing other than Scripture for proof of doctrine is shaky ground, and not proof at all
Gs. The problem is that you Baptists cannot read ie interpret or exegete the Scriptures properly. That obviously is the whole problem here in this debate. Paedobaptists know for a fact that the Covenant of God recorded BY GOD in HIS Scriptures INCLUDES the SEED of the Covenanted people of God.
Baptists cannot receive this Scripture teaching. The Baptists changed the rules for their ideology in 1521.
Also Believer's baptism = Wrong adjective nowhere in Scripture.
Immersion = Wrong translation of Greek baptizw - Just look at the Catacomb pictures and see affusion (pouring).
John UK wrote: Are you saying that ALL children of all believers (including Baptists) are saved?
We've been here before John.
Now read carefully .... The "Elect" are saved. The "Elect" are saved. The "Elect" are saved.
This article is about the poor Baptists being confused about Biblical Calvinism. I am seeing that fact proven on this board all the time. Baptist God is not sovereign? Baptist God is not Covenantal? Baptist God does not elect?
Well, Neil, I agree with your last paragraph, anyway, I will still point out:
1 Corinthians 13 11 When I was a child, I used to speak as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know fully just as I also have been fully known.---NASB
While this is an analogy between a new and mature Christian, it is based on the differences between a child and adult. I would say it would be better for a parent or an adult teacher of children's Sunday School class explaining Scripture, then children reading watered-down Bibles that are part of the subject matter of the article.
didactually wrote: For the three millionth time John me ole bucket ... WCF28/1 - (Read carefully and learn) "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christâ€™s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world."
My question to the above answer was: "If as you say the child of the Christian (or Jew) is brought into covenant with God, what difference does that make?
Are you saying that ALL JEWS are saved?
Are you saying that ALL children of all believers (including Baptists) are saved?
Why, yes, Mike of N.Y., it is quite obvious about Rand Paul's open-mindedness! This is why his brains keep dropping out. He's an opportunist who uses what ever is handy to advanced his goals. I don't think it is possible to credit him with this much intelligence, but anyway,
Webster's 1913 Dictionary wrote: SOPHIST:
Sophist /SophÂ´ist/, n. [F. sophiste, L. sophistes, fr. Gr. ?. See Sophism.] 1. One of a class of men who taught eloquence, philosophy, and politics in ancient Greece; especially, one of those who, by their fallacious but plausible reasoning, puzzled inquirers after truth, weakened the faith of the people, and drew upon themselves general hatred and contempt. Many of the Sophists doubtless cared not for truth or morality, and merely professed to teach how to make the worse appear the better reason;...
The open-mindedness of either of the Pauls is like a cluttered attic, and a lot of junk needs to be taken out.
agreed Your assessment is spot on in my opinion. On a positive note... I have heard rumors that Mr. Walker had been attending Grace Community Fellowship under the leadership of Johnny Mac. I can't confirm that, nor does it necessarily mean anything, but its a small.glimmer of hope that Paul might have heard the true Gospek and possibly repented. But who knows .... Only time will tell