Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
I request the removal of posts #758-#761.
I suppose one could use any Scripture in the course of evangelism - I am not arguing otherwise. For instance, Rev 3:20 can be used to show how Christ calls upon saints to repent as a way of showing His long suffering towards sinful people.
The issue that I do believe is dangerous is using a verse for a good purpose even if the verse does not support the agenda.
Example: Act 8:26 and following is used by some to support the contention that the Church must interpret Scripture; whereas what it demonstrates is that lost people being drawn by God need someone within whom the Holy Spirit lives to explain Truth.
The Word of God should be approached with reverence and respect and fear, as He holds those who teach in strict judgment. Our highest priority is to rightly proclaim and teach what God has said, not to convince men Who He is.
I am posting this again from you...because I want to make sure I didn't read it wrong.
Just to check for understand...it is now unacceptable to call someone "rude"?
This is a conservative site...right?
Still...
In Christ...Alone!
It is ok to call someone who is not a Freeper "rude" - or to say academically that a statement was "rude."
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
***I’ve sent you to the WCF of faith several times now, so you can see that we Presbyterians (and most Bible-believing Christians) agree that all teaching and doctrine must be founded upon the word of God alone. ***
I’ve been through it numerous times. It is apparent that the WCF (commissioned, bought and paid for a foreign government) cherry picks verse, completely misinterprets Paul (see post above that lists many of the common misinterpretations) and winds up to deviate considerably from the message of Christ.
***the primary belief that unites all Bible-believing Christians is that they know and believe and hold most dear the truth that Christ has paid for every one of their sins, and thus they stand today acquitted and redeemed by their Saviour who gave Himself a ransom for all those who believe on His name, by the grace of God alone.***
Then you disregard Paul too. Paul hoped for salvation. Gnostics knew.
We are dear brethren in Christ - it’s always good to encourage one another, tho we won’t always agree on all things. On the primary things that matter, we are arm-in-arm.
There is no such Scripture. It doesn't exist.
The arguments which claim to reject infant baptism on a "Scriptural" basis invariably either (a) begin with a theology of baptism in which infant baptism doesn't make sense, thus begging the question; or (b) appeal to the (supposed) silence of Scripture supporting infant baptism as somehow equivalent to Scripture contradicting it.
Absence of Scriptural evidence supporting something is not the same thing as Scripture condemning it, and never will be. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
We've heard all about our and Paul's supposed gnosticism from the Orthodox around here.
The charge doesn't hold water. Neither Paul nor Bible-believing Christians are gnostic, nor do they simply "hope" for salavation.
Christ's promise was certain and specific. We happily join with Paul to declare...
"I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day." -- 2 Timothy 1:12
Care to comment?
What happened to Catholic Italy?
What happened to Catholic France?
What happened to Catholic Spain?
And......what does it prove concerning Catholicism?
***But, before the great movement of the Reformation ran out of steam, we birthed this little nation called the United States. And, we are reviving and coming alive once again.***
http://www.adherents.com/ lists some of the new advances in religion, all led by the Holy Spirit, of course.
The multiplicative proclivities shown by the religions of men are truly astounding.
***And, no matter our numbers, we stand with the Lord, which makes us the majority.***
You can’t tell the players, if you don’t have a program.
I anticipated your response, which was to explain to me why, despite my experience to the contrary, the Holy Spirit didn't really come to me before I believed in Jesus.
And yet in knowing what you think you did, you didn't give an explanation good enough to cover it?
It was a conscious decision, based on the fact that it's a waste of time to argue with a fellow whose position boils down to, "who are you gonna believe, me or your lyin' eyes?" And, as expected, that was precisely how you responded. Why waste my time with that?
Combined that with the fact that you don't have a denomination or wish to keep it secret...
Ah, the perils of making false and scurrilous accusations without reading ahead. It's never been a secret, and although it's completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread, I finally "confessed" to being a traditional Anglican above.
and that you give no explantion why indwelling of the Holy Spirit is different from the Holy Spirit 'knocking' on your hearts door, makes your postings very weak in substance, IMO
Ah, yes. So you're setting yourself up as the Reformed version of a Scientology Auditor, to gauge the accuracy and correctness of my conversion experience. That's a step up from "high inquisitor." Much higher-tech.
I never thought that I’d be leaning on the Reformers for evidence, but I ran across this interesting article:
http://www.prca.org/articles/infant_baptism.html
The argument of the Form for the Administration of Baptism is founded on the truth that infants can be and are saved by God (Ps. 139:13, Jer. 1:5, Lk. 1:15, Mk. 10:13-16). If they can be saved, they can also receive baptism as the sign of salvation. To say that they cannot have the sign when they can have the salvation to which the sign points is inconsistent, to say the least.
A baptist will argue, however, that a person must give evidence of having salvation before he can receive the sign. He will insist, therefore, that faith must precede water baptism. So, he says, water baptism ought to be administered only to believers. The bedrock of baptist teaching is, then, the idea that faith must precede water baptism.
This teaching is based on a misinterpretation of Mark 16:15, 16. These verses, however, do not say that faith must precede baptism. Nor does any other Scripture passage. The argument that this is the order of the passage is really no argument at all. It is true that faith is mentioned before baptism in Mark 16:15, 16. That order is important. But that does not prove that the order is a temporal order, i.e., first faith, then baptism. The passage does not say, ‘He that believeth and then is baptized shall be saved.’ Baptists assume that it says ‘then’ but it does not. The order in Mark 16:15, 16, is simply that of priority, i.e., that faith is more important than baptism, something we all believe.
Following the Baptist line of reasoning, one might just as easily prove from II Peter 1:10 that calling comes before election, because it is mentioned first. In fact, following the Baptist line of reasoning, the order in Mark 16:15, 16, is first faith, then water baptism, then salvation; an order no baptist could accept. All Mark 16:15, 16, proves, then, is that faith, baptism and salvation are very closely related to each other.
The main point of the Form for the Administration of Baptism, however, is that infants are saved ‘without their knowledge’. In this way the Form connects infant baptism and sovereign grace.
That infants are saved without their knowledge is self-evident. But this means that there is no other way to save an infant than by sovereign grace. He cannot respond to the Gospel, exercise saving faith, make any decision, or do any works, and must, then, be saved solely by the sovereign grace of God. Infant salvation, therefore, is a powerful demonstration of salvation by grace alone.
What is more, the salvation of infants demonstrates what is true for everyone whom God saves. We must all become like little children if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven, that is, we must be saved in the same way that a little child is saved, without our having done anything in order to be saved.
Many baptists believe this. Holding to the doctrines of grace and believing the sovereignty of God in salvation, they insist as we do, that God is always first in the work of salvation. Faith, therefore, is not something that precedes salvation, but is itself part of the gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-10). It is not something we produce in order to be saved, but something God gives us in saving us.
Yet, the same baptists who insist that faith cannot not precede salvation, say that it must precede the sign of salvation. How inconsistent! Ought not the sign correspond to the reality? If it is not necessary to have faith before God can begin to save us, then the sign ought to say so. In infant baptism it does!
***Do you see the wisdom we gave the Founding Fathers on the Presbyterian form of government we gave the US?***
Yes, the monopolistic hold of the two party system has done pretty well. It has given us Carter, Clinton, Johnson, and some pretty weak Republicans as well. Fabulous.
***Neither Paul nor Bible-believing Christians are gnostic, nor do they simply “hope” for salavation.***
I know Paul wasn’t Gnostic, but the Reformers sure are. Let’s see what Paul actually has to say.
Heb. 7:27, 9:12,26;10:10; 1 Pet 3:18 - Jesus died once and redeemed us all, but we participate in the application of His redemption by the way in which we live.
Heb. 9:12 - Christ’s sacrifice secured our redemption, but redemption is not the same thing as salvation. We participate in and hope for salvation. Our hope in salvation is a guarantee if we are faithful to Christ to the end. But if we lose hope and fail to persevere, we can lose our salvation. Thus, by our own choosing (not by God’s doing), salvation is not a certainty. While many Protestant churches believe in the theology of “once saved, always saved,” such a novel theory is not found in Scripture and has never been taught by the Church.
Rom. 5:2 - we rejoice in the “hope” (not the presumptuous certainty) of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is absolutely assured after accepting Jesus as Savior, why would Paul hope?
Rom. 5:5 - this “hope” does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Our hope is assured if we persevere to the end.
Rom. 8:24 - this “hope” of salvation that Paul writes about is unnecessary if salvation is guaranteed. If salvation is assured, then why hope?
Rom. 10:1 - Paul prays that the Jews “may be saved.” Why pray if it’s guaranteed? Further, why pray unless you can mediate?
Rom. 12:12 - rejoice in your “hope” (not your certainty), be patient in tribulation, and be constant in prayer.
2 Cor. 3:12 - since we have a “hope” (not a certainty), we are very bold. We can be bold when we are in God’s grace and our persevering in obedient faith.
Gal. 5:5 - for through the Spirit by faith we wait for the “hope” (not the certainty) of righteousness.
Eph. 1:18 - that you may know what is the “hope” to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance.
Eph. 4:4 - there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one “hope” (not the one certainty) that belongs to your call.
Eph. 6:10-17 – Paul instructs the Ephesians to take the whole armor of God, the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, in order “to stand,” lest they fall. Paul does not give any assurance that the spiritual battle is already won.
Phil. 3:11 - Paul shares Christ’s sufferings so that “if possible” he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty.
Phil. 1:20 - as it is my eager expectation and “hope” (not certainty) that I shall not be at all ashamed before Christ.
Col. 1:5 - Paul refers to the “hope” (not guarantee) that Christ laid up for us in heaven.
Col. 1:23 - provided that you continue in the faith, not shifting from the “hope” of the gospel which you heard.
Col. 1:27 - to them God chose to make known His mystery, which is Christ in you, the “hope” (not the certainty) of His glory.
1 Thess. 1:3 - remembering before our God your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of “hope” in Jesus Christ.
1 Thess. 2:19 - for what is our “hope” or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?
1 Thess. 5:8 - we must put on the helmet of “hope” (not of certainty) of salvation.
2 Thess. 2:16 - the Lord Jesus and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good “hope” through grace.
1 Tim. 1:1 - Paul describes Christ Jesus as our “hope” (not our guarantee). We can reject Him and He will allow this.
1 Tim. 4:10 - Paul says we toil and strive because we have our “hope” (not our assurance) on the living God. This is not because God is unfaithful, but because we can be unfaithful. We toil and strive for our salvation.
1 Tim. 5:5 - she who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her “hope” (not her assurance) on God. Our hope is a guarantee only if we persevere to the end.
1 Tim. 5:15 – Paul writes that some have already strayed after satan, as God Himself tells us in 1 Tim. 4:1. They were on the right path, and then strayed off of it.
2 Tim. 2:10 - Paul endures for the elect so that they “may also obtain salvation.” This verse teaches us that even the “elect,” from the standpoint of human knowledge, have no guarantee of salvation.
Titus 1:2 - Paul says that he is in the “hope” (not the certainty) of eternal life. Paul knows that his hope is a guarantee if he perseveres, but his ability to choose sin over God makes his attainment of eternal life less than an absolute certainty until it is actually achieved.
Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed “hope,” the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Titus 3:7 - Paul says we have been given the Spirit so we might become heirs in the “hope” (not the certainty) of eternal life.
Heb. 3:6 - we are Christ’s house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our “hope” (not our certainty).
Heb. 6:11 - we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of “hope” (not certainty) until the end.
Heb. 6:18 - we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the “hope” (not the certainty) that is set before us.
Heb. 6:19 - we have a “hope” that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone before us.
Heb. 7:19 - on the other hand, a better “hope” (not certainty) is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Heb. 10:23 - let us hold fast the confession of our “hope” without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
Heb. 11:1 - now faith is the assurance of things “hoped” for (not guaranteed), the conviction of things not seen (heaven).
Heb. 12:1 – let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.
Heb. 12:15 – see to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and cause trouble, and by it many become defiled.
James 1:12 - we must endure trial and withstand the test in order to receive the crown of life. It is not guaranteed.
1 Peter 1:3 - by His mercy we have been born anew to a living “hope” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
1 Peter 1:13 - set your “hope” (not assurance) fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 1:21 - through Him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead so that your faith and “hope” are in God.
1 Peter 2:2 - like newborn babes, long for spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. How can you grow up to something you already possess?
1 Peter 3:15 - always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the “hope” that is in you.
1 John 3:3 - and everyone who thus “hopes” in Him purifies himself as He is pure. These verses teach us that we must cooperate with God’s grace and persevere to the end to be saved. We can and do have a moral certitude of salvation if we persevere in faith, hope and love.
That the bad Catholics were able to lose as much ground as the good Calvinists?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.