Just listening wrote:
I am amazed that an unconscious babe should be made the partaker of an ordinance which, according to the plain teaching of the Scriptures, requires the conscious acquiescence and complete heart-trust of the recipient. Very few, if any, would argue that infants ought to receive the Lord’s supper; but there is no more Scriptural warrant for bringing them to the one ordinance than there is for bringing them to the other.
C.H. Spurgeon

charrua wrote:
I really think the issue here is that Mr. Colson is exposing the Ignorance that prevails in North American churches, where Jessica Simpsons dad was a youth pastor, Mike Huckabee was a Baptist Minister and every major entertainment award winner thanks Jesus for winning the Grammy/Emmy/Oscar, etc.
The white and black communities of the US are full of people who say they are Christians yet have no basis for this claim and could not explain to another how to become a Christian much less debate theology with someone from another religion, Jehovahs Witness, Mormon or Muslim.
Now stop attacking Colson and acknowledge that TRUTH is TRUTH wherever it is found.

You have just exposed a great deal of ignorance with this email. There are none so blind as those that refuse to read and study the truth when it is presented to them.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Another question. Is an infant able to manifest those outward signs of a circumcised heart?

Even the Baptist must agree that it is the regeneration by the Holy Spirit that makes the sign of Baptism effective. Otherwise, they are then in agreement with Rome that the act of Baptism itself or the profession of faith itself initiates regeneration, thus making these works the means of salvation (baptismal regeneration). That being the case, the Baptist must also agree that there are many that have the sign of Baptist Baptism that are not saved not being regenerate.

Neil wrote:
I was being ironic, Jim. You've seen my other posts.

One thing I am thinking in all of this is how much more ironic is the "Bay of Pigs Invasion". Here is a Roman Catholic President attacking the country of a Roman Catholic dictator. A few months later we see one assassinated by supposedly a "Castro communist sympathizer", and the other is allowed to live to old age with his country under his oppression all the while. Who knows what is being discussed behind closed doors at the Vatican?

Lance,

Discerning Believer wrote:
Dr. Phil,
The only problem is that there are numerous references to Jesus being called both God and Savior. Jesus also said that "I and my Father are one" meaning one in essence. So thus when clear passages are presented, it cannot be questioned by methods of hermeneutics or interpretation. It is black and white.
Paedobaptism is mainly arguement from silence. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace are not the same and neither are its stipulations. The sign of the covenant of grace is the circumcision of the heart and the seal is preservation by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption.

Discerning Believer wrote:
Dr. Phil, stick to comparing apples to apples. I love you brother, but you are wanting to compare apples to oranges. Stick to baptism. I'm sure it will be no problem for any paedobaptist to find a multituide of verses where God commanded parents to baptize their infants in the New Testament.

Discerning Believer wrote:
DJC49,
If you want to be consistent with the regulative principal, then you need to show me clearly from scripture where God commanded infants to be baptized. We are not talking circumcision, but a clear proof reference from scripture where God explicitly commanded parents to baptize their infants.
I am sure you will have no problem doing so, so it shouldn't take you too long.
Remember, what He did not command, He forbids.

If you want to be consistent with the regulative principal, then you need to show me in scripture where Jesus Christ is divine. We are not talking the Son of God, but a clear proof reference from scripture where God explicitly said that Jesus Christ is God.

Now I believe that He is the second person of the Trinity and that He is in fact God. But, I come to that conclusion from logical deduction as we compare scripture with scripture. The same must be done with paedobaptism. If there is no such thing taught in scripture then Abraham's circumcision of his sons makes no sense and has no correlation to the faith of the NT.
Col. 2:11

John Yurich wrote:
There is nothing wrong with Charismatic Christianity because Charismatics have been Baptized in the Holy Spirit.

If you are interested in learning the truth about Charismania, please consider the two following essays:

[URL=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/021a-Logology.pdf]]]Logology[/URL]

Eutychus,

Michael Hranek wrote:
Dr. Phil
I've just briefly glanced at this article. It looks good. Thanks for the reference.

Wayne wrote:
Dear Dr. Phil:
After reading your comments, I felt I needed to chime in. first, to say a man of Church Colson's learning and experience, that he doesn't understand Christianity is irresponsible and ignorant!
Church Colson is the most read and prolific author in the 20th and 21st centuries hands down! Where have you been? I can assure you that Mr. Colson not only knows Christianity, but he can easily refute any and all false religions, including Isalm!

Either you are Roman Catholic, or you are smoking something illegal. But, just in case you missed it, here it is again.

JD wrote:
Way to go, DB. Ignore my comments that are backed by the Scriptures and throw out another strawman. Okay, I will play the game. . .

JD wrote:
. . .This method of bible study is for the proud and arrogant and for those who do word searches.
Charles Taze Russell could have been just as effective in this kind of methodology if he had of thought of it and could have deceived many more people.
. . .This is a sad way to present your theology but this is the way the reformed are trained and that is why they are deceived and are now unteacable, and many of them, sad to say, are lost I believe.
The truth I present in this post will be hard for them to swallow!

The truth is not hard for the Calvinist to swallow, but your theology is another thing. You and the other dispies are the only ones equating your dispensationalism to truth.

JD wrote:
Okay, lets go into the altenate universe if that is what you want.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to sovereignty against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; (That has no effect on you) not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance - if you are elect?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart (Which I have created you with) treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds - that I programmed you to do.
Is this really where you want to go?

JD wrote:
This passage will soundly rebuke all you men
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
. . .

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good

KK wrote:
Excerpts from an ABC report:
Would Obama Position Spread Same-Sex Marriage?
August 10, 2007 12:31 AM
ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: If Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., succeeds in repealing the entire Defense of Marriage Act, the recognition of same-sex marriage is more likely to spread from state to state, according to a leading conservative constitutional law expert.
Obama, by contrast, views D.O.M.A. as "an abhorrent law" and he has accused those in Congress who passed D.O.M.A. as only having been interested in "perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue," according to a 2004 statement that he gave to the Windy City Times, a gay newspaper in Chicago. Believing that D.O.M.A. is not needed to protect states from having to recognize marriages that are contrary to their own public policy, Obama has broken with his top-tier rivals in taking the controversial step of calling for a complete D.O.M.A. repeal.
While the Illinois Democrat has been calling for D.O.M.A. repeal since 2004, . . .
When he began his campaign for U.S. Senate, he told a group called Independent Voters of Illinois -- Independent Precinct Organization that he supported D.O.M.A.

JD wrote:
The bible is full of free will. God has held men accountable for their actions with The very act of sinning is an action of man that is in defiance of God and he writes them down in a book that he calls the book of works and anyone that has not been forgiven of them through faith in the word of God will answer for each and every one of them and his place in the suffereing of the lake of fire will be determined by how many he has and by how serious they are.
To have a bible without free will is to have a perverted god who deserves no ones worship.

You said, ". . .rewards for doing good and condemantion for doing wrong."

What "good" is it that men "do" and receive a reward for it?

Does not the Apostle Paul say the there is none that doeth good? Rom. 3:12

You also said, "to have a bible without free will is to have a perverted god who deserves no ones worship."

JD wrote:
There is a fence post outside my door and I think i will go our there and bang my head agaist it a few time because i will achieve more possibilites in its conversion than I will here with yours in the next two years.