Unprofitable Servant wrote: 1. Your problem is that you don't think God is capable of so moving in their writings to make up His infallible Word. 2. Sorry to say this, but you serve a very small God with rather limited abilities.
1. Strange! I thought that was your problem. 2. You used a capital G there for God. Isn't that blasphemy? (LOL)
God's Word is surely powerful beyond our comprehension. Viz: Gen 1:3 And God SAID, Let there be light: and there was light"
God's "inspiration" must be equal to this divine power.
If we take one of your examples David writing the Psalms. God inspired David to write - Divine power in that act must over rule any weakness or sin in the mortal used. Thus we can say David's Psalms are God's divine - inspired work.
David doesn't bring a human effort to conflict with God in this work. God will see to that - Holy Spirit indwelling - Thus when writing the Bible God will not be obstructed by sin in the mortal. The Bible was too important to the salvation of His children for God to allow man's sinful foibles and defects to be able to get in the way of GOD's purposes.
It comes back to GOD and God alone that this tool of salvation the Bible (and writer) should be wholly adequate FOR GOD to use.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: One thing that is true of nearly all the Presbyterian posters, is their quoting of everything but the Scriptures. Maybe stick to the book would do well to follow his own advice.
Interesting that you have joined in Ups. I was referring of course to you when I said that one of the Baptists doesn't believe God inspired the writers of Scripture. You mentioned that you didn't think inspiration was of a "mechanical" nature. Isn't that just another means of inserting the free will of the sinner into the equation - To exclude God???
I asked then but you didn't respond - How can you trust a god who cannot even write a book - to save the sinner?
Michael Hranek wrote: Being a Baptist type believer we are likely to have disagreements on how some modern day 5 pt Calvinists/Reformed distort genuine Biblical doctrines into a context that is actually opposed to Christ and the Scriptures
As I have recently shown the quote "Baptist type believers" - Reject parts of Scripture the holy Word of God to establish their traditions which emerged in 1521 with the Anabaptist heretics. The Baptists reject the Covenant of Grace, also they distort the Greek meaning of words in translation to change the depth of water. Statements made by one of your brothers imply that he doesn't believe that God inspired the writers of Scripture???
Baptist religion "The new kid on the block" should beware of the course it pursues when excluding God's Word to establish new religious traditions previously not practiced.
Jim Lincoln wrote: The Anglican Church should reject infant baptism entirely, if they want to be Biblically correct.
God ordained in His Covenant made with His elect initiated with Abraham at Genesis 17, that the infants of Covenanted parents may be received into the Covenant. Therefore to be "Biblically correct" baptising the infants of Covenanted parents is what God commands and requires of His Church. Trust in God for His grace.
Lurker wrote: I wrote "...under the first covenant ecomomy those who named the name of God were promised life in return for obedience." To which you responded "Arminian heresy". Biblical warrant.... Deut 30:15-18
Those verses you quote do not support your Arminian hypothesis that man's action prompts God to act. And that if man does not act accordingly then the Lord goes into a bad mood and rejects His elect.
As for the verses remember, As Paul states, "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
I wish you would understand election better.
Again your quote, "under the first covenant ecomomy those who (a) named the name of God were promised life (b) in return for obedience"
(a) God provides the power in the sinner to respond to spiritual matters. 1Cor 2:14. Thus when a sinner has reached this point he is regenerated and the Holy Spirit is working in his heart.
(b) "Obedience" viz human action. You have implied that God will only save the sinner *IF* he does something in return. This puts the controls in man and takes them away from a 'sovereign' God.
(c) Your last point (prev post) implies losing salvation after being saved. That will never happen to the elect of God who are the only ones saved - By God alone.
Lurker wrote: 1) "There was no such thing as preservation of the saints under the first covenant ecomomy. 2) Those who named the name of God (whether Israel of Edom) were promised life in return for obedience. 3) Those who didn't keep covenant were broken off and cast into the fire
You asked why I said Arminian in response to your post below quoted above. 1) Does election by God work or not? Eph 1:4,5. Rom 9:11. Is God sovereign over His creatures or subordinate to their choices/actions? 2) Quote; "in return for Obedience" = Viz if man did something (human works) then God would respond posditively??? - This puts man in charge and God subservient to mans actions (or works). 3) What you are apparently saying here is that we can lose our salvation. Thats Arminian.
Election began before the foundation of the world. Election covers all God's elect in the OT and NT. (Rom 9:6) Election consequently followed by calling/regeneration saves the elect by the hand of God alone. Zero contribution by man
Lurker wrote: There was no such thing as preservation of the saints under the first covenant ecomomy. Those who named the name of God (whether Israel of Edom) were promised life in return for obedience. Those who didn't keep covenant were broken off and cast into the fire
This is devout Arminianism. Obviously God does not enter into election in this religion contrary to Paul's teaching.
Ro 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth)"