Yup. Pcosmar seems a very positive well spoken man. I appreciate all of his posts.Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Gotcha. I usually concede evangelical "calvinists" the label Calvinist but not the label Reformed. Usually they want to claim both. But I realize that isn't technically accurate. Then again really "calvinist" is kind of an inaccurate word to begin with. Nobody really follows Calvin per say.
From what I understand George Whitefield was mostly solid (I don't remember the details on him) but I am uncomfortable with his tolerance of Wesley. I believe Wesley's errors were probably damnable, especially because I don't really have reason to believe Wesley was ignorant.
That's fine, get to it when you can.Anyway, it's good to be back, sorry I haven't gotten around to answering your question on that other thread, I've been burning the candle at both ends and haven't been spending that much time on this forum.
You aren't actually saying that sodomy and infanticide are sectarian issues are you? I'm assuming that's not what you're saying, I just want to clarify.
Calvinism and the Reformed Faith do not teach spiritual division among Christians, this should clue you in that Sola is teaching something distinct. Spiritual divisions only exist between the reprobate and the elect. The kind of divisions that you are thinking of are sectarian divisions, and those don't need to be promoted, they should be plain to anyone who walks into a meeting house and sees sodomy and infanticide being celebrated by the congregation.
Honestly, as many things as frustrate me about modern Presbyterianism (and I realize NC isn't a Presbyterian) this one is probably the worst. While I am not as strict as you in terms of who I'd be willing to fellowship/commune with, I cannot bring myself to take grape juice because it is NOT wine and I honestly even question whether it qualifies as the true sacrament or not (I suspect you would dogmatically state that it isn't.) And even if its irregularly valid (I am open to this) its very disrespectful and inexcuable in a context where it is easy to get wine.You have yet to demonstrate a single scripture that contradicts the two doctrines in question. In fact, you yourself tried to raise the notion of removing scriptures from their biblical context to a veritable art form in order to justify forbidding the biblical observance of Communion with wine, so you're not really one to talk on such things.
This may be the one point in this thread in which we disagree. Evangelicals tend to take Romans 13 to mean "obey the pagan magistrate" too. But I just can't reconcile this with Romans 13:3-4. Romans 13:3-4 says the reason for obeying is that the magistrate is not a terror to good conduct but to evil, etc.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that a magistrate needs to be absolutely perfect before we obey. I'm not even necessarily saying that the civil authority must be Christian (though I think we lack the right to choose those who are not Christians.) But the protecting of the righteous and punishment of the wicked is essential. If they are not doing that I would see obedience as, if justified at all, merely pragmatic for the sake of the spreading of the gospel, not a principled requirement. Romans 13 is prescriptive moreso than descriptive.)
Hold on a minute though. Doesn't God also command "all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)? Are the unregenerate capable of following this command? It seems to me that they are not. And if they are not, isn't your reasoning incorrect? (To be clear, I'm not actually agreeing with Sola, and you've certainly seen me stridently disagree with him on other issues.)The bible supports a synergistic view of Sanctification, the concept of sanctification itself presupposes a growing degree of cooperation by the New Man following his Justification and Adoption, hence why there are all these commands to follow the law and grow in grace through ongoing regeneration. You don't command something of people unless they have been imbued with the ability to carry out those commands.
How is the Savoy Declaration baptist?Nowhere in the history of the Reformed Churches did Calvin or his successors assert that Sanctification being synergistic is mistaken, this is an overreaction by Baptists following the Savoy Declaration when Arminianism began to creep into the Anglican Church.
Just curious, why are Romanists more appealing than evangelicals? Admittedly they both frustrate me but Romanists seem to usually be worse. And for all Sola's quirks he's comparatively good for "evangelicals." I view Arminians as not being Christians until proven otherwise (in some individual cases I would say it is proven otherwise due to a combination of genuine good fruit and ignorance.)I didn't want to get sucked into another back and forth with Sola because I know he and I are at an irreconcilable impasse. The same is also true for every "Evangelical" type on here. It's a sad thing to say but I'm starting to find the eventuality of arguing with Romanists a bit more appealing of late.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
This is the same thing that Pelagius said. This is the reason I don't identify myself with Calvinism anymore. Too many compromises with the world religion.You don't command something of people unless they have been imbued with the ability to carry out those commands.
So, then, if they uncompromisingly stick with and openly promote the unbiblical notion that Man is not able to know God, that Man is not capable to believing the Gospel, that Man is not capable of repenting, you're back in? Hm? Is that what you're saying, S_F? I mean, it's cool that you have a choice and whatnot but is that what you're saying? That you feel offended in the belief that Man is able to know God, that Man is capable to believing the Gospel, that Man is capable of repenting? If so, then why? Is it because you believe that some Christians are worthier than others? Does the Biblical record that Man is capable of these things somehow reduce your arbitrary staus as a special snowflake apart from other Christians?
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-22-2016 at 01:07 PM.
Man is not capable of believing the gospel because he is a slave to sin. Man is not able to know God because he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. Man is not capable of repenting because he is not able to please God.
All 3 of those are quotations of verses in the Bible. Do you know where they are?
Mhm. We've been over them before. It's the same old proof-texts over and over with you. Sometimes you don't always offer up all of the cookie-cutter proof-texts that I'd expect from trustees in Calvinism, though. Perhaps you're slipping. Or maybe you missed those. Hard to say. But the flesh is not the spirit, S_F. Not even if you consistently try to create that illusion out of scripture that it is. It isn't. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. These are two different ways to live. And God, by His own Word, knows the difference. God wants us to know Him. How many walls of scripture have you been shown where He has said this?
S_F, you can't take scripture that is in context with living in the flesh and give it universal meaning as if it's talking about living in the spirit. That's intellectual dishonesty. Well. That and false Gospel.
Anyway. It's late. I'm going to bed, man. I'll pray for you. That you may relinquish these spiritual demons which drive the spirit of division among Christians and come to know the true Word of God. The true Gospel. And ultimately God.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 11-22-2016 at 04:09 PM.
There is nothing in modern Presbyterianism requiring grape juice. My church has wine weekly, for example.
Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,--
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
as a technician... I am having trouble.... perchance. thou art help ?
unrighteousness. = sin.. and that is why I have trouble with the Godspell.
did I get it right?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Yes.as a technician... I am having trouble.... perchance. thou art help ?
unrighteousness. = sin.. and that is why I have trouble with the Godspell.
did I get it right?
And the most sinister of sin is not the evil stuff that we all know is evil. It's the seemingly religious sentiment that says "try to live a good life and God will accept you". This is the ultimate affront to the sacrifice of Christ.
The greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin, S_F.
Heck, everybody knows that.
I understand this. I've also been a member at an OPC that had wine weekly. I simply meant that this was common, not that it was universal. I apologize that I was unclear.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Actually it's clear that you disagree with yourself. One day you're okay with "suppressing open practice of false religion." The next it's only "suppressing open practice of false religion that's in violation of the law of Moses." And in doing so you put yourself in league with those who crucified Christ. I already quoted to you where Jesus, quoting the law of Moses where it said "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and saying those infamous words "But I say unto you if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn the other." Further Paul spent his entire evangelical life preaching against the idea that the law of Moses was even binding on Christians. God was going to put Moses to death for not circumcising his son. Yet Paul preached against the idea that converts had to be circumcised.
As for Calvin and Luther and infant baptism, that's been discussed on this forum multiple times. Here are some links.
http://www.wayoflife.org/database/pr...secutions.html
http://www.a-voice.org/tidbits/calvinp.htm
Lastly, Jesus spoke directly against the idea of "suppressing the open practice of false religion."
Matthew 10:13-15King James Version (KJV)
13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
Jesus' command was clear. Preach the word to all and let God deal with those who reject Him. Here's more from Jesus on the subject.
Luke 9:53-57King James Version (KJV)
53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.
54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?
55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.
56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.
Jesus couldn't have made it any clearer. He rebuked the evil spirit in the disciples that inspired them to violence against the open practice of false religion.
9/11 Thermate experiments
Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I
"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"
"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul
"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
You're probably right. No worries, mate.
Last edited by anaconda; 11-26-2016 at 05:57 AM.
and just what sir.. does that have to do with Scratch-n-sniff tattoos?
how else would you find them in the dark?
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
No it isn't, Pelagius was talking about all men born of Adam, whether converted or not, his assertion is that men can choose to sufficiently obey the law without having heard the Gospel. I'm talking specifically about the regenerate, aka those that are elect. This is where Particular Baptists miss the boat, they are so fixated on Justification at the expense of everything else that they have no consideration of what happens to the believer after his Justification, as he grows in faith.
There are no compromises with any other religion going on here, just a clear picture of all of scripture, as opposed to just those verses dealing with Justification. I will give you credit on one thing Sola, you have been considering more of scripture than most of others in this discussion, but you are still considering less than half of it.
Sectarianism crosses all groups claiming to follow the Gospel, including those who have mutilated it to the point of thinking that Jesus was indifferent to sodomy since he didn't make as many direct references to it as the OT and Pauline Epistles did. There are naturally differing degrees of sectarianism, but the PCUSA has a very degenerate view of both these issues, as has the Anglican Church, but institutionally they are still sectarian.
My point was not to obey a pagan magistrate in its paganism (this is what Evangelicals tend to do, thinking that God blesses the sins of illegitimate governments and that they should go jollily along the heathen path with them), but rather that if one is under a pagan magistrate and it is enforcing valid natural laws, that a Christian does not have license to break the law on the excuse that the government may not punish him. That's my understanding of Romans 13.This may be the one point in this thread in which we disagree. Evangelicals tend to take Romans 13 to mean "obey the pagan magistrate" too. But I just can't reconcile this with Romans 13:3-4. Romans 13:3-4 says the reason for obeying is that the magistrate is not a terror to good conduct but to evil, etc. Now, to be clear, I am not saying that a magistrate needs to be absolutely perfect before we obey. I'm not even necessarily saying that the civil authority must be Christian (though I think we lack the right to choose those who are not Christians.) But the protecting of the righteous and punishment of the wicked is essential. If they are not doing that I would see obedience as, if justified at all, merely pragmatic for the sake of the spreading of the gospel, not a principled requirement. Romans 13 is prescriptive moreso than descriptive.)
Was speaking specifically on the matter of Sanctification, ergo not talking about the reprobate or the unregenerate. The point was regarding whether or not God has actually adopted his elect and the spirit sanctifying them with the ability to grow in grace. Sola seems to be adept at confusing the issue by hanging on 2 or 3 of my words rather than trying to address the context of my entire statement, hence my growing preference to debating with Romanists on whether or not Rome was running the entire western church prior to the 8th century.Hold on a minute though. Doesn't God also command "all people everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30)? Are the unregenerate capable of following this command? It seems to me that they are not. And if they are not, isn't your reasoning incorrect? (To be clear, I'm not actually agreeing with Sola, and you've certainly seen me stridently disagree with him on other issues.)
The mode of church government it endorsed paved the way for the London Baptist Convention. For every respectable theologian that came out of Cromwell's cult of personality, there were dozens of directionless fanatics who were all too happy to confuse the Church of Scotland with the Papacy.How is the Savoy Declaration baptist?
People who are closer to the truth yet stubbornly attached to their remaining errors tend to inspire extreme frustration in me. In the time that I've been debating Christianity with others, I've found more people in the Roman Catholic Church willing to engage on the merits than I have space-case American Evangelicals who confuse the Christian Faith with getting high on life, let alone head-dunkers who think that shouting the same half dozen verses over and over passed for a comprehensive understanding of theology.Just curious, why are Romanists more appealing than evangelicals? Admittedly they both frustrate me but Romanists seem to usually be worse. And for all Sola's quirks he's comparatively good for "evangelicals." I view Arminians as not being Christians until proven otherwise (in some individual cases I would say it is proven otherwise due to a combination of genuine good fruit and ignorance.)
OK, I guess I just would not have considered the PCUSA to be Christian at all(thus I personally would not have chosen the word sectarian) but I know what you mean.
OK I'm with you there (though I'd probably understand natural law a bit differently than you do). But I don't think its a sin to break random and arbitrary laws, it may be unwise but its not a sin. For instance I don't believe someone is actually sinning by driving 60 in a 50 (assuming to do so is not endangering others) just because of what the sign says. I know even some non-evangelicals who would say you should obey things like that or else you are sinning according to Romans 13, but I don't personally believe that is the point. Romans 13 is only authorizing governments to punish the wicked, not to punish for things that are morally just or even adaiaphora.My point was not to obey a pagan magistrate in its paganism (this is what Evangelicals tend to do, thinking that God blesses the sins of illegitimate governments and that they should go jollily along the heathen path with them), but rather that if one is under a pagan magistrate and it is enforcing valid natural laws, that a Christian does not have license to break the law on the excuse that the government may not punish him. That's my understanding of Romans 13.
OK so you're just talking about sanctification, not fallaciously suggesting that God NEVER commands creatures to do things that they cannot do of themselves (which would clearly be unbiblical, again, given that man cannot circumcize his own heart, Deut 10:16). I honestly am not well enough studied on the monergistic/synergistic sanctification issue so I'll state that I'm not sure where I stand right now except to clearly state both that God gets the credit for any good we do and that we are fully responsible for any evil.Was speaking specifically on the matter of Sanctification, ergo not talking about the reprobate or the unregenerate. The point was regarding whether or not God has actually adopted his elect and the spirit sanctifying them with the ability to grow in grace.
I want to watch you have that debate with a CatholicSola seems to be adept at confusing the issue by hanging on 2 or 3 of my words rather than trying to address the context of my entire statement, hence my growing preference to debating with Romanists on whether or not Rome was running the entire western church prior to the 8th century.I tend not to be as knowledgeable on church history, baptists tend to neglect it.
OK yeah I see what you mean, though in my experience people who stridently hold to the Savoy tend to be more solid than LBCF supporters. In particular one I know would hold to theonomy, exclusive psalmody, strict RPW, no extra-Biblical holy days, and the Westminster position on the Lord's Day. I've never heard of a baptist who got all of those things right, though it wouldn't shock me if some exist. Admittedly it may be personal experience that leads me to by far prefer Savoy proponents over baptists.The mode of church government it endorsed paved the way for the London Baptist Convention. For every respectable theologian that came out of Cromwell's cult of personality, there were dozens of directionless fanatics who were all too happy to confuse the Church of Scotland with the Papacy.
Unfortunately there is some truth to this
People who are closer to the truth yet stubbornly attached to their remaining errors tend to inspire extreme frustration in me. In the time that I've been debating Christianity with others, I've found more people in the Roman Catholic Church willing to engage on the merits than I have space-case American Evangelicals who confuse the Christian Faith with getting high on life, let alone head-dunkers who think that shouting the same half dozen verses over and over passed for a comprehensive understanding of theology.Even in Calvinistic Baptist circles.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
The institutional office holders enforcing lawless church ordinances would not qualify as Christian, nor would members of the congregation openly and knowingly supporting said innovative ordinances. However, if the church has any remnant of faithful adherents to original Presbyterian standards, the institutional church itself can be viewed as at least nominally Christian, though obviously in a state of either being not peaceable or heterodox.OK, I guess I just would not have considered the PCUSA to be Christian at all
Natural Law is simply the Moral Law (which is codified in the Decalogue and reflected in the natural moral aspects of the OT Levitical Laws) as it pertains to what is understood through Light of Nature, ergo that which is lawful yet not reliant solely upon special revelation to be understood. A pagan government is wholly capable of enforcing capital punishment for murder, and likewise punish stealing, gross sexual misconduct and so forth, but is obviously not equipped to enforce blue laws regarding the 4th commandment or really deal with anything in the 1st Table of the Decalogue properly.OK I'm with you there (though I'd probably understand natural law a bit differently than you do). But I don't think its a sin to break random and arbitrary laws, it may be unwise but its not a sin. For instance I don't believe someone is actually sinning by driving 60 in a 50 (assuming to do so is not endangering others) just because of what the sign says. I know even some non-evangelicals who would say you should obey things like that or else you are sinning according to Romans 13, but I don't personally believe that is the point. Romans 13 is only authorizing governments to punish the wicked, not to punish for things that are morally just or even adaiaphora.
But yes, I would tend to agree with you on matters where the government is making things that are lawful illegal. For example, I would have fully supported every single church that resisted alcohol prohibition and would have encouraged any and all ministers of the faith to not only oppose, but openly ridicule temperance ministers trying to lobby the government to prohibit alcohol consumption.
That was the whole crux of my post, and this is not the first time that Sola has taken this position on Sanctification to mean that both Calvin and myself support Pelagianism. The basic point of sanctification is that it is a progressive restoration of the free will of man that was destroyed in The Fall, it can not occur prior to justification, but by the same token, sanctification always follows justification. The way that synergism works in a sanctification context is always in flux, as one's growth in faith is gradual and subject to progression and backsliding.OK so you're just talking about sanctification, not fallaciously suggesting that God NEVER commands creatures to do things that they cannot do of themselves (which would clearly be unbiblical, again, given that man cannot circumcize his own heart, Deut 10:16). I honestly am not well enough studied on the monergistic/synergistic sanctification issue so I'll state that I'm not sure where I stand right now except to clearly state both that God gets the credit for any good we do and that we are fully responsible for any evil.
I should state for sake of clarity that the works of sanctification do not earn one salvation nor are they counted as righteousness outside of Christ. The point is that the efficacious outcome of sovereign grace is a regenerating believer that becomes more capable of righteous obedience in Christ as his faith is worked out in fear and trembling. This was the exact position that Calvin inherited from Augustine, and Sola has likewise tended to eschew Augustine in spite of the fact that his theology was wholly derived from the Pauline Epistles.
Most of the time the debate centers upon whether church history is perpetually centered around the Roman patriarchal diocese or not. For example, I am of the opinion that the Celtic Church of the 2nd and 3rd century (which endured in both Ireland and Scotland until sometime in the 900s-1000s) to be wholly distinct from the Roman Church, and hence I hold the opinion that Scotland and Ireland historically held rights of autocephaly that would meet the orthodox concept of apostolic succession without the need of going through Rome, Constantinople, or any other patriarch to be re-approved. I don't believe that a church needs to have a direct connection to one of the 5 original patriarchal heads in order to be valid, but there is usually a link to the early church via a series of national covenants, and I would argue that the Solemn League and Covenant was a reaffirmation of the original sovereignty of the church of the British Isles.I want to watch you have that debate with a Catholic
Most variations on Romanism that I have debates will usually deny this history altogether, while others would argue that even if Ireland and Scotland had maintained an orthodox church independent of Rome, they still should have submitted to Roman authority and reforms.
Where did you get this idea?
Of course grape juice is wine, hence the word "grape" in its name.
Thank You. Agreed.
wine
[wahyn]
noun 1.the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wine?s=t
I've never had a glass of Welch's that meets this definition, good sir. BUT, one could convert it into wine thusly
That's the modern day definition of wine. In ancient days, the word wine did not always refer to the alcoholic beverage that comes to mind when we hear the word wine.wine
[wahyn]
noun 1.the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wine?s=t
I've never had a glass of Welch's that meets this definition, good sir. BUT, one could convert it into wine thusly
(Not to take this thread off topic... just sayin'.)
“I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”
― Henry David Thoreau
You cherry-picked one definition out of several to make it look like what I said wasn't true, and that from an English dictionary rather than a Greek one. And even at that you failed. You've actually never had a glass of Welch's that fails to meet that definition. Fermentation begins immediately. The only question is how much has occurred (N.B. an alcohol content of 0.1% is less than 14%, per your definition).wine
[wahyn]
noun 1.the fermented juice of grapes, made in many varieties, such as red, white, sweet, dry, still, and sparkling, for use as a beverage, in cooking, in religious rites, etc., and usually having an alcoholic content of 14 percent or less.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/wine?s=t
I've never had a glass of Welch's that meets this definition, good sir. BUT, one could convert it into wine thusly
So tell me, if you think grape juice doesn't qualify because the alcohol content in it is too little, what is the minimum level of alcohol you think God requires? And what's your basis for the number you pick?
Ya'll can count me firmly in the wine for communion camp.
I've seen grape juice gain popularity over the last several decade among Protestant sects, I however choose tradition over 'new and improved'...
(I won't drink out of those ridiculous plastic shot glasses either.)
That's because there is no such thing as "forcing belief." Even God's providential superintention of our beliefs is not "forcing belief." A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
But suppressing open practice of false religion is forcing a pretense of belief, which is what people mean when they call it forcing belief.
Support for that is satanic heresy. Jesus explicitly forbids it.
OK I see what you mean. In (say) the PCUSA this would mean that any congregations that are orthodox would qualify as churches, but the overarching authority is not Christian or legitimate.
Yes I see what you mean. Though in the case of pagan governments, they often ignore what they should know from natural revelation. For instance, that thievery should be punished with forced restitutuon and murder with death should be fairly obvious. But instead our wicked government punishes both with various degrees of prison.Natural Law is simply the Moral Law (which is codified in the Decalogue and reflected in the natural moral aspects of the OT Levitical Laws) as it pertains to what is understood through Light of Nature, ergo that which is lawful yet not reliant solely upon special revelation to be understood. A pagan government is wholly capable of enforcing capital punishment for murder, and likewise punish stealing, gross sexual misconduct and so forth, but is obviously not equipped to enforce blue laws regarding the 4th commandment or really deal with anything in the 1st Table of the Decalogue properly.
This is an excellent example. I really wish the churches in the RPCNA that weren't caught up in this nonsense would separate from those still caught up in the dark ages. "Temperance" is destructive of Christianity in so many different ways, both in a borderline blasphemous insinuation that God is not wise, and in corrupting the communion cup.But yes, I would tend to agree with you on matters where the government is making things that are lawful illegal. For example, I would have fully supported every single church that resisted alcohol prohibition and would have encouraged any and all ministers of the faith to not only oppose, but openly ridicule temperance ministers trying to lobby the government to prohibit alcohol consumption.
I'm sure Sola would consign Augustine to Hell. Oh well.That was the whole crux of my post, and this is not the first time that Sola has taken this position on Sanctification to mean that both Calvin and myself support Pelagianism. The basic point of sanctification is that it is a progressive restoration of the free will of man that was destroyed in The Fall, it can not occur prior to justification, but by the same token, sanctification always follows justification. The way that synergism works in a sanctification context is always in flux, as one's growth in faith is gradual and subject to progression and backsliding.
I should state for sake of clarity that the works of sanctification do not earn one salvation nor are they counted as righteousness outside of Christ. The point is that the efficacious outcome of sovereign grace is a regenerating believer that becomes more capable of righteous obedience in Christ as his faith is worked out in fear and trembling. This was the exact position that Calvin inherited from Augustine, and Sola has likewise tended to eschew Augustine in spite of the fact that his theology was wholly derived from the Pauline Epistles.
This is very informative, thank youMost of the time the debate centers upon whether church history is perpetually centered around the Roman patriarchal diocese or not. For example, I am of the opinion that the Celtic Church of the 2nd and 3rd century (which endured in both Ireland and Scotland until sometime in the 900s-1000s) to be wholly distinct from the Roman Church, and hence I hold the opinion that Scotland and Ireland historically held rights of autocephaly that would meet the orthodox concept of apostolic succession without the need of going through Rome, Constantinople, or any other patriarch to be re-approved. I don't believe that a church needs to have a direct connection to one of the 5 original patriarchal heads in order to be valid, but there is usually a link to the early church via a series of national covenants, and I would argue that the Solemn League and Covenant was a reaffirmation of the original sovereignty of the church of the British Isles.
Most variations on Romanism that I have debates will usually deny this history altogether, while others would argue that even if Ireland and Scotland had maintained an orthodox church independent of Rome, they still should have submitted to Roman authority and reforms.
I have (and would again) compromise on the ridiculous plastic shot glasses, as its a change of circumstance rather than element, but I still think its wrong and would encourage a church that does it to reform. Properly speaking it should be taken out of one common cup, which is what Jesus used. ("cup" is singular in the text.)
And for those who are saying grape juice qualifies as wine ,would you accept this technical argument if you sent someone to the grocery store asking for wine? If not, HOW DARE YOU accept it in a sacrament of Jesus Christ.
This is what drives me up a wall with [most] baptists, there's no respect at all for what Jesus actually instituted, worship is treated with less reverence than a common dinner party.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
No he doesn't, he upholds the righteousness of the Mosaic civil laws which support such suppression. OF course I'm on a libertarian board, so I don't expect much support for this point, but alas.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
The issue isn't the level of alcohol content, the issue is temperance churches spreading the lie that a certain level of fermentation is "the devil's drink" and thus they are prohibiting what is lawful. I've read the sermons of several early temperance ministers in the Methodist and Baptist movements in America (this crap goes back to the first half of the 1800s, not unlike Mormonism and other cult movements) and their insistence was that a certain degree of fermentation was considered "sinful", even though there is no way possible to utilize what you refer to as "0.1%" fermented alcohol using a common cup without spreading communicable diseases. When we get into those stupid little plastic individual cups, the entire concept of communion is completely gone.
The only reference of alcoholic beverages in the negative in scripture deals with a particular type of extremely fermented liquor derived from grain. This conversation already happened in a previous thread and it was thoroughly demonstrated that the term used for wine in reference to observing communion was not the exclusively fresh vintage that is fresh off the wine, which is what Welch's juice is.
The following sermon details what was going on in the early days of the temperance movement, and should put to rest the notion that temperance adherents are properly observing the sacrament.
Danger Of Being Over Wise
The Orthodox Church has always used wine (that is, what is commonly known as wine) in Holy Communion.
The wine is significant because it is a giving back to God. It is a gift, that is, an offering to God in thanksgiving.
The entire service of the Divine Liturgy is eucharistic, which come from the Greek word meaning 'thankful giving'.
Both the bread and wine is offered to God for Him to bless by His holy grace.
Notice, these are not things which just fall from a tree, like a ripe fruit.
Rather, to have bread and wine requires work. It requires sacrifice.
It requires planting and growing and sowing the wheat. Then, grinding the flour, and baking the bread.
So too, with wine, it requires planting and pruning and growing and picking. It requires time and a lengthy process.
It is an image of synergia, the Greek word meaning, synergy. Works are involved. Man is involved. This our thanksgiving to God. It is a work and movement of both God and man. And in fact, it doesn't come from one man, but rather a community of people- a church with members using their own gifts and God-given talents, of farmers, bakers, clergy et al. Servants of God and ne another.
And these gifts and sacrifice of work are offered to God in the Holy and Divine Liturgy. And God, by His lovingkindess and mercy, He offers Himself back. And not a mere part of Himself, but very God Himself.
For the Logos of God is our Manna from Heaven, the True Bread and True Drink from everlasting waters.
"And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst. But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. 40And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
41The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. 45It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. 46Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. 47Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life. 48I am that bread of life. 49Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever." (John 6:26-58)
This is divine communion, to share fully in the Word of God, so that through Him we find salvation as one body, with Christ as the Head. We partake of the divine nature. In the Holy service of the Lord's Supper, we enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, united with all the faithful who came before us, those beloved saints of God. Those whom He calls His brothers and His children.
It is the festive and celebratory meeting of Heaven and earth, in time and outside of time, local, and universal. It is the eschatological fullness while still laboring in this world and a taste of eternal blessedness. This is why the baptized faithful risked their lives to partake of the Holy Eucharist, for they experienced first hand the power and the grace of our loving God.
-----------
There is a caveat about the wine and bread: if no wine is possible or available because of hardship, then other ingredients can be used, for God is not limited by our own insufficiencies. Thus in the Soviet gulags, priests were using water or juice, and the Holy Spirit bloweth where He willeth.
So too, in baptism, sand or even air can be used in a dire emergency, when a person is near death and there is no available water.
But when water is nearby and there is time, use the water. And where there is wine which can be given and bread accessible, then use the correct gifts as Christ our Lord did.
Last edited by TER; 11-24-2016 at 07:33 PM.
+'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us