Donations for the month of April


We have received a total of $80 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Featured Member
Registered: Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Posts: 33
Forum Stats
768 Members
30 Forums
5797 Topics
46883 Posts

Max Online: 41 @ Saturday, June 30, 2012 7:54 AM
Top Posters
Pilgrim 13235
J_Edwards 4843
Tom 3838
Wes 3553
chestnutmare 2419
CovenantInBlood 2375
MarieP 2311
RJ_ 2287
John_C 1864
gotribe 1767
Top Posters (30 Days)
Pilgrim 19
Robin 8
chestnutmare 8
Josh Shelton 7
Wayne@purpose 4
goldenoldie 4
TheExegete 2
Tom 2
Recent Posts
The Deep, Deep Love of Jesus
by Pilgrim
Thursday, April 3, 2014 4:57 PM
"The Hand of God" by Francis Schaeffer
by Pilgrim
Tuesday, April 1, 2014 6:16 AM
Covenant Theology
by Robin
Sunday, March 30, 2014 2:26 PM
1 Tim.2 & Women
by Tom
Friday, March 28, 2014 11:42 AM
I saw One hanging on a tree!
by chestnutmare
Friday, March 28, 2014 9:25 AM
Justification by Faith....."Alone?"
by goldenoldie
Monday, March 24, 2014 9:37 PM
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#10383 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:41 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: CovenantInBlood]
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13235
Loc: NH, USA
Kyle,

I think that you have described the issue correctly, i.e., Ron holds that covenant children are to [presumed elect but not regenerate and that is why he holds that covenant children need to be led to conversion. As I have tried to argue, this isn't taught in Scripture for various reasons and it is contradictory as well. For to presume that one is "elect" is of necessity to presume that they are members of the invisible church and will infallibly be saved at some point in time. Perhaps THAT is what Joe was trying to bring out?

It is unfortunate that these types of discussions bring out the "heat" of passion and end up like this.
In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#10384 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:32 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Pilgrim]
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
That is close, but not exact. Here are some other previous statements that were made by RonD that I have kept in file on this issue. These offer great inconsistency and thus IMHO room for challenge.

Quote:
“Finally, I have a greater confidence that I am to treat my children as Christians until they should show otherwise, than I do that they are actually elect.”

“So, YES, as you say, "Scripture no where speaks to the general community of the church as the 'elect'..."

“My point is that God delights in saving the children of the faithful and I have never seen him deny one single parent who was faithful.”

“Accordingly, in light of a true understanding of thesis, there is absolutely no place for parental presumption, simply because no parent can know whether he has arrived that level, which I have said is known only to God.”
I must agree it is unfortunate that these types of threads lead to false judgments and name calling.
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#10385 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:34 PM Re: Covenantal Succession
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
I am sorry you were offended, may God have mercy on you.
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#10386 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:54 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: CovenantInBlood]
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
He "presumes" them elect, at best...
Does he merely believe in the false doctrine of presumed election? At best I would say it is very confusing what he embraces. The majority of your reply is answered below in my reply to Pilgrim. And, please do a search on this subject as it was discussed several times before you ever arrived on this board and you are making judgments without all the facts.

IMHO I was being very gentle knowing the history of this topic probably a little more than you do. I was not being ungentle in asking RonD about his children for him and I discussed this issue in another thread named "Infant Baptism." I was not being ungentle there, I was allowing him to gently remember the posts there and how IMHO he had been cornered by the Scripture on "this" very issue.

You may desire to also ask yourself, "Is being gentle always the way our Lord rebuked error?" Though IMHO it is not applicable in this instance, it too is not always a valid form of an argument against false theology.

Top
#10387 - Tuesday, January 27, 2004 9:33 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: J_Edwards]
CovenantInBlood Offline
Persnickety Presbyterian


Registered: Saturday, September 13, 2003
Posts: 2375
Loc: Virginia
Joe,

You went much too far in your responses to Ron in this particular thread. You've gone too far in a discussion with me once before, and I called you on it; but perhaps that has affected me and I'm being too hasty to judge the situation. But I think you ought to apologize. If you won't, so be it. I have spoken my piece.


Edited by CovenantInBlood (Tuesday, January 27, 2004 9:42 PM)
_________________________
Kyle

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified.

Top
#10388 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:03 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: CovenantInBlood]
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life

Registered: Sunday, December 9, 2001
Posts: 4843
Loc: USA
Quote:
You went much too far in your responses to Ron in this particular thread. You've gone too far in a discussion with me once before, and I called you on it; but perhaps that has affected me and I'm being too hasty to judge the situation. But I think you ought to apologize. If you won't, so be it. I have spoken my piece.
If, as I have already suggested, you would read ALL the posts you would see where an apology was already given, well before you ever posted this! So, yes,once again, you were to hasty to judge the situation. May God have mercy.
_________________________
Reformed and Always Reforming,

Top
#10389 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 8:19 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Pilgrim,

I think the concept of "covenantal succession" supposes the salvation of the ancestors extends to their progeny, which is by the grace of God through the covenant made with Abraham.

This verse doesn't contradict this concept, but could be used, if wrongly interpreted, to support the concept.

"Born of God", if through covenantal succession, could be twisted by extension to mean "born unto salvation because of a covenant made with their ancestors." "Not of blood" could be wrongly thought to mean "not of the blood of Christ." Do you see my point?

Top
#10390 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:12 AM Re: Covenantal Succession
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13235
Loc: NH, USA
Quote:
"Born of God", if through covenantal succession, could be twisted by extension to mean "born unto salvation because of a covenant made with their ancestors." "Not of blood" could be wrongly thought to mean "not of the blood of Christ." Do you see my point?

No, honestly I don't see your point. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> All I know is what the Bible says....!! Scripture is my source of truth, not some fabricated idea of a man which isn't based upon Scripture. I EXEGETED the passage for you to show you what it DOES teach. Anything that contradicts the truth that is revealed in that passage is obviously untruth. It's really that simple. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Now, if you care to disagree with my EXEGESIS of the passage, you are certainly welcome to do so and I would love to see your exegesis of it. Feel free to use the Greek if so desired as many here are conversant in the original languages and in exegesis, hermeneutics, and other such goodie things. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#10391 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 10:58 AM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Pilgrim,

You have completely misjudged me and/or misunderstood what I wrote. Please go back and check the record. You probably answer many, many replies to your postings and sometimes get confused as to who said what.

You need to direct your animosity to the author of the article. He claims the doctrine came from John Calvin and was later refined by Hodge and Schenck.

For your information, I never allow any source outside Scripture for the purpose of discussing doctrine. I only use legitimate hermeneutics and exegesis as established by the ICBI in 1979. I suggest you read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Article II in this regard.

Yours in Christ,
George Fitt

Top
#10392 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 11:56 AM Re: Covenantal Succession
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13235
Loc: NH, USA
Quote:
You need to direct your animosity to the author of the article. He claims the doctrine came from John Calvin and was later refined by Hodge and Schenck.

"Animosity"? surely you jest. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> If you are in agreement with my exegesis, then it is my error in thinking you did not. And if that is the case, then I apologize. If, however, you do disagree with my exegesis of John 1:12, 13, then I again invite you to give your own exegesis of the passage and how it does not bear upon the view called, "covenantal succession".

Quote:
For your information, I never allow any source outside Scripture for the purpose of discussing doctrine.

Well, for your information and further consideration, we DO allow and even encourage the use of extra-biblical information when discussing doctrine here. In fact, we would be acting against Scripture if we did not do so. No one is without error, thus considering what others, particularly those who were used mightily by the Spirit of God in the development of the Church and its theology is a necessity if one is to guard against heresy. The great evangelical Creeds, e.g., Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedon and the Confessions that flowed out of the Protestant Reformation, e.g., Westminster, Belgic, 39 Articles, Savoy, London, Canons of Dort, et al, are all of great value as both guides and guards against heresy.

We here believe that the Scriptures are the "sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice." But we surely cannot discount the indwelling of the Spirit in the minds and hearts of true believers who hold the truth of the Scriptures. Since the truth was delivered to the "saints", it is our responsibility and desire to come to a unity of that truth.

Perhaps you would do well to read a relevant article written by Dr. Keith Mathison here: A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of "Solo Scriptura". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#10393 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:03 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Pilgrim,
I read the entire document you provided and found the word "faith" only once. "Faith was reduced to little more than assent to the truthfulness of certain biblical propositions."
Your faith is in the doctrine of John Calvin. My faith is in the inspired Word of God and in the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.
Your faith is "reckless faith", because you do not know for certain whether or not John Calvin ever received the Holy Spirit of God. For without the Holy Spirit, "A natural man does not understand the things of God, nor can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned."
Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets who come to you dressed in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." Matthew 7:15,16 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them." Matthew 7:20
One way to determine whether or not John Calvin was a false prophet dressed in sheep's clothing, or a true prophet of God would be to examine his fruits.
Would you agree?

Top
#10394 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:32 PM Re: Covenantal Succession
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13235
Loc: NH, USA
Quote:
Your faith is in the doctrine of John Calvin. My faith is in the inspired Word of God and in the in-dwelling Holy Spirit.

Where, pray tell, do you get the audacity to make such a fallacious statement as this? You are on thin ice.

Quote:
Your faith is "reckless faith", because you do not know for certain whether or not John Calvin ever received the Holy Spirit of God.

Another arrogant and presumptuous statement on your part. To be sure, I know far more about the life of John Calvin than I do yours, and from his doctrine and life, I am very much assured that John Calvin was indwelt by the Spirit of God. I have no such confidence about you, however.

Quote:
One way to determine whether or not John Calvin was a false prophet dressed in sheep's clothing, or a true prophet of God would be to examine his fruits.
Would you agree?

I would agree, yes. As I stated above, I am more than superficially familiar with the writings of John Calvin, who was a sinner saved by grace, no less than myself. From all that I have read of the man, there can be no doubt that he is singing praises to Christ at this very moment. Would you be so bold as to charge that John Calvin is now in hell? If so, it might be interesting to hear why you are so certain that John Calvin was a "false teacher" and reprobate.

Lastly, your assessment of the article I recommended to you is also fallacious. I know the author personally, and he holds to the biblical definition of saving faith; i.e., "Fiducia", the whole being of man is involved, not simply "Assensus", which was promoted by Robert Sandeman. (cf. "Sandemanianism", Charles Finney, et al).

1 Corinthians 10:12 (ASV) Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.


In His Grace,
_________________________


simul iustus et peccator


Top
#10395 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 2:36 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Pilgrim]
Anonymous
Unregistered


Pilgrim,

"Reckless Faith: When the Church Loses Its Will to Discern" by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. copyright 1994, Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL on page 202 states, "Of course, the Catholic Church is by no means the only religious body guilty of atrocities. Martin Luther consented to the deaths of thousands in the Peasants' Revolt in sixteenth-century Germany. Many leading Reformers joined the Catholics in calling for the deaths of the Anabaptists. John Calvin sanctioned the burning of Michael Servetus, an arch-heretic who was condemned by both Catholics and Calvinists for his anti-trinitarianism. Oliver Cromwell's Puritan armies treated Irish Catholics with appalling ruthlessness. Cromwell himself signed the death warrant when Charles I was executed. The Puritans in colonial Massachusetts executed four Quakers before making heresy a capital offense were repealed."

Do you accept this testimony by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. as evidences of bad fruit by all these men, including John Calvin?

Top
#10396 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 3:23 PM Re: Covenantal Succession
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho

Registered: Tuesday, April 3, 2001
Posts: 13235
Loc: NH, USA
Quote:
1saved quipped:
Do you accept this testimony by Dr. John F. MacArthur, Jr. as evidences of bad fruit by all these men, including John Calvin?

1saved, we got your number! We KNEW you were going to bring up the burning of Servetus in your next reply. I will not dispute the historical facts, even though they are not found in Scripture. But although Calvin was far from perfect, his part in Servetus' execution can hardly be called "bad fruit". Further, your previous comments went considerably further than simply questioning one incident in regard to John Calvin and calling it "bad fruit". . . in truth, you questioned his salvation, an unwarranted charge by biblical standards. Your judgmentalism is indefensible.

If you are interested in the historical FACTS concerning Calvin and the execution of Michael Servetus, I would encourage you to read the following: Was Geneva A Theocracy?, by Dr. Michael Horton.

[color:"blue"]Confidence is simply that quiet, assured feeling you have before you fall flat on your face. -- Dr. L. Binder[/color]


Edited: Corrected the above link.

In His Grace,


Edited by Pilgrim (Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:45 PM)

Top
#10397 - Wednesday, January 28, 2004 4:39 PM Re: Covenantal Succession [Re: Pilgrim]
MHeath Offline
Addict

Registered: Monday, March 17, 2003
Posts: 453
Loc: Michigan, USA
Hey Pilgrim <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Thank you for the definition of "fiducia!" That is another word I didn't know.. lol. Also, that link does not work. I did a search for it, but when I found it, every single solitary "A" is highlighted! LOL. I just can't get past it. Anyway.. that's it! Could you provide another link to it? Maybe it will work <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/thanks.gif" alt="" />

Michele

Top
Page 5 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Who's Online
0 registered (), 1 Guest and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
dale, celine7, Hawkins, Tina, elhmiller
768 Registered Users
Shout Box

April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
(Views)Popular Topics
Revelation 22:19 Contradicts Calvinist Doctrine 375350
Is man required to "choose" in order to be saved? 296917
...The people miscalled Antinomians ? 263590
Westminster Larger Catechism 238128
The importance of going to church 222760
Roman Catholicism and salvation 179150
"Christ died in a general way for all."? 166154
Double predestination 165195
Gospel truth 141533
Creation 127708