Lance Eccles wrote:
Jim, I'm sure you're well aware of what I mean. The Catholic Church is the only fully Christian church.
Mike Gedron is free to invent his own church and call it "Christian", but he (like Luther and Calvin) will have to answer to God for his arrogance.
And "Who is a Roman Catholic?" Anyone who follows the teachings of the RCC,

R. K. Borill wrote:
Hey, My Presbyterian Brother,
Don't worry. They do it all the time. When they have no argument, they resort to twisting what you say into their fallacies.

It seems amazing that some in the visible church, can come up with so many theories on how the Bible is read. But thus it has been down through the centuries. As Paul said, there has to be heresy that we might know who is approved.

Abigail wrote:
A [Presbyterian] said
"Salvation is by human effort/works and God needs the prior permission and cooperation of the sinner before HE can save.

This is what I said quote::

"Or to put it another way.
JD states as he has before -
Salvation is by human effort/works and God needs the prior permission and cooperation of the sinner before HE can save."

It is "JD" that I was referring to, who Practices "salvation by works" the Roman Catholic dogma. This is the religion of the Arminians!
(Of which I believe, you are also one)

"In connection with election Calvin fully recognizes that this election was in Christ. Nothing, however, could be more remote from Calvin’s thought than to suppose that this fact in the least interferes with the pure sovereignty and particularism of the election itself.

On the contrary, he says expressly that this is the confirmation that “the election is free; for if we were chosen in Christ, it is not of ourselves.” And the practical import for us of this truth is that no one should seek confidence in his own election anywhere else than in Christ.

“Christ, therefore, is both the clear glass in which we are called upon to behold the eternal and hidden election of God, and also the earnest and pledge.”

Referring to John 17:6, he says, “We see here that God begins with himself (a se ipso), when he condescends to elect us: but he will have us to begin with Christ in order that we may know that we are reckoned among that peculiar people.”

JD wrote:
I presented a case for the NT doctrine of regeneration of the Spirit which exposed the ordo salutis of the sheeple as being false doctrine. Since the OT saints were justified by their faith but none of them were regenerated by the Spirit, and I made that case by comparing Scripture to Scripture and based my conclusions on them, the calvs teaching that one must be regenerated before they can believe

The Ordo Salutis of the True Church is
Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow,(God 1st) *HE* also did predestinate(God foreknows) to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did (1st)predestinate, them he also called(effectually): and whom he called, them he also justified(Imputed Righteousness): and whom he justified, them he also GLORIFIED(No Doubts whatsoever).

Requiring repentance and faith prior to election is of course unBiblical and in error. But I note now that your hypothesis on baptism fits into the arminian principle of works based religion. This is obviously why you require the human verbal rite, as a necessary touchstone in the ceremony of baptism.

This obviously is also why you conduct the unBiblical practice of excluding people on the basis of age and adult ability.

I can only now say that this heresy which now permeates many modern churches, is so comprehensive that I am not surprised at the emergence of the Liberal trait to reject the Bible and it's laws and doctrines.

Michael Hranek wrote:
A Sacrament? Baptism is an ordinace not a "Sacrament". You sound an awful lot like someone under the influence of the Roman Catholic Religion.

A Sacrament is a ceremony/rite instituted by Christ Himself. All protestant churches that I am aware of know Baptism and the Lord's supper to be the TWO sacraments of Christ.

Baptism is a *Sacrament* ordained by Christ Himself. HE never intended that it should be the contention, of part of the church to use it to divide it up into factions, as the Anabaptist/Baptist organisations have adapted it into today.

Baptists by their own doctrine on baptism, versus the straight forward statement of Scripture, do by their own requirements and conditions go beyond the Bible, to devise tenets and regulations which have NO actual basis in Scripture.

Yes the Bible teaches us to Baptise.

But it does not teach the application of prohibitive requirements such as age, adult abilities or verbal rites to "precondition" the ceremony.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Just goes to show you that you do not take the bible as authoritative but as subordinate to your traditions.

Which part of the term rhetoric are you using to substantiate your case.

Discerning Believer wrote:
the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
...eunuch was prevented from baptized until he made a confession

I've been wondering when the Baptists would bring up this verse to support their theory on an "exclusion zone" on baptism subjects.

All that is recorded here is a simple conversation between Philip and the eunuch. NOT a Ruling!

There is nothing here or in Scripture to imply that any one is excluded from baptism by a human interrogative process.

In the mission situation, which the NT conveys, adults are brought to Christ by preaching, grace and the Holy Spirit. It is quite natural and reasonable for the church, to seek to identify that the adult person seeking membership of the church, is prepared for the ceremony.

This however does not illustrate that the Baptist applied EXCLUSION condition is a Scriptural one. As stated below, there is *NO* verse in Scripture which excludes a person on the basis of age and ability.

Abigail wrote:
A [Presbyterian] said
Acts 2:39 says no such thing!!
For the promise is unto you, and to your children,
....The promise to you and your children is the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost

Circumcision was the sign and seal then.

In the NT the sign and seal was changed to "baptism"

Therefore as I have previously stated the correct recipients of baptism, is the children of *Covenanted* believers as Peter teaches in this verse.

As for this being the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You are wrong!! You are trying to introduce the distinctives of your denomination, which are in error.

Weapon of Mass Instruction wrote:
An allusion is not a quote. I know. It's too simple for you to understand.

What in fact I posted was YOUR quote???
Please note the word "alluding" means - "to refer to" - **YOU** were referring to Calvins words.

As to RC "baptismal regeneration"
There is nothing in Calvin's statement which relates to this.
quote
"...it ought not to be denied to infants, whom God adopts and washes with the blood of his Son. "

The reference here is to the correct recipients of baptism. Namely children of covenanted parents. eg Acts 2:39.

Nowhere in Scripture is a precise age or indication of age or ability provided for baptism.

It is provided for the sign and seal of the Covenant which is 8 days old.
Nowhere in Scripture is this age changed, therefore remains extant.

The Baptist denomination has however devised a hypothesis, which rejects infants due to their inability to utter the works based religious idea of a verbal rite in their ceremony.

As you are clearly an arminian you would happily accept this rite.

However nowhere in Scripture does it state that a verbal rite is part of the ceremony of baptism, just as nowhere does it teach total immersion.

Michael Hranek wrote:
If this quote is accurate it seems the famous John C of Geneva had himself in the false belief of baptismal regeneration (a Roman Catholic False Belief) a different gospel.

Peter on this subject writes in the Word of God
1Pet 3:21 "The like *FIGURE* whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:"

So I guess Michael does not agree with Scripture either.
__________
Abigail
says
"Baptism of infants is unscriptural.
Nowhere in the NT was it practiced."

Acts 2:38 "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
39 For the promise is unto you, and to your **CHILDREN**"

Abigail disagrees with Peter and Scripture too.