Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/14/2017 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. (Romans 7:9,10 ESV) When was Paul alive apart from the law? The only time I can think of when this would be true is when he was first born and didn't know the difference between right and wrong. He was guilty because of Adam's sin but that guilt simply meant that his body could die. Until he knew right from wrong he couldn't commit any sin that would subject him to eternal punishment. This belief doesn't contradict belief in God's election. It merely means that God has two methods of calling the elect. Some are allowed to sin and then repent and receive salvation. Some are taken from this world without having the opportunity to commit sin. Even before I accepted Calvinism I believed in the unconditional election of those who died in infancy.
  2. 2 points
    Doesn't being one of God's elect simply mean that God has chosen ahead of time all who will believe? The fruits of the Spirit / Holy Spirit that are evidence of the Holy Spirit's indwelling -- are love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, faithfulness, self-control ----- I don't see faith and repentance listed. Faithfulness is , but that's not the same as faith. Regeneration is what happens at the moment Of salvation. John 3:8 "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." -- In that passage Jesus is talking with Nicodemus regarding being born again. Nicodemus is confused about what being born again means. He thinks it's referring to being born from his mother's womb, again. And Jesus goes on to explain that a person has to be born physically First and Then can be 'born' of the Spirit. At the moment of salvation, the Holy Spirit comes to indwell the person. Sounds like you're using an obscure verse to build a belief on. The Ephesians 1;4 passage says 'with according to His pleasure and will." 1 John 5:13 -- that entire passage talks about "Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God." vs 13 I write these things o you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. Yes, God Does choose to His good pleasure and will -- and We don't have a clue as to who His chosen are. But we share the Gospel unto salvation will all -- we are Told to do that. I Do have confidence in my own personal salvation. Have had that assurance in my heart since I was a teenager. But a person Can know if he's of the group of the 'elect' of God .. If a person is seriously concerned about his Present standing with God, then, by all means talk to God about it. Make Sure of your salvation Now. There's no reason to fret and fume about it. If it's a member of your family or a friend -- by all means talk to that person in a caring, loving way. That you're concerned about their salvation or lack there of. Satan is the one who wants a person to fret about it. He wants us to put 'it' off until 'later'. We only have Now for sure.
  3. 2 points
    @William Let's take the most extreme example to illustrate my personal dilemma: A stillborn infant. For ANYONE else, I have no problem with the concept that we are all born with an "albatross around our necks" (literary reference to being under a curse). We are born with a magnet inside of us that pulls each of us irresistible and without exception towards sin. As a parent I can affirm that children do not need to be taught to sin, they are born with that innate ability ... the effort is years to teach them to obey the Law (to not take what they want, to treat others kindly, etc.). So for God to condemn to hell a 2 year old for his sin nature (innate hatred of God's way) and the sinful acts he has committed is harsh, but potentially JUST (only GOD knows all of the facts, so only GOD can render a truly just decision). Yet the stillborn infant case is different. The stillborn infant, logically speaking, had the same sin magnet inside of him/her. I am not arguing for any sort of innocence at birth. However, that stillborn baby had no opportunity to actually sin for themselves. To ETERNALLY DAMN one who has not actually committed a sin (or any other action) seems to tarnish the innate "GOODNESS" of GOD. I pointed to Ezekiel 18:20 not because I thought it was speaking about babies, but because it WAS speaking about GOD's innate JUSTICE and GOODNESS. To ETERNALLY DAMN a child exclusively for the sins of another (Adam) before he has had opportunity to sin him/her-self violates the JUSTICE of those verses. It is GOD's honor that I feel compelled to defend, not the baby's innate goodness. God is not UNJUST. God is not IMPOTENT. God is not EVIL. Does that make sense?
  4. 2 points
    @William So are you saying that all stillborn babies burn in Hell because they had neither the opportunity to be baptized into the Covenant nor a chance to repent on their own? Is that what scripture teaches? Is that what John Calvin teaches? (no wonder people say we Calvinists are mean.)
  5. 2 points
    You're side steping the question, the point is that murdering infants to send them heaven is an act of evil. You say we ought to support something that's one of the most heinous acts imaginable. Your comment was a slap in the face to the members here who believe as I do. I don't know why someone would be so against the possibility that our loving and merciful God would provide attonment to infants who haven't even made a choice to willfully sin.
  6. 2 points
    Hi fatimamazlouma, I'd like to welcome you to our forum and refer you to our statement of faith and rules. Please read the rules, and refrain from posting links to non-Christian websites. This is not an open religious forums, but a Christian website. Please keep to the Christian theme. No other warnings will be issued but a ban, because this is your third attempt at posting the same content which was removed for the 3rd time. You're a guest and at this point welcome, however, you will abide by our rules or your welcome and account will be terminated. On a personal note, if it is your attempt to bend or change a Christian's perception about Islam, especially during a Christian genocide, I recommend you post your material in Islamic extremist websites, or moderate Islamic sites in order to acquire more following to gain support for a cause in which Muslims take responsibility for extremist's doctrine. I find it rather distasteful that you come into a Christian site and attempt to alter a Christians perception of an ideological cause that is leading to the murder of men, women and children, not to mention torture, slavery and rape. William
  7. 1 point
    by Scott MacIver “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering” (Hebrews 10:23) The Presbyterian Church in Scotland has long associated itself with a Confession of Faith as its subordinate standard, so much so that Scottish Presbyterianism and Confessionalism have gone hand in hand. The Scots Confession of 1560 (co-authored by John Knox) had been the accepted confession of faith of the Scottish Church up until the time of the famous Westminster Assembly, from which the Westminster Confession of Faith we know today was published in 1646. That said, it is entirely legitimate to ask the question, “Should we have a confession of faith?” The fact that, historically speaking, we have always had a confession of faith isn’t sufficient in and of itself to answer that question. Objections to a Confession of Faith There have been a number of objections made which would call into question the place for a confession of faith in the church today. It is not uncommon to hear statements made by believers along the lines of “no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.” On the surface such a comment would seem to carry weight particularly, as some would say, in the light of the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). However, there are several problems which become apparent when analysing the above. First of all, “no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible,” is in itself a creed, as a creed is merely a statement of belief. Furthermore any time we in conversation begin to explain the meaning of a particular text of Scripture we are of necessity making a confession. It is necessary that we make clear exactly what it is we believe. It is not enough to simply say that we believe in God. Which God do we believe in? The answer will no doubt be given as “the God of the Bible,” yet there are many who claim to believe in the God of the Bible with entirely contrasting views one to the other. We all have a creed or confession irrespective of whether or not it is formed into a confessional document. There is an assumption bound up in the statement “no creed but Christ, no book but the Bible” that those who formed the creeds and confessions didn’t base these documents on the Bible. Nothing could be further from the truth, as the inclusion of scripture proof texts in such documents makes clear. Moreover Sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture is the only authoritative source of divine revelation, in opposition to the Roman Catholic view of Scripture plus the tradition of the Church. Therefore Sola Scriptura should in no way lead us to the understanding that we are to avoid the interpretation of Scripture and summary of the faith that we find in the creedal and confessional statements. It has been suggested that a confession of faith only serves to make a human composition a standard of faith over and above the Bible thus inhibiting the liberty of the Church and dictating what we are to believe. In response to this we can reply that Reformed churches have never considered a confession of faith as an infallible document as we do the Scriptures but as a subordinate standard which summarises the main doctrines of the Bible. Finally subscription to a confession of faith is always on a voluntary basis. Reasons for a Confession of Faith Having considered the objections, what would be the positive reasons for the use of a confession of faith in the Church? Firstly, confessions of faith are often found in Scripture. For instance the apostle Paul states, “I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that He was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:1-5). Secondly, a confession of faith promotes truth and refutes error, as the apostle sought to do: ‘If anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what that you have received, let him be accursed’ (Galatians 1:9). Some people in Paul’s day professed to believe and even preach the gospel but in reality it amounted to a false gospel. It is always necessary to make distinctions between truth and error. Thirdly, history has attested to confessions of faith as a means of witnessing the faith to others. This is seen both in the days of the apostles, ‘Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering,’ (Hebrews 10:23) and from the Early Church onwards. For instance, Irenaeus was a church leader in the second century who heard Polycarp, who himself had been taught by the apostle John. Irenaeus encountered false teaching within the Church and as a result developed a statement of faith in order to affirm a number of truths. Therefore within a matter of years of the closing of the canon of Scripture, statements of faith were being developed. Fourthly, a confession of faith is an aid to teaching doctrine to the Church. When the Church is being faithful, the doctrines of Scripture will be taught from the pulpit and the preaching will conform to the confession with which it associates itself. Those who are convicted of these truths by the aid of the Holy Spirit who ‘will teach you all things’ (John 14:26) will in turn be diligent in further study of these doctrines to which a confession of faith can be of great assistance. Helpfully some congregations hold regular confession of faith classes where the confession can be studied and discussed informally to complement that which is preached from the pulpit. Finally, a confession of faith fosters unity. Critics claim quite the contrary and would point to particular instances where they maintain that confessions of faith were responsible for actually dividing the Church. However in reality the problem isn’t confessions of faith as such but those who subscribe to them dishonestly and therefore fail to hold to them in practice or those who change their minds yet continue to hold office without withdrawing from their original commitment. It is difficult to conceive of a denomination that could remain of one accord whilst holding to opposing views on the main doctrines of Scripture. A confession of faith provides a meeting point for like-minded Christians who honestly hold to and practice what they profess, in order to maintain ‘the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace’ (Ephesians 4:3). Source: http://www.hebrideanoutpost.com/2017/07/11/why-a-confession-of-faith/#more-229
  8. 1 point
    [ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","title":"a046500c03becb6f99d6db2cf6dc2edc.jpg","data-attachmentid":57105}[/ATTACH]
  9. 1 point
    Exactly,because they did not take him literally. They understood he spoke in a figurative sense.Paul believes it in the same sense the other apostles do.
  10. 1 point
    @Fidelis ad Mortem The Apostles were Jews and the idea of someone giving them their physical body and blood was unlawful as well as repulsive. Jesus used figurative language often. I am the door, I am the true vine, I am the good shepherd. Elsewhere he is referred to as the Sun of Righteousness and we are told our God is a consuming fire. We don't literally mean that God is fire or a blowtorch a plant or a piece of wood. We must use language the way Scripture uses it. We feed on the body and blood of Christ spiritually not physically.
  11. 1 point
    Very good, and that ties things back into the OP topic of "bearing fruit". Nice
  12. 1 point
    Amen, they shall be filled with the same which are by Jesus Christ Phil 1:11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God And, John 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples The fruit of the Spirit Ephes 5:9 For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth The briefer version
  13. 1 point
    Yes, we are to labor for the meat that does not perish, and the drink that if a man drinks he shall never thirst again. Matthew 5:6 "Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
  14. 1 point
    Yep, the Living waters are also shown as a spiritual drink. 1 Corinthians 12:13 "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Corinthians 10:4 "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Swishing it around, I like that. Peace
  15. 1 point
    Sola Scriptura (“Scripture alone”): The Bible alone is our highest authority. Sola Fide (“faith alone”): We are saved through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Sola Gratia (“grace alone”): We are saved by the grace of God alone. Solus Christus (“Christ alone”): Jesus Christ alone is our Lord, Savior, and King. Soli Deo Gloria (“to the glory of God alone”): We live for the glory of God alone. SOLA SCRIPTURA SOLA FIDE AND SOLA GRATIA SOLUS CHRISTUS SOLI DEO GLORIA Which of these 'solas' does Jesus Christ, God the Father and the Holy Spirit find objectionable and contrary to the message Jesus taught when He was on the earth? Contrast that with the steady drift of the RCC from the Gospel that Jesus spoke to the current system that is pondering the role of Mary, Queen of the Universe as co-Redemptrix (likely to become Dogma within our lifetime). Which is the true "man-made" doctrine and which is the "God breathed" revelation of Scripture? (That is how I would respond to that claim).
  16. 1 point
    Protestantism is biblical Christianity, the claim that a doctrine is man made is thrown around loosely, any doctrine could be called a doctrine of man. Yet Roman Catholicism is fueled by solely man made doctrines. For example: intercession to Christ though Mary all started with a dream a Bishop had, even though Scripture tells Christ is the only way to the Father and makes on mention of Mary as a part of salvation, making it a false doctrine, making the Roman Catholic church apostate.
  17. 1 point
    That's alright, I like it when others confirm their beliefs by the words of God. Peace and God bless
  18. 1 point
    Though sin can effect the body by sickness, disease, and death (wage of sin is death) H20 water cannot cleanse the insides (heart/mind) of the sin nature working in our first man. It is the Living waters of God's Word and Spirit that washes our insides and by which we being also born again of the Spirit we are then made a new creature in Christ. Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
  19. 1 point
    Exactly, and just like here it shows the Holy Ghost came upon them before they were commanded (after that) to be water baptized as is shown here (verse 44 onward after showing the context) Acts 10:34- 48 When Cornelius sent to Simon Peter it says, [34] Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: [35] But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. [36] The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) [37] That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; [38] How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him. [39] And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: [40] Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; [41] Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead. [42] And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead. [43] To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. [44] While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. [45] And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. [46] For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. [47] Then Peter answered, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? [48] And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days. So there is where they received the Holy Ghost as the circumcision was given but before being baptized in water (shown in verse 47 where Peter said, "Can any man forbid water"?) and in verse 48 shows Peter commanding them (those who received the Holy Ghost) to be baptized in that manner, whereas John had the Holy Ghost from the womb (who also forbad Christ at the first) who also acknowledged his need to be baptized by Christ Matthew 3:14 When Jesus was coming out to John for water baptism [14] But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? So I suppose one could say what did the baptism of repentance do for Jesus, he didnt need to even repent of anything, and why did John need to be baptized of Jesus if he already had the Holy Ghost while baptizing others with water? Unless that has more to do with fire. Regardless of which we can see the Gentiles who also had the Holy Ghost were commanded by Peter to be baptized by water as the same is mentioned there as with the Enuch in Acts 8:36 (which said) they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? Johns baptism (with Jesus coming out to him as he did) was so that he might be made manifest to Israel being also somewhat of a marker, but does show that whether it was John or Jesus or even the Gentiles whether or not they had the Holy Ghost submitted to the water baptism (whether beforehand or afterward) in these. God bless you, Peace
  20. 1 point
    ... and I heard the Bishops wear those tall hats to cover up their horns. [just kidding] Welcome to CF. I hope you have some thick skin, because this is a Reformed Prostestant dominated site. This does not mean that EVERYONE here hates you and thinks that your mother dresses you funny, but the reality is that the vast majority WILL disagree with what you believe. For the record, I first heard the GOSPEL from Catholic Charismatics, but could never get aboard with all the Mary 'veneration' that sure felt a lot like worship to this ex-atheist turned brand new Christian. So I got no hate for the RCC, but I do think that the RCC got some of the details seriously wrong. Now to answer the question with a joke: Q. How many legs does a cow have? A. Four. Q. If we say that a cow's tail is a leg, then how many legs does a cow have? A. Five? Q. Wrong, four. Just because we say that a cow's tail is a leg, does not make it so. Same thing with the bread and wine. We are big on Sola Scriptura ... if the Bible said it, then it is true and we believe it and we needed to know it. If the Bible doesn't teach that, then it is either not true or not essential to salvation. I would welcome your pointing to where the Bible teaches that the bread and wine became the literal flesh and blood of Jesus Christ. I'll offer you some starting points to think about that show why protestants have a problem with that view: Matthew 26:26-29 NASB 26 While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and [fn]after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.” Mark 14:22-25 NASB 22 While they were eating, He took some bread, and [fn]after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.” 23 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” Luke 22:14-20 NASB 14 When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15 And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16 for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” 17 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18 for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” 19 And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. 1 Corinthians 11:23-16 NASB 23 For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. From the three Gospels, note that Jesus was standing there, fully intact, and made reference both before and after offering his "body" and "blood" to the bread and wine. It was wine before he proclaimed it "My blood of the new covenant" and it was still wine after they drank it and Jesus said "I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine". From Corinthians, Paul affirms that they are in fact eating "bread" and drinking "wine" in remembrance of Jesus and to proclaim Jesus' death until he comes. Above and beyond the fact that no one recorded any comment that they were eating human (or God-man) flesh and drinking blood ... which SOMEONE should have mentioned, since that is a significant detail to overlook ... there are verses that state that they COULD NOT have drunk human blood: Genesis 9:4 NASB Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Leviticus 3:17 NASB It is a perpetual statute throughout your generations in all your dwellings: you shall not eat any fat or any blood.’” Leviticus 7:26-27 NASB ‘You are not to eat any blood, either of bird or animal, in any of your dwellings.‘ Any person who eats any blood, even that person shall be cut off from his people.'” Drinking blood is a violation of God's covenant with Noah and the Law in Leviticus. In offering blood to drink, Jesus would have sinned and NOT been the perfect sacrifice. Leviticus 6:30 NASB ‘But no sin offering of which any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place shall be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. Was Jesus the sin offering for Mankind or not? If so, He is not to be eaten (according to the Law). Did Jesus violate the Law of God? Leviticus 17:10-14 10 ‘And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ 12 Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘No person among you may eat blood, nor may any alien who sojourns among you eat blood.’ 13 So when any man from the sons of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, in hunting catches a beast or a bird which may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth. 14 “For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, ‘You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.’ So did Jesus (and do the Catholic Priests) lead the people into an action that requires God to "set his face against them" and cut them off from the people of God? Not much of a savior if he does.
  21. 1 point
    Water baptism should not be left undone, as Jesus said it was done to him by John to fulfill all righteousness. But scripture shows the Holy Spirit can be given before and even after water baptism is performed. As in Acts 19:1-6 the Holy Spirit was given after water baptism, and here in Acts 10:47 the Holy Spirit came before water baptism. Acts 10:47 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?"
  22. 1 point
    As for the quote by Professor Hawking, that he is a brilliant man is undoubted, but he is also an avowed atheist, which puts him at a great disadvantage where "spiritual" knowledge and truth are concerned (because as a non-Christian/"natural man" he has no ability to understand things the things of God, because the things of God must be spiritually appraised). First and foremost, "the greatest obstacle to theological discovery" is the closemindedness and ignorance that exists among all who are not born again .. e.g. 1 Corinthians 2:12-16; cf 1 Corinthians 1:18. --David
  23. 1 point
    Hi FastFredy0, just to be clear, "My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so" is used as an example of "circular reasoning" by Dr. Grudem (in 3 of his books actually) when he discusses circular reasoning and why it's not true of the Bible. It is NOT a quote that is personally his, nor is it something that he believes is true (Dr. Grudem would hardly state/believe that his own reason is his ultimate authority). Thanks for getting back to me about the origin of the top two quotes. I'm glad to know that neither of them are ones you wrote! --David p.s. - I would be happy to post an excerpt from Grudem's Systematic Theology if anyone would like to read the above quote in the context that it's written in. Just let me know.
  24. 1 point
    If you are born again of the Spirit then you have received the one baptism that brings us into the body of Christ by the Spirit. But not all receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit before being water baptized. The water baptism is called the baptism of repentance, but some receive the Holy Spirit afterward, as is shown below.... [h=1]Acts 19:1-6[/h] 19 And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, 2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
  25. 1 point
    Ritual, superstition, and self-salvation. That sums up the Roman Church. On top of that, yes, they practice cannibalism. .
  26. 1 point
    I know all the elect go to heaven, but what biblical evidence do you have that 'some children (let's say under 12 months) are elect'? I don't know of any biblical characteristics of elect (i.e. faith, hearing the word, repentance ...) that can be observed in babies. Aside: I am for (which does not mean I believe) everyone going to heaven, but my vote counts for nothing.
  27. 1 point
    Yes, that's what I'm talking about. It looks a little different in Logos, but it's the same idea. I think the content for the interlinear has to be built into the bible you're using, so that explains why it only works with one and not others. Here's what I see:
  28. 1 point
    Aside: I did not start this topic. Someone moved a post from another subject and created a topic. So the title "Can God Be" is not my creative.
  29. 1 point
    Oh, I write things down that intrigue me when I come across them. I am not nearly so cleaver as to be original and pensive. I did a google search... Wayne A. Grudem wrote "My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so" in Systematic Theology "The greatest obstacle to theological discovery is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge; the conviction that you already have it" appears to be written by either Stephen Hawking or the Librarian of the U.S. Congress Daniel J. Boorstin
  30. 1 point
    Possibly connecting the two with a "for" sheds light .... though the connection is of my manufacturing. The greatest obstacle to theological discovery is not ignorance but the illusion of knowledge; the conviction that you already have it For My reason is my ultimate authority because it seems reasonable to me to make it so
  31. 1 point
    If you follow their doctrine to its logical conclusion yes that would be a charge some have brought against them. Since it is a false doctrine in reality they are not.
  32. 1 point
    Yes every congregation has a creed whether they admit it or not. To say no creed but the bible really says nothing. Russellites (JW) Mormons and any other aberrant cult can make the same claim. Obviously they do not believe the Bible says what orthodox Christians do. The one danger I always caution against(and there is need to caution against) is not to look at Scripture through the lens of our confessions but rather let us look at our confessions through the lens of Scripture
  33. 1 point
    What Is that one way to believe? Jesus Christ says that "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father, but by Him." John 14:6. In the Jewish religion -- a boy becomes a man at age 13. But that wouldn't mean that he doesn't have the ability to distinguish right from wrong until he's 13 ys. old. And that's what's necessary -- a baby up to early childhood can't tell right from wrong. A child --a person Needs to be able to recognize his own sin as such before he /she can repent of it.
  34. 1 point
    I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church, which has a horrible track record of actually teaching the doctrines to which it holds (which is probably one reason they are so apostate now). When I moved away from my parents' house back on 97 I did continue to attend church, but it was a non-denominational, as I felt, at the time, the creeds, confessions, catechisms, etc... were a distraction. I just wanted to study the word. Well, a handful of years later I got married and was attending an Assembly of God church. Periodically, we would visit my wife's family in San Diego who attended a PCA church. After a few years periodically visiting them and attending their church I started seeing these old doctrines I actually grew up with. Things started clicking. And I started to discover the real need for confessions. They do keep a congregation, as well as a denomination, focused on what they should believe, and not get distracted by "ear tickling" preachers with no real confession or creed by which they summarize their theology.
×
×
  • Create New...