Icon you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You are just trying to inflame JD and co into another argument about OT vs NT believers. They have tried that and failed, even going so far as to say that John the Baptist was not a believer, was not born again and did not go to heaven when Herod killed him. Let it go man, you are trying to nail jelly to a tree again.
One of the greatest prime ministers of the Netherlands was Abraham Kuyper - who was also a professor doctor of Reformed Theology. But I think the question is wrong. So many call themselves "born again" believers, as if here is any other kind. To be 100% committed to Christ, His Word and His commendments (which is the ONLY hallmark of true Christianity) and to be a politician in this world, would require the ability to walk a tightrope with balance Blondin would have envied. The rulers and princes of this world are united in their hatred and their opposition of God's kingdom (Psalm 2). To be voted into office while keeping your Christian integrity intact would require a miracle. But almost every American politician (and a few Aussie ones) profess to be Christians. But their fruits show them to be nominal Christians at best.
Calvin would not be impressed with this. The reformers worked all their life to get the people's focus back on the Bible; sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia and sola Deo gloria. They did not want people to praise them, but to praise God. Let people honour their memory by being obedient to the Scriptures these men promoted and preached all their life.
I think if you look at history you will find that the Jews who were expelled from Israel after 70 Ad and went into Europe more or less became two groups;Sephardic and Ashkenazic. Sephardic is derived from Hebrew word for Spain and Ashkenazic from Hebrew word for Germany. But whereas the Sephardic Jews managed to stay more or less racially pure, the Ashkenazis became a mongrel race through much interbreeding and 'conversions' of whole areas. All those who died in the holocaust and pushed their way into Israel after WWII were Ashkenzim. This is one of the reasons why the Arabs got so upset - for to them the Ashkenazis were not their Jewish cousins but mongrel interlopers. Modern day Israel has no connection to the Israel of the Bible. And even if they claim to have rights to the land because of OT promises, they would be bound by the same covenant obligations, because the land never came without conditions. The Arabs have as much, if not more right, to the land than the Jews do and at this time the Jews are guilty of the same crimes as white South Africa was in Apartheid times. They are NOT the people of God - they are no different than any other unconverted pagan. The Church is the Israel of God, and there is only one Israel, comprising of Jews and Gentiles - not Palestine!
You are correct Bernard and I should have been more specific in my post. I am talking about homosexuals who want to live an active homosexual lifestyle while being active members of the church. There is a huge difference between a sinner who knows he is a sinner and wants to fight against his/her sinful nature and someone who acts as if it is not a sin. It is calling white what God has called black which is the problem. Sodomites want us to acknowledge that there is nothing wrong with their lifestyle and they should be accepted in all circles of life as normal people. we must also remember that Jesus said to Capernaum that it would be more tolerable in the day of judgement for Sodom and Gomorrah because they did not hear the gospel of Christ - so the greatest sin, the unforgivable sin, is the final and total rejection of Christ.
Paisley is one of the few true Reformed pastors who refused to bow to pressure in his ministry. But he has shown that it is nigh impossible, at least these days, to be Christian pastor and a politician at the same time. It presents a tightrope one must walk for which few, if any, have the balance. The greatest and most godly men, including our heroes from the Bible, have shown themselves to be frail, fallible and as affected by sin as the rest of mankind. I know little about Paisley the politician. But I have heard much of Paisley the preacher and I not only thank God for him, but wish there were men like him in every pulpit of every protestant denomination. God bless you Pastor Paisley.
The Gay Marriage thing is just another step in a certain direction. Just the fact that we who oppose it use the word "Gay" in this way shows how much we have compromised. "Gay" is a disposition of heart, not a sexual preference. These people are sodomites! And we get them shoved down our neck every day. They are now TV heroes, they are not allowed to be discriminated against so they are your kids' teachers and scout leaders. Now churches are fighting to give them rights in the pulpit. They should not be members of the church, let alone in positions of leadership. Whatever happened to church discipline? Now they want to have the same rights as married couples, and be allowed to adopt and raise kids. And the church is either impotently flapping its arms or pushing the world's agenda. No wonder the world despises the church so much. They KNOW we are supposed to be different (Acts 5:13). Where is the enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent? We have let the devil himself into our church. This sodomite thing is but one manifestation of this. We use the world's methods, the world's music, adopt the world's culture. I thought we were supposed to go into the world and turn it upside down? The opposite is happening and we are here arguing about baptism etc.
Icon O'Clast wrote: I just listened to a sermon called "Circumcision the Forerunner of Baptism" by Prof Dr Henry Krabbendam. I challenge you to listen to that sermon with a dry eye and remain unconvinced of the fact that Baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant as Circumcision was of the Old. Have a listen - really listen! I implore you.
I listen to all Krabbendam's stuff. He is a preacher without peer when it comes to expounding and explaining the Scriptures. I heard him lecture when I was a theology student and still listen to those lecture tapes. This sermon on Baptism gives insights and angles on the Sacraments that make you sit up and take notice.
JD wrote: Which of you will present a single verse where a man of the OT is called a son of God? Where will you point me to prove the OT believers were born of the Spirit?
Lk 3:38 calls Adam the son of God. In Genesis Adam's descendants are called sons of God. Also can not be a believer without the Spirit of God. OT believers were born in sin and could not be believers unless they were regenerated. Many believed they were saved just because they were Jews, just like many today think they are saved because of their church affiliation. That is why Jesus had to sort out Nicodemus. But if regeneration was unknown in the OT Christ's response to Nicodemus' question would have been different. To say that OT believers were not regenerated, justified and sanctified same as NT believers is to nullify Scripture.
Discerning Believer wrote: Mr. J. He said it, I didn't. His smug remarks about JD holding to the KJV 1611 while he held to the writers of theReformed Confessions. Personally, I lean to the LBCF, but my positions stated here are backed up from scripture, not theologians. At least you have provided many good arguments and willing to back them up with scripture. I have a lot more respect for someone like you than many of the others who don't know why they believe what they believe.
DB, thanks for your post and for clarifying your position. I retract my words about your attack on Minnow. Although I am sure the man believes the Scriptures with all his heart and only sees in the Reformed theologians what he believes the Bible teaches. I have yet to see JD give anything unrefutable, especially re immersion. His proposition regarding Hebrews being in an interim or probationary period is ludicrous. The Bible nowhere talks about an interim period. It does however clearly align baptism with purification as to the mode, and to circumcision as to the meaning. I understand and empathise with Baptist theology, being an exbaptist. But I despise the lies of Arminian Dispensationalism. Nothing has done so much to undermine the integrity of Scripture.
KK wrote: βάπτω - baptō - A primary verb; TO WHELM, that is, *** COVER WHOLLY *** with a fluid; Good enough ??? Veritas Vincit !!! With Love "IN" Christ, KK
Only good enough if you are a baptist and only read baptist literature. Strong wrote a great concordance, but did not escape his baptist bias. As stated before, independent linguistic analasys has proven that the word has many meanings and immerse is only one and not even one of the more common ones. DB - your attack on Minnow is low - especially where you accuse him of placing theologians above Scripture. JD - you have once again proven how ridiculous, unScriptural and insulting to God Dispensationalism is. The Jeremiah promise is for the church, not just for the Israelites. The whole OT is a verification of what the OT promised, starting with songs of Zecheriah and Maria and ending with Rev which is full of OT typology. All OT is for the church (Lk16:31; 24:27; II Tim 3:15,16). All NT theological arguments are substantianted and supported by OT Scripture. Paul ties himself into knots to prove that the church and Israel are one entity. Minnow gets accused of putting Theologians before Scripture. You put Scofield before Scripture, and he wasn't even
Bernard wrote: Sounds like a pseudonym. Google it, and you'll see many people have used it.
You could be right. And I have been calling him 'Icon' as if that is his Christian name and O'Clast his surname. An iconoclast, according to the Oxoford, is a person who attacks cherished beliefs. Well, it fits him. Wonder what he has to say about it.
JD - twisting talk about hate or love less does not take away the whole argument of Romans 9 and Paul answers all your objections in that passage. Mike - Icon only showed that in our zeal to show the love of God we often neglect the righteousness and holy wrath of God. And then we start creating our own "Scripture verses" which become accepted by their common usage despite the fact they are not true. "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", "Invite Jesus into your heart" etc. These are not from the Bible and actually contradict Biblical teaching. God is love, but you cannot be love unless you are also hate. I cannot love children without hating peadophiles. If you diminish hell you diminish heaven. Comprende? Michael - you are right in what you say. Our desire to prove God's Sovereignty in these things should not obscure God's statements regarding the universal call of the gospel and Jesus' command to preach the good news without discrimination. Only God knows what is wheat or tares, who are goats or sheep. He tells us these things so we may be assured of success and blessing in our labours, because the wheat is ready for harvest and the sheep are out there. Chapter 2 Article 5 of the Dort Canons support this wholeheartedly. Thank you for reminding us of this.
JD - once again you reject and refuse to answer a Scriptural case and come up with a seriously flawed argument. Aenon is pural or fountains or springs and the Greek much water (hudata polla) does not mean one body of water but many springs or fountains. These were springs trickling through marshy meadows on their way to the Jordan. And why did John leave the Jordan to go to this place? Because when the Jordan flooded it became filthy and made it impossible to fulfill the law regarding purification by using clean water. Once again your argument is seriously flawed and you get zero debating points. Also you have not answered the Hebrews 9 challenge. Diverse of different kinds of immersions is not possible, but different kinds of sprinklings or effusions are, and Hebrews specifically mentions them. See again Heb 9:13 as found in Num19:17-18; Heb 9:19 in Ex 24:6,8' and Heb 9:21 in Lev 8:19; 16:14. Also your Aenon passage mentions a dispute regarding purification and the dialogue shows that this had to do with baptism. So the argument that NT Baptism has no connection to OT purification is void. And it must be void because there was no religious freedom in those days. You couldn't just start immersing people with no Scriptural warrant. They would cane you for that. Should happen now.
Michael Hranek wrote: Mr. J And seeing the future God knew before hand of the inexcusable evil Esau would do. And hopefully humbling for us is that God seeing the future could see that it is only through His Son Jesus Christ that we can live holy and pleasing to Him and may His grace to us in Christ overwhelm us with gratitude that we may serve Him with joy for the abundance of all things.
Sorry mate, but you are way out wrong there. God is not someone who looks into the future or predicts the future. He has determined the future. The future is not some chance occurance and God is not a soothsayer or fortune teller. The Bible says that He has DECLARED the end from the beginning. Esau was a vessel fitted for destruction. God is the one who makes the vessels. They are not identical vessels whose future God can predict. God said of Pharaoh, that He had raised him up specifically for His purpose. God decrees, He determines, He does not predict. It is because He has determined the future that He can tell us that ALL things work together for good to those who love Him, to those who are the called according to His purpose. If He did not control all things He could not make that promise and we would have no assurance.
Michael Hranek wrote: Mr. J Speaking of baptism immersion versus sprinkling it is interesting to use those words in place of the word Baptism in the NT. Baptized into Christ for instance holds much clearer meaning of being immersed actually put into Christ and Jesus Himself speaks of believers being in Him whereas sprinkled into Christ doesn't make sense.
It is the operation of the Holy Spirit which is pictured in Baptism. It is through regeneration that you become part of the body of Christ, part of all He accomplished. This is through the operation of the Spirit, this is the true baptism. It is not a picture of what Christ did, we have that picture in Communion. Baptism with water is a picture of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. You are not placed into the Spirit, you are not immersed into the Spirit, the Spirit comes upon you like pouring water.
israeltheou wrote: It is through the Resurrection that Jesus was transformed again to spirit, whereupon he received from the Father the attributes he previously laid aside; consider John 12:16 & 23, John 17:5, Acts 2:32-33, Acts 3:11, Acts 5:30-31, Philippians 2:9.
You can't be serious? You are saying that Jesus did not literally and physically rise from the dead? Please be more specific, for I smell a heresy.
Well said Bernard! All a confession does is explain what your beliefs are, ie, what you believe the Bible teaches. All a catechism does is teach that confession. Having a confession is not the problem in the church today. The problem is that so few adhere to the confessions they profess to uphold.
israeltheou wrote: (1) The term "name" connotes the entirety of the person, including his character and attributes. Thus, Abraham, whom the Lord calls his friend, knew perfectly well the name of the Lord. Contrary to the misinformed assertions of the "Yahweh", etc. crowd, there is nothing mystical in the spelling or pronunciation of the "name" of God. (2) I trust that you realize that all this is POSITIONAL -- that is, certain by virtue of decree or promise -- but that at the present date, Christ Jesus alone has been raised from the dead and has ascended into Heaven. Even David still is in the grave, Acts 2:29.
Firstly - I was referring to the Name of Jesus, not the Name of God (John8:56). Secondly - David's body may still be in the grave, but his soul is in heaven. As the Psalmist said, "You will guide me with Your counsel, and afterward receive me to glory." We will none of us be resurrected as Christ was, till the second resurrection; the first being our regeneration when we were raised from spiritual death. But in a sense we are now already in Christ, in heaven (Eph 2:1-10; Col 3:1-4)