SITE NOTICE | MORE..$1 Signup Sale! For a limited time, your church can begin broadcasting on SermonAudio today for only $1 in setup charges (normally, $150). Get on the map + mobile and join the largest, conservative sermon movement on the web!
Are 'these people' really Christian? Strong accusation Wow or whoever you are. You don't know 'these people' do you? You have gone of course to 'these people' first with your concern for their violation of the 8th Commandment following Matthew 18. Oh, I forgot these people aren't Christian because you 'suspect' they violated a commandment. Would that be all 'these people'? For the record regarding your 9th Commandment violation at the least, Can you define for me 'these people' lest someone think you guilty of a violation of a second table command and believe you're not a Christian. Thank you.
Piqued my interest wrote: ...This led to a period of intense persecution of the Covenanters and I suspect that RP is referring to this.
Yes, that was what I was refering to. I stand corrected I confuse Indepedents with Anabaptists because of Reformed Baptists. Very confusing, I have had a very difficult day. I checked in on this whatever you call it, here and reacted to a day of false accusations, after reading he posts. Then made my own. I will replace Independent for Anabaptist in my reference.
The man was an Independent and Malignant to the Covenants?
You left out part of his sentence by mistake? Probably not. "who have not been excommunicated from the visible Church" There are obvious qualifications to these few sentences posted in defense of truth and to make a point.
"Baptism is the sign and seal of the covenant. It is not the sign and seal of eternal election, for God alone looks at the heart. (John UK's elders must have had the miraculous gift of discernment of spirits if after some classes & interview they knew conclusively that he would persevere to the end) Man looks at the outward appearance, and we as Christians need to know whom we are to count as and treat as fellow Christians. Do we count as Christians those who have a flaming testimonny? Or only those who speak speak in tongues? Or only those who talk about spiritual things the way we do, whom we feel at home with? The answer of the Bible, and of the Church of all ages is this: We count as Christians those to whom God has given the visible sign of baptism, provided the have not been excommunicated from the visible Church." J. Jordon
Presby, I would go as far as to say we must count in serious error all Anabaptists in practise especially in any nation that has been blessed with the true reformed religion. You and I both know that history which is so foundational to continuity can be manipulated. Who suffered for truth? Anabaptists or the Scottish Church under the English forces led by an Anabaptist? God knows the sufferers for truth, aye?
By whose authority are the different interpretations of the Scripture resolved you ask?
I answer. Not by the pope, nor lordly prelates, nor an Erastian throne who usurps Christ's headship over his Church. Not by malignants or those who act contrary to the Word in continuing the divisions, which are the result of false teachers. Canticles tells us to wait by the shepherds tents, there we wait. Which ones? The last faithful contenders for truth who've reached the highest attainments in Reformation of doctrine, worship discipline and government. I believe that was the Church of Scotland. Her ministers that were faithful unto death. Presecution ended in1688 a great mercy (that's the17th century for my false accuser's info), but the goodness of God is to lead us to repentance. It hasn't yet become 'obvious' what God will do for his glory, that he is so jealous of. It will, but only to those who have saving faith. And what of the rest? see Rev.11:7-14
What happened 12/25/11 on SA's News Site is the Scripture was read. Commendable, it was the Lord's, a good way to spend it, in the word. However it was also Christ-Mass.
But what happened 1/1/12 on SA's 'News Site.' News was reported. Why was Scripture not read as it was on Christ-Mass? Both dates were the Christian Sabbath or Lord's Day but only 12/25/11 did SA and friends give the News a rest. I am trying to explain, that I could see from Scripture this disagrees with the 4th commandment see also Isa. 58:13-14. I was wrong to be reading News on the Lord's Day. I did this the other 6 days. Which of the 10 Commandments are ok to violate any day? NONE I'm aware of. But the 4th pertains to the first day of the week. I wanted fellowship on the Lord's Day. This has not resulted in it on that day or any other, for that matter. 1John 1:6,7 To violate this command by choosing fellowship (?) with those who say they love the Lord Jesus Christ but neither keep his commands nor love the brethren, only demonstrates a lack of love to God. I repented and this Lord's Day and every day this week my communion with Christ by His word and Spirit was restored. He used SA for my good as Romans 8:28-29 promised. 1John 5:21 Nothing beside Him, i.e. computer addiction
Yoke remover wrote: You Pharisee! How is posting scripture on the Lord's day and especially verses that announce the coming of the Savior a "work"?!
If Scripture was posted, 1/1/12 like 12/25/11 instead of News it wouldn't have got my attention. My conscience in this matter is best known to me. And to my own Master I stand or fall. This is not legalism. 1 John 2:4 "He that saith I know him and keepth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." All saved sinners know God expects a God-rightousness that ONLY Jesus Christ can give, even our justification. Our sanctification or the good works prepared in advance for me to walk in is the fruit of the mortifying work of the Spirit and the measure of Christ's obedience that is my portion, his work in me. This is a matter between me and my Master. For sometime now I have struggled with my motives of partication especially on the Lord's Day and the Lord used SA's holding one day above God's appointed day to get my attention.
NYP, I believe that just as in the case of Aaron's 2 sons, Nadab and Abihu, God's glory was at issue and that is more important to God then even the salvation of sinners, and we know how impotant that is, by the unfathomable price paid for the elect.
Well, I have my answer from SA by observation. They, like the Mega Churches closed the News on 'Christ Mass' but not for the Christian Sabbath. It was necessary for me to see this so I understood why I could no longer justfy my participation on the Lord's day, for that reason alone, though there are others. John 7:17 "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God or whether I speak of myself." Jesus Christ is the Mediator of the New Covenant which includes ALL 10 Commandments that he lived to keep and died to propitiate God's just wrath for their violation. News is not a work of necessity or mercy on the Sabbath. Debate is a work of the flesh, on any day. Of Scriptural argument I fall short. If I am guilty of one violation I am guilty of all. "For whosoever shall keep the whole Law and yet offend at one point is guilty of all." James 2:10 "Confess your faults one to another and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." James 5:16
The most dangerous enemy we can have is the enemy that we trust. The enemy we recognize, while dangerous, cannot possibly cause us as much harm as the one who has gained our trust and confidence.
Romans 16:17-18 "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
Presby wrote: By their action ecclesiastical history found out that this was not the way God chose.
I would appreciate clarification here or should I say, You have clarified your position. Certainly wherein they confessed their sins, because all sin, the Lord was faithful and just to forgive them their sins and cleanse them from all unrighteousness. But the remnant of the United Societies took up the same Covenants again in the Auchensaugh Deed, the best pattern for a renovation. They left out the civil portion other then for confession of national sin. As a small remnant they bound their souls to God to continue their ecclesiastic duties to Him and their brethren. No Covenanter believes the covenants a mute point or that these brave men and women died Heb. 12:4 for a way other than God's. No they were/are Christians "men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof." Where ever they have been scattered in this dark day Isa.26:20
Isaiah 40:10-12 "Behold, the Lord GOD will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young. Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance?
There are those who fear an oath and others like Mr.Rutherford that fear not to keep it. The then Scottish Church was constantly examining themselves as to their faithfulness 1 Cor.11:31-32 to the Covenant of Redemption as regarded their loving obedience to Christ; keeping his commandments and loving the brethren. His reference "we were more to set up a state opposite to a state; more upon forms, citations, leading of witnesses, suspensions from benefices, than spiritually to persuade and work upon the conscience," what Presby eluded to. These Covenanters were Noblemen, Barons, Knights,Gentlemen, Citizens, Burgesses, Ministers of the Gospel and Commons of all sorts in the three kingdoms. They acted as one people in their place, calling and station Ps.79:9
John UK wrote: But you never mentioned what Brown said about the "gift of the Holy Ghost", which came after faith and repentance. Ah, you Presbys are sly.
I did start to, but it was cut out of my more limited space post. I am not a member. SA Terms of Communion are too loose for me.
I had attempted to quote from Romans 11:27-29 " For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins. As concerning the gospel, they (the Jews) are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes. For the 'gifts and calling' of God are without repentance." All of Romans 11 is still consistent with the Reformed OS as regards the elect and also addresses the non elect in the visible Church. The distinction the Scripture makes between the visible and invisible Church can be noted here as well and is noted in WCF Chap. 25 point 1-4. Point 2 addresses Lurker 9 AM issue that he took Presby to task on. Romans 11 is a picture of God's ongoing work in redemptive history, which addresses national Israel, the first covenanted nation, as a nation. Nations consist of individuals with different places, callings and stations, that is also addressed in Romans 11 concerning individual response/accountability
David Brown stated: "38. Repent--The word denotes change of mind, and here includes the reception of the Gospel as the proper issue of that revolution of mind which they were then undergoing."
What I understood was if the reception of the Gospel is the means to distribute truth to its 'hearers', then it was the work of the Holy Spirit that caused a change of will or revolution of the mind making some 'prepared as good soil to receive the word' preached. The Word preached even with utterance, without the unction of the Spirit is powerless to effectually call sinners to life in Christ. This seems to fit the context, They were outwardly called as the word was preached, inwardly, irresistibly called by the same Spirit that gave Peter utterance making it an effectual call regenerating the elect to cause a change of heart/will that brought this willingness to repent of their way contrary to God's and believe the Gospel. As DB stated so beautifully on "what shall we do?" or their response which was clearly a previous work of the Spirit, so these verses 37-38 are confirming and nurturing their effectual inward call with the milk of the word given them as little born ones. This has not caused me to change my mind which is best understood by myself. Scripture distinguishes gifts &call
Many years ago now, HSLD used to encourage the families to know the laws in their respective states and to comply with them. I doubt there are many Home School families who didn't investigate the law before they change states. If families had conscience issues, regarding whose God given responsibility it was to educate their children and believed it a compliance that violated their God-given authority, HSLD warned them of possible consequence but would support them if it came to litigation.
It seems to me; what is lacking today related to a general lawlessness in society, is trust. It is implied most parents don't have their child's best interest at heart. It is not justice to assume guilt so it is required one prove innocence. If one reasons that through it implies we don't know what innocence is, and need to be given a humanistic stamp of approval, then toleration will be extended to the Christian parent. How has it come to this? Hab. 1:3-4 "Why dost thou shew me iniquity, and cause me to behold grievance? for spoiling and violence are before me: and there are that raise up strife and contention. Therefore the law is slacked, and judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth.
From David Brown's Commentary Acts 2: "37-40. pricked in their hearts--the begun fulfilment of Zec 12:10 , whose full accomplishment is reserved for the day when "all Israel shall be saved" (see on JF & B for Ro 11:26). what shall we do?--This is that beautiful spirit of genuine compunction and childlike docility, which, discovering its whole past career to have been one frightful mistake, seeks only to be set right for the future, be the change involved and the sacrifices required what they may. So Saul of Tarsus ( Act 9:6 ). 38. Repent--The word denotes change of mind, and here includes the reception of the Gospel as the proper issue of that revolution of mind which they were then undergoing. baptized . . . for the remission of sins--as the visible seal of that remission. 39. For the promise--of the Holy Ghost, through the risen Saviour, as the grand blessing of the new covenant. all afar off--the Gentiles, as in Eph 2:17 ), but "to the Jew first."
The Berean's searched the Scripture which was their duty and priviledge, as they sat under pastor/teachers given them "For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:" Ephes. 4:12-15
Buchan wrote: RP, My point is simply trying to unravel what your point was behind your unsupported, and therefore ad hominem, attack on my knowledge of history. The nature of the Roman political and ecclesiastical antichrist has not been a point of dispute, ...
You didn't answer my question. You like the divide and conquer approach I see? You're not alone? FYI, I reject your interpretation of what I said, based upon the facts of history you clearly don't acknowledge. I could attribute it to a number of reasons but I could not know why, with any certainty, in this context. It has been proven by yourself, by your false accusations. I said no such thing, as you assert. I stand by my initial post; now that you have defined your opinion with more words; not unlike a Roman, from the outer court of the Gentiles. You attempt to twist what I assert to establish your contrary point. I disagree that you can compare Anglicans with Presbyterians, as a form of Church Government, by trying to argue from a false premise in favor of independency. Anglican Church Gov't and State combine. With Presbyterians they are opposites. Arguing denominational distinctions made your assertion popular. It is just for the sake of promoting division. I am not interested