Disaffected Presbyterians Announce New Evangelical Body
Calling it the Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians, the group presented the body not as an "alternative" but rather as a structure that "enables ministry," Layman.org quoted Dr. John Ortberg, pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church, as saying.
"Every organism lives in a larger system. A healthy ecosystem filters out toxins so that organisms can thrive," Ortberg said at a conference of The Fellowship of Presbyterians – the group launching ECO. "The goal is to build a spiritual ecosystem that in turn builds flourishing churches that make disciples of Jesus Christ."...
Observer wrote: I want to leave for future generations the fruit of a lifetime of preaching and studying. Too much is produced from the Presby presses and not enough by the Baptists for various reasons. So a lot to do and not enough time to do it all in. But, God willing... Oh well, back to my books, unless a Presby steps up
All I can say bro is, God bless the work. I know it is difficult, and how you must feel. And the devil will not like it. And I don't think we'll see any Presbys tonight; perhaps they've all gone over to Geneva to bow down to those wretched statues.
John UK wrote: Wow you certainly pack a lot into a day, bro. No wonder I can't keep up with you. As for the Presbys, they are all studying also, trying to find more quotes to bore us with. But we must show patience bro and trust in the providence of God that good may come of it all.
I want to leave for future generations the fruit of a lifetime of preaching and studying. Too much is produced from the Presby presses and not enough by the Baptists for various reasons.
So a lot to do and not enough time to do it all in. But, God willing...
Oh well, back to my books, unless a Presby steps up
Observer wrote: Hi Bro Giving myself to studying. I want to write a number of exhaustive books against: 1. The pestiferous practice of infant baptism 2. The divine wrong (as opposed to right) of Prebytery 3. The philisophising tendencies of John Calvin and the WCF "divines" and the consequent errors they have introduced And a few other books beside. How you doin?
Wow you certainly pack a lot into a day, bro. No wonder I can't keep up with you. As for the Presbys, they are all studying also, trying to find more quotes to bore us with. But we must show patience bro and trust in the providence of God that good may come of it all.
Observer wrote: Whose buried this thread? Where have all the Presbys gone? Looks like the elect have lost their typing fingers. Is there a single bible believing Presby out there? Anyone out there able to prove infant baptism is scriptural? Please dont proof text and keep your yourselves to the Bible. I know its asking a lot, BUT I am looking for a Berean Presby, if such a thing exists. Anyone out there?
Observer wrote: These people grow up being told how special they are in Gods eyes because of their covenant standing and then the Presbys wonder when they have problems with repentance and faith!
It kinda reminds me of the haughty one in the temple who prayed, "I thank thee God that I'm not like other men, especially this publican here." (nose in air, turning away in disgust.)
But praise God we have the example of that humble publican, who prayed in a better sort, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."
John UK wrote: Is that a fact. Maybe they have many folks with a lack of assurance of having been born again because they haven't been born again. A bit of water raise a dead corpse to life? Nah!
These peple grow up being told how special they are in Gods eyes because of their covenant standing and then the Presbys wonder when they have problems with repentance and faith!
Observer wrote: Just as an aside John, you may be interested to know that there are more books on "assurance" produced by Presbys than any other body of believers. Why do you suppose that is?
Is that a fact. Maybe they have many folks with a lack of assurance of having been born again because they haven't been born again. A bit of water raise a dead corpse to life? Nah!
John UK wrote: Quite so. The devil goes about seeking whom he may devour, but thankfully the Spirit of God also goes about seeking the lost sheep of Jesus Christ and, in the time of God, enlightens their minds as to the truth, brings them to new birth, and causes them to walk in the ways of God. And it is "of God" not "of man", who CANNOT bring himself or others to birth, no matter whether they be children of godly Presby parents or born into the RCC. Election sees to it, not the decision of men. And if that is arminist hyper-wesleyan DIY salvation, so be it.
Just as an aside John, you may be interested to know that there are more books on "assurance" produced by Presbys than any other body of believers. Why do you suppose that is?
Observer wrote: "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3.6) From the arguments of the Presbys on this forum they would want us to understand this to mean: "Except if you are a Presby infant born into covenant with God! Your a special case not addressed by this verse" Wow! is all I can say! It is extremely serious because it is a perversion of the gospel. Countless numbers have already and others will continue to die in their sins because of this teaching.
Quite so. The devil goes about seeking whom he may devour, but thankfully the Spirit of God also goes about seeking the lost sheep of Jesus Christ and, in the time of God, enlightens their minds as to the truth, brings them to new birth, and causes them to walk in the ways of God. And it is "of God" not "of man", who CANNOT bring himself or others to birth, no matter whether they be children of godly Presby parents or born into the RCC. Election sees to it, not the decision of men.
And if that is arminist hyper-wesleyan DIY salvation, so be it.
FYI wrote: "In 2006,.. 118,741 of the 364,826 baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention (32.5%) were of children age 11 and below. 4,179 of these were of children age 5 and below. Some have suggested, as churches are increasingly reporting baptisms of even pre-school children, that we come to grips with the practice among us of “semi-infant†or “toddler baptism.â€
We do not deny that children, even very young ones can come to faith. The foolishness of baptising too early is that one cannot test whether repentance is genuine. It would be wiser to leave them to grow up before administering believers baptism. We suspect that felt pressure to recruit new believers is at the heart of this issue.
Mike wrote: That's a heckuva reason to disagree. It regards denomination as a valid basis for position. That's too cultic an idea for me. Besides, I'm not a denominational Baptist, so I can't disagree with you for that reason anyway. I disagree cause sometimes you just read the Bible funny.
Mike, since they are denominational they have no idea of how anyone can be a nondenominational baptist.
As for funny reading of the Bible. Now there's the understatement of the century.
Presby wrote: But Mike; I have to disagree with you! I'm a Presby and you're a Baptist.
That's a heckuva reason to disagree. It regards denomination as a valid basis for position. That's too cultic an idea for me. Besides, I'm not a denominational Baptist, so I can't disagree with you for that reason anyway. I disagree cause sometimes you just read the Bible funny.
"In 2006, the most recent year for which on-line statistics are available, 118,741 of the 364,826 baptisms in the Southern Baptist Convention (32.5%) were of children age 11 and below. 4,179 of these were of children age 5 and below. Some have suggested, as churches are increasingly reporting baptisms of even pre-school children, that we come to grips with the practice among us of “semi-infant†or “toddler baptism.â€
John UK wrote: It seems utter nonsense to me also. And I also suspect that few Presbys can understand it either. But maybe there is hope for them yet. The Bible is full of gospel exhortations, and it behoves sinners to heed what God says and do what God says. "Repent and be baptised, every one of you....."
Serious stuff!
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3.6)
From the arguments of the Presbys on this forum they would want us to understand this to mean: "Except if you are a Presby infant born into covenant with God! Your a special case not addressed by this verse"
Wow! is all I can say!
It is extremely serious because it is a perversion of the gospel. Countless numbers have already and others will continue to die in their sins because of this teaching.
Observer wrote: Their children grow up under the smile of God, whereas all infants who are not born under the covenant are subject to God's wrath because they are sinners. Not so the Presby infants who have had "magic" water sprinkled on them. They have the influence of the Holy Spirit guaranteed to them. By default they will be saved. They have to do something to lose the benefit of all these influences and blessings. Not so infants who are born out of covenant. By default they are lost and God has to do something in them to save them. What utter nonsense! But they have bought into this because Calvin taught it and because the WCF teaches it
It seems utter nonsense to me also. And I also suspect that few Presbys can understand it either. But maybe there is hope for them yet.
The Bible is full of gospel exhortations, and it behoves sinners to heed what God says and do what God says.
"Repent and be baptised, every one of you....."
Observer wrote: They have assigned eligibility for gospel blessings to the flesh, which belong only to faith!
John UK wrote: I guess not. What concerns me is that if Presbys are taught that because of their parents they are included in the covenant of grace, and therefore they will be saved on account of that, and they are also taught that they should not attempt to repent nor believe on Christ unless they are absolutely convinced that it is being wrought in them by the Spirit, then some poor dabs are going to have a nasty surprise when the Lord God makes up his accounts....
Their children grow up under the smile of God, whereas all infants who are not born under the covenant are subject to God's wrath because they are sinners. Not so the Presby infants who have had "magic" water sprinkled on them. They have the influence of the Holy Spirit guaranteed to them. By default they will be saved. They have to do something to lose the benefit of all these influences and blessings. Not so infants who are born out of covenant. By default they are lost and God has to do something in them to save them.
They have assigned eligibility for gospel blessings to the flesh, which belong only to faith!
Such utter nonsense! But they have bought into this because Calvin taught it and because the WCF teaches it
Observer wrote: They can proof text, and quote their theologians. Is that NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, you reprobate?
I guess not.
What concerns me is that if Presbys are taught that because of their parents they are included in the covenant of grace, and therefore they will be saved on account of that, and they are also taught that they should not attempt to repent nor believe on Christ unless they are absolutely convinced that it is being wrought in them by the Spirit, then some poor dabs are going to have a nasty surprise when the Lord God makes up his accounts.
I don't feel sorry for wilful sinners; but for those who are deceived when they are so close to the truth, now that is sad.
John UK wrote: Observer, It seems that neither Presby nor any other Presby is willing to answer what rates as the most important question known to man. Astonishing. ....
You are asking infants to answer questions intended for men
Listen to Presby: "Chap 7 Of the Presbyterian WCF carries more information and relates back to the Genesis 17 inauguration of the Covenant of Grace by God, with Abraham. Therefore covers the whole counsel of God."
Whole counsel of God, starting with Abraham? So what happened before Abraham? What proof does he offer that this was a covenant of grace, except the citation from the WCF? What does the Abrahamic covenant mean for believers under the New Covenant sealed with Christ's blood? Why is the New Covenant called the "New Covenant"?
You can keep asking Bro., but they are clueless about the Word of God. They could not care a dime. They have their theology settled by the WCF and the likes of A A Hodge, and as God's elect they have the secret truth, BUT it is soooooo secret they cannot prove it to anyone elses satisfaction, at least NOT FROM THE BIBLE.
They can proof text, and quote their theologians. Is that NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU, you reprobate?
Observer, It seems that neither Presby nor any other Presby is willing to answer what rates as the most important question known to man. Astonishing.
If man is dead in sin, and incapable of any response to the gospel other than rejection, then grace is his only hope, that God will have mercy upon him.
If God then has eternally decided on a covenant of grace, whereby he .... whereby he ......
What?
481
There are a total of 500 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
It is extremely serious because it is a perversion of the gospel. Countless numbers have already and others will continue to die in their sins because of this teaching. 
