The only man of straw I have seen so far on this site is you Cure. You don't even read other people's posts before throwing in your brainless comments. Trinity is a man-made word, and any one with the most basic knowledge of the Bible knows that. You probably couldn't understand the rest of what I wrote so I won't even go there. This will be my last response to any of your posts, no matter what you write. The only thing I regret right now is insulting the wombats. Consider yourself:
FACT 1 - Bapto originally did not refer to water, but to an effect. FACT 2 - Bapto is often used in the LXX Old Testament, but only 4 times in the NT and in these cases does not refer to Christian baptism. FACT 3 - Bapto has been conclusively proved to have a variety of meanings, including to wash, to bathe, to purify. FACT 4 - OT purification was ALWAYS done by sprinkling NEVER by immersion. FACT - Baptism is a sign of the work of the Spirit - NOT of the work of Christ. The texts which speak of being buried with Him in baptis have nothing to do with water, but with that which baptism signifies which is union with Christ THROUGH the operation of the Holy Spirit. FACT - all 'proof' texts usually given by Baptists to 'prove'immersion, prove nothing of the sort. To wit, "Both Phillip and the Eunuch went down and came up out of the water." If this proves immersion then both Phillip and the Eunuch were immersed. FACT - If John the Baptist had been immersing the questions asked of him would not have been, "Why are you baptising", but "What are you doing?" as immersion was not known to Jews as a cleansing rite. Which is why Naaman the Syrian, who was told to 'wash' went and 'dipped', because he did not understand. Maybe he was a Baptist.
Nor does the Bible mention the Trinity, or that women are allowed to partake of the Lord's Supper. Nowhere in the NT does it say that children now do NOT receive the sign of the covenant - which was cicumcision in the OT and is Baptism in the NT. Different sign, signifying the same thing. The New Covenant grows organically out of the Old. Only a blind person would miss that. Their unity and continuity is seen in that the Mediator is the same(Acts4:12;10:43;15:10,11;Gal3:16;ITim2:5,6;IPet1:9-12), the condition is the same, namely faith(Gen15:6 comp Rom4:3;Ps32:10;Heb2:4;Acts10:43;Heb11)and the blessings are the same, namely justification(Ps32:1,2,5;Is1:18;Rom4:9;Gal3:6),regeneration(Deut30:6;Ps51:10),spiritual gifts(Joel2:28,32;Acts2:17-21;Is40:31), and eternal life(Ex3:6;Heb4:9;11:10. Peter gave the new converst at Pentecost the assurance that the promise was still also unto their children. Paul argues in Rom4:13-18 and Gal 3:13-18 that the giving of the law did not make the promise of no effect so it still holds in the New Covenant. Just as children of OT believers shard in the benefits of the covenant, so do those in the New. It is so connected that the NT church is even referred to many times as both a nation and as Israel proper. Paul equates baptism with circumcision.
Dr. Phil wrote: Moreover, we have resorted to your ad homenim methods of debate for the simple fact that you continuously reject logical arguments. They are a waste of time and trampled pearls.
I don't they they understand the subtlety of your irony Dr. Phil. Anyone can go through the past posts and compare Calvinist giving endless Scripture references and Arminians responding with endless mindless conjecture, inane comments and vainglorious grandstanding. How long has it been since I asked a simple question and received almost nothing by way of a direct reply and exactly nothing to my request for Scriptural substantiation? Now I am sure someone will respond with "What was the question again?" So here it is; What effect did sin have on mankind, ie, what is our spiritual condition because of what sin has done? And please don't come back with strange comparisons. Just simple answer to a simple question, preferably replete with Biblical substantiation.
Minnow wrote: If you want to get folks all wet then do so, but learn a little Greek and realise the truth.
Well said Minnow. Baptist theology goes astray when it says that baptism is a sign or picture of what Christ did for us. They then trot out the two texts that talk about "buried with Him in baptism." Not only was Christ not buried as we bury today, nor do those texts talk about the sign but about that which it signifies, but baptism is not a picture of what Jesus did. His work is portrayed in Communion. Baptism portrays the work of the Spirit who applies Christ's work to our heart. All through the OT the promise of the Spirit was "I will pour out my Spirit." Jesus said, "You will be baptised with the Holy Spirit." You are not immersed in the Spirit. The Spirit is poured out on you. Jesus baptism COULD NOT have been by immersion, for then the reason (to fulfill all righteousness) would be nullified. He was baptised by a priest (John) into the priesthood. Check the Hebrews texts regarding the order of Melchizedek. And the in the two OT pictures of baptism, the flood and the Red Sea crossing - who got immersed? Is that enough to be going on with for now? Let me know, cos I got plenty more. In the meantime - check your Greek.
MurrayA wrote: Thank you, Pia, for your reminder. It had slipped my mind, but I'll attend to it over the weekend, and also listen to the sermon as well. I will, be busy, however, with sermon prep of my own, I am preaching on the Elihu section of Job at the weekend. Love in the Lord, Murray A
Murray - I highly recommend a book on Job from Evangelical Press by Peter Bloomfield. It is A1.
JD wrote: I know you don't believe Zech, but there it is!
I do believe Zecheriah - it is you I don't believe and anyone else who would take this OT prophet's writings and apply them 2000 years after they were fulfilled. That is the same senseless logic that thinks the persecuted church in Revelation was to be comforted with prophecies that would not come into effect for centuries and would not be understood until Scofield wrote his ludicrous best seller. The prophecies regarding the return to the land and the rebuilding of the temple were all fulfilled. Read Nehemiah and Ezra - it will tell you all about it. The prophecies in the OT about the coming of Christ have nearly all been fulfilled; some at His birth, some at His death, some at His resurrection, some when He ascended and some when He poured out His Spirit at Pentecost. Over and over again the NT talks about where the OT has been fulfilled. Hebrews is full of OT references and how Christ is the final fulfillment of everything. Rev was written to the church of that time, about the problems they faced then. Most of its predictions were fulfilled in AD 70. But that would take away all Scofields fairytales wouldn't it?
The Cure wrote: Literally baptism means immersion. Dispensationalism results from a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Immersion is ONE of the meanings of baptism. Read John Murray on the mode of Baptism and he proves that Conant was lying through his teeth when he said that baptism always means immersion. Baptism's original meaning had many variations, including dying, dipping, pouring, sprinkling. You see this when you read the LXX and find out how they translated the different Hebrew words into Greek. Dispensationalism is a fairly recent invention - relatively unknown before Darby and only survived because it was popularised by Scofield. Both these guys had no theological training - but then that can be said for most great Arminians. I can't believe I just wrote all that to Can't Understand Reasoned Edification. Must be having a relapse.
MurrayA wrote: I issue a challenge to deal with the Belgic Conf on eschatology with solid Biblical exegesis. What do I get? Beating of the nationalistic drum!! I treat this with the utter contempt it deserves. And for JD it's not the first time, wrapping the Gospel in the Stars and Stripes, and slinging off at other countries in the process. I won't even dignify their miserable ignorance and distortions with a reply.
Now you know how it feels to deal with these people. They disregard that the greatest theogians since the reformation have been Calvinists. I asked once before and, of course got no answer, where are all the great Arminian theologians? Where are the great Arminian systematic theologies in the vein of Hodge, Berkhof, Dabney etc? They don't exist. And why? Because Calvinism is dead? Yeah right.
I guess if you take OT prophecies which speak about Christ's incarnation, or the captivity, or the return from the captivity and the rebuiding of the temple etc - all of which have been fulfilled - and apply them to 2000 years later, you can make them say anything you want to. Just read the OT, change the names to whatever seems closest (Gomer to Germany, Rosh to Russia, Babylon to Iraq etc) see how it best fits into the current Middle East crisis and hey presto - more "signs of the times" and lets all get ready yet again for an imminent rapture. That people have been using this bunkum to predict the second coming and getting it wrong for decaded deters no one. They have their Scofield Bible and the latest Hal Lindsay best seller and no one can tell them different. Not even the Bible. Sad really.
It seems we are constantly waging war against the four main enemies of the Protestant Reformation apart from the Roman Church itself. These are the A,B,C and D of counter-reformation heresy which have done so much damage to the church of the Reformation. A - Arminianism B - Believers baptism C - Charismatic Movement D - Dispensationalism Arminianism because it takes God's glory and gives it to man. It makes man the determiner of salvation. It decreases the work of Christ from securing salvation to making salvation possible. It has no Scriptural warrant and is the basis of all heresy as it reflects man's original sin in wanting to share God's glory. Believers baptism - is difficult to defend, especially immersion which is directly contradictory to Scripture. It has contributed to Dispensationalism because it took away the covenantal basis for salvation. Charismata has been the vehicle for reunification with Rome. It is almost as dangerous a heresy as Rome itself and shares many points of comparison with it. Dispensationalism - the most laughable but also most dangerous heresy of our age. It has nullified the covenant, has reduced God to an experimenter, has promoted Zionism and made Christianity look ridiculous. Now I guess the storm will come.
Murray - I wholeheartedly agree with you. I am a child of the Heidelberg Catechism and the Belgic Confession. The amazing thing about them is that the catechism was written by two guys and the confession by one. If there is any deficiency in the Belgic it is in the area of regeneration. The early reformers did not have a fully worked out theology on regeneration. They saw it as almost synonymous with justification. It were the Puritans and the learned Dr's of Theology who wrote the WCF who expounded this a bit better. Both the Dutch and the Scottish confessions are SUBORDINATE standards, and can be refuted if so proved from Scripture. Over the years many have tried but so far none have succeeded. They are both steeped in Scripture, derived from Scripture, supported by Scripture and they themselves defend the Scriptures. I only questioned your quoting the Confession to prove anything to those who are blinded by their Scofield Bible. None is so blind as he who refuses to see!
Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and HE TO WHOM THE SON WILLS TO REVEAL HIM (Mat11:27) ALL THAT THE FATHER GIVES ME will come to ME (Jn6:37) NO ONE CAN COME TO ME unles it has been granted to him by the Father (Jn6:65)AND AS MANY AS HAD BEEN APPOINTED to eternal life believed(Acts 13:48)FOR GOD DID NOT APPOINT US to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ(IThes 5:9)God from the beginning CHOSE YOU FOR SALVATION(II Thes2:13)Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to works, but according to HIS OWN PURPOSE AND GRACE WHICH WAS GIVEN TO US in Jesus Christ BEFORE TIME BEGAN(IITim1:9) I would say that is pretty clear so far. Now "For God so loved the world(God loved the world thus) that He sent His only begotten Son, that WHOSEVER BELIEVES (which you can only do if it has been granted to you by God - see above texts) should not perish but have eternal life. Now space does not permit me to expound Romans 9, which many have attempted to argue away, but which answers all objections to unconditional election clearly, precisely, simply and undeniably. To God be the glory; sola fide, sola gracia, sola scriptura, sola deo gloria.
JD wrote: 1 Th cannot prove this statement! A lesson in the precision of the Word. 1Th 1:10 And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come. The deliverance is in the Past tense. So that had already happened in some point in history. For all of us it is at out conversion. The waiting of the church is in the present tense and the "wrath" is to come in the future. Acts 1:11 He ascended from the Mt of Olives and he will descend to the Mt of Olives Ze 14 It is a nice trick to reference verses without showing how those verses proves ones point!
Do you see what he does? You write much info and many texts and he ignores most of it and has a go at one text. The wrath is here now mate? Whoever does not believe IS CONDEMNED ALREADY remember? You still believe that God "Hates sin but loves the sinner" right? Now that you don't find in the Bible. What you do find is the opposite. "You hate all workers of iniquity" (Ps 5). "But the wicked and the one who loves violence His soul hates." (Ps 11). Hated by God - now that is wrath man. Murray - quoting the confession to these guys, even replete with texts, is a waste of time. I guarantee you they don't even read any of it.
JD wrote: The one thing I have done with my questions is to make you afraid to answer it lest it exposes the bankruptcy of your theology and demonstrates to the world your deficiency in your understanding of all things spiritual.
JD you should have been a lawyer man - I have yet to meet someone who spouts as much fertilizer as you and still expects others to take him seriously. I laid out my definition of sin and its effects AFTER repeatedly asking you and the former marsupial what YOUR definition is. I asked you to support it with PROOFTEXTS as I did. You gave me HOGWASH and because others did not treat your HOGWASH seriously you started accusing them of all sorts of things. You knew where my reasoning was leading when I proved that sin leaves one spiritually dead and totally incapable. So you started this nonsense about Christ being spiritually dead and lost in sin and yet still able to cry out to God.You are the classic bullsquash artist. You take a small portion of someone's argument and attack it as if it is the whole argument. I never once gave you a "pat answer" mate, I have substantiated every statement I made with more than adequate Scripture. Which is more than can be said for your irrereverent and borderline heretical nonsense.
The very first words to man out of the mouth of Almighty God were, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it." God wanted man to multiply and fill the earth with people who would worship Him. Homosexuality is an affront to God for this reason. Homosexuality is not just called a sin in the Bible, but an abomination and a detestable thing because it violates the natural order of things which God has created for His glory. There will always be those who are born with sinful tendencies in this regard. They have the option of recognising it as sin and praying to God for deliverance from it. Or they can call "white" what God has called "black", and try to change the clear meaning of Scripture. As in all these things, when God gives a clear command, we can either say "Yes!" of "Yes, but...". If we say "Yes but" we are always wrong. Because God cannot be wrong. God created them male and female and He placed the man over the woman. End of story.
MurrayA wrote: Mere mention of John Calvin (and I have barely, if ever quoted him) is red rag to a bull for JD and others.
You are so right mate! The strange thing is, Calvin would have hated having his name attached to something like this. It was just that the Synod of Dort, when refuting the heresy of Arminianism on Scriptural grounds, decided to call the five points against the remonstrance the 5 points of Calvinism. The truth is, Luther had a lot more to say about this subject than Calvin did. His "Bondage of the Will" is a masterful refutation of Erasmus' "Freedom of the Will." And JD - you are dishonest mate. You DID NOT answer my question on sin. You gave two Bible references which answered next to nothing, and when I pressed you for more you went into some strange comparison of Christ on the cross with an unregenerate sinnner. That is not Biblical expostion mate, that is self-serving hogwash. We have a saying here, "Put your money where your mouth is." It is sort of equivalent to "Put up or shut up." You have had more than a fair chance to put up. I think you might as well shut up, cos it is becoming increasingly obvious you have little to say that amounts to anything substantial. Murray - God bless you mate!
JD wrote: Ignorance does not necessarily mean that one is not saved. I do not know who is saved. I do know who is ignorant though by reading their comments. Our whole disagreement is centered around what the cross af Jesus Christ accomplished. That means we interpret his person differently. All I am doing is bringing the discussion to the point of our disagreement.
Ignorance is manifested more in arguing in circles, refusing to answer direct questions with direct answers, retreating to the use of direct slander when feeling threatened and generally coming across as one who considers himself superior because he has read a few books. Afraid that about sums up you JD. This has nothing to do with the cross, differences of interpretation or anything else. This has to do with the Biblical doctrine of total depravity and inability. It has to do with the Sovereignty of God. That is what I, Peter J, Icon O'Clast, DJC49 and others have been defending. Patiently reasoning from Scripture, trying to ignore useless attacks on the person of John Calvin, even on our own Christianity. Reading meaningless waffle from former marsupials, while trying to have a reasoned discussion. Impossible with guys like you, mate. Impossible!