Donations for the month of November


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Posts: 2,862
Joined: September 2003
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,533
Posts50,712
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,296
Tom 3,303
chestnutmare 2,862
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 22
Pilgrim 18
John_C 2
Recent Posts
Law and Grace
by Tom. Tue Nov 21, 2017 10:45 PM
The Church of England Announcement
by Tom. Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:11 PM
Why I hate the left
by Pilgrim. Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 PM
What is a missionary work
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 10, 2017 9:07 AM
Terrorist Attacks
by AJ Castellitto. Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:08 AM
Theonomy
by Pilgrim. Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:54 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 9 10
#14057 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:54 AM Re: Continuity in Old and NT  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
acts2027 said:
Thanks for those links Prestor:

The second one, Welty's, doesn't work for some reason. As I would like to read it, could you check it out and correct it?

In Him,

Gerry


Well Gerry unfortunately I couldn't go back and edit it something about a time limit. 3stooges And I believe the url was a frame or some asp style page so I found another link that seems to work.

A critical evaluation of paedobaptism by Greg Welty

#14058 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:33 AM Baby Dedications & Continuity [Re: Wes]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Mark 10: 13-16 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, [color:"0000FF"]put his hands upon them, and blessed them[/color].

Wes, I read your post and wondered what you thought of these verses above. Briefly analyzing the verses, Jesus does not merely touch the children, which in v 13 was the stated purpose of those bringing them to him; He embraces them. Remember in Mark 9:36 Jesus had taken a child into his arms. This embrace IMHO is a public demonstration of children’s acceptance and value in the Kingdom. The passage gets more interesting though as “He blessed [lit. historic present, ‘blesses’] them.” Mark uses the intensive form, “to bless,” which occurs nowhere else in the NT. In the LXX it is found only in Tob 11:1, where Tobias blesses Raguel, and in Tob 11:17, where Tobit blesses his new daughter-in-law Sarah. Then Jesus is seen “laying his hands on them.” Elsewhere Jesus lays hands on persons as well (Mark 5:23, 6:5, 8:23–25), thus, there is precedent for His actions. In Gen 48:15–15 the patriarch Jacob (Israel) lays his hands upon the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh and then blesses their father Joseph.

Though we “really” do not know what blessing Christ gave some have certainly speculated on it. One such speculation was that this was the Aaronic blessing of Numbers 6:24-26:

Quote
Speak unto Aaron and unto his sons, saying, On this wise ye shall bless the children of Israel: ye shall say unto them, Jehovah bless thee, and keep thee: Jehovah make his face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: Jehovah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace. [color:"0000FF"]So shall they put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them[/color].
Though I do not believe there is substantial evidence that this is what Christ said in Mark 10, the Aaronic blessing does shed some light on another aspect of your question. God placed His name upon the “whole” of Israel and this would have included children (and yes, some were lost, thus we know this is not in reference to salvation, et. al.) . A similar placing of a name appears in the NT as well—Matt 28: 19… “baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Thus, IMHO the Aaronic blessing sheds new light on the Credo position:

Credo churches have baby dedications—blessings. These dedications are praying down God’s blessings upon the child, its parent(s), etc. They normally even charge the Church with its responsibly. Thus, there appears to be some continuity for Credos with the Aaronic blessing. But, the Aaronic blessing was ONLY given to those who were part of the visible church—we still use it today (continuity). Thus, Credos either have to admit that (a) infants are indeed part of the visible church (I am not saying infants are saved), and thus part of their argument against the paedo view disappears (for non-believers may be blessed), or (b) they must hold that no blessings are being received from God in their dedication (though they normally pray), and thus the dedication is but mere words of encouragement for the family and church. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />

While I do think Credos mean the "blessing" to be more than a mere encouragement, how do you get there Scripturally? Exactly which Scriptures do Credos now use for evidence of Baby Dedications?

I found J.C. Ryle’s comments on Mark 10 somewhat intriguing here also,

Quote
Let us learn from this passage how much encouragement there is to bring young children to be baptized. Of course it is not claimed that there is any mention of baptism, or even any reference to it, in the verses before us. All we mean to say is that the expressions and gestures of our Lord in this passage are a strong indirect argument in favor of infant baptism. It is on this account that the passage occupies a prominent place in the baptismal service of the Church of England.

The subject of infant baptism is undoubtedly a delicate and difficult one. Holy and praying people are unable to see alike on it. Although they read the same Bible, and claim to be led by the same Spirit, they arrive at different conclusions about this sacrament. The great majority of Christians hold that infant baptism is scriptural and right. A comparatively small section of the Protestant church, but one containing many eminent saints among its members, regards infant baptism as unscriptural and wrong. The difference is a sad proof of the blindness and weakness which remain even in the saints of God.

But the difference now referred to must not make members of the Church of England shrink from holding decided opinions on the subject. That church has declared plainly in its Articles that “the baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.” To this opinion we need not be afraid to adhere.

It is agreed on all sides that infants may be elect and chosen by God for salvation—may be washed in Christ’s blood, born again of the Spirit, have grace, be justified, sanctified and enter heaven. If these things are so, it is hard to see why they may not receive the outward sign of baptism.

It is agreed furthermore than infants are members of Christ’s visible church by virtue of their parents’ Christianity. What else can we make of St. Paul’s words, “as it is, they are holy” (1 Corinthians 7:14)? If this is so, it is difficult to understand why an infant may not receive the outward sign of admission into the church, just as the Jewish child received the outward sign of circumcision.

The objection that baptism ought only to be given to those who are old enough to repent and believe does not appear a convincing one. We read in the New Testament that the “families” of Lydia and Stephanas were baptized (Acts 16:15 and 1 Corinthians 1:16), and that the jailer of Philippi and “all his family” were baptized (Acts 16:33). It is very difficult to suppose that in no one of these three cases were there any children.

The objection that our Lord Jesus Christ himself never directly commanded infants to be baptized is not a weighty one. The church of the Jews, to which he came, had always been accustomed to admit children into the church by the sign of circumcision. The very fact that Jesus says nothing about the age for baptizing goes far to prove that he intended no change to be made.

[In considering the arguments in favor of infant baptism, there are two facts which ought to be duly pondered. They are extra-scriptural facts, and I have therefore purposely omitted them from the thoughts above, but they are weighty facts and may help some minds in coming to a conclusion.

1. One fact is the testimony of history to the almost universal practice of infant baptism in the early church. The proof of this is to be found in Wall’s History of Infant Baptism. If infant baptism is so entirely opposed to the mind of Christ, as some say that it is, it is at least a curious circumstance that the early church should have been so ignorant on the subject.

2. The other fact is the well-known practice of baptizing the infant children of proselytes in the Jewish church. The proof of this is to be found in Lightfoot’s Horae Hebraicae on St. Matthew 3:6. He says, for instance (Works, Pitman ed., Vol. xi, p. 59):

Quote
The Anabaptists object, “It is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to be baptized.” To whom I answer, “It is not forbidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be baptized.” And the reason is plain. For when paedobaptism in the Jewish church was so known, usual and frequent in the admission of proselytes, there was no need to strengthen it with any precept, when baptism passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took baptism into his own hands, and into evangelical use as he found it; this only added that he might promote it to a worthier end, and larger use. The whole nation knew well enough that little children used to be baptized: there was no need of a precept for that which had ever, by common use, prevailed.
On the other hand, there was need of a plain and open prohibition, that infants and little children should not be baptized, if our Saviour would not have had them baptized. For since it was most common, in all ages foregoing, that little children should be baptized, if Christ had minded to abolish the custom he would have openly forbidden it. Therefore his silence and the silence of Scripture confirms paedobaptism, and continues it unto all ages.]
Any way Wes, what do you think?


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#14059 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:52 AM Re: Continuity in Old and NT  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Hi Prestor;

Thank you so much, it worked fine and I am looking forward to reading it.

For the record, my comments on this subject in the prior posts, such as the Colossians passage, are from my own reading and understanding of scripture as I have never read anything on this subject such as what Welty and others have written. All I know is that when I was presented the WCF postion and the scripture references to support it, the scriptures seemed to be wholely inadequate to the position, and indeed ignored some of the most important ones that contradicted it, thus, in my view, the Analogy of the Faith was violated, not willingly or maliciously of course, for this group of men was in my view one of the most godly and wonderful group of "divines" ever brought together by the hand of God.

It will be good to hear what Mr. Welty and the others have to say, but I believe it is important to be "thoroughly convinced in one's own mind", first.

#14060 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:16 PM Re: Infants and Particular Redemption [Re: MarieP]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
To say that all physical infants of believers are "in" the New Covenant as the infants of Abraham were "in" the Abrahamic and Sinaitic Covenants violates the doctrine of particular redemption.
I could not disagree more. IMHO this reveals a misunderstanding of what Paedos mean (at least this one and others—please note: there are “some” that stretch the issue of covenant too far) when we say a child is “in the covenant.” We say the phrase “in Covenant” with the understanding of a visible/invisible church distinction. Does everyone here understand visible and invisible distinction? Additionally, there is both a corporate and individual side to covenants both in the Old and New Testaments. The children lived in the camp, they ate the passover meal with their parents, and so forth. This does not mean they were necessarily saved (invisible church), but they did partake of the blessings (and many times the cursings) of the visible church. Even Fred says, “The Passover Lamb brought physical deliverance for all Israel because all ate it. The Annual Atonement (Lev. 16) was offered on behalf of the whole assembly, all Israel.” Clearly, children were included in the covenant just in a different way then “believers.” In EVERY covenant in the OT there were believers/unbelievers. In EVERY Church there are believers/unbelievers. In both the OC/NC there is a corporate and individual side of the covenant.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#14061 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 12:34 PM Re: Baby Dedications & Continuity [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Wes Offline
Needs to get a Life
Wes  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,856
Northwest Indiana, USA
Quote
Joe writes:

Mark 10: 13-16 And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.

Wes, I read your post and wondered what you thought of these verses above.


Joe, it's clear by Jesus' encounter with these little children that they are precious in His sight.

I was recently with a young family that had just lost their two month old baby. At the funeral the grandfather mentioned to me that when he read Mark 10 where Jesus said let the little children come unto me, it takes on new meaning for them now. This little girl was baptized Sunday morning and died in her crib on Monday morning. We trust Jesus has called her to Himself and has her in His arms now.

This family is taking great comfort in this Mark passage believeing the Lord loved children, blessed them, and took their child to be with Him.


Quote
Joe writes:

Thus, IMHO the Aaronic blessing sheds new light on the Credo position:

Credo churches have baby dedications—blessings. These dedications are praying down God’s blessings upon the child, its parent(s), etc. They normally even charge the Church with its responsibly. Thus, there appears to be some continuity for Credos with the Aaronic blessing. But, the Aaronic blessing was ONLY given to those who were part of the visible church—we still use it today (continuity). Thus, Credos either have to admit that (a) infants are indeed part of the visible church (I am not saying infants are saved), and thus part of their argument against the paedo view disappears (for non-believers may be blessed), or (b) they must hold that no blessings are being received from God in their dedication (though they normally pray), and thus the dedication is but mere words of encouragement for the family and church. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />


Yes, it’s that phrase “viewing our children as in the church” that brings confusion in how believer’s view either baptism or dedication. There’s a lot of similarity in these practices. It would be interesting to hear from a credobaptist how they view this blessing on the child, its parents, and what the commitment of the church really is. Surely it’s not just words of encouragement.


Wes


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
#14062 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 2:03 PM A Covenant Diagram [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Here is a Diagram that I hope will help somewhat on the visible/invisible Church distinction.

Attached Files
38891-Covenant Diagram.doc (1275 downloads)

Reformed and Always Reforming,
#14063 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:19 PM Re: Infants and Particular Redemption [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Joe, I realize that there is a distinction between the church invisible and the church visible. I also realize that the majority of paedobaptists do NOT believe that all children of believers are saved, nor that baptizing children saves them.

What exactly is meant by children being in the Covenant? I have been taught that not everyone in the church visible are actually in the Covenant.


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#14064 - Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:07 PM Re: Infants and Particular Redemption [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
MarieP Offline
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline
Permanent Resident

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 talk about being buried in Christ through baptism. How would the paedobaptist ionterpret these verses?

Last edited by SemperReformanda; Tue Apr 27, 2004 11:07 PM.

True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
#14065 - Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:13 AM Re: Infants and Particular Redemption [Re: MarieP]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
SemperReformanda said:
What exactly is meant by children being in the Covenant? I have been taught that not everyone in the church visible are actually in the Covenant.

First, I will simply add to the material in the post above that in Covenant Theology there is a meta theology of Kingdom that we see that is a foundation for understanding the Scriptures. Jesus said :the Kingdom of God......" Jesus is the King and Kings rule over Kingdoms, etc.

Second, very briefly: Covenants were established by kings to others in the ANE (Ancient Near East). Kings of one kingdom established covenants with kings or vassals of other kingdoms. There were basically two types of covenants in the ANE: (1) Parity, where both sides speak about the conditions—bilateral (2) Suzeran-vassal, where the relationship is between the Greater and the lesser. God chose to basically relate to man in the later form of covenant. Covenants were carried out for the eternity of the king’s kingdom, unless otherwise stipulated. God took an oath to honor his covenant with Abraham and others. That covenant still continues as fulfilled in Christ. Christ has a Kingdom. He is the King of that Kingdom. Christ the eternal King relates to His Kingdom in eternal covenants. Covenants not only relate to individuals but whole communities (i.e. Israel) and families. Thus, since Kingdoms relate to families if one person has Christ as their King then the family "in a way" also has Christ as their King (not necessarily savingly, but conditionally--either to blessing or cursing).

Please read: Covenants, Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson and He Gave Us Stories by Richard Pratt, for a fuller explanation.

#14066 - Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:01 PM Re: Infants and Particular Redemption [Re: MarieP]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Marie,
As you know, I go to a presbyterian church. Many Christians, including my pastor, avoid using the term "in the covenant" when speaking of a newly baptized baby or an unconverted child because it only contributes to the misunderstandings that feed presumptive regeneration. My pastor would say instead that our unsaved children are "in the covenant externally" or "members of the visible church" to avoid this confusion. There can be no unbelievers in the covenant of Grace.
We discussed this previously HERE if you are interested.

#14067 - Wed Apr 28, 2004 3:55 PM The New Covenant [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
Jer 31:31-34 (cf. Heb 8:8-12). '"Behold, the days are coming", says the LORD, "When I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the LORD: "Iwill put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they shall all know Me from the least of them to the greatest of them," says the LORD. "For I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more"'.

This text says that the New Covenant will not be like the Old Covenant. The specific differences which are mentioned are:-
1. In the New Covenant, God's laws are written on the heart rather than on tablets of stone.
2. Everyone in the New Covenant knows the Lord
3. They all have their sins forgiven.

Blessings,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#14068 - Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:37 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: grace2U]  

**DONOTDELETE**
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered


Quote
2. Everyone in the New Covenant knows the Lord


Do you know who is trully elect? This is actually a strawman. Paedobaptists agree that all the elect are in the covenant. We also believe there are others in the visible church, which is how the sign is administered. Your requirement, belief, is indefensible. It is profession, which may not necessarily mean belief. So #2 is not a possible argument, unless you want to claim infallibility in knowing the elect. The LBC agrees with me...

The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XXIX
Of Baptism
II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.

We cannot know mens hearts. So we do not baptise on belief, but on profession. Profession doesn't necessitate salvation. So equating all those baptised with the elect is a false assumption.


God bless,

william

#14069 - Wed Apr 28, 2004 4:45 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: grace2U]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
Quote
Steve said,

Jer 31:31-34 (cf. Heb 8:8-12). '"Behold, the days are coming", says the LORD, "When I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days," says the LORD: "Iwill put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they shall all know Me from the least of them to the greatest of them," says the LORD. "For I will forgive their iniquity and their sin I will remember no more"'.

This text says that the New Covenant will not be like the Old Covenant. The specific differences which are mentioned are:-
1. In the New Covenant, God's laws are written on the heart rather than on tablets of stone.
2. Everyone in the New Covenant knows the Lord
3. They all have their sins forgiven.
Steve,

In Jer 31 we see Jeremiah, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, picking up themes first expounded by Moses (Deut 30:1-10). Jeremiah prophesied that God would make a New Covenant with His people. As the institution of the Old Covenant (Exod 19-24) had followed the redemption from Egypt (Exod 12-15), so the formulation of the New Covenant would follow the redemption from exile (vs. 34). New Testament passages (1 Cor 11:15; 2 Cor 3:6; Heb 9:15, 12:24) reveal that the new covenant is fulfilled in Christ, who brought to fruitrition the Lord's desire for a renewed covenant relationship with His people. Even so, Christ in His first coming only inaugurated the new covenant. He continues to establish it during the time between His first and second coming and will establish it fully only at His return in glory. Please look at the text you selected, No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord', for they shall all know Me from the least of them to the greatest of them. This promise will not be completely fulfilled until Christ returns. Only then will the Church be composed entirely of believers! Until then Christ says we see wheat and tares in His Church (Matt 13:24-30).

To apply your interpretation of these verses to the Church of today would entail believing everyone in the visible Church, without exception (2. Everyone in the New Covenant knows the Lord, 3. They all have their sins forgiven) is saved, a case which we both know is incorrect. cheers2


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#14070 - Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:07 PM Re: The New Covenant [Re: J_Edwards]  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
Joe,
I did not say, and nor does the text, that everyone in the 'visible church' (thinks: where is this phrase in the Bible?) knows the Lord. The text very clearly says that everyone in the New Covenant knows Him. Clearly, the New Covenant and the 'visible church' are not the same thing.

Nor will it do to put off this knowing of God until after the return of our Lord.

'But the anointing which you have received from Him [ie. Baptism of the Spirit] abides in you and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him (1John 2:27. cf. also 2:20-21; 1Cor 2:10-16).

These verses clearly parallel Jer 31:31ff, yet are placed firmly in the present.

Only those who know the Lord are in the New Covenant, and therefore it is fitting that only they should receive baptism. However baptism brings no one into the Covenant. If an unbeliever is baptized, his baptism is quite irrelevant (Acts 8:21).

Every blessing,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
#14071 - Wed Apr 28, 2004 6:13 PM Re: The New Covenant  
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
grace2U Offline
Member
grace2U  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 187
Devon, England
William,
Where did I equate baptism with election? Jer 31:31ff does not mention baptism at all.

I am in full agreement with the Baptist Confession on this subject.

Blessings,
Steve


Itinerant Preacher & Bible Teacher in Merrie England.
1689er.
Blogging at
http://marprelate.wordpress.com
Page 2 of 10 1 2 3 4 9 10

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 119 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
November
S M T W T F S
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
Popular Topics(Views)
651,889 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.053s Queries: 16 (0.003s) Memory: 2.7276 MB (Peak: 3.0423 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-11-22 07:31:51 UTC