'Theology Discussion Group'

The Role of Women in the Church

In His Grace, Pilgrim

I think I would disregard your 'Baptist' friend's argument as spurious and fabricated; a strawman at best for never have I heard (although it is surely possible for anything to be believed by some) of any Paedobaptist in history who baptized entire households regardless of who they were, nor have I ever read anything that would even suggest such a thing. The 'household baptisms' referred to consisted of baptizing all adults who professed faith and their children. No unbelieving adults are to be baptized. So tell your desperate Baptist crusader to 'try again'! :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church. Institutes Book IV 15:19

Here it is each church should baptize by the means that they see as fit and it should be left at that. Tell you Baptist friend that a Reformed Baptist (who immerses) says that he should leave the paedobaptists alone and concentrate on the essentials. Prestor John Servabo Fidem

Now on The Highway is Robert Murray M'Cheyne's 'Daily Bible Reading Calendar'. If you are not familiar with this gem, it's a scheduled arrangement of readings of the Scriptures that takes one and family through the entire Bible and the Psalms and New Testament twice. You can view it here: Daily Bible Reading Calendar And, a side note about using the SEARCH feature now on the home page; the use of 'quotes' for phrases will greatly enhance your results. Using the quotation marks on ANY Search Engine forces it to look for that exact phrase and not the individual words that make up the phrase. Thus, if you are getting results from a search that returns 300+ references and the majority of them are irrelevant to your original intent, then narrowing your search by being MORE specific and using the quotes can be of great help. BTW, this particular Search Engine is programmed to look for 'similar' words, ie., if you mispell a word, it will try and find it anyway. And lastly, be aware of variant spellings of words, eg., 'judgment and judgement'. You will get different results using these two words, :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Personally, I couldn't care less what the Supreme Court of the U.S., or Canada rules concerning public prayer, etc. in state/government owned institutions. The government has the right to pass laws as they see fit concerning what and how things are to be conducted in THEIR facilities. There is no THEOCRACY on earth, and as far as I can tell, there never will be one before Christ returns nor afterwards [sorry all you Posties and Premillers out there, :-)]. Next stop: the New Heaven and New Earth where only righteousness dwells. Therefore, Ps 74:4 'Thine enemies roar in the midst of thy congregations; they set up their ensigns for signs.' In the days of Daniel, such 'laws' were also enacted to prevent prayer to the one true God. And Daniel complied as far as praying to God openly in public. But no government has the authority or power to forbid secret prayer and so Daniel prayed freely in his own home. And he stood against the rules of that day when they tried to forbid prayer altogether, except to the pagan gods. In the New Testament, we have another good example of the civil authorities forbidding any preaching in or of the name of Jesus Christ. This prohibition was again a universal one, which allowed no exceptions whatsoever. To such 'laws' the disciples refused to obey and replied,

Acts 4:18 'And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.'

The 'rule' I follow is this: I will comply with any and all laws passed by the government under which I am living at any particular time with the exception of any and all laws which transgress the LAW OF GOD. Thus I support 'civil disobedience' in principle and in practice. :-) Don't think it is always a 'black or white' decision either, for it surely isn't. There are situations where 'gray areas' exist and one must tread carefully, slowly and prayerfully before deciding to disobey a law of the land.

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Don't you see the hypocrisy of it all though? at least in the U.S. and Canada. But specifically in the U.S., there is permanently printed and minted on the currency the phrase, 'In God we Trust', which I believe was first used back in the very early part of the 19th century (1803?). The 'laws' enacted to protect the citizenry from those who would do IMMORAL and UNETHICAL acts against them were based upon biblical law, e.g., 'Thou shalt not steal,' 'Thou shalt not kill,' etc. Yet, the courts unanimously scream that they don't adjudicate nor allow 'morals' to enter into the system. 'It's about LAW, not MORALS!' Yet, this is so totally ignorant a statement, for to break a law, one is subject to 'punishment' and punishment is only rightly administered when it is administered upon one who has done WRONG! They have borrowed the morality (at least in the beginning and for a time thereafter) from the Christian system and yet deny the very essence of it. This anomaly shouldn't be too surprising, for those who are in the position to write, enact, administer and practice these laws are godless, unregenerate individuals who's main motivation is to defame and obliterate the name of God from the earth. Perhaps it should go unsaid, but I am of the opinion, that there are, with perhaps a half-dozen exceptions, no true Christians in the national government. There are to be sure, many who make a profession of faith (a la Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George Bush, Preston Manning, etc.) but there is far too much evidence to show that this profession is without substance, and their 'faith' is to be seen as spurious and they are self-deceived. Okay... enough!

In His Grace, Pilgrim

You asked, 'How do the calvinists handle that verse?' [referring to 1Timothy 4:10]. ANS: Biblically and rightly!   Rod's advice to you was correct as the use of the 'Search' feature on The Highway's home page would have given you this result and by clicking here: An Exegetical Study of 1Tim. 4:10 you can read it.

In His Grace, Pilgrim

John and Rod have hit on a very important reason why a Christian should avoid gambling; GREED! I would like to have to consider another aspect of why a Christian should not gamble. We know that the LORD God is the Sovereign LORD, Who governs all things by the counsel of His infinite wisdom and will. As I have looked at this subject of gambling, it seems unavoidable that to gamble is to deny His sovereignty by relying on what the world views as CHANCE. As Sproul humerously but rightly asks, 'What IS chance? Chance is no thing' It is synonymous with 'Fate', which is the random occurrence of all things, which produces no order or definite end. Therefore to gamble is to rely upon the 'possibility' that the thrown dice will roll and stop a certain way without guidance or purpose. To hope that that Jack will be dealt upon your 10 card so as to get '21' is to put one's trust in 'fate'. I am sure that as with most things of the world, there are some professing Christians who will try and 'baptize' gambling and sanctify it, thus incorporating it into Christ's Church. They might try and say that when they roll the dice, they are praying that God will 'bless' them and guide the dice to stop in such a way as to give them a winning combination. But there are so many exhortations which prohibit the consulting of 'witches', 'mediums,' 'necromancers,' etc. throughout the Scriptures that one would be hard pressed to be able to justify this type of reasoning. Is a Christian to put his trust in 'LUCK'? One other aspect which needs to be considered is 'Stewardship'. Is gambling a proper use of the money which God has given us? Knowing the 'odds' of winning; they are surely against it, is this not virtually throwing one's money away? A good example is the Lottery, which most states and throughout Canada the various Provinces sponsor. The 'odds' of winning the Lottery here are one in twenty-three million. Now putting this into perspective, if someone told you that you had the same 'odds' of making it to work alive today, would you take the 'chance' and drive to work this morning? :-) And where does this money go? Does it benefit the poor? feed the hungry? provide medical assistance to the ill? I think it is an illegitimate use of the LORD's gifts. I am sure that MacArthur had many more reasons or perhaps the same ones in his series on gambling. But these are a few that I have considered over the years. May they be 'food for thought'.

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Using the newly added 'Search' feature on The Highway's home page; typing in 2Peter 2:1 resulted in exactly what you are looking for! .

Click here: Exegesis of 2Peter 2:1

At your service, Pilgrim

Hey, that's a catchy tune... but how do you play it? How about sharing some concrete examples of how we are to 'Walk With Jesus Daily'?? And could you apply this simple advice to the following?: What would Jesus do on the Christian Sabbath (Sunday)? that we should follow in His 'steps'? :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim

Funny you should mention this topic, for The Highway's Article of the Month deals with this specifically. The author, James E. Adams, wrote a book called War Psalms published by 'Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company' which I would highly recommend to you. It's an inexpensive paperback! :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim

I would like to personally welcome you to The Highway's 'Theology Discussion Forum'. Seeing that you are intimately acquainted with the PRCE, your comments, critcisms and knowledge of this group are certainly apropos. And I for one would like to encourage you to continue. May the LORD God richly bless you and give you a double portion of Elijah's mantel so as with power, you may ward off the fiery darts of the Evil One in his attempts to confuse and scatter the sheep.

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

Hey, you old 'mossback', hehehe... what do you know? Nothing more than what the prophets of God knew in their day I suppose, for they said:

Hos 4:6 'My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.' Hos 8:12 I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing. 13 They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it; but the LORD accepteth them not; now will he remember their iniquity, and visit their sins: they shall return to Egypt.' Isa 30:9 'That this is a rebellious people, lying children, children that will not hear the law of the LORD: 10 Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: 11 Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.' 2Tim 4:2 'Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.'

I guess these men were 'mossbacks' too? :-) Praise the LORD for His 'mossbacks'!!

In His Grace, Pilgrim

On the news here this evening, there was also a short report of this 'Jesus Day' event. And from what was shown concerning the 'festivities' I could only think how insulting and dishonoring it was before God. 'What would Jesus do?' He would overturn their tables and concessions, make a whip of cords and drive them out of the city!! You said, 'No wonder people are confused theologically'. Perhaps you should have turned that statement around 180 degrees? 'Because of the theological confusion, no wonder people do what they do in the name of Jesus Christ'? :-)

In His Grace, Pilgrim

I remember using the 'Burger King' illustration many years ago in a sermon I was preaching, hehe. But I took it to its actual conclusion. The commercials usually showed a group of people in line ordering their burgers 'they way they liked them' while the Burger King employees joyfully smiled as they prepared the food. This was the focus of attention most gave to this commercial, just as the advertising agents had planned it. However, what most people never saw or remembered was these same people who were happily 'getting it their way' also had to make a short stop before being able to eat their food; this stop was at the cash register, where another grinning employee held out her hand to collect the money owed for the food that was ordered 'their way.' The words were never spoken, but they were doubtless in the mind of the cashier; 'Now it's our turn and all along we have had it OUR WAY. This is to be sure the modes operandi of the Evil One, for he deceives men, women and children into thinking that all of life is to be lived according to this lie, 'Have it YOUR WAY, but all along it's been HIS WAY. Thus at the end of the day, all will have to PAY for their self-serving choices, but not to the Devil, but to the Gracious God whom they ignored throughout their wicked lives.

In His Grace, Pilgrim

First of all, it's great to see you back once again. I hope that the LORD has been gracious to you in all things and that you are continuing to grow in the knowledge and likeness of our Lord Jesus Christ. As you can clearly see, John P. belongs to a sectarian splinter group that believes that they are one of very few, if not the ONLY 'True Church' on earth because they adhere to a plethora of old Scottish writings and 'Covenants' which he and they view as being binding upon all professing Christians, or at least all those who are of Scottish, Irish and English decent (according to their web site). I and others adamantly disagree on biblical grounds and believe that this is nothing less than schism in the Body of Christ. John P. is quick to quote the apostle Paul where he wrote:

Rom 16:17 'Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.'

Note carefully, that it is John P. and the Puritan Reformed Church of Edmonton that are 'which cause divisions and offences'. The vast majority of those who participate on this forum have said on numerous occasions that we have indeed unity with our Calvinist brethren of various denominations. Never has it ever been intimated that they are not part of the VISIBLE church, never mind the INVISIBLE CHURCH. Secondly, it is even more important that Paul says that these 'divisions and offences' are the result of their being 'contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned. . .' Notice that it is a doctrinal problem. And this doctrinal problem is not just any doctrine a group or individual might esteem, but rather those doctrines which are to be found specifically in Scripture which ye have learned. Obviously, Paul is referring to what Scripture refers to as the faith (Acts 6:7; 13:8; Rom 1:5; Eph 4:13; Col 2:7; 1Tim 4:1; 6:10; Jude 1:3; et al), i.e., that body of doctrine which has been known as 'theology' in its various forms and which deals with the person and nature of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, sin and the fall, atonement, redemption, justification, sanctification, eschatology, etc. But John P. and his little group insert into Paul's words a meaning which was never intended. For they assert with all boldness that to be part of the 'true Church' on earth, one must give whole-hearted assent to these ancillary 'covenants, etc.' to which they ascribe. And further, if your particular congregation does not ascribe to these EXTRA BIBLICAL 'doctrines of men', then you are under a solemn obligation to separate from them. Further, those who are members of such groups, are partaking of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Table in a profane manner, for those who administer these things are 'outside the authority of the King'. Now, a more biblical approach to your question seems to me to be that what is stated in the Belgic Confession: Article XXIX:

We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we say that the body and communion of the true Church must be distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church. The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in chastening [1] of sin; in short, if all things are managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from which no man has a right to separate himself.

What this Confession states, and remember this was written shortly after the Protestant Reformation (1561), is that there are basically 3 marks that distinguish the true church of Christ. 1) The pure preaching of the Gospel, 2) the right administration of the sacraments, and 3) proper church discipline. If a body of believers fails in any of these three items (think of a 3-legged stool), it falls and is no part of the true church. Now to apply this to your question directly. Denominations: If the officially documents/confession of that denomination is contrary to the doctrines of Scripture (theology) then it is no church. If a denomination fails to administer the sacraments aright, ignores them, or adds to them, it is no church. If a denomination fails to discipline its members who practice sin, then it is no church. It is true, that as a denomination makes the usual transition from conservatism to Liberalism and/or some form of Egalitarianism, there is a 'grey period' wherein the old accepted Confessions and Creeds are still given lip service and are the 'official standard' upon which the denomination stands. But in actuality, they deny them. It is my belief, that if the actual practice of the denomination is contrary to the accepted standards of religion and these practices are not scrutinized and discipline exercised upon those who are in violation, then point #3 is applicable and the denomination shows itself to be no church. Individual assemblies can be included here as well, I believe. Now what about a denomination that allows men to share pulpits where some of these men are Liberal in their theology or let's say do not adhere to the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation, which are stated in a good many of the historical Reformed Confessions? For me, this is more of an individual assembly issue, rather than a denominational one. If I was a member of a local assembly that shared its pulpit with a Liberal man, then I would have to first approach the pastor and elders and issue a complaint that they have allowed 'the faith' to be compromised and exposed the sheep to the dangers of the enemy's deceit. If they would not hear this complaint, then I would then move up to the next level of authority that exists in that denomination, etc. If/when all avenues of judicial authority have been exhausted, and no discipline is rendered, then again, #3 of the 'marks of a true church' would be violated and they thereby show themselves to be no church. I also hold that no one who has by grace, come to the knowledge of the truth, which we call Calvinism has any right being a member in an Arminian church. For by being a member of such a church, one has voluntarily put himself/herself, under the authority of those who rule. Again, the process for separating from this type of church is similar to what I stated above, i.e., one must first go to those who are given the responsibility over the flock and make your objections known etc. After all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, and either repentance or discipline is seen, then one has the right, even obligated to separate from that body. I do believe there are some situations where there is no clear 'black and white' answer, but prayer and counsel are needed to be able to discern the right course of action; whether or not to separate or stay. If I have 'muddied the waters' in my attempt to answer your sincere questions, please come back and restate your question or ask further. :-)

In His Precious Blood, Pilgrim

The covenants are binding on nations and churches which were bound in the mid-17th century because they are in agreement with the word of God. Every church has confessional standards to which they hold their members. Our claim is that there ought not to be two, three, or three-thousand denominations in a nation; but rather, that the church is to be one, and God's name one in the churches and nations of this world. ect...

Now you have made what I consider a glaringly obvious mistake in your assumptions. And that is thinking the covenants made by men with governments of men are the same as the covenants made by God. When reading of God's covenants with His people we find these statements: 'I will establish My covenant with you.'; 'And I will establish My covenant ';

God establishes these covenants not men. There is no evidence that any other covenant besides the New Covenant established by Christ is binding upon the church. Also there is no biblical support for a 'national' church. Ergo you bind yourself to extra-biblical documents, and traditions of men. And so you repeat the errors of the Roman Church. Prestor John

If I have understood Mr. Hughes correctly, he's a bit off base here. It appears that he has abandoned the objectivity of TRUTH, and has been influenced by the Post-Modernism of our day which he attempts to criticize. In the last analysis, he says that preaching is more or less objectivity proclaimed through the preacher's subject experience. I find this all too familiar refrain as just a more academian way of echoing the way so many so-called 'Bible studies'are conducted. For example, a passage of Scripture is read and then each person 'shares what this Scripture means to me' It is rarely asked, 'What does this Scripture mean?' There is no wrestling with the text itself as it appears in its historical setting, nor with the inspired language used by the author. In other words, the 'historico-grammatico' methodology that has been the foundation of the church's hermeneutic is completely ignored. What becomes important is 'how the text affects the individual' rather than 'what God is actually saying in the text'! Thus Mr. Hughes is suggesting that out of the preacher's subjectivity of life, having 'studied the text as it applies to him', he then basically 'shares' his experience with his hearers. But to the contrary, an ordained man of God, who has been appointed to that lofty office of 'Preacher/Teacher' is commissioned by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself to proclaim, 'Thus saith the LORD. . .' He is to open and break the 'Bread of Life' and feed the flock over which he has been appointed a under-shepherd. The very nature of the Scriptures, being of Divine origin, demands that anyone, but especially the Preacher 'study to show himself approved, a workman not having to be ashamed but rightly dividing the word of truth. He is to proclaim that great 'truth once delivered unto the saints'! The New Testament in many places testifies to its origin but more it also teaches us that there is indeed a 'body of object truth', or as Francis Schaeffer used to call it, 'True truth'! There is a set, objective repository of doctrine which is not subject to the subjectivity of the Preacher, nor anyone else. The apostle Paul never referred to preaching as 'arrogance', but rather 'foolishness' (1Cor 1:21). And if one carefully and rightly reads his words, it is not preaching itself that is 'foolishness' but the perception of the hearer who is fatally opposed to all objectivity and especially the object truths concerning God and righteousness. Therefore, the preacher is never to concern himself with how others perceive him, but only if he is faithful in proclaiming the OBJECT truths of the Scripture; confidently and boldly proclaiming to all, 'Thus saith the LORD. . .'!

In His Grace, Pilgrim 'Without absolutes revealed from without by God Himself, we are left rudderless in a sea of conflicting ideas about manners, justice and right and wrong, issuing from a multitude of self-opinionated thinkers.' - John Owen (1616-1683)