Lurker wrote: My objection is not with the doctrines of grace which emerged from Calvin's teachings. It's with the name association.
Why Lurker - This is the first time we have agreed.
Re "name association" in this case I use it because we are talking about Calvinism. John Calvin himself would have been the first to say, 'Stop using my name like this'. But the term used in theological discussion informs and describes where we stand on certain polemic issues. That is four square on Scripture doctrines.
All glory to God our Father, sovereign, omnipotent and omniscient.
Prov 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.
Heb 12:28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God is a consuming fire.
Lurker wrote: I didn't realize Sola Scriptura meant exclusive psalmody
The Regulative Principle has a significant work to do in preserving the Church from unhealthy subjectivism in doctrine and experience and in the exercise of church authority. There are objective Biblical standards to which appeal may and must be made in all these areas. Pastor David Fountain, who has defended Isaac Wattâ€™s pioneering work in introducing hymns, notes that things have gone to what he calls another extreme: â€śWe are going back to the Middle Ages when every device imaginable was used to popularise Christianity, and the effect then was to alter the message and lose its powerâ€ť. William Young makes the following points: â€śThe regulative principle when applied provides objectivity in worship... conformity to the law of God as opposed to ... subjectivism in worship... worship arising not from the revealed will of the Lord but from the desires, inclinations, imaginations and decisions of men... precisely what the Reformers and Puritans termed will-worshipâ€ť [The Puritan Principle of Worship, pp. 16, 17]."
Lurker wrote: 1) God also wrote: 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God
2) As I understand your line of reasoning, singing uninspired songs is idolatry but being taught by hearing from the pulpit and studying uninspired doctrines
1) God also wrote; "12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it. Amos 8. - But thats got nothing to do with this discussion either Lurker.
2) We can all find the command to ""PREACH"" Lurker. But that is not what this debate is about. You cannot excuse yourself rejecting God's Praise Book (Scripture), in favour of mans little ditties. - Not by pinching another precept for a different purpose.
Praise God by using Sola Scriptura!!
Not sinners scripurapper or any other fabrication by man.
'Both' - establishes (in your mind) that Scripture "equates" to mans uninspired ideas, lyrics and musical pursuits. Do you 'lower' Scripture - or 'elevate' mans "graven" efforts to achieve this end?
When in worship you are using mans version of uninspired praise; - How can you be using Scripture at the same time? You Can't! Thus in doing so you have replaced the Word of God, Scripture praise, with mans perceived "amelioration" upon the Word of God.
'doctrinal error' God wrote the Bible. (2Peter 1:21 but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost) God ordained the contents of Scripture. God ordained and provided the Book of Psalms as praise.
Hymns can only be mans attempt to replace the order, precept and doctrine of the Book of Praise prescribed by God Himself for worship in His Church.
If you and others establish this change/move from Holy Writ; - Then we should not be too surprised to see "Rapping" or Rock as alternatives? even progress? in modern worship today. Rap then is just a move up from uninspired hymn justification.
Where Lurker, in Scripture do you find God's instruction to rewrite part of the Bible in the 18th century for use in worship?
Lurker wrote: Shift the burden of proof. Problem is, what the Apostles and the early church supposedly sang is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your assertion that singing hymns is a violation of the second commandment and therefore sin against God. That, dear misguided brother, is your burden to prove.
I think that is what is called ducking and diving Lurker, your evading the issue. However this is not the thread for this particular discussion.
I assume from your tenor that you prefer mans hymns to God's Scripture Psalms.
Therefore you must also be open to mans other methods such as "Rapping" and Rock bands etc, by the same token.
This then leads to 'your' focus in praise and worship being inner-self gratification by sensual entertainment, or for self rather than for God. Now we are back to idolatry.
ps You didn't answer the question. Do you use God's Praise Book or mans praise book? And if "Rapping" is acceptable to you then how do you justify using it?
Lurker wrote: Serious charges, Seaton. Very serious. And not a single biblical reference to establish them. You would do well to examine yourself for you are doing with a man's doctrine exactly what you charge hymn singers of doing.
Bible Ref?? - How about the entire Book of Psalms?
I said "rejection of God's praise" You either use the praise book God has provided or not! Psalms = God's ordained praise book. Hymns = Man's alternative substitute. "ersatz?"
Which do you use Lurker - God's or mans? Do you reject God's praise book in favour of mans?
"To summarize, as we said early on, the burden of proof rests on the one who asserts. The exclusive psalmodist is asserting nothing. He is merely following the apostles and the early church, since they sang the Psalms of David in public as well as in private. It is the hymnodist who asserts. He, contrary to the evidence, asserts that the church may indeed sing uninspired compositions. Therefore, the burden of proof is on the uninspired hymnodist to prove that he may sing his cherished man-made hymns." (Rev J.A.Stivason FCOS)
Lurker wrote: a hymn is not a graven image and singing a hymn by one born again by the will of God is not a violation of the second commandment
A statue is just wood or stone. But when the heart of a sinner provides it with divine qualities, then and only then does it become idolatry.
Acts 17:25 Neither is [God] worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Idolatry is not just in an inanimate object, but stems from the sinful heart of man. It is the iniquity of mans desire to fabricate his own religion corresponding to the rejection of God's laws and doctrines.
Choosing mans version and method of praise (hymns, rap, rock bands) is  rejection of God's praise, therefore rejection of God, and  the conviction that mans way is either improvement or more effective than that of God's. Thus man's idolatry here is in replacing God's ordained method and Word - for mans graven image of praise. Man is elevating himself above God, thereby changing the Creator into another form or image.
Lurker wrote: singing anything as praise except the psalms is a transgression of the second commandment, specifically idolatry. For this to be true a hymn must meet the biblical definition of an idol. If it can't meet that test then the claim is false. Now, throughout scripture an idol is something which steals one's heart away from God. It can be a piece of wood, stone, something made with mans hands overlaid with gold or silver, such as the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai...."
As per usual Lurker I disagree with your religion.
2nd Commandment, "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image..."
"graven image" = man made image.
Book of Psalms = God's Holy Word.
Hymn's = Man made "image" of praise.
If someone wrote their own version of the Book of Isaiah, or the Gospel of John and used it at the expense of the Bible books themselves, then you would be up in arms about it. Yet the "hymn-singers" not only use sinners (graven) works to replace God's Word but try to give it preeminence before God (over Psalms) as "an improvement" to Praise and therefore Holy Word.
Thats as bad as icons, relics and statuettes. And making an idol out of the sinful (graven) works of man.
Abigail wrote: You in the Reformed Church pray that ALL SHALL BELIEVE ON JESUS CHRIST FOR SALVATION? Why would you pray for something you do not believe? Wouldn't that be lying?
Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if **any man** hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
YES!! Abigail we do pray that all shall believe on Jesus unto salvation. *EVEN YOU* Abigail.
By your fruits, I can perceive you have not yet come to the Lord. You have come to church BUT not come to Christ. The Pentecostal church is the same as the Papists - still trying to do it out of human knowledge. May God draw you soon to His Son, then you will come to the True Church.
As for Rev 3:20... You do realise He is knocking at the door of the church don't you? In this specific case it is the Laodicean church. Which clearly has not yet come to Christ. Just like Pentecostals, Arminians and Roman Catholics.
As Peter reminds us 2Pet 2:1... even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies... 2 And **MANY SHALL FOLLOW** their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
"However, her emphasis on her ***Christian faith â€“ which she regularly backed with Bible quotations*** â€“ and concerns for the AIDS pandemic softened some evangelicalsâ€™ view of the candidate often painted by conservatives as liberal, calculative and cold."
Ah!! You see folks Hillary IS a Christian after all. Now get out there and make her president of the US of A.
Yes! But you must remember that worshipping mammon is an expensive business.
Whilst we are on the subject does this also mean that denominationalising the church is too expensive too? And why should children leave home, it would cut down expense if they stayed with Mum and Dad, (If they stay together). In fact if we all lived together in communes, instead of separately in houses, think how much we could save!!
JD wrote: To all Calvs. a simple question, how and why is that good news or glad tidings to the world? ....Why is it good news that almost all the world was created by God to be the object of his hatred and they cannot be saved because they were not "predestined", as you say, to be saved.
Here is some of the "good news" that you would ignore JD.
John 3:36 "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the WRATH of God abideth on him."
Curious how your works based religion doesn't fit into this verse isn't it JD? EG. If faith is just a human faculty; Why doesn't a verse like this scare the "hell" out of the human race, which you teach is included in the decision process unto salvation?
Ro 1:18 "For the WRATH of God is *REVEALED* from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness"
And still JD, they don't come to the right choice that you and your brother Arminians advocate, they can make?
Ro 9:22 "WHAT IF GOD, willing to shew HIS WRATH, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of WRATH fitted to destruction"
"What if?" JD?
Boy this is weird JD. It's almost as if your theory is wrong?
God Loves All Sinners - (Except the Reprobate) wrote: Unfortunately Pettigrew you place yourself in the most unfortunate situation if you are going to use John 15:5 to prove that man does not have a free will. Have you considered who Jesus is talking to? He is talking to his disciples.
Why my dear Arminian friend You are wrong! Again!
God wrote the Bible for ALL who are privileged to read it. Also only some of those will be Elect "BY" God unto salvation. These will "KNOW" the Truth the others will inhabit hell. The difference is in the "fruit" of the individual.
1Pet 4:17 "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? 18 And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?"
Michael Hranek wrote: You might want to humbly and prayerfully read Revelation once again as it doesn't take a rocket scientist of a theologian to see the beast and false prophet are before the millenium in the Book of Revelation.
I keep asking this question and don't get an answer to it. WHY does God need another 1000 years to work out life in eternity? Is it something to do with you folks doing salvation by works???
Abigail wrote: Whether you are Calvinist or not, I do not know. But if you are, you are contradicting your doctrines because Calvinists say that those dead in trespasses and sins cannot know God or call upon Him because they are spiritually walking dead men. They have eyes and cannot see and ears and cannot hear. How could they possibly know the way of righteousness and then forsake it
Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in to ask. But Abigail regarding your point above, what about Matt 7:21-23 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Then there is the Parable of the sower? Not forgetting the RCC and so on?
Thus do we observe many who come to church but not to Christ.