"just" calvinist

[J.D.]

No. I believe only a few have even considered my admittedly dispensational interpretation of the Mt 13 parables. But I find that it is the only interpretation that fits all 11 of them. In the first 4 parables* (Mt 13:3-8), what kind of seed was the "sower" sowing? It becomes clear in 13:25 that a) it is wheat and b) that since Moses, Israel has "slept" whilest the devil sowed tares into Israel.

Then Jesus interjects something totally "out of the blue" -- the "mustard tree," the church. It is similar in that there is apostacy in it -- the "birds of the air"/"wicked ones" find lodging in it. It is also notable that it totally disappears from the discourse (as by being taken out of the timeline).

But in the 6th parable, the "woman" and the "leaven," we see something very interesting. What is the purpose of growing "wheat?" To make flour, right? But this is called "meal." Why? IMO, it is because the mix is "wheat" and something else -- say "barley" which represents the Gentiles (likely the "left behind" apostate church -- Laodicea at least!).

There's been a "false harvest" here, hasn't there! Something make to look like Rev 14:15-19 but conducted by the "woman"/false Christ.

Well, the last 4 parables showing judgments apply to the 7th dispensation -- the kingdom of Christ. When He returns, He will judge the living "wheat and tares" (Israel), the dead "treasure" (OT Israel whom He found when He first came), the dead "pearl" (from the sea of believing but dead trib Gentiles) and the fish (living Gentiles) -- likely in that order.

* In order, the wayside is Adam -- the shallow ground, Adam to Noah -- the thorny ground, Noah to Abraham -- the good ground, Abraham to Moses. If you are familiar with the dispensations, you'll see that innocence failed at the tree -- conscience failed at Cain -- human government failed at Babel -- family failed at Egypt and but the purpose of God has always been to call and bless a people unto Himself like Israel or the church.


No. that was just a general observation regarding rip meaning that he is unable to consider anything that he senses might "upset the applecart." :laugh:

skypair

SP, I haven't read the entire thread but it seems to me that you're equating Calvinism with non-dispensational theology. You need to separate them out, because they are not as firmly connected as you would make them. There are plenty of dispensational Calvinists around - several on BB as a matter of fact - and there are plenty of non-Calvinist Covenantalists around also - think Methodists, Lutherans...there's more.

 

[Jerome]

That sounds very odd to me, as I know the words "reformed baptist" are used in America to mean what they mean here.

Yes, in recent decades, the name "Reformed Baptist" has been applied to Baptist churches that emphasize Dortian soteriology and generally favor Presbyterian concepts like elder rule and covenant theology(in other words, a hybrid of Baptist and Presbyterian).
A half century ago, "Reformed Baptist" described something quite different. After that Arminian group merged into the Wesleyan Church, the name "Reformed Baptist" eventually came to describe churches like Ernest Reisinger's home church in Carlisle, Pennsylvania and many other Baptist churches who embraced the Reformed theology trend.
I was inquiring whether the term was likewise a recent innovation in the UK.

 

[skypair]

SP, I haven't read the entire thread but it seems to me that you're equating Calvinism with non-dispensational theology. You need to separate them out, because they are not as firmly connected as you would make them. There are plenty of dispensational Calvinists around - several on BB as a matter of fact - and there are plenty of non-Calvinist Covenantalists around also - think Methodists, Lutherans...there's more.

Thanks for pointing that our JD. But it was the Reformers that gave us "Covenant Theology" (definitely anti-dispie) was it not?

skypair

 

[Rippon]

Thanks for pointing that our JD. But it was the Reformers that gave us "Covenant Theology" (definitely anti-dispie) was it not?

skypair

How could C.T. be considered anti-dispie when dispensationalism did not exist in the 16th century? This teaching didn't really come about until about 178 years ago. Since then it has come in all varities of expression -- like Baskin--Robbins.

 

[David Lamb]

Yes, in recent decades, the name "Reformed Baptist" has been applied to Baptist churches that emphasize Dortian soteriology and generally favor Presbyterian concepts like elder rule and covenant theology(in other words, a hybrid of Baptist and Presbyterian).
A half century ago, "Reformed Baptist" described something quite different. After that Arminian group merged into the Wesleyan Church, the name "Reformed Baptist" eventually came to describe churches like Ernest Reisinger's home church in Carlisle, Pennsylvania and many other Baptist churches who embraced the Reformed theology trend.
I was inquiring whether the term was likewise a recent innovation in the UK.

The label "Reformed Baptist" is comparatively recent (I would say it started being used about 50 years ago here, but I could be wrong). Also, as far as I know, "Reformed Baptist" was not previously used to describe anything else - anything comparable to the Arminian-Wesleyan merger you mentioned, for example. (Incidentally, that sounds strange to me, as surely Wesley and Wesleyan Methodists are Arminian).



I don't agree that simply because they both have elder rule and covenant theology, reformed baptists are a baptist/Presbyterian hybrid. Historically, in this country, most baptists held to such things; you only have to look at the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) and see how closely it compares with the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession of Faith to see this. Both feature covenant theology and elder rule. Regarding the latter, Chapter 26, Paragraph 8 of the 1689 Confession states:

A particular church, gathered and completely organized according to the mind of Christ, consists of officers and members; and the officers appointed by Christ to be chosen and set apart by the church (so called and gathered), for the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of power or duty, which He entrusts them with, or calls them to, to be continued to the end of the world, are bishops or elders, and deacons.


​

The First London Baptist Confession of Faith (1646) states in Article 36:

BEING thus joined, every [local] church hath power given them from Christ, for their wellbeing, to choose among themselves meet persons for elders and deacons, being qualified according to the word, as those which Christ hath appointed in His testament, for the feeding, governing, serving, and building up of His Church; and that none have any power to impose on them either these or any other.
Acts 1:23,26, 6:3, 15:22,25; Rom.12:7,8; 1 Tim.3:2,6,7; 1 Cor. 12:8,28; Heb. 13:7,17; 1 Pet.5:1 - 3, 4:15.

​

It was not until the 19th century that baptist churches here began on any large scale to go away from the main tenets of the 1689 Confession, a change which led up to what Spurgeon dubbed, "The Down Grade", which led to him and his church (Metropolitan Tabernacle, London) leaving the Baptist Union. He wrote of the Down Grade:

At the end of the Puritan age, by some means or other, first the ministers, then the Churches, got on "the down grade," and in some cases, the descent was rapid, and in all, very disastrous. In proportion as the ministers seceded from the old Puritan godliness of life, and the old Calvinistic form of doctrine, they commonly became less earnest and less simple in their preaching, more speculative and less spiritual in the matter of their discourses, and dwelt more on the moral teachings of the New Testament, than on the great central truths of revelation.


​

So what were Reformed Baptists called before that label came in? Some were just called baptists. Some were called "particular baptists", because they believed in particular redemption (as opposed to "general baptists", who believe that Christ died for everyone without exception).

So although the label "Reformed Baptist" is relatively new, the beliefs are not. Apologies for not answering earlier your specific question on how recent the label is.

 

[skypair]

How could C.T. be considered anti-dispie when dispensationalism did not exist in the 16th century? This teaching didn't really come about until about 178 years ago. Since then it has come in all varities of expression -- like Baskin--Robbins.

And are they contradictory views? Sure! CT sees one, overarching covenant -- dispie sees 7. CT focuses only one plan, the same plan for all believers and only believers. Dispies see plans for the church, Israel, the angels... just to name the major ones.

I will admit dispensationalism is evolving. It's gone from the recognition of 2 dispensations (Israel and church) to further distinct eras even in those ages. Some might even study the 7 churches in Rev 2-3 as separate "economies."

The main thing is CT fights this "tooth and nail" primarily because it divides God's plan among 2 "folds"/spiritual economies -- Israel and church. They don't want to admit that there was another gospel before the church nor that Israel is "coming back" in God's plan.

For a really good analysis of the 2 theologies, read Renald Showers There Really Is a Difference (If you are allowed to). :laugh:

skypair

 

[Jerome]

I don't agree that simply because they both have elder rule and covenant theology, reformed baptists are a baptist/Presbyterian hybrid. Historically, in this country, most baptists held to such things; you only have to look at the Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) and see how closely it compares with the (Presbyterian) Westminster Confession of Faith to see this. Both feature covenant theology and elder rule.

I see nothing in the confessions about the lay/ruling elders of Presbyterianism(and the new Reformed Baptists). Yes, the word elder is used in the Baptist Confession as a synonym of bishop, but there is no corresponding section in the Westminster Confession.


The recent Reformed Baptist adaptation of a Presbyterian-influenced concept of lay/ruling elders was definitely not what seventeenth century Baptists meant by elders.

Here is how one of the actual signers of the 1689 Confession understood the term:

Benjamin Keach, Glory of a True Church, 1697
“Query, Are there no ruling Elders besides the Pastor?
Answ. There might be such in the Primitive Apostolical Church, but we see no ground to believe it an abiding Office to continue in the Church, but was only temporary.
1. Because we have none of the Qualifications of such Elders mention’d, or how to be chosen.
2. Because we read not particularly what their Work and Business is, or how distinct from preaching Elders; tho we see not but the Church may (if she sees meet) choose some able and discreet Brethren to be Helps in Government. We have the Qualifications of Bishops and Deacons directly laid down, and how to be chosen, and their Work declared, but of no other Office or Officers in the Church, but these only.”

Benjamin Keach, Gospel Mysteries Unveil'd, 1701:
“others think there were men ordained Elders, that were not gifted to preach, but to be helpful in Discipline, or in the Governement of the Church : but we reading neither of their Qualifications, or how to be chosen (nor of their peculiar Work, distinct from Pastors, nor any such elders chosen in any particular. church in the Apostles days) can see no ground for any such an Office, or Officers in the Church”


Have most Baptists really historically held to elder rule?

William Rider, Laying on of Hands Asserted, 1656:
"I have read of Bishops and Deacons, and of Apostles and Elders, who were Deacons; but never of Elders and Deacons: My reason is, because a Deacon is an Elder in the Church. . . . how confused have they appeared in their setting persons apart for Elders? not knowing, or at least not minding, that in the word Elders is comprehended all officers in the Church, with the Ministerial work also, . . . and so Elders is distinguished into several offices in the Church, as Bishops and Deacons : the Deacons were to be men full of the Holy Spirit and faith;& so indeed fit for the work of the Lord among his people, as well as Bishops, and so were Elders in the Church, see Acts 6.6, vers. and Acts 15.22 vers. where the Deacons spoken of in the 6 Chapter, are called Elders in the 15 Chapter; again, Philip. 1.1 vers. where the Apostle writeth to the Saints, with the Bishops and Deacons: so Paul to Timothy writes of the qualifications of the Bishops and Deacons ; not Elders and Deacons ; you shall never in all the Scripture find Elders and Deacons expressed."

Andrew Fuller, “On Church Government and Discipline”:
“If..a plurality of [elders] be required, why is not a plurality of them supported? The office of elder in those churches which are partial to the system is little more than nominal: for while an elder is employed like other men in the necessary cares of life, he cannot ordinarily fulfil the duties of his office."

Charles Spurgeon, Meeting of Our Own Church, 1861:
"a modified form of Episcopalian Presbyterian Independency is the Scriptural method of Church government. At any rate, no other form of government would have worked in so large a Church as this. . . .
Mr. Spurgeon said that . . . . they had some peculiarities which he supposed were not to be found in any other Church, at least in England. The first of these was that for some time they had maintained the eldership in their midst."

Henry C. Vedder, Baptist History:
"The Scotch Baptist churches were much influenced by the early Sandemanian connections of these leaders, adopting from that source some notions regarding organization and practice that have been peculiar to them among Baptists, such as insisting on a plurality of elders in every church, and the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper."

 

[psalms109:31]

Rebuild

Just like Israel they don't want to believe the truth of Jesus because they would have to destroy their beautiful building and rebuild.

We all know the elect ones is the church the predestined saved, those who are in Christ.

We are not talking about a building, but a building of a spiritual body the body of Christ. When we are in Christ we are apart of His body predestined to be save, apart from Him you are dead, He is your life, remain in Jesus and depend on Him.

Those who trust in Jesus will not be disappointed.

Some people are so proud of their building even knowing in their own new heart that God is given them through the words of Jesus they will not rebuild to the truth.

This is the only way all scripture comes together with knowing that God wants all men to be saved, but He is only going to save those who are in Christ . The body of Christ the church the saved ones predestined before the foundation of the world to be saved.

You are separated from God because of sin. Only in Christ will the separation from God be ended. That is why the messenger must go out with the truth the words of Jesus which is the Father and is Spirit and life. That God loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son of God that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. It isn't until you enter Christ that you can be part of the elect.

Through the words of Jesus a dead man can enter to the two doors presented to believe and have life or not and be condemned.

 

[Rippon]

Just like Israel they don't want to believe the truth of Jesus because they would have to destroy their beautiful building and rebuild.

Rip: I've said it before, and I'll have to say it again Ps. -- What in the world are you talking about ?Can you please try and say things more clearly?

When we are in Christ we are apart of His body predestined to be save, apart from Him you are dead, He is your life, remain in Jesus and depend on Him.

Rip:"...we are apart of His body...". Did you mean a part of His body?We technically become a part of His Body after our regeneration. Yes, the elect are predestined to be saved. The rest of your words ( as far as I undserstand them) are true.

Those who trust in Jesus will not be disappointed.

Rip: To say the least.

Some people are so proud of their building even knowing in their own new heart that God is given them through the words of Jesus they will not rebuild to the truth.

Rip: Basic English skills are needed. Please rephrase.

This is the only way all scripture comes together with knowing that God wants all men to be saved, but He is only going to save those who are in Christ . The body of Christ the church the saved ones predestined before the foundation of the world to be saved.

Rip: You have to make a decision here. Does God want each and every person on the earth -- past, present and future saved? Or does He only want the ones He predestined before the foundation of the world -- His elect ones.

That God loved the world that he sent His only begotten Son of God that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Rip: God sent His only begotten Son of God? That's tortured English. God the Father sent His one-and-only Son into the world demonstrating His love...What does "begotten mean"?

It isn't until you enter Christ that you can be part of the elect.

Rip: Wrong. One is elect from before the foundation of the world. You acknowledge this truth at times, then take it back just as quickly. "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world..."(Eph. 1:4,NASBU)

Through the words of Jesus a dead man can enter to the two doors presented to believe and have life or not and be condemned.

Rip: Nope. Dead men can't do any such thing. A dead man's only hope is to be quickened by the Holy Spirit.The Lord has made us alive. We are born again because of Him, not our abilities. "It does not therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy."( Romans 9:16,TNIV)."children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God."( John 1:13,TNIV).

 

[psalms109:31]

Regeneration

We do not get regenerated until after we believe.

Only the words of Jesus gives us life to enter the two roads that is presented before us to believe and have life or not and be condemned.

Many people have come to Christ and believed before receiving the Holy Spirit.

That same Spirit is in the words of Jesus and through the words of Him they can do what you think they can't.

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, that is why we are sent out.

What you think is impossible through God and His word nothing is impossible and yes through the words of Jesus anyone can believe and be saved.

It is quite clear, believe God and not men, whosoever can believe and our faith only come through the words of Jesus, you cannot even understand what Paul is talking about until you believe Jesus.

Those that God ordained those who remain in Jesus believed. It makes all scripture to make since instead of what men want to do in their own heart limit the word all and world to their limited understanding of the word. They depend to much on their own understanding instead of believing God

As the scripture through the words of Jesus say's we must endure to the end to be saved.

 

[AresMan]

We do not get regenerated until after we believe.

If an unregenerate is capable of saving faith (the righteousness of God), what other divine righteousness is a depraved person still in his sins capable of doing that we attribute to those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

If "the just [saved, those with Christ's imputed righteousness] shall live by faith" and one who is not just can exercise the same faith apart from the effectual power of the Holy Spirit, why does one need to be justified by God?

Only the words of Jesus gives us life to enter the two roads that is presented before us to believe and have life or not and be condemned.

Right.

Many people have come to Christ and believed before receiving the Holy Spirit.

Well, one is not sealed or indwelt by the Holy Spirit until he believes, however it is the effectual work of the Holy Spirit (not the power of an unregenerate spiritually dead) that brings about saving faith. The Holy Spirit effectually convicts and regenerates, then indwells.

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins

Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by (grace ye are saved

1Pe 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

That same Spirit is in the words of Jesus and through the words of Him they can do what you think they can't.

True.

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Joh 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Joh 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

God wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, that is why we are sent out.

What you think is impossible through God and His word nothing is impossible and yes through the words of Jesus anyone can believe and be saved.

Anyone can believe and be saved, but it requires the effectual work of the Holy Spirit for one to believe the Gospel.

It is quite clear, believe God and not men, whosoever can believe and our faith only come through the words of Jesus, you cannot even understand what Paul is talking about until you believe Jesus.

I am not sure what your point is. Are you preaching to the choir?

Those that God ordained those who remain in Jesus believed. It makes all scripture to make since instead of what men want to do in their own heart limit the word all and world to their limited understanding of the word. They depend to much on their own understanding instead of believing God

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here.

As the scripture through the words of Jesus say's we must endure to the end to be saved.

I think you are taking this out of context if you think it means that one cannot know he is saved (justified before God) until he dies. Many of your posts indicate that you are a full-fledged Arminian. You believe that one can lose his salvation and that one can only know for sure if he is eternally saved until he dies.

The clause to which you are referring is physical salvation, not eternal salvation.

Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
Mat 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains:
Mat 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

In other words, v.13 links to v.22, which indicates that, if the time of tribulation were not shortened all flesh would die and no flesh would be saved. However, since the time of the tribulation will be shortened, there will be some who will make it alive through the whole ordeal. Those who endure (survive) unto the end (of the tribulation) will be saved (spared death--his flesh shall be saved).

 

[JustChristian]

Lordship salvation does not lead to people trusting in works rather than in Jesus.

Sounds like a church that is biblical in its soteriology. There are a great many of these.

I agree with you. When I was saved at age 7 in an SBC church I proclaimed my acceptance of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. When I was baptized I did the same. Jesus said to pick up our cross and follow him. He also said that no one can serve two masters (lords) God and mammon. This movement to accept Jesus as Savior and not Lord isn't the gospel message that He himself proclaimed. Following Jesus as the Lord of your life is NOT salvation by works. It's following Christ's command.

By the way, in my church we still ask someone accepting Christ whether they take Him as their LORD and Savior.

Many times people on this board have said that that's impossible and have asked what percent of your life do your expect to be governed by Christ as my Lord. Well, what's impossible with man is possible with God. When someone asks that question I have to believe (not judge) that they are unwilling to let go of their sinful self and should look hard at their relationship with Jesus Christ.

Is Lordship salvation heretical? The opposite is true. Preaching a salvation experience in which a person doesn't give up self and make Jesus Lord of their lives as the gospel. Now, THAT is heretical.

 

[Rippon]

A-Man Dealing With Ps.

I am not sure what your point is.

Rip: I agree. I'm glad other people are saying so. Ps. thought it was just me.

Not exactly sure what you are trying to say here.

Rip: Yes, he can't quite manage to be clear.

Many of your posts indicate that you are a full-fledged Arminian.

Rip: Yep, I have observed the same in between Ps.'s his less-than-lucid moments.

 

[psalms109:31]

Unregenerated

The only time that the unregenerated will be regenerated to go down the road's presented is through the Gopel, it is the words of Jesus that regenerates us, if reject them we have no life, since His words are Spirit and life, then we wait for God in His timming to receive the promise Holy Spirit.

Now about the endure to the end it is not just talking about the tribulation, i will let Paul tell you what I'm talking about.

Romans 11:
17If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, 18do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. 19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." 20Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.

22Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.

Hebrews 3:
Warning Against Unbelief
7So, as the Holy Spirit says:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
8do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion,
during the time of testing in the desert,
9where your fathers tested and tried me
and for forty years saw what I did.
10That is why I was angry with that generation,
and I said, 'Their hearts are always going astray,
and they have not known my ways.'
11So I declared on oath in my anger,
'They shall never enter my rest.' "
12See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. 13But encourage one another daily, as long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's deceitfulness. 14We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first. 15As has just been said:
"Today, if you hear his voice,
do not harden your hearts
as you did in the rebellion."

16Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt? 17And with whom was he angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the desert? 18And to whom did God swear that they would never enter his rest if not to those who disobeyed[Or disbelieved]?

19So we see that they were not able to enter, because of their unbelief.

Let's listen to Jesus to

John 15:
The Vine and the Branches
1"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[The Greek for prunes also means cleans.] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you.


In order to be saved in the tribulation or for here to the end of our live we must endure to the end remaining in Jesus to be saved.

When God say's He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, believe God and not. When you walk away from Jesus , not only do you walk away from life, but your only hope.

No one can come to Jesus unless the Father draws you and it is through the words of Jesus that you are drawned.

You cannot come to Jesus by following a crowd, but by only hearing the words of Jesus. The young rich ruler was drawned to Jesus, called and was chosen, but walked away not accepted the words of Jesus.

 

[pinoybaptist]

The only time that the unregenerated will be regenerated to go down the road's presented is through the Gopel, it is the words of Jesus that regenerates us, if reject them we have no life, since His words are Spirit and life, then we wait for God in His timming to receive the promise Holy Spirit.

Are you saying that it is the gospel that regenerates ? Please be aware of the distinctions between the words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel.

So. Is it the gospel that regenerates us ?

 

[psalms109:31]

Originally Posted by psalm109:31

The only time that the unregenerated will be regenerated to go down the road's presented is through the Gopel, it is the words of Jesus that regenerates us, if reject them we have no life, since His words are Spirit and life, then we wait for God in His timming to receive the promise Holy Spirit.

This is Why it was so important for the Holy Spirit to remind them what Jesus said

 

[Rippon]

The young rich ruler was drawned to Jesus, called and was chosen, but walked away not accepted the words of Jesus.

And your proof of this is what?The Bible does not say he was drawn,called and chosen -- that is entirely your creation.Are you aware that none of those that have been given to Jesus by the Father will be lost?He will not lose even one of them,all of them will be raised up at the last day. Consult John 6:39 for the same.

 

[psalms109:31]

And your proof of this is what?The Bible does not say he was drawn,called and chosen -- that is entirely your creation.Are you aware that none of those that have been given to Jesus by the Father will be lost?He will not lose even one of them,all of them will be raised up at the last day. Consult John 6:39 for the same.

I consulted it and you cannot live on little pieces of bread and make your whole assuption, you must live by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

Who is the one's the Father has given to Jesus. It sure isn't the wise and learned for He has hidden the truth from them.

They are those who do not lean on thier own understanding but trust in what the Lord Says.

Trust in Jesus and you will not be disappointed. Spend some time reading the bible it is all throughout the scripture, but hidden from the wise and learned.

As long as men live on their own understanding the truth will continue to be hidden from them.

The young rich ruler was chosen read the scripture.He couldn't even go to Jesus if He wasn't drawn by the Father. He was chosen Jesus said to give away his earthly belongings and follow Him.

Those who come to Him, not walk away from Him will not be cast out.

Read a little further

John 6:
40For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day."

47I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life.

He loved the world that He sent His Son, and He wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

I am not lieing to as Paul was saying to his own listeners who wouldn't believe.

 

[Rippon]

Again Ps,you have shown no scriptural proof that the rich young ruler was drawn, called and chosen.It's just not there in Holy Writ.The Bible is your authority, right?

 

[Jerome]

I don't agree that simply because they both have elder rule and covenant theology, reformed baptists are a baptist/Presbyterian hybrid

Why do you say :"Presbyterian-Baptist hybrid"?

According to Pastor Greg Nichols, Grand Rapids Reformed Baptist Church, Baptist churches should reject the error of congregational church government and adopt presbyterial local church government instead.


When Should a Christian Leave a Church?
By John G. Reisinger

"The following article is written primarily for Reformed Baptists only because that is the group with which I have been identified for over twenty years. . . .

"One of the greatest tragedies of our past efforts as Baptists was our use of nothing but Presbyterian literature. We set up the conferences, got those to attend whom we had taught the truth of grace, and then we stuffed Presbyterian books and speakers down their throat by the carload. It is time to set up a BAPTIST Banner of Truth. It is time to quit feeding the best of our young men to Presbyterian schools. It is time that sincere Baptist sheep stop leaving Reformed Baptist churches only to find a welcome nowhere but in a Presbyterian church.

In Africa, the evangelical missionaries taught the people to read and then the communists gave them literature. In our case, it was even worse. We Baptist did both for the Presbyterians. We taught people the doctrines of grace, and then we gave them nothing but books written by Covenant Theologians.

It is time to finish the job God moved us to begin over twenty years ago. Let us not make the mistake that the Reformers made. They thoroughly reformed the gospel message of justification by faith but failed to reform some other doctrines. They threw out justification by the works of the law, but they held on to sanctification by the law. They threw out the church's authority over your soul but hung on to the church's authority over your conscience. They threw out priest craft but kept clericalism. They rejected the authority of Roman church tradition but replaced it with man made creeds that have now become the authoritative "Reformed" church tradition. They cried Sola Scriptura" while waving a creed in one hand and a sword in the other hand.

I do not question that the Reformation was the greatest movement of God in history since the days of Pentecost. However, the Reformers were only men of clay like you and me. They brought a lot of baggage over from Romanism. The present day revival of the doctrines of grace is another great movement of God. The leaders that God has been pleased to use have been primarily Baptists. I fear that some of these Baptists have sold their birthright for a mess of pottage in order to gain credibility among the "truly Reformed community" that was responsible for destroying the power of the doctrines of grace in the first place, and until recently the so called "Reformed community" has done precious little to restore that power.

Brethren, it is time to apply the search light of Scripture to the Westminster Confession, the Philadelphia Confession, and every other confession, with the same honesty and consistency that we applied to the Scofield Reference Bible some years ago. It is time to say "Sola Scriptura" and really mean it!"