|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ MR. J ” |
|
|
| Page 1 | Page 4 · Found: 189 user comments posted recently. |
|  | |  |
|
|
 3/1/08 7:11 PM |
| Mr. J | | Australia | |  |  |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Susan - the often abused text about Jesus knocking on the door speaks not to the individual heart but to the church and is a reference to communion.
As to infra and supra lapsarianism, I believe that is the are where the inquiring mind of man goes too far. God has given us a glimpse of His viewpoint, from the perspective of eternity, that we might be comforted and assured thereby, not that we might formulate our theology from that perspective. We, who are bound in time, cannot penetrate the eternal now. And how can you make chronological events happen in the eternal now? First God, in eternity did this, then that and so on. I hope I make sense here. As to the abuse of the 5 points that is a mistake that is made far too often and leads to hypercalvinism which is a greater heresey than Arminianism. 100% Divine + 100% Human = 100% product. The two occur simultaneous yet the Divine has preeminence. This is true of all theology. God and man together make 100%. Look at the authorship of Scripture, at the Person of Jesus. Now apply that to your salvation. 100% Sovereignty does not negate 100% responsibiltiy. All that the Father GIVES Me, WILL come to Me! Sovereignty and responsibility. But don't equate or confuse responsibility with ability. We are dead in sin - totally unable! |
|
|
| 2/29/08 8:59 PM |
| Mr J | | Australia | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Thanks Icon - no other takers? I was sure at least some learned people might have some insight into this text. Or maybe it is not important enough. Oh well  |
|
|
| 2/29/08 6:32 PM |
| Mr. J | | Australia | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Discerning Believer wrote:
The sacramental system was derived from the Roman Catholic Church and caried over into Protestantism. That is one area where the reformers never completely broke away from the Romish traditions. You can't just make a statement like that mate and not back it up. There are many things carried over from Rome, not least the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the resurrection and ascension etc. The Reformers were not perfect, but they were diligent theologians and their theology was further developed by greats such as the Puritans and the Westminster Divines, not to mention a host of Reformed Scholars since then from BB Warfield to John Murray to Henry Krabbendam. I have yet to see a list of the great Baptist Theologians. Nowhere does the Reformed Church say that baptism imparts the new birth. It is a sign and a seal; in adults of their conversion, in infants of the promise of the covenant that "I will be your God." But just as the promises made to old Israel, there are always conditions. So tell me, in Acts 2, WHAT promise was Peter referring to, if not the promise of the covenant? |
|
|
| 2/29/08 6:09 PM |
| Mr. J | | Australia | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Icon O'Clast wrote:
Who can give me some insight into this one? In Acts 15 during the Jerusalem council the issue is the OT law and the Gentile believers. In vs 10 Peter says, "Why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Then in vs 11 Peter goes on to say, "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
In vs 10, what is the yoke, who are 'the disciples' and who are 'the fathers'?
In vs 11, in the part "we shall be saved in the same manner as they"; who is 'we' and who are 'they'?
I would be very keen to hear some opinions on the questions I asked.
Thanks!  The fathers are obviously not the patriarchs but the Jews after the time of the giving of the law because the law is the yoke spoken of. The second verse I have always seen as saying, We (Christians) believe that through the grace of Christ we (Christians) shall be saved in the same manner as they (the fathers). |
|
|
| 2/29/08 7:59 AM |
| Mr. J | | Australia | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
MurrayA wrote:
Mr.J,
You have simply not seen my point.
I am denying that circumcision and Passover were OT "sacraments". However, unlike circumcision and Passover the Ark was sacramental The OT talked about the sprinkling of blood before the Ark, ie, before God. The Ark was a symbol of the presence of God. In that sense the actual sprinkling would be sacramental, but not the Ark itself. The sacraments were visible signs and seals of the redemptive work of God through His Son in the Holy Spirit. The Son produces salvation and the Holy Spirit applies it. It is their WORK which is symbolised and portrayed in the sacaraments. The blood of the Lamb, in Passover and in Communion. That is already clear when you see how and when Communion was instituted; at Passover. "When you do THIS, do it in remembrance of Me." What were they doing? Celebrating Passover. Likewise circumcision was a seal of the righeousness of faith, which is applied by the Spirit. He is the Spirit of regeneration. It is the true circumcision, the heart circumcision which pictures the removal of sin and the rebirth. That is why baptism is also called the washing of regeneration. Or do you think that the NT sacraments came out of nowhere and had no organic relationship with the OT? |
|
|
| 2/29/08 12:33 AM |
| Mr. J | | Australia | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
Just listening wrote:
Dr. Phil...
Of course you will not agree with C.H.S. on the posted comment you believe in Infant Baptism.
Here is a great link to a sermon by Brother Henry Mahan on Baptism. Give it a listen, it is an excellent sermon on the subject.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1808137567
Truth suffers nothing from free discussion, it is indeed the element in which it most freely exerts its power. We have personally known several instances in which sermons in defence of Infant Baptism have driven numbers to more Scriptural views, and we have felt that if Pædo-baptists will only preach upon the subject we shall have little to do but to remain quiet and reap the sure results. It is a dangerous subject for any to handle who wish their people to abide by the popular opinion on this matter.
C.H.S. I appreciate your conviction, but have admitted myself we have no watertight argument - and I believe the same goes for you. On immersion you have no case - zero. Independent word study will never support baptist claims that bapto always means immersion. In the case of covenant baptism, your failure to see the covenantal nature of Scripture means you fail to see the big picture. |
|
|
| 2/28/08 5:36 PM |
| Mr. J | | Australia | | | |
|
• Add new comment
• Reply to comment
• Report abuse
|
The comment on the Ark below is interesting but meaningless. The Ark is unique to the OT. It signifies the presence of God in the Holy of Holies. To touch it unlawfully meant instant death. Nowhere is it even remotely referred to as anything akin to a sacrament. It is not a sign of regeneration or justification. It is not a sign of cleansing. It is not a sign of the blood of the Lamb. Instead, the Ark itself was sprinkled. Yet there is strong connection between Circumcision and baptism. Both of them refer to Christ's death. Both of them refer to cleansing from sin, ie, the removal of something. Both of them were visible signs and seals of union and identification. Both of them were outward visible signs of inward spiritual truths. There is a true circumcision, that is of the heart. There is a true baptism, that is of the Spirit. They both mean the same thing. If not, then Paul's whole line of reasoning to the Colossians becomes meaningless. Their concern was that they were not circumcised. Paul tells them they have been circumcised, by the true circumcision when they were buried with Christ in baptism. Not water baptism but the true baptism. We were in Christ when He died, was buried, rose and ascended(Col3:1-4;Eph2:5,6)by the work of the Spirit, the true baptism/circumcision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
