John UK wrote: Their aim, Mike is to provide the world with the best possible scriptures. Their ongoing translation work on behalf of other countries takes into account the language in current use. If the NKJV had excelled the AV in its translation, then maybe the organisation would indeed have ceased producing the AV in favour of the NKJV. But it is a plain fact that 100 different translations of the Bible in English from 1881 to the present day have never come close to bettering the AV, which is why they are committed to it. Does it not strike you as odd that 'modern scholarship' cannot improve on the AV? Or at least have not done so yet? And while I'm at it, why is it that if the AV is defective only in its use of archaic language, why has no-one yet produced ONE BIBLE where the only changes are to these archaic words? If you can answer this question, you have sussed out the wiles.
The Defined King James Bible explains all archaisms and also has a grammar guide.
Presbyfacts wrote: = Not a decision! Because of sin it is a state of being, requiring divine action first. 1Cor 2:14 There you are you see. As plain as the nose on your face - Arminian type defence as experienced at Dordt. Told you there is NO third way. Only Two ways. God is either ALL Sovereign OR Man is given some kind of access by some "doctrinal" means or other.
Can anyone translate this drivel please?
Is anyone else getting tired of this guy's shoot and run tactics?
This is no meaningful dialogue. It's a waste of time!
Hey PF, thanks for participating BUT if you have more facts, why don't you keep them to yourself. I for one would be more edified by your silence.
Mike wrote: Unfortunately, there are "history" books that can tell us what we want to believe. I guess we can have itching eyes as well as ears. Thus we must in the first place rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal truth in the Scripture we read, and rely less on our assumptions about it.
That begs the question of whether we have the Scripture in the first place!
Presbyfacts wrote: 2] Unconditional Election - God perceives nothing in all mortals worthy of saving.
Addenda to my previous on this point.
Why would God command us to love others as we love ourselves? To place a value on them equal to that we place on ourselves? Do you suppose that God is like the Pharisees and commands men to do something that he cannot or will not do Himself? And if he so commands, does that not mean that he places value upon them?
Presbyfacts wrote: 5] Perseverence - God brings the elect sinner to heaven from start to finish.?
The doctrine is called "perseverence" viz. something that man does!! You're so silly! That is not to cut God out, but the emphasis in the word is on something man does!
John UK wrote: #5 God preserves his chosen, ...
John, why do you suppose that the doctrine is entitled "perseverance" instead of "preservation" as you termed it? Surely the calvinists must have had an off day, leaving the idea of human effort in a part of the salvation process and thereby risking that God may not get all the glory!
John UK wrote: Good morning Biblicist I think you'll find that FR is referring more to the catechisms in both the RCC and WCF, which force little lost sinners to embrace the doctrine of the trinity before they can even think of applying to God for salvation. The truth is that a sinner can apply to Christ Jesus, believing that he is the Son of God, without understanding that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are co-equal and co-eternal. After all, this is deep theology which takes time to get to grips with, and then we don't really comprehend it. Hope this alleviates your concern. Or has it increased it?
Good day to you John UK.
What you say may be true of FR's intention in posting what he/she did, but it hardly explains the words "...holding a different view of the Godhead besides the Trinity" !! These words suggest that there is a settled view arrived at which differs from the confessional Trinitarian doctrine.
Faithful Remnant wrote: As for vestiges of RCC, we can include the doctrine of the Trinity imposed on virtually all believers, Catholic or not, with threat of damnation for holding a different view of the Godhead besides the Trinity.
savedbygrace wrote: Biblicist, Your last post is right on. Dr. Malone, in his book: "The Baptism of Disciples Alone - A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism", states that their infant baptism, "is a defective use of inference(or good and necessary consequence). He gives Andrew Sandlin as an example, who states that "good and necessary consequence"..."ALWAYS is as binding as Scripture itself!" pg. 21 "Thus, such an absolute, unqualified statement by Sandlin takes a decisive step toward the Roman Catholic position that theological inference and church tradition are a authoritative as Scripture itself..."
Thank you SBG for bringing this up. I was going to mention it myself in a previous post, but space is so limited in these postings.
The "good and necessary consequences" (G&NC) phrase is embedded in the Presby. confessions of faith and they do not hesitate to use this as a licence to import their Romish views into the Scriptures. Which is why they can see things in a text which just are not there. So their G&NC allows them to read into Acts 2:38,39 the supposed abiding Abrahamic covenant with the children of believers!!
It beggars belief that they think they are handling the Word of God aright!
Faithful Remnant wrote: Pouring or falling of a substance is a legitimate baptism, Biblicist(See Acts 11:15,16)... household baptisms.. many households include infants and the promise of the Holy Spirit is for our children(Acts 2:38,39).
You asked me a while back to deal with the day of Pentecost and I replied 7/10/09 7:10 PM. Since Acts 11.15,16 states that, "..the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning" then the reference is back to Acts 2. So my prev. reply stands.
Re: household baptisms - how dare you are a professed Christian take such liberties with the Word of God! Where the scriptures are silent, you dare not draw conclusions that may suit your purpose, but which do violence to the text. If you want to prove to me from those scriptures that they invariably included babies, then by all means let's see your homework. But, if we are going to be silly about this, I could also say that most households have pets of the furry variety. Maybe they too were baptised.
Re: Acts 2.38,39 the promise is very clearly stated in verse 38. The promised blessings are the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, these would only be granted upon repentance!! So how exactly does a baby repent? Is there a special cry of remorse
Maria Fung wrote: Unfortunately, even many of UK's mainstream churches are not preaching biblical doctrines but adopting post-modern ideals alongside the Bible. I'm not surprised that the Christians here refuse to attend the mainstream churches because biblical churches are so few, and in some areas, non-existent.There is so much cultural, political and intellectual persecution against Christians here, and it's time we see that persecution doesn't just happen in poor or developing countries.
Where do you worship? (If you don't mind me asking.)
Presbyfacts wrote: Try and remember that we are not Roman Catholics...Sacrament-baptism is a SIGN not actual grace! So don't be afraid of the word Sacrament. Thats why we call it "sign and seal" of the Covenant.
The Reformers were Roman Catholic before the Reformation. The issue is did they go far enough in the Reformation? Did they discard all vestiges of Romanism?
In the case of Infant Baptism, though they pay lip service to it being a sign and a seal, they retained the word "sacrament" to describe the rite (The meaning of the word had long been established by the schoolmen), and since infants cannot exercise faith, any virtue received by them from this rite has to be mechanical, and therefore "sacrament" is the correct terminology for it!
They also retained the RC sacral view of society, "infant" baptism (as a result of this sacral view) and sprinkling as the mode, which are all Roman practices with no support in the Scriptures!
You can bleat all you want, but the idea of the covenant with Abraham, and covenant children etc was a late innovation to try and justify the retention of the rite as Rome practised it, in the face of mounting criticisms from the Anabaptists and other groups in the radical reformation.
Jim Lincoln wrote: It's time that English preachers stop trying to be Shakespearean actors, and use a good English version such as above in their church services. Of course they should also realize to use [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/CISv2n2-1.htm]]]Expository Preaching in a Postmodern World[/URL].
You're beginning to sound like a record, and a linguistically challenged one at that!
Presbyfacts wrote: You really should not LIE to achieve your ends. Satan is the father of lies. It would be a far more Christian witness if you didn't fully understand a word or concept to either leave it to others or ask! If you want to win friends and influence Christians then lying is not the way. In point of fact it is more YOUR type of Arminian influence to believe in a "mechanical" transmission of grace.
I cannot help it if you are ignorant, but if you wish to be educated then I am more than happy to provide it to you Gratis. Just ask nicely next time.
As for the meaning of the word, the schoolmen were responsible for defining it ages before the Reformation and you will find it at this link:
[URL=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xvi.ii.html]]] The Sacramental Controversy by Philip Schaff [/URL]
In particular I would refer you to the paragraph that commences with the words, "In defining what a sacrament is...."
You might want to brush up on Church History, before writing again.
You notice that PF (facts indeed. cough!) does not cite his source. Do you suppose a Presby. wrote the dictionary? Even if it was plagiarised from Roman sources!!
Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only abiding ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world, and are to be observed in every particular as delivered.
These ordinances are newly appointed in the New Testament and are not, as some claim, the replacement of the Old Testament passover feast and circumcision.
These ordinances do not in and of themselves convey grace to the receipient, and hence we do not call them "sacraments".
The ordinances are to be received by faith in order for them to be efficacious.
The ordinances may only be observed by Christ's people, and then only by such as walk uprightly, and not by those who continue to walk in known sin.
John this is only a very quick stab at it. I am sure this can be improved.
John UK wrote: Hi Steve Well there are but two sacraments in the church: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and they both ought to be accomplished in a biblical manner - as some of the Baptists (and Brethren) do.
John! I'm surprised at you.
Baptist do not believe in sacraments! We believe in ordinances.
The difference is that "sacrament" conveys the notion that grace is mechanically transmitted to the person taking the sacrament.
Baptists do not believe this. The ordinances only convey grace in so far as they are received by faith!
Here endeth the lesson.
Fear not. I am equally "picky" about the Lord's supper, and any other deviation from Biblical doctrine and practice!
The Presbyterians can celebrate the feast of Booths without booths, but if we read in the law that it must be celebrated with Booths, we do not cavil at it. We heartily repent and fall in with God's instructions. They can quack all they like about the regulative principle, but in practice they deny it!
SteveR wrote: My satirical meaning was rather we shouldnt be so divisive in one sacrament(Ordinance), when we clearly dont hold the same standards in our own Churches for the Supper.
You don't? Well, well!
Seriously Steve, the symbolism of the Lord's supper is very easy to understand and to implement. The elements are the elements and after duly examining ourselves we are commanded is to eat and drink in remembrance of our Lord.
I agree that we should follow the rite are Christ performed it. So yes the bread should be broken and then divided and there should be a common cup which is passed around.
As for the question of wine or juice, I know where I stand. But, I am not going to open that can of worms on this occasion. There is enough to refute on the Baptism question!
Oops! There go another 3,000 babies from the congregation.
SteveR wrote: I see we are stuck on the ole immersion vs sprinkling debate. Maybe we should move on to the breaking of bread as the issue leading kids away? 1) How big of a piece of bread should be given? Does a thimbel full make a Supper? 2) How about all those pre knife cut pieces-do they count? or worse, pre made wafers? 3) How about a grape juice vs wine debate? 4) Or my favorite. Why do we celebrate the ordinance with such bad wine in so many Churches?
You forgot "how often"?
We use roast Pig and Gravy.
As for bad wine - must be Prebyterian!
Agreed, that SA should have forums to discuss these specific issues so that they do not clutter the news forums.
John UK wrote: As history states the Reformers sprinkled babies. The only different group was Baptists and they knew that the Reformers were in grave error on this subject of baby baptisms/covenant children.
But John, what about the 3,000 babies on the day of Pentecost?
You need to have Presby. eyes to see this. You are just LACKING my man!
Presbyfacts wrote: "Arguments for immersion are that Christ and the Apostles used this mode as seen by the example of the ancient church. "Baptize" often refers to immersion and there seems to be a more full likeness between the sign and the thing signified in immersion.
So far so good. The practice of the early church is not disputed but plainly stated to be immersion and the man is thinking Biblically. But...wait for it! The semi-Romanising of the rite for the children!!
Presbyfacts wrote: In terms of those who sprinkle, the example of the three thousand (Acts 2:41) in one day and of Cornelius, Lydia, and the jailer exclude the possibility of immersion.
How so? No scriptural proof offered. We just have the man's word for it, and this is based on the supposed impossibility of the thing!! Ha!
Presbyfacts wrote: "Baptize" can refer to sprinkling or pouring linguistically.
No it cannot. In his own words "".. the native signification of the words baptein and baptizein is to plunge, to dip." Mr Witsius being a good Presby. wants to change the rite!!