To the Highway,

I would like to bring clarity to the intention of my post, since it apparently has been misunderstood.

Quote
Steve Stated:

The Old Covenant may have included children, [color:"0000FF"]but it did not save them[/color] (Exod 33:19); rather it put the yoke of the law upon them ( Acts 15:10; Matt 11:29-30).
First, I was surprised by these words from Steve. Knowing that he is a Christian, conservative, and a Baptist, this would normally mean that he would believe that Old Testament saints are saved. But, having moved from England years ago, I am not familiar with what the Baptist Churches in England are teaching these days. If I look at several Baptist Churches in America I see a degradation in theology (thank God for the Founder’s Conference which hopefully will be instrumental in turning the tide here). Truly, when I read Steve’s words, “The Old Covenant may have included children, [color:"0000FF"]but it did not save them[/color],” I could not believe my eyes and I responded in grace to correct that which I saw as an error in theology. This was not a personal attack on Steve, but a response to his words above. But, there his words sit and still without an explanation. Steve, I apologize to you if I have misinterpreted the words as written. But, Steve I still must ask, what do your words mean?

Second, I would like to state that I do have many positive and meaningful discourses with Baptists both here on this forum and even in Florida where I am now privileged to live. As matter a fact, I will be preaching at a Baptist church next week. Thus, this does make me wonder what is really behind the responses here. Maybe this e-mail will add some clarity:

Quote
I am sorry for my Baptist brothers and sisters responses to you. They are without God’s love and mercy. Please undrstand that not all of us talk like this when our beliefs are candidly opened for inspection. You ably disproved every objection and should be commended for you study. I am ashamed to be a Baptist today…”
Third, Steve to your little snippet on “Polemic Theology.” Indeed, this is a great article and IMHO nowhere did I violate it. I responded to you with a Scriptural argument, but also responded to protect the integrity of what the Scripture teaches. But, how have you and/or your Baptist friends responded? Has this not been some of your replies, [color:"FF0000"]“How can I bash this person right down into the ground in order to annihilate objections and differences?" [/color] (a quote from the article).

Fourth, Tom I appreciate your openness as a Baptist, to express your views at the risk of being hated, as I. Your courage in this matter is to be commended. Thank you brother. Additionally, to those who took up the fight to preserve the “whole truth” of the matter (Pilgrim, Wes, RJ, and the others that responded by e-mail) thank you for your integrity in the matter.

Lastly, I regret that the intent of my words in my original posts were misunderstood. I further regret that others reading these posts have to see this side of Christianity—unfortunately it does exist. But, where sin abounds, grace does much more abound. I for one need much grace, for my sins have much abounded. May God have mercy on all.

Reformed and Always Reforming,