Londonderry pastor to replace Ian Paisley at Belfast Church
Londonderry pastor the Rev Dr Ian Brown is to take over from the Rev Dr Ian Paisley as minister of the Martyrs Memorial Free Presbyterian Church in Belfast.
Dr Brown, a Lisburn man, has been in Londonderry for the past 25 years and he says he is prayerfully looking forward to the congregational challenge and following in the considerable ministerial footsteps of the founder of the Free Presbyterian Church.
The South Belfast church, which opened in 1969, has been without an appointed minister since Dr Paisley (Lord Bannside) retired in 2011 and Dr Brown will be installed at a service there on Friday August 2.
Dr Brown, who is in his late forties, is currently clerk of the general presbytery of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and is professor of historical theology in the Whitefield College of the Bible in Gilford, Co Down, the Bible College for the training of ministers, mIssionaries...
Peel wrote: Well done and many blessings to you John, on getting Calvin's name correct.
Back to Mr Calvin:
"Christ, says he, accomplishes in us spiritual circumcision, not through means of that ancient sign, which was in force under Moses, but BY BAPTISM. BAPTISM, therefore, is a sign of the thing that is presented to us, which while absent was prefigured by circumcision. The argument is taken from the economy which God has appointed; for those who retain circumcision contrive a mode of dispensation different from that which God has appointed."
"When he says that we are buried with Christ, this means more than that we are crucified with him; for burial expresses a continued process of mortification. When he says, that this is done THROUGH MEANS OF BAPTISM, as he says also in Romans 6:4, he speaks in his usual manner, ascribing EFFICACY TO THE SACRAMENT, that it may not fruitlessly signify what does not exist."
Now please note that Mr Calvin states categorically that baptism by water is efficacious to bring about a spiritual circumcision by the hand of Christ.
John UK wrote: The oft-quoted Mr Calvin has some very unusual beliefs concerning Colossians 2:12. In fact, the baptismal regeneration Mr Calvin espouses is now shown to get worse......there is more.
Well done and many blessings to you John, on getting Calvin's name correct.
John UK wrote: "Buried with him, in baptism. He [Paul] explains still more clearly the manner of spiritual circumcision -- because, being buried with Christ, we are partakers of his death. He expressly declares that we obtain this by means of baptism..." J.C.
John. Do you Baptists understand the concept of "spiritual Circumcision" (or circumcision of the heart)? That is what Calvin is dealing with here. Not flesh circumcision. Quote; "He says that we obtain this through Christ, so that unquestionably an entire regeneration is his benefit. It is he that circumcises the foreskin of our heart, or, in other words, mortifies all the lusts of the flesh, not with the hand, but by his Spirit. Hence there is in him the reality of the figure." JC
Quote; "bear in mind that outward circumcision is here compared with spiritual, just as a figure with the reality" JC
The oft-quoted Mr Calvin has some very unusual beliefs concerning Colossians 2:12. In fact, the baptismal regeneration Mr Calvin espouses is now shown to get worse......there is more.
"Buried with him, in baptism. He [Paul] explains still more clearly the manner of spiritual circumcision -- because, being buried with Christ, we are partakers of his death. He expressly declares that we obtain this by means of baptism..." J.C.
Ah so.....if you want to be born again - get baptised. If you want to experience the circumcision of Christ - get baptised. If you want to die with Christ - get baptised. If you want to be buried with Christ - get baptised. If you want to be raised with Christ - get baptised.
No wonder Mr Presby wants to baptise all and sundry - that's how you get converts. Just sneak up behind someone, sprinkle a little water on them using the magic formula, and Lo, Behold, they are now born again, dead and buried with Christ, and raised with him to newness of life.
Somehow it reminds me of the magic-show priests of the RCC, who lift up a little wafer, utter the magic formula, and then say, Lo, Behold, the Son of God - eat him quickly, and you have eternal life.
But Christians say, "Nay, lad! The Supper and Baptism are symbolic only!"
Peel wrote: Sprinkle/effusion is the Biblical mode and Baptist redefining of words and rewrite of history does not change these recorded historic facts.
What a shame!
Almost everyone knows that the former and latter rain (upper waters) doesn't mean literal rain but rather the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all flesh but when it comes to the baptism of the lower waters (John's baptism, circumcision of the flesh) everyone is back to a literal interpretation.
The power of tradition should never be underestimated.
"With reference to the alleged pattern of baptism in Romans 6:2-6 and Colossians 2:11-12 as being that of burial and resurrection, a careful analysis of these passages will show that Paul‚Äôs basic thesis is the believer‚Äôs union with Christ in his crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection as the antidote to antinomianism. Baptism by immersion does not modally reflect our crucifixion with Christ, which is one of the four aspects of our union with Christ which Paul mentions in the Romans passage. Murray is right when he affirms:
It is arbitrary to select one aspect [of our union with Christ, namely burial] and find in the language used to set it forth the essence of the mode of baptism. Such procedure is indefensible unless it can be carried through consistently. It cannot be carried through consistently here [since baptism by immersion does not and cannot visually reflect our being hung on the cross with Christ, which is as much an aspect of our union with Christ in the passage as our burial with him] and therefore it is arbitrary and inva1id
It should be noted too that Christ was not "buried" at all in the sense that the Baptist mode of baptism requires. That is to say, his body was not placed under the ground." (R.L.Reymond)
Let us observe scripture, and gain a better understanding of your errors, Mr Peel.
Matthew 12:40 KJV 40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Now please observe and read carefully:
Colossians 2:12 KJV 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Ooooooh look! The apostle declares that CHRIST WAS BURIED and we are buried WITH HIM.
Now if you wish to engage properly, you will need to expound the text in accordance with your beliefs. Was this burial in baptism symbolic or actual? If it is symbolic then the mode has to be by immersion. If it is actual, then you have to admit that baptism in water is efficacious to bring about regeneration, death of the old man and resurrection of the new man. Which do YOU say?
Now of course I realise that you will not answer this simple question, but at least I gave you the opportunity.
As Observer keeps saying, you are NOT interested in SCRIPTURE!
Peel wrote: "Baptist" ideology was invented in 1521 before which "Baptist" separatists did not need to exist. Nobody saw the need. Baptists have redefined words to suit their philosophy.
P - Profoundly E - Educate E - Exceptional L - Luminary
Wow! Have you ever got that wrong. Reminds me of Augustine's (the Roman Catholic Doctor Calvinists/Reformed adore) allegorical intrepretation of the Parable of the Good Samaritan. And speaking of the Roman Catholics, you probably know 'church history' a whole heap better than I do, so let me inquire, didn't the RCC slaughter untold nmumbers of dissenters who refused infant sprinkling and instead practised believers' baptism long before 1521 and William Whitsitt's dissinformation regarding the historic record of believer's baptism before 1521 and in fact back to the early church in Acts.
Peel wrote: As I have already said depth is irrelevant so admit it immersion is irrelevant too.
Mr Peel/Presby whatever your name is.
Please observe the text:
Colossians 2:10-12 KJV 10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Now note particularly the words "buried with him in baptism". Are you suggesting that this is NOT picture language, but an actual spiritual event brought about by sprinkling?
That the word "buried" means that in baptism by sprinkling, you can bring about the death of the old man?
And that by sprinkling, you can raise up a person to new life through resurrection and make a new creature in Christ?
Not all anabaptist were heretics, and you cannot change the facts, SCRIPTURAL baptism has always been since apostolic times immersion of believers only, those who practice affusion are simply practicing false UNSCRIPTURAL doctrine and need to repent and return to the FIRST works that the was used by the apostles and early church and santioned by the Lord Jesus, baptism of believers only by immersion.
Jim. Your 4/5ths Calvinism leads to Arminianism. As history records.
"Amyraut claimed that his views were in accordance with the Word of God, the theology of John Calvin and the Canons of Dordt (1618-1619), to which he as a French Reformed minister subscribed. This also was false as his critics, both then and now, have pointed out. Martin I. Klauber states, ‚ÄúThe majority of Reformed theologians ‚Ä¶ rejected his system as the first step towards Arminianism‚ÄĚ (‚ÄúTheological Transition in Geneva,‚ÄĚ in Carl R. Trueman and R. S. Clark [eds.], Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment [Great Britain: Paternoster, 1999], p. 258, n. 5). The orthodox in the French Reformed Church and outside it called for his discipline but the French synods failed to deal with the problem properly. The slide of his students, his disciples and the French Reformed Church further and further into Arminianism has been well documented" (Rev A.Stewart)
As for immersionism - No where does the Bible record dooking and depth to prove your argument or anybody else's. Immersionism comes from the Anabaptist heretics of the 16th century and that is historic fact too. As I have already said depth is irrelevant so admit it immersion is irrelevant too.
Peel wrote: 1. The immersion ideology is unbiblical and unprovable from Scripture. It is an invention of the Anabaptist heretics from 1521....
Guess if one quotes falsehoods often enough they suddenly become truth? This has been proven wrong on this site in multiple threads, seeing you "reverence" the KJV, check out Strong's Concordance, G907 translated in the KJV baptize,
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm
what NO sprinkling or pouring, how can this be? SCRIPTURAL baptism always practiced since the days of the apostles has been and always will be immersion of believers only. God bless
Peel wrote: 1. The immersion ideology is unbiblical and unprovable from Scripture. It is an invention of the Anabaptist heretics from 1521. Depth of water is irrelevant except when Baptist hypothesis is applied to these modern aberrations on the mode and rite. 2. So says Jim Lincoln who supports the Roman Catholic sympathising heretics of Westcott, Hort and their modern versions. Then there is Jim's Arminian leanings (amyraldianism) which lends itself to RCC salvation by works. So who is the real popish sympathiser Jim? Have you immersionists got to the stage of "immersionist regeneration" yet? Must be pretty close. Or can you admit that immersion is unnecessary?
P - Profoundly E - Exceptionally E - Educated L - Luminary
Mike wrote: Heretics killed the Anabaptists. That sure taught them, didn't it?
Ahhh the old church-state totalitarian regime lives on under the guise of certain which get their guidance, not from the Holy Spirit, but from dusty old manuals of religion, without a care to see if they would stand up to scriptual scrutiny or no.
Such stand by their fathers in "the faith", even though their fathers were murderers and persecutors, and held to false doctrines and teachings of men.
Such would do well to repent of their wickedness, believe the gospel, and submit to baptism, just as their Lord and Saviour submitted, showing the way for us, thus pride can be dealt a fatal blow, and confession made before the world, of a total involvement with Jesus Christ, to love, serve and worship him; not to be a persecutor but one who is persecuted for Christ's sake; not to kill, but to be counted as sheep for the slaughter; not to have respect and status, but to be counted the offscouring of the world; not to counter evil with evil, but with good; not to act devilish, but Christlike.
I would think that there have always been pilgrims in the world, from pentecost onwards, who denied themselves, took up their cross, and followed Christ.
But, you are acting as if baptism were efficacious in some way? They are not! All baptisms in the Bible were full body immersions. So, if baptisms were efficacious, which they are not, the only right way is of course for adult and full immersion baptism. Perhaps the biggest disagreement Protestants have with Lutherans and something their own theologians will acknowledge is Martin Luther's Sacramental Gospel of baptism.
Peel wrote: 1. The immersion ideology is unbiblical and unprovable from Scripture. It is an invention of the Anabaptist heretics from 1521. Depth of water is irrelevant except when Baptist hypothesis is applied to these modern aberrations on the mode and rite. ---
Heretics killed the Anabaptists. That sure taught them, didn't it?