members, click to sign in..

5,565 active users!!Bandwidth
THURSDAY
OCT 30, 2014
Home
NewsSITE
Events & Blogs
New Audio & Video
BroadcastersNew Stuff!
Local Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -20 min
Top Sermons
VideosPDFs
Daily Log
PhotosNew Stuff!
StoresNew Stuff!
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Submit Sermon
Members Only

 
RELIGION, CURRENT EVENTS, TECHNOLOGY Subscribe to the breaking newsWhat is RSS?
FRONT PAGE  |  10/30/2014
THURSDAY, AUG 8, 2013  |  78 comments  |  1 commentary
Should we care that smart women aren't having kids?

It seems that women these days are too clever for their own good, at least when it comes to making babies. Research emerging from the London School of Economics examining the links between intelligence and maternal urges in women claims that more of the former means less of the latter. In an ideal world, such findings might be interpreted as smart women making smart choices, but instead it seems that this research is just adding fuel to the argument that women who don't have children, regardless of the reason, are not just selfish losers but dumb ones as well.

Satoshi Kanazawa, the LSE psychologist behind the research, discussed the findings that maternal urges drop by 25% with every extra 15 IQ points in his book The Intelligence Paradox. In the opening paragraph of the chapter titled "Why intelligent people are the ultimate losers in life", he makes his feelings about voluntary childlessness very ...


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.theguardian.com

|  FOCUS  |  Audio commentaries on this news item | more..
A Biblical View of Children • 250+
Phil Layton | Gold Country Baptist Church
Play! | RSS

Teaching Children to Listen 1
  START  
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  Teaching Children to Listen 1Dr. Joel Beeke | 1/4/2009
•  Rearing And Educating Children • Rev. Ivan Foster | 10/28/1993
•  Majesty of a Godly MarriageDr. Alan Cairns | 2/8/2009
•  CAUTION: This Will Harm You • Dr. John Barnett | 9/17/2000

   06/09/14  |  Did Government‚Äôs Experiment on Preemies Hide Risks?
   06/08/14  |  How to Raise a Pagan Kid in a Christian Home • 5 comments
   06/06/14  |  Fury over parents ‚Äėspied‚Äô on by Scots‚Äô state guardians • 2 comments
   06/05/14  |  Adoption under fire • 1 comments
   04/24/14  |  To train up a Pharisee • 9 comments
MORE RELATED ( CHILDREN ) NEWS | MORE..
   10/30/14  |  More college students support post-birth abortion • 2 comments
   10/29/14  |  Ted Olson: 'Point of no return' on gay marriage passed • 5 comments
   10/27/14  |  SermonAudio Tip: SermonAudio iPhone + iPad Edition v3.8.2! • 100 comments
   10/26/14  |  NC Judge Resigns Rather Than Perform Gay Marriages • 7 comments
   10/23/14  |  Memorial service held for Ian Paisley • 19 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   06/02/14  |  A Letter to SermonAudio From a Missionary to Haiti • 10 comments
   02/07/14  |  Bringing the Gospel of John to Every Home in Austin, TX • 37 comments
   01/07/14  |  SermonAudio Partners with RFC for the 2014 Family Conference at... • 1 comments
   01/01/14  |  Happy New Year from SermonAudio! • 29 comments
   12/10/13  |  SermonAudio Broadcaster Loses Historic Church Building To Fire • 3 comments
OTHER CHOICE NEWS | MORE..
   10/30/14  |  Vatican defrocks 3 priests ‚ÄĒ a decade after allegations • 2 comments
   10/30/14  |  More college students support post-birth abortion • 2 comments
   10/30/14  |  Former homosexuals: Gospel approach needed • 1 comments
   10/30/14  |  2 percent of English ministers say humans invented God • 1 comments
   10/30/14  |  Study: Global One-child Policy Not Enough for ‚ÄúSustainability‚ÄĚ • 3 comments
OTHER RECENT NEWS | MORE..

COMMENTS | show all | add new  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 78 user comment(s)
News Item8/14/13 10:56 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
correctum wrote:
You forgot Enid, John.
Well I suppose Enid Blighton and John Calvin do make similar reading.

Best stick to the Bible....

...in which there is no infant sprinkling.

78

News Item8/14/13 9:28 AM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
John UK wrote:
John Calvin, Charles Hodge, John Newton, Alvah Hovey, Lorraine Boettner, BB Warfield, Charles Spurgeon
You forgot Enid, John.
Please be careful of what you find on the computer. Don't construct your theology from the computer.
Psalm 146:3 Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help. 4 His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
Sayonara.
77

News Item8/13/13 3:48 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
correctum wrote:
You are suggesting that "Elect infants" - Is the same thing as saying that "all infants are elect" ???
You really are having problems with the English language aren't you?
You need to do a bit of reading yourself, correctum, lest your name becomes incorrectum.

The following authors light your fire?

John Calvin, Charles Hodge, John Newton, Alvah Hovey, Lorraine Boettner, BB Warfield, Charles Spurgeon. Find them here at:-

Calvinism - It's Doctrine of Infant Salvation

Now when you've read that, you may carry on with your diatribe, but with little support, and none from the men mentioned.

John Calvin again: "He furthermore declared that "to say that the countless mortals taken from life while yet infants are precipitated from their mothers' arms into eternal death is a blasphemy to be universally detested" (quoted in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Oct. 1890: pp.634-51).

Go on, have a look, I've no axe to grind, even if you have.

76

News Item8/13/13 3:27 PM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
John UK wrote:
Rather it is claiming that ALL infants dying in infancy are elect, and therefore saved
You are suggesting that "Elect infants" - Is the same thing as saying that "all infants are elect" ???

You really are having problems with the English language aren't you?

WCF 10/3. ***Elect infants,*** dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit,a who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth.b So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.c

a. Luke 18:15-16 and John 3:3, 5 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 8:9 and 1 John 5:12 compared together. ‚ÄĘ b. John 3:8. ‚ÄĘ c. Acts 4:12; 1 John 5:12.

The next verse says......
WCF 10/4 Others, not elected, although they may be called by the ministry of the Word,a and may have some common operations of the Spirit,b yet they never truly come unto Christ, and therefore cannot be saved:c much less can men, not professing the Christian religion.....

Stick to Enid, John.

75

News Item8/13/13 3:09 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
correctum wrote:
You'd best stick to Enid Blyton, John.
Good advice.

Good writers are always worth reading.

Now then, you have not been very honest with me, which is no great surprise as you do that all the time. How so, you ask? I will show you.

WCF 10:3
Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how He pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Now on the face of it, I have no problem with that at all, because I believe that all elect persons are saved - God has chosen them unto salvation and he will save them, no matter when they die, no matter their performance in this world, for the Lord Jesus Christ has done all things necessary for their justification which ordinarily will come through faith, but not necessarily.

But........

The WCF is not saying, "those infants who are elect".

Rather it is claiming that ALL infants dying in infancy are elect, and therefore saved.

Whether born to a Jew, a Muslim, a satanist, a JW or Mormon, an atheist, all children dying in infancy are saved.

Now why didn't you tell me that?

74

News Item8/13/13 2:25 PM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
John UK wrote:
1. Mr Calvin says:

2. "What advantage does a believer's child have over an unbeliever's child?"

1. You'd best stick to Enid Blyton John. Who knows perhaps you might understand her better.
2. That has already been explained to you. I guess you don't bother reading the replies.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
Romans 10:10
Matthew 10:32
Luke 12:8
If you really believe that those verses tackle the Baptist problem of abandoning parts of the Bible doctrine of baptism, then perhaps you need to attend a Presbyterian Church to hear the Bible being properly taught.
73

News Item8/13/13 4:48 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
CHS: Where did the errors of the church of Rome come from? Were they all born in a day? No, they came by slow degrees. I will trace but one error, against which as a denomination we always bear our protest. Among the early Christians, it was the practice to baptize those who believed in Christ Jesus, by immersing them in the water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Well, the first wrong doctrine that started up, was the idea that perhaps there was some efficacy in the water. Next it followed that when a man was dying who had never been baptized he would perhaps profess faith in Christ, and ask that he might be baptized; but as he was dying they could not lift him from his bed, they therefore adopted sprinkling as being an easier method by which they might satisfy the conscience by the application of water. That done, there was but a step to the taking of little children into the church - children, unconscious infants, who were received as being members of Christ's body; and thus infant sprinkling was adopted.

If you tamper with one truth of Scripture, he that tempts you to meddle with one, will tempt you to tamper with another, and there will be no end to it, till, at last, you will want a new Bible, a new Testament, and a new God.

72

News Item8/12/13 5:53 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
correctum

Mr Calvin says:

"Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included." Calvin

Now tell me, are you saying that Mr Calvin does not mean ALL children of ALL believers? That some children of believers will in fact be lost and perish? That is what I conclude from your last post.

So that just as circumcision was no guarantee of salvation, so being a child of a believer is no guarantee of their salvation?

Is that it?

p.s. Plain talking works better with me than enigmatic mystical sayings.

Let me ask again, "What advantage does a believer's child have over an unbeliever's child?"

Of course you won't answer, because you don't even know yourself. You have no biblical knowledge (as US has just proved), but rely solely on your reams of theological papers.

Now I hope you don't think I'm trying to be patronising, but hopefully making you think more seriously about God and the salvation of God.

71

News Item8/12/13 5:42 PM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
John UK wrote:
"Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts...." Calvin
The sentence prior to the above reads:
***"But there is a danger that he who is sick may be deprived of the gift of regeneration if he decease without baptism! By no means."
(1) "may be deprived"
(2) "the gift of regeneration"
(3) "if he decease without baptism"

(1) Viz. Sick Child dying before being born again.
(2) Child is thus qualified as being due to receive regeneration.
(3) The problem addressed ie dying before his baptism.

Thus Calvin's argument here is to show that a child (of promise) will not be denied regeneration - EVEN if he dies prior to his baptism. What Calvin illustrates here is the error of baptismal regeneration, AND shows that baptism does not have this power.

He then goes on to state this error; (in the next sentence) quote, "How much evil has been caused by the dogma, ill expounded, that baptism is necessary to salvation, few perceive, and, therefore, think caution the less necessary" (Calvin)

So Calvin dismisses the idea that baptism is necessary to regeneration/salvation. His argument in this paragraph is against the specific problems raised.

70

News Item8/12/13 5:15 PM
Unprofitable Servant | Georgia  Find all comments by Unprofitable Servant
correctum wrote:
:
What I referred to was the Baptist reliance upon the Arminian style "confession" during your baptism ceremony.
The Presbyterians, as you know, take the Biblical doctrine and method of baptism and baptise babies. Therefore we rely and trust in God alone in baptism as with everything else and this proves it.
Even when we baptise adults we still rely completely and only on God. Thus we don't make a 'precedent' or 'priority' out of human confession in baptism as you Baptists do.
Romans 10:10 (KJV) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Matthew 10:32 (KJV) Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Luke 12:8 (KJV)Also I say unto you, Whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God:

Looks like the Baptist follow Scripture, try it you'll like it!!

69

News Item8/12/13 3:34 PM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
correctum, you say:
"2. Calvin does not neither claim nor believe that. And you have been informed of that truth before."

Well it was you posted the link to Calvin's erroneous statements.

Now please observe and learn, pleaaaase.

Let us observe Mr Calvin at work:-

"Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included." Calvin

Which, being paraphrased, means:-

God promises to be a God to us (believers) and to our offspring who, even before they are born, God declares his adoption of them, the promise including their salvation.

Now my dear fellow, if you can gainsay that statement and declare it to be wrong, I will be content, for it is indeed wrong.

However, if you believe I have misunderstood Mr Calvin's words, please demonstrate your own understanding of the two sentences.

I do wish you would cease from your incessant lying. It has been going on for years, and it really should stop.

Maybe there are other Presbyterians who would like to interpret Mr Calvin's statement above in a different light. Please do so, and let us look at this error together.

68

News Item8/12/13 3:16 PM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
John UK wrote:
1. circumcision
2. Mr Calvin claim a definite salvation through regeneration
3. Presby
4. predestination
1. Circumcision like Baptism is a sign and seal of God's Covenant of Grace. They are symbols, symbolical actions, wherein outward physical signs represent inward invisible grace. The grace symbolized is purchased by Christ, is conveyed and applied by the Holy Ghost, and is received by faith.
2. Calvin does not neither claim nor believe that. And you have been informed of that truth before.
3. Presbyterian's will not follow Baptist theology, because Presbyterians are Bible believing Christians. The Presbyterian knows Like Jesus that we are forbidden to change even a jot or tittle of God's Holy Word and Law.
4. Predestination is defined in Scripture at Romans 8:29, Eph 1:5 and Rom 9:21. It belongs entirely and absolutely to the Sovereign God of Creation and man has no input into it whatsoever whether now or future. This Biblical truth about predestination is in every real Presbyterians heart - Put there by God the Holy Spirit.

The symbols circumcision and baptism are obviously natural signs, significant of the need of a new birth a life distinguished from the natural life by spirituality.

67

News Item8/12/13 11:34 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
correctum

If the circumcision of Jewish boys did not guarantee them anything spiritual, as is evidenced from reading the Old Testament, and if you claim that baptism of believer's infants is a direct continuation of such practice, how then does Mr Calvin claim a definite salvation through regeneration for such, even though they repent not?

I'm sorry, but the doctrines of Mr Calvin have gone right down in mine eyes, and I can only conclude that he was an apostate at worst, and in serious error at best.

The fact that no Presby on these forums can answer sensible questions sensibly also shows to me that they are all brainwashed by their dusty old documents, haven't a clue when it comes to what the Bible teaches, they lie when they claim sola scriptura, they lie about church history, they lie about Baptists, they lie about the spiritual state of non-Presbys.

They even believe, like JfJ, that predestination and election is according to God's foreseeing certain things in the future, and basing his election on that, rather than electing according to his own will and purpose.

Nope, the Presbyterian is surely an heretic, just as much as the Roman Catholic, when it comes to infants. At least the RCC admits to immersing infants early on.

66

News Item8/12/13 11:07 AM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
"There is an unbroken record in church history of the practice of infant baptism. Although tradition is of a secondary value, it is especially important here for this reason: We know for a fact that the earliest Christians after the death of the apostles were practicing infant baptism, with the command of those who were trained by the apostles themselves. Where was the debate, assuming these immediate successors to the disciples were departing from the apostolic practice?

Baptism is the work of God, not man. It is not a sign of the believer's commitment to God (which would, therefore, require prior faith and repentance), but the sign and seal of God's promise to save all who do not reject their baptism by refusing to trust in Christ. For the nature of baptism, see Mark 16:16, Acts. 22:16; Rom. 6:3; Tit. 3:5. The reason these references are to those who have first believed is that the first converts, obviously, were adults when the believed, but they evidently baptized their children. The same was true of Abraham, who believed before he was circumcised, but then had his children circumcised as infants." (Dr. M.Horton)

65

News Item8/12/13 10:25 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
correctum wrote:
What I referred to was the Baptist reliance upon the Arminian style "confession" during your baptism ceremony.
Okay, well enlighten me further. When you baptise an adult, do you do so on the basis of a confession of Christ, or do you simply walk up to someone and chuck a load of water at them?
64

News Item8/12/13 10:16 AM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
John UK wrote:
did you really think the 1689 Baptist Confession was arminian?
I've been sat sitting wondering why you brought up the 1689?

Now I realise it was because I listed "Arminian confession reliance" - as one of the many Baptist rite errors.

That wasn't what I meant John.

What I referred to was the Baptist reliance upon the Arminian style "confession" during your baptism ceremony.

The Presbyterians, as you know, take the Biblical doctrine and method of baptism and baptise babies. Therefore we rely and trust in God alone in baptism as with everything else and this proves it.

Even when we baptise adults we still rely completely and only on God. Thus we don't make a 'precedent' or 'priority' out of human confession in baptism as you Baptists do.

Remember John your mode and ceremony was started in 1521, and your denominational theology has been developed over the subsequent couple of centuries.
Whereas the Presbyterian theology has been Biblical since Bible times.

63

News Item8/12/13 7:27 AM
Christopher000 | Rhode Island  Find all comments by Christopher000
I read the "poor Baptists" post further down by Correctum. I consider myself Baptist because it seems like the denomination that follows the Bible more fundamentally. I don't know if those allegations are true, but here's how I look at it: all denominations have errors, some possibly even fatal, but they all have errors to some degree, or disagreements with other splinters, such as do we emmerse, or can we sprinkle? Does God choose man, or does man accept God's call? Are we in error for using any other Bible than the King James? Will the rapture occur before or after the tribulation?...and the list goes on. Anyway, just because I consider myself a baptist doesn't mean that I agree with every teaching and thought. As long as there are not any fatal doctrines to contend with, I tend to research, listen, and draw my own conclusions. I figure I'll find out what was what in the end. I would never say the Baptists are right and everyone else is wrong, etc, because everyone has their specific issues. I always think it's a shame that instead of a massive, worldwide force to be reckoned with, the born again Christian community is splintered into various divisive groups with constant infighting that the unsaved world watches and listens to.
I'm not speaking about this thread; j
62

News Item8/12/13 4:28 AM
John UK | Wales  Find all comments by John UK
Unprofitable Servant wrote:
How could you say this brother??? If they were sprinkled (or poured) into the covenant surely they must be saved! Maybe there is something wrong with the water over there, maybe they could import some from the states
Ha! Thanks for the offer, US. But no, the water is fine, in fact it is most excellent.

Wales experienced a nonconformist revival back in 1904/5, but sadly it went the way of all revivals. The country is littered with little chapels, with huge chapels in the bigger towns, with several denominations involved, the Lord working mightily, to such a degree that daily reports of conversions appeared in all the local newspapers.

Alas, it is all gone now, and most chapels are closed and sold off. But there is still a remnant of believers here, and we have to make do as best we can. The ecumenical and charismatic groups seek to swallow up all they can, in readiness for the endtime fulfilment, but those in the know (by the grace of God) are still separatists, following the Lord in accordance with his word.
______________

correctum, did you really think the 1689 Baptist Confession was arminian?

61

News Item8/11/13 8:54 PM
Unprofitable Servant | Georgia  Find all comments by Unprofitable Servant
John UK wrote:
...
3. We have a Presbyterian denomination here in Wales, and there is hardly a single person in it who is born again, being an apostate church. It started off in the midst of revival, but now fallen away. Maybe had something to do with accepting believer's children as church members.
...
How could you say this brother??? If they were sprinkled (or poured) into the covenant surely they must be saved! Maybe there is something wrong with the water over there, maybe they could import some from the states
60

News Item8/11/13 4:20 PM
correctum  Find all comments by correctum
Commentary at Mark 10.

"It is true, we do not read that he baptized these children, baptism was not fully settled as the door of admission into the church until after Christ’s resurrection; but he asserted their visible church-membership, and by another sign bestowed those blessings upon them, which are now appointed to be conveyed and conferred by baptism, the seal of the promise, which is to us and to our children." (Matthew Henry)

59
There are a total of 78 user comments displayed | add new comment |Subscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 4 | last
Last PostTotal
Former homosexuals: Gospel approach needed
martin from texas: "there is something disturbing about the approach of these..."
-20 min 
Does the Sabbath still exist on the isle of Lewis?
christopher000 from rhode island: "hi mg...the information about the earth and its..."
-43 min 64 
More college students support post-birth abortion
christopher000 from rhode island: "'singer wrote in 1979 that “human babies are not..."
-55 min 


13 He is Lord
Randy Wages
God's Pardoning Performance

God's Pardoning Performance
Sunday Service
Eager Avenue Grace Church
Play! | MP4 | RSS


Bob Vincent
Why I Believe in God

Rejecting Atheism
Grace Presbyterian Church
Play! | MP3

Rev. John S. Mahon
Biblical Manhood

Morningside Bible Church
Grace Community...
Play! | MP3

Don Bell
God of Purpose, Purpose of God

Lantana Grace Church
Sunday - PM
Play! | MP3

Kevin Swanson
Evolution vs. Christ

Firm Foundations 17
Reformation Church (OPC)
Play! | MP3

Ken Wimer
Petition to God, Deliverance

Book of Psalms
Shreveport Grace Church
Play! | MP3

Blog 10/27/14
Seasons and Rhythms of Life

New York Gospel Mission
&ldq­uo;why are you cast down, o my soul, and why are you...

Sponsor:
Paul Washer: "Most Useful Bible Study"

See what Paul Washer calls the most useful Bible study tool in hist­ory. Click here!
www.puritandownloads.com/sw..

Sermon:
Why Baptists Baptize
Dr. Andy Bloom






                   
The Scriptures are in print what Christ is in person. ... A. W. Tozer

City: Las Vegas, NV
Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal
MOBILE
iPhone + iPad
Church App
Android
Church App
Kindle + Nook
BlackBerry
Windows Mobile, Nokia
Chromecast TV
ROKU TV
Pebble Smartwatch
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
Tips & Tricks
YouTube Screencasts

FOLLOW
Weekly Newsletter
Staff Picks Feed
Site Notices New!
RSS | Twitter | Facebook
SERVICES | ALL
Local Church Finder | Info
MP3 Play & Download
Mobile Apps
Podcasting
Video Support
Live Webcasting
Transcription Service
HIFI Option
Business Cards
SOLO | MINI | Domains
Favorites
QR Codes
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Sermon Browser
HTML Codes
WordPress
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword
SOAP API

BATCH
Transfer Agent
Protected Podcasts
Upload via Email
Auto-Upload Sermons
Auto-Blog Import
Picasa | FTP | Dropbox
ABOUT US
SermonAudio.com is the largest library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide. All broadcasters must adhere to the Articles of Faith.

Our Services | Testimonials
Broadcast With Us!
Support Us
Advertising | Local Ads
CONTACT
info@sermonaudio.com
Copyright © 2014 SermonAudio.com.