Reformed Baptist

Their forum - their rules! However, I'm not sure it is proper to call a Facebook page a 'church'

If there is no eternal hell, then for you to be consistent there is also no eternal heaven - of course even more seriously, if the wages of sin is ceasing to exist then for Jesus Christ to have paid the price for our sin he would have needed to cease to exist.

and yet you said: You can't have it both ways - either Christians sin or they don't - however that is to miss (or avoid) the point of my post

I find it interesting that your first appeal to scripture is one that speaks about accepting 'chastening' - how do you understand that term? The writer to the Hebrews is saying that if we don't accept correction from god we are not his children (ie we are not saved) - now, if we get everything right we won't need correction - so my friend, it doesn't matter what you believe, it only matters what the word of God says and the word of God describes true children of God as wayward children that need correction in their lives! We are all sinners, and to claim we are not is to sin (1 John 1:8)

I know you are - just wondering why you didn't provide a citation but rather presented it as your own words?

What correction what that be - that Luke wrote Acts? Yes I am glad you had already picked up on that What about the rest of my post?

Can you support your assertion that, "God gives all humans free will to choose and believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit." from scripture? I see clear evidence that naturally speaking I am 'dead' in sin (Eph 2:1) and a 'slave' to sin (Rom 6:20) - neither of those images suggest that I have the freedom to choose anything - one tells me I am without any power to choose the other tells me I am bound to the master of sin - can you point me to a text that tells me I have free will to choose for myself without there first being a specific and divine work of God's grace in my life? (And before you appeal to John 3:16 please bear in mind that verse simply says that those who believe will be saved, it does not speak of the origin of that saving faith!) Having done that, how do you reconcile those texts with text that says things like this: John 6:44 "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." Isn't that a text that clearly says that all those who choose to come to Jesus are only able to come because he is drawing them to him?

Science is a wonderful thing when it stays within it's proper bounds - it is observation - the problem is when science jumps from what it can observe to postulate about what it cannot observe - science can observe the apparent age of an object more or less accurately depending on certain circumstances however I wonder - had I being able to look at Adam 5 seconds after God had created him - how old would he have looked? Adam was created as a man, not as a child, he was obviously created with apparent age and if I was able to use all the scientific methods we have today they would have shown me his apparent age (not the 5 seconds). Science can date things, but all that proves is the apparent age of those things not there actual age. As for cosmology, well lets not forget God created the light before he created the sources of that light (compare Gen 1:3 and Gen 1:14-19) how does scientific research take that fact into consideration - the light is created before the source is! Now, why is all this important, well it matters for two reasons: 1) It shows us where a persons real authority is found - those who read the word of God and interpret it through science demonstrate a secular worldview where human wisdom has the authority over the word of God whereas those who read science through the lens of scripture have God's word as their ultimate authority 2) any system that postulates that there was death before Adam to be consistent with itself must also deny that salvation is possible - unless we all die because we have all sinned in Adam (as our federal head) we cannot be saved through the sacrifice of Christ (Romans 5) - happily most of those who suggest there was death ebfore Adam demonstrate a blessed inconsistency at this point So yes, this matters, it matters a lot. Furthermore I have read on this thread that we should ignore theology in this regards because certain theologians thought the world was flat - no one has backed up those claims to demonstrate that this was a view they defended scripturally (after all Is 40:22 tells us the earth is round).

If your quoting the CARM article you already have your answer there https://carm.org/mary-full-grace-and-luke-128

A Muslim is certain he knows who God really is and wants to give his life to him - should we baptism Muslims? One's own personal subjective opinion about how much you understand and what you want you to is not relevant to baptism (because those things can be very wrong), nor is someone who wants to give their life to God ready to be baptized - baptism is for those who have come to God through faith in Jesus Christ already. If we (the local church) can see a child is trusting Jesus for the forgiveness of their sins, and that they have counted the cost of taking up their cross and following Jesus then age doesn't matter really although there are some practical considerations for example, if the person is the child of unbelievers and those parents don't want the child to be baptized the local church should wait

13 "Greater love has no one than this, than1 to lay down one's life for his friends." (Joh 15:13 NKJ) This is the biblical concept of love - the disposition to go to any lengths for the well being and the good of the person whom is loved. This definitions flies in the face of the secular man centered worldview that is common today that makes love selfish, for many love is all about 'how I feel about another person'

I'm sorry this makes no sense - you have jumped from Acts to Romans and you seem to be claiming Paul wrote both. Compare Acts 1:1 with Luke 1:1-3 - clearly Luke wrote Acts, the 'we' of Acts 21:14-15 simply denotes that Luke was with Paul at this moment (note the 'he' in v14 referring to Paul) - Paul did not write Acts. As for Tertius (Rom 16:22) the use of an amanuensis was very common thing in Roman culture so it isn't surprising that Paul had access to one and may even have chosen to use one specifically because he was writing to the Roman Church. No we don't know that - many assume it but what evidence are those assumptions really based upon? This is what we know: 1) When he was Galatia he had some sort of Physical infirmity (Gal 4:13) 2) When writing to the church at Corinth he was suffering 'a thorn in the flesh' (2 Cor 12:7) 3) He says the Galatians would have given him is eyes if that would help him (Gal 4:15) 4) He writes in large letters (Gal 6:11) 5) he was temporarily blinded in Acts 9:8 - however this was healed and therefore it is safe to assume his sight was perfect afterwards 6) He fails to recognize (or doesn't see) the high priest after being away from Jerusalem for some time (Acts 23:4-5) All of that leads people to surmise that Paul had a problem with his eyes - but we never actually told anything of the kind, it is a hypothesis that tries to make a point from texts that simply might be linked - maybe his eyes were bad, maybe they were fine. Maybe Paul wrote with large letter to emphasise the important of what he was saying - we just don't know! What switch from the 'first person to the third person'? It is all written in the first person plural with a reference to Paul in the third person and it was written by Luke! When we read Acts we are told by Luke who was with Paul at any given time, and Tertius isn't mentioned once so I would guess not. Paul was in Corinth when he wrote Romans so I would guess that Tertius was a local converted slave that he was able to make use of. It is, after all, worth noting that Tertius makes his role in the letter to the Romans clear - if he 'wrote' other materiel why did he not do the same? My thoughts: a) We know Luke wrote Acts b) We know Paul dictated Romans to Tertius (who is only mentioned in Rom 16:22) c) Luke tells us who was with Paul in his journeys and Tertius isn't there d) We know Paul could write, but he didn't feel the need to always be the penman himself e) We know Paul suffered physically - perhaps as a result of his persecutions but we do not know anything about his eyesight for definite

That people get hurt (often very badly and very deeply) in a church is one of the sad realities of living in this world - however to use that as a reason to not to be part of a church is to put personal hurt in front of Jesus Christ and to live outside his will. If Jesus Christ can put aside his personal hurt over my sinful nature and redeem me from it bu his blood then who am I to hold onto my personal hurt, and if I refuse to meet those people who might hurt me again in this life what confidence can I have that I will be welcome in eternity with them (why would Jesus put me with people that i don't want to be with?) That being sad I am questioning the man's salvation, I am simply wondering where your assurance of his salvation comes from? The Lord's love and mercy are shown in the cross of Jesus Christ, we don't really need to look anywhere else for it - as for what your Uncle said before taking his shower on what basis do you assume it was from God - the simple fact that he died later, or did he testify to some special revelation?

What makes you think 'he was saved' if he didn't go to church? I'm not questioning his salvation (that is between him and God) but I questioning how you personally can have any assurance that he was saved when you admit he didn't live the life that Christ Jesus demands of us, ie he forsook the assembling of the saints (and I wonder what the 'etc' is)?

Interesting, are you suggesting that Jesus didn't say 'except for sexual immorality' ? I can only assume you must believe some Greek/ western thinker must have inserted it in the text at the later date - I wounder if you would be willing to share the textual data for such an assumption not just in relation to Matt 19:9 but also in relation to Matt 5:32?