R. K. Borill wrote: RK responds, Yes!! Excellent choice of scripture.
".. ordained them elders in every church...." Acts 14:23
Excellent choice. Just a big shame he does not understand it!
If I said concerning a church building that we have â€śblinds on (or in) every window,â€ť â€ślights in every socket,â€ť and â€śBibles in every lapâ€ť, what would you understand by those statements? Would you understand that to mean that we have multiple blinds to every window, multiple lights in every socket and multiple bibles in every lap? If not, why should "elders in every church" mean multiplicity of elders to each church?
This is a straight forward issue of English comprehension, and should not be that difficult for anyone with a basic grasp of the English language to understand.
We have the same construction of sentences in the Bible where no one argues for multiplicity. Happy to give examples if anyone is interested.
penny wrote: Really, its right there, what am I missing? there are plenty of non-presbys that have noticed this, in fact many Baptists. it says "elders in every church" not "an elder in every church" and not "deacons in every church"
Hi Penny, please read the edit to my previous post. I have added explanatory notes to elucidate. Hopefully, you will see my point better.
penny wrote: "And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed." Acts 14:23 plural elders
Insistence on plural elders is a Presbyterian error.
Re: Acts 14.23 â€śelders in every churchâ€ť
If I said concerning a church building that we have â€śblinds on (or in) every window,â€ť â€ślights in every socket,â€ť and â€śBibles in every lapâ€ť, what would you understand by those statements?.
Would you understand that to mean that we have multiple blinds to every window, multiple lights in every socket and multiple bibles in every lap? If not, why should "elders in every church" mean multiplicity of elders to each church?
This is a straight forward issue of English comprehension, and should not be that difficult for anyone with a basic grasp of the English language to understand (excepting Mr Borill whose genius is apparent only to himself).
We have similar construction of sentences in the Bible where no one argues for multiplicity. Happy to give examples if anyone is interested.
R. K. Borill wrote: Really writes, I'm prepared to demonstrate to anyone with half a brain that Calvin meant one man to one church, not many men to one church. RK responds, Those with half a brain are a good audience for you,
Better than posting to people with no brains, who would rather throw insults than engage in meaningful dialogue, that's for sure.
No surprise that you did not take up my challenge to show how I had misquoted Calvin. Further proof, that the 9th commandment matters very little to you and your ilk. Just so long as you are left feeling smug, you throw around accusations that you have no intention of ever backing up.
R. K. Borill wrote: Really writes: Presbyterians of course have their Pope in Calvin!, RK responds, Interesting comment coming from someone who quotes him or misquotes him I should say when it pleases you.
At least you didn't deny he is your Pope.
You want to prove that I misquoted him? Or are you happy breaking the 9th commandment, which I know doesn't carry much weight in your circles.
I'm prepared to demonstrate to anyone with half a brain that Calvin meant one man to one church, not many men to one church.
R. K. Borill wrote: RK responds, Still twisting huh Really; this does not establish a single elder congregation. Note the words PASTORS were set and appointed. Else, how could Paul's exhortation make sense.... But, go ahead and keep your mini-pope, as they develop the spirit of Diotrephes. I've seen what it can do to a congregation. It reminds me of some of the Baptists on this forum.
Twisting? You have got to be joking. Put your brain in gear and read Calvin's comment again!
Prophets were not pastors, silly!
Since you struggle to understand English, I am not going to bother addressing you any more. But I will continue to post for the sake of those who are interested.
Presbyterians of course have their Pope in Calvin!
Out of interest, how many pastors were there at the Genevan church at the same time as Calvin?
As for the spirit of Diotrephes, I don't think that is restricted to Baptist circles. I believe we see quite a bit of it in your posts.
For the benefit of others who may be interested to read of this spirit in Presbyterianism, please read: [URL=http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=254]]] Imperious Presbyterianism [/URL]
R. K. Borill wrote: That must be why each autonomous congregation elects only one "pastor" per congregation like a mini-pope. When the Apostle Paul commanded otherwise: Titus 1:5 KJV  For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: Of course to come to the conclusion that only than one "elder" is needed to set things in order, they would have to make a FALLACIOUS DEDUCTION.
Try reading Calvin on Acts 14.23. I quote, " ..Now, forasmuch as Luke saith, that they were set over every church, the difference between their office and the office of the apostles is gathered hence. For the apostles had no certain place of abode, but they went to and fro to found new churches; but pastors were set and appointed, EVERY MAN TO HIS OWN CHURCH, and were, as it were, placed to watch (â€śad praesidium,â€ť as a guard) over their congregations.â€ť
Unprofitable Servant wrote: You know, John, when the someone willing places in their post an outright lie, it is hard to believe anything else they put forth. You would think Presbies would be sensitive to the 9th commandment
MOSHEIM (Lutheran Church Historian) writes: â€śBefore the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists.â€ť
ZWINGLI (Reformer) writes: â€śThe institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years past has caused great disturbance in the church, and has such a strength that the attempt to contend against it in this age appeared for a time futile.â€ť
RIDPATH (Methodist Church Historian) writes: â€śI should not readily admit that there were Baptist churches as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists.â€ť
As lies cannot be established upon facts, the only way to establish them as accepted fact is to keep repeating them with confidence so as to create an illusion of fact. The devil knows this, and so do his disciples.
However on the other hand, the Westminster divines see three levels of interpretation:
1) The surface level â€“ what the text obviously says 2) The sub level â€“ what we need to understand to make the text make sense 3) The level of deduction â€“ what needs to be inferred from a text or series of texts
The Presbyterians arrive at their understanding of covenant families based upon their deductions of what they believe to be good and necessary consequences of the Bible teaching regarding covenant. However, the Baptist confession comes along and slams the door shut by saying that we cannot frame a doctrine from a consequence of what we deduce from scripture, instead we must base our doctrine only on what is contained in scripture.
This is a good example of where the Presbyterians elevate reason and logic above the Scriptures and treat their necessary consequences and deductions on the same level as Scripture!
This also explains why they use philosophical deductions and treat them as Scripture, and why their systematic theologies and discussions are often arid, academic speculations, often so far removed from Scripture but treated with such reverence by them. The mental stimulus is addictive to them and they prefer reading this to the Bible.
Michael Hranek wrote: RK B Interesting exchange between you and Lurker...
This is a huge issue about how Presbys and Baptists read and understand the Bible, quite apart from their hermeneutical differences which are poles apart.
WCF states, "..1.6 The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture..."
The BCoF states, "..1.6 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down [u]or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.."
1. The BCoF removes any reference to deducing things from scripture. 2. The BCoF explicity states that the doctrine must be â€śnecessarily contained in the Holy Scriptureâ€ť whilst the Westminster confession says a doctrine may be derived as a consequence of what scriptures contains.
The framers of the BCoF saw two levels of bible interpretation:
1) The surface level â€“ what the text obviously says 2) The sub level â€“ what we need to understand to make the text make sense
R. K. Borill wrote: No problem John. Although it does seem that "Really" has a real problem.
No I do not have a problem. I do however like someone who contends with me to settle matters. You challenged a post of mine to Michael H earlier today. I am still waiting for you to show me where I have erred.
If you are not able to do so, then it will be twice today that you have contended for something that you have had to back track on.
John UK wrote: Thanks for the info. I searched around a lot and only found a couple of websites proposing the original "sweetly forced us in". Maybe there are no hymnbooks with the original, as they all seem to show "sweetly drew us in". I just find it odd that forcing someone could be done in a sweet manner. And I certainly don't believe that God forces us against our will, to believe unto eternal life. But for sure, he has to remove the rebellion and woo us to Christ, changing our will in the process. RK, I owe you another apology, bro. But I'd sure like to know where you found those lyrics.
Knowledge of the Presbyterian standards alone should have moved him away from that conclusion John UK, and certainly acted as a warning not to quote the wording of an old hymn to support an errant viewpoint.
In any event, it appears from Mr Borill's post of 4/4/14 5:55 PM that he has recanted his error.
Unsurprisingly the original words in the hymn were understood in accordance with our view by Spurgeon, [URL=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/sum&sub.htm]]] Sum and Substance of all Theology[/URL] and [URL=http://www.founders.org/journal/fj34/article5.html]]]Nature of Regeneration[/URL]
John UK wrote: "Forced me in"? Observe the correct rendering: â€™Twas the same love that spread the feast That sweetly drew us in; Else we had still refused to taste, And perished in our sin. Pity the nations, O our God! Constrain the earth to come; Send Thy victorious Word abroad, And bring the strangers home. We long to see Thy churches full, That all the chosen race May with one voice, and heart and soul, Sing Thy redeeming grace.
Mr Borill does not seem particularly well educated in reformed theology and the standards of the reformed church. And yet he is a minister. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that rather worrying.
R. K. Borill wrote: The love of God DOES compel us against our will
Canons of Dort Third and Fourth Heads Article 16 But as man by the fall did not cease to be a creature, endowed with understanding and will, nor did sin which pervaded the whole race of mankind, deprive him of the human nature, but brought upon him depravity and spiritual death; so also this grace of regeneration does not treat men as senseless stocks and blocks, nor take away their will and its properties, neither does violence thereto; but spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and at the same time sweetly and powerfully bends it; that where carnal rebellion and resistance formerly prevailed, a ready and sincere spiritual obedience begins to reign; in which the true and spiritual restoration and freedom of our will consist. Wherefore unless the admirable author of every good work wrought in us, man could have no hope of recovering from his fall by his own free will, by the abuse of which, in a state of innocence, he plunged himself into ruin.
See also WCF 10.1 and particularly the words "..effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace".
Conclusion: There is no compulsion against our will!
R. K. Borill wrote: Really writes: If the sinner is at enmity with God, enslaved to sin, and has the devil for his master, how do you suppose he will escape his condition to run to Christ for salvation? If you admit that without the Holy Spirit this cannot be done, then you have conceded the point. IOW though intellectually you say you do not believe in man's inability, practically you do. That at the end of the day is all that matters. R. K. responds, If the Holy Spirit is giving the ability, how do you turn that into man's ability? You are only affirming a disjoint in two opposing statements. John 6:63-65 KJV  It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.  But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.  And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Always looking for contention.
Revisit my post, read it very carefully in the light Michael H's post and then tell me that your response makes any sense.
Biblical Calvinism wrote: C.H.Spurgeon Declares in sermon that Calvinism is the Gospel.
More from Spurgeon: The controversy which has been carried on between the Calvinist and the Arminian is exceedingly important, but it does not so involve the vital point of personal godliness as to make eternal life depend upon our holding either system of theology. Between the Protestant and the Papist there is a controversy of such a character, that he who is saved on the one side by faith in Jesus, dare not allow that his opponent on the opposite side can be saved while depending on his own works. There the controversy is for life or death, because it hinges mainly upon the doctrine of justification by faith, which Luther so properly called the test doctrine, by which a Church either stands or fallsâ€¦.There are other controversies which thus cut at the very core, and touch the very essence of the whole subject. But, I think we are free to admit, that while John Wesley, for instance, in modern times zealously defended Arminianism, and on the other hand, George Whitfield with equal fervour fought for Calvinism, we should not be prepared either of us, on either side of the question, to deny the vital godliness of either the one or the other.
Michael Hranek wrote: Sinners are not totally inable, they are totally thoroughly sinneres in enmity against God. Romans 1 says they "know" God and reject Him, something they would be incapable of if they were totally inable.
You misunderstand inability. No matter.
If the sinner is at enmity with God, enslaved to sin, and has the devil for his master, how do you suppose he will escape his condition to run to Christ for salvation? If you admit that without the Holy Spirit this cannot be done, then you have conceded the point. IOW though intellectually you say you do not believe in man's inability, practically you do. That at the end of the day is all that matters.
[URL=http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0385.htm]]] Messages delivered at the inaugural ceremonies in connection with the opening of the Metropolitan Tabernacle under the Rev. C. H. Spurgeon[/URL]
Spurgeon says. "Mr. Wesley's hymn-book, which may be looked upon as being the standard of his divinity, has in it upon some topics higher Calvinism than many books used by ourselves. I have been exceedingly struck with the very forcible expressions there used, some of which I might have hesitated to employ myself. I shall ask your attention while I quote verses from the hymns of Mr. Wesley, which we can all endorse as fully and plainly in harmony with the doctrines of grace, far more so than the preaching of some modern Calvinists.
HYMN 131, verses 1, 2, 3.
"Lord, I despair myself to heal: I see my sin, but cannot feel; I cannot, till thy Spirit blow, And bid the obedient waters flow.
'Tis thine a heart of flesh to give; Thy gifts I only can receive: Here, then, to thee I all resign; To draw, redeem, and seal,â€”is thine.
With simple faith on thee I call, My Light, my Life, my Lord, my all: I wait the moving of the pool; I wait the word that speaks me whole."
Read the names and the quotes. If Mr Borill thinks that the persons quoted are Jesuit heretics, he has bigger problems than he thinks.
What he may be hinting at is that he and his Presbyterian Church have abandoned the historic Presbyterian understanding of the dogma, but he nevertheless continues to believe all the doctrines that naturally flow from Presumptive Regeneration, and which are used to justify infant baptism.
As Charles Hodge (a Jesuit heretic according to Mr Borill) stated:
In the neglect of understanding the doctrine of â€śpresumptive regeneration, we have long felt and often expressed the conviction that this is one of the most serious evils in the present state of our churches.â€ť (BushnellÂ´s discourses on Christian Nurture, Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review (1847), 19, Pages 52-521.)
Mr Hodge would not approve of Mr Borill's Presbyterianism!