What Is The Reformed Faith?

PCANews.com ^ | 1993 | Michael Horton

[Gamecock]

There was once a man who said the following Words:

"Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom".

Please fill in the blanks. After saying these Words, the man in question performed the following Good Works:

1.) ____________________
2.) ____________________
3.) ____________________
This test will be graded.

If I may be so bold as to offer an extra credit question, targeting aimed at no one in particular;

In which body of water was the above mentioned individual baptized?

[OLD REGGIE]

I mean, after I waded through the sarcasm looking for something, anything that buttressed your contention that "To truly repent and believe entails actual actions and not just words SD" -- the Thief on the Cross is still with Jesus that day in Paradise, and the Council of Trent is still trying to come up with imaginative explanations of just how, despite all their teachings to the contrary, he got there.

Dave has this covered. I will post a few of his "answers" on the subject of the Thief, and his "works" below:

"Believe me, Jim, that is the thief were set loose from the cross, he would have been expected to follow through on his profession of faith with works. That he could not do so, cause his hands were tied, is not an excuse for you drawing faulty lessons from the incident."
SD

" I don't doubt that he was saved, that it is possible to have a "deathbed" conversion that is true. So this episode doesn't effect or conflict with my theology at all. I have a theology for normal times, and one for extraordinary times.

Your theology seems to be exclusively based upon what I see as the rules for extraordinary times."
SD

"Exactly. The thief on the cross is not the rule, but the exception. (I know you don't agree with that either. LOL)

The Apostles received the HS directly from Jesus. That is exceptional. He gave us Baptism, outlined elsewhere in Scripture "for the forgiveness of sins" as the regular way."
SD

"Good question. The story shows "an" exception, but it is the theological basis for others as well. Those at the moment of death who have no baptism or no works to show, can still be saved if they offer a sincere repentence."
SD

" Not quite. What is pointed out is that if he had been rescued from his certain death, he would have been expected to obey like everyone else."
SD

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You see, Dave has the "exceptions" covered.

[SoothingDave]

You see, Dave has the "exceptions" covered.

Exactly. Thank you for your support.

SD

[SoothingDave]

If I may be so bold as to offer an extra credit question, targeting aimed at no one in particular;

By all means. Remember, there are no stupid questions.

In which body of water was the above mentioned individual baptized?

None. I was under the impression that the event happened before Jesus returned and sent out the Apostles to baptise the nations. So any "requirement" of baptism would not have been in effect at the time.

Not that a merciful God would hold that against someone who had no physical possibility of being baptised anyway. God is not a legalist without compassion.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

In which body of water was the above mentioned individual baptized?

You are forgetting the Woulda if coulda doctrine.

[Gamecock]

None. I was under the impression that the event happened before Jesus returned and sent out the Apostles to baptise the nations. So any "requirement" of baptism would not have been in effect at the time.

Ohhhh! I see. Christ added baptism above and beyond the need for faith. Got it.

[conservonator]

So you fly away now, SoothingDave; if unable to maintain your argument, I suppose self-pity over my alleged accusations against your honesty will serve you well enough (even as you level similar accusations against mine, but never mind that....)

Fly, fly, fly...

Fly, fly, fly....

Wow, hard to stand up to Christian apologetics that soar to such awesome heights of humility.

[SoothingDave]

Ohhhh! I see. Christ added baptism above and beyond the need for faith. Got it.

Christ gave us baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I'm not sure how to take one who considers a gift to be a burden.

Like it is written in Scripture "Baptism ... now saves us."

SD

[conservonator]

You are forgetting the Woulda if coulda doctrine.

Hummm... is that found in same book that lays out Christianity as a "Cult of One"?

[Gamecock]

Sola Baptism?

[SoothingDave]

Sola Gratia.

SD

[I Am Not A Mod]

Ah, but according to Catholicism, you must maintain good works (which are evidently apart from the Law - though I don't know which good works are contrary to the Law) for your justification.

This is really amusing to watch. It makes me grateful that I never had to be deprogrammed of such silliness.

Romans 2 is instructive here, in my opinion, for two purposes.

1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? 4Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

That is relevant for one purpose. Now it continues, relevant for another purpose here.

5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. 6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[1] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8

Also Psalm 62:12

12 and that you, O Lord, are loving. Surely you will reward each person according to what he has done.

And Proverbs 24

12 If you say, "But we knew nothing about this," does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?

You may not agree with the interpretation of these scriptures that you feel Catholics hold, and that is your perogative and no one will trouble you for it. However, when you decide to belittle the faith of other Freepers, saying that they need to be "deprogrammed" and that their view is "silly", you are proving yourself to be incompatible with the forum. I've been watching as my peer has worked to bring a better level of decorum to the religion forum threads. I think he has done a fantastic job, although there are one or two people who still don't seem to get it. The time is coming for the cord to be cut with them.

[CCWoody]

***However, when you decide to belittle the faith of other Freepers, saying that they need to be "deprogrammed" and that their view is "silly", you are proving yourself to be incompatible with the forum.***

So, are you telling me that my characterization of Catholic belief is correct cause that is the only way that my statements could in any possible way be construed to be speaking of Catholicism? Else, being deprogrammed of such silliness would be talking about something which is not Catholic and I couldn't be guily of "belittling the faith of other FReepers," now could I?

So, are you willing to state for me that good works have absolutely nothing to do with the Law and that anything done in accordance to the Law can't be considered a good work, but must be regarded as some other kind of work? Ah, but, then that would seem to suggest that the Law itself is not good, but evil?

***The time is coming for the cord to be cut with them.***

Let me know when the world religions start singing "kum by ya" together on this forum and I'll be more than happy to give you all the excuses you could ever hope to see me gone.

Be not vnequally yoked with the infidels: for what fellowship hath righteousnesse with vnrighteousnesse? and what communion hath light with darkenesse? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath the beleeuer with the infidell? And what agreement hath the Temple of God with idols? for ye are the Temple of the liuing God: as God hath said, I will dwell among them, and walke there: and I will be their God, and they shalbe my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and separate your selues, saith the Lord, and touch none vncleane thing, and I wil receiue you. And I will be a Father vnto you, and ye shalbe my sonnes and daughters, saith the Lord almightie.
(2 Corinthians 6:14-18 GB)


Woody.

[Lead Moderator]

Else, being deprogrammed of such silliness would be talking about something which is not Catholic and I couldn't be guily of "belittling the faith of other FReepers," now could I? ...Let me know when the world religions start singing "kum by ya" together on this forum and I'll be more than happy to give you all the excuses you could ever hope to see me gone. "

You just don't get it, and have given us ample proof over the past few weeks that you never will. You have no desire to act in accord with the standards of decorum we are establishing here, which you have made clear. Dozens upon dozens of others have heeded our calls and our warnings. You, on the other hand, have shown that you refuse.

And that is all the excuse we need. The long record you have accumulated here of more than pushing the limits, violating our rules, being suspended, and coming back without a single change merely backs up that decision.

I hope you find a forum that is more suited for your temperment, because this one is not it.

Regards, LM

[snerkel]

Seems the 3rd verse has begun.

[Frumanchu]

Seems the 3rd verse has begun.

"Third verse, same as the first
A little bit louder and a little bit worse..."

[Jean Chauvin]

Could you show me specifically where the personal attacks and/or flames are in Woody's post?

I ask, because I could not find where Woody attacked, baited or flamed anybody.

Rather, I found Woody acknowledging his belief that many anti-Calvinists want him gone.

Earlier this week Ephesians210 and I were questioning the Religion Mod's consistency in his application of the rules. We were not given answers to those questions, but, rather, were given deflections -and Ephesians210 was given a suspension. Again, there was no baiting, flaming or personal attacks in his line of questioning.

In the light the ever increasing amount of (far more) egregious posts not even being removed (or the posters not given any warnings), it seems that some members of FR are intentionally being singled out for removal.

Let me be blunt: Is FR intending on getting rid of some specific Calvinists?

It certainly seems that way.

And if not, could you give me the names of any of the non-Calvinists who have been suspended and/or banned since the inception of the new rules?

Jean

[Wrigley]

Are we singing?

[Frumanchu]

Yup...the latest from the C.C. Music Factory:

Things That Make You Go "BOO!" :)

[Wrigley]

Hopefully that version isn't as annoying as the orginal.