Curious wrote:
What does the Bible tell you about the age of the earth?

John Yurich USA wrote:
Kindly answer the question. How can you possibly believe that one who is not Born Again and not guided by the Holy Spirit would have the ability to know that there are some unscriptural doctrines in the RCC?

Either way, "logic" dictates that RCC cannot be followed.

John Yurich USA wrote:
... infant Baptism is just a dedication of infants .... Adult Baptism is just a dedication of adults...

SteveR wrote:
{ahem}
The Catholic Bible translates it with 'hills' not mountains

Ahem!

SteveR wrote:
Revelation 17 says 7 Mountains not hills
The correct translation confirms MOUNTAINS not hills
(KJV)Revelation 17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.
Look it up in the AV, or better yet the Received Text and you will find the correct translation for 'oros' is mountains

SteveR wrote:
I dont know, but you will have to be more convincing then listing the 7 hills of Rome to convince anyone
also answer
1) Why didnt John of Patmos use the Greek word 'bounos' to make it clear its 'hill' and not 'mountain'
2) .. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

CJW wrote:
Everytime in the KJV Old Testament where you find the word LORD in all capital letters, you will find that this word is from the Hebrew consonants YHWH, from which the words "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" are derived.

SteveR
You seem to always fall on the side of defending Rome. Why?

In another thread where "seven hills" was used in refering to Rome, you argued that the text translated as "mountains", not "hills". Rome argues that same point vociferously.

Here, where there's a contention on text, you state

SteveR wrote:
1) The primary language spoken by apostles in the Gospel era was Aramaic

But what your sly comment really belies is the fact that Rome has been arguing in favour of some nonexistent Aramiac text for certain passages because the Greek text clearly destroys Rome. (For example, c.f grammatical gender, peter the rock.)

Lisa wrote:
Does that mean 52 % consider it peaceful ???

Adonai wrote:
One could also believe there will be those known as Muslims on this earth, who will be in heaven with us.
Those who seek God with their whole heart will not be disappointed.

Folder wrote:
Baptists rejection of the infant contends with Christ's words "suffer the little children to come unto me." - The child in the Baptist family is apparently not included in this invitation.

Parents are to bring up their children on the fear and knowledge of God. Nobody's holding the children back. This is an ongoing responsibility, not a reference to a onetime act of sprinkling magic water. .

The passage you quoted goes on to show that true conversion produces in us a childlike reliance on God with our very being.
"Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven"Mat18:3

You argue that why can't paedo's baptize unbelievers since some adults we baptize turn out to be false believers? We are called to obedience in proclaiming the gospel message, God reserves the sole rights to hold anyone accountable. You baptize unbelievers intentionally, you KNOW AHEAD OF TIME for CERTAINTY that some will want nothing to do with the LORD.

SteveR wrote:
I agree
Its really really really sad that the one person Christians should be able to trust, a person they should have no worry to hug, cant embrace them the way they are called to.
I feel really blessed for my family, as they and I love our pastor. I hug him all the time

Proof that prophets perfoming miraculous signs and wonders have not ceased!

John Yurich USA wrote:
I accept all 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England including Article XIX but I don't believe the Catholic Church is entirely in error since there are scriptural Catholic doctrines.

Folder wrote:
Sixteen centuries of Covenant and baptism of the whole family regardless of human ability, - the seed or children of covenanted parents had been baptised according to the Word of God. This truth was never rescinded by Christ or the Apostles.

Folder wrote:
The Baptists changing of the Greek definition of baptism

Folder wrote:
none can perceive the elect [child]. Yet the Baptist must obviously reject them in baptism

John UK wrote:
Baptism accomplishes spiritual circumcision?

Folder wrote:
John
Does this statement imply that Baptists believe there is - Zero - spiritual element in baptism?

If spiri'l circumc'n happens at baptism, then baptism imparts salvation. And infants are saved at and through baptism too.

Colossians 2:9-14
9For in Christ all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;11and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ;12having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.13When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,14having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

Observer wrote:
Granted CV. It's difficult to squeeze everything one needs to say in a single post .., if ya get my drift!

While I am addressing you, something I wrestled with was how those who held to regulative principle reconciled infant baptism. Your response was spot on for me.

Observer wrote:
2 errors
1. Dispys & Premills think that the lineal descendants are still in covt
2. The Reformed allegorise the lineal for the spiritual to get their kids in covt
The NT destroys both views!

So now try to follow along as he switches back and forth.

The family Covenant wrote:
God's family in the Covenant is very important since HE established it with Abraham "AND HIS SEED." Genesis 17.

Baptist's apparently don't trust God with their children..

The Baptist's also apparently reject Covenant with the Lord ..for their children.

Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee"

Except for Baptists "seed."

The family Covenant wrote:
Baptist's apparently don't trust God with their children and require man/sinner alone to qualify their new ceremony and rite.

Paedo's don't trust that God can work in the heart of man to bring about a change, instead they rely on man to (why wait for God)PRE-EMTIVELY, dole out Gods promises based on lineage. Apparently!

You say you have some covenental entitlements because of physical lineage? Jesus puts it bluntly, "God is able of these stones to raise up children", outside of your geneological lineage.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
my specific question was to not give a reference in the WCF or a quote from a systematic theology, but please put a Bible verse .. A verse (not just a reference with interp) ..please.

SteveR wrote:
Scriptures neither command it or forbid

Hugh wrote:
("Now don't forget to add to this the historic truth ..There is an unbroken record in church history.. a fact that the earliest Christians after the death of the apostles were practicing infant baptism..")

SteveR wrote:
in absence of Scripture, I find the works of the Early Church Fathers confirming Infant Baptism

SteveR wrote:
Baptism is given for the remission of sins; Baptism is given even to infants...� (Origen— AD 244)

SteveR wrote:
we would not completely agree with that.

I believe in mans free will - as in Acts2:23
It's the Armin style, one that trumps God, that I have an issue with.

Armins will trade verse vs verse in a debate. But where they are afraid to go is a clear articulation of their platform - the consequence of their beliefs. They will never admit(even though that's exactly what they believe), that man is sovreign over God. Because no scripture in the bible can be used to support that.

See what I mean?

David Preston wrote:
God - "predestinated."
Here is a better way to look at Eph. 1:4
The key is "in him." Who did God choose? Those who are "in him." He decided before the foundation of the world that whomsoever was "in him" should be holy and without blame and that whomsoever was "in him" would be predestinated to the adoption.

Mike wrote:
No, your understanding of sovereignty needs setting aside. Sovereignty means God can do as he wills and is answerable to no other. It does not mean he must do some particular thing, nor does it mean he cannot do some other.

God can do anything - even nothing. Round and round it goes. These are philosophical arguements that are borne out of debates to win debates. God is sovreign even when He is not being sovreign! These amazing definitions of sovreighnty escapes me. At some point you have you conclude that Where man chooses, God is not sovreign there.

I believe that man has a "free will" and God is sovreign. The difference is that I believe that mans will is subject to Gods sovreignty Acts2:23, while Armins believe that Gods sovreignty is subject to mans will.

"whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate", This is a clear decleration of Gods sovreignty. Only a sovreign God can foreknow and prededestine something.

You'd think that something explicitly stated would settle the matter. Armins response is that God predetermined because he saw what would happen. God predetermined but man PRE-predetermined.