"In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will through His suffering, death and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and all of creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow."
Anne wrote: Info, can you explain what you mean by "obedience to the Commandments"?
That section is headed "Law of God" and starts with the sentence, "The great principles of Godâ€™s law are embodied in the Ten Commandments and exemplified in the life of Christ. They express Godâ€™s love, will, and purposes concerning human conduct and relationships and are binding upon all people in every age."
John UK wrote: Ultimately, they hold to a works based salvation.
Not what they say.
From 28 Fundamental beliefs
#19 "Salvation is all of grace and not of works, but its fruitage is obedience to the Commandments. This obedience develops Christian character and results in a sense of well-being. It is an evidence of our love for the Lord and our concern for our fellow men. The obedience of faith demonstrates the power of Christ to transform lives, and therefore strengthens Christian witness."
It turns out that measuring the distance to a star is an interesting problem! Astronomers have come up with two different techniques to estimate how far away any given star is.
The first technique uses triangulation (a.k.a. parallax). The Earth's orbit around the sun has a diameter of about 186 million miles (300 million kilometers). By looking at a star one day and then looking at it again 6 months later, an astronomer can see a difference in the viewing angle for the star. With a little trigonometry, the different angles yield a distance. This technique works for stars within about 400 light years of earth.
Is a sensible Christian who does not accept the Roman Catholic idolatrous practice of worshipping graven images. Whether they are alabaster statuettes, ancient preserved dead corpses, bits of material which are believed to have been worn by ancient catholics, icons and all the other insipid inanimate objects that this pagan religion proffers.
Protestants are people who in history shed their allegience to popes who think they are god on earth and all the daft religious ideas like the mass and its evil satanic blasphemies, which the papists have replaced Biblical Christian doctrines with.
Protestants form part of the true Biblical and precious elect of God - the real Church.
Apart from the title, "Roman Catholics" are the same as reprobates, muslims or any other Godless cult on earth. They are people who cannot receive the truth from Scripture even if they read the Bible.
Cardinals, popes and all the heirarchy of the Roman Catholic church are nescient, misguided, unChristian brainwashed individuals who represent a human secular religion completely out of touch with anything divine.
John UK wrote: To RP, info, and all my brethren and sisters in the Lord. Strange isn't it? That I should be accused of arminist tendencies, DIY popish salvation by works!
You asked me a question, I answered it. I asked you a question but you took it wrong. I was not implying that you had arminian tendencies, DIY salvation or anything like that. They were sincere questions as I wanted to know why the Spirit would enlighten but wait to indwell the believer.
The gift of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:38 could be the sealing of the Holy Spirit.
That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also AFTER THAT YE BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED with that HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE, Eph 1:12-13
John UK wrote: Aha! I perceive you have not been following the debate. My apologies. But the point I was making is that "quickening" by the Spirit does not necessarily mean or require "indwelling". Were the Jews who responded to Peter's preaching in Acts 2:38 already indwelt by the Spirit, or were they quickened by the Spirit and then indwelt by the Spirit after, as the "gift of the Holy Ghost"?
That's okay. It is a very interesting question. I believe the Spirit might have indwelt them as Peter preached and they were quickened/regenerated and enabled to repent and believe.
Do you think there was a possibility that they would not repent and believe and that is why they were only quickened by the Spirit and not indwelt as Peter preached? Was God waiting to see who would repent and believe before he gave the gift of the Holy Spirit?
John UK wrote: Good ol' bro. Now observe: For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 1 Peter 3:18 KJV Quickened here means brought back to life by the Spirit after physical death.
And your point is? What does this have to do with what I posted
John UK wrote: How can I agree or disagree with your OS unless you state what you mean by "regeneration". Is it the "indwelling of the Spirit"? Or is it the "quickening (enlightening) of the Spirit"?
Quickeneth - Geek word: zōopoieō to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.
"The scriptural vocabulary for the new birth is rich and varied. The following terms are used: a new heart, a new spirit, born again, born of water and of the Spirit, born of God, begotten of God, born of the Spirit, spiritual enlightenment, quickening, regeneration, washing of regeneration, renewing of the Holy Ghost, making all things new, being translated out of darkness into Godâ€™s marvelous light, being given new spiritual sight, being translated out of death into life, conversion, Godâ€™s beginning a good work in you."
The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which Christ died for all men. John 4:42â€¦1 John 2:2â€¦1 Timothy 4:10...These passages, as well as the official teaching of the Church, require the Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all menâ€¦
According to Aquinas, "[Christ] is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it has its effect only in the elect." [Commentary on Titus, I, 2:6.].
A Catholic also may say that, in going to the cross, Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all menâ€¦ A Catholic therefore may say that the atonement is limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency, and that God intended it to be this way. [Although one must be sure to maintain that God desires the salvation of all men, as the Catholic Church teaches... (excerpt from A Tiptoe Through TULIP by James Akin at the Armored Catholic website)
John UK wrote: Should we pray for our enemies (i.e. God's enemies) to be saved or to be confounded. I'm quite willing to learn, so feel free to state your case, brother.
Book of Psalms is God's Praise and Prayer book.
Psalms contains "Imprecatory" Psalms.
Therefore "Imprecatory" Prayer (Psalms) - "Praise" God.
Otherwise there are Psalms which would have to be "cut out" of the Book??? EG. Psa. 7, 35, 40, 55, 58, 59, etc
Psalm 55:9 Destroy, O Lord, and divide their tongues: for I have seen violence and strife in the city. 10 Day and night they go about it upon the walls thereof: mischief also and sorrow are in the midst of it. 11 Wickedness is in the midst thereof: deceit and guile depart not from her streets. 12 For it was not an enemy that reproached me; then I could have borne it: neither was it he that hated me that did magnify himself against me; then I would have hid myself from him: 13 But it was thou, a man mine equal, my guide, and mine acquaintance."
"Why did the early churches of the 2nd and 3rd centuries and all the Protestant Reformers of the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries choose Textus Receptus in preference to the Minority Text?"
"Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text. Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church. Remember this vital point. Textus Receptus agrees wih the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers. Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief. Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour's miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood! Textus Receptus was - and still is - the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind." (eduweb.co)
"First of all, the Textus Receptus was the Bible of early Eastern Christianity. Later it was adopted as the official text of the Greek Catholic Church. There were local reasons which contributed to this result. But, probably, far greater reasons will be found in the fact that the Received Text had authority enough to become, either in itself or by its translation, the Bible of the great Syrian Church; of the Waldensian Church of northern Italy; of the Gallic Church in southern France; and of the Celtic Church in Scotland and Ireland; as well as the official Bible of the Greek Catholic Church. All these churches, some earlier, some later, were in opposition to the Church of Rome and at a time when the Received Text and these Bibles of the Constantine type were rivals. They, as represented in their descendants, are rivals to this day. The Church of Rome built on the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible; these others built on the Received Text. Therefore, because they themselves believed that the Received Text was the true apostolic Bible, and further, because Rome arrogated to itself the power to choose a Bible which bore the marks of systematic depravation, we have the testimony of these five churches to the authenticity and the apostolicity of the Received Text." (D.O.Fuller)
"It is not true either that these Reformers did not know of the existence of this rival text. We are told that they used the "Received Text" because it was all they had. That is not true. While they did not have the thousands of manuscripts that we have today, they did know of this corrupt text as it was represented in some of the manuscripts that were available to them. They, however, rejected that text for the "Received Text"â€”the text which is supported by 80 to 90 percent of all the manuscripts we have today. That is the text of the King James Version. For that reason alone, we must reject all modern versions." (The Standard Bearer)
The favorite Greek Texts of the heretics Westcott and Hort, which are used by todays modern versions eg NIV, NASB etc, are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
"The two main manuscripts of the Minority Texts are Vaticanus (or B), and the Sinaiticus (Aleph). Vaticanus was produced in the 4th century, It was found over a thousand years later (1481) in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held. This manuscript omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1: 1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation, and everything in Hebrews after verse 9:14.
It is interesting that a manuscript possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the "mass" as totally useless (Hebrews 10:10-12). It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), and the great whore of Revelation chapter 17" (endtimeoutreach.com)
Nathan wrote: To have a good comparision of Dr Macarthur with the cults see THE CULTS, DR. MACARTHUR,AND THE BLOOD OF CHRIST by Dr. R. L. Hymers, Jr. http://www.rlhymers.com/Online_Sermons/09-22-02AM_CultsMcArthurAndTheBlood.html
MacArthur and Spurgeon are in agreement about the blood of Christ.
â€śWhat is this "blood of sprinkling?" In a few words, "the blood of sprinkling" represents the pains, the sufferings, the humiliation, and the death of the Lord Jesus Christ, which he endured on the behalf of guilty man. When we speak of the blood, we wish not to be understood as referring solely or mainly to the literal material blood which flowed from the wounds of Jesus. We believe in the literal fact of his shedding his blood; but when we speak of his cross and blood we mean those sufferings and that death of our Lord Jesus Christ by which he magnified the law of God...â€ť (CH Spurgeon, sermon # 1888 The Blood of Sprinkling)
A Crucial Question in Baptist History By: James Edward McGoldrick"
"McGoldrick critques revisionist's claim of Baptist successionism (aka Landmarkism). Classic example of such works is JM Carroll's Trail of Blood (which is essentially a crystalized documentation of Landmarkism) whose supposed history claims to be able to trace Baptist lineage back to the Church in Jerusalem. The author relies on historical reseach and data to show that the ancestry claimed by Carroll and others alike are not reliable nor tenableâ€¦"
"Baptist Successionism A Critical View By: W. Morgan Peterson"
"The doctrine that modern-day Baptist churches stand in a direct line of succession from New Testament times is subjected to severe scrutiny in this bookâ€¦ Although the belief was widespread among nineteenth-century Baptists and is still often cited today, the author demonstrates that it rests largely on insecure footing of books written long ago by unscholarly, careless, or even biased historians. In the process of exposing the unsoundness of the successionist position this book also provides an excellent discussion of the marks of valid and reliable historical research, especially in the field of church historyâ€¦"