"The Mass is Idolatry. All worshipping, honouring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without his own express commandment, is idolatry. The Mass is invented by the brain of man, without any commandment of God; therefore it is idolatry." (John Knox)
"But the Mass is instituted, as the plain words thereof and their own laws do witness, to be a sacrifice for the sins of the quick and the dead: for doing of the which sacrifice, God is bound not only to remit our sins, but also to give unto us whatever we will ask. And that shall testify diverse Masses celebrated for diverse causes: some for peace in time of war, some for rain, some for fair weather; yea, and (alas, my heart abhors such abomination!) some for sickness of beasts. They will say, they severally take prayers for obtaining such things. And that is all which I desire they say; for the obtaining such vain trifles, they destinate [appoint] their whole purpose, and so profane the sacrament of Christ's body and blood (if that were any sacrament which they abused so), which should never be used but in memory of Christ's death." (John Knox)
Lance Eccles wrote: Jim, I'm sure you're well aware of what I mean. The Catholic Church is the only fully Christian church. Mike Gedron is free to invent his own church and call it "Christian", but he (like Luther and Calvin) will have to answer to God for his arrogance. And "Who is a Roman Catholic?" Anyone who follows the teachings of the RCC,
Lance I thought you'd like to hear Calvin's answer. Quote;
"Therefore, we need wisdom to discern the true church of God, as I have already said. As the mother of God‚Äôs children, we ought not to misuse or sully her name. Unfortunately, this is precisely what has happened and continues to occur to this day. It is a common error in our day to use the term ‚Äėchurch‚Äô to obscure and hide God‚Äôs truth from the people. What else do the PAPISTS do when they call themselves ‚Äėthe church‚Äô so proudly and publicly? They have managed to seal up the mouth of God, as it were, and trample his Word underfoot. Indeed, they no longer even refer to it, all the while accepting unreservedly that which has been fabricated in their own minds, both declaring it and submitting to it."
"....many people who claim to be believers and to be associated with the name of God are, nevertheless, illegitimate children. For this reason God, disowns them, though they may be considered ‚ÄėChristians‚Äô in the eyes of the world. They have corrupted that good seed, which is pure doctrine, which they need in order to be regenerated and adopted into God‚Äôs family. What good is it to be regarded as part of the church if we are not truly born of the good seed which is both pure and perfect? For this to occur, we must be governed by the Word of God, without twisting it or adding to it. This is why Paul speaks here of the heavenly Jerusalem as our mother. Yes, it is true that those who contort the natural meaning of Scripture are not true children of God, and are liars and hypocrites when they address God as their Father. Yet, because they appear to be believers, Paul tells us that we may discern them by their mother, and thus know whether they are truly the legitimate children of God and acceptable to him. For the word ‚Äėchurch‚Äô is often used lightly. The Papists in our generation use the term as a shield to cover all their errors! Since the Word of God is against them, they make use of this; at least they have the church on their side!" (J Calvin)
R. K. Borill wrote: Hey, My Presbyterian Brother, Don't worry. They do it all the time. When they have no argument, they resort to twisting what you say into their fallacies.
Hello Brother; Yes I've noticed their "inconsistencies" with Scripture truth and doctrines.
It seems amazing that some in the visible church, can come up with so many theories on how the Bible is read. But thus it has been down through the centuries. As Paul said, there has to be heresy that we might know who is approved.
The heteredoxical hypotheses posted by JD, Yamil and Abigail serve to highlight this point.
Abigail wrote: A [Presbyterian] said "Salvation is by human effort/works and God needs the prior permission and cooperation of the sinner before HE can save.
Abigail; I did NOT say that
This is what I said quote::
"Or to put it another way. JD states as he has before - Salvation is by human effort/works and God needs the prior permission and cooperation of the sinner before HE can save."
It is "JD" that I was referring to, who Practices "salvation by works" the Roman Catholic dogma. This is the religion of the Arminians! (Of which I believe, you are also one)
I am a Calvinist of the Biblical Doctrines of Grace. Teaching a Sovereign God, and Totally Depraved Human race, incapable of spiritual decision until Grace and the Holy Spirit enables the sinner to respond.
"If we do not take account of this consideration we fail to appreciate the radical distinction that obtains between the predestination to life, which belongs to election, and the foreordination to death, which inheres in reprobation. Calvin insisted, that in the differentiation between election and reprobation we must seek for no higher or more ultimate cause than the sovereign will of God and that the pure sovereignty of God‚Äôs good pleasure is the origin and explanation of reprobation no less than of election. But there is a factor in reprobation that does not enter into the salvation which is the fruit of election. This factor is that reprobation cannot be conceived of apart from the everlasting condemnation which it involves and condemnation always presupposes guilt and ill-desert. Guilt and ill-desert attach themselves to us. Therefore, reprobation must never be conceived of apart from the ground or basis which resides in us for the condemnation that reprobation entails. In a word, the ground of condemnation is sin and sin alone. And sin is ours and ours alone. To reiterate the ground of the discrimination that exists among men is the sovereign will of God and that alone. But the ground of the damnation to which the reprobate are consigned is sin and sin alone"
"In connection with election Calvin fully recognizes that this election was in Christ. Nothing, however, could be more remote from Calvin‚Äôs thought than to suppose that this fact in the least interferes with the pure sovereignty and particularism of the election itself.
On the contrary, he says expressly that this is the confirmation that ‚Äúthe election is free; for if we were chosen in Christ, it is not of ourselves.‚ÄĚ And the practical import for us of this truth is that no one should seek confidence in his own election anywhere else than in Christ.
‚ÄúChrist, therefore, is both the clear glass in which we are called upon to behold the eternal and hidden election of God, and also the earnest and pledge.‚ÄĚ
Referring to John 17:6, he says, ‚ÄúWe see here that God begins with himself (a se ipso), when he condescends to elect us: but he will have us to begin with Christ in order that we may know that we are reckoned among that peculiar people.‚ÄĚ
‚ÄúElection, indeed, is prior to faith, but it is learned by faith.‚ÄĚ (John Murray)
JD wrote: I presented a case for the NT doctrine of regeneration of the Spirit which exposed the ordo salutis of the sheeple as being false doctrine. Since the OT saints were justified by their faith but none of them were regenerated by the Spirit, and I made that case by comparing Scripture to Scripture and based my conclusions on them, the calvs teaching that one must be regenerated before they can believe
Or to put it another way. JD states as he has before - Salvation is by human effort/works and God needs the prior permission and cooperation of the sinner before HE can save.
The Ordo Salutis of the True Church is Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow,(God 1st) *HE* also did predestinate(God foreknows) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom he did (1st)predestinate, them he also called(effectually): and whom he called, them he also justified(Imputed Righteousness): and whom he justified, them he also GLORIFIED(No Doubts whatsoever).
2Cor 3:3,6 And... 2Thes 2:13-14.13 "...because God hath from the beginning CHOSEN you to salvation through sanctification of THE SPIRIT and belief of the truth 14 HE called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory.."
Abigail and Michael I observe now how extensive the heresy of arminian/papist salvation by works affects your denominations and religion.
Requiring repentance and faith prior to election is of course unBiblical and in error. But I note now that your hypothesis on baptism fits into the arminian principle of works based religion. This is obviously why you require the human verbal rite, as a necessary touchstone in the ceremony of baptism.
This obviously is also why you conduct the unBiblical practice of excluding people on the basis of age and adult ability.
I can only now say that this heresy which now permeates many modern churches, is so comprehensive that I am not surprised at the emergence of the Liberal trait to reject the Bible and it's laws and doctrines.
May God help the churches so polluted by this dark heresy of Rome.
It is a statement in itself, that in these Liberal and corrupt times, as the authority of God and Christ declines in the west, that the Roman antichrist is becoming more acceptable.
The confused Anglicans and Episcopalians, amongst others, are an easy target for those who prefer a stronger physical ritualistic liturgy. They find a natural affinity in the popery of Rome. This is one of the rejected idolatries which the Reformation protested and left behind.
Trying to establish belief prior to baptism, is simply another prohibitive measure applied to exclude a person from baptism, until they fit into the precepts of denomination, in the Baptist church.
Baptism is a *Sacrament* ordained by Christ Himself. HE never intended that it should be the contention, of part of the church to use it to divide it up into factions, as the Anabaptist/Baptist organisations have adapted it into today.
Baptists by their own doctrine on baptism, versus the straight forward statement of Scripture, do by their own requirements and conditions go beyond the Bible, to devise tenets and regulations which have NO actual basis in Scripture.
Yes the Bible teaches us to Baptise.
But it does not teach the application of prohibitive requirements such as age, adult abilities or verbal rites to "precondition" the ceremony.
Therefore this has to have been introduced by extra-Biblical denominational standards.
Discerning Believer wrote: Just goes to show you that you do not take the bible as authoritative but as subordinate to your traditions.
That is precisely what YOU are doing. (ps::My traditions are older than yours).
Which part of the term rhetoric are you using to substantiate your case.
*Rhetoric* (Dictionary) 1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast. 2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech. 3. the study of the effective use of language. 4. the ability to use language effectively. 5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse. 6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.
Since the eunuch is asking the question of the "expert" in this instance, and considering HE PRESENTS IT. Then "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" This question is a rhetorical one, - NOT the foundation of the rules of EXCLUSION which you seek to apply.
Discerning Believer wrote: the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. ...eunuch was prevented from baptized until he made a confession
DB Thats not true!!
I've been wondering when the Baptists would bring up this verse to support their theory on an "exclusion zone" on baptism subjects.
All that is recorded here is a simple conversation between Philip and the eunuch. NOT a Ruling!
There is nothing here or in Scripture to imply that any one is excluded from baptism by a human interrogative process.
In the mission situation, which the NT conveys, adults are brought to Christ by preaching, grace and the Holy Spirit. It is quite natural and reasonable for the church, to seek to identify that the adult person seeking membership of the church, is prepared for the ceremony.
This however does not illustrate that the Baptist applied EXCLUSION condition is a Scriptural one. As stated below, there is *NO* verse in Scripture which excludes a person on the basis of age and ability.
Therefore the Baptist doctrine contains an *extra-Biblical,* denominational standard.
Abigail wrote: A [Presbyterian] said Acts 2:39 says no such thing!! For the promise is unto you, and to your children, ....The promise to you and your children is the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost
The "Promise" referred to here as in the rest of the Bible is the Covenant of Grace, as commenced with Abraham and his seed.
Circumcision was the sign and seal then.
In the NT the sign and seal was changed to "baptism"
Therefore as I have previously stated the correct recipients of baptism, is the children of *Covenanted* believers as Peter teaches in this verse.
As for this being the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You are wrong!! You are trying to introduce the distinctives of your denomination, which are in error.
The previous verse makes this plain. However I suspect you will read it differently.
Michael Hranek wrote: If this quote is accurate it seems the famous John C of Geneva had himself in the false belief of baptismal regeneration (a Roman Catholic False Belief) a different gospel.
What Michael is alluding to is where John Calvin has stated that baptism is the pledge/figure of forgivness and adoption.
Peter on this subject writes in the Word of God 1Pet 3:21 "The like *FIGURE* whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"
So I guess Michael does not agree with Scripture either. __________ Abigail says "Baptism of infants is unscriptural. Nowhere in the NT was it practiced."
Acts 2:38 "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. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your **CHILDREN**"
Abigail disagrees with Peter and Scripture too.
I wonder which "bible" these guys use in their religion???