John UK wrote: Alas. Scripture got on real fine without calvinism for 1500 years
Augustine was a good "Calvinist" which was recognised by Calvin himself. So the theology has been around for a longer period than you suggest. In fact 2014 years and counting. The truth never changes and the Reformers Biblical exegesis has been shown to be the best and most accurate teaching of truth in history. The Lord has surely blessed this exegesis of Scripture for many centuries. Calvinism comes directly from Scripture and is used by the elect - One only has to observe the Puritans to see that clearly they were all good Calvinists. John Owen is actually called the quote "English calvin" Perhaps you need to study the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin to help you overcome your difficulties with Bible doctrine.
Mike wrote: Speaking of saying all manner of nasty stuff against a brother, how does your calling John blasphemous, unorthodox, Arminian, arrogant, incompetent, evil heart, come out of your heart? Are you a brother in Christ?
John UK wrote: It is a mystery to me what he keeps babbling about. But on the baptism issue, we have had this selfsame debate before. (p.s. he prefers to call them contests not debates; and before the debate has run its course, he always declares he has won the contest, puts a calvin medallion around his neck, and stands on a little rostrum he made specially, and plays back on an old cassette player some prerecorded applause to the sound of the bagpipes playing the John Knox Theme Tune.) Well, that's the impression I get anyway. Maybe he leaves out the appplause bit.
More persecution and insults John. Is this your version of Christianity? Is this Baptist doctrine? How sad that others posting cannot read your heart. But then the Remnant is small and persecuted.
"Matthew 5:11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."
Praise be to God our Father and Christ Jesus His Son. Amen.
John UK wrote: You say: "...the arminian philosophy of requiring human input to authenticate their baptisms". So how do YOU baptise an unknown quantity, when you baptise a believing penitent sinner (one of God's elect) if he comes from a family of unbelievers? Does someone in your church have to give some "human input" and "authenticate" his baptism? Or do you just baptise folks born to unbelievers willy nilly upon a profession of faith? p.s. I have asked you this question many, many times, and you are yet to answer it. This does not bode well for your arguments, which are shown to be deceptive and irrational. I would sincerely like an answer, because until I get one, I can only regard you as a spiritual quack in the same league as Family radio. Procrastinations, vague references to posts which have gone before, diversionary tactics, all speak of the devil, and it is time you realised that.
Oh John I love it when you get all emotive in your posts. You become so unChristian in your insults.
As for your question re adults coming to the faith where their parents are not Covenanted. We do not rely on their confession, paedoBaptism proves this.
Now remember Do not discriminate against the seed of Covenanting parents. God doesn't.
John UK wrote: Please define this phrase for me and everyone else on these threads who are bemused by your strange meanderings and lack of desire/ability to answer questions put to you.
John. The phrase is "defined" in the post below the one you cut this one from. Just change the word "baptisms" to salvation.
KJB Believer wrote: Just one word? That the thing about taking a/numbers of verse or word(s) out of context. It results in Smithites(Morons), Russalites, Waterdogs, Grace "Preachers" or Dry Cleaners(Bullingerites), Andersonies(Faithful Word Baptist Church), need I go on.
Thats more than one word.
I didn't chose the words John did.
BTW If you are implying that out of context is the same as heresy, then wait until you learn more about religion before jumping to conclusions.
John UK wrote: The following words do not fit together very well...... 1. good 2. biblical 3. calvinist 4. presbyterian
John. Promise me you'll study the Bible more closely. I don't want you to fall into the trap of arminian DIY. The first two words I'm sure you comprehend Biblically. The third as CHS states "IS" the Gospel. The fourth is directly from the Greek word in Scripture and illustrates how we have remained Biblical. But you dunkers since 1521AD have taken an alternate path from Bible Covenant doctrine.
Lurker wrote: 2) If by elect you mean a "good biblical Calvinist PRESBYTERIAN"........ No.
Actually I think a couple of Baptists might be "elect" too. For example C.H.Spurgeon and the Particular Baptists.
The only problem they have is the proper Biblical understanding of Baptism, which of course according to God's Word includes the seed, (of Covenanted parents), at infant stage. The poor old baptists have gone over to the arminian philosophy of requiring human input to authenticate their baptisms.
Frank wrote: a] I am saying that anything the reformers wrote was written by mere men and therefore should not be esteemed beyond scripture that was written by the Holy Spirit.
b] but if I disagree with it, then should I bow to the creed or to my understanding from scripture?
I have selected two of your remarks above. a] Here you have rejected other Christians and presumably by what 'THEY' wrote oppsite what 'YOU' think. GOD wrote; "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth:" - I assume you believe this to be true. However in your statement above you imply it to be in error, compared with your own interpretations.
b] Who is correct Frank? or the creed? written by a genuine Christian who was not trying to deceive, but working with the indwelling Holy Spirit.
My whole point is that you three are rejecting whole swaths of writings by devout Christians on Biblical themes and truths. Your arguement appears to be that you know better and you can read the Scripture more accurately than historic Christians have recorded. First I challenge you to prove this. Second I am surprised that you as a Christian cannot perceive the arrogance of such a conviction. Have you any idea what humility consists of?
I see John, Frank and Lurker continue to refuse to respond to the accusations made about their blasphemous and unorthodox statements. Doubt about their ability to discern truth therefore remains extant. The subtle method by which they avoid direct answer, only to sidestep and circumvent the issue at hand, illustrates their culpability as well as their deceit.
John UK wrote: I am a "heterodox liberal" in my theology
Your short term memory is extremely short isn't it John.
Why not read your own posts below to find your errors.
John posted below quote, "he will be assisted by those who regard the Bible more than the writings of men, or solemn leagues, covenants, and so forth." 10/4/12 6:28AM
Thus you have arrogantly opposed yourself and posting accomplices against the writers of covenants creeds and standards of Reformed history.
Frank wrote: I think you are arguing with what I call roman/protestants. Rome said that if you don't believe our creeds are infallible then you are anathema; those who follow or rely on creeds today are saying the same thing, but just phrasing and spinning it differently.
I see you think the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters were a bunch of liars too??? Such arrogance is UNChristian to say the least. Putting yourself above the 16th century Christians you are declaring that; You can read the Bible - They can't. Thus you also are implying God is incompetent and ineffectual in history.
I presume then what you believe is that they wrote lies!!
Taking that concept to its natural conclusion I presume then that you believe truth did not arrive as exegesis of Scripture until Lurker was born!
John UK wrote: 1. Read again what you wrote. It is nonsense. 2. Why do you think that? Does not the same Holy Ghost indwell believers today?
1. No it is the conclusion provided by your post below. 2. If the Holy Spirit indwells modern man in the same way as 16th century man - Then truth would be the same then as now. Curiously though you do not seem to be able to agree with the 16th century truth as you have posted below. Now I wonder why that is. Who are we supposed to believe 16th century Reformers/theologians - or John UK and friend??
John UK wrote: those who regard the Bible more than the writings of men, or solemn leagues, covenants, and so forth.
So what you are saying is that the local posters here are more Biblically 'literate' than the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters who gave their lives for God and wrote the truth which is brought to us today by the Reformed Church.
If you actually believe that the modern church is more sound in their doctrine and exegesis of Scripture than the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters then I can only feel very sorry for your incompetence and ignorance in perceiving truth in Scripture. You are clearly more Liberal than orthodox.
God powerfully blessed the Reformers, Puritans and Covenanters in their battle against heresy and ignorance in the church during these centuries past. The Biblical Protestant Church was blessed and guided by the Lord to bring Scripture to the people from the Reformation onwards. What you are fighting against is God and truth.
Truth has not changed since Scripture was written and recorded by God. Truth is truth and always has been. You and your friend apparently deny this which is to deny God's work in witness throughout history. May God provide you with the good sense to repent of your evil heart.
Jim Lincoln wrote: For example, Acts 12:4 - Passover and Easter, personally I think this particular article deals too kindly to the AV for Acts 12:4. You will note that most Bibles will not use the word "Easter" But speaking of snakes not dragons
Now come on Jim; Pay attention!! We have already explained this to you.
You really must start reading the intelligent posts of the KING JAMES BIBLE Christians who CAN read the REAL Bible and explain the Word of God for you.
We will also explain and illustrate for you why all these badly translated modern versions have gone so awry in translation, interpretation and in english language usage.
"Ankerberg and Weldon wrote: Remember that it was the KJV translators themselves who stated in their original preface that the very purpose of their translation was to provide Godâ€™s Word in a readable and understandable fashion. They recognized and accepted the translation work that had been done before them. So then how can anyone logically argue that they would object to modern translations being done today for the same purpose?
"Logically" the problem is not translation into modern english, which in itself is unnecessary, - BUT the fact that the modern versions like Jim's NASB, have used bad english which is grammatically incorrect in places, - AND used the work of HERETICS such as the LIBERAL Anglican Bishops Westcott and Hort, - AND used Roman Catholic mms like the Vaticanus Text.
Michael Hranek wrote: The "reformed" loudly claim "the doctrines of grace" yet in examining their teachings they are quite deceptive as their teachings arn't really grace (salvation made available to all in Christ) but Total Arbitary PREDESTINATION.
You never really did LEAVE the Roman Catholic church did you Michael. You need to pick some TULIP's Michael.
John UK wrote: I'll give you some hyperwesleyanistic theology!! I woke, the dungeon flamed with light; My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee. My chains fell off, my heart was free, I rose, went forth, and followed Thee. [Wesley]
Thats right John.... All this rejection of Scripture, vanity and arrogant belief's are pure unadulterated hyperArminianism.
If you want to read some REAL DOCTRINE IN HYMN form, then try the LORD'S HYMN BOOK - THE BOOK OF PSALMS.
No wonder this Wesley guy was an Arminian - he was convinced of his own perfectionism.
"Be fruitful and multiply" was a general command for mankind, not a mandate for a couple to do it all on their own. The Planned Parenthood crowd are the one evil extreme, the other unwise extreme are folks like these friends. Parents are commanded to bring up their kids not the older siblings in the family - sadly that is what usually happens in these mega-families.