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?

Well, let's see about that shall we from scripture. "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." (Mat 19:9 NKJ) Now, those are the words of Jesus and note the exception clause he makes very clear! And yet God issues a certificate of divorce himself, "Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also." (Jer 3:8 NKJ) I'm afraid it isn't as simple as 'God hates divorce...end of.' Sadly this is one area where too often tradition (usually based on Victorian morality) has replaced careful exegesis on the subject. Yes God hates divorce, yes every divorce involves human failure and human sin, but Jesus himself justifies divorce in the case of sexual immorality his words are clear! I'm not sure of the relevance to the question at hand

The question begs the response: what do you think baptism is? Baptism is not an act of devoting one's life to God forever, rather it is the confirming act that demonstrates one is trusting in Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Saviour, as such age is not as important as testimony - that being said it is often advisable to look for ways a younger person has fully understood (and counted the cost) of following Jesus before baptizing them.

I wonder if one could cherry pick the Bible and come with a similar list? To my mind it isn't about violence/ non-violence - all the religions of men result in a certain degree of violence! No, the point is here are people without Christ trying to reach God through their effort - here are people who need to hear the gospel for they are on their way to hell!

Of course you are aware that the 5 points are a much later construction - truthfully they can only be traced to the early 20th Century (which makes a lot of sense as theology in Calvin's day was written mainly in Latin). However, if you disagree I am confident you can post citations from Calvin's own words to support your claim? Again, I'm sure you can provide the citation for your quote? This is laughable - how does Calvinism teach 'merit based' salvation? Calvinism is a teaching of God's sovereignty in salvation and one core idea of Calvinism is that nothing we do is good enough. It also tells us that faith is a gift of God - Eph 2:8-9 and that repentance is also a gift of God - Acts 11:18 Well my friend, looking at what you have posted I'm not convinced you have ever actually studied what Calvinism teaches - if you wish to prove your claim you need to actually cite Calvinists making statements that are 'cultic' - can you do that? How? Interesting claim considering how many missionaries and gospel preachers were/ are Calvinists. of course the Calvinist would say that calvinism empowers the great commission - we can make disciples because God saves sinners! If it was up to us what chance would we have? Just some quick questions regarding this text if you don't mind. 1) have you traced Paul's use of pronouns in the passage - by that I mean who is 'the you' he is addressing? 2) what do you understand 'all men' to mean? 3) if God desires that every person who has ever lived should be saved then why does he allow so many to die without even hearing the gospel

So, if a child dies before the age of accountability do you suggest that the child is saved? That is, on one level, an appealing thought - but actually when you sit down and analyse it then it becomes incredibly troublesome! I am a father, and so, if there is an age of accountability, then I have a real problem - do I allow my children to go on living beyond that 'age' so that they loose that default status they are born into - I love them so much and I would hate to see them in hell, but here I have a means to guarantee they will be in heaven forever - all I need to do is prevent them reaching the age of accountability! How very glad I am that this is not actually the case and that salvation only comes through faith and repentance - how very glad I am that God has not laid such a burden upon any of, as the age of accountability

It has been conceived outside of a relationship with God, which that child will go on to demonstrate throughout it's life, and hence it will die (death is the 'wage' of sin. Actually that is precisely what you are doing, in stating what you struggle to believe you are stating a position on a subject - you are espousing a doctrine. Friend, I do not if you believe yourself a Christian or not, however what makes you think your human concept of fairness comes into the equation? Is the world a fair place? Now, even more pertinent to what you have just said is the fact that Paul actually anticipates this exact response in the book of Romans: Romans 9:20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory. Indeed you don't seem to be engaging with the text of scripture at all - which seems strange to me on a Christian forum I am sorry, what on earth leads you to think that I am not bothered by it - didn't I speak about my personal discomfort earlier in this thread. However I'm an adult, and so I cannot afford to simply think with my emotions, I have to employ my intellect. My emotional response (and I speak as a father) is not a good enough reason for me to ignore what the bible teaches - however, what that emotional response does lead to is the desire to see my children saved from that end Consider Luke 13:1-5 when Jesus talks to people who are struggling to understand why things are the way they are, he makes it very personal - he tells them that they need to repent.

That is a canard and a complete misrepresentation of my post, you stated that the only person you feel the need to Submit to is God, and I simply pointed that submission to God means submission to those he has placed in authority over you, and I did so from scripture! I never suggested you 'blindly obey'! If you had read my post, rather then simply reacting emotionally to it, you would have seen that I carefully laid what submission in this instance means, and I was very clear about going and talking humbly to the pastor about what he said (again there was no hint of blindly obeying) However when it comes to following a pastor just because he is a pastor, think carefully about that, don't sheep follow a shepherd simply because he is a shepherd. The eldership is what God has given as an earthly leadership of the local church and by coming into membership of that church we place ourselves under their authority and responsibility and we realize that they watch over out souls as those who will have to give an account for their every action in that regard (Heb 13:7) and also that they have willing placed themselves in a position of stricter judgement (James 3:1) for your spiritual benefit. To be clear we do not follow our pastors if they seek to lead us contrary to the word of God, but exactly is contrary to the word of God in this regard? Can you put forward a reasonable scriptural argument for watching the program you wish to watch, for example can you show how watching that program edifies (builds you up in your faith), consider "Therefore let us pursue the things which make for peace and the things by which one may edify another." (Rom 14:19 NKJ) Now, here is the thing, if you have misrepresented my word in this way, simply because you do not like them, and it is clear that you do not like your pastors teaching either in this regard, what confidence can any of us who have responded here have that you have fairly represented what your pastor said as well?

That is not a valid comparison - you are talking about punishing a child because of another person's crime of which that child is innocent. No one is punished simply because Adam sinned, we are punished for own sin. The comparison would be more like, suggesting that a child deserves to be punished because that child has followed the mothers great, great, great grandfather in reepating his failure. Again you are ignoring the point, if God doesn't impute guilt through Adam, how can he impute guilt through Christ. Now, putting aside ill conceived 'logical' arguments let's get to scripture: Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. My friend, I say this with the utmost respect, but it needs to be said, the doctrine you seem to implying here has a name, it is called pelagianism, and it has been around for a long, long time and it is also been thoroughly refuted - we are born with a fallen nature, and we all stand condemned under God's justice, because we are of Adam and because we sin. And unless we accept that then the message of grace makes no sense and has no foundation, as Rom 5:11-21 explains. The remarkable thing is not that people go to heaven the remarkable thing is that God saves some from hell.

I am sure such an answer seems quite pious and spiritual, but how far short of the realty of the life God calls us to it falls! God tells us to submit to many people. He tells you to submit to your eldership: Hebrews 13:17 Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you. He tells you to submit to your husband (if your married): Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. He tells you to submit to your parents: Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you. He tells you to submit to your government: Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. So, if truly one is submitting to God in spiritual matters (or rather all matters) as one should, then one would be in submission to one's eldership (among many others), and rather then publicly complaining about their teaching, if one is uncomfortable with that teaching, one would be approaching them in private to discuss the matter further with them in an attitude of willing submission - that is submitting to God on spiritual matters!

I would be very interested in how you could argue that from 'a purely logical standpoint' it makes no sense. I think you can only do that if you redefine the term logic, logic is simply an argument where one can establish reasonable coherence between the evidence and the conclusion. So, setting the bible aside for a moment, lets look at the evidence, consider that child - who teaches that child to cry selfishly cry for attention? Who teaches that child to tell it's first lie? In short, does that child just have some sort of innate tendency towards sinful behavior? Let's put it another way, does that child have an innate belief and love for God, or do we look for a conversion experience? The answers to those leads us to conclude that the child is born a sinner, and therefore we have to look for the reason for that, and as the Bible explains that such 'brokenness' is a result of Adam sin (Rom 5:12) - I have to ask how, logically speaking, such a conclusion seems far fetched? What else makes sense? What other, logical, alternative is there? You see my friend, if we apply your argument logically then we have to that similarly one might argue that it makes no sense that someone could die 2000 years ago in payment for your sin. Which is, of course, the very center of the Christian faith. How come Christians have no problem saying 'through the actions of one man many are made friends of God' but some have a problem sayings'through the actions of one man many are made enemies of God.' Surely if we apply logical properly we would have to admit that if one is true to other has to be true. If God has dealt with us through Adam, then logically he can deal with us through the second Adam? However if God hasn't dealt with us through Adam, then he cannot deal with us through the second Adam, and we are left without hope.