Results 1 - 19 of 19
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: orthodoxy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Accusations obligatory? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6555 | ||
What's wrong with dogma? And who said anything about bigotry? Put your label gun away. Scripture is full of covenant blessings for obedience and covenant curses for disobedience. Am I to not talk about the consequences of poor theology because you don't want to hear about it? You will find all of my language mirrored in Scripture, my friend. If that's the case, you'll be cutting out most of your Bible. Take issue with that if you want, but God speaks this way to his people, and commands us to do likewise when the situation requires it. I feel absolutely no obligation to submit to pop psychobabble. I will submit to the Word, even it that doesn't win me any friends. |
||||||
2 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6553 | ||
So, it would be a faithful act to not call a spade a spade? It would be loving to say, "Well, it's okay if your beliefs were condemned thousands of years ago, you can believe what you want." It would be respnosible to see heresy touted as truth and ignore it? Is it "effective" to restrict commentary because others don't like it? Come now. And I would add that you have committed the fallacy of red herring. I made a theological objection. You responded, not by answering my point, but by telling me that I wasn't being nice. So? Does that change a thing? What I said is still true, isn't it? |
||||||
3 | Accusations obligatory? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6527 | ||
There is no difference between "denying atonement" and "denying the nature of atonement." And what is this concern with being "offensive?" Christ never bothered with such niceties. Neither did Paul, nor Peter, nor God for that matter. Show me one time when God is "nice" and I'll show you three where he promises victory to his people and destruction of his enemies. How many do I "consider cursed?" As many as fit Paul's definition by believing "another gospel." And since the atonement _is_ the gospel, questioning that questions the gospel itself. Why should I make bones about this? What's the problem? I will speak as Scripture speaks, and Scripture speaks of those who change the gospel as damned. |
||||||
4 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6473 | ||
Allow me to quote Paul: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! I think that speaks for itself, don't you? |
||||||
5 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 6347 | ||
Nolan, you are sounding dangerously Pelagian. I cannot distinguish the view you espouse here with the views of Pelagius, a British monk condemned as a heretic almost 1700 years ago. He basically said that Christ's work does not atone for anyone, it merely makes atonement possible. This is not what Scripture teaches. Christ's blood _pays for sin_, it _does not make payment possible_. Cf. Romans 3:25-26, 5:19, Hebrews 9:14, 10:14, Ephesians 1:11, 14, 5:2, II Corinthians 5:19, Colossians 5:20, John 17:2. These and many other verses do not speak of possibility they speak of accomplished fact. The atonement has been completed. Furthermore, the unforgivable sin _requires_ that there be at least some sins that Christ's atoning work does not cover. It doesn't even matter what you think that sin is, the fact that Scripture recognizes a category of sin that is outside the realm of God's forgiveness necessitates a limit to the atonement. Unless, that is, you wish to deny that Christ's death and resurrection really is an atonement. But you are not allowed to do that. This is a central tenet of the Christian faith, and to deny this is to be beyond question, a heretic. I know some will think ill of me for sounding so "harsh" on this point. But this is not something that is negotiable. Infant baptism vs. believers baptism is an issue worth discussing, even though I think that it has been settled in church history. But the atoning work of Christ may in no way be questioned. This is non-negotiable. |
||||||
6 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 6031 | ||
I think that if you look at the way that "household" is used in Scripture, it refers to every member of the house, contrary to opinions that have been voiced earlier. Plus, as EdB has pointed out, there is evidence that the church has been baptizing infants for at least the past 1850 years. If 150AD isn't early enough, I don't know what is. Heck, our earliest complete compies of the New Testament are some time after that. | ||||||
7 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5967 | ||
I seem to have touched a nerve. What do you have against confessional theology anyway? The fact that there is, oh, some kind of standard for what you are allowed to believe? If you will not mine the riches in your own tradition, so be it. But don't expect me to impoverish myself of the wisdom of saints gone before. I will make reference to historic creeds as I see fit, and I encourage you to do the same. You may cut yourself off from the past if you wish; such is nothing of my concern. But let it never be said of me. |
||||||
8 | Three way split? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5962 | ||
See my other response to this. I believe that prophacy is valid, and often is not fulfilled until centuries after when it is given. But two things are different between ancient nations and the US. First, the ancient nations fit with Biblical narrative, not to mention the prophacy itself, much better than the US. Also, the Israelites knew where these ancient nations were. Would they have understood completely? Not until the prophacy came to pass. But they would not have been totally mystified, as they would have if the passage refers to the US. | ||||||
9 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5930 | ||
That isn't exactly it. God regenerates elect infants, whoever they may be. Christian parents have a right to expect the salvation of their children while unbelieving parents do not. This does not mean that God saves no children of unbelieving parents, only that they have no right to expect it. You are correct in saying that the WCF is not canon. No one believes that. I myself take issue with it on several points (six day creation, the immortality of the soul, Scripture as the source of all knowledge), and recognize that it is not a perfect document. I simply believe that it is one of the best, completest crystallizations of correct, Biblical doctrine. It's nothing more than that. If you'd prefer the Belgic Confession, the Second Helvitic Confession, the French Confession, the Canons of Dordt, the Heidelburg Catechism, or some other Reformed confession, I can gladly go there for support. I can even do better than that. Read the Canons of Council of Orange from 529 AD, written against the damnable heretic Pelagius. Beautiful, except for the last paragraph. |
||||||
10 | Binding and Loosing power over darkness? | Matt 18:18 | orthodoxy | 5929 | ||
Sorry about the ambiguity. The covenant is simply the people of God. We are in the covenant as Abraham's children. There have been exactly three covenants. The Covenant of Redemption was between God the Father and God the Son, and the promises from the former to the latter are therein. The Covenant of Works was between God and Adam, and stated that if Adam did not eat from the tree he could remain in the garden forever. The third is the Covenant of Grace, and includes all of God's dealing with man after the Fall. Since the shift from "old covenant" to "new covenant" is simply a development in time and not the ending of one thing and the beginning of another, I like to refer to the church as the covenant. It reminds me and others of who we are: the people of God's choice and promise. For specific application, let me illumine a few of those verses. John 1:14 "the Word became flesh and 'dwelt' among us..." The word "dwelt" is "tented" or "tabernacled." John is saying that Christ is the fulfillment of the greatest covenant promise, that God would dwell with his people. Immanuel indeed. John 3:16 Note the atoning work of Christ. What is the entire Old Testament sacrificial system pointing to? Christ and his work on the cross. John 5:24 Those who cross over from death to life are God's own, his people: the covenant people. John 20:31 Life from God is one of the great covenant promises. Romans 10:9-13 There is no difference between Jew and Gentile. All are under the same Covenant of Grace, and justification is as it has always been: by grace through faith. The Old Testament believers had faith that God would provide a lamb (Genesis 22:8). New Testament believers (us) have faith that God has provided a lamb. There really is no difference. All who call upon the name of the Lord have always been saved. That's part of what I'm getting at when I talk about the covenant: one people of God throughout history. |
||||||
11 | Babies in heaven when they die? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5927 | ||
1) It is true that whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved. This is unquestioned by everyone who may call themselves a Christian. But look at what the verse actually says. It only speaks about those who call on the name of the Lord. It says nothing at all about those who do not. You have to look elsewhere for that. You want get around Scriptural teaching on justification, go ahead, but don't expect help from this direction. 2) What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on who I will have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharoah, "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display mt power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me, "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?'" Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath - prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objecdts of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory - even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea, "I will call them 'my people' who are not my people, and I will call her 'my loved one' who was not my loved one," and, "It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people," that they will be called sons of the living God.'" The above is Romans 9:14-26. I did not quote it or state the reference first, because I want you, all of you, to read it. Just read it as an argument. It is abundantly clear in its thrust. Paul leaves no room for difference of opinion or subtlety of meaning. There is no way you can get out of it. This is what Scripture says, clearly, directly, and in a book devoted to justification. The context is justification, the purpose is education about justification, and the conclusion is that _God justifies whoever he wants irrespective of human considerations_. Deal with it. 3) I have no idea where you get the concept of "God's grandchildren." Certainly nothing from what I said. 4) If all you have to contribute is derogatory comments, then keep them for yourself. You only succeed in making yourself look foolish. |
||||||
12 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5805 | ||
Well, on one hand, heretical roots should be of great concern. We should strive to be as Biblical as humanly possible by the grace of God. But don't let it bother you too much. Nowadays, almost everyone has been influenced by many numbers of people, some of whom are bound to be heretics. This is only a problem if one refuses to reconsider one's beliefs in light of Scripture. Besides, it is the grace of God that saves, not correct theology. If I were to "denounce" everyone with partly heretical theology, I'd have to ditch almost the entire American church, since I believe that Arminianism is heresy (no, I really don't want to go here now. just an example). I guess this is one point where I am going to have to offend. Charis, there is no way on earth that you could have come to your conclusions "on your own" for one simple reason: your conclusions are not new. You do not exist in a conceptual vaccuum, separated from all influence on the outside. You exist in a conceptual climate whose origins can be traced. You have been influenced by someone. The mere fact that you study anything but the Bible requires that you be influenced by at least one tradition. This is not a problem! It is a very good thing, provided one chooses one's tradition wisely. And don't be worried about tracing your origins to Rome. Mine are there too. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, everyone does. The Reformers, whose tradition I follow, came out of Rome, and while they vilified the Roman Church, had no problem with admitting that they were once part of it. It's simply a historical fact, nothing more. Again, judging a thing because of its historical origins is illogical (genetic fallacy). Things change. But, if a problem has been dealt with in history and then resurfaces (or never goes away), such as belivers' only baptism, it is appropriate to bring out the answers that were given centuries ago. The verses you quote do not help you much. The passage in John is speaking only of Christ's disciples. Only adult men could be disciples. If you push your interpretation on this, only adult men may be baptized. You would obviously include women, which would require you to introduce a category of baptism not included in this verse. Why not children too? The passage from Acts quite likely included children. The speech was given during one of the Jewish holy feasts, when Jewish families from all across the Mediterranian region came to celebrate. The crowd was almost certainly men, women, and children. Once again, the text says nothing about children being excluded. Finally, what if they do speak of the baptism of adults? I certainly approve of that, provided they were not baptized before. So does everyone who believes in infant baptism. Since the crowd was entirely unbaptized, requiring them to be baptized only makes sense. Show me one instance where "household" does not include every member of the house. And the fact (which I may yet dispute) that "household" may include animals does not help you either. Scripture never puts animals and humans in the same category as far as I can tell. I have no doubt that you are a Christian, and part of the family of God. No one has to have all of their theology and practice perfect to belong to Him. I certainly do not. But insofar as I see disparity between myself and others, I will argue for my position until I either convince, am convinced, or the argument becomes unfruitful. |
||||||
13 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5772 | ||
Okay, let's step back a minute. First, I have not "denounced" anyone. To say that because a denomination has heretical roots that all of its members are heretics commits both the genetic and division fallacies. I want to do neither of those. But I do think that it is worth mentioning that the first instance of a strict believers' baptism as opposed to covenantal baptism makes its appearance in the Anabaptists. If you can provide evidence of strict believers' baptism earlier than that, please do so, but I believe you will find it difficult. Why do I consider this telling? Because if the church has never acted in a certain way, it is extremely dubious to suggest that they had it wrong the whole time and now we have it right. If you can provide evidence of opposition to infant baptism from a non-heretical group before the sixteenth century, you are welcome to do so. Your analysis of my argument about tradition totally ignores most of my points. Were you or were you not brought into the Christian faith by someone else? I would wager anything that the answer is that you were. If so, who brought them? And who brought them? And who brought them? You see? And I am not "aligning" myself with either Rome or the East. I would, in fact, attempt to strongly distance myself from both of them. But I, contrary to what you have stated, will freely admit that both of those ancient denominations have good things about them, including but not limited to, their views on infant baptism and reverence in worship. About the scope of the Baptist tradition. Judging from the size of the SBC (somewhere about 10,000,000), and including all the rest of the hundreds of Baptist denominations in the US, there are probably 20,000,000 Baptists here. Where else are there Baptists? Well, there are some in England, but they have always been a tiny minority. Everywhere else in the world they are the result of mission works and exist in small numbers. My evidence? Look on the net. Search Google for "baptist denominations" and tell me what you find. There are several respectible Baptist history sites there (stay away from the Landmarkist stuff though). All of them place the origin of the Baptistic denominations in England and America, and it has spread only through missionary work ever since. This doesn't take world travelling or years of study. A cursory examination of immediately available evidence should suffice. But I did not simply make this up on the spot: I have been studying denominational history for several years now. On to Scripture. The idea that household does not include children seems to run directly contrary to the use of the word everywhere else in Scripture. Just do a word search using "household" and see what you get. It _always_ means the entire house. Assumming that household does not include children is out of line with the rest of Scripture. You are welcome to provide places in Scripture where "household" does not refer to the whole thing. And references about baptism do not count since that would be circular reasoning. While I do believe that baptism has replaced circumcision, exactly how long after the birth baptism occurs is of no importance to me, provided it is done in a timely manner and as soon as convenient. The eighth day regulation is not important. Furthermore, Christ's institution of Christian baptism says nothing about baptizing believers only, and also says nothing about baptizing adult believers only. Making any argument on either of those grounds is fallacious at best. Just as I cannot clearly say that Christ instituted infant baptism, you cannot clearly say that he instituted believers' baptism. Yet, all of the promises of God to his people are "for you and your children" or something along those lines. God works through families, and always has. Not baptizing infants is a denial of God's chosen method of action in the world. I see Paul's baptism of households as evidence that infant baptism was practiced by the apostles, Paul being an apostle and all. Your mention of "circumcision of the heart" does not help you, for the thrust is that physical circumcision is simply a sign of what ought to happen in the heart. Baptism is exactly the same, a sign of what should happen on the inside. Just because there is a spiritual reality does not mean that physical reality may be abandoned. Oh, and please do not put in quotes anything that is not either from Scripture or actually taken verbatim from my post. To do otherwise only serves to put words in my mouth, a profoundly uncharitible, unfair, and illogical practice. |
||||||
14 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5734 | ||
John's baptism has never been considered Christian baptism. The believers here were not repbaptized in that sense. They were first baptized into John, then Christ. We were talking about something significantly different, namely, being baptized into Christ as an infant and then again as an adult. My views on justification are simply Scriptural. Romans is a just about the best book for talking about justification, but Galatians is good as well. Namely, justification is an act of God based solely upon the council of his own will and based in no part upon anything that we have done or will do. Rom. 3:24; 5:15-16; 8:30; Rom. 3:22-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; II Cor. 5:19, 21; Titus 3:5, 7; Eph. 1:7; Jer. 23:6; I Cor. 1:30-31; John 1:12; 6:44-45, 65; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Eph. 2:7-8 For passages specifically relating to baptism, see: Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15; Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14 |
||||||
15 | Slight historical skew? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5730 | ||
I can take your first paragraph as either deliberately insulting or significant misunderstanding, and I'm not sure which would be more appropriate. I'll let you determine that. In any case, it is a red herring and quite possibly ad hominum abusive. I'll let it go at that. Your second paragraph is a little better. I am glad that you recognize, or at least make mention of, Anabaptism being heresy. At its inception, it was recognized as such by all of the branches of the church that were in existence at the time, Protestant and Catholic. Still, you are setting up a straw-man by restating my position in a manner that I do not condone and then proceeding to mock this restatement. This is not a sufficient answer. I recognize that a paragraph devoted to denominational history hardly does justice to the complexities involved, nor do I deny that those of ages past acted in good conscience. But there is no other way of tracing the development of the church without resorting to such "oversimplifications" as you call them. Everything I said was true, and I am not aware that I inadvertently suppressed relevant evidence. If I have, please present it for consideration instead of simply dismissing my arguments with a wave of your hand. If you find my words offensive, be that as it may. I am sorry of my manner offends you, but I cannot detect anything offensive in it. I am not primarily interested in "making friends and influencing people." I am primarily interested in proclaiming the truths of Scripture. It is not my responsibility to ensure that you or anyone else likes or agrees with me. It is my responsibility to tell it like it is, which I trust that I have done. Furthermore, when I said "we call came from Rome at one point" I was not referring to us personally, but our traditions. And you cannot possibly deny that you belong to a tradition. You were brought into the faith by someone, and you adhere to a church. When I say "tradition" I do not mean the Romish conception of tradition that is equal with the Word. I simply mean the history of the people of God. Unless you are Eastern Orthodox, and I see that you are not, then your church can be traced to Rome eventually, even if it be independant. Your profile indicates that you are probably a missionary of some kind. Who brought you into the faith? Who brought them into the faith? Trace it back through history far enough and you will come to Rome. Unless, that is, you hold to the exceptionally bizarre "Baptist Bride" idea. I am not simply "pontificating my denominational bent." When counting traditions, I am in the majority. On the infant baptistic side, we have the East, Rome, the Reformed tradition, the Anglican tradition, the Lutheran tradition, and some Methodist groups. On the believers' baptism side there are the Baptists and Anabaptists, which, I might add, are almost exclusively in the US. So I will call that into evidence. The requirements you set before me are utterly impossible. It seems that nothing I can say will have any affect on you. Since you are currently defining "incontrovertable" and "truth," you can redefine them as you see fit. Still, I will make a stab at it. Note in Acts 10, Peter oversees the baptism of Cornelius' whole household. In Acts 16, Paul baptizes Lydia's household. Later in Acts 16, Paul baptizes the household of the Corinthian jailer. In 1Cor. 15 Paul recounts the households he baptized in Corinth. It is safe to assume that infants were present at in all of these households. Since these are all of the times that baptism occurs where families are present, it would seem that infant baptism is not without significant support in the NT. Then there is circumcision. Yes, I know we no longer circumcise. But the Jews did. And they circimcised on the eighth day of life as a sign and seal of the covenant. Since baptism is the same thing, the sign and seal of the covenant, it makes sense that we should do as they did. The sign of the covenant is no longer a physical sign upon the body, but it is done shortly after birth all the same. |
||||||
16 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5691 | ||
Well, if he is denying the use of all music in worship, then I really don't know where he's getting that. Paul indicates the use of songs in worship. I'm afraid I can't help here. | ||||||
17 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5690 | ||
Yes, I know the largest denomination in the US is Baptist. Their origins are in Holland, with the English Separatists. The movement's founder originally had close ties with the Mennonites, an Anabaptist group. There are several Churches of Christ (by name of course), so I can't comment on those. But I think that both of them are Pentecostal, which would allow one to trace their history to Anabaptism through Wesley. When I said difficult, I meant historically. Until quite recently they have been in a minority position. In Europe they were persecuted by just about everybody. That's all I was getting at. |
||||||
18 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | orthodoxy | 5663 | ||
I fail to see how this is true. The Anabaptists were the first ones to rebaptise believers (hence their name, which means "to baptise again"). Other traditions took up the practice after contact with Anabaptists. But it is simply a historical fact that the church had always baptised its infants until the Anabaptists came along in the sixteenth century and the Baptists in the eighteenth. And most Baptist churches do not require rebaptism, they simply will not baptise infants themselves. As to soteriology, I stand by my statement. All it means is that my views on justification will not allow _me_ to support rebaptism. Since I obviously believe my soteriology to be generally correct, I believe that rebaptism is wrong. |
||||||
19 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | orthodoxy | 5472 | ||
Nolan, I believe that you are wrong here. Consider the following: There are several options as to what and who Christ died for. 1) Christ died for all sins of all men. 2) Christ died for all sins of some me. 3) Christ died for some sins of all men. 4) Christ died for some sins of some men. Now consider the implications of each of these choices. 3 and 4 aren't really options, cause they don't save anyone. If the second is true, we have Reformed election. If the first is true, then everyone goes to heaven, for all sins are paid for. But, you say, can't people resist God's grace? Perhaps (but I think not). Assuming they can, would this not be sin? And would Christ not have died for it? Would that not make it forgiven? If not, why not? The only real option is particular redemption. Ryan Davidson |
||||||