GSTexas wrote: Why do presbys slander others in the name of the truth?
If you go back to the posted debate we held on Covenantal Baptism a few weeks ago, you will see that the "doctrine of slander" is much more Baptist than Presbyterian. That is IF you really do apply truth to your perception.
Mike wrote: There is nothing in his comment on v10 that contradicts what he said about v9 in reference to the gift to which v8 speaks....
You clearly missed the point so permit me to explain. Calvin, like Luther believed in the Bondage of the Will.
So when dealing with verse 8, yes he says that faith is not the gift being referred to in that verse.
But when he comes to verse 10 and to the words "For we are his workmanship.." he deals with the issue of free will, which is why I pointed you to it. In his explanation he makes it absolutely clear "He does not say that the power of choosing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we are afterwards left to make our own choice. Such is the idle talk in which those persons who do their utmost to undervalue the grace of God are accustomed to indulge. But the apostle affirms that we are Godâ€™s work, and that everything good in us is his creation"
IOW, in Calvin's view even though v8 does not refer to faith as a gift, v10 indicates that since we have no free will, even the power of choosing, the will to come is given by God, "For we are his workmanship..".
Mike wrote: It might be proper to deal with what Calvin said about Eph 2:9 before running off to another verse, don't you think?
As you wish. Let's refer to his comments on v10: "What remains now for free-will, if all the good works which proceed from us are acknowledged to have been the gifts of the Spirit of God? Let godly readers weigh carefully the apostleâ€™s words. He does not say that we are assisted by God. He does not say that the will is prepared, and is then left to run by its own strength. He does not say that the power of choosing aright is bestowed upon us, and that we are afterwards left to make our own choice. Such is the idle talk in which those persons who do their utmost to undervalue the grace of God are accustomed to indulge. But the apostle affirms that we are Godâ€™s work, and that everything good in us is his creation; by which he means that the whole man is formed by his hand to be good. It is not the mere power of choosing aright, or some indescribable kind of preparation, or even assistance, but the right will itself, which is his workmanship; otherwise Paulâ€™s argument would have no force. He means to prove that man does not in any way procure salvation for himself, but obtains it as a free gift from God.."
Mike wrote: Not quite again. Salvation is the gift referred to in v8, affirmed by v9. 9. "Not of works. Instead of what he had said, that their salvation is of grace, he now affirms, that â€śit is the gift of God.â€ť 124 Instead of what he had said, â€śNot of yourselves,â€ť he now says, â€śNot of works.â€ť Hence we see, that the apostle leaves nothing to men in procuring salvation. In these three phrases, â€” not of yourselves, â€” it is the gift of God, â€” not of works, â€” he embraces the substance of his long argument in the Epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, that righteousness comes to us from the mercy of God alone, â€” is offered to us in Christ by the gospel, â€” and is received by faith alone, without the merit of works." John Calvin
John 1.13 which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
1517 wrote: Ahem, Got it. We are responsible before God for knowing his word, no doubt. But, it is silly as well to assume that the early church had personal copies of scriptures. In fact, the early church were living while the letters were written, therefore needed someone to rightly teach what they received. But, regardless, as it continues to happen on this forum, some discussions end up a mud slinging "you're dumb and arrogant", "silly", or "without understanding" exercise. See you in the next grudge match.
Yes the Scriptures were being written at that time and all the more reason for pastor-teachers then. I believe that this office continues to this day, despite the fact that we have Scripture readily available.
As for name calling, I posted after I saw your comment, and thought that your comment was arrogant. Looking through the posts you have been extremely personal in your attacks while others have been attacking the erroneous teaching of the Reformers and their children.
I shall not be engaging you again. I can see no good coming of it. In fact from your last comment, I can see that you are fractious and spoiling for a fight. Maybe this was your motivation for posting in the first place!
1517 wrote: Ahem, Joining the conversation late. I hold to SCRIPTURE ALONE as the standard and have repeatedly stated we are to be Bereans and search the word.
I can't see anyone on this thread saying we don't need teachers in churches as God has ordained. What you are demanding is that we go beyond this and have as our teachers men whom you admire as God ordained because God used them at a critical juncture in Church history. This is plain silly! They were fallible men NOT God's appointed spokesmen for the church of all time. UPS has already pointed out the vestiges of Romanism that clung to them! The same vestiges we find in the subordinate standards of the Presby church!
We are all personally responsible before God for what we believe and excusing ourselves by saying our teachers got it wrong, when we have the Bible in our hands won't wash but just demonstrate how lazy and irresponsible we have been with God's truth!
A great many people have tried to say the same thing to you, but you are either not reading with care or you have problems understanding.
I've even gone back to your first post to see why you started this, and I cannot see any justification for your response to Observer.
Your contention has been that we need teachers because the Scriptures are so difficult that without teachers we would all be running amuck. Pretty much the old Roman Catholic idea that without someone to rightly interpret the Bible the ignorant masses cannot be trusted with the Word of God.
From this bottom line you then contend that we have in the Reformers the pre-eminent God approved, God ordained servants who must be allowed to lay the foundation of our faith.
Without so much as any Scriptural justification for any of this nonsense you then deride those who elevate the Scriptures above theology books and then have the nerve to say that we're atop righteous perches?! You really are an arrogant one!
Will wrote: ...Far as the start of the Big Bang, I'd like to know how a black hole of infinite density and no volume suddenly pops into time and space, which doesn't exist, and then someho destroys the infinitely dense black hole via a "quantum fluctuation." Not to mention the fudge factor of "dark matter" which is
A household may include infants, and it may not include them. It cannot, then, give evidence on this point. In such a case, the extent of the baptism must be determined by the commission. Nay, if I were assured that there were infants in every one of the households, I should with equal confidence deny that they were baptized. According to the commission, they could not be baptized; and such phraseology always admits exceptions, with respect to those known to be excluded from the thing spoken of. When I say that such a man and his family dined with me, I am known not to include infants. In like manner, as the baptism of the commission cannot possibly extend to infants, even if they had been present in the families, they are not included among the baptized....
.."One that ruleth well his own house," 1 Tim. iii. 4. The nature of the thing asserted, determines it to apply to adults only, or at least to children capable of government. Newly born infants are excluded. I require no more, in repelling the objection from the households. As the ruling of a house cannot apply to infants newly born, so the baptizing of a house cannot refer to any in the house but such as come under the commission. Common sense every day makes the necessary limitations in such indefinite forms of speech...
DanUSA wrote: You despise the "leader of the team of the KJV" even though the man you judged could no longer depend himself, yet you EMBRACE WITH ALL YOUR HEART, MIND AND STRENGTH the Antichrist, the man of sin, the harlot Babylon the great the murderous church of Rome by embracing, defending, and fighting for the modern fake bibles -- The Codex Vaticanus manufactured by the Antichrist library, the pope; and the Codex sinaiticus came from the harlot church of Rome - a convent if you well. Unlike the "team leader" you are judging, the Harlot Church of Rome and its head the Pope the antichrist
A diatribe from a man who couldn't produce biblical proof for his silly notion that a person can be saved and yet lost for one sin (and we're not talking about the sin against the Holy Ghost). Impressive isn't it, the hypocrisy of the man!
John Yurich USA wrote: There is nothing unscriptural about Infant Baptism since it is just a dedication of infants to Jesus just as Adult Baptism is just a dedication of adults to Jesus. Infant Dedication and Infant Baptism are the same since both are just dedications of infants to Jesus.
Pontificating again on issues that are way over your head! You need to be converted first in order to understand anything spiritual. So stop this silliness at once!
objective wrote: "The testimony of the early church fathers is unanimously in favor of paedobaptism..
â€śBaptism related to the death of Christ; the water answers to the grave; the immersion represents our dying with him; the emersion our rising with himâ€ť Apostolic Constitutions
â€śWe represent our Lordâ€™s sufferings and resurrection by baptism in a poolâ€ť Justin Martyr
â€śWe are immersed in water; let down into the water and dipped.â€ť Tertullian
â€śHe who is immersed in water and baptized, is surrounded with water on all sidesâ€ť Cyril of Jerusalem
â€śBy three immersions, we represent the death of Christ. The bodies of those that are baptized are, as it were, buried in the waterâ€ť Basil the Great
â€śComing to the water, we conceal ourselves in it, as the Savior concealed himself in the earthâ€ť Gregory Nyssen
â€śOn the great Sabbath of the Easter festival, the 16th day of April 404, Chrysostom, with the assistance of the clergy of his own church, baptized by immersion in Constantinople about three thousand catechumensâ€ť Chrysostomâ€™s Ep. Ad. â€śInnocentâ€ť
"The total concealment in water fitly represents Christâ€™s death and burialâ€ť Dionysius
Bible Lost?! Keep the Lies coming Presby. More rope to hang yourself by.
The Edinburg Encyclopedia, gives the following accounts of sprinkling:â€” "The first law to sanction aspersion as a mode of baptism, was by Pope Stephen II , A.D. 753. But it was not till the year 1311, that a council held at Ravenna, declared immersion or sprinkling to be indifferent. In this country,(Scotland,) however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases till after the Reformation; and in England, even in the reign of Edward VI., (about 1550,) immersion was commonly observed." But during the reign of the Catholic Mary, who succeeded to the throne on the death of Edward, 1553, persecution drove many of the Protestants from their homes, not a few of whom, especially the Scotch, found an asylum in Geneva, where, under the influence of John Calvin, they imbibed a preference for sprinkling. " These Scottish exiles," says the last quoted author, " who had renounced the authority of the Pope, implicitly acknowledged the authority of Calvin ; and returning to their own country, with John Knox at their head, in 1559, established sprinkling in Scotland. From Scotland, this practice made its way into England in the reign of Elizabeth, but was not authorized by the established church."
You see by this that Calvin was the new Pope of the Reformed churches!