convicted1
Guest
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
FYI on Hyper-Calvinism:
- Thread starter 12strings
- Start date
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
It's not just 'other Baptists' that hold to 'external means regeneration', it's every other denomination out there that holds to it. You 'other Baptists' are indistinguishable from the Lutherans or Methodists or Catholics or JWs or COC, etc., in that regard.
Excerpts from: Christ The Only Mediator, by Elder Michael Gowens
"The shortcomings of the label “anti-means” notwithstanding, it still expresses a fundamental point of distinction between Primitive Baptist theology and popular ideas. We believe this issue is crucial, not peripheral, to the integrity of the gospel. Is the Lord Jesus Christ the one and only mediator (i.e. means, medium, instrument) of salvation, or is salvation mediated through the agency of gospel preaching, the sinner’s exercise of faith and repentance, or participation in the sacraments? Is Christ or the “church” the medium of eternal life? That was the root theological issue behind the Primitive/Missionary division, and it is still a question of no small importance to Christian orthodoxy."
"This debate over whether or not the church functions in a redemptive or pastoral role goes back as far as the third century. Cyprian’s famous dictum, Extra ecclesiam nulla salus – “There is no salvation outside the church” – identifies the logical basis of the “means of grace” position. Those who argue that eternal life is mediated through the Christian gospel and/or Christian ordinances are reasoning from the premise that the church is a redemptive institution."
"Today, Primitive Baptists are virtually a lone voice in their insistence that the “external means of grace” position is fraught with inconsistencies. Do we deny that the Bible teaches “means” for discipleship? No, we affirm that it does, but deny that it teaches that “grace”, i.e. the salvific benefits of redemption, is communicated to individual sinners by any other agency than the direct work of the Holy Spirit (Jno. 6:45).
What do Primitive Baptists believe regarding the means of salvation? We believe that Christ himself, through His work on the cross, is the “one Mediator between God and men”. Salvation is mediated through Christ alone."
Last edited by a moderator:
David Lamb
Well-Known Member
I wasn't referring to "Saeson" - I think it's a Welsh word for "Englishmen", like the Scots Gaelic "Sassenach". There are Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and many other countries, including America!
No, I was referring to those Anglican churches in any country that tend towards Roman Catholicism in belief and practice. In such Anglican churches, the minister is probably referred to as "Father So-and-so", the Lord's Supper is called "The Eucharist", or even the Mass, and so on. The phrase "high church" here refers exclusively to such Anglican churches as that, whether those churches are in England, Wales, or any other country.
But I suspect I may be falling into the trap of taking your post too seriously.
I wasn't referring to "Saeson" - I think it's a Welsh word for "Englishmen", like the Scots Gaelic "Sassenach". There are Anglican churches in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and many other countries, including America!
No, I was referring to those Anglican churches in any country that tend towards Roman Catholicism in belief and practice. In such Anglican churches, the minister is probably referred to as "Father So-and-so", the Lord's Supper is called "The Eucharist", or even the Mass, and so on. The phrase "high church" here refers exclusively to such Anglican churches as that, whether those churches are in England, Wales, or any other country.
But I suspect I may be falling into the trap of taking your post too seriously.
LOL.... oh no David....your one of the good ones & I lay no traps. Plus I am aware of what a high church is having been raised up in them. I also laughed when Steve got caught up in that nonsense. have a blessed day. :thumbs:
Old Union Brother
New Member
Kyredneck posted:
I'm an ORB not PB but I can say a hearty amen to this. No two legged preacher lead me to Christ it was God that led me on a travel of repentence. God calls, God leads, God teaches a man or woman how to pray , and in the end God saves.
I'm an ORB not PB but I can say a hearty amen to this. No two legged preacher lead me to Christ it was God that led me on a travel of repentence. God calls, God leads, God teaches a man or woman how to pray , and in the end God saves.
Amen Brother Amen :jesus:
Hold on there a moment, chum. Lumping Baptists, Reformed ones anyway, in with Romanists and JWs is a gross libel.
The Five Solas of the Reformation were
Christ alone
Grace alone
Faith alone
The Scriptures alone
To the Glory of God alone
No 'The Church alone' in that lot.
It is certainly Christ alone who saves, but 'It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe' (1 Cor 1:21). Then we're back to Romans 10:14.
The church saves no one, preaching saves no one, but most people will be saved after hearing the word preached, often in a church.
Steve
Well now......you got brass there boyo, I like that & you should take exception. Must be the Welsh in ya....blood will out! :laugh: BTW, in the USA, chum is something you fish with.
Last edited by a moderator:
Your
saying this is the primary way a person gets saved? Really? Arent you conflicting with Steves commentary above?"It is certainly Christ alone who saves, but 'It pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe' (1 Cor 1:21)."
Last edited by a moderator:
So when do you begin believing Steve?
OK, this is just snideness. In the box you go. Only one other person in there so you will have plenty of room. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but it was wasted on you.
Thank you for this comment, David. This seems to be the case indeed.
In order to understand the British slant on "High Church" I tried to access Steve's site but it is blocked here. But I think that the range of meaning is more limited and particular in the UK than I meant it.
ROFL......look there is this great feature called "IGNORE" ....perhaps you should use it......tooooo funny!
Chum. What does that mean in English? I percieve it's definitely not 'brother'.
No, it's not. As the rest, so are you. Your theology demands that the Spirit does not blow where He wills, He can only go where you, the preacher, carries Him. All other denominations believe that also.
This is incoherent, but typical of the Reformed camp. You've 'gone to seed' with the word 'alone'. Make sense of all these 'alones' to me.
Show 'saved' to be synonymous with the birth from above.
Put it in context, include the 18th verse.
????? You lost me there.
Well, if it makes you happy to call me these things, carry on. I've been called a lot worse with more justification :laugh:asterisktom said:
I have no problem at all finding not 'views' but Scripture against hyper-preterism. I have posted some meaty chunks on this very thread and I can't help noticing that you haven't responded to any of them. Nor have you explained away 2 Tim 3 which you promised to do. Come on! Shape up like a man and defend your position instead of calling people silly names.
Steve
'Friend' or perhaps 'buddy.'
Unfortunately you don't know what you're talking about. I know nothing about Primitive Baptists because there are none in Britain so I refrain from making comments about them. That is a practice you might do well to follow.
OK.
Christ alone. It is Christ alone who saves by His perfect obedience to His father's will and His blood shed upon the cross.
Grace Alone. Our salvation is purely by the grace of God. There is nothing in us to merit salvation. We are 'By nature children of wrath.'
Faith Alone. Our works cannot save us, only our God-given (Eph 2:8) faith.
The Scriptures Alone. The way of salvation is laid down in the Holy Scriptures. There is no other place to look to find out how to be saved.
To the Glory of God Alone. We do not glorify ourselves by believing, nor by performing the good deeds that God prepared in advance for us. All the glory belongs to Him. Read 1 Chron 29:10-12.
I never said it was. But no one gets saved without being born again (or 'from above' John 3:3; 2 Cor 5:17) and vice versa.
You cannot use Rom 10:18 to negate vs 14-17. V18 is prophetic perspective. Many people hear the word of God and reject it as did most Jews in the 1st Century.
Well try harder. It's not difficult. I've done enough explaining for one post.
Steve
Oh no! An attack on my manhood. Oh wait, it is just that crozier-swinging traditionalist. [Edit: Tit-for-tat humour. I know you do not have a crozier.]
No doubt you will see this as evasion, but I want to write some more on this "last days" business.
Concerning this phrase Gill makes this helpful comment:
" the Jews generally understand by this phrase ["the last days"], when used in the Old Testament, the days of the Messiah; and which are the last days of the world, in comparison of the times before the law, from Adam to Moses, and under the law, from thence to Christ; and even in the times of the apostles, at least towards the close of them, great numbers of men rose up under the Christian name, to whom the following characters well agree,"
However, then Gill goes on to make, IMO, unwarranted applications to more modern times seeing, for instance, the "man of sin" as being connected with the Roman Catholic Church.
You think that I being "silly". As long as I am being silly, let me show you a cool doodle that I came up with:
- - - - - - - - x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
<- Not Last Days - >< - L A S T D A Y S - >
We have seven lines and twenty X's. Assuming, for the sake of neatness, that Isaiah's book was written in 700BC and going on, first, to the time of Christ's Incarnation we have seven centuries. These are marked by the lines. After this time we have, according to you, an incredibly long period that we are to believe is the "last days". This is shown by those long line of twenty X's.
So we have roughly three-fourths of history from the time of Isaiah's to our time that are the last days. Think about it. This is stretching language w-a-a-a-y beyond the breaking point. And I assume that you also are going to tell me that nineteen of those X's stand for John's "last hour".
So you believe that three-fourths of history, from the time of Isaiah's prophecy to ours is all "last days". This - if you weren't so trained to see it otherwise by your tradition - would strike you as a great incongruity. But tradition conditions you not to see this, not to even notice the incongruity of assigning two millennia to "last days" and "last hour". But you have to be, as that wonderful song goes, "carefully taught".
(I am just waiting for you to trot out that misused, overused single verse rejoinder. You know the one I mean.)
My whole purpose for mentioning those three OT "last day" passages was to supply something that, in your commentary, is lacking: A sense of Scriptural and historical context for Paul's teaching of "Last Days".
And, yes, I will get around to "explaining away" that particular passage, but I need first to look up again what exactly you challenged me with (This is currently written away from my online source). I remember it was something - again - that you postulated about my Preterism and you wanted me to defend something that I never said. But when I get online I will take a look at it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yea, ya got no stones & your mother smells like Limburger cheese. :laugh: :tongue3:
preacher4truth
Active Member
*tom, lose the snideness and name calling as requested by others. OK? It goes much further than your feigned superior theological acumen.
You've been asked to use theological soundness, yet to date you've failed in that endeavor.
It reminds me of you telling others that observing the Lords Supper was not about waiting or contemplating His return, then when proven incorrect, with Scripture, which is the norm when rebutting your positions, you turned cynical and acted facetious.
Stop pretending.
In other words man up and Christian up.
You've been asked to use theological soundness, yet to date you've failed in that endeavor.
It reminds me of you telling others that observing the Lords Supper was not about waiting or contemplating His return, then when proven incorrect, with Scripture, which is the norm when rebutting your positions, you turned cynical and acted facetious.
Stop pretending.
In other words man up and Christian up.
Nursing an old grudge are we, preacher4truth?
If I were truly all those things you said I am don't you think I am in God's hands, and that He will deal with me? Hmm. I am content with that.
Either show me specifics where I "turned cynical and acted facetiously" or hold off on your scurrility.
"Feigned" and "pretending"? Those are judgment calls that I, for one, would be very hesitant to use on a brother or sister in Christ. Shouldn't you?
Last edited by a moderator: