# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Video: "The Future of Protestantism"

## Theocrat

> On April 29th, 2014, The Davenant Trust sponsored a forum on The Future of Protestantism, held at Biola University in California. Hosted by the Torrey Honors Institute there, and co-sponsored by the magazine _First Things_, the forum brought together Dr. Peter J. Leithart (Trinity House Institute, Birmingham, AL; New Saint Andrews College, Moscow, ID), Dr. Carl Trueman (Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA), and Dr. Fred Sanders (Biola University, La Mirada, CA), to explore the following questions:
> What are the flaws of modern evangelical American Protestantism?Why are these shortcomings not reason, as many have argued, to convert to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy?How might Protestantismparticularly in Americaneed to change if it is to survive and thrive in the 21st century?

----------


## Theocrat

Here is the essay that sparked the whole conversation: "The End of Protestantism" by Dr. Peter J. Leithart.

Here is the response that it evoked: "Glad Protestantism" by Fred Sanders...as well as this one: "Reformation Day and Its Critics" by Peter Escalante.

----------


## Theocrat

I would like all of my Protestant and non-Protestant brothers and sisters to take some time to watch this engaging forum. I think it will give you some great insights about how Protestants can work with non-Protestants in the coming ages to shine the light of the Gospel to all of the world, while simultaneously addressing the issues which separate the two groups within the Body of Christ.

----------


## Terry1

> First, something praiseworthy about Leithart’s “The End of Protestantism.” It’s very clear what he deplores. He deplores the kind of small-minded Protestant whose heroes are Luther and Calvin, and who has no other heroes in the 1500 years prior to them. He deplores the kind of knee-jerk Protestant who is locked into permanent reaction against whatever Roman Catholics do or say, and who enjoys setting up Roman strawmen (Vatican I, Catholic Encyclopedia vintage, if possible) to knock down. He deplores the kind of unimaginative Protestant who mocks patristic Bible interpretation and thinks that if the grammatical-historical mode of interpreting was good enough for Jesus, it should be good enough for us. He deplores the kind of amnesiac Protestant who leaps from “Bible Times” to the Reformation, thinking he has skipped over nothing but bad guys in doing so.
> 
> This is all certainly deplorable. Where shall we find men of such denominational ressentiment? Mostly in “the local Baptist or Bible church,” but also among “conservative Presbyterians.” Leithart deplores a few other things, like preaching in a suit and tie instead of vestments, and a low sacramentology, but let’s stick for a moment to the historical outline of the portrait. Leithart calls us away from that kind of small-minded, knee-jerk, unimaginative, amnesiac man of ressentiment, and conjures instead something free and fully realized. He calls it Reformational Catholicism, and builds up its portrait in bright, not to say self-congratulatory, colors, in contrast to the dark tones he has just used.


I found this part of the article interesting in light of the fact that I truly believe that the way for the Calvinists to be enlightened is through their own wanting and desire to understand the first 1500 years of Christianity before them.  It's very difficult for many of these people who subscribe to this doctrine to think or believe anything outside of it, because as we've seen, this doctrine has a very unique and distinctive way of holding it's subscribers hostage and in bondage to it through fear of what will happen to them if they abandon this belief.

It's not just Calvinism that does this either, there are other denominations that hold their subscribers hostage through the teaching that if they abandon that particular doctrine--they can not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  So we first have to understand what's holding people back from wanting to think outside of their doctrinal boxes and why before we can begin to come together as one in the body of Christ.  Let's not forget either that there is a devil at work in the world also and working very hard to deceive mankind through their own ignorance and corruption.

----------


## pcosmar

I ain't protesting anything but religion itself.

I long for the end of it. Not Reformation,, but elimination.

----------


## Theocrat

> I found this part of the article interesting in light of the fact that I truly believe that the way for the Calvinists to be enlightened is through their own wanting and desire to understand the first 1500 years of Christianity before them.  It's very difficult for many of these people who subscribe to this doctrine to think or believe anything outside of it, because as we've seen, this doctrine has a very unique and distinctive way of holding it's subscribers hostage and in bondage to it through fear of what will happen to them if they abandon this belief.
> 
> It's not just Calvinism that does this either, there are other denominations that hold their subscribers hostage through the teaching that if they abandon that particular doctrine--they can not inherit the kingdom of heaven.  So we first have to understand what's holding people back from wanting to think outside of their doctrinal boxes and why before we can begin to come together as one in the body of Christ.  Let's not forget either that there is a devil at work in the world also and working very hard to deceive mankind through their own ignorance and corruption.


Despite all of the controversy it may have sparked in Reformed circles, I really enjoyed Dr. Leithart's essay. In terms that he uses in that essay, I would definitely consider myself as a "Reformational Catholic."

----------


## Terry1

Through my own studies, prayer and experiences, I have found that what the Apostle Paul said is so true.  Paul called himself "a free man in Christ".  Paul also said that he became all things to all men that he might win souls to Christ.

Examining these scriptures and with the understanding I already had about being blown about by the winds of doctrine.  I began to see what Paul was talking about.  Paul was talking about being so free and liberated in Christ for the purpose of winning souls that he actually said and did many things contrary to the gospel to win souls to Christ.  Paul didn't do these things because he actually believed in them, but did them in respect to the people to draw then closer to the witness of Christ.  When I mention that Paul said and did things contrary to the gospel of Christ for the purpose of winning souls, I mean that Paul respected their customs and traditions when he went into a place to witness to them.  This did not mean that Paul was practicing them because he believed them, but because in order to gain any respect from the people to draw them into the truth and witness of Christ--Paul first had to show them respect for what they were currently believing.

So when Paul said that he became all things to all men to win souls for Christ--this is how free Paul knew he was in Christ to lead the sheep home to the Lord--God knowing Paul's heart and intentions.

So in other words, I know it's important that we respect each others beliefs and show them kindness and love before we can draw them into the knowledge and wisdom of Gods plan and purpose within the body of Christ as a whole.  It is nothing more or less than blind ignorance that holds people in bondage to a particular doctrine who do not understand that God exists outside of mans own interpretations and doctrines.  The only doctrine that the Apostles taught was the Gospel of Jesus Christ--they didn't have the written word of the New Testament--they were the mouth of God creating the written word.

----------


## Terry1

> Despite all of the controversy it may have sparked in Reformed circles, I really enjoyed Dr. Leithart's essay. In terms that he uses in that essay, I would definitely consider myself as a "Reformational Catholic."


I enjoyed reading his essay too.  He really does bring a lot of issues to light that need to be given credit and thought.  Because I really didn't get that he was asking that people abandon their doctrines that they have subscribed to, but give more respect to the 1500 years of Christianity and those traditions that existed long before the reformation.

----------


## Terry1

The other problem I see with Protestantism is that they are completely diverse from one another with the body of themselves as a whole.  The number of Protestant denominations varies anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 different denominations whose doctrines all differ from one another from one degree to another depending upon the source and count.  Needless to say--that there are so many different Protestant denominations that the only common denominator they have is their aversion to the Catholic faith, despite the fact that most of them can't agree on doctrinal issue between themselves.

Although I believe that it's a noble effort in hope to bring Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants together under one umbrella as the body of Christ as whole, I see little hope of this happening in reality.

----------


## Theocrat

> The other problem I see with Protestantism is that they are completely diverse from one another with the body of themselves as a whole.  The number of Protestant denominations varies anywhere from 20,000 to 30,000 different denominations whose doctrines all differ from one another from one degree to another depending upon the source and count.  Needless to say--that there are so many different Protestant denominations that the only common denominator they have is their aversion to the Catholic faith, despite the fact that most of them can't agree on doctrinal issue between themselves.
> 
> Although I believe that it's a noble effort in hope to bring Catholic, Orthodox and Protestants together under one umbrella as the body of Christ as whole, I see little hope of this happening in reality.


What you're addressing there is an issue that I believe Paul was reminding the Corinthian church about in 1 Corinthians 12. I think sometimes we Protestants forget that there are other church members from other denominations who complement us on some doctrines and issues that we could use help in.

----------


## Theocrat

> I ain't protesting anything but religion itself.
> 
> I long for the end of it. Not Reformation,, but elimination.


Everyone is religious, my brother. The important thing is to know whether you are part of true religion, or false religion.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Everyone is religious, my brother. The important thing is to know whether you are part of true religion, or false religion.


+rep

----------


## pcosmar

> Everyone is religious, my brother. The important thing is to know whether you are part of true religion, or false religion.


My Faith is in God the Father,, Creator of All that is,, and in Jesus Christ his son , Who died and shed his blood as a sacrifice for sin. And who rose again to defeat Death and who sits on the Right hand of the Father.

I do not follow men,,
None follow me. Nor would I want them to.

I am a believer,, I have no religion.

----------


## Nang

> Despite all of the controversy it may have sparked in Reformed circles, I really enjoyed Dr. Leithart's essay. In terms that he uses in that essay, I would definitely consider myself as a "Reformational Catholic."


I just saw this thread, and will be upfront with you Theo.

The Federal Vision movement is the worst thing to ever happen to the Reformed Faith, and as much as you and I will agree on some of the basic doctrines, I cannot identify with you or befriend you as I first thought I could, because of your support of these men.  I consider them to be instrumental in attempting to lure Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists to back to Roman Catholic beliefs.*  In my evaluation, they are false teachers who oppose Justification By Faith, Alone.

I will not discuss the errors here, because I refuse to give them audience . . even on a non-Reformed forum.  

My husband and I have followed these developments for years, and have sorely grieved over what has happened in our greatest seminaries, and what is happening in the visible churches this day.

*I note the endorsement you received from HB.  Such is understandable for you are talking his language.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Theo, as much as I respect your keen insight into other things, I am with Nang in that I see Federal Visionism as an assault on the doctrine of justification by faith.

It is a shame to the PCA that they haven't defrocked Pete Liethart.  They are turning a blind eye to the clear and present dangers of Federal Visionism.

----------


## Theocrat

> My Faith is in God the Father,, Creator of All that is,, and in Jesus Christ his son , Who died and shed his blood as a sacrifice for sin. And who rose again to defeat Death and who sits on the Right hand of the Father.
> 
> I do not follow men,,
> None follow me. Nor would I want them to.
> 
> I am a believer,, I have no religion.


I say "Amen" to the first part of your reply. However, the Gospel message was handed down to you from other men in history (guided by the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, of course), and without which, you would not have heard the Gospel and believed it (cf. Romans 10:14-15). So, in a sense, you are following men. Salvation is not just individualistic; you are saved into union with Christ and into fellowship with His Body, which is the Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 12). Even the apostle John makes this clear in 1 John 1:




> That which was from the beginning, Which we have heard, Which we have seen with our eyes, Which we have looked upon and our hands have handled of the Word of life (for the Life was manifested, and we have seen it and bear witness and show unto you that eternal Life, Which was with the Father and was manifested unto us) that Which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us, and, truly, our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full.
> 
> This then is the message which we have heard of Him and declare unto you, that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth; but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.


Your faith in God is not a work of your own, pcosmar. You are a member of the Body of Christ, His Church, and as such, your religion is attached to the Head of that Body, Jesus Christ Himself.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I just saw this thread, and will be upfront with you Theo.
> 
> The Federal Vision movement is the worst thing to ever happen to the Reformed Faith, and as much as you and I will agree on some of the basic doctrines, I cannot identify with you or befriend you as I first thought I could, because of your support of these men.  I consider them to be instrumental in attempting to lure Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists to back to Roman Catholic beliefs.*  In my evaluation, they are false teachers who oppose Justification By Faith, Alone.
> 
> I will not discuss the errors here, because I refuse to give them audience . . even on a non-Reformed forum.  
> 
> My husband and I have followed these developments for years, and have sorely grieved over what has happened in our greatest seminaries, and what is happening in the visible churches this day.
> 
> *I note the endorsement you received from HB.  Such is understandable for you are talking his language.


Two things:

First of all, why is being friends with a person contingent on their doctrinal orthodoxy?  I cannot endorse theo as a doctrinally orthodox teacher, despite his sound grasp of many theological concepts, because of this issue.  From my understanding; federal vision is a false gospel.  But I don't see how this precludes one from being on friendly terms IF one is willing to have the hard conversations without being offended.  I haven't chosen to make enemies with anyone here, rather some people have been so offended by the preaching of the true gospel that they have chosen to make me an enemy.  I haven't experienced this with Theo as of yet.

Second of all, I see nothing wrong with debunking false teachers, whether here or anywhere else.  I'd like to learn more about this issue and would greatly value your explaining the issues.  This doesn't mean you are accepting these false teachers or "giving them audience", rather you are warning people of their teachings.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Theo, as much as I respect your keen insight into other things, I am with Nang in that I see Federal Visionism as an assault on the doctrine of justification by faith.
> 
> It is a shame to the PCA that they haven't defrocked Pete Liethart.  They are turning a blind eye to the clear and present dangers of Federal Visionism.


I don't really understand Presbyterian ecclesiology, but SHOULDN'T this be something Liethart's local church deals with?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I say "Amen" to the first part of your reply. However, the Gospel message was handed down to you from other men in history (guided by the superintendence of the Holy Spirit, of course), and without which, you would not have heard the Gospel and believed it (cf. Romans 10:14-15). So, in a sense, you are following men.* Salvation is not just individualistic; you are saved into union with Christ and into fellowship with His Body, which is the Church (cf. 1 Corinthians 12). Even the apostle John makes this clear in 1 John 1:
> 
> 
> 
> Your faith in God is not a work of your own, pcosmar. You are a member of the Body of Christ, His Church, and as such, your religion is attached to the Head of that Body, Jesus Christ Himself.*


This^^   (though I think for now we'll have to agree to disagree on how to properly define "His Church". ~hugs~ )

----------


## Theocrat

> I just saw this thread, and will be upfront with you Theo.
> 
> The Federal Vision movement is the worst thing to ever happen to the Reformed Faith, and as much as you and I will agree on some of the basic doctrines, I cannot identify with you or befriend you as I first thought I could, because of your support of these men.  I consider them to be instrumental in attempting to lure Presbyterians and some Reformed Baptists to back to Roman Catholic beliefs.*  In my evaluation, they are false teachers who oppose Justification By Faith, Alone.
> 
> I will not discuss the errors here, because I refuse to give them audience . . even on a non-Reformed forum.  
> 
> My husband and I have followed these developments for years, and have sorely grieved over what has happened in our greatest seminaries, and what is happening in the visible churches this day.
> 
> *I note the endorsement you received from HB.  Such is understandable for you are talking his language.





> Theo, as much as I respect your keen insight into other things, I am with Nang in that I see Federal Visionism as an assault on the doctrine of justification by faith.
> 
> It is a shame to the PCA that they haven't defrocked Pete Liethart.  They are turning a blind eye to the clear and present dangers of Federal Visionism.


I agree with much of the theological discussions within the "Federal Vision," but I do not oppose "justification by faith," neither do I see it as leading men "towards Rome." As a matter of fact, most of the men I know who are sympathetic to the "Federal Vision" are not opposed to "justification by faith," and they have many issues with Roman Catholic theology. The important thing about "justification by faith," though, is that the Bible has more to say about it than our Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms have expressed. But even so, "Federal Vision" is much more than about "justification by faith." If anything, it focuses more on the "objectivity of the New Covenant."

I really would like to know how much of their writings and talks that you've read and listened to, because when you say such things, it reveals to me that you are getting your information from second-hand sources.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This^^   (though I think for now we'll have to agree to disagree on how to properly define "His Church". ~hugs~ )


What is this "hugs" stuff all the time?  It's kind of feminine.

----------


## Nang

> I don't really understand Presbyterian ecclesiology, but SHOULDN'T this be something Liethart's local church deals with?



Friend,

This is such a profound tragedy that is occurring within the Presbyterian churches, that unless one is totally informed of its history and aims, one should not offer any suggestions or solutions.

IOW's, skip this battle, but be on guard for this error infiltrating your Baptist church.  There are actually teams of people who deliberately infiltrate unknowing churches, to spread this FV poison.  Check out all newcomers, carefully.

As far as being friends . . this matter goes beyond doctrinal disputes and differences.  Befriending or identifying with this movement, in my view, would be like befriending Satan, for these people are destroying, bit by bit,_ in the name of orthodoxy,_ the Presbyterian seminaries and churches . . simply because they come across so confessional that they are not confronted and shamed by the members, as they should be.

----------


## Theocrat

> Two things:
> 
> First of all, why is being friends with a person contingent on their doctrinal orthodoxy?  I cannot endorse theo as a doctrinally orthodox teacher, despite his sound grasp of many theological concepts, because of this issue.  From my understanding; federal vision is a false gospel.  But I don't see how this precludes one from being on friendly terms IF one is willing to have the hard conversations without being offended.  I haven't chosen to make enemies with anyone here, rather some people have been so offended by the preaching of the true gospel that they have chosen to make me an enemy.  I haven't experienced this with Theo as of yet.
> 
> Second of all, I see nothing wrong with debunking false teachers, whether here or anywhere else.  I'd like to learn more about this issue and would greatly value your explaining the issues.  This doesn't mean you are accepting these false teachers or "giving them audience", rather you are warning people of their teachings.


And, once again, how much of the "Federal Vision" discussion have you read and/or listened to, FF? It's one thing to call something "false teaching" when you provide examples of it, comparing it with God's word. But it's another thing, entirely, to call something "false teaching" when you have no information to back that claim up. SO, as of now, you're just speaking in ignorance (just as Sola and Nang are).

----------


## Nang

> I agree with much of the theological discussions within the "Federal Vision," but I do not oppose "justification by faith," neither do I see it as leading men "towards Rome." As a matter of fact, most of the men I know who are sympathetic to the "Federal Vision" are not opposed to "justification by faith," and they have many issues with Roman Catholic theology. The important thing about "justification by faith," though, is that the Bible has more to say about it than our Reformed confessions, creeds, and catechisms have expressed. But even so, "Federal Vision" is much more than about "justification by faith." If anything, it focuses more on the "objectivity of the New Covenant."
> 
> 
> 
> I really would like to know how much of their writings and talks that you've read and listened to, because when you say such things, it reveals to me that you are getting your information from second-hand sources.



I will not discuss this with you.  Here or elsewhere.   

But I will remind people here of your agenda (mod delete) if you continue posting videos or throwing out these names.

----------


## Theocrat

> Friend,
> 
> This is such a profound tragedy that is occurring within the Presbyterian churches, that unless one is totally informed of its history and aims, one should not offer any suggestions or solutions.
> 
> IOW's, skip this battle, but be on guard for this error infiltrating your Baptist church.  There are actually teams of people who deliberately infiltrate unknowing churches, to spread this FV poison.  Check out all newcomers, carefully.
> 
> As far as being friends . . this matter goes beyond doctrinal disputes and differences.  Befriending or identifying with this movement, in my view, would be like befriending Satan, for these people are destroying, bit by bit,_ in the name of orthodoxy,_ the Presbyterian seminaries and churches . . simply because they come across so confessional that they are not confronted and shamed by the members, as they should be.


Oh, I see. So, because I believe in many of the doctrinal precepts within the "Federal Vision" discussion, that makes me a child of Satan. 

*And where is your Biblical evidence for such a claim?*

----------


## Nang

> And, once again, how much of the "Federal Vision" discussion have you read and/or listened to, FF? It's one thing to call something "false teaching" when you provide examples of it, comparing it with God's word. But it's another thing, entirely, to call something "false teaching" when you have no information to back that claim up. SO, as of now, you're just speaking in ignorance (just as Sola and Nang are).


I do not speak in ignorance . . . how dare you so accuse me of speaking of what I know not.

Such wickedness!

----------


## Theocrat

> I will not discuss this with you.  Here or elsewhere.   
> 
> But I will remind people here of your agenda (mod delete) if you continue posting videos or throwing out these names.


Why not? This is the perfect thread to discuss the subject, after all. What are you afraid of, my sister?

----------


## Nang

> Why not? This is the perfect thread to discuss the subject, after all. What are you afraid of, my sister?


I refuse to be your accomplice.  That simple.

And I will consider any and every taunt, such as the above, as verification of (mod delete)

----------


## Sola_Fide

Theo, I am very aware of Federal Visionism.  We talked about a while ago in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ight=visionism

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why not? This is the perfect thread to discuss the subject, after all. What are you afraid of, my sister?


In a nutshell,  Federal Vision denies justification by faith by saying that _covenant faithfulness_ (not Christ's works) are the final basis of justification.

----------


## Theocrat

> I refuse to be your accomplice.  That simple.
> 
> And I will consider any and every taunt, such as the above, as verification of wicked intent.


Wicked intent? Excuse me, but you've made some very bold statements about me in the last two replies of yours:




> Friend,
> 
> This is such a profound tragedy that is occurring within the Presbyterian churches, that unless one is totally informed of its history and aims, one should not offer any suggestions or solutions.
> 
> IOW's, skip this battle, but be on guard for this error infiltrating your Baptist church.  There are actually teams of people who deliberately infiltrate unknowing churches, to spread this FV poison.  Check out all newcomers, carefully.
> 
> As far as being friends . . this matter goes beyond doctrinal disputes and differences. * Befriending or identifying with this movement, in my view, would be like befriending Satan, for these people are destroying, bit by bit, in the name of orthodoxy, the Presbyterian seminaries and churches* . . simply because they come across so confessional that they are not confronted and shamed by the members, as they should be.





> I will not discuss this with you.  Here or elsewhere.   
> 
> *But I will remind people here of your agenda and the ugliness of your propaganda*, if you continue posting videos or throwing out these names.


[Emphasis mine]

You've just accused me of being "a friend of Satan" and spreading "ugly propaganda," but I'm the one with wicked intent? I'm asking you, in the spirit of the prinicple of _Sola Scriptura_, to show me how my beliefs in "Federal Vision" (which I have not yet expressed) are incompatible with the word of God. It's just that simple, Nang. If you can't do it, then I strongly suggest that you refrain from labeling me anything of a heterodoxical nature.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> In a nutshell,  Federal Vision denies justification by faith by saying that _covenant faithfulness_ (not Christ's works) are the final basis of justification.


I believe Theo's question was why Nang is afraid to _discuss_ Federal Visionism.  Since my knowledge is not quite up to par I'll suffice to say I don't really understand the fear of _discussion_, even if FV is blatant satanism.



> Wicked intent? Excuse me, but you've made some very bold statements about me in the last two replies of yours:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Emphasis mine]
> 
> You've just accused me of being "a friend of Satan" and spreading "ugly propaganda," but I'm the one with wicked intent? I'm asking you, in the spirit of the prinicple of _Sola Scriptura_, to show me how my beliefs in "Federal Vision" (which I have not yet expressed) are incompatible with the word of God. It's just that simple, Nang. If you can't do it, then I strongly suggest that you refrain from labeling me anything of a heterodoxical nature.


I'll skip the harsh rhetoric and simply say that Romans 4:5 doesn't fit with your viewpoints on baptism as you've presented them in the past.  John 3:18 does not either.   And, without accusing you of anything, I will simply state that anyone who denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone is anathemized under the anathemization of Galatians 1:8.  I'll assume the best and assume that you agree that justification is by faith alone.  But understand that if you do not believe this, you are on shaky ground.

----------


## Theocrat

> In a nutshell,  Federal Vision denies justification by faith by saying that _covenant faithfulness_ (not Christ's works) are the final basis of justification.


No, that's not quite it, Sola. Because we are justified by Christ's works, we are justified by our union with Him, whereby, Christ's works are ours (cf. Ephesians 2:10), not by merit, but by faith. The covenant, then, is the means by which the Holy Spirit works out our justified status through His work of sanctification. There is no denial of Christ's works about it.

Ask yourself this question: since God is triune, what, then, are the Father's and the Spirit's role in justification?

----------


## Christian Liberty

The Father's role is to unconditionally elect the individuals who will be justified.  The Spirit's role is to  provide irresistible grace to these people so that they will believe.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> (mod delete).


Come on, Nang.  I *agree with you* on the issue (To the limited knowledge I have.)  But to just say "yeah, I'm not talking to you but you're wicked" is completely unhelpful.  Would you definitively declare Theo to be reprobate?  Would you definitively declare everyone who is listening who is sympathetic to FV to be reprobate as well?  If not, this type of response is uncalled for.  It would be one thing to call him wicked along with an explanation, but to do so without an explanation?  How does this help anybody?

----------


## Theocrat

> I believe Theo's question was why Nang is afraid to _discuss_ Federal Visionism.  Since my knowledge is not quite up to par I'll suffice to say I don't really understand the fear of _discussion_, even if FV is blatant satanism.
> 
> 
> I'll skip the harsh rhetoric and simply say that Romans 4:5 doesn't fit with your viewpoints on baptism as you've presented them in the past.  John 3:18 does not either.   And, without accusing you of anything, I will simply state that anyone who denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone is anathemized under the anathemization of Galatians 1:8.  I'll assume the best and assume that you agree that justification is by faith alone.  But understand that if you do not believe this, you are on shaky ground.


I'm sorry, FF, but justification by faith is *not* the Gospel. It is definitely linked to the Gospel, but it is not the heart of the Gospel. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the Gospel accounts do we find Jesus preaching "justification by faith" to His people. He talks about the Kingdom of God much more than He does "justification by faith." This is the problem with many Calvinists: we take one doctrine (like justification by faith) and run with it, trying to impose it all over the place, when you simply can't do that because you're going to run into problems when you face other texts (such as in James 2:21, 24).

Once again, you've called "Federal Vision" "blatant Satanism," but *where is your evidence of that?* Show us all where "Federal Vision" is a doctrine of Satan, please.

----------


## Theocrat

> (mod delete).


And your sentiments above are a perfect example of why Protestantism will die. You subscribe to "_Sola Scriptura_," so I'm calling you to hold me accountable, Nang, and show me how my belief in "Federal Vision" theology is heresy. You know the Scriptures, so you should be able to do that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm sorry, FF, but justification by faith is *not* the Gospel. It is definitely linked to the Gospel, but it is not the heart of the Gospel. As a matter of fact, nowhere in the Gospel accounts do we find Jesus preaching "justification by faith" to His people. He talks about the Kingdom of God much more than He does "justification by faith." This is the problem with many Calvinists: we take one doctrine (like justification by faith) and run with it, trying to impose it all over the place, when you simply can't do that because you're going to run into problems when you face other texts (such as in James 2:21, 24).


I agree that justification by faith is not the gospel.  I didn't say that justification by faith is the gospel.  I said that anyone who denies it is preaching the false gospel of Galatians 1:8 and is anathema.  Big difference.  Justification by faith is an ESSENTIAL COMPONENT of the gospel, and it is taught in both the Old and New Testaments.  But its theoretically possible to believe in "justificiation by faith" and yet lack the gospel.  What one has his faith in must also be correct, justification is by faith *in the person and work of Jesus Christ.*

Now, we could debate how much of an understanding one can have before having saving faith.  But a gospel of faith + works is a completely different gospel that lacks saving faith entirely.

James does not deny justification by faith alone when taken in context.




> Once again, you've called "Federal Vision" "blatant Satanism," but *where is your evidence of that?* Show us all where "Federal Vision" is a doctrine of Satan, please.


I didn't really say that.  To my understanding it is based on Galatians 1:8-9, but I didn't actually say it.  I was simply granting Nang that she was right for the sake of argument and saying that it still isn't wrong to discuss the issue.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And your sentiments above are a perfect example of why Protestantism will die. You subscribe to "_Sola Scriptura_," so I'm calling you to hold me accountable, Nang, and show me how my belief in "Federal Vision" theology is heresy. You know the Scriptures, so you should be able to do that.


Protestantism dying is going to happen regardless of what she does.  God has always preserved his people and set them apart.  Never will the entire church go  along with Rome, not ever.  God has a people that he keeps out of Babylon (Revelation 18:4.)

----------


## Nang

> Come on, Nang.  I *agree with you* on the issue (To the limited knowledge I have.)  But to just say "yeah, I'm not talking to you but you're wicked" is completely unhelpful.


Unhelpful to whom?

I am NOT going to give Theo an audience to argue his rot . . and you should not accommodate him either.

FF, this is the worse thing that is occurring in Christendom this day.  Do not touch it.

Nang

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Unhelpful to whom?
> 
> I am NOT going to give Theo an audience to argue his rot . . and you should not accommodate him either.
> 
> FF, this is the worse thing that is occurring in Christendom this day.  Do not touch it.
> 
> Nang


Is this really any worse than Roman Catholicism?  Or, for that matter, blatant paganism?  I've argued with people who straight up admitted that they were pagans and agnostics on my college campus.  Was I "giving them an audience" by debating them and taking them to the scriptures?

Let me ask you this, who is this refusal to respond helping?

By contrast, a scriptural response could help Theo, and it could help anybody who's on  the fence.  I'm not asking you to throw pearls before swine here.  I could understand why you'd give up on  some of the people here.  But you have yet to even present your arguments to Theo at all.

I'm going to give it a shot.  If that offends you, I'm sorry.

----------


## Christian Liberty

And, I would appreciate your help, since you know more about this than I do.

----------


## Nang

> I agree that justification by faith is not the gospel.



*Justification by faith, alone, IS THE GOSPEL.*

See where and how he just drug you down to actually deny the true gospel, FF?

Do not engage him, please. . .

----------


## Nang

> Is this really any worse than Roman Catholicism?


It is the same false gospel, only these FV people are using this to destroy the Protestant faith through the Presbyterian seminaries and their churches.

So yes, it is worse.






> By contrast, a scriptural response could help Theo,


You are being totally naive.

I cannot force you to heed my warnings.  But I will give you no help in this at all.

----------


## Theocrat

> *Justification by faith, alone, IS THE GOSPEL.*
> 
> See where and how he just drug you down to actually deny the true gospel, FF?
> 
> Do not engage him, please. . .


_Sola Scriptura_, Nang. Where in the Gospels does Jesus, once, tell us that the Gospel is "justification by faith"?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> *Justification by faith, alone, IS THE GOSPEL.*
> 
> See where and how he just drug you down to actually deny the true gospel, FF?
> 
> Do not engage him, please. . .


No, Theo was technically right.  Did you read my post?  I said that justification by faith alone is an ESSENTIAL COMPONENT of the gospel, but in order to have the whole gospel you must also have faith in the right thing, namely, the person and work of Jesus Christ.

You agree with this.  I know you do.  Theo is trying to argue that somebody who believes in justification by works believes the gospel, which I have never once said, and have in fact explicitly rejected.  

I don't understand this exceptional reaction toward this particular heresy over and above all others.  How is this any worse than any other pseudo-Christian heresy like Catholicism or Mormonism that we shouldn't preach the true gospel to them to?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It is the same false gospel, only these FV people are using this to destroy the Protestant faith through the Presbyterian seminaries and their churches.
> 
> So yes, it is worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are being totally naive.
> ...


OK, then isn't that ALL THE MORE reason to call upon these people to repent and believe the true gospel?  If you're worried about me falling into their heresy, don't be.  Its not going to happen, and if it did, its not like I'd really be any spiritually worse off than I had been previously: it would only prove (hypothetically) that I had never been saved in the first place.



> _Sola Scriptura_, Nang. Where in the Gospels does Jesus, once, tell us that the Gospel is "justification by faith"?


John 3:16-18.  John 6:27-29.  

Don't misunderstand me, Theo, your teaching absolutely seems heretical to me.  But, I've debated all kinds of heretics.  I don't think that you're somehow exceptional in that you shouldn't be corrected just because you seem Reformed.

----------


## acptulsa

> Once again, you've called "Federal Vision" "blatant Satanism," but *where is your evidence of that?* Show us all where "Federal Vision" is a doctrine of Satan, please.


Well, I don't know who _else_ could have given all of the federal government in Washington hallucinations of yellowcake uranium.

Sorry, Theo...




> And your sentiments above are a perfect example of why Protestantism will die.


Near as I can tell, the protesting will _never_ die out.

----------


## RJB

> *Justification by faith, alone, IS THE GOSPEL.*
> 
> See where and how he just drug you down to actually deny the true gospel, FF?
> 
> Do not engage him, please. . .

----------


## Nang

> No, Theo was technically right.  Did you read my post?  I said that justification by faith alone is an ESSENTIAL COMPONENT of the gospel, but in order to have the whole gospel you must also have faith in the right thing, namely, the person and work of Jesus Christ.
> 
> You agree with this.  I know you do.  Theo is trying to argue that somebody who believes in justification by works believes the gospel, which I have never once said, and have in fact explicitly rejected.  
> 
> I don't understand this exceptional reaction toward this particular heresy over and above all others.  How is this any worse than any other pseudo-Christian heresy like Catholicism or Mormonism that we shouldn't preach the true gospel to them to?


You are being foolish to mess with a movement that you know little about.  For instance, do you know that they believe in baptismal regeneration which works union with Christ, and therefore they advocate paedo-communion?  And then they teach that these babies once in union with Christ, that partake of his flesh and blood, can lose their union in Christ later in life, if they fail to remain "faithful?"

In order to be totally assured of salvation on the last day, those baptized and in union with Christ, must faithfully produce works of faith, to eventually be redeemed.

Who else teaches that message around here, FF?  C'mon!

I am not going to help you, FF.

You will have to find out for yourself I guess.

I am out of here . . . May God protect you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You are being foolish to mess with a movement that you know little about.  For instance, do you know that they believe in baptismal regeneration which works union with Christ, and therefore they advocate paedo-communion?  And then they teach that these babies in union with Christ, that partake of his flesh and blood, can lose their union in Christ later in life, if they fail to remain "faithful?"
> 
> In order to be totally assured of salvation on the last day, those baptized and in union with Christ, must faithfully produce works of faith, to eventually be redeemed.


I understand.  I'm not saying Theo is a Christian.  I am saying that he needs to be challenged.  




> Who else teaches that message around here, FF?  C'mon!


Roman Catholics?  Am I sinning by debating them to?  Should I just let them walk down the wide and broad path without challenging them?




> I am not going to help you, FF.
> 
> You will have to find out for yourself I guess.
> 
> I am out of here . . . May God protect you.


It is precisely because I have his protection that I am not afraid to debate, even if the other person knows more than me or is a very subtle heretic.  I know what the gospel is.

For what its worth, I've already kind of been down this path.  Not that I actually knew what FV was at the time or was even Calvinsitic, but I've been down the salvation by works path before.  Then, God saved me.  I cannot go back.

----------


## moostraks

> You are being foolish to mess with a movement that you know little about.  For instance, do you know that they believe in baptismal regeneration which works union with Christ, and therefore they advocate paedo-communion?  And then they teach that these babies in union with Christ, that partake of his flesh and blood, can lose their union in Christ later in life, if they fail to remain "faithful?"
> 
> In order to be totally assured of salvation on the last day, those baptized and in union with Christ, must faithfully produce works of faith, to eventually be redeemed.
> 
> Who else teaches that message around here, FF?  C'mon!
> 
> I am not going to help you, FF.
> 
> You will have to find out for yourself I guess.
> ...


We must perfect this discussion as a repellant on other threads. Has great potential for present infestation.

----------


## acptulsa

> You are being foolish to mess with a movement that you know little about.  For instance, do you know that they believe in baptismal regeneration which works union with Christ, and therefore they advocate paedo-communion?  And then they teach that these babies in union with Christ, that partake of his flesh and blood, can lose their union in Christ later in life, if they fail to remain "faithful?"


And did _you_ know that we don't consider paedo-anything binding on an adult?  And did you know that you can't even accuse us of contributing to the delinquency because we use grape juice?  And did you know I'm liable to take personal offense at you talking through your ass about me and mine?

----------


## Theocrat

> OK, then isn't that ALL THE MORE reason to call upon these people to repent and believe the true gospel?  If you're worried about me falling into their heresy, don't be.  Its not going to happen, and if it did, its not like I'd really be any spiritually worse off than I had been previously: it would only prove (hypothetically) that I had never been saved in the first place.
> 
> 
> John 3:16-18.  John 6:27-29.  
> 
> Don't misunderstand me, Theo, your teaching absolutely seems heretical to me.  But, I've debated all kinds of heretics.  I don't think that you're somehow exceptional in that you shouldn't be corrected just because you seem Reformed.


FF, I want Nang to answer me. But given your passages above, they still don't not teach "justification by faith," (though I understand why yoou would say that). The language of "justification" is nowhere to be found in those passages. Yes, Jesus is calling His disciples to believe on Him, the very One Whom the Father sent. But notice how Jesus phrases that belief in John 6:27-29:




> Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you, for Him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, "What shall we do that we might work the works of God?" Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Whom He hath sent."


Notice how Jesus called believing in Him a work. When the disciples asked Him about what works they should do, Jesus didn't reply with "Justification by faith alone"; Jesus called belief in Him Whom the Father sent *work*. So, I don't believe those passages apply to "justification by faith" (at least, not in the forensic sense).

----------


## RJB

> Roman Catholics?  Am I sinning by debating them to?


I think she is saying you are.  Oh it would so break my heart if you quit coming into good threads we have, but I imagine I'll survive, and it's for your own good, of course.

----------


## Theocrat

> You are being foolish to mess with a movement that you know little about.  For instance, do you know that they believe in baptismal regeneration which works union with Christ, and therefore they advocate paedo-communion?  And then they teach that these babies in union with Christ, that partake of his flesh and blood, can lose their union in Christ later in life, if they fail to remain "faithful?"
> 
> In order to be totally assured of salvation on the last day, those baptized and in union with Christ, must faithfully produce works of faith, to eventually be redeemed.
> 
> Who else teaches that message around here, FF?  C'mon!
> 
> I am not going to help you, FF.
> 
> You will have to find out for yourself I guess.
> ...


You're going to make blanket statements like the ones above, and then just leave without hearing my rebuttal of them, from Scripture? Really, Nang? You're really showing your true colors to other Christians that are reading this thread, Nang. *But, once again, where is your Biblical basis for rejecting those ideas?* I haven't heard one yet, and I know you believe in _Sola Scriptura_, my sister. So, put it to the test.

----------


## pcosmar

> I strongly suggest you do not mess with me further.


Rule#25
Making threats..

I know,, I did time in the hole for that.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> FF, I want Nang to answer me.


For some reason or another, Nang doesn't want to answer you.  I don't honestly understand her reasons why unless it is also wrong to debate Roman Catholics and "give them a platform."  But, be that as it may, she's not going to answer.



> But given your passages above, they still don't not teach "justification by faith," (though I understand why yoou would say that). The language of "justification" is nowhere to be found in those passages. Yes, Jesus is calling His disciples to believe on Him, the very One Whom the Father sent.


The fact that the disciples are being called to believe in Christ is really a given in this debate, Theo.  We know.  Its even implicit in the statement "faith alone".  Which is why Nang accused me of denying the gospel, when she thinks "faith alone" she's also thinking of the person and work of Jesus Christ.  As well she should.  But I agree that "justification by faith alone", *when taken outside the context of Christ's person and work* is not the gospel. 

Yet, these passages clearly teach justification by faith alone.  That they don't use the word "Justification" is irrelevant.  The concept is there.




> But notice how Jesus phrases that belief in John 6:27-29:


I actually meant chapter 10, so its kind of funny that I accidentally stumbled on a passage that mentions faith.  Even still, this passage does not teach what you think it teaches.  It is teaching that belief is the work of GOD, not the work of man.  Arminianism and works salvation refuted in one fell swoop.  Theo, are you even reading the passage?  This is the very same pathetic eisegesis that the Catholics and EOs on this forum pull.  I think you know its pathetic  to. Take the blinders off and look at it.  The passage (even though I accidentally picked the wrong one) still teaches that salvation is NOT a work of man, but a work of God.  Your whole "paradox theology" fails again.




> Notice how Jesus called believing in Him a work. When the disciples asked Him about what works they should do, Jesus didn't reply with "Justification by faith alone"; Jesus called belief in Him Whom the Father sent *work*. So, I don't believe those passages apply to "justification by faith" (at least, not in the forensic sense).


If this is an argument for why all Arminians are not unregenerate, since a person might interpret God's words to mean that they have to have faith in order to be justified, I might agree with you.  But that's about all you can pull out of that.  And even then, the passage is clear enough that someone who pays careful attention could reject free will theology on its basis.  This passage certainly isn't helping your belief.

----------


## moostraks

> Rule#25
> Making threats..
> 
> I know,, I did time in the hole for that.


I was wondering or what? 

Looking like she is unable to defend the accusations or the threat she put forth. Once again leaving it to the 19 year old to pay off her check.

----------


## acptulsa

Yo, Theo!  _I_ found someone in serious danger of Justification Through Faith!




> God uses the means of the preaching of the true gospel to bring people to Christ.  With that being said, I cannot even contemplate not sharing the grace I have received with other people, in hopes that God might save some through my preaching.


Thank you, Lord, for looking after our friend.  Whether You're saving him _because of_ or _despite_ himself, thank You either way!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I think she is saying you are.  Oh it would so break my heart if you quit coming into good threads we have, but I imagine I'll survive, and it's for your own good, of course.


lol!  I never said I'd accept or agree with her answer.  Just challenging her consistency.  I do *not* agree with her on this one.  If her fear is my lack of debate knowledge, she should help me, since she knows way more about the Federal Vision heresy than I do (It isn't even really my denomination's thing, its a Presbyterian thing primarily and I've never heard of it in a baptist context, although it might exist).  If her concern is that I'll get sucked into the Federal Vision heresy, this concern doesn't really make logical sense unless she doesn't believe I'm a Christian, in which case it wouldn't matter anyway.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I was wondering or what? 
> 
> Looking like she is unable to defend the accusations or the threat she put forth. Once again leaving it to the 19 year old to pay off her check.


In fairness to Nang, she didn't "leave me to defend the accusations."  If you're really going to go with the whole "manipulator" theory... well, what she did would be a REALLY advanced manipulation, since she actually asked me to leave the thread and not to respond to Theo.  If you'll notice, I didn't listen to her.  Which I'm sure shocks you, considering you thought she was just manipulating.  This is incredibly foolish.  Once again, you need to grow up.

----------


## RJB

> For some reason or another, Nang doesn't want to answer you.  I don't honestly understand her reasons why unless* it is also wrong to debate Roman Catholics and "give them a platform*."


It breaks my heart, but you better listen to her.  For your own good, of course.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I ain't protesting anything but religion itself.
> 
> I long for the end of it. Not Reformation,, but elimination.


All due respect, brother...but IMO heterodox non-denominationalism is never going to work.  One always winds up leaning mostly towards one denomination or another out of necessity for a solid belief system.  I was raised in a non-denominational church, and over the course of 20+ years, it became Baptist in all but name.  The only person I know of who pulled off non-denominationalism quite well was Thomas Jefferson...but if I had the time to examine all his writings, I could probably find a denominational term to describe him.

~hugs~

----------


## Christian Liberty

> It breaks my heart, but you better listen to her.  For your own good, of course.


lol!


But, 1 Peter 3:15 disagrees with Nang.  She's wrong.  I say that with respect, but it is what it is.  So much for the whole "manipulator" theory moo has going on.

----------


## moostraks

> In fairness to Nang, she didn't "leave me to defend the accusations."  If you're really going to go with the whole "manipulator" theory... well, what she did would be a REALLY advanced manipulation, since she actually asked me to leave the thread and not to respond to Theo.  If you'll notice, I didn't listen to her.  Which I'm sure shocks you, considering you thought she was just manipulating.  This is incredibly foolish.  Once again, you need to grow up.


Dude, don't read into my post more than I put there. Stop trying to psychoanalyze cause you suck at it. She ran off at the mouth and then left. You are the one cleaning up her messes. You are choosing to be used. You should stop making assumptions about things because with me you are more wrong than right. The only fool in this conversation seems to be, well that would just be personal now and S_F doesn't let _me_ go there. So saving him the satisfaction and me the aggravation but you _know_ what I think of you...

----------


## moostraks

> lol!
> 
> 
> But, 1 Peter 3:15 disagrees with Nang.  She's wrong.  I say that with respect, but it is what it is.  So much for the whole "manipulator" theory moo has going on.

----------


## pcosmar

> All due respect, brother...but IMO heterodox non-denominationalism is never going to work.  One always winds up leaning mostly towards one denomination or another out of necessity for a solid belief system.  I was raised in a non-denominational church, and over the course of 20+ years, it became Baptist in all but name.  The only person I know of who pulled off non-denominationalism quite well was Thomas Jefferson...but if I had the time to examine all his writings, I could probably find a denominational term to describe him.
> 
> ~hugs~


My belief is in God. And I can fellowship with believers of most any stripe (if they are so willing)

I disagree with the Roman Church,, but have Catholic friends.. And Presbyterian,, and Baptist ,, and even some Mormons.

I have listened to and read many teachers over the years,, and had both picked up and rejected things that I had learned,, as God has taught me. (over 34 years)

And yes... long ago I did ask him "Why?",, Why did he do this,, Why this whole human experience,,from the Fall, to the Law, to Salvation.  and those things that are yet to come.. 
And he showed me,, and I am quite comfortable with that.

I have no religion. I am a Believer. ( I call myself a Druidic Christian just to distinguish myself from all denominations,, because everyone seems to have a need to label themselves as something)

----------


## Kevin007

> _Sola Scriptura_, Nang. Where in the Gospels does Jesus, once, tell us that the Gospel is "justification by faith"?


Pretty much the entire book of Romans.

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.gotquestions.org/federal-...-theology.html

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My belief is in God. And I can fellowship with believers of most any stripe (if they are so willing)
> 
> I disagree with the Roman Church,, but have Catholic friends.. And Presbyterian,, and Baptist ,, and even some Mormons.
> 
> I have listened to and read many teachers over the years,, and had both picked up and rejected things that I had learned,, as God has taught me. (over 34 years)
> 
> And yes... long ago I did ask him "Why?",, Why did he do this,, Why this whole human experience,,from the Fall, to the Law, to Salvation.  and those things that are yet to come.. 
> And he showed me,, and I am quite comfortable with that.
> 
> I have no religion. I am a Believer.* ( I call myself a Druidic Christian just to distinguish myself from all denominations,, because everyone seems to have a need to label themselves as something)*


Yes, labels tend to be useful in things like religion.  I don't know of a more practical way to distinguish the beliefs of one congregation from another.  The origin of the word "Christian" is in Acts.  


> Then Barnabas departed for Tarsus to seek Saul.  And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch.  So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people.  And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.


  Were it not for the various groups splitting from the historical Church, all members of His Church would simply be called "Christian", and parishes in the Diaspora would likely simply be named after their respective patriarchates (Antiochian, Russian, Greek, etc) or a particular saint.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Pretty much the entire book of Romans.


There is no red letter text in Romans (or any epistle).  Notice Theo's quote asks for a passage from the _Gospels_.  You have 3 synoptic gospels to choose from (or 4 if you consider John synoptic)-Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

ETA: Paul's epistles seem contrary to the gospels in certain places to some readers.  Writings of the Church Fathers reconcile these.

----------


## Theocrat

> Pretty much the entire book of Romans.


I don't necessarily agree with that, but I asked where in the Gospels does Jesus make "justification by faith" the central theme of the Gospel. I recognize that "justification by faith" is true, but it is a component of the Gospel, not the heart of it.

----------


## acptulsa

Well, _I_ was certainly raised to believe Gospels are Gospels and Epistles are Epistles.

I was considering mentioning the name Thomas, but I'm doubting I'll get a good reaction if I do...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well, _I_ was certainly raised to believe Gospels are Gospels and Epistles are Epistles.
> *
> I was considering mentioning the name Thomas, but I'm doubting I'll get a good reaction if I do*...


I see what you did there.  lolz

----------


## Theocrat

> For some reason or another, Nang doesn't want to answer you.  I don't honestly understand her reasons why unless it is also wrong to debate Roman Catholics and "give them a platform."  But, be that as it may, she's not going to answer.
> 
> 
> The fact that the disciples are being called to believe in Christ is really a given in this debate, Theo.  We know.  Its even implicit in the statement "faith alone".  Which is why Nang accused me of denying the gospel, when she thinks "faith alone" she's also thinking of the person and work of Jesus Christ.  As well she should.  But I agree that "justification by faith alone", *when taken outside the context of Christ's person and work* is not the gospel. 
> 
> Yet, these passages clearly teach justification by faith alone.  That they don't use the word "Justification" is irrelevant.  The concept is there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My point is that in that John 6 passage, the emphasis is on "the works of God," and then Christ ties that work to believing on Him. I'm not saying that the belief, itself, was something the disciples could do on their own; I'm just saying that the way in which Jesus told the disciples to "do the work of God" was in the form of belief. And nowhere did the issue of "justification" come up in the discussion, in the way that Paul talks about justification later on in Romans.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, _I_ was certainly raised to believe Gospels are Gospels and Epistles are Epistles.
> 
> I was considering mentioning the name Thomas, but I'm doubting I'll get a good reaction if I do...


It's obvious you don't know what the gospel is if you are thinking the names that men centuries later put on the books of the Bible constitute what the gospel is and isn't. 

Paul explains what the gospel is in 1st Corinthians 15.  Check it out.

----------


## Theocrat

> I was wondering or what? 
> 
> Looking like she is unable to defend the accusations or the threat she put forth. Once again leaving it to the 19 year old to pay off her check.


Well, I know how Nang's behavior towards non-Calvinists has been, and she usually tries to get away with it by, at least, offering a Biblical refutation to substantiate her rebukes towards them. Yet, when it comes to her vehement disagreement with a theological position that I hold, she chooses to be an escapist and dismisses me without any Biblical refutation. I'm glad that someone noticed that besides me, because her accusations about my not being a Christian are totally unwarranted, and she needs to either "put up, or shut up," if she wants to challenge my faith in God, in the spirit of _Sola Scriptura_.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's obvious you don't know what the gospel is if you are thinking the names that men centuries later put on the books of the Bible constitute what the gospel is and isn't. 
> 
> Paul explains what the gospel is in 1st Corinthians 15.  Check it out.


I see Paul using his word for 'truth'.  And I see him disqualifying himself by the very standard _you_ set.




> 8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I see Paul using his word for 'truth'.  And I see him disqualifying himself by the very standard _you_ set.


Again...you are off in left field somewhere.   Paul explains what the gospel is in 1st Corinthians chapter 15.

----------


## acptulsa

> Again...you are off in left field somewhere.   Paul explains what the gospel is in 1st Corinthians chapter 15.


Sure does.  His synopsis of the Gospels reads like a Table of Contents.  But he doesn't say his epistle is one of them.

So, are we trying to change the language that I was raised on to make the Epistles something other than what they are, or are we just saying the Epistles are true (which I'm not denying), or are we trying to erase the distinction between the Gospels and the Epistles so I'll look at them the exact same way, or are we just calling Epistles Gospels so you can stand around with your buddies and talk about how horrible I am?




> (72) A man said to him, "Tell my brothers to divide my father's possessions with me." 
>  He said to him, "O man, who has made me a divider?" 
>  He turned to his disciples and said to them, "I am not a divider, am I?"


And thank you for placing me in left field, shortstop.  I'm happy to catch what goes over your head.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sure does.  His synopsis of the Gospels reads like a Table of Contents.  But he doesn't say his epistle is one of them.
> 
> So, are we trying to change the language that I was raised on to make the Epistles something other than what they are, or are we just saying the Epistles are true (which I'm not denying), or are we trying to erase the distinction between the Gospels and the Epistles so I'll look at them the exact same way, or are we just calling Epistles Gospels so you can stand around with your buddies and talk about how horrible I am?



Okay. Let's explain this at the most basic level.

The GOSPEL or "good news" is something that Jesus did on behalf of His people.  Paul explains what this good news is in 1st Corinthians chapter 15.

The gospel is NOT what men centuries later named the books of the Bible. 

Do you understand the difference?  Let's get past this one thing and then we'll go to the next thing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Sure does.  His synopsis of the Gospels reads like a Table of Contents.  But he doesn't say his epistle is one of them.
> 
> So, are we trying to change the language that I was raised on to make the Epistles something other than what they are, or are we just saying the Epistles are true (which I'm not denying), or are we trying to erase the distinction between the Gospels and the Epistles so I'll look at them the exact same way, or are we just calling Epistles Gospels so you can stand around with your buddies and talk about how horrible I am?
> 
> 
> 
> And thank you for placing me in left field, shortstop.  I'm happy to catch what goes over your head.


You know, by his definition the writings of St. Augustine and St. John Chrysostom (not to mention Judas and the other gnostics) are "Gospels".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You know, by his definition the writings of St. Augustine and St. John Chysostom (not to mention Judas and the other gnostics) are "Gospels".


You have no idea what you are talking about.  It's embarrassing.

----------


## acptulsa

> Okay. Let's explain this at the most basic level.
> 
> The GOSPEL or "good news" is something that Jesus did on behalf of His people.  Paul explains what this good news is in 1st Corinthians chapter 15.
> 
> The gospel is NOT what men centuries later named the books of the Bible. 
> 
> Do you understand the difference?  Let's get past this one thing and then we'll go to the next thing.


I understand that you think Jesus wrote various men's correspondence for them.  And I understand that when I say this was not among the things Jesus did for His people, you will decide I'm a heretic.  And I will be proud to wear the label, too.




> (102) Jesus said, "Woe to the pharisees, for they are like a dog sleeping in the manger of oxen, for neither does he eat nor does he let the oxen eat."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I understand that you think Jesus wrote various men's correspondence for them.  And I understand that when I say this was not among the things Jesus did for His people, you will decide I'm a heretic.  And I will be proud to wear the label, too.


You're off in left field again.

We are talking about WHAT THE GOSPEL IS.  The Gospel, or good news, is that Jesus died for the sins of His people and purchased redemption for them.  Paul explains this good news in 1st Corinthians chapter 15.

Do we understand that so we can go on to the next thing?   Or do you still not understand?

----------


## acptulsa

> You're off in left field again.
> 
> We are talking about WHAT THE GOSPEL IS.  The Gospel, or good news, is that Jesus died for the sins of His people and purchased redemption for them.  Paul explains this good news in 1st Corinthians chapter 15.
> 
> Do we understand that so we can go on to the next thing?   Or do you still not understand?


I understand that I answered your question, but you didn't understand the answer.

I understand that even my cat could shred your dogma.




> (108) Jesus said, "He who will drink from My mouth will become like me. I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://www.gotquestions.org/federal-...-theology.html


Excellent synopsis.  I agree.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I understand that I answered your question, but you didn't understand the answer.
> 
> I understand that even my cat could shred your dogma.



Haha...so you're quoting from the Gospel of Thomas now?  Which is a gnostic text that came hundreds of years after the letters of the NT?


No wonder you are completely lost....

----------


## acptulsa

> Haha...so you're quoting from the Gospel of Thomas now?  Which is a gnostic text that came hundreds of years after the letters of the NT?
> 
> 
> No wonder you are completely lost....





> 10And he called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: 11Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
> 
> 12Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? 13But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up. 14Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
> 
> 15Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. 16And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? 17Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? 18But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.


..

----------


## moostraks

> Well, I know how Nang's behavior towards non-Calvinists has been, and she usually tries to get away with it by, at least, offering a Biblical refutation to substantiate her rebukes towards them. Yet, when it comes to her vehement disagreement with a theological position that I hold, she chooses to be an escapist and dismisses me without any Biblical refutation. I'm glad that someone noticed that besides me, because her accusations about my not being a Christian are totally unwarranted, and she needs to either "put up, or shut up," if she wants to challenge my faith in God, in the spirit of _Sola Scriptura_.


So true...one should be secure enough in their faith to be able to a civil conversation on the differences and have faith in the Creator for the rest. So good question, why the fear.

----------


## moostraks

> Haha...so you're quoting from the Gospel of Thomas now?  Which is a gnostic text that came hundreds of years after the letters of the NT?
> 
> 
> No wonder you are completely lost....


So, you think it's the tip of the pencil? Hint:you need to look for a lighthouse instead. HB found it, as did I. So looks like it is you who is lost.

----------


## Terry1

> Well, I know how Nang's behavior towards non-Calvinists has been, and she usually tries to get away with it by, at least, offering a Biblical refutation to substantiate her rebukes towards them. Yet, when it comes to her vehement disagreement with a theological position that I hold, she chooses to be an escapist and dismisses me without any Biblical refutation. I'm glad that someone noticed that besides me, because her accusations about my not being a Christian are totally unwarranted, and she needs to either "put up, or shut up," if she wants to challenge my faith in God, in the spirit of _Sola Scriptura_.



Theo, you are a wonderful brother in Christ and did not deserve the treatment you endured from Nang. I just wanted to let you know this.  I think it's a wonderful thing to want to bring fellow believers together and you are to be commended for this.  Don't let her opinions disturb you--most of us see them for exactly what they are.

----------


## moostraks

> You have no idea what you are talking about.  It's embarrassing.





> I understand that I answered your question, but you didn't understand the answer.
> 
> I understand that even my cat could shred your dogma.


Ya know, this really hasn't been a completely futile exercise. Loving your neighbor requires understanding them. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Patience is a virtue and Grace was a little girl. With God all things are possible. (just keep repeating this)

There seems to be a consistent pattern in discussion.

----------


## Deborah K

So, judging from this thread, the new target is Theo.  Moostraks, that means you're not in the crosshairs anymore, so you can now take a break along with Terry and myself.  

Nang, once again, has posts full of [mod deletes] or are completely deleted altogether.  At what point did this forum decide to tolerate this kind of persistent guideline violation without using the ban hammer?  Just wondering.

----------


## moostraks

> So, judging from this thread, the new target is Theo.  Moostraks, that means you're not in the crosshairs anymore, so you can now take a break along with Terry and myself.  
> 
> Nang, once again, has posts full of [mod deletes] or are completely deleted altogether.  At what point did this forum decide to tolerate this kind of persistent guideline violation without using the ban hammer?  Just wondering.


Awesome. My condolences to Theo. I doubt a specific male will be as rude as he takes on the women around here in her defense. So more posts go down the memory hole and a certain professional victim will demand proof of consist behavior pattern which is offensive and we can serve her up all the [mod deletes] Would like an answer to the persistent/tolerated question as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, judging from this thread, the new target is Theo.  Moostraks, that means you're not in the crosshairs anymore, so you can now take a break along with Terry and myself.  
> 
> Nang, once again, has posts full of [mod deletes] or are completely deleted altogether.  At what point did this forum decide to tolerate this kind of persistent guideline violation without using the ban hammer?  Just wondering.





> Awesome. My condolences to Theo. I doubt a specific male will be as rude as he takes on the women around here in her defense. So more posts go down the memory hole and a certain professional victim will demand proof of consist behavior pattern which is offensive and we can serve her up all the [mod deletes] Would like an answer to the persistent/tolerated question as well.




Mods, thank you for censoring the obscene personal attacks that these two have been leveling against Nang.  It is much appreciated.

SF

----------


## Deborah K

> Mods, thank you for censoring the obscene personal attacks that these two have been leveling against Nang.  It is much appreciated.
> 
> SF


Nothing is censored, Sola.  Read the text more carefully.  Do you thank them when she attacks us?  No, you don't.  Your glaring double-standards are noted.

I've never once had a post [mod deleted].  Nor have I ever had a whole post deleted.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nothing is censored, Sola.  Read the text more carefully.  Do you thank them when she attacks us?  No, you don't.  Your glaring double-standards are noted.
> 
> I've never once had a post [mod deleted].  Nor have I ever had a whole post deleted.



So what makes you think that you are above everyone else?  What?  You can attack people personally and get away with it?

----------


## moostraks

> So what makes you think that you are above everyone else?  What?  You can attack people personally and get away with it?


Are you really still thinking those 2 posts were [mod deleted]?

----------


## Deborah K

> So what makes you think that you are above everyone else?  What?  You can attack people personally and get away with it?


I don't attack, Sola.  I push back.  Do you understand the difference?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you really still thinking those 2 posts were [mod deleted]?


I think several of your posts lately have needed to be moderated.  I think you have an anger problem.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't attack, Sola.  I push back.  Do you understand the difference?


In my opinion, you have been relatively civil.  Not so with Moostraks.

----------


## moostraks

> I think several of your posts lately have needed to be moderated.  I think you have an anger problem.


I dislike bullies and have found they often don't relent until you refuse to back down. I also detest liars, which you have shown your colors on along with a certain associate or two of yours. People who bear false witness and refuse to apologize when caught also offend me. You don't seem to like people who refuse to bend for your way.

----------


## acptulsa

> So, judging from this thread, the new target is Theo.  Moostraks, that means you're not in the crosshairs anymore, so you can now take a break along with Terry and myself.  
> 
> Nang, once again, has posts full of [mod deletes] or are completely deleted altogether.  At what point did this forum decide to tolerate this kind of persistent guideline violation without using the ban hammer?  Just wondering.


Shooting the anti-Christ would solve a lot of problems if only there weren't so many people dumb enough to consider him a martyr.




> Mods, thank you for censoring the obscene personal attacks that these two have been leveling against Nang.  It is much appreciated.
> 
> SF


LOLOL

[mod delete]

There.  Now Sola will be so busy asking the mods what I said, and finding out that all I said was [mod delete], and demanding to know what I said even though he can read it as well as anyone, that we can have at least a few hours' peace.




> In my opinion, you have been relatively civil.  Not so with Moostraks.


In my opinion divide and conquer tactics work better if you haven't already aligned everyone against you.

----------


## moostraks

> Shooting the anti-Christ would solve a lot of problems if only there weren't so many people dumb enough to consider him a martyr.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> [mod delete]
> 
> There.  Now Sola will be so busy asking the mods what I said, and finding out that all I said was [mod delete], and demanding to know what I said even though he can read it as well as anyone, that we can have at least a few hours' peace.
> ...


Who'd of thought [mod delete] would be such [mod delete]...



I love how I have somehow manged to become a projection of a certain person's identity. Tis what happens when one becomes a mirror to the vain I suppose.

----------


## Deborah K

What have I done?

----------


## Nang

How can any member know when they see [mod delete] that it came from a mod, if people can easily mimic and insert this in their own text?

On our previous web sites, when we as mods intervened in a post, we had colored fonts only we could insert, so that our actions were obviously official.

----------


## Nang

> So, judging from this thread, the new target is Theo.  Moostraks, that means you're not in the crosshairs anymore, so you can now take a break along with Terry and myself.  
> 
> Nang, once again, has posts full of [mod deletes] or are completely deleted altogether.  At what point did this forum decide to tolerate this kind of persistent guideline violation without using the ban hammer?  Just wondering.


I violated no guidelines by refusing to identify with Theocrat and the Federal Vision movement.  

But, even if I had (unfairly) received an infraction or a ban for doing so, I would still refuse to condone his teachings, for I answer first to the Lord and no other.

False teachers/prophets must be made evident and resisted, for the sake of Christ's church.  Jude vss 20-22

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Now this thread is really going places!

----------


## Deborah K

> I violated no guidelines by refusing to identify with Theocrat and the Federal Vision movement.  
> 
> But, even if I had (unfairly) received an infraction or a ban for doing so, I would still refuse to condone his teachings, for I answer first to the Lord and no other.
> 
> False teachers/prophets must be made evident and resisted, for the sake of Christ's church.  Jude vss 20-22


I don't think your posts were deleted and/or censored because of your belief system.  That isn't the issue. So there's no point in trying to make that the issue.

----------


## Nang

> I don't think your posts were deleted and/or censored because of your belief system.  That isn't the issue. So there's no point in trying to make that the issue.



When my posts are censored and/or deleted, are you made aware some how, of the reasoning behind it?  Do Bryan or Kotin inform you about their moderating decisions and actions?

----------


## Deborah K

> When my posts are censored and/or deleted, are you made aware some how, of the reasoning behind it?  Do Bryan or Kotin inform you about their moderating decisions and actions?



Why would they?    It would be totally unnecessary to do so.  All one need do is read your own words to distinguish your belief, from your hateful words to others about their beliefs.  It isn't that difficult.

----------


## Nang

> Why would they?    It would be totally unnecessary to do so.  All one need do is read your own words to distinguish your belief, from your hateful words to others about their beliefs.  It isn't that difficult.


OK.  Just wondered . . . you were just expressing your personal opinion, then?

Unfortunately, you and others tend to take any and all spiritual correction, to be an expression of hatred.

 . . . And standing for Godly truth to protect the historical and biblical faith, to be something ugly and wrong.

I simply do not care to beat around the bush with phony and ooey-gooey language, or show an obeisient attitude or identification with any false teaching.

I apologize for your not having any say or official control over my contributions.  That must be rough for you to deal with.

----------


## eduardo89

> When my posts are censored and/or deleted, are you made aware some how, of the reasoning behind it?  Do Bryan or Kotin inform you about their moderating decisions and actions?


No. I don't inform Deborah of any of the posts I edit or delete.

Edit: Dammit, I posted from the wrong account.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well, I know how Nang's behavior towards non-Calvinists has been, and she usually tries to get away with it by, at least, offering a Biblical refutation to substantiate her rebukes towards them. Yet, when it comes to her vehement disagreement with a theological position that I hold, she chooses to be an escapist and dismisses me without any Biblical refutation. I'm glad that someone noticed that besides me, because her accusations about my not being a Christian are totally unwarranted, and she needs to either "put up, or shut up," if she wants to challenge my faith in God, in the spirit of _Sola Scriptura_.


Well, I dismissed you with Biblical refutation.  Is that better?




> Theo, you are a wonderful brother in Christ and did not deserve the treatment you endured from Nang. I just wanted to let you know this.  I think it's a wonderful thing to want to bring fellow believers together and you are to be commended for this.  Don't let her opinions disturb you--most of us see them for exactly what they are.


2 John 9-11

Do not be deceived into accepting ecunemicism: what you believe is a fundamentally different gospel than what I believe.  If you go before the Father pleading your own works in any way, to any degree, rather than the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ alone, you not enter heaven.  Please, do not deceive yourself.



> So, judging from this thread, the new target is Theo.  Moostraks, that means you're not in the crosshairs anymore, so you can now take a break along with Terry and myself.  
> 
> Nang, once again, has posts full of [mod deletes] or are completely deleted altogether.  At what point did this forum decide to tolerate this kind of persistent guideline violation without using the ban hammer?  Just wondering.


First of all, the moderation got MORE strict here after Nang arrived, not less.  Secondly, I don't "target", people, I simply proclaim the gospel and challenge all false gospels.



> Mods, thank you for censoring the obscene personal attacks that these two have been leveling against Nang.  It is much appreciated.
> 
> SF


I have no idea what they said, but I do NOT condone this post.  The moderation has been out of hand lately on ALL sides.  While it was mostly aimed against us at first, its silly.  We really need to go back to where we were a couple months ago.



> So what makes you think that you are above everyone else?  What?  You can attack people personally and get away with it?


Unless the attack is completely out of left field and unrelated to the discussion at hand, I don't see why we can't handle that ourselves.  Can you?

I think I need to quote some of your old posts back at you




> I think several of your posts lately have needed to be moderated.  I think you have an anger problem.


See above.




> In my opinion, you have been relatively civil.  Not so with Moostraks.


This has not always been true.  



> I violated no guidelines by refusing to identify with Theocrat and the Federal Vision movement.  
> 
> But, even if I had (unfairly) received an infraction or a ban for doing so, I would still refuse to condone his teachings, for I answer first to the Lord and no other.
> 
> False teachers/prophets must be made evident and resisted, for the sake of Christ's church.  Jude vss 20-22


Why can't you respond to a false teacher without identifying with them?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No. I don't inform Deborah of any of the posts I edit or delete.
> 
> Edit: Dammit, I posted from the wrong account.


Nang, in case you didn't know, there's an ongoing joke on  here about eduardo controlling basically every account on RPF.  He doesn't actually control Bryan's account.

----------


## Nang

> Why can't you respond to a false teacher without identifying with them?



I can, if they are falsely teaching from another religion or point of view than my own. 

The problem with Theocrat is, he is (supposedly) coming from within my Reformed faith with false teaching.  Therefore, I cannot identify with him, nor will I allow him to identify with the Protestant Reformed faith, for he is not Reformed at all.

(Remember what the OPC had to do with Rushdoony.)

----------


## eduardo89

> Nang, in case you didn't know, there's an ongoing joke on  here about eduardo controlling basically every account on RPF.  He doesn't actually control Bryan's account.


How do you know that?

----------


## Nang

> Nang, in case you didn't know, there's an ongoing joke on  here about eduardo controlling basically every account on RPF.  He doesn't actually control Bryan's account.



I had finally caught on to that, and was so relieved to get the joke!

----------


## Nang

However, I did wonder a bit, when eduardo never responded to Bryan's posts of late.

----------


## eduardo89

> (Remember what the OPC had to do with Rushdoony.)


Rushdoony had many views I agree with, not necessarily on matters of theology, though.

----------


## Deborah K

> OK.  Just wondered . . . you were just expressing your personal opinion, then?
> 
> Unfortunately, you and others tend to take any and all spiritual correction, to be an expression of hatred.
> 
>  . . . And standing for Godly truth to protect the historical and biblical faith, to be something ugly and wrong.
> 
> I simply do not care to beat around the bush with phony and ooey-gooey language, or show an obeisient attitude or identification with any false teaching.
> 
> I apologize for your not having any say or official control over my contributions.  *That must be rough for you to deal with*.



You have no idea.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, you are a wonderful brother in Christ and did not deserve the treatment you endured from Nang. I just wanted to let you know this.  I think it's a wonderful thing to want to bring fellow believers together and you are to be commended for this.  Don't let her opinions disturb you--most of us see them for exactly what they are.





> So, judging from this thread, the new target is Theo.  Moostraks, that means you're not in the crosshairs anymore, so you can now take a break along with Terry and myself.  
> 
> Nang, once again, has posts full of [mod deletes] or are completely deleted altogether.  At what point did this forum decide to tolerate this kind of persistent guideline violation without using the ban hammer?  Just wondering.





> Awesome. My condolences to Theo. I doubt a specific male will be as rude as he takes on the women around here in her defense. So more posts go down the memory hole and a certain professional victim will demand proof of consist behavior pattern which is offensive and we can serve her up all the [mod deletes] Would like an answer to the persistent/tolerated question as well.


Thank you all for your concerns. Honestly, though, I don't want Nang's posts flagged nor deleted. I don't care if she disagrees with me. I welcome any open debate, and she is still my sister-in-Christ, even if she doesn't consider me her brother-in-Christ. I just want her to substantiate her views about my subscription to a theological discussion that she believes in anathema to the Gospel, *with the word of God*. If she's not willing to do that much, then she hasn't made a case against any of my views on the "Federal Vision." All she has done is just engage in slanderous attacks and unwarranted criticisms towards me, personally. But that doesn't count for rational, spirited conversation at all.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Rushdoony had many views I agree with, not necessarily on matters of theology, though.


Theonomic reconstructionism sucks.



> I can, if they are falsely teaching from another religion or point of view than my own. 
> 
> The problem with Theocrat is, he is (supposedly) coming from within my Reformed faith with false teaching.  Therefore, I cannot identify with him, nor will I allow him to identify with the Protestant Reformed faith, for he is not Reformed at all.


I'm not saying that Theo is Reformed.  Just to be clear.



> (Remember what the OPC had to do with Rushdoony.)


I don't.  Please explain.




> How do you know that?


I just do.




> I had finally caught on to that, and was so relieved to get the joke!


Good  Eduardo has had a bunch of sock puppets on here so that's where the joke came from.

BTW: Rushdoony's political views were lame.  Reconstructionism sucks.  Although, to be fair, the modern versions of right wing politics are even worse.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Rushdoony had many views I agree with, not necessarily on matters of theology, though.


Reconstructionists and Rome have many things in common.

----------


## Theocrat

> I violated no guidelines by refusing to identify with Theocrat and the Federal Vision movement.  
> 
> But, even if I had (unfairly) received an infraction or a ban for doing so, I would still refuse to condone his teachings, for I answer first to the Lord and no other.
> 
> False teachers/prophets must be made evident and resisted, for the sake of Christ's church.  Jude vss 20-22


Nang, you don't even know what I agree with and disagree with in the "Federal Vision" theological discussions. Yet, you're so quick to call me a "false teacher/prophet," when I have claimed to be neither a teacher nor a prophet.

You just shut down any discussion with me because *you* don't feel comfortable talking to me about my views on "Federal Vision." That's your problem, not mine. At least FreedomFanatic is willing to engage me on some of the issues that he doesn't agree with. But you simply dismiss me as a "false teacher," despite the fact that you and I have agreed on lots of things in the Scriptures, as fellow Calvinists. I invite you to show me where I am wrong about "Federal Vision," but show me by the word of God, not your own personal libel.

----------


## Theocrat

> Reconstructionists and Rome have many things in common.


What is that? Guilt by association? So now we're going to argue using logical fallacies, Sola? So what if Roman Catholic theology agrees with theonomy? Roman Catholics also believe in the Trinity. Should I not believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost because Roman Catholics believe in them, too?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What is that? Guilt by association? So now we're going to argue using logical fallacies, Sola? So what if Roman Catholic theology agrees with theonomy? Roman Catholics also believe in the Trinity. Should I not believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost because Roman Catholics believe in them, too?


You should believe the Trinity because it is Biblical. You should reject reconstructionism because it is not Biblical.

----------


## Theocrat

> I can, if they are falsely teaching from another religion or point of view than my own. 
> 
> The problem with Theocrat is, he is (supposedly) coming from within my Reformed faith with false teaching.  Therefore, I cannot identify with him, nor will I allow him to identify with the Protestant Reformed faith, for he is not Reformed at all.
> 
> (Remember what the OPC had to do with Rushdoony.)


And your evidence that I believe in false teaching is...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And your evidence that I believe in false teaching is...


When you baptize an infant in your church, what is the result?

----------


## Theocrat

> You should believe the Trinity because it is Biblical. You should reject reconstructionism because it is not Biblical.


I beg your pardon, but Christian Reconstructionism is Biblical. The fact that you would say such a thing shows that you have not read much about the subject, FF. Reconstructionism is a worldview issue.  If you are honestly willing to say that to start with the Bible in order to gain knowledge about civics, economics, law, public policy, foreign policy, and other matters related to liberal arts is unBiblical, then you are actually holding to the view that God's word is not authoritative in all of human life.

----------


## eduardo89

> Reconstructionists and Rome have many things in common.





> Theonomic reconstructionism sucks.


Did I say anything about theonomic reconstructionism? I wasn't even talking about theology.

All I said was there are many things I agree with Rushdoony on. Examples would be homeschooling and one or two other things that would probably get me banned for openly admitting.

----------


## eduardo89

> When you baptize an infant in your church, what is the result?


They are regenerated.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Did I say anything about theonomic reconstructionism? I wasn't even talking about theology.
> 
> All I said was there are many things I agree with Rushdoony on. Examples would be homeschooling and one or two other things that would probably get me banned for openly admitting.


What?  White supremacy?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> They are regenerated.


Baptismal regeneration is a false gospel.

----------


## eduardo89

> What?  White supremacy?


No, I'm not a white supremacist.

----------


## eduardo89

> Baptismal regeneration is a false gospel.


I realise you like to go against what the Bible says.

----------


## Theocrat

> When you baptize an infant in your church, what is the result?





> They are regenerated.


The Bible tells us that to be baptized is to be united to Christ. Galatians 3:26-27 says, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."

Romans 6:4 states, "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Even the Westminster Confession of Faith states this about the nature of baptism in Chapter XXVIII "Of Baptism":




> Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, *of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration*, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, *to walk in the newness of life*. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world [emphasis mine]


Like Eduardo said, when infants are baptized, they are entered into new life with Christ, which is regeneration. They are dead to the works of the world, which means that infants are called to be treated as Christians and taught as such.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I beg your pardon, but Christian Reconstructionism is Biblical. The fact that you would say such a thing shows that you have not read much about the subject, FF. Reconstructionism is a worldview issue.  If you are honestly willing to say that to start with the Bible in order to gain knowledge about civics, economics, law, public policy, foreign policy, and other matters related to liberal arts is unBiblical, then you are actually holding to the view that God's word is not authoritative in all of human life.


I chose the word "Reconstrucionism" deliberately as opposed to "theonomy" even though I realize that theonomy is sometimes used as shorthand for reconstructionism.  If all you mean by "reconstruction" is that the Bible is the only authority on political issues than I of course agree with you.  But usually it means more than this.  To quote Rushdoony, taken from Wikipedia:




> Conversely, Christian Reconstructionism's founder, Rousas John Rushdoony, wrote in _The Institutes of Biblical Law_ (the founding document of reconstructionsim) that Old Testament law should be applied to modern society and advocates the reinstatement of the Mosaic law's penal sanctions. Under such a system, the list of civil crimes which carried a death sentence would include homosexuality, adultery, incest, lying about one's virginity, bestiality, witchcraft, idolatry or apostasy, public blasphemy, false prophesying, kidnapping, rape, and bearing false witness in a capital case.[14]


There are only like three things on this list that should even be crimes.  Of course, all of them are seriously immoral.  To argue that they should be punished by death because of Old Testament law is, I believe, an error.  The penal law of ancient Israel is for OT Israel, and specifically for the purpose of showing mankind just how bad he is.  It is not a penal law that was written for modern society.  John 8:1-11 could not possibly be reconciled with such a view, nor could Romans 12:18, since reconstructionism advocates government violence in several areas where it is not strictly necessary.  

For what its worth, there is no specific Biblical passage that addresses foreign policy, to my knowledge.  We reject interventionism because of Biblical PRINCIPLES.  I reject reconstructionism on the same grounds.

Now, looking at this articlehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism there are some reconstructionists that claim that reconstructionism rejects coercive means.  All I have to say about this is: great!  What I object to is the coercion.

In my opinion, the NT parallel to the OT death penalty is EXCOMMUNICATION.  Those who unrepentently commit "capital" offenses should be excommunicated by the church.  They should not be executed unless they commit murder (Murder because of Genesis 9:6, which was given to Noah rather than to Moses and is thus binding on all humanity.



> Did I say anything about theonomic reconstructionism? I wasn't even talking about theology.
> 
> All I said was there are many things I agree with Rushdoony on. Examples would be homeschooling and one or two other things that would probably get me banned for openly admitting.


PM?  I"m curious.




> They are regenerated.


If Theo agrees with this, than I would call him a false teacher on those grounds.  Same for you.

----------


## eduardo89

> If Theo agrees with this, than I would call him a false teacher on those grounds.  Same for you.


Good thing that:
1) I don't care what you call me and;
2) I have the Bible and 2000 years of Christianity to back up my views.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Bible tells us that to be baptized is to be united to Christ. Galatians 3:26-27 says, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
> 
> Romans 6:4 states, "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
> 
> Even the Westminster Confession of Faith states this about the nature of baptism in Chapter XXVIII "Of Baptism":
> 
> 
> 
> Like Eduardo said, when infants are baptized, they are entered into new life with Christ, which is regeneration. They are dead to the works of the world, which means that infants are called to be treated as Christians and taught as such.


The Westminster confession is somewhat vague.  But what you are saying is that infants are actually regenerated by baptism.  This is false teaching and damnable heresy.

Romans 4:5 says he who DOES NO WORK but BELIEVES in the Son has eternal life.

Galatians 1:8 says that anyone who preaches a different gospel than the one that Paul preaches is anathema.

Theo, this is a serious matter.  Do not think otherwise.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Good thing that:
> 1) I don't care what you call me and;


This is a good thing.  But, do you care what Paul calls you?




> 2) I have the Bible and 2000 years of Christianity to back up my views.


You have 1900 years of tradition at the absolute most, and you certainly don't have the Bible.  Baptismal regeneration is a false gospel, as Sola said.

----------


## moostraks

> What have I done?





> Shooting the anti-Christ would solve a lot of problems if only there weren't so many people dumb enough to consider him a martyr.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> [mod delete]
> 
> There.  Now Sola will be so busy asking the mods what I said, and finding out that all I said was [mod delete], and demanding to know what I said even though he can read it as well as anyone, that we can have at least a few hours' peace.
> ...





> This is a good thing.  But, do you care what Paul calls you?
> 
> 
> 
> You have 1900 years of tradition at the absolute most, and you certainly don't have the Bible.  Baptismal regeneration is a false gospel, as Sola said.


You forgot to add according to my individual interpretation of Scripture and based upon nothing other than conjecture. <--adding smileys now since sola thinks I am angry.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You forgot to add according to my individual interpretation of Scripture and based upon nothing other than conjecture. <--adding smileys now since sola thinks I am angry.


How many ways are there to interpret Romans 4:5?  (i'm not angry either, just challenging)

----------


## eduardo89

> How many ways are there to interpret Romans 4:5?  (i'm not angry either, just challenging)


How many Protestants are there?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> How many Protestants are there?


Irrelevant.

----------


## Theocrat

> The Westminster confession is somewhat vague.  But what you are saying is that infants are actually regenerated by baptism.  This is false teaching and damnable heresy.
> 
> Romans 4:5 says he who DOES NO WORK but BELIEVES in the Son has eternal life.
> 
> Galatians 1:8 says that anyone who preaches a different gospel than the one that Paul preaches is anathema.
> 
> Theo, this is a serious matter.  Do not think otherwise.


No, it's not, FreedomFanatic. For one, I already showed you where a church council (of the Reformed faith, at that) believed that baptism was linked to regeneration and being ingrafted into Christ. You can't call it heresy when you don't even have evidence that it has been claimed as such by any church in history. More importantly, I supplied Biblical texts that clearly show that baptism brings about new life by union into Christ. Do I need to cite Titus 3:5? John 3:5?

Romans 4:5 has nothing to do with baptism, FF. Not only that, but if you back up into Romans 3:31, Paul tells us that the law is established by faith, *and then* Paul moves on to Abraham being counted righteous by his faith. But notice what Paul's question is in Romans 4:1: "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" Paul is talking about works, "as pertaining to the flesh," which is important because in the previous chapter, Paul just finished talking about how merely receiving the law under circumcision was not the same as keeping the law under circumcision, which is what the Jews were boasting in. They believed that by possessing the law that they were keeping the law, and Paul tells them that it is only by faith to God that one is accounted as righteous.

Galatians 1 is not discussing baptism, either, so your use of that passage is moot. If anything, the book of Galatians gets into the passing away of the Jew vs. Gentile distinctions which were common during that time, and it is in that context that Paul warns them about believing another Gospel.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> How many Protestants are there?

----------


## moostraks

> Irrelevant.


Not really...Seems completely valid considering the argument being put forth.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, it's not, FreedomFanatic. For one, I already showed you where a church council (of the Reformed faith, at that) believed that baptism was linked to regeneration and being ingrafted into Christ. You can't call it heresy when you don't even have evidence that it has been claimed as such by any church in history.


I don't care what the church councils say.  If that is indeed what the WCF is teaching (I'm not sure that it is, those words could easily mean that baptism is a SIGN of regeneration and conversion, which would be true) than the WCF is heretical.  I'm just concerned with what the Bible says.




> More importantly, I supplied Biblical texts that clearly show that baptism brings about new life by union into Christ. Do I need to cite Titus 3:5? John 3:5?


How do these verses teach baptismal regeneration?



> Romans 4:5 has nothing to do with baptism, FF. Not only that, but if you back up into Romans 3:31, Paul tells us that the law is established by faith, *and then* Paul moves on to Abraham being counted righteous by his faith. But notice what Paul's question is in Romans 4:1: "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" Paul is talking about works, "as pertaining to the flesh," which is important because in the previous chapter, Paul just finished talking about how merely receiving the law under circumcision was not the same as keeping the law under circumcision, which is what the Jews were boasting in. They believed that by possessing the law that they were keeping the law, and Paul tells them that it is only by faith to God that one is accounted as righteous.


The passage says Abraham was counted righteous BY HIS FAITH.  This blatantly contradicts your baptismal regeneration.  Abraham was credited as righteous WHEN HE BELIEVED, not by baptism, circumcision, or anything else.



> Galatians 1 is not discussing baptism, either, so your use of that passage is moot. If anything, the book of Galatians gets into the passing away of the Jew vs. Gentile distinctions which were common during that time, and it is in that context that Paul warns them about believing another Gospel.


This is irrelevant.  Its not like this is the only false gospel that is anathema.  The passage clearly says that if anyone teaches ANY OTHER GOSPEL he will be anathemized.  ANY other gospel.  Period.  Your gospel is another gospel, Theo.  And, if you were consistent, you would anathemize me, since based upon your viewpoint I am preaching a false gospel.

Baptismal regeneration cannot be reconciled with justification by faith alone.  These concepts are completely contradictory.  What side are you on, Theo?  Choose this day who you will serve, the idol of Rome or the God of the Bible.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not really...Seems completely valid considering the argument being put forth.


My point is that there's only one logical interpretation.  I know ed was making a joke, though.

----------


## eduardo89

> Irrelevant.


Not at all. You asked how many ways there are to interpret a particular verse. Since Protestants are all free to abide by their private interpretation of Scripture, then the number is obviously at least however many Protestants there are.

----------


## eduardo89

> How do these verses teach baptismal regeneration?


This post explains it pretty well:



> Regeneration (being "born again") is the transformation from death to life that occurs in our souls when we first come to God and are justified. He washes us clean of our sins and gives us a new nature, breaking the power of sin over us so that we will no longer be its slaves, but its enemies, who must fight it as part of the Christian life (cf. Rom. 6:1–22; Eph. 6:11–17). To understand the biblical teaching of being born again, we must understand the terms it uses to refer to this event. 
> 
> The term "born again" may not appear in the Bible. The Greek phrase often translated "born again" (gennatha anothen) occurs twice in the Bible—John 3:3 and 3:7—and there is a question of how it should be translated. The Greek word anothen sometimes can be translated "again," but in the New Testament, it most often means "from above." In the King James Version, the only two times it is translated "again" are in John 3:3 and 3:7; every other time it is given a different rendering. 
> 
> Another term is "regeneration." When referring to something that occurs in the life of an individual believer, it only appears in Titus 3:5. In other passages, the new birth phenomenon is also described as receiving new life (Rom. 6:4), receiving the circumcision of the heart (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11–12), and becoming a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15). 
> 
> These different ways of talking about being "born again" describe effects of baptism, which Christ speaks of in John 3:5 as being "born of water and the Spirit." In Greek, this phrase is, literally, "born of water and Spirit," indicating one birth of water-and-Spirit, rather than "born of water and of the Spirit," as though it meant two different births—one birth of water and one birth of the Spirit. 
> 
> In the water-and-Spirit rebirth that takes place at baptism, the repentant sinner is transformed from a state of sin to the state of grace. Peter mentioned this transformation from sin to grace when he exhorted people to "be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). 
> ...





> Baptismal regeneration cannot be reconciled with justification by faith alone.  These concepts are completely contradictory.


Good point. Yet another thing that shows your position on 'faith alone' to unBiblical.

----------


## Nang

"Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into *the visible Church*; but also to be unto him* a sign and seal* of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world."  Westminster Confession of Faith, XXVIII. I.

_Emphasis, mine.

_Theocrat,

It is my opinion all who hold to the Federal Vision error, should be ex-communicated from the PCA, or any denomination they have infiltrated.

Having this opinion, but not associated with you in any way ecclesiastically, all I can do to show my opposition and displeasure of what this movement has cost the visible church, is to ex-communicate you personally.

----------


## moostraks

> My point is that there's only one logical interpretation.  I know ed was making a joke, though.


Now this just doesn't stand to reason according to the parameters you set which state the individual's interpretation takes primacy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Now this just doesn't stand to reason according to the parameters you set which state the individual's interpretation takes primacy.


This^^

----------


## moostraks

> Thank you all for your concerns. Honestly, though, I don't want Nang's posts flagged nor deleted. I don't care if she disagrees with me. I welcome any open debate, and she is still my sister-in-Christ, even if she doesn't consider me her brother-in-Christ. I just want her to substantiate her views about my subscription to a theological discussion that she believes in anathema to the Gospel, *with the word of God*. If she's not willing to do that much, then she hasn't made a case against any of my views on the "Federal Vision." All she has done is just engage in slanderous attacks and unwarranted criticisms towards me, personally. But that doesn't count for rational, spirited conversation at all.





> [/I]Theocrat,
> 
> It is my opinion all who hold to the Federal Vision error, should be ex-communicated from the PCA, or any denomination they have infiltrated.
> 
> Having this opinion, but not associated with you in any way ecclesiastically, all I can do to show my opposition and displeasure of what this movement has cost the visible church, is to ex-communicate you personally.


Well, I am not flagging or asking for deleting. I frankly find it annoying that one has so little capacity for the fairly minimal rules that such efforts must be made to deal with infractions, and it makes searching for posts a hassle when the same argument arises. 

Looks like you needed that seat on the bench. We are going to run out of room the way people are getting chewed through here for vanity's sake.

----------


## Theocrat

> I don't care what the church councils say.  If that is indeed what the WCF is teaching (I'm not sure that it is, those words could easily mean that baptism is a SIGN of regeneration and conversion, which would be true) than the WCF is heretical.  I'm just concerned with what the Bible says.


If you're concerned what the Bible says, then you should know that in the Scriptures, *the Church* has the power to declare something as heretical, *not individuals* (cf. Matthew 18:15-20; Titus 3:9-11). It's not up to you to declare whether I'm a heretic or not, FreedomFanatic. You have no ecclesiastical authority over me. More importantly, you have not shown how my position on baptism is heretical. You've just stated it, arbitrarily. So, I'm not even going to take your claims of my being a "heretic" seriously. But I am waiting for you to show me a church council that has declared that baptism being a sign of regeneration and union with Christ as HERETICAL. Like I've told Nang, either put up, or shut up, FF.




> How do these verses teach baptismal regeneration?


This is where we need to define our terms. You keep throwing the phrase "baptismal regeneration" around, but you haven't defined what you mean by it. Now, granted, I do believe in "baptismal regeneration," but not in the way that you think. I'm not a sacerdotalist about baptism, by which I mean, I do not believe that water, in and of itself, can wash away nor cleanse anything of its own "power." However, I do believe that the Spirit of God attends to the waters of baptism and through that means, He washes us and renews us. That is what I was getting at with citing Titus 3:5 and John 3:5, because in both of those passages, we clearly see a correlation between the water and the Spirit in bringing about new life. In a sense, it's a mystery, but nonetheless, we have the language of Scripture putting those two things together.




> The passage says Abraham was counted righteous BY HIS FAITH.  This blatantly contradicts your baptismal regeneration.  Abraham was credited as righteous WHEN HE BELIEVED, not by baptism, circumcision, or anything else.


I don't see that as a contradiction, FF. Both are true, after all. Abraham believed, and then nothing else happened to him nor his household after that...no, that's not what happened. After Abraham believed, his whole household was circumcised and set apart from the nations in covenant with God. His household received the blessings of faith by having the mark of the covenant placed upon them, and the same thing applies to us in the New Covenant in Christ. Parents believe, and then their children receive the covenant sign that separates them from the world, which is baptism (called "the circumcision of Christ" in Colossians 2). Baptized infants grow up in the Faith and are *taught to believe in Christ their whole lives*, which means that faith is not only a "one-time deal." That is one of the correlations between faith and baptism.




> This is irrelevant.  Its not like this is the only false gospel that is anathema.  The passage clearly says that if anyone teaches ANY OTHER GOSPEL he will be anathemized.  ANY other gospel.  Period.  Your gospel is another gospel, Theo.  And, if you were consistent, you would anathemize me, since based upon your viewpoint I am preaching a false gospel.
> 
> Baptismal regeneration cannot be reconciled with justification by faith alone.  These concepts are completely contradictory.  What side are you on, Theo?  Choose this day who you will serve, the idol of Rome or the God of the Bible.


You're taking that Galatians 1 passage way out of context, FF. The "any other Gospel" is referring to what Paul is talking about in Verses 6 & 7: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." I believe that the false Gospel in which Paul is referring to is the one that First Century Christians had to face, and that was from the Judaizers who were teaching the Gentile Christians that they must go back to the Old Testament rituals in order to be saved in Christ. Paul even warned against that back in Acts 20:28-30, saying that "grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock" and "speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." But, once again, I say that the "false Gospel" is in relation to the Judaizers because of the arguments Paul lays out in Galatians about being justified in Christ not by the works of the Old Law (especially in Chapter 3).

So, given that context, I don't see the need to anathematize you as preaching a false Gospel. For one, I have not argued that baptism is the Gospel, though I believe that it is linked to it (just as justification by faith is linked to it). But, once again, "justification by faith" is *not* the Gospel, either, and here you are equating the Gospel with "justification by faith," yet again, FF. You want me to reconcile "baptismal regeneration" (as you define it) with "justification by faith" (which you believe is the Gospel), yet, I don't agree with either of your positions on the two.

And this whole idea about serving "the idol of Rome" or the God of the Bible needs to die, FF. I do not seek to serve Rome, and like I've told you before, there are many doctrinal things that I disagree with the Church of Rome about. So do me a favor, and please shut up about my "walking on the road to Rome." Nothing could be farther from the truth.

----------


## Theocrat

> "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into *the visible Church*; but also to be unto him* a sign and seal* of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world."  Westminster Confession of Faith, XXVIII. I.
> 
> _Emphasis, mine.
> 
> _Theocrat,
> 
> It is my opinion all who hold to the Federal Vision error, should be ex-communicated from the PCA, or any denomination they have infiltrated.
> 
> Having this opinion, but not associated with you in any way ecclesiastically, all I can do to show my opposition and displeasure of what this movement has cost the visible church, is to ex-communicate you personally.


You can't excommunicate me from God's Church, Nang. Just who do you think you are? 

I have yet to see any Scriptural warrants from you to claim any of my views as being heterodox. I am grateful that it is not up to you to determine whether I am a Christian or not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This post explains it pretty well:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. Yet another thing that shows your position on 'faith alone' to unBiblical.


I'm not going to go through that whole post tonight, but I respect you for at least admitting to the denial of justification by faith alone.  Theo's theology logically demands such a denial, yet he does not admit to it.




> "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into *the visible Church*; but also to be unto him* a sign and seal* of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world."  Westminster Confession of Faith, XXVIII. I.
> 
> _Emphasis, mine._


_

_I can't believe I did not notice this.  I suspected that Theo's interpretation of the WCF was wrong, but I didn't realize it was that clear.  The WCF says that baptism makes one a member of the VISIBLE CHURCH.  I agree with that.  Baptism is  supposed to be the believer's first public proclamation of his faith, and it is the means by which the church recognizes a man to be a believer.  But it does not have anything to do with the invisible church.

That said, seeing as we presume that infants do not ordinarily have saving faith (maybe we don't all presume this, I don't know) I don't see how we can say infants are part of the "visible church."  I would say it is possible for an infant to be part of the invisible church, since God can give faith to anyone.  But until a child can explain what he believes, I don't see how he could be part of the VISIBLE church.  That's probably an ecclesiological disagreement I would have with Presbyterianism, but this is not a gospel issue and is by no means something that should interfere with Christian fellowship.

Baptismal regeneration, on the other hand...



> Theocrat,
> 
> It is my opinion all who hold to the Federal Vision error, should be ex-communicated from the PCA, or any denomination they have infiltrated.
> 
> Having this opinion, but not associated with you in any way ecclesiastically, all I can do to show my opposition and displeasure of what this movement has cost the visible church, is to ex-communicate you personally.


I agree.  I hope that repentance and conversion might come here.  When an unbeliever is knowledgeable about scripture, this is often difficult, but I believe God can do it even here.



> If you're concerned what the Bible says, then you should know that in the Scriptures, *the Church* has the power to declare something as heretical, *not individuals* (cf. Matthew 18:15-20; Titus 3:9-11).


The Matthew passage is referring to SIN, not to false gospels.  Titus, similarly, is talking about people who quarrel over silly things, not judgment of false gospels.  Neither of these passages teach what you are saying at all.

If I see my brother in sin, I am to bring it before the church (if he does not repent before that.)  But if someone is preaching a false gospel, he isn't my brother at all.  Seriously different issue.

Also, the Council of Trent calls all Protestants heretics.  So much for your "church councils."  By your logic, you SHOULD go back to Rome!




> It's not up to you to declare whether I'm a heretic or not, FreedomFanatic. You have no ecclesiastical authority over me.


I don't need ecclesiastial authority to identify a neo-Judaizer when I see one.  This makes me really sad because you're so solid in so many areas, but it is what it is.




> More importantly, you have not shown how my position on baptism is heretical. You've just stated it, arbitrarily. So, I'm not even going to take your claims of my being a "heretic" seriously.


I did defend it, with scripture.  But you wanted me to cite non-inspired men, and that I will not do.



> But I am waiting for you to show me a church council that has declared that baptism being a sign of regeneration and union with Christ as HERETICAL. Like I've told Nang, either put up, or shut up, FF.


Do you teach that baptism is a sign of regeneration?  I don't think so.  After all, you said baptized infants are regenerate.  That's more than just a sign.  had you said baptism was a SIGN of regeneration I would not call you a heretic, but you say that baptism actually causes regeneration, thus you are a baptismal regenerationist heretic.

I never told you I'd find a church council.  I defend my views with scripture alone.





> This is where we need to define our terms. You keep throwing the phrase "baptismal regeneration" around, but you haven't defined what you mean by it. Now, granted, I do believe in "baptismal regeneration," but not in the way that you think. I'm not a sacerdotalist about baptism, by which I mean, I do not believe that water, in and of itself, can wash away nor cleanse anything of its own "power." However, I do believe that the Spirit of God attends to the waters of baptism and through that means, He washes us and renews us. That is what I was getting at with citing Titus 3:5 and John 3:5, because in both of those passages, we clearly see a correlation between the water and the Spirit in bringing about new life. In a sense, it's a mystery, but nonetheless, we have the language of Scripture putting those two things together.



"water" does not refer to baptism.  It cannot in John 3:5 because the ordinance had not even been instituted yet.  "Water" refers to the spirit.  Does baptism symbolize this?  Of course.  But it doesn't actually cause it.  




> I don't see that as a contradiction, FF. Both are true, after all. Abraham believed, and then nothing else happened to him nor his household after that...no, that's not what happened.


When did I say nothing happened to him or his household after that?




> After Abraham believed, his whole household was circumcised and set apart from the nations in covenant with God. His household received the blessings of faith by having the mark of the covenant placed upon them, and the same thing applies to us in the New Covenant in Christ.


Sure, but this circumcision does not cause regeneration nor is it essential for salvation, rather it is God's command which takes place after salvation.




> Parents believe, and then their children receive the covenant sign that separates them from the world, which is baptism (called "the circumcision of Christ" in Colossians 2). Baptized infants grow up in the Faith and are *taught to believe in Christ their whole lives*, which means that faith is not only a "one-time deal." That is one of the correlations between faith and baptism.


I don't think baptism, despite its status as the New Testament circumcision, should be applied to infants.  But this is not really the issue between us, for this is not a gospel issue. My biggest issue is your assertion that infants are somehow saved by baptism.




> You're taking that Galatians 1 passage way out of context, FF. The "any other Gospel" is referring to what Paul is talking about in Verses 6 & 7: "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." I believe that the false Gospel in which Paul is referring to is the one that First Century Christians had to face, and that was from the Judaizers who were teaching the Gentile Christians that they must go back to the Old Testament rituals in order to be saved in Christ. Paul even warned against that back in Acts 20:28-30, saying that "grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock" and "speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them." But, once again, I say that the "false Gospel" is in relation to the Judaizers because of the arguments Paul lays out in Galatians about being justified in Christ not by the works of the Old Law (especially in Chapter 3).
> 
> So, given that context, I don't see the need to anathematize you as preaching a false Gospel. For one, I have not argued that baptism is the Gospel, though I believe that it is linked to it (just as justification by faith is linked to it). But, once again, "justification by faith" is *not* the Gospel, either, and here you are equating the Gospel with "justification by faith," yet again, FF. You want me to reconcile "baptismal regeneration" (as you define it) with "justification by faith" (which you believe is the Gospel), yet, I don't agree with either of your positions on the two.


What is justification by faith?



> And this whole idea about serving "the idol of Rome" or the God of the Bible needs to die, FF. I do not seek to serve Rome, and like I've told you before, there are many doctrinal things that I disagree with the Church of Rome about. So do me a favor, and please shut up about my "walking on the road to Rome." Nothing could be farther from the truth.


Oddly, you appeal to church councils, and the Council of Trent anathemized Protestants.  So, how can you be Protestant and yet have the high view of church councils that you have?



> You can't excommunicate me from God's Church, Nang. Just who do you think you are? 
> 
> I have yet to see any Scriptural warrants from you to claim any of my views as being heterodox. I am grateful that it is not up to you to determine whether I am a Christian or not.


You should be grateful that there is someone here who is willing to show you your scriptural error, and stop demanding a sign from the church.  A majority of churches are apostate anyway.

----------


## Theocrat

> I'm not going to go through that whole post tonight, but I respect you for at least admitting to the denial of justification by faith alone.  Theo's theology logically demands such a denial, yet he does not admit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> [/I]I can't believe I did not notice this.  I suspected that Theo's interpretation of the WCF was wrong, but I didn't realize it was that clear.  The WCF says that baptism makes one a member of the VISIBLE CHURCH.  I agree with that.  Baptism is  supposed to be the believer's first public proclamation of his faith, and it is the means by which the church recognizes a man to be a believer.  But it does not have anything to do with the invisible church.
> 
> That said, seeing as we presume that infants do not ordinarily have saving faith (maybe we don't all presume this, I don't know) I don't see how we can say infants are part of the "visible church."  I would say it is possible for an infant to be part of the invisible church, since God can give faith to anyone.  But until a child can explain what he believes, I don't see how he could be part of the VISIBLE church.  That's probably an ecclesiological disagreement I would have with Presbyterianism, but this is not a gospel issue and is by no means something that should interfere with Christian fellowship.
> 
> Baptismal regeneration, on the other hand...
> ...


I don't have time tonight to fully rebut all of your replies above, but I will say that I do not appreciate the flippancy of some of your responses above, FF.  *You need to go back and reread my replies because you have not refuted anything that I've written.* I don't know if it's because you are busy responding in other threads and sub-forums here, but if you think your reply above has sufficiently dealt with any of my arguments, then you are just fooling yourself, my brother. And you should know better because you are smarter than what I see you posting above.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't have time tonight to fully rebut all of your replies above, but I will say that I do not appreciate the flippancy of some of your responses above, FF.  *You need to go back and reread my replies because you have not refuted anything that I've written.* I don't know if it's because you are busy responding in other threads and sub-forums here, but if you think your reply above has sufficiently dealt with any of my arguments, then you are just fooling yourself, my brother. And you should know better because you are smarter than what I see you posting above.


Yeah, I'm busy responding to other stuff in other threads.  You aren't the only person I talk to here.  This may have been what Nang's reason for staying out was, maybe she just doesn't have the time.  Even still, I think that a limited response is better than no response at all.

All that said, I do not feel that the response above was "flippant."  Your post didn't require a book.  Please remind me of anything I failed to answer to your satisfaction.

For what its worth, you're more Biblically literate than I am, so you could probably talk circles around me if you wanted to.  And there are people of every theological persuasion that could do so.  There's only so much I can do here.  But I wouldn't have felt right to back out without any response.

----------


## Theocrat

> Yeah, I'm busy responding to other stuff in other threads.  You aren't the only person I talk to here.  This may have been what Nang's reason for staying out was, maybe she just doesn't have the time.  Even still, I think that a limited response is better than no response at all.
> 
> All that said, I do not feel that the response above was "flippant."  Your post didn't require a book.  Please remind me of anything I failed to answer to your satisfaction.
> 
> For what its worth, you're more Biblically literate than I am, so you could probably talk circles around me if you wanted to.  And there are people of every theological persuasion that could do so.  There's only so much I can do here.  But I wouldn't have felt right to back out without any response.


Fair enough, my brother.  I will reply back to you tomorrow.

----------


## pcosmar

> You can't excommunicate me from God's Church, Nang. Just who do you think you are?


Don't be mad Theo.. 
We may disagree on points,, but we agree on Christ.

It actually made be laugh that some nobody on an internet forum could presume to excommunicate anyone.

I am amused (but not surprised) at churches that do that.

No one has the power to come between you and God,, save for Jesus Christ who stands as our advocate.

The arrogance of this one is amusing.

----------


## James Madison

> Don't be mad Theo.. 
> We may disagree on points,, but we agree on Christ.
> 
> It actually made be laugh that some nobody on an internet forum could presume to excommunicate anyone.
> 
> I am amused (but not surprised) at churches that do that.
> 
> No one has the power to come between you and God,, save for Jesus Christ who stands as our advocate.
> 
> The arrogance of this one is amusing.


The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

----------


## Nang

> The lady doth protest too much, methinks.



The lady has only refused to communicate with one who seeks to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism.

----------


## pcosmar

> The lady has only refused to communicate with one who seeks to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism.


Good,,

Excommunicate thyself.

----------


## Nang

> Good,,
> 
> Excommunicate thyself.


OK.

I ex-communicate myself from your attempts to sell Gnostic beliefs, and very happy to do so!!!

----------


## James Madison

> The lady has only refused to communicate with one who seeks to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism.


Whatever helps you sleep at night.

----------


## pcosmar

> OK.
> 
> I ex-communicate myself from your attempts to sell Gnostic beliefs, and very happy to do so!!!


I sell nothing.

But I don't buy your crap either.

----------


## RJB

> The lady has only refused to communicate with one who seeks to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism.


Is the lady aware that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox also seek to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism?  Why Pick on only Theocrat?  Is there a way that Catholics and Orthodox can apply for such a refusal to communicate from you guys as well?  Some curses appear to truly be blessings.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The lady has only refused to communicate with one who seeks to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism.


 Protestantism refutes and destroys itself-especially when its multitude of denominations go to war with one another.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is the lady aware that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox also seek to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism?  Why Pick on only Theocrat?  Is there a way that Catholics and Orthodox can apply for such a refusal to communicate from you guys as well?  Some curses appear to truly be blessings.


 Well played, comrade.

----------


## RJB

> Well played, comrade.


You act as if I joke?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Don't be mad Theo.. 
> We may disagree on points,, but we agree on Christ.
> 
> It actually made be laugh that some nobody on an internet forum could presume to excommunicate anyone.
> 
> I am amused (but not surprised) at churches that do that.
> 
> No one has the power to come between you and God,, *save for Jesus Christ who stands as our advocate.
> *
> The arrogance of this one is amusing.


I just want to nitpick this because it's somewhat misleading.  Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God.  He is one with the Father and Holy Spirit-and has equally the authority to judge.  /end nitpick

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You act as if I joke?


No, I was dead serious.  You were so awesome I chuckled a bit at your srs skills and pwnage.  ~no sarc, express or implied~

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Is the lady aware that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox also seek to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism?  Why Pick on only Theocrat?  Is there a way that Catholics and Orthodox can apply for such a refusal to communicate from you guys as well?  Some curses appear to truly be blessings.


This is a valid point.  Don't say "you guys" though.  I answered all of Theo's points.  Perhaps not to his satisfaction, but I did answer them.

----------


## pcosmar

> I just want to nitpick this because it's somewhat misleading.  Jesus Christ is fully man and fully God.  He is one with the Father and Holy Spirit-and has equally the authority to judge.  /*end nitpick*


I don't mind,,



> My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, *we have an advocate with the Father*, Jesus Christ the righteous:


I watch my Rottweiler chew fleas off small kittens . Crushing small fleas surgically with her massive teeth, so gently as to not harm the kitten.
Except for the slobber.

----------


## TER

Grace is not a thing.  It is not an object.  Grace is God Himself, the Holy Spirit.  Our being graced by God is our real participation in the divine nature (as St. Paul says), living fleshy temples of the Holy Spirit of God.  This grace is not an object, this Grace is God in us.  In this Grace we are saved and are perfected in the fullness and stature of Jesus Christ.

Christ, the Word of God, the Son of God from the Virgin, He has revealed the Name of the Father, has revealed the Holy Spirit to be a Person of the Holy Trinity, and has shown us the way to eternal life.  Eternal life in the Kingdom of God, in communion and relation with God, in conforming to the image of Jesus Christ and rising with Him, and by Him, and through Him, and in Him.  For He is the Life and in Him, the Author of Life, we have life.  He said it as plain as can be and He made it possible by His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, and experiential, communal, perfecting and historical on Holy Pentecost.

And this is a life of giving, of communion, of sharing with one another the gifts that He first gave us.  Our very being, made in the image of the trinitarian God, one of selfless giving and love for another.  For God is such love, the culmination of love, the defintion of love.  Our being too in His grace is love, the divine life of God.  And this life was given on the cross for the life of the world.  Given for the love of the world which He created good, which He loves as Abba, in the image of the father of the prodigal, ever merciful and joyful when we return to Him in repentance as our Provider, and join in His loving embrace.

Continue to work out your salvation in fear and trembling my brother, and fight the good fight!  Carry your cross and follow Him knowing that the road to Heaven first leads to Golgotha, and before the resurrection, there is the death on a cross.  But do not grow fainthearted, nor forget about the hope and the faith.

In faith, keep digging for _the_ faith that was once handed down to the saints.  Keep studying the earliest and eternal witness of the saints of the Church.  The road back eventually ends up in the Upper Room in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago (fifty days after our Lord's Ressurection), on the Holy and Great Pentecost.  This is when mystically the Holy Spirit gave divine life to the Church, the union of the divine and the created in those baptized in Christ.  The sanctifying and indeed deifing of these baptized members of His Body, and their ordination through the Holy Spirit.  Those witnesses who also shared in the One Cup in communion and proclaimed one united, catholic, and orthodox faith.

There are branches which lead back to the beginning.  Centuries of branches, and some just devised a second ago.  Sometimes we are so tangled in branches, we cannot even see the center of the tree.   Indeed, we may not even be on the same tree and not realize it yet..  Yet, no matter what our opinion is, or what our fallible minds may rationalize, there is but one trunk of the tree, and that is where we should start our search.  From there, go century to century, through time, learning about pillars of the faith, the lives of the Saints, and learn those traditions which these believers held fast to, in accordance to the orthodox faith handed down to them by those before them.  In this way we can learn and find where this trunk is today, just as we would do for any serious study in looking for a historical source and link. 

 Examining the revered Scriptures, archeology, literature, liturgical worship, hymnology, ecclesiology, the arts, music, and the sacramental life of the faithful, we can begin to discern the truths of the Church and find the fullness and the authenticity and apostolic truths of the faith.  In the very fruits of the Holy Spirit in the world.  For we believe the Holy Spirit is everywhere present and fillest all things, and His fruits are found in the lives and the works of those who do His will and give there very lives for the truth, being glorified and graced by the Holy Spirit.  These are the Saints of the Church.  

If you wish to know a Church, know it's saints.    

Just as there is One Source of the world, One Jesus, all things point to His glory and right worship.  So too the branches lead to a common and historical root, of the Body St. Paul was baptizing people in. 

He did not say there was no more need for work, but rather he exhorted the members in one confession to _run the race_.  He also instructed them to confirm and hold fast the traditions they were entrusted and the things they wrote and said, in one confession of belief, in unity and oneness in mind, heart, and spirit, one faith concelebrated on earth along with the Saints in Heaven, and made incarnate and living in the sharing of the very Body and Blood of Christ, which St. Paul taught was the real Body and Blood of Christ.  And not only St. Paul, but St. Peter before him and St. John above him.  The sealing of the oneness in faith by the Truth in the Incarnate Word of the Triune God.  Glory to You, our God!  Glory to You!

These Holy Gifts are offered for the life of the world, in order to feed the world and give life to the world.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Grace is not a thing.  It is not an object.  Grace is God Himself, the Holy Spirit.  Our being graced by God is our real participation in the divine nature (as St. Paul says), living fleshy temples of the Holy Spirit of God.  This grace is not an object, this Grace is God in us.  In this Grace we are saved and are perfected in the fullness and stature of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Christ, the Word of God, the Son of God from the Virgin, He has revealed the Name of the Father, has revealed the Holy Spirit to be a Person of the Holy Trinity, and has shown us the way to eternal life.  Eternal life in the Kingdom of God, in communion and relation with God, in conforming to the image of Jesus Christ and rising with Him, and by Him, and through Him, and in Him.  For He is the Life and in Him, the Author of Life, we have life.  He said it as plain as can be and He made it possible by His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, and experiential, communal, perfecting and historical on Holy Pentecost.
> 
> And this is a life of giving, of communion, of sharing with one another the gifts that He first gave us.  Our very being, made in the image of the trinitarian God, one of selfless giving and love for another.  For God is such love, the culmination of love, the defintion of love.  Our being too in His grace is love, the divine life of God.  And this life was given on the cross for the life of the world.  Given for the love of the world which He created good, which He loves as Abba, in the image of the father of the prodigal, ever merciful and joyful when we return to Him in repentance as our Provider, and join in His loving embrace.
> 
> Continue to work out your salvation in fear and trembling my brother, and fight the good fight!  Carry your cross and follow Him knowing that the road to Heaven first leads to Golgotha, and before the resurrection, there is the death on a cross.  But do not grow fainthearted, nor forget about the hope and the faith.
> 
> In faith, keep digging for _the_ faith that was once handed down to the saints.  Keep studying the earliest and eternal witness of the saints of the Church.  The road back eventually ends up in the Upper Room in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago (fifty days after our Lord's Ressurection), on the Holy and Great Pentecost.  This is when mystically the Holy Spirit gave divine life to the Church, the union of the divine and the created in those baptized in Christ.  The sanctifying and indeed deifing of these baptized members of His Body, and their ordination through the Holy Spirit.  Those witnesses who also shared in the One Cup in communion and proclaimed one united, catholic, and orthodox faith.
> ...


+rep

----------


## acptulsa

> +rep


I protest!

----------


## eduardo89

> I protest!


Protestant!

----------


## Terry1

> Grace is not a thing.  It is not an object.  Grace is God Himself, the Holy Spirit.  Our being graced by God is our real participation in the divine nature (as St. Paul says), living fleshy temples of the Holy Spirit of God.  This grace is not an object, this Grace is God in us.  In this Grace we are saved and are perfected in the fullness and stature of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Christ, the Word of God, the Son of God from the Virgin, He has revealed the Name of the Father, has revealed the Holy Spirit to be a Person of the Holy Trinity, and has shown us the way to eternal life.  Eternal life in the Kingdom of God, in communion and relation with God, in conforming to the image of Jesus Christ and rising with Him, and by Him, and through Him, and in Him.  For He is the Life and in Him, the Author of Life, we have life.  He said it as plain as can be and He made it possible by His glorious Resurrection and Ascension, and experiential, communal, perfecting and historical on Holy Pentecost.
> 
> And this is a life of giving, of communion, of sharing with one another the gifts that He first gave us.  Our very being, made in the image of the trinitarian God, one of selfless giving and love for another.  For God is such love, the culmination of love, the defintion of love.  Our being too in His grace is love, the divine life of God.  And this life was given on the cross for the life of the world.  Given for the love of the world which He created good, which He loves as Abba, in the image of the father of the prodigal, ever merciful and joyful when we return to Him in repentance as our Provider, and join in His loving embrace.
> 
> Continue to work out your salvation in fear and trembling my brother, and fight the good fight!  Carry your cross and follow Him knowing that the road to Heaven first leads to Golgotha, and before the resurrection, there is the death on a cross.  But do not grow fainthearted, nor forget about the hope and the faith.
> 
> In faith, keep digging for _the_ faith that was once handed down to the saints.  Keep studying the earliest and eternal witness of the saints of the Church.  The road back eventually ends up in the Upper Room in Jerusalem almost 2000 years ago (fifty days after our Lord's Ressurection), on the Holy and Great Pentecost.  This is when mystically the Holy Spirit gave divine life to the Church, the union of the divine and the created in those baptized in Christ.  The sanctifying and indeed deifing of these baptized members of His Body, and their ordination through the Holy Spirit.  Those witnesses who also shared in the One Cup in communion and proclaimed one united, catholic, and orthodox faith.
> ...


Wonderful and powerful post TER!  




> Grace is not a thing. It is not an object. Grace is God Himself, the Holy Spirit


Absolutely!  Grace is God and His power that enables us to live "through faith"/Jesus Christ.  Grace is the gift and the power of God and the engine that enables us being--the vehicle through which the blood of Christ works through our faith in Him.

This is the best expression of Grace being the power of God and the gift and through faith being an action that is done based upon the power of the gift.

----------


## Nang

> Grace is not a thing.  It is not an object.  Grace is God Himself, the Holy Spirit.



You are confusing personhood with attributes.

Grace is an attribute, not a person.

Just because someone has received grace from God, is not a basis to become God.

----------


## TER

> You are confusing personhood with attributes.
> 
> Grace is an attribute, not a person.
> 
> Just because someone has received grace from God, is not a basis to become God.


Thank you Nang, but I am going to choose the teachings of the Church Fathers over you.

----------


## Nang

> Is the lady aware that Roman Catholics and the Orthodox also seek to destroy the foundations and confessions of Protestantism?  Why Pick on only Theocrat?  Is there a way that Catholics and Orthodox can apply for such a refusal to communicate from you guys as well?  Some curses appear to truly be blessings.


The RCC/EO and the Reformed Protestants present different gospel messages, and we all can see the obvious differences.

But when a group of people invade Reformed Protestant seminaries and churches, claiming to be in agreement with the Reformed Protestant gospel message, saying they hold to the WCF,  but in reality hold to the core errors of the RCC/EO, and also try to teach it within our midst, then harsh action should be taken to remove this hypocrisy and wickedness from our presence.

My Presbyterian leaders should never have let this FV movement get this far.  These men that Theocrat endorses on this forum, and attempts to whitewash before  all of you, may fool some of you, but I see all of them as a wolves in sheep's clothing. 

 I am very angry for the harm the FV hypocrites have caused my denomination at large.  If the church leaders will not ex-communicate these people from their midst, I will reject him.  There is no reason I must personally have to abide by his false teaching, and I won't.  Theocrat needs to get this message of displeasure and knowledgable rejection of his erroneous views, somehow, and I guess it will only be through individuals, such as myself, objecting and refusing to give him audience to spew his views.

If he wants to leave the Protestant camp, and convert to either RCC or the EO, then I would debate him on more honest grounds, but he would like to engage me to discredit my views and the Reformed faith by debating me here, in the name of my faith!  It won't happen!  This is so disingenuous on his part.

----------


## RJB

There, there, calm down.  Just repeat to yourself the false formula that anyone who rejects the man made doctrine of Faith Alone rejects the Gospel that Jesus Sacrificed himself for us, and it will be alright. 




> The RCC/EO and the Reformed Protestants present different gospel messages, and we all can see the obvious differences.
> 
> But when a group of people invade Reformed Protestant seminaries and churches, claiming to be in agreement with the Reformed Protestant gospel message, saying they hold to the WCF,  but in reality hold to the core errors of the RCC/EO, and also try to teach it within our midst, then harsh action should be taken to remove this hypocrisy and wickedness from our presence.
> 
> My Presbyterian leaders should never have let this FV movement get this far.  These men that Theocrat endorses on this forum, and attempts to whitewash before  all of you, may fool some of you, but I see all of them as a wolves in sheep's clothing. 
> 
>  I am very angry for the harm the FV hypocrites have caused my denomination at large.  If the church leaders will not ex-communicate these people from their midst, I will reject him.  There is no reason I must personally have to abide by his false teaching, and I won't.  Theocrat needs to get this message of displeasure and knowledgable rejection of his erroneous views, somehow, and I guess it will only be through individuals, such as myself, objecting and refusing to give him audience to spew his views.
> 
> If he wants to leave the Protestant camp, and convert to either RCC or the EO, then I would debate him on more honest grounds, but he would like to engage me to discredit my views and the Reformed faith by debating me here, in the name of my faith!  It won't happen!  This is so disingenuous on his part.

----------


## eduardo89

> Thank you Nang, but I am going to choose the teachings of the Church Fathers over you.


+1

----------


## acptulsa

> Protestant!


It's good to be one, too.

If someone says you're not a Protestant, you Protest.  QED, argument over, STFU.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thank you Nang, but I am going to choose the teachings of the Church Fathers over you.


So you are a respecter of persons?   Even when the apostle James commanded against it?

----------


## Deborah K

> So you are a respecter of persons?   Even when the apostle James commanded against it?


Now we're getting somewhere.  You and Nang believe, and behave as people who have no respect for those you deem to be wrong, based on James.  Yet, Paul told Timothy something completely different that many on this forum ascribe to:




> Again I say, don't get involved in foolish arguments which only upset people and make them angry.  God's people must not be quarrelsome; they must be gentle, patient teachers of those who are wrong.  Be humble when you are trying to teach those who are mixed up concerning the truth. For if you talk meekly to them they are more likely, with God's help, to turn away from their wrong ideas and believe what is true.  2Timothy 2:23-25


This is an example of how you isolate certain passages to the exclusion of the rest of the Bible.  It is at the crux of the contention.

----------


## eduardo89

> So you are a respecter of persons?   Even when the apostle James commanded against it?


Where did St. James tell us not to respect others? Or is that just another one of the illogical doctrines you live by?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where did St. James tell us not to respect others? Or is that just another one of the illogical doctrines you live by?





> *James 2:1, 9
> 
> My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism....
> 
> ... But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.*


Do you read the Bible?  Or do you let yourself be (mod delete)

----------


## Deborah K

> Do you read the Bible?  Or do you let yourself be (mod delete)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				James 2:1, 9
>  My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism....
>  ... But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.


This says nothing about respect.  It discusses favoritism.  And it seems to me that you and Nang favor each other over the rest of us.

----------


## moostraks

> So you are a respecter of persons?   Even when the apostle James commanded against it?


Proverbs 1:  5A wise man will hear and increase in learning,
            And a man of understanding will acquire wise counsel,

      6To understand a proverb and a figure,
            The words of the wise and their riddles.

      7The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge;
            Fools despise wisdom and instruction.



The Enticement of Sinners

8Hear, my son, your father’s instruction
            And do not forsake your mother’s teaching;

      9Indeed, they are a graceful wreath to your head
            And ornaments about your neck.

Proverbs 4
English Standard Version (ESV)
A Father's Wise Instruction

4 Hear, O sons, a father's instruction,
    and be attentive, that you may gain[a] insight,
2 for I give you good precepts;
    do not forsake my teaching.
3 When I was a son with my father,
    tender, the only one in the sight of my mother,
4 he taught me and said to me,
“Let your heart hold fast my words;
    keep my commandments, and live.
5 Get wisdom; get insight;
    do not forget, and do not turn away from the words of my mouth.
6 Do not forsake her, and she will keep you;
    love her, and she will guard you.
7 The beginning of wisdom is this: Get wisdom,
    and whatever you get, get insight.
8 Prize her highly, and she will exalt you;
    she will honor you if you embrace her.
9 She will place on your head a graceful garland;
    she will bestow on you a beautiful crown.”
10 Hear, my son, and accept my words,
    that the years of your life may be many.
11 I have taught you the way of wisdom;
    I have led you in the paths of uprightness.
12 When you walk, your step will not be hampered,
    and if you run, you will not stumble.
13 Keep hold of instruction; do not let go;
    guard her, for she is your life.
14 Do not enter the path of the wicked,
    and do not walk in the way of the evil.
15 Avoid it; do not go on it;
    turn away from it and pass on.
16 For they cannot sleep unless they have done wrong;
    they are robbed of sleep unless they have made someone stumble.
17 For they eat the bread of wickedness
    and drink the wine of violence.
18 But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn,
    which shines brighter and brighter until full day.
19 The way of the wicked is like deep darkness;
    they do not know over what they stumble.
20 My son, be attentive to my words;
    incline your ear to my sayings.
21 Let them not escape from your sight;
    keep them within your heart.
22 For they are life to those who find them,
    and healing to all their[b] flesh.
23 Keep your heart with all vigilance,
    for from it flow the springs of life.
24 Put away from you crooked speech,
    and put devious talk far from you.
25 Let your eyes look directly forward,
    and your gaze be straight before you.
26 Ponder[c] the path of your feet;
    then all your ways will be sure.
27 Do not swerve to the right or to the left;
    turn your foot away from evil.

----------


## RJB

> Do you read the Bible?  Or do you let yourself be brainwashed by *the men in robes you worship*?


You've been here for 4 years and you still post this crap?   And you wonder why people see no point in discussing issues with you? 

 You are an amusing fellow.  I'll give you that.

----------


## acptulsa

> Do you read the Bible?  Or do you let yourself be brainwashed by the men in robes you worship?


You're obviously not brainwashing us.  You've been trying for nearly four years and all you've reaped is the wind.

We don't give a $#@! if you're wearing robes or not.

----------


## eduardo89

> Do you read the Bible?  Or do you let yourself be brainwashed by the men in robes you worship?


Seriously? You take James 2:9 to mean not to respect others and not to seek the guidance of others? Wow, I know you like to twist Scripture, but this is just another level.

----------


## moostraks

> Do you read the Bible?  Or do you let yourself be brainwashed by the men in robes you worship?


We are told to seek wisdom. It is you, FF, and nang who have developed a belief structure upon which you make entry into the club a demand that one agrees with your philosophy and then those are the ones you show love and kindness. That is favoritism, not one who seeks knowledge from those committed to the Love and teaching of Jesus.

----------


## RJB

> *Seriously? You take James 2:9 to mean not to respect others and not to seek the guidance of others?* Wow, I know you like to twist Scripture, but this is just another level.


Funny.  I think he is serious.  LOL

----------


## moostraks

> Funny.  I think he is serious.  LOL


I hav known the type with his belief system and I believe he is too, according to my experiences and what I have seen sola say.

----------


## eduardo89

> Funny.  I think he is serious.  LOL


It's absolutely pathetic that he tries to use James 2:9 to make whatever point he's trying to make. That passage tells us that we must love all our neighbours the way we love ourselves, and to not show favouritism, as in not to treat some people well and others poorly.

----------


## eduardo89

> Do you read the Bible?  Or do you let yourself be brainwashed by the men in robes you worship?


You're a $#@!ing hypocrite.




> PLEASE, for the sake of everyone's sanity:  PLEASE STICK TO THE ISSUES AND STOP MAKING THINGS PERSONAL.  I am asking very nicely now.  Please.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Eduardo, should a Christian man let another Christian man call him "Holy Father"?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're a $#@!ing hypocrite.


Does this language and anger come from a spirit of holiness?  I think not.

----------


## RJB

> I think not.


Agreed.

----------


## moostraks

> Eduardo, should a Christian man let another Christian man call him "Holy Father"?


Eduardo brought up Jeremiah to you. Why don't you tackle that before making a new discussion to ignore?

----------


## eduardo89

> Does this language and anger come from a spirit of holiness?


It comes from a spirit of indignation at your hypocrisy, lies, and distortion of Scripture.




> I think not.


We've known that for a long time, I'm glad you finally admit it.

----------


## moostraks

> Does this language and anger come from a spirit of holiness?  I think not.


Looks like someones new tactic is to say we are angry who dispute his lies and then try to burn us for being annoyed with his behavior.

----------


## TER

> If he wants to leave the Protestant camp, and convert to either RCC or the EO...


Thank you Nang!  We would be happy to have him!  I can see Theo being an Orthodox Priest one day.  . A blessed day indeed. 

When one's eyes have been opened, Nang, what has been seen cannot be unseen, and all the insults and condemnations and protests from people like you lose all effect.  Like clanging bells, repeating noises which are empty and distracting, having no benefit other then to the bell's own sense of self-importance.  Careful lest we foolishly fight against the very ones who are in the Kingdom, those beloved members of His Body, and create enemies against the very cloud of witnesses who pray for us and in the end will judge us.  Careful Nang when you put yourself above the Fathers of the Church.  They were sinners, as you say, but not the sinners we are, and every blessing and grace they had was the Holy Spirit in them, sanctifying them and perfecting them.  And now they are Saints of His Church.  Be careful who you make enemies with.

What has been given to Theo has been given to him by God, and it shall not be taken away from him.  My plea for you is to follow Theo's lead and open up your own eyes, so that you to may grow closer to the truth and the knowledge of God.

----------


## Nang

> Thank you Nang!  We would be happy to have him!  I can see Theo being an Orthodox Priest one day.  . A blessed day indeed. 
> 
> When one's eyes have been opened, Nang, what has been seen cannot be unseen, and all the insults and condemnations and protests from people like you lose all effect.  Like clanging bells, repeating noises which are empty and distracting, having no benefit other then to the bell's own sense of self-importance.  Careful lest we foolishly fight against the very ones who are in the Kingdom, those beloved members of His Body, and create enemies against the very cloud of witnesses who pray for us and in the end will judge us.  Careful Nang when you put yourself above the Fathers of the Church.  They were sinners, as you say, but not the sinners we are, and every blessing and grace they had was the Holy Spirit in them, sanctifying them and perfecting them.  And now they are Saints of His Church.  Be careful who you make enemies with.
> 
> What has been given to Theo has been given to him by God, and it shall not be taken away from him.  My plea for you is to follow Theo's lead and open up your own eyes, so that you to may grow closer to the truth and the knowledge of God.


LOL!

Can there be any doubt, that the teachings of the Federal Vision are indeed those of Rome and the East?

----------


## eduardo89

> Can there be any doubt, that the teachings of the Federal Vision are indeed those of Rome and the East?


Yes.

----------


## TER

> LOL!
> 
> Can there be any doubt, that the teachings of the Federal Vision are indeed those of Rome and the East?


And are you scared that you might also see and learn the truth?

----------


## Nang

> And are you scared that you might also see and learn the truth?



Well, why don't you and eduardo figure out and come to agreement about what FV really is, before asking me if *I* am scared.

----------


## TER

> Well, why don't you and eduardo figure out and come to agreement about what FV really is, before asking me if *I* am scared.


I am not interested in FV,  I am interested in Theo being my brother in Christ.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, why don't you and eduardo figure out and come to agreement about what FV really is, before asking me if *I* am scared.


I honestly do not know what 'Federal Vision' is nor do I care much about it. You are the one obsessing over it.

----------


## acptulsa

> I am not interested in FV,  I am interested in Theo being my brother in Christ.





> I honestly do not know what 'Federal Vision' is nor do I care much about it. You are the one obsessing over it.


If that's what led to Obamacare I'm dead set against it.

----------


## Deborah K

Sola, I'd like a response to my last two posts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I protest!


I double protest back at thee, heathen! :P

----------


## moostraks

> Sola, I'd like a response to my last two posts.




Don't do this^^^ He is busy ignoring numerous debates right now. Yours may or may not be one of them.

----------


## acptulsa

> I double protest back at thee, heathen! :P


You?  A Protestant?

It's a miracle!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You?  A Protestant?
> 
> It's a miracle!


No, I'm Orthodox, but protest your protesting anyway.  A special occasion, don't ya know.  :P

----------


## acptulsa

> No, I'm Orthodox, but protest your protesting anyway.  A special occasion, don't ya know.  :P


Oh, you're protesting my protestations?  That's different.

Glad you're Orthodox.  Ain't got no time for the Inquisition today.  Or Sola_Fide either, for that matter.

----------


## RJB

Uh oh...  What are we gonna do when Theocrat gets back home and sees what a mess we made of his thread?

Let's blame it all on Heavenlyboy34.  We'll say he was extra argumentative.

----------


## pcosmar

> Uh oh...  What are we gonna do when Theocrat gets back home and sees what a mess we made of his thread?
> 
> Let's blame it all on Heavenlyboy34.  We'll say he was extra argumentative.


Blame it on the Druid,

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Does this language and anger come from a spirit of holiness?  I think not.


Does the Catholic Church condone profanity?  I know this is  side topic, it doesn't "offend" me and I know its going to be posted on the internet, but at the same time, I was always taught that cursing was immoral.  Do Catholics not believe that?  Sincere question, BTW.

----------


## Theocrat

> The RCC/EO and the Reformed Protestants present different gospel messages, and we all can see the obvious differences.
> 
> But when a group of people invade Reformed Protestant seminaries and churches, claiming to be in agreement with the Reformed Protestant gospel message, saying they hold to the WCF,  but in reality hold to the core errors of the RCC/EO, and also try to teach it within our midst, then harsh action should be taken to remove this hypocrisy and wickedness from our presence.
> 
> My Presbyterian leaders should never have let this FV movement get this far.  These men that Theocrat endorses on this forum, and attempts to whitewash before  all of you, may fool some of you, but I see all of them as a wolves in sheep's clothing. 
> 
>  I am very angry for the harm the FV hypocrites have caused my denomination at large.  If the church leaders will not ex-communicate these people from their midst, I will reject him.  There is no reason I must personally have to abide by his false teaching, and I won't.  Theocrat needs to get this message of displeasure and knowledgable rejection of his erroneous views, somehow, and I guess it will only be through individuals, such as myself, objecting and refusing to give him audience to spew his views.
> 
> If he wants to leave the Protestant camp, and convert to either RCC or the EO, then I would debate him on more honest grounds, but he would like to engage me to discredit my views and the Reformed faith by debating me here, in the name of my faith!  It won't happen!  This is so disingenuous on his part.


Nang, save the conspiracy theories, okay? No one who subscribes to "Federal Vision" is trying to invade Reformed churches and seminaries in order to convert Reformed Christians over to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. This is where you continually show your *ignorance* about "Federal Vision," and I mean "ignorance" in the full meaning of the term (lack of knowledge), not as an insult towards you. Unlike yourself, I have read the essays and books; I have listened to the lectures and conferences; I have even engaged some the main proponents of "Federal Vision" to assess their views in light of the Scriptures. And I can tell you, from checking with the original sources of "Federal Vision" theology that *none of them* are seeking to overthrow Reformed churches and seminaries, because it is *not a movement*. "Federal Vision" is a *theological discussion* shared by many pastors, professional theologians, and laymen which focuses on perspectives in covenant theology that modern, evangelical churches have totally forgotten.

In fact, many "Federal Vision" writers are just following the writings of earlier Church authors. Their ideas on the covenant have long been taught in every age of the Church. So, in the "Federal Vision" writings, you'll find statements, allusions, and clear teachings of those matters in the early fathers (Justin Martyr, Cyril, Irenaeus, Augustine); in the Medieval fathers and the Reformers (Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Bucer, Luther, Cranmer, Ursinus); as well as from many theologians of 17th-19th Centuries (Cornelius Burges, Richard Hooker, Jonathan Edwards, M.F. Sadler, John Nevin). Not only that, the views on the covenant in the "Federal Vision" discussion are also reflected in many of the creeds and confessions of the Church (the Nicene Creed, Calvin's Strasbourg and Geneva catechisms, the baptismal liturgy of the French Reformed Church, the Book of Common Prayer, the Second Helvetic Confession, the 1560 Scots Confession, the French Confession, the Gallican Confession, the Augsburg Confession, the Belgic Confession, and the Westminster Confession). Though no one of those witnesses held all of the ideas set forth in the "Federal Vision" discussion, all of the discussions set forth in the discussion have precedent in the history of the Church. All the proponents of "Federal Vision" are seeking to do is to build upon that foundation, looking to the word as the final authority (_Sola Scriptura_).

But, Nang, you, like so many of my Calvinist brothers and sisters, *refuse to hear* what the discussion is all about because of your second-handed sources whom, themselves, are willingly ignorant of what is actually being put forth. And all I have to do to prove that is show your behavior in this very thread when "Federal Vision" is brought up. You refuse to engage me on any of the "errors" you claim that I'm following, when I've invited you to do so over and over again in this very thread. Everyone sees this, Nang, and *it is to your shame*, because you have so much pride that you are the prime person in these threads who holds to orthodox teachings of Scripture that you can't even substantiate your beliefs when I have opened the floor for you to engage me in the debate.

Not only that, but you have insulted other brothers and sisters in Christ, who do not share your convictions about Calvinism, so much so that none of them feel comfortable having a sensible, loving, and educational discussion with you on *any* matter of faith and theology. You accuse me of being "Roman Catholic" because there are Roman Catholics on here that agree with me on some of my views, as if that is supposed to be an insult to me. It is not, and I say "Alleluia!" that I have other brothers and sisters who affirm some of the things that I've expressed. I welcome such encouragement because there are many of my Calvinist brothers and sisters who do injustice to many passages of the Bible, and they refuse to change their system of thought on covenants because they have allowed *our Reformed systematics* to define the terms, in ways that non-Reformed Christians don't. And to that point, I believe that we can learn some things from them.

In effect, though, we Calvinists have allowed our theological system to become a filter through which we read the Word of God. Consequently, it becomes almost impossible to refine or even seriously examine the system by the Scriptures (in the spirit of _Sola Scriptura_). If an interpretation of the Scriptures is suggested that contradicts a particular point of the system, it is rejected out of hand. The assumption is that since the system is Biblical, the Scriptures cannot contradict it. Rather than allowing the Scriptures to mold our system, we now force the Scriptures into the mold of the system. Ironically enough, we Calvinists, in our zeal to avoid becoming like Rome, have ourselves become as Romish as could be.

Nang, I've seen that over and over again with many of my Calvinist brethren, in PCA churches, OPC churches, Reformed Baptist churches, and others. I've witnessed that many of them are even afraid to speak as the Bible speaks, indeed, even when certain passages from the Scriptures are quoted it provokes a raised eyebrow of suspicion (i.e., in passages where David appeals to his own righteousness, or in 1 Peter 3, where he says that "baptism saves us"). In all of our rebukes and cries of "heresy" towards Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, the time has come for us Calvinists to examine ourselves and learn to see how dishonest we have been with certain Biblical texts.

So, Nang, my invitation to you still stands. If you want to engage me on what you believe are "false teachings" in the "Federal Vision" perspective, then I welcome you bring you best case to the table. But make sure when you open your "briefcase" that you have your Bible ready, not your own emotions and "hearsay" from other people within our Calvinist theological circles. That just isn't going to do it for me, my sister.

----------


## RJB

Great News Theocrat, Sola recognizes us as brothers:

The war is over.




> Even if that man knows simply "Jesus died in my place"...  God makes a person believe the gospel.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Blame it on the Druid,


C'mon, at least share a little blame with me...

----------


## Theocrat

> I understand.  I'm not saying Theo is a Christian.  I am saying that he needs to be challenged.





> And your evidence that I believe in false teaching is...





> When you baptize an infant in your church, what is the result?





> They are regenerated.





> If Theo agrees with this, than I would call him a false teacher on those grounds.  Same for you.





> The Bible tells us that to be baptized is to be united to Christ. Galatians 3:26-27 says, "For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
> 
> Romans 6:4 states, "Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
> 
> Even the Westminster Confession of Faith states this about the nature of baptism in Chapter XXVIII "Of Baptism":
> 
> 
> 
> Like Eduardo said, when infants are baptized, they are entered into new life with Christ, which is regeneration. They are dead to the works of the world, which means that infants are called to be treated as Christians and taught as such.





> The Westminster confession is somewhat vague.  But what you are saying is that infants are actually regenerated by baptism.  This is false teaching and damnable heresy.
> 
> Romans 4:5 says he who DOES NO WORK but BELIEVES in the Son has eternal life.
> 
> Galatians 1:8 says that anyone who preaches a different gospel than the one that Paul preaches is anathema.
> 
> Theo, this is a serious matter.  Do not think otherwise.





> "Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into *the visible Church*; but also to be unto him *a sign and seal* of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world."  Westminster Confession of Faith, XXVIII. I.
> 
> _Emphasis, mine.
> 
> _Theocrat,
> 
> It is my opinion all who hold to the Federal Vision error, should be ex-communicated from the PCA, or any denomination they have infiltrated.
> 
> Having this opinion, but not associated with you in any way ecclesiastically, all I can do to show my opposition and displeasure of what this movement has cost the visible church, is to ex-communicate you personally.





> [/I]I can't believe I did not notice this.  I suspected that Theo's interpretation of the WCF was wrong, but I didn't realize it was that clear.  The WCF says that baptism makes one a member of the VISIBLE CHURCH.  I agree with that.  Baptism is  supposed to be the believer's first public proclamation of his faith, and it is the means by which the church recognizes a man to be a believer.  But it does not have anything to do with the invisible church.
> 
> That said, seeing as we presume that infants do not ordinarily have saving faith (maybe we don't all presume this, I don't know) I don't see how we can say infants are part of the "visible church."  I would say it is possible for an infant to be part of the invisible church, since God can give faith to anyone.  But until a child can explain what he believes, I don't see how he could be part of the VISIBLE church.  That's probably an ecclesiological disagreement I would have with Presbyterianism, but this is not a gospel issue and is by no means something that should interfere with Christian fellowship.
> 
> Baptismal regeneration, on the other hand...





> Do you teach that baptism is a sign of regeneration?  I don't think so.  After all, you said baptized infants are regenerate.  That's more than just a sign.  had you said baptism was a SIGN of regeneration I would not call you a heretic, but you say that baptism actually causes regeneration, thus you are a baptismal regenerationist heretic.
> 
> I don't think baptism, despite its status as the New Testament circumcision, should be applied to infants.  But this is not really the issue between us, for this is not a gospel issue. My biggest issue is your assertion that infants are somehow saved by baptism.


Throughout the duration of that long interchange, within this thread, there has been one key issue that I believe is the crux of our disagreement on the nature of the New Covenant, which, consequently, leads you to deny the idea of "baptismal regeneration." That issue is the simple fact that you are coming from a "credobaptist" perspective, and I am coming from a "paedobaptist" one. In other words, you believe that only those who can give a (credible) profession of faith should receive baptism, while I believe that infants should be baptized because of the faith of their parents (I actually do believe that infants can have faith in God, but I'll get to that later, hoepfully).

Our distinctions on baptism are crucially important, especially as a prerequisite to understand "Federal Vision Theology," because of the differing assumptions that we both have on who is in the New Covenant and who is not in the New Covenant. If you believe that the New Covenant is only for individuals who "understand the Gospel" and can profess faith in Christ, then you won't understand my views on how baptism unites us to Christ. Now, granted, I have given you some Biblical passages which show how baptism unites us to Jesus, and I have even provided a Reformed confession of faith that states,




> *Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament*, ordained by Jesus Christ, *not only* for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; *but also* to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, *of his ingrafting into Christ*, *of regeneration*, *of remission of sins*, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world. [Emphasis mine]


So, before we get into whether "baptismal regeneration" is heresy or not, we must deal with those two perspectives of baptism. So, I want you to, first, show how "credobaptism" is supported by the Scriptures and/or early Church, FreedomFanatic. And this discussion on baptism is actually related to the original post, so don't think that we're getting off track with the thread here.

----------


## Christian Liberty

First of all, although I am credobaptist, Nang is a paedobaptist, and she has issues with Federal Vision as well.  I believe that Federal Vision is heresy because of its baptismal regeneration elements, not simply the fact that its paedobaptistic.  I do not believe the Westminster Confession (Which says babies enter the *visible* church through baptism) is heretical.  I do disagree  with it, but that doesn't make it heresy.  

With that being said:

Matthew 28:19-20 says to make disciples of all nations, baptizing *them* in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  No command to baptize infants.

Furthermore, in Acts 8 where the Ethiopian Eunuch asks to be baptized, Philip says "If you believe in your heart, you may" (Acts 8:37... admittedly, the validity of this verse is questioned.)  

A verse many paedobaptists use to justify their views on baptism is Acts 16:33.  But in Acts 16:34, it specifically refers to all of the members in the household who were baptized as rejoicing.  So clearly, this does not refer to people who were not believing themselves being baptized (BTW: I actually do believe infants can believe, but since it would be impossible for the infant to articulate his belief in any way none but the infant and God would know, so I am against baptizing infants.)  

All that said, the Bible has no verse that forbids paedobaptism, but that proves nothing, rather, we must go by what the Bible actually says, which clearly hints at credobaptism being the correct model.  That said, again, I don't think paedobaptism is intrinsically heretical unless it ties regeneration to baptism, as your model does.  And, for what its worth, I believe credobaptists who hold to baptismal regeneration are also heretics.  The Church of Christ is one such group, and I don't believe they are Christian either.

----------


## Nang

Regeneration does not come through water baptism.  Period.

----------


## TER

> Regeneration does not come through water baptism.  Period.


It most certainly does, and has been the orthodox Christian practice and teaching from the beginning.

----------


## Nang

> It most certainly does, and has been the orthodox Christian practice and teaching from the beginning.



By so claiming, you give evidence in believing in* salvation (regeneration) by works.*

The Reformers take the direct contrary view, in that they proclaim salvation is by the gift of faith alone, not by works, lest any man boast, and take credit for their (supposed) holy standing before God, according to their manmade and superstitius religious practices.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It most certainly does, and has been the orthodox Christian practice and teaching from the beginning.


QFT.

----------


## TER

> By so claiming, you give evidence in believing in* salvation (regeneration) by works.*
> 
> The Reformers take the direct contrary view, in that they proclaim salvation is by the gift of faith alone, not by works, lest any man boast, and take credit for their (supposed) holy standing before God, according to their manmade and superstitius religious practices.


I am not so concerned about what the Reformers invented, I am more concerned with what the apostles practiced and taught.  And the truth is, whether your fathers of your faith (namely the Reformers) agreed with it or not means little to the actual truth.  Sad that you take a holy grace filled mystery as important as Baptism and denigrate it to a superstition.  You may have read many books of 'theology' but you have missed the most important aspects of the Christian faith.  Nang, some day you will give an account for these things you say, and maybe soon.  It is heartbreaking to see you doing this to yourself.

----------


## Nang

> I am not so concerned about what the Reformers invented, I am more concerned with what the apostles practiced and taught.  And the truth is, whether your fathers of your faith (namely the Reformers) agreed with it or not means little to the actual truth.  Sad that you take a holy grace filled mystery as important as Baptism and denigrate it to a superstition.  You may have read many books of 'theology' but you have missed the most important aspects of the Christian faith.  Nang, some day you will give an account for these things you say, and maybe soon.  It is heartbreaking to see you doing this to yourself.


Back atcha you, fella . . .

No matter how hard you try, or what you claim, the Reformers hold to the Apostolic teachings as revealed and recorded in the Holy Scriptures, which predates your Eastern conceits.

  And the Reformation was the work of sovereign God, that rescued and  returned His invisible church to their biblical foundation of believing in His promises alone, through faith alone, in the provision of salvation from God, alone.

Sola Fide
Solus Christus
Sola Gratia
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria

----------


## moostraks

> Back atcha you, fella . . .
> 
> No matter how hard you try, or what you claim, the Reformers hold to the Apostolic teachings as revealed and recorded in the Holy Scriptures, which predates your Eastern conceits.
> 
>   And the Reformation was the work of sovereign God, that rescued and  returned His invisible church to their biblical foundation of believing in His promises alone, through faith alone, in the provision of salvation from God, alone.
> 
> Sola Fide
> Solus Christus
> Sola Gratia
> ...


Know them by their fruits. All of the churches of that time frame weren't toxic, as there are still the peace churches-Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, and such. The history should be analyzed and honestly assessed rather than the propaganda.

----------


## Terry1

> Back atcha you, fella . . .
> 
> No matter how hard you try, or what you claim, the Reformers hold to the Apostolic teachings as revealed and recorded in the Holy Scriptures, which predates your Eastern conceits.
> 
>   And the Reformation was the work of sovereign God, that rescued and  returned His invisible church to their biblical foundation of believing in His promises alone, through faith alone, in the provision of salvation from God, alone.
> 
> Sola Fide
> Solus Christus
> Sola Gratia
> ...


Prove it--give proof that Sola Scripture was taught before Martin Luther (the architect and inventor of it) and the reformation.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Know them by their fruits. All of the churches of that time frame weren't toxic, as there are still the peace churches-Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, and such. The history should be analyzed and honestly assessed rather than the propaganda.


Does this have anything to do with her post at all?

Warmongers are just as morally depraved as proud homosexuals.  Unfortunately, Protestant churches tolerate them.  So does the RCC.  Clean up your own house, excommuicate Rick Santorum and his ilk, and then we'll talk about Luther and Calvin.  Until then, let the dead be dead, and let's worry about the evil men that are still alive.

BTW: opposing warmongering is not a sign of sound doctrine any more than opposition to homosexuality is.  Its very possible to have a seemingly sound moral foundation yet lack the gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Prove it--give proof that Sola Scripture was taught before Martin Luther (the architect and inventor of it) and the reformation.


2 Timothy 3:16.

----------


## Terry1

The Bible is not God as Sola Scripture dictates.  God is the word and He alone gives it through the Holy Spirit. The written word is simply that and nothing more which varies from bible to bible depending on who wrote it and interpreted it--the written word is errant.

To worship the written word the same as you do God IS "idolatry".  God is not a book--He's spiritual an so is His word.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Bible is not God as Sola Scripture dictates.


That is not what Sola Scriptura dictates.  Why would you even say something so ridiculous?

----------


## Terry1

> 2 Timothy 3:16.


16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,


Yes--"BREATHED OUT BY GOD AND HIM ONLY THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT AND NOT THE WRITTEN WORD.

God breathed upon Adam and he became a living soul--because God is the Word--not the book.  The written word is nothing without the breath and spirit of the Lord to interpret it spiritually.  So any book can be called a bible--no matter how it's interpreted and there are many with different interpretations, but unless the Spirit of God is breathed upon it--it's nothing more than a bunch of pages with words.

So then it depends on the person seeking God through this book.  God breathes upon those that seek Him and they begin to understand because the Holy Spirit is interpreting the word for them.  This is why many do not understand the word--because they're not seeking in the Spirit of the Lord.

----------


## Nang

> The Bible is not God as Sola Scripture dictates.  God is the word and He alone gives it through the Holy Spirit. The written word is simply that and nothing more which varies from bible to bible depending on who wrote it and interpreted it--the written word is errant.
> 
> To worship the written word the same as you do God IS "idolatry".  God is not a book--He's spiritual an so is His word.


By denying the inerrancy of the Word of God, you reveal yourself as a liar.

Proverbs 30:5-6

----------


## Nang

> That is not what Sola Scriptura dictates.  Why would you even say something so ridiculous?



Because she has no saving knowledge, love, or respect for the Words of God.

She is not only being ridiculous.  She is showing her total unbelief in God Almighty.

----------


## Terry1

> That is not what Sola Scriptura dictates.  Why would you even say something so ridiculous?


How so?  To make the claim that a book with pages is "inerrant" is the same as saying it is God.

----------


## Terry1

> Because she has no saving knowledge, love, or respect for the Words of God.
> 
> She is not only being ridiculous.  She is showing her total unbelief in God Almighty.


LOL--you who believes that satan is bound based upon a scripture you quoted that refers to the Watchers instead?  You who claim that God is the first cause of evil, sin and death?  You who also claim that there is only one law and two covenants?  Amuse me some more.

----------


## Nang

> How so?  To make the claim that a book with pages is "inerrant" is the same as saying it is God.



Yep.

The Holy Scriptures are the Words of God, written.  They are inspired by the Holy Spirit to guide men into all Godly Truths.

God is Perfect.  His Word is Perfect.  

"Every Word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him,
Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."  Proverbs 30:5-6

Ignore this, Terry, to your own peril.

----------


## moostraks

> Does this have anything to do with her post at all?
> 
> Warmongers are just as morally depraved as proud homosexuals.  Unfortunately, Protestant churches tolerate them.  So does the RCC.  Clean up your own house, excommuicate Rick Santorum and his ilk, and then we'll talk about Luther and Calvin.  Until then, let the dead be dead, and let's worry about the evil men that are still alive.
> 
> BTW: opposing warmongering is not a sign of sound doctrine any more than opposition to homosexuality is.  Its very possible to have a seemingly sound moral foundation yet lack the gospel.


 What? Rick Santorum? What in the world are you trying to read in my posts now? I don't have a house to clean. Surprise, you are wrong about me again...

----------


## Nang

> LOL--you who believes that satan is bound based upon a scripture you quoted that refers to the Watchers instead?  You who claim that God is the first cause of evil, sin and death?  Amuse me some more.


There is no such thing as "Watchers."

----------


## Terry1

> Yep.
> 
> The Holy Scriptures are the Words of God, written.  They are inspired by the Holy Spirit to guide men into all Godly Truths.
> 
> God is Perfect.  His Word is Perfect.  
> 
> "Every Word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him,
> Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar."  Proverbs 30:5-6
> 
> Ignore this, Terry, to your own peril.


Got that wrong again Nang.  Words are not inspired by the Holy Spirit---people are.  Then you're worshiping a book and guilty of the same thing you've been accusing others of.  Worshiping a book is idolatry.

----------


## Nang

> Got that wrong again Nang.  Words are not inspired by the Holy Spirit---people are.  Then you're worshiping a book and guilty of the same thing you've been accusing others of.  Worshiping a book is idolatry.



Another evidence of your gross unbelief . . .

There is nothing in any of your posts, that evidence or give witness to the inspired means, workings, or Gospel of Jesus Christ, at all.

You apparently do not realize it, but every post you make, in opposition to the inspiration, purity, and saving power of God's Word, only further establish you as a liar.  Proverbs 30:5-6

----------


## Terry1

> There is no such thing as "Watchers."


Pfft--you deserve your belief.

----------


## Nang

> Pfft--you deserve your belief.



And you deserve all that will come upon you, for your unbelief.

----------


## Terry1

> And you deserve all that will come upon you, for your unbelief.


Thanks for the flowers.

----------


## Terry1

> There is no such thing as "Watchers."


satan's not bound Nang--he's very much free to roam this earth to deceive and rob mankind of their souls--there is a spiritual war raging.  So then Jude can't be talking about satan and his fallen angels then can it.  Because you believe there's only 66 books to the Bible--quoting Enoch is worthless to you and a waste of my time.

----------


## Theocrat

> First of all, although I am credobaptist, Nang is a paedobaptist, and she has issues with Federal Vision as well.  I believe that Federal Vision is heresy because of its baptismal regeneration elements, not simply the fact that its paedobaptistic.  I do not believe the Westminster Confession (Which says babies enter the *visible* church through baptism) is heretical.  I do disagree  with it, but that doesn't make it heresy.  
> 
> With that being said:
> 
> Matthew 28:19-20 says to make disciples of all nations, baptizing *them* in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  No command to baptize infants.
> 
> Furthermore, in Acts 8 where the Ethiopian Eunuch asks to be baptized, Philip says "If you believe in your heart, you may" (Acts 8:37... admittedly, the validity of this verse is questioned.)  
> 
> A verse many paedobaptists use to justify their views on baptism is Acts 16:33.  But in Acts 16:34, it specifically refers to all of the members in the household who were baptized as rejoicing.  So clearly, this does not refer to people who were not believing themselves being baptized (BTW: I actually do believe infants can believe, but since it would be impossible for the infant to articulate his belief in any way none but the infant and God would know, so I am against baptizing infants.)  
> ...


Yes, I know that Nang claims to be a paedobaptist, but really, she is a credobaptist, like so many Presbyterians today. She may believe that babies should be baptized, but for her, it's no more than a wet dedication. Baptism does nothing efficacious for the recipient. She, like many Presbyterians, does not believe consistently with the demands of the historic, paedobaptist position, especially when it comes to communion. In that regard, Reformed Baptists follow the arguments more consistently down the line, at least, because they realize that if an infant is baptized, then he should be allowed to take communion (on the presumption that the baptized infant is a Christian). But, that's a discussion that I'll save for Nang. My point is she is, _de facto_, a credobaptist.

Once again, I see that you continue to call baptismal regeneration "heresy," but there are two issues that I have with that:
You have not defined what you mean by "baptismal regeneration."You have not shown how it is heretical (neither by the Scriptures, nor by any formal declaration from the Church in history.So, until you deal with those two points, I cannot take your accusation seriously.

Now, I see that you've begun your position on the nature of baptism from the New Testament, citing Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 8:37 (which I believe is inspired writ, by the way). However, I believe that that is a common mistake from many credobaptists to justify their views on baptism. The proper way to formulate any doctrine of Scripture is to start from the Old Testament and build up to the New Testament. After all, the New testament presupposes the Old Testament.

For instance, in 1 Corinthians 10, we find the apostle Paul beginning in the Old Testament, when he spoke about baptism. Verses 1-4, it reads:




> Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual Meat, and did all drink the same spiritual Drink, for they drank of That spiritual Rock That followed them, and That Rock was Christ.


In that passage, Paul tells us that all of the Israelites, who were led by Moses during the Exodus, were *baptized* in the cloud and in the sea. We know that in that company, there were men, women, and children, because in Exodus 10:8-10, it says:




> And Moses and Aaron were brought again unto Pharaoh, and he said unto them, "Go, serve the LORD your God. But who are they that shall go?"
> 
> And Moses said, *"We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters,* with our flocks and with our herds will we go; for we must hold a feast unto the Lord."
> 
> And he said unto them, "Let the LORD be so with you, as I will let you go, *and your little ones*; look to it; for evil is before you." [emphasis mine]


So, one cannot argue that little children were not in the company when the Israelites were "baptized unto Moses." But also noticed in the 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 text that it says they were "baptized in the cloud and in the sea." That's interesting language, isn't it? What is Paul talking about there? Well, we know that the Israelites weren't immersed in the Red Sea because they walked on dry ground as they passed through it. In fact, it was the Egyptian Army that was immersed in the Red Sea, because they were drowned as a judgment of God.

Here is what I believe Paul is talking about. In Psalm 77:16-20, the Psalmist Asaph, says:




> The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw Thee;
> They were afraid: the depths also were troubled.
> *The clouds poured out water:* the skies sent out a sound.
> Thine arrows also went abroad.
> The voice of Thy thunder was in the heaven.
> The lightnings lightened the world:
> The earth trembled and shook.
> *Thy way is in the sea*, and Thy path in the great waters,
> And Thy footsteps are not known.
> ...


From that Psalm, we see now what Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2. As the Israelites were passing through the Red Sea, the clouds poured out water upon them all (men, women, and children), and they were baptized. Paul, under the insights and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, calls that a baptism! Paul even says that they were "baptized unto Moses," which suggests a union there (Moses, of course, being a typology of Christ). And then Verses 3 and 4 state that all of the Israelites had a spiritual meal with Christ. 

So, here are the implications of baptism in the New Covenant, given just that one passage (there are others):
Children, whose parents are in the covenant community, receive the covenant sign, which is baptism (the circumcision of Christ - Colossians 2:11).Baptism brings about a union with the recipient and Christ Himself ("put on Christ" - Galatians 3:27)After baptism, the covenant people (men, women, and children) eat and drink in fellowship with Christ (1 Corinthians 3-4).
Baptism, then, is not exclusively a New Testament ritual; it was also done back in the Old Testament, and Paul definitely assumes that to be the case. 

So, I think credobaptists have a very shaky foundation for their position on baptism, and, of course there are no explicit passages in the Bible which warrant the practice of how they baptize. What I mean by that is there are no examples given of where a child is born and raised into a Christian family, comes to understand the Gospel at some point in his life, makes a (credible) profession of faith, and then receives baptism. Credobaptists, however, will demand vehemently that paedobaptists show an explicit example of an infant being baptized in the New Testament (and I will concede that there are none). Yet, credobaptists also fail to provide an explicit example which proves that their process of being baptized is true. So, I don't think credobaptists can dismiss the position of paedobaptists, on the grounds that there are no explicit examples to support the baptism of infants in the New Testament because their position cannot do the same thing.

----------


## Deborah K

> By denying the inerrancy of the Word of God, you reveal yourself as a liar.
> 
> Proverbs 30:5-6


The wicked accuse, the godly defend.

Proverbs 12:6

----------


## Deborah K

> (mod delete)


I'm not the one making accusations.  I'm the one defending.  Wow. And then you violate guidelines to boot.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How so?  To make the claim that a book with pages is "inerrant" is the same as saying it is God.


No Terry, it is not the same.

----------


## Theocrat

> Regeneration does not come through water baptism.  Period.


Nang, I'm afraid that I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. The apostle Peter does something in which the apostle Paul does in 1 Corinthians 10: Peter starts with the Old Testament and links baptism to an important event therein. For instance, we read in 1 Peter 3:18-22:




> For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit, by which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison, *which sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,* Who is gone into heaven and is on the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto Him. [emphasis mine]


I love how that great Reformed commentator, Matthew Henry, comments on the passage, for he says it better than I could, and in ways that most Reformed Christians would not dare to say. On 1 Peter 3:21-22, he wrote:




> Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,
> 
> I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.
> 
> II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. the sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Acts 2:38; 22:16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.-Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized.-Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom. 2:29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ.
> 
> III. The apostle, having mentioned the death and resurrection of Christ, proceeds to speak of his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, as a subject fit to be considered by these believers for their comfort in their suffering condition, v. 22. If the advancement of Christ was so glorious after his deep humiliation, let not his followers despair, but expect that after these short distresses they shall be advanced to transcendent joy and glory. Learn, 1. Jesus Christ, after he had finished his labours and his sufferings upon earth, ascended triumphantly into heaven, of which see Acts 1:9-11; Mk. 16:19. He went to heaven to receive his own acquired crown and glory (Jn. 17:5), to finish that part of his mediatorial work which could not be done on earth, and make intercession for his people, to demonstrate the fulness of his satisfaction, to take possession of heaven for his people, to prepare mansions for them, and to send down the Comforter, which was to be the first-fruits of his intercession, Jn. 16:7. 2. Upon his ascension into heaven, Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. His being said to sit there imports absolute rest and cessation from all further troubles and sufferings, and an advancement to the highest personal dignity and sovereign power. 3. Angels, authorities, and powers, are all made subject to Christ Jesus: all power in heaven and earth, to command, to give law, issue orders, and pronounce a final sentence, is committed to Jesus, God-man, which his enemies will find to their everlasting sorrow and confusion, but his servants to their eternal joy and satisfaction.


I think you should be more careful about your claims, my sister.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Got that wrong again Nang.  Words are not inspired by the Holy Spirit---people are.  Then you're worshiping a book and guilty of the same thing you've been accusing others of.  Worshiping a book is idolatry.


This needs some parsing.  Though words in general on not inspired, the particular words in the Bible and teachings handed down to us from our spiritual fathers are.  Through reading Scripture, God reveals himself to us.   You're right that we must not make texts or our minds idols, though.

----------


## acptulsa

> Another evidence of your gross unbelief . . .
> 
> There is nothing in any of your posts, that evidence or give witness to the inspired means, workings, or Gospel of Jesus Christ, at all.
> 
> You apparently do not realize it, but every post you make, in opposition to the inspiration, purity, and saving power of God's Word, only further establish you as a liar.  Proverbs 30:5-6


Well, somebody's a liar.  For example, Proverbs 30:5-6 does not say the Holy Bible is the Word of God.  It doesn't really even say the Talmud is the Word of God, though it comes a bit closer to that.  It merely says God's Word is pure.

And I believe that the quotations of Jesus in the four Gospels are pure, or at least pure enough, at least in the King James (not near as much faith in the NIV--I almost like the Living Bible better). 

Now this is the part where you get to call me a heretic to your dogma and get your blood pressure up over nothing.  I don't believe the epistles are Perfect.  I'm not calling Peter a liar, I'm just saying his interpretations are good, but not the be-all and end-all.  There were things Jesus said that he didn't seem to get at all.

Bitch all you want about me saying it about St. Peter, whom you (like the Catholics) idolize, but the Word of God comes out of the mouth of Jesus, and there is where the perfection lies.  No where else.

----------


## Deborah K

> So, I think credobaptists have a very shaky foundation for their position on baptism, and, of course there are no explicit passages in the Bible which warrant the practice of how they baptize. What I mean by that is there are no examples given of where a child is born and raised into a Christian family, comes to understand the Gospel at some point in his life, makes a (credible) profession of faith, and then receives baptism. Credobaptists, however, will demand vehemently that paedobaptists show an explicit example of an infant being baptized in the New Testament (and I will concede that there are none). Yet, credobaptists also fail to provide an explicit example which proves that their process of being baptized is true. So, I don't think credobaptists can dismiss the position of paedobaptists, on the grounds that there are no explicit examples to support the baptism of infants in the New Testament because their position cannot do the same thing.


Theo, I enjoyed reading the entire post.  And I'm wondering why Nang doesn't explain her position on the points made above.  Are you being shunned?

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, I enjoyed reading the entire post.  And I'm wondering why Nang doesn't explain her position on the points made above.  Are you being shunned?


Yes, I think that Nang is afraid to debate me, but, at the same time, she is not afraid to falsely accuse me of being a heretic and then run away. Go fig...

----------


## Nang

> Theo, I enjoyed reading the entire post.  And I'm wondering why Nang doesn't explain her position on the points made above.  Are you being shunned?


Worse!

I have ex-communicated him.

----------


## acptulsa

We should all be so lucky.

----------


## Deborah K

> Yes, I think that Nang is afraid to debate me, but, at the same time, she is not afraid to falsely accuse me of being a heretic and then run away. Go fig...


I think you made an excellent point about baptismals and the Bible.  Neither way is discussed.  If something is left out, or not discussed, does that mean you can't do it?  I doubt it.

----------


## Theocrat

> Worse!
> 
> I have ex-communicated him.


Translation: "I have no way of rebutting Theocrat's position on baptism, so I'm going to hide behind what the leaders in my denomination say, and just ignore him, hoping that no one will hear him."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Translation: "I have no way of rebutting Theocrat's position on baptism, so I'm going to hide behind what the leaders in my denomination say, and just ignore him, hoping that no one will hear him."


Theo, just to be clear,  I have engaged in a discussion with you about this.  It is in the Limited Atonement thread.

----------


## Theocrat

> Theo, just to be clear,  I have engaged in a discussion with you about this.  It is in the Limited Atonement thread.


Bring it to this thread, Sola.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, that's not quite it, Sola. Because we are justified by Christ's works, we are justified by our union with Him, whereby, Christ's works are ours (cf. Ephesians 2:10), not by merit, but by faith. *The covenant, then, is the means by which the Holy Spirit works out our justified status through His work of sanctification.* There is no denial of Christ's works about it.
> 
> Ask yourself this question: since God is triune, what, then, are the Father's and the Spirit's role in justification?


Respectfully,  I disagree.

The problem with Federal Visionism is that man is not saved by his sanctification.   He is saved by his justification.   Salvation by sanctification is the great error of all the religions of men.

----------


## Theocrat

> Respectfully,  I disagree.
> 
> The problem with Federal Visionism is that man is not saved by his sanctification.   He is saved by his justification.   Salvation by sanctification is the great error of all the religions of men.


We're not saved by justification, Sola. We're saved by Jesus Christ, and what He did as our High Priest (after the order of Melchizedek) to reconcile us to God the Father through God the Spirit. The covenant is the bond by which that salvation is made known to us, as God's people.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We're not saved by justification, Sola. We're saved by Jesus Christ, and what He did as our High Priest (after the order of Melchizedek) to reconcile us to God the Father through God the Spirit. The covenant is the bond by which that salvation is made known to us, as God's people.


You know I respect your insight into many other things on the board, Theocrat, but I so strongly disagree with this that I question if you believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Christian doctrine of salvation is that man is saved by justification ALONE.  Sanctification is not salvific in any way, shape, or form.

----------


## Sola_Fide

But you know I love you man.  I just think that Federal Vision is a wolf in sheep's clothing.  It confuses many people and sets them down the path of Rome.

----------


## Theocrat

> You know I respect your insight into many other things on the board, Theocrat, but I so strongly disagree with this that I question if you believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.  The Christian doctrine of salvation is that man is saved by justification ALONE.  Sanctification is not salvific in any way, shape, or form.


Sola, you're committing the fallacy of reification because you're making a theological concept (justification) the object by which one is rescued from eternal death into eternal life. The Christian doctrine is that we can only be saved by Jesus Christ; we are not saved because of our theological position on the doctrine of justification. That's is the problem with many Reformed Christians today (of which I would still consider myself one, by the way). But you check any Reformed creed, confession, or catechism, and you will see that their perspective was that the Scriptures teach that we are saved by Christ alone, not by justification alone.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, you're committing the fallacy of reification because you're making a theological concept (justification) the object by which one is rescued from eternal death into eternal life. The Christian doctrine is that we can only be saved by Jesus Christ; we are not saved because of our theological position on the doctrine of justification. That's is the problem with many Reformed Christians today (of which I would still consider myself one, by the way). But you check any Reformed creed, confession, or catechism, and you will see that their perspective was that the Scriptures teach that we are saved by Christ alone, not by justification alone.


No, I'm not saying we are saved by our belief in justification.  I'm saying the objective action of forensic justification is the reason that a man is saved.  Sanctification in a justified believer's life is not salvific...it is merely the spirit of God working in an already saved and justified believer.

----------


## Theocrat

> No, I'm not saying we are saved by our belief in justification.  I'm saying the objective action of forensic justification is the reason that a man is saved.  Sanctification in a justified believer's life is not salvific...it is merely the spirit of God working in an already saved and justified believer.


Sanctification is the Holy Spirit's role in our justification, Sola. That doesn't mean that we have to earn God's favor because we are doing good works in God's sight; it's not a merit-based system. We're talking about renewed life, which finds its locus in the covenant, because God loves us. No one is saved by doing his own good works, I agree, but the Bible says this in Titus 2:11-14:




> For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ Who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.


And, again, in James 2:14-26, it says:




> What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith and have not works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, and one of you say unto them, "Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled"; notwithstanding, ye give them not those things which are needful to the body, what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
> 
> Yea, a man may say, "Thou hast faith, and I have works." Show me thy faith without thy works, and I will show thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well. The devils also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, *"Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness," and he was called the "Friend of God." Ye see, then, how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
> 
> Likewise, also, was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.


Our works do justify us, for they are wrought by the Spirit, and they are works which separate us from Muslims, Atheists, and every other group who believes that they can be good without a relationship to God through Jesus Christ. So, there is a sense in which our justification touches on our works, but the works, themselves, are initiated by God's power in us. But, once again, this is not a "merit-based" system.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sanctification is the Holy Spirit's role in our justification, Sola. That doesn't mean that we have to earn God's favor because we are doing good works in God's sight; it's not a merit-based system. We're talking about renewed life, which finds its locus in the covenant, because God loves us. No one is saved by doing his own good works, I agree, but the Bible says this in Titus 2:11-14:
> 
> 
> 
> And, again, in James 2:14-26, it says:
> 
> 
> 
> Our works do justify us, for they are wrought by the Spirit, and they are works which separate us from Muslims, Atheists, and every other group who believes that they can be good without a relationship to God through Jesus Christ. So, there is a sense in which our justification touches on our works, but the works, themselves, are initiated by God's power in us. But, once again, this is not a "merit-based" system.


No offense to you man, because you already know I respect you, but it seems like I am arguing against a Roman Catholic or an Arminian.   These are the arguments of the works-salvationists....the arguments of the Judiazers who seek to add something to the already perfect work of Christ.

James is not talking about justification in the sight of God, but other men.  Calvin was right when he argued this.

----------


## Theocrat

> No offense to you man, because you already know I respect you, but it seems like I am arguing against a Roman Catholic or an Arminian.   These are the arguments of the works-salvationists....the arguments of the Judiazers who seek to add something to the already perfect work of Christ.
> 
> James is not talking about justification in the sight of God, but other men.  Calvin was right when he argued this.


Sola, go back and read what I wrote. In it, I said *nothing* about adding anything to Christ's works, nor did I say that we must work to earn our salvation. I was very careful about saying the opposite of that, which is why I repeatedly said that it's "not a merit-based system."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, go back and read what I wrote. In it, I said *nothing* about adding anything to Christ's works, nor did I say that we must work to earn our salvation. I was very careful about saying the opposite of that, which is why I repeatedly said that it's "not a merit-based system."


But it seems like you are saying still that sanctification is in some way salvific, and it is not.  There is NO reformed confession that says that, and if one of them did, I would repudiate it.  Without the article of justification as the central theological principle of religion, there is no church.  Calvin said that too, and I agree.

----------


## Theocrat

> But it seems like you are saying still that sanctification is in some way salvific, and it is not.  There is NO reformed confession that says that, and if one of them did, I would repudiate it.  Without the article of justification as the central theological principle of religion, there is no church.  Calvin said that too, and I agree.


Sola, I said that works and justification "touch one another," but I did not say that sanctification is "salvific." But the doctrine of justification, though true in its proper Biblical contexts, is not the central theological principle of the Christian Faith. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus make justification the central point of His Gospel message, and a simple word-count search of "justification" will prove that much. There is more to the Gospel than justification, anyway.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, I said that works and justification "touch one another," but I did not say that sanctification is "salvific." But the doctrine of justification, though true in its proper Biblical contexts, is not the central theological principle of the Christian Faith. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus make justification the central point of His Gospel message, and a simple word-count search of "justification" will prove that much. There is more to the Gospel than justification, anyway.


No.  The gospel is the imputed righteousness of Christ and His efficacious atonement.   That is what the good news is.  There is nothing beyond that.  CREC has passed beyond a Christian denomination in my view.  One good book I read about this was Not Reformed At All by John Robbins and Sean Gerety.

----------


## Christian Liberty

Just as a point of clarification, is the argument here over whether sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) can provide *sanctifying* grace?  Or is the point of contention about whether sacraments play a role in *justification*  Or am I just misunderstanding the entire debate?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just as a point of clarification, is the argument here over whether sacraments (baptism and the Lord's Supper) can provide *sanctifying* grace?  Or is the point of contention about whether sacraments play a role in *justification*  Or am I just misunderstanding the entire debate?


No...and I don't think that any Federal Vision person would go that far into sacramentalism.  But it is an issue of what they think the nexus of salvation is. Is the nexus of salvation the objective event of justification,  or is it the "covenant" in which a person is sanctified?

----------


## Theocrat

> No.  The gospel is the imputed righteousness of Christ and His efficacious atonement.   That is what the good news is.  There is nothing beyond that.  CREC has passed beyond a Christian denomination in my view.  One good book I read about this was Not Reformed At All by John Robbins and Sean Gerety.


Once again, Sola, you have not provided any Biblical text in the Gospels where Jesus made the doctrine of justification central to the message of the Gospel. Let's appeal to the Bible and not your personal mantra which you have received from The Trinity Foundation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Once again, Sola, you have not provided any Biblical text in the Gospels where Jesus made the doctrine of justification central to the message of the Gospel. Let's appeal to the Bible and not your personal mantra which you have received from The Trinity Foundation.


How about the entire books of Romans and Galatians?

----------


## Theocrat

> How about the entire books of Romans and Galatians?


I asked for material from any of the Gospels because, as you want us to believe, the core of the Gospel message is about justification. I want to see where Jesus Himself preached that in any of His messages recorded for us in the Gospel narratives.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I asked for material from any of the Gospels because, as you want us to believe, the core of the Gospel message is about justification. I want to see where Jesus Himself preached that in any of His messages recorded for us in the Gospel narratives.


Just one?  (By the way, the standard that you are setting is not Biblical.  The gospel is described in several epistles.)  But if you want something from the gospels...




> *Luke 18
> 
> The Pharisee and the Publican
> 
> 9 And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 
> 
> 13 But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
> *


Justification by faith alone.

----------


## Theocrat

> Just one?  (By the way, the standard that you are setting is not Biblical.  The gospel is described in several epistles.)  But if you want something from the gospels...
> 
> 
> 
> Justification by faith alone.


Verse 9 tells us why Jesus gave that parable, and it had nothing to do with proving that the doctrine of justification was *central* to the Gospel message (and I stress the word "central"). No one is denying that justification was taught by Jesus; what is in question is whether it is the epitome of the Gospel, as you seem to suggest. Luke 18:9-14 does not prove your assertion at all, Sola.

----------

