It seems to me that a great many objections to specific Christian doctrines , objections to the propitiatory atonement or the Incarnation , arise from a non-Christian view of god's nature . The modernists object to a vicarious sacrifice because they do not think God is that sort of person . Theirs is not the God of the early Christians . And my sincere conviction is that if we are to retain the Satisfactio , if we are to promulgate a consistent Christianity , we must , among other things , reject and combat the semi-arminianism prevailing in so-called Calvinistic churches , and return to predestination , the perseverance of the saints , the ninth chapter of Romans , and Paul's best interpreter , John Calvin .
-
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!
Who Am I Quoting ?
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
Who said this?
"Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church."
Infant baptism?
"Doubtless, the design of Satan in assaulting paedobaptism with all his forces is to keep out of view, and gradually efface, that attestation of divine grace which the promise itself presents to our eyes. In this way, not only would men be impiously ungrateful for the mercy of God, but be less careful in training their children to piety. For it is no slight stimulus to us to bring them up in the fear of God, and the observance of his law, when we reflect, that from their birth they have been considered and acknowledged by him as his children. Wherefore, if we would not maliciously obscure the kindness of God, let us present to him our infants, to whom he has assigned a place among his friends and family that is, the members of the Church."
Infant baptism?
Jarthur001
Active Member
and for that matter who said this....Blammo said:
In the course of further study, however, I discovered that the overwhelming majority of Christians whom God had used in the past centuries of the Church not only practiced infant baptism but did so because they believed the Scriptures taught it. The great evangelical theologian of the Ancient Church, Augustine, held to the practice and so did the great Reformers: John Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and John Knox. Those devout scholars, John Wycliff and William Tyndale, who labored to give us the English Bible, and all the translators involved in the King James Version held that the practice was biblical.
When we come to the revivalists of the Eighteenth Century, we find both John and Charles Wesley, George Whitfield and Jonathan Edwards, men whom God used in the conversions of untold thousands, all practiced infant baptism. This is true also of the overwhelming majority of the Christians who were involved in settling and founding the United States—from the Pilgrims on the Mayflower to the Huguenots from France. These were not people who did things because of tradition; they laid down their lives that they might worship God strictly according to the instructions given in Holy Scripture. They held to justification by faith and the necessity of the new birth. To their number must be added most of the authors of the great Evangelical hymns which have stirred the hearts of so many Christians, hymns such as “Amazing Grace,” “Rock of Ages,” and “Just As I Am.” Today, however, we find a different story; many Twentieth Century Christians no longer believe the practice is Scriptural.
***********
OK OK...I'll go ahead and tell ya..
Bob Vincent
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
I have no idea. Just thought others would like to know what he said.Blammo said:
Thanks for coming to my defense StefanM . Jerome was correct . The OP quote was indeed from Gordon Haddon Clark . He had the same middle name as Charles Spurgeon . The quote was Spurgeonistic . It was from Clark's article : " Determinism and Responsibility " . It was first published in the Evangelical Quarterly , January of 1932 . It was reprinted in a larger work gathered by the Trinity Foundation called "Essays On Ethics And Politics " .
Clark had Reformed Churches in his sights with his quote . Of course the conditions are much worse in mainstream Evangelicism .
Naturally the substance of the quote is the heart of the matter , not necessarily who said it . I just entitled my thread as "Who Am I Quoting" for effect .
As for those who are not interested in this thread : It is a puzzling thing . If you claim it is not interesting and that you don't care -- then why comment at all ? Reasonable people would not make remarks on a thread in which they had no interest .
As for the scriptural substance of the quote -- that is to the point . I think it has biblical substance . Speaking of scripturalness . It is not scriptural to demean something like the OP . Folks claim that they are only interested in scriptural content and then proceed to be very disrespectful and hence against the Scripture .
Clark had Reformed Churches in his sights with his quote . Of course the conditions are much worse in mainstream Evangelicism .
Naturally the substance of the quote is the heart of the matter , not necessarily who said it . I just entitled my thread as "Who Am I Quoting" for effect .
As for those who are not interested in this thread : It is a puzzling thing . If you claim it is not interesting and that you don't care -- then why comment at all ? Reasonable people would not make remarks on a thread in which they had no interest .
As for the scriptural substance of the quote -- that is to the point . I think it has biblical substance . Speaking of scripturalness . It is not scriptural to demean something like the OP . Folks claim that they are only interested in scriptural content and then proceed to be very disrespectful and hence against the Scripture .
Last edited by a moderator:
Just because someone has the same middle name as C. Spurgeon, does not make what was said Spurgeonistic (now if he was speaking on what Spurgeon himself preached or taught, I will agree. Maybe I missed something there.
I didn't say I was not interested in the question, I even tried to look it up. Although what I saw was that he was quoting "the divines" so I had to look further and found that Hodge had made a VERY similar statement. Actually I saw no differences but I didn't look that close. Anyway, it was an interesting excersize but I still say it is incorrect but the research was an enjoyable distraction.
I didn't say I was not interested in the question, I even tried to look it up. Although what I saw was that he was quoting "the divines" so I had to look further and found that Hodge had made a VERY similar statement. Actually I saw no differences but I didn't look that close. Anyway, it was an interesting excersize but I still say it is incorrect but the research was an enjoyable distraction.
When I mentioned that Dr. Clark had the same middle name as Charles Spurgeon -- it was just a parenthetical thought . Clark was more in the mold of Spurgeon than many are today of the so-called Reformed camp .
It would not be surprising that Charles Hodge would also sound like Clark on the same subject .
It would not be surprising that Charles Hodge would also sound like Clark on the same subject .