Mike wrote:
Sounds like you would have a sinner get born again of the Spirit, then somewhere down the road get him saved.

John UK wrote:
2. Verse 5 doesn't even mention faith. It only says what God did. It says that God made us alive when we were dead. Unless you understand the effects of the fall, you will never comprehend what God does in quickening.
[snip]

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive [suzwopoieÑw] together with Christ – by grace you have been saved – and raised us up [sunegeiðrw] with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus….” (Ephesians 2:4-6)

with

“..... having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised [sunegeiðrw] with him ###through faith### in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive [suzwopoieÑw] together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses….” (Col 2)

Question:
How were we made alive, or raised with Him?

"Regeneration is the origination of life. . . .The influence of the Spirit is distinguishable from that of the truth; from that of man upon man; and from that of any instrument or means whatever. His energy acts DIRECTLY upon the human soul itself. . . . That the influence of the Holy Spirit is directly upon the human spirit, and is INDEPENDENT EVEN OF THE WORD ITSELF . . . God operates directly upon man . . . The appointed means of grace are the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. NONE OF THESE MEANS ARE USED in the instant of regeneration . . . regeneration is a DIRECT OPERATION of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit. . . . Regeneration is NOT EFFECTED by the use of means. . . . the Word of truth is a means of conversion, because REGENERATION HAS PRECEDED, and has imparted spiritual life to the soul." (Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, pages 494-507).

John UK wrote:
It's more complicated than that John.
[snip]Regeneration is different, separate.

So how do the verses you have cited prove that this is different, separate?

John UK wrote:
[snip]
Ephesians 2:4-5 KJV
4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)

I don't know how you interpret this text, but it is clear to me that "quickening" is required because we are "dead". And the dead don't do anything. They need resurrecting, and sinners need that firstly before anything else.

"...the baptism of infants, with that of the sick and the dying, originated in a belief of the saving efficacy of the ordinance. Thus the unscriptural device of infant baptism grew out of the false dogma of baptismal regeneration. A dogma as pernicious as possible, and as repugnant to common sense, as it is to the Bible ; but one to which the advocates of pedobaptism have ever clung."

Presby wrote:
John; Do you honestly think that baptism has more power than God
blah..

Mode: Immersion only. Sprinkling did not come about until the 3rd century after Christ and was frowned upon even then .. gradually won ground, but immersion was still the default mode for many years yet. This innovation was nonetheless a corruption!

Subjects: Believers only, and hence not babies! Augustine of Hippo was the first to advocate infant baptism as he believed that Baptism removed the guilt and stain of sins. He had a rather strange belief that infants should be viewed as believers, and this because while advocating infant baptism he also acknowleged that baptism should only be administered to believers!

Reason for Baptism: As a testimony by one who has been saved of the inward work of the Holy Spirit. The person has died with Christ and risen again with Him in conversion. Baptism therefore has no efficacy - it is merely a sign of an inward work in genuine believers! So none of your alleged Baptismal Regeneration.

Presby wrote:
John; Do you honestly think that baptism has more power than God, Christ and the Holy Spirit in church building? This is the implication of the "Bob" and his McGlothlin post below.
History records that paedo baptism has been used by God to effectively build His Church for millennia.
Whereas deep water combined with Arminian style confession basis baptism only arrived in the 16th century. AND definitely has not built a "perfect" church which "Bob" implies.
Simple logic demonstrates that fact.
"Bob" quote; "the open door through which the unregenerate world flooded into the Church and finally overwhelmed it"- Ever heard of sin? Ever read "there are none righteous not even one"?? Have you Baptists found out yet that this is a fallen world? God Christ and the Holy Spirit build the Church in a fallen world, they save "sinners"
NOT BY BAPTISM!!!
Baptismal regeneration doesn't work. Got that?
Christ did not die upon the cross FOR BAPTISM. The human ceremony of deep water and verbal confession does NOT CAUSE REGENERATION.
Or are you Baptists closet Roman Catholics???

More ignorant ranting!

Incorrect on all counts.

Presby wrote:
What a sad and extremely naive and immature unBiblical statement. Again we see the rejection of Scripture.
If this is the best of Baptist theology on the subject which they have made the 'rock' of their church, then I am not in the least surprised at the erroneous remarks made on here to support them.
Praise be to the Lord that He brought me into Biblical Calvinist Presbyterian theology to serve His Son in sound doctrines. Amen!

I doubt you have read any history books or even attempted to read the links BOB gave, but if this sort of rhetoric is the best you can produce then you should look to put your own house in order before pointing the finger.

Presby wrote:
...snip
Baptism is the sign and seal of our Covenant of Grace with God. In this respect it is the same as circumcision.
Col 2:10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism wherein also ye are risen with him...."

John UK wrote:
There is only a correct one, and that is the biblical one.

John UK wrote:
Do you mean the Presby Ordo Salutis or the Baptist Ordo Salutis or the Methodist Ordo Salutis or the Reformed Ordo Salutis?

John UK wrote:
It seems he is far more wrong than I ever would have thought possible. No wonder so many people are confused and headed down that cul-de-sac which ends in doubt.
--snip

And for you to criticize MacArthur when you have already demonstrated how careless you are in checking facts, is a little rich!

John UK wrote:
..snip
I am not a KJV-only.

John UK wrote:
I am also very willing to debate JM's awful gospel, but on a thread where that is the topic.

John UK wrote:
The church in Rugby had their pastor sent as a missionary who was financially supported from America initially. It will make an interesting discussion why it is that a dispy premillenialist felt it right to take the pastorate of a 1689 Baptist church, thus leading to the exodus of dozens of good Christian folks who felt turfed out of their own church where they had been members for many years. As far as I'm concerned, that is a disgrace, and I do not know how you could support that.

John UK wrote:
..snip
I never read any articles on KJV-onlyism ..snip

John UK wrote:
..snip
I suppose, (as I am quite willing to say that John Wesley's gospel is a dangerous legalistic gospel), I ought to restate that I believe that JM's gospel is also a dangerous legalistic gospel.
...snip

You are already guilty of posting accusations before making sure of your facts!! Are you sure you want to continue your false witness?!! You were going to take matters up with the pastor of the church. Have you done so? If not, why not?

Which of JM's works have you read to arrive at that ridiculous conclusion? What in particular does JM add to Christ to make it a legalistic gospel?

sofa pundit wrote:
...snip
I leave one more thought as I won't be online for a couple of days, so forgive my spamming the comments.
...snip

[URL=http://pastorsnew.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/metropolitan-tabernacle-school-of-theology-2010-part-ii-the-real-thing/]]]Review of SOT 2010[/URL]

I had to trawl the internet to find this. You will hopefully see that this guy has an obvious sympathy with Masters on many points and yet he feels that Masters overstates his case re: musical genre, or at least fails to make a biblical case. I was also interested to read Phil Johnson's response in the same article.

And then what about the following:

[URL=http://gracepreacher.blogspot.com/2009/06/peter-masters-firing-blanks-theres-lot.html]]] Peter Masters firing blanks [/URL]

John UK - re: KJV and inerrancy - you might like to read

new man wrote:
..snip
"O For That Day, by Enfield, is an album that seeks to set your heart and mind on the day that we will worship God perfectly in heaven forever! Released at the 2008 Resolved conference as the inaugural Resolved Music project, this is an ***indie-rock album*** that offers brand-new worship songs along with fresh arrangements of timeless hymns."
http://www.resolved.org/music/

John UK wrote:
...snip
Mister McConnell announced when he took the pastorate of this 1689 Baptist Church in Rugby, Warwickshire, England, that he was sent over to make this church his base for propagating The John McArthur message throughout the whole of the UK.
...snip
[/URL]

His statement at installation as pastor could have been unilateral! How do you know that JM sent him to do this?

As for the beliefs section, how do we know who drafted this?

John UK wrote:
...snip
... you may know about the huge mess being made by a John McArthur representative who has taken over the pastorate of a previously good 1689 church in Warwickshire. It has changed beyond recognition, and the last I heard (people are so upset by the goings on that it is difficult to get them to talk) is that this American pastor had begun to introduce Jewish Passover celebrations.
MacArthur's teaching has reduced some folks to tears and made them spiritually depressed. And I'm not talking about sinners, but God's saints, truly born again and following the Lord.
....snip

John UK wrote:
...snip
The reason this issue is so important to get right is because the gospel is at stake here. The Spirit will ALWAYS glorify CHRIST, and if you take the time to study how the modern versions are pushing God down and elevating man up, you will see this issue as a primary issue.
I realise that premillenialists and dispensatonalists and immersion-onlies and hymnists have their wrong interpretations, but hey, what is that to getting the gospel wrong and preaching a salvation by works!

What about James White? Another man who does fantastic work defending the gospel against all comers. Is he also animated by another spirit?

John UK wrote:
snip
Truth be told Leo, there is nothing proveable when it comes to translations of the Bible; we need and are vouchsafed the assistance of the Spirit in these things. Scholars can help a bit, but the Bible's author is the best.