The Five Solas

EXCELLENT!! Rom 10:9-10, right? Do you call that a "decision?" How does a person come to that decision and that act of repenting? Obviously by the hearing of the "Gospel" you mention, right?

What in the gospel is "irresistible" to one person and not another? It's not truly the gospel that is irresistible but something in the person, right? It is the personal "processing" of what the Spirit is saying that determines the decision to believe or reject, no? Salvation hinges on a personal decision and not any new awareness that one is already "born again," right?

Please explain to me your rejection of the believe -- repent -- receive faith/regeneration/salvation decisional model.

skypair

 

The office of Pastor did not begin in the NT. You may want to do a word study on that. And it is in error that much of the OT worship is not valid today. Prayer is still valid, praise, hymns, humble prostration before God, service are all valid forms of worship.

Blood sacrifice of animals has been done away with. That is because it was a forshadowing of the cross. Where they had the passover feast we have the Lord's Supper. Baptism is still in operation. The truth is not much was doen away with however the form in whcih we do it may differ while the spirit of worship is still the same. Nothing in the OT has been supersceded by the NT but again some things have taken on a different form.

And Israel has not been replaced.

 

RB said:

How can you say that the reformers are clear on the Lord's supper when different ones maintain different positions and when you confess that one of the positions some hold (the bread and cup are a "means of grace") you do not understand? I described their position as "fuzzy" and your description of their position seems to fit this characterization. The meaning of the bread and cup is a MAJOR issue of the reformation and most baptists disagree with protestant reformed positions on this. It leaves me wondering why you call yourself a reformed baptist; in fact, I'm not sure there can even BE such a thing.

II Tim 1 said:

Sorry. I don't have time to do a word study. If you have a position that you want to state and defend, help yourself.
II Tim 1 also said

Then he said

These two statements, which you made within spittiing distance of each other, are a complete contradiction. Christ's blood FAR SUPERSEEDS the blood of bulls and goats!

 

Ah yes, the convolution and contradictions inevitable in Reformed Theology. Excellent observation!:thumbs:

 

I could be wrong, but I believe 2 Timothy defends free will, not calvinism/reformed theology. If I have that incorrect, I apologize. If I am correct, are you going to switch sides and defend him? Or are these contradictions and convolutions evidence of free-will theology?

 

The mistake is to believe I am defending a PERSON. If a cow says the sky is blue and it is, I will acknowledge the cow is right, on that occasion. If my best friend and theological companion concludes that the Trinity is a wrong doctrine, I will disagree with him on that occasion. I am not here for sides, I am here for the truth. These two statements:

are reflective of the invetiable convolution and contradiction inherent in Reformed Theology.

 

Sorry, but it appears to me that you simply gave a knee-jerk reaction and tried to tie the contradition to a theology you hate. Can you explain the relationship between reformed theology and these two statements? Otherwise your comment is meaningless venom.

 

They were made by a proponent of Reformed Theology who was being quoted by another poster. SO maybe you can explain how Reformed Theology takes both of these positions...or did the person err in one or both of these statements? OR is the person NOT of the Reforme Persuasion and if not then of course I would have to withdraw my point.

P.S. Unless I personally state "I hate...thus and thus" You have neither the liberty or license to state it as such, especially in light of the principles of BIBLICAL liberty and license to which we are bound.

 

Withdraw your point, or change your stance and say it's a symptom of you own theology?

You see, you tripped just like everyone who is so filled with venom. You saw a contradiction and jumped on it in an attempt to use it to discredit a theology. You didn't even attempt to make a connection between the mistake and the theology. You simply saw an opportunity to take a cheap shot, and you grabbed it without thinking.

God bless you, but I'm done with you.

 

I don't see this in scripture either. Grace is received by faith, not by eating or drinking a substance. Since I disagree with this reformed position I do not refer to myself as a reformed baptist (among other reasons). Their position decidedly disagrees with the historic baptist view.

 

This would be funny if it weren't so sad...You insult me, take a cheap shot, then complain I took a cheap shot and curse me and bless me out of the same mouth. :tonofbricks: Let's just stay on topic and stop the personal stuff...now.

 

1. Submit that "the communion of the blood" ..."the communion of the body of Christ" are not faithful rendering of the Greek.

2. There's no definite article before either "communion of the blood" or "communion of the body."

3. Rather, the rendering should be "a communion of the blood of Christ" and "a communion of the body of Christ."

4. It is a sharing symbolically.

5. "In remembrance of me" views it as a memorial in which we sharing but symbolicly.

6. The cup and bread are not the communion with Christ but a communion with Christ. There's a difference. The cup and the bread are not the only means of communing with Christ.

7. We commune with Christ through prayer and through the Spirit.

8. Rather, I see that through this Supper a mediation by the Word and the Spirit that takes place in the believer. The believers faith is strengthened as he reflects and as he looks forward; this strengthened of faith I propose is a work of the Spirit through the Word, mediating the Supper.

 

See, right there's the problem. We need to get those verses in front of us and see if that is what scripture says about man's ability.

We've discussed 1Cor 2:14 only to discover that it speaks of the "hidden wisdom of God" that the "natural man" cannot hear. But the gospel is very simple and is precisely what got the Corinthians into the "net," 1Cor 2:1-6, so they would be "perfect"/spiritual men and would understand "hidden wisdom."

So what are some others? Here's what the Bible says: I say that 1Cor 15:1-4 argues for my side of the issue -- "which I preached... which you received... unto salvation." John 1:12 likewise. John 3:16 too -- "whosoever believeth in him should ... have everlasting life."

John 7:39 speaks of not receiving the Holy Ghost/regeneration until one believes - "But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive:..." There's NO regeneration before belief (and again I must insist that belief does NOT equal faith as these verses are showing.). There is no way to construe regeneration before belief though it does accompany faith.

Acts 10:43 -- "Whosoever believeth on Him shall receive remission of sins."

Acts 19 -- "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Here were JB's disciples -- wrong gospel - no help hearing from the Spirit -- believed once (JB's gospel) and believed again "in the name of Jesus" unto regeneration!

1Thes 2:13 is probably the closest Calvinism comes to being correct -- "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe." Sadly, some "hear" the word of God as if it were the word of men -- and don't believe. But most didn't have any trouble "hearing" it as the word of God. And believing, it worked "effectually" in them to bring forth faith if it is received as the word of God.

See, this is still too "mystical." You have put "effectual calling" in a little "Pandora's box" that we have yet to see. You can't get at it. A would-be elect person can't get at it. How do we know what God expects? This description actually IS in the words of men but not in the word of God.

You say it happens that way but the salvation experience of anyone who is saved is not that they suddenly understood what they couldn't hear and understand the first or second time. All that I heard testimonies of were "convicted" by the Holy Spirit time and again before they decided these weren't the words of men but of God --- and then believed on Christ to save them. Based upon their decision to repent and receive, they were regenerated --- which totally changed their belief into faith. There are still things they/I only believe in cause we haven't experienced them yet -- like the rapture, a place in New Jerusalem, etc. -- but I KNOW, have faith in, my salvation because I obeyed the call to believe - repent - receive.

So please show me your "cards." What verses are you talking about that deny "decisional regeneration?"

skypair

 

See, in the deluge of words, the real point is lost. The real point is that you believe that you partake of the blood and body of Christ and particularly of Him crucified. And 'all the benefits' thereof speak to me of His forgiving your sins again -- Him being "crucified afresh."

In Baptist Communion, the wine represents His blood which we, by partaking, testify to our salvation through His death. The bread represents His life which we, by partaking worthily, testify that we are living day-to-day His life in His place on this earth.

The reason many are "sick and sleep" is not because the elements are "mystical medicine." It's because they WEREN'T living Christ's life -- their testimony was a lie -- and no one ever "waited on [them] and washed their feet to show them their secret faults or put them to account for their known sin. If we remember the original feast, Jesus was quite blunt with Judas about his betrayal and Judas had 2 options: repent and stay or "do what thou doest quickly" and miss the Lord's Supper (not being worthy). Yes, it is a "love feast" but Baptists tend to have it at evening services "for members only" (closed communion) not wanting to embarrass those who don't know its meaning.

Consubstantiation, I believe they call it? They still use words like "His body indeed" and "His blood indeed" as if "grace" could become a physical part of those who partake. Thankfully, they don't bow down to the elements as their MOTHER does.

skypair