Free Republic

Does “creek” rhyme with “prick”? Where I grew up it did (& for me it still does).

I suggest members of ELCA either join ELS or WELS synod churches now that the deed is done in Minneapolis. The ELCA & its antecedents of ethnic Norske churches are the result of “unionism” going back at least to 1917.

Yes; both were confirmed in Norwegian & spoke it with my maternal grandma (who lived with us after we lived with her for a few years) when they needed to keep it from my brother & me.

Do you know the hymn “Behold the host arrayed in white ...”?

In Norske it is “Den store hvide flok” by H. A. Brorson 1765. It is absolutely beautiful: it has to have been based on Hebrews 11. It will be one of the hymns sung in Norske & English at my funeral

As I understand it, most Norwegian emigrants were “high” church. Even in Iowa my church retained, how do you say it? - the form of singing the liturgy by the pastor. So maybe the “Episcopal Church” was the answer to that need.
I am grateful for the way God used Luther - I probably admire him more than any man. He understood the core of the gospel “justification by faith, & imputed righteousness” & that “through the will of God & not man” (i.e. faith itself is from God).
In the upper Midwest the ELS & Wisconsin synods retain the Biblical teaching while the ELCA, formed in part from mergers of its Norwegian antecedents by the Election Controversy in 1917, has gone astray. It should drop the name of Lutheran.

http://www.evangelicallutheransynod.org/believe/nsaelc/
My home church took the wrong branch of the split long before I was born. The URL describes a major split in 1917 over the issue of election plus of course faithfulness to the Word of God. Today my old church is represented in that Minneapolis convention

A Neener is someone who could not or would not attest to the Scriptural truth of the doctrines of grace and monergistic salvation when the GRPL was being drawn up lo these many years ago on FR.

Thanks for the defn; I like to know where I fit in.

No room for boasting; only for thanks.

Excellent message, hard hitting: akin to a 2x4 to an asses head, resulting in either braying or a transformation to a sheep of his pasture.

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21)

I understand that Wesley, in his ongoing battle with Hervey, told him that imputed righteousness is imputed nonsense.

For some time now, when I shudder that some balance, as a teeter toter, Sovereignty of God with human responsibility, I have defined the latter as: I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me:and the life that I now live I live by his faith who loved me & gave himself for me; and that, because it is God at work in me both to will & to do his good pleasure; which in turn causes he who is in me to work out my salvation with fear & trembling: all of which I know only because by grace I am saved through his faith, both of which are an irresistible gift of the Thrice-Holy, Triune God; who before the world began gave a charge to he who is in me to work it all out & he who is in me accepted the charge & did work it all out for many including me. As many have said, my only contribution was my sin.

I have no other argument than I have an Alien righteousness, that I am hid in him; if not true then pity me for I am damned/condemned to outer darkness; & justly so.

Wesley also told Hervey imputed righteousness is imputed nonsense.

A Calvinist will not tell the unregenerate man that God loves him and has a wonderful plan for his life.

I regret having done so a long time ago.

The post is old but not the subject; so here goes:

I call myself by various labels one of which is Particular Baptist in the sense of Bunyan, Dr. (Voluminous) John Gill, .... That means, as you know, we differ on baptism & in some sense on the governance of the Church.

Recently I became aware of a number of recantations regarding believer's baptism: so I asked "why?"; but as the arguments were a bit too involved for my (false humility) pea brain I googled for an answer. That led me to a website where I was advised to read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology". That discourse defined "Church" as consisting of both believers & non-believers: for that definition I always use (capital "c") Church, whereas for "church" I substitute "body of Christ". The "... Overview ..." made it clear (my def of) Church, not church, the body of Christ, was in view.

So to simplify "A Simple Overview...": Baptism is for the Church, as Circumcision is for national Israel: which means, as infants were Circumcised, whether of the true Circumcision or not(Romans etc), so infants of the Church are to be Baptized: that is, some are under the C of Works & some the C of Grace, but both are within the domain of definition of Church. The problem I have is it seems to me to be a "working backwards from the result, padeo-, to a reason for it". Frankly I have speculated that infant- was the result of coupling "Baptismal Regeneration" with "a plethora of untimely deaths".

I have yet to see a direct connection between Circumcision & baptism; but rather as in type & anti-type. Note I used "baptism" as in Romans 6.

All said, I have no fight, especially with Luther: who I understand once said something like "what better way to show the grace of God than to Baptize one who had no idea of what was happening": even though that smacks of "Baptismal Regeneration". I have been Baptized in a Lutheran Church & baptized in a (Arminian) Baptist Church. I was/am only trying to understand the recantations.

But what about the Church?

If I hear the voices correctly some would go so far as to imply they would pool their ignorance rather than go to Church; I can understand why if like me they wonder how one can remain a Christian after seminary. There is a great radio station "Pilgrim Radio", available on the internet, where I heard parts of a book entitled "Young,Restless, & Reformed" wherein a seminary head stated that there was a much bigger problem in his seminary than holding to the doctrines of grace; the bigger problem was professors who did not believe Jesus was raised from the dead; I do not imply he said they were currently on staff: I do not know; he was simply stating he had no agenda for doctrines of grace, he has a more important problem.

I suppose contrary to you I hold to the local Church as the Independents, Congregationalists, etc. But I certainly would be a member of any Church whose constitution/pastoral-staff is consistent with God's Sovereignty/Doctrines of Grace

Sovereignty of God; Arthur W.Pink;

Exposition of the Bible http://www.freegrace.net/gill/

...

For example: "all" means universally all when necessary; "whosoever" does not mean all who truly believe, on the contrary it means some who truly believe are cast by Calvin into the pit of destruction because God's predetermined number has been exceeded - sorry no more room. And a plethora of other words assumed to have "universal" scope whenever some unknown joe is threatened with the pit because all the mansions are filled.

And what about the "analogy of faith" or in modern terms scripture agrees with scripture; which requires in some minds A & not A are simultaneously true, so everything depends on God & everything depends on man. Shhh!

Don’t forget; Them: Words mean what I chose them to mean

what this verse has to do with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination I Don't know

Ephesians(KJV):

1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

As you can the (ugh!) Calvinist Doctrine is consistent with the Biblical Doctrine

I believe God reveals through all of Scripture - the 66 books of the Bible.

That was your choice.

I do not believe it was my "choice"; notice that chuckles said after he was born-again (i.e. regenerated) he believed.

The truth revealed in Scripture is that we are born spiritually dead, really dead stinking corpses Rom 3:23, Eph 2:1b, and, as such, can only come to faith if God justifies us while we were yet ungodly/dead Rom 5:10a through the blood of His Incarnate Son Jesus; quickens us Eph 2:1a; implants faith Eph 2:8 resulting in repentance of sin & faith in His righteousness being imputed to us 2 Cor 5:21; sanctifies us so that we can say with Paul Gal 2:20 “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.” ; and ultimately glorifies us with the end that we shall see Jesus by sight,& be found in character in his likeness. All to the glory of the Triune God

All of which is the result of God of His free will choosing us resulting in our regeneration/rebirth by the power of the Holy Spirit; we are reborn/regenerated not by the will of man but by the will of God. John 1:13

That was your choice. Nothing in Scripture demands that you take every word literally.

I disagree since I hold by hypothesis that that the Scripture is the true word (Word) of God. You apparently holding to a mix of truth & error/myth/??.

You also run the risk that your faith could be totally shattered with the revelation of an undeniable scientific discovery which God blesses us with from time to time.

A meaningless self-contradictory statement. But without restating it to make sense, I will agree with you as to my faith, the keyword being my. Saving faith is not whatever faith we are born with it is the faith we are reborn with, a super natural faith, Eph 2:8-9.

Personally, I see literalists as knowing all the words but never quite understanding the message.

I claim that the primary message of Scripture is summarized quite well by the above comment to your That was your choice

As to Creation, I have no desire to tell God how He should have done it. I'm simply content to know that He did... how He did it is immaterial as far as my faith is concerned.

By stating such verses from Scripture as Let there be light, ..., and the evening & the morning were the fourth day we literalists are not telling God how he should have done it but God is telling man as much as he would have us know. On the other hand, it is clear from your references to science that you are quite willing to let us literalists know that he did not do it in 7 days or 10,000 years ago or whatever conclusions can/should be drawn from Scripture.

Your pejorative use of literalists should stop short of us claiming God has wings because he spreads his wings over us in love; we do not claim God is a chicken or some such bird. However please charge us with such things as holding to virgin birth, truly God & truly man, raised bodily from the literally dead, ascending in body literally to heaven, literally being the sole mediator between God & man, and literally returning to judge the quick & the dead. All of which have already been called foolish by, denied by, laughed at by scientists; not only those of this age but from the time the first bite was removed from the apple.

But praise be to God!!: even those, who today, this minute, call all this foolish can yet be changed even in the twinkling of an eye because they may have been chosen from before the foundation of the world & yet not have reached the time when God will quicken.

For salvation is of the Lord & none other.

Good question

Every time a believer mounts from this earth to paradise, it is an answer to Christ's prayer

Lord bring that to mind & heart when I need it.

There is probably a better word than celebrate; but I am gradually learning to celebrate “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” & “It is finished!” in preparation for “He is risen”.