Ivan
Pastor
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.
Really? A Jihad? Really?! Wow!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.
Originally posted by Ivan
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.
Really? A Jihad? Really?! Wow!
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Ivan
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.
Really? A Jihad? Really?! Wow!
Don't Mind Mr. Bartel, He is a Clarkian and is prone to the mistake of making every theological error equal and akin to denying the gospel.
We must remember that John Owens was good friends with John Bunyan (yes the baptist John Bunyan) and did not go Jihad against him.
CT
Originally posted by armourbearer
We should also remember that Owen directed his comments against consistent Arminianism, which was essentially Pelagian so far as soteriology was concerned; and some of them bordered on Socinianism (open theism) in denying the foreknowledge of God. Inconsistent or evangelical Arminianism was not a force to be reckoned with at that time.
Neither let any object, that all the Arminians do not openly profess all these errors I have recounted. Let ours, then, show wherein they differ from their masters.[v][5] We see their own confessions; we know their arts, ba>qh kai< meqodei>av tou~ Santana~,—“the depths and crafts of Satan;” we know the several ways they have to introduce and insinuate their heterodoxies into the minds of men. With some they appear only to dislike our doctrine of reprobation; with others, to claim an allowable liberty of the will: but yet, for the most part,—like the serpent, wherever she gets in her head, she will wriggle in her whole body, sting and all,—give but the least admission, and the whole poison must be swallowed.
Question 4: Whether be the Arminians heretics?
10. Answer: The opinion of the Arminians, as it is received of the most that do favour them, is not properly an heresy, but a dangerous error in the faith, and tending to heresy: but as it is defended by some of them, it is a Pelagian heresy, because they deny the effectual operation of internal grace to be necessary for the working of conversion and faith.
In the scheme of Christian theology, there is a class of doctrines which may be said to occupy a higher platform than what are commonly called the peculiarities of Calvinism. The doctrines here referred to are, of course, those taught by orthodox Lutherans and by evangelical Arminians, as well as by Calvinists, concerning the depravity of man by nature – the person and work of Christ – and the agency of the Holy Spirit in the work of regeneration and sanctification. The Bible was given us mainly to unfold to us the lost and ruined state of man by nature, and the existence, character, and operation of that provision which God has made for saving sinners. Everything which is taught in Scripture it is equally incumbent upon us, as a matter of duty or obligation, to believe, as every statement rests equally upon the authority of God. But there is a great difference, in point of intrinsic importance, among the many truths of different kinds and classes taught us in Scripture; and the general measure of their relative importance – though we are very incompetent to apply it, and should be very careful lest we misapply it – is just the directness and immediateness of the relation in which they stand towards that which we have described as the great leading object of revelation – namely, making known the ruin and the recovery of mankind. The doctrines which directly and immediately unfold these topics occupy a position, in point of intrinsic importance, which is not shared by any others; and these doctrines are just those which tell us of the universal guilt and entire depravity of man – of the sovereign mercy of God, in providing for men’s salvation – of the person and work of the Son, and the way in which His vicarious work bears upon the justification of sinners – and of the operation of the Holy Spirit, in applying to men individually the benefits which Christ purchased for them, and preparing them for heaven, by producing faith in them, and by regenerating and sanctifying their natures.
Now, there can be no reasonable doubt that there have been, and that there are, men who have entertained views upon all these subjects, which we must admit to be scriptural and correct – because, in the main, the same as we ourselves believe – who yet have rejected the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism. The substance of what we assert is this – that men who agree with us in holding scriptural views upon these points, while they reject the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, do agree with us on subjects that are more important and fundamental, and that ought to occupy a more prominent place in the ordinary course of public instruction than those in which they differ from us. They hold the truth upon those points which it was the great leading object of revelation to teach us – which bear most directly and immediately upon the exposition of the way of a sinner’s salvation – which ought to occupy the most frequent and the most prominent place in the preaching of the gospel – and which God most commonly blesses for the conversion of sinners. Their consistency, in holding scriptural doctrines upon these points, while they reject the peculiar doctrines of Calvinism, is not at present the question; that will be adverted to afterwards; the fact that they do hold them is undoubted, and it ought to be fully admitted and fairly estimated.
It is not, indeed, strictly correct to say, that they hold purely scriptural views upon all these most important topics. We have had occasion, in regard to every one of them, to point out something erroneous, or at least defective, in their sentiments or impressions; and we have often asserted that everything, however apparently insignificant, which either transgresses or comes short of what Scripture teaches upon these points, is sinful and dangerous. Such, indeed, is the harmony subsisting among all the branches of scriptural doctrine, that truth or error in regard to any one of them almost unavoidably produces truth or error, in a greater or less degree, in regard to the rest – that, in short, none but Calvinists hold views which are, in all respects, scriptural, in regard to any of the leading doctrines of Christianity. Still, the views of the men to whom we refer are, in regard to these fundamental points, accordant, in their main substance, with the teaching of Scripture; and their defects and errors come out chiefly when we enter into some of the more minute and detailed explanations as to the bearings and consequences of the particular doctrine, and the more distant and less obvious conclusions that may be deduced from it – so that, in regard to almost any statement which we would make, in explaining our sentiments upon these points, for the purpose of practical instruction, they would fully agree with us.
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
BTW, what do baptists have to do with my post?
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Originally posted by Ivan
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
I agree with the learned Owen that we should rather proclaim a Jihad against them and offer up true Christianity.
Really? A Jihad? Really?! Wow!
Don't Mind Mr. Bartel, He is a Clarkian and is prone to the mistake of making every theological error equal and akin to denying the gospel.
We must remember that John Owens was good friends with John Bunyan (yes the baptist John Bunyan) and did not go Jihad against him.
CT
Well that's just plain not nice! Not to mention a genetic fallacy.
BTW, what do baptists have to do with my post?
Originally posted by Ivan
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
BTW, what do baptists have to do with my post?
Apparently the Jihad has started.
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Nope it is not nice, but I believe such actions are accurate descriptions of what the typical Clarkian does. (Yes people use induction in regular life)
Originally posted by ChristianTrader
Now concerning the baptists, I read too fast and came to the hasty conclusion that you were still addressing Dr. Clark's position at the beginning of the thread. For that I apologize.
CT
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
Originally posted by Ivan
Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
BTW, what do baptists have to do with my post?
Apparently the Jihad has started.
Ivan, I have no idea what you mean by this! My posts have been about Calvinist/Arminian distinction. If my posts were directed at Baptists or included them, it would be a tad inconsistent of me to use a congregationalist to rail against them.
If you have taken any offense to my words, please, by all means forgive me.
Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
JEFF,
THIS -- "J.H. Merle d´Aubigne (1794-1872)" --IS TOTALLY UNREADABLE IN YOUR SIG LINE. I HAVE FIREFOX AND I JUST BLEW UP MY SCREEN TO ABOUT 500% AND STILL I COULD BARELY READ IT.
NOTICE TO OTHERS: YOU MIGHT CHECK OUT YOUR SIG LINES. IF YOU HAD INCREASED YOUR FONT, NOW THOSE SAME NUMBERS ARE smaller THAN NORMAL. FOR BIGGER YOU NEED NUMBERS THAT CORRESPOND TO A WORD PROCESSING PROGRAM, I.E. GREATER THAN 10 or 12.
[Edited on 9-30-2006 by Contra_Mundum]
Baptists do not deny the Covenant seal - we just delay it until we have some evidences that they are actually in Christ and in covenant rather than just growing up under its covental umbrella.
Originally posted by Larry Hughes
Either baptism is a means of grace or it is a sign of confirmation. The two REALLY do not intersect and this IS the fundamental difference, not one side waiting while the other doesn’t. There is a reason one side waits and the other doesn’t but it has to do with one not having Gospel in the water and the other having Gospel in the water. If baptism is a sign of confirmation, then by definition it is no Gospel at all which gives by definition.
since its nature and efficacy as a means of grace is not even tied to that time
Furthermore, remember that "the efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered."
So, either way, it's still infant baptism, right?Originally posted by Larry Hughes
I will give my Pastor's and Session's answer to which I agree fully: We ought not place more burden upon the baptismal candidate than we find in Scripture. They may be very babes in Christ and know nothing more but their simple need of Him (my very own experience).
Originally posted by polemic_turtle
So, either way, it's still infant baptism, right?Originally posted by Larry Hughes
I will give my Pastor's and Session's answer to which I agree fully: We ought not place more burden upon the baptismal candidate than we find in Scripture. They may be very babes in Christ and know nothing more but their simple need of Him (my very own experience).
Originally posted by SemperFideles
Could you point me to the part where Dr. Clark equates "...every baptist with the anabaptists of yesteryear..."?