Reformed Baptist

Of course they can, but being a catholic does not save, just as being a baptist does not save. Salvation is by grace, and in God's grace he calls people to him from all walks of life. However, that being said, I imagine any christian would it very difficult to remain in the catholic church - after all that is what teh reformation was about.

The racial differences that so emphasize are really very minor, the amount of fatty tissue around the eye and the amount of one chemical in the skin - things we all posses. In fact it something like 0.2% of our genetic code. All Adam and Eve had to be was in the middle of all these differences, and genetically they could have produced them all. As for where the 'races' came from - well the reality is that there si only one race, the human race, we are all one big family. The groupings that we see today are merely a result of how the scattering of the people at the tower of Babel focused certain genetic traits in certain locations.

Strong's concordance with it's Greek and Hebrew definitions will not help you understand the text any better in my opinion - indeed it will mislead more then it will help. All strong's does is record how the translators have translated, ie what words they have used in their translation it does not speak to the actual meaning of the original Greek and Hebrew, for example it does not consider tense and voice - with can dramatically altar the emaning of words, also it gives little weight to semantic domains - honestly without a least a year of Greek at seminary level strong's better left alone and one is better of with just their trustworthy English translation, and a local church to learn in. For those with little Greek the best lexicon is Louw-Nida which explores the meaning of words in relation to semantic domain - ie it tells what the word means in that particular context. However, as has been said, no book is entirely trustworthy, not is any preacher/ teacher - that doesn't mean what they have to say is of no value, but it does mean that what they say has to be compared to the word of God. There is balance here, for the Holy Spirit indwells all believers, he has been given to the church and not just the individual, and the church has been blessed with pastors and teachers for the edification of the people - by all means test what others have to say, but at the same time don't through out the baby with the bathwater

wow - lots of people here who don't go to church, I really wonder at that! I know no church is perfect, they all have their problems, yet they are (by definition) gatherings of people who are saved by the same Lord Jesus as you, indwelt by the same Holy Spirit and who one day you will be sharing the same heaven with - how can anyone who has that in common not want to spend time with each other in real fellowship? Brothers and sisters, I do not mean to be rude, but the scriptures command that we do not forsake the assembling of ourselves together (Heb 10:25), Paul declares that we must not be separating ourselves from the local body of believers (1 Cor 12:25) - i wonder what Christ Jesus really thinks of those who do not consider his other blood children worthy of their company? I am glad he did not look upon us in that way but that instead he made himself of no reputation...

You can judge whoever you like, but be aware you will be judged by the standard you judge other by (Matt 7:2)

It is amazing to me that this debate still rages, and yet no one seems to be addressing the fact that Jesus rose on the third day (Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, mar 9:31, 10:34, Luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7, 24:21, 24:46, john 2:1, Act 10:40, 1 Cor 15:4.) and that furthermore they happened early enough on that day for the news of the empty tomb to have spread across the whole city (Luke 24) and early enough for two people to have been travelling on a seven mile (which they completed before evening - Luke 24:29) to be discussing. Simply put there is no way that the 'sing of Jonah' can be interpreted as a literal 72 hours and made to fit with the biblical record, it simply doesn't work, no matter way people try to slice up the time, Jesus rose on the third day, which was the first day of the week. Now I don't mean to be rude or insulting, but I wonder how many of the appeals to Greek or to this or that 'reading' in this or that transaltion are based more on people finding resources that seem to support their presuppositions, rather then actual analysis - the search for evidence should not be support an a priori assumption, but to discover the facts - and the biblical fact is that Jesus rose early on the third day. As to what day he died, well you can work it back to Friday, which is the day before the Sabbath, again there is no reading of any biblical texts that demands two concurrent Sabbaths, and no evidence that was the case. We cannot appeal to the calendar either for we do not know what year he died - this I will say though, if the Bible wanted us to know it would tell us more clearly. More important then the exact timing of the resurrection is the fact of the resurrection if fulfillment of scripture - for without it our hope is futile! Here are the facts we need to know, 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. (NKJ)

Matthew 28King James Version (KJV) 28 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. What does dawn here mean ? thanks Jn 20:1 ALT3 Now on the FIRST DAY BETWEEN THE SABBATHS Mary the Magdalene goes EARLY IN THE MORNING (THERE BEING YET DARKNESS) to the tomb and she sees the stone having been taken away from the tomb. Lk 24:1 Now on the FIRST DAY BETWEEN THE SABBATHS , AT EARLY DAWN they came to the tomb. Mk 16:1 -2 AND THE SABBATH HAVING PAST, Mary the Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices so that having come they should annoint Him. And VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING ON THE FIRST DAY BETWEEN THE SABBATHS THEY COME TO THE TOMB, THE SUN HAVING RISEN. Mt 28:1 Now AFTER THE SABBATHS, AT THE DAWNING INTO THE FIRST DAY BETWEEN THE SABBATHS, Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the grave. Now what do the words in capital letters mean to you? They seem explicitly clear to me, though some others have tried to construe them to mean something other than is clearly stated. ALT3 is The Analytical-Literal Translation of the New Testament, Third Edition, and is based on the best Majority Text. The one used by the KJV had not been comepletely translated I understand, and they had to use some Latin texts as well to complete it. Gary Zeola the translator of ALT3 is both native Greek and a student of New Testament Greek. He is also a born again believer who leans on the Holy Spirit to help him in his understanding of the Scriptures as well as his understanding of New Testament Greek. I highly respect this translation as well as Wuest's Expanded Translation which agrees with this understanding of the scriptures in question. I hope this helps to clear up your apparent confusion. Blessings, Willa "between the Sabbaths" has no textual support

Friend, 'type' is the biblical term - consider Rom 5:14 for example when where Paul calls Adam a type, it appears to me that you confusing a 'type' with an 'antitype'.

As I mentioned before consider the following texts of scripture, Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, mar 9:31, 10:34, luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7, 24:21, 24:46, john 2:1, Act 10:40, 1 Cor 15:4 - the literal 72 hour theory is discounted by the majority of Bible references to the resurrections that state it happened on the third day, it is especially clear when we look at the ones towards the end of Luke's account that the resurrection must have been fairly early on the third day as well. I am sorry my friend, but this timeline does not measure up to these texts as has already been pointed out. ​Also I am keen to continue our discussion of ἐπιφώσκω ​With all due respect my friend, it appears that in your arguemnt you have latched onto a secondary meaning of ἐπιφώσκω which it only mean in certain limited situations and you are clinging onto it because your tradition needs it to mean that in all situations or else your view is discounted, however as the other synoptics celarly identify the timing as 'early morning' and as all these other texts point out, the resurrection occurred on the third day, not 72 after the Lord's death (that would be the fourth day!)

Sorry, I thought we were going to engage in Greek exegesis not dip our toe into strong's and Thayer - which is always a dangerous and potentially misleading thing to do because of the sheer simplicity of these tools The truth is I did present all the meanings this form of the word ἐπιφώσκω may take. But maybe you can tell me my friend, according to your research, what is the significance of ἐπιφωσκούσῃ being an active dative present participle in Matt 28:1 as opposed to the indicative imperfect third person active verb in (ἐπέφωσκεν) in Luke 23:54, how does that effect the translation (meaning) of the word into English? Then also we can trace the root of ἐπιφώσκω to ἐπιφαύσκω which means to shine upon or give light to.

Jesus was not risen on Sunday morning my friend the word dawn does not mean morning in that verse you should tudy the greek Actually it means precisely that, let's appeal top the lexicons: [GING] ἐπιφώσκω shine forth, dawn, break perhaps draw on Mt 28:1; Lk 23:54.* [ [Louw-Nida] ἐπιφώσκω: to change from darkness to light in the early morning hours—‘to dawn, to become light.’ [Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains]:2216 ἐπιφώσκω (epiphōskō): vb.; ≡ Str 2020; TDNT 9.310—LN 14.41 dawn, beginning of the day when the sun shines forth (Mt 28:1; Lk 23:54+) They all say the same thing! Freiend, if you are going to appeal to the Greek then you need to make sure you have got it right my friend Did you post all that it means ? My research shews you did not we are dealing with the Jewish culture so please check again A day does not start in the morning that is man made remember Well then my friend, if that is the case you will be able to produce quotes from properly recognized and respected Greek lexicons (as I have done) which support what you saying won't you? Because with all due respect without them you're assertions carry no weight at all. The ball is in your court to refute what I saying, not discredit it through a thinly veiled insinuation that I am leaving something out! As for a calendar day starting in the morning being man made, well yes that is true, but the text doesn't say the calendar day was beginning, it says the day was starting to shine forth, (as every first year Greek student will tell you would accurately translate it) and yes the period of the calendar day that we refer to as day (as opposed to night) does begin in the morning with dawn, and it always has since God created to begin that way. It seems to me that you decided this reference must be to a calendar day but I see no exegesis to support that assumption. Of course the case become even more compelling for what I am saying when we read the other gospel accounts, for example: Mark 16:2 Very early in the morning, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. ( NKJ) Luke 24:1 Now on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they, and certain other women with them, came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared. ( NKJ) There can really be no argument as to what Matthew meant when we see what the other synoptic say.

Jesus was not risen on Sunday morning my friend the word dawn does not mean morning in that verse you should tudy the greek Actually it means precisely that, let's appeal top the lexicons: [GING] ἐπιφώσκω shine forth, dawn, break perhaps draw on Mt 28:1; Lk 23:54.* [ [Louw-Nida] ἐπιφώσκω: to change from darkness to light in the early morning hours—‘to dawn, to become light.’ [Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains]:2216 ἐπιφώσκω (epiphōskō): vb.; ≡ Str 2020; TDNT 9.310—LN 14.41 dawn, beginning of the day when the sun shines forth (Mt 28:1; Lk 23:54+) They all say the same thing! Freiend, if you are going to appeal to the Greek then you need to make sure you have got it right my friend

John 5:39 King James Version (KJV) 39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. Many in an attempt to teach a Sunday morning resurrection, have used Matthew 28:1 in support of such a teaching. We do know, however, that Jesus Christ was resurrected on Saturday afternoon, around sunset, after having been in the grave for three days and three nights. He was killed on a Wednesday, and placed in the grave on Wednesday afternoon, just around sunset. "We read in Matthew 28:1-6 (Authorized Version): 'In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day ( which stars at evening ) of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it… And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for HE IS RISEN, AS HE SAID.' "We note from the passage that Christ was already resurrected by the time the women came to the grave. We are told that they appeared 'in the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week.'This point out that this phrase discusses the END of the SABBATH, that is, Saturday evening or late afternoon, and NOT Sunday morning. I am afraid that is a reference to the dawn of the day (as in the period of daylight) and not the beginning of new calendar day. working from the Greek literally it is "after the Sabbath as the new day was shining forth," or as the sun was rising: 1) Ὀψὲ is functioning as genitive preposition, so it can only mean 'after' 2) ἐπιφωσκούσῃ literally means to shine forth in this context

That is only the case my freind because you are working from a certain presupposition that Jesus was speaking of three full days and nights when he mentioned the prophecy of Jonah. The problem with that is that if this was actually the case, and Jesus meant 72 hours then we have to conclude that their errors in the Bible and we undermine our the infallibility of scripture. Let me try to explain why that is using scripture, consider the following texts of scripture, Matt 16:21, 17:23, 20:19, 27:64, mar 9:31, 10:34, luke 9:22, 13:32, 18:33, 24:7, 24:21, 24:46, john 2:1, Act 10:40, 1 Cor 15:4. The reality is there are more references to Jesus rising on the third day, then after three days and three nights - so if the sign of Jonah means a literal 72 hours all of these references are wrong. However the sign of Jonah doesn't have to mean 72 hours, and indeed when we allow the Bible to be a self interpreting book we see that, consider if you will for a moment the book of Esther, in that Back we read that Esther commands the Jews to fast for three days and three nights, Est 4:16, but she goes into to see the king on the third day (Est 5:1). It is therefore apparent that part of day can be described as a day in the Hebrew mindset, pretty much like we would today, for example I might say, 'i've had a bad day at work' do I mean I was at work for the whole of the previous day? No I don't i ma referring to the working day, and using the word day in one meaning from it's wide semantic range. The truth is there are not enough days mentioned between the death and resurrection of Jesus to have anything other then a Friday Crucifixion and a Sunday resurrection, and I am afraid that any other suggestions rest upon assumptions rather then biblical data.

I disagree, The chronology of the death and buriel is spelled out in Matthew's account, Ch 27:57 -62, where we see that the events of the burial take place on the evening of the execution.

It seems to me that demonic possession was prevalent in the days of Christ, and less so in the days of the Apostles, but apart from that brief period of history it seems larger absent from scripture. It is also striking that we are given no didactic teaching on how to identify it or deal with it in the word of God. The devil is dangerous foe, and his servants are powerful, but he is also a defeated and bound enemy at this time. To me that suggests that demon possession is not a common thing today, if it is even happening at all. Now whilst I am sure there are many well meaning folks involved in such 'ministries' My experiences of deliverance ministries amongst African churches that I am familiar with is that they are often abusive, sometimes physically, but frequently emotionally and spiritually.

It would be better to focus on tearing down the heart idols that lead to this sort of thing.

Do they? One can only assume that you are referring to Jude 1:14 which contains a statement similar to one found in the book of Enoch. However the idea that Jude quotes Enoch is simply an assumption, there are problems with the view, and there are other possibilities. One problem is that it is not an exact quote, the book of Enoch says: “Behold, he comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal for everything which thesinful and ungodly have done, and committed against him.” therefore it is possible that both works are simply reporting the same oral tradition that has been passed down. In which case it's inclusion in Jude simply authenticates that single tradition. There are other possibilities, Jude may simply have drawn his illusion from the same Old Testament texts that the writer of Enoch did, eg Deut 33:2, or as we have no early copies of the book of Enoch in Greek, It seems to have originating in Ethiopia and to have been originally written in Ge'ez so maybe the later scribes that translated it into Greek were guilty of a little harmonization between the text of Enoch and Jude? Being as familiar with Jude as the probably were? Now, even if Jude did actually quote Enoch, what does that actually prove? It only proves that the words he quoted are authentic it does nothing to establish the whole book as being inspired. Think about like this, everyday people are quoting other people positively, does that mean that the one quoting is endorsing everything that person has ever said, or does it simply mean that one quote is useful for the speakers/ writers purpose?

If God didn't create evil then where does it come from and what is it's origin?

An interesting point to speculate on - but in my opinion we are not given sufficient detail and clarity to be dogmatic about it. I agree I disagree with this, the term is גַּן (gan) and, just like all words it has a semantic range, for example it can be used figuratively to speak of a chaste women, it has the sense of an enclosed and ordered space. I wonder if you are thinking in terms of עֵ֖דֶן but again that does mean paradise, rather it has the sense of pleasure or delight, When we read of the Garden of Eden, we are reading of a special place that God created in the land of Eden (Gen 2:8) specially for man to dwell in. simply put we are reading that God created a special garden in a delightful place, there is no reason to believe that Eden refers to anything less then the entire land mass that God had caused to appear when he gathered the waters below the firmament together (Gen 1:9) I am not following the logic here my friend, In Gen 1:31 God declares that his entire creation, including the heavens (v1) was very good - where Satan was physically present at that time is not relevant, for the declaration of God is all inclusive, both the spiritual and physical reality were very good. So, whilst I agree that Satan cannot have fallen before creation was finished I am think the route to that conclusion is somewhat simpler then you have made it. The whole earth was very good, remember this declaration of God comes before we read of the garden being created and planted by God, it is not exclusive to the garden - the whole earth and indeed the whole of creation was very good. From where does one draw that conclusion? It might well be the case, but i don't see it in the word of God. Without doubt, for that is the clear implication of scripture Agreed, though I think the implication is that the time was short, for example Adam hadn't even consummated his marriage to Women at this point - or at least not when she was ovulating! So it cannot have been long after creation - possibly even the first seventh day. Ok, I agree with the thrust of that. Satan must have fallen after day 6 and before the time of Gen 3:1 - unless Gen 3 is actually his fall? Maybe Gen 3 and the role he played in corrupting God's creation was part and parcel of his rebellion? I don't know, I am just surmising there, but the standard (orthodox) answer is as expressed above, in agreement with your conclusion

is that because it isn't scripture - and therefore not a reliable source?

What baffles me in scripture is not the sin of a particular created being - I know my own tendency to sin so I am not amazed by that same tendency in others. Nor am I amazed and baffeled by God's judgement, no matter how bloody and unfair it may seem to some - for truly not a single one of us deserve to take our next breadth rather we are all deserving of God's immediate judgement. No, what amazing me is God's grace - that he has chosen to place his love upon a wretch like me and send his own son, the Lord Jesus Christ into this world, to bear my sin and my guilt in his own body so that I can then be clothed in his rightous and called a son of the living God - that is what baffles me, God's amazing grace!

It is self explanatory once we see the contrast that is being set up - God has made all things but we have been made to feel like aliens in time, we have a longing to be eternal. this is demonstrated in man's desire to leave behind a legacy, we all want to be remembered for something, maybe we want to be remembered as a good dad, or a great artist - but we all want to endure beyond the span of life we have been granted on this earth. We grieved to be trapped in time, we want to understand our place in the universe - we know that there is more to us then just this little life - we have eternity inside of us.

so in other word you can't explain the Knowledge vanishing so we ignore it, if what ever "the perfect one comes" means has already happened as Most Baptist preach, and tongues has ceased then knowledge has vanished, which can't be for Biblical knowledge is to know good and evil, right and wrong. and if Knowledge hasn't vanished then tongues hasn't ceased and if knowledge has vanished we wouldn't know if it is good to speak tongues or not I am not ignoring anything. I do not believe tongues have ceased according to 1 Cor 13. I have explained the text you refer to in detail and I have shown why it is not relevant to what I am saying and why it does not (or should not) form part of the cessationist argument. The whole point of what Paul is saying is that these gifts are temporary, and will eventaully pass away, but gifts like love will endure, so long for that enduring gift, and not the passing ones - I can do no more in regards to this straw-man I am afraid. Also, I have asked you cite sources for your claims of what baptist's teach, none has been forthcoming! The reason I am challenging this is because I am a baptist, and I don't teach what you say, and further more no particular baptists do as far as I can tell. The idea that 'baptists' all hold to a single uniform theology seems to be somewhat of an oxymoron to me - we baptists have always been a diverse bunch my friend, some are pelagian, some semi, some Arminian, some Amyraldian some are Calvinists, some are hyper Calvinists, we have different views on the ends days, and so the list goes on - so maybe we have different views on the gifts as well - which is why it is best to let another speak and address the arguments they are making, not the ones we would like them to make because we have heard them before and we have an answer for that one already The simple fact is my friend, that as I see it the onus of proof is not on the cessationist camp, but on the continuationist camp. History demonstrates that tongues have ceased (at least for periods in history), historic theology demonstrates that the vast majority of Bible believing Christians have not viewed tongues as being a gift for their own day, and the biblical gift of tongues (human languages) is not what we usually see today, rather what we usually see is exactly what Paul was trying to stop happening in Corinth (people thinking the spectactular gifts were more important then the mundane [the purposes of 1 Cor 13] and everyone was at it with no order, which is what 1 Cor 14 is all about.) Indeed what we see to day is the 'gift' taking to an extreme beyond that which was happening in Corinth. Hence I am not a cessationist by tradition or mere conviction - but by evidence (biblical and historic) - I am open to be convinced that tongues continue today, but to be convinced I need to see some contradictory evidence that demonstrates: 1) It is the same gift as detailed in the Bible (Acts 2 being the only text that contains such detail) 2) Serve a revelatory and sign purpose (as tongues did in the early church)(Acts 2, 1 Cor 12-14) 3) Is being demonstrated in line with Paul's didactic teaching on the subject (1 Cor 12-14) 4) It is a gift for the church (not just individual or individual congregations) (Acts 2, 1 Cor 12-14) Anything that cannot address and satisfy all those criteria is not the biblical gift of tongues. Now, to be fair, my level of evidence may be faulty, and that is open for challenge. Too often today though positions are defendedg not by making a positive case for them, but by merely seeking to disprove the oppositions case by any means possible, as if proving your opponent wrong must mean you are right. Now that is relatively easy to do (any old unskilled labourer can destroy in seconds what it took skilled builders years to build). However such a negative argument, does not in reality make a case. As Christians we are called to be edifiers, we are supposed to be building each other up. So, my friend, make your case if you wish to do so

{Justice of God - giving us what we deserve} Mercy of God - not giving us what we deserve Grace of God - giving us what we don't deserve Grace is more then that, it is God giving the exact opposite of what we deserve. In God's grace he gives us what the Lord Jesus Christ deserved in reward for the life he lived here on earth, and God only does that because on the cross he gave the Lord Jesus Christ what our lives deserve - that is the fullness of grace