Observer wrote:
Much is being made of "of such is the kingdom of heaven".
Matt 5.3 says, "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
My poor mite, what think ye?

Matthew 5
13 Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. 14 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

solving the problem wrote:
Q31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A31: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.[1]
1. Gal. 3:16; Rom. 5:15-21; Isa. 53:10-11

Also as the covenant is only with the elect as his seed, where appear all the infants to whom the supposed covenant sign of baptism is applied?

solving the problem wrote:
The SBC and Baptists in general seem to have a problem in relating to God's Covenant.

faith and hope wrote:
Yes more contempt.
That must be your version of Christ mindedness???
Here is Christ Jesus' own version of Christ Mindedness:-
Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
May GOD be with you.

more of the same wrote:
More Contempt eh?
I wonder who Josiah B used to be?

I have followed posts here for many years, but only started posting recently. I owe my understanding of the covenants to studying the Bible in detail and to one book in particular viz Pink. It was recommended here ages ago.

As for contempt, I would say that you are completely deserving of the contempt shown to you, and you will find the same from The Lord one day for your ignorance of his word, for your subtle persecution of Baptists on this forum, and your contempt of the New Covenant and nullifying his grace by your traditions and practices which are totally unscriptural.

by the Book wrote:
"Everlasting Covenant" Heb 13:20.
I wonder if any Baptist out there knows how long "everlasting" means? It doesn't appear to be so in the posts below.

Cut a verse from here and there put them together and make up any doctrine that suits their case.

But we've all seen enough of this unthinking person's posts to know what incoherence reigns in his head. It is no surprise that he can't make head nor tails of the Word of God.

There was mercy promised to the fathers, including to Abraham- it was that Christ would come (to Abraham the specific mercy was that he would come from his loins Gal 3.16 as Paul explains) the spiritual promise specifically given to Abraham was that he would become the spiritual father of a multitude. Both of these were fulfilled in the NC.

The stupid use of Gal 3.29 by this unthinking person almost suggests that there were no believers prior to Abraham. The point of the verse is to clarify that the fulfilment of the promise is under the NC the beneficiaries of which are only ever those who truly believe.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Well, SteveR .... know he's Arminian and so probably are you? I thought you went to a Reformed Church?

SteveR wrote:
While I have found the Reformed Church has the purest understanding of the Gospel, I understand your concern. There are some bad Pastors in ALL denominations, and fine ones in ALL denominations. I feel VERY BLESSED that the LORD has given my family a SPIRIT filled Pastor to watch over my congregation.
Like I said before. I would rather have a saved RCC Priest watching over me and my family, than a wicked Protestant Pastor

That there was any COG other than this I would deny. Though there were gracious covenants in the OT there was none like this.

The reformed contention that the Abrahamic covenant is the COG is pure fiction. That there were spiritual blessings under that covenant is true, but these were only vouchsafed to the spiritual seed of Abraham not the natural and these blessings were only retroactively secured by the New Covenant.

SteveR wrote:
As you know from the other thread even simple bias can tip the scales, like moving to sin filled Vegas for a good job @Caesars Palace & $2 buffets. Next time someone asks about why 'just' Lot pitched his tent towards Sodom, I might offer the speculation about jobs, food and shows.

SteveR wrote:
Semi-Pelagianism 101 teaches to inform your biblically illiterate congregation that you are all 'biblicists.' This way the Country Bumpkins are so relieved that they dont have to memorize a confession, they will never question the irreconcilable differences in the sermons.

1517 wrote:
Plus, going back to the garden, those who believe the covenant of grace recognize Genesis 3:15 as the beginning of that covenant.

#1. where is Abraham in Gen 3.15?
#2. if you say this is the start of the COG then are you not denying its eternal nature
#3. Surely this is the announcement of it, not the start of it? Small, but important point.
#4. This verse points to what Christ did under the New Covenant. Should this not sound warning bells re: your views of OT covenants?

No one denies that the spiritual blessings under covenants made with men in the OT were secured by the New Covenant (e.g. that we are the spiritual seed of Abraham) but where in the bible are any of the OT covenants called the covenant of grace or indeed which of them had Christ as the mediator?

by the Book wrote:
This is from a book called the Bible.
You might have heard of it??
Hebrews 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the BLOOD OF THE COVENANT, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
It appears from your post that 'YOU' count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing.
Hebrews 12:24 And to JESUS the MEDIATOR of the new COVENANT and to the BLOOD OF SPRINKLING, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.
Hebrews 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our LORD JESUS, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the 'BLOOD' of the 'EVERLASTING COVENANT'
You appear to be of those who pick and choose bits of Scripture and reject others to establish your religious ideology. Why not stick to the WHOLE COUNSEL of GOD.
Is Christ the Mediator of "YOUR" Covenant with God, as HE is with Abraham's??? Or are you NOT in Covenant with God and His Son?

SteveR wrote:
An Omnipotent God depending on a fallen creature? In the Reformed tradition we understand that the LORD holds up his chosen people by his unlimited authority. Mary is an honoured vessel of GOD
Thus Gabriel proclaims
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

I suppose next you'll be telling us he wasn't born of a Virgin!

God did protect his chosen vessel, but it was by his providential care, not by his authority (** see note below). What does his authority have anything to do with it? He is God and Jesus was born in a godly home. No one there would have questioned his authority.

SteveR wrote:
You clearly dont understand Reformed theology

From all that I seen of your posts I'd say that Observer had you figured out right.

Michael Hranek

Thank you for your insightful post.

SteveR wrote:
Amen JohnY
Your great strength is the Faith that GOD himself gave you. Your impregnable confidence that you are indeed a child of GOD baffles the wicked because they lay their trust in denominations, baptisms or even who they are allied against.

John Yurich USA wrote:
I know that ministers are supposed to communicate with members that want to discuss things with them. But I would not be one that would want to discuss anything with the minister because it would not be any of his business what I believe. Why do you call it rebellion not wanting to discuss anything with the minister? Does every member in your church discuss things with the minister?

Sure you're a rebel. You don't have saving faith. That makes you a rebel. You want to believe but on your terms only, which also displays your rebel heart, you won't obey God's commandments, which shows you don't love him etc. You want church but on your own terms. Yes, I'd say you're a rebel.

John Yurich USA wrote:
Yes I know but that does not mean every member has to communicate with the minister. I still would not discuss anything with the minister if I were to attend an Evangelical Protestant Church because as far as I am concerned it would not be any of his business what my beliefs are. I would not even be involved in any church activities.

John Yurich USA wrote:
Of course my priest is not cognizant that I have not been to individual confession in close to 30 years because it is none of his business. In fact none of what I believe is his business. Even if I were to attend an Evangelical Protestant Church I would not even discuss anything with the minister because it would not be any of his business what I believe. Why would I want to discuss anything with the minister? And I would not be involved in any church activities if I were to attend an Evangelical Protestant Church.