Mike wrote:
I'm thinking of the colonial Puritans in two unchristian contexts- the way they dealt with Quakers, and the way they dealt with those who were feebly accused of witchcraft.

In the context of the English Puritans we have something similar in the treatment by the majority of minority sects like the Quakers and Baptists.

The case of the Colonial Puritans is sad indeed because the majority were Congregationalists fleeing persecution in England! I know it is not the same generation you are talking about, but shame that their children were so quick to deny to others the very liberties secured to them by their fathers!

But if we accept that they were men of their times (on the whole the best of that time) who were still trying to get to grips with the whole issue of toleration from a doctrinal POV (which they had never had to consider before) and overlook such weaknesses then they were certainly very Godly men!

Mike wrote:
Chris, ....Puritanism...as most religious groups, thought themselves Godly even when they were not.

Care to shed some more light on this bro Mike? Are you referring specifically to the English puritans? If so, what particularly makes you think that they were not Godly?

Your statement about gleaning the good grain and casting aside the chaff would apply to all writings other than the Bible.

Unprofitable Servant wrote:
....hope you have lots of time for reading it, it took Gurnall 30 years to preach it..

[URL=http://www.calvarywf.org/sites/default/files/resources/The_Whole_Armour_Of_God_Part_Two_by_William_Gurnall.pdf]]]Vol 2[/URL]

Hope you have a better day today.

Just a short postscript to the Puritans.

Christopher000 wrote:
I appreciate your posts, whether to me or others.
Anyway, so what's a Puritan?

If you don't know about the Puritans, then you are in for a real treat with most of their writings!!

The Puritans were English Anglicans the majority of whom were booted out of the Anglican church in 1662. These guys suffered real hardships for Christ because they wanted to purify the Anglican church of all things Romish and make it more biblical.

Their writings are excellent doctrinal and experimental (dealing with Christian experience) works. They were all Pastors and so knew what was termed the 'cure of souls'.

Most of their works are now available as free downloads on the web, which is great because in years gone by they were very difficult to obtain.

After you have finished Brooks, you might wish to try the following 2 volume work by a puritan named William Gurnall on The Christian's Armor:

[URL=http://www.calvarywf.org/sites/default/files/resources/The_Whole_Armour_Of_God_Part_One_by_William_Gurnall.pdf]]]Vol 1[/URL]

John UK wrote:
Watchman, know that you are greatly appreciated.
Yes, it is a bit late here, and I must turn in, as it is now 12.25am.

Greatly appreciate your posts too John.

John UK wrote:
Maybe a better expression would be a climate of intolerance, where the truth is not acceptable, but everything else is.

The Spirit of lawlessness and Anti-Christ is abroad!

What's the time difference between EST and GMT? I am guessing its quite late where you are!

Rufus wrote:
Watchman, I believe this is a portion of what is being referred to in Luke 6. Many folks preaching against Rome but they have not yet shaken Rome from their own walk.

You may consider this a valid use of the principle taught in Luke 6.42. I DO NOT, because the reference is to "a brother" and you are assuming that a Roman Catholic is such. This merely begs the question!

Your original point was that Christians bring forth good and bad fruit and my question to you was what in that case did the Lord mean in verses 43-45? You have failed to address this.

Christopher000 wrote:
When people temporarily change their names though, or the hit and runners stop by to assault me (and others), simply for posting facts, that's when I tend to take a turn, although I guess I shouldn't.

Have you ever read a little puritan book by Thomas Brooks entitled "Precious Remedies against Satan's devices?" If you have not, I would highly recommend it. It is a perfect gem!

John UK wrote:
..Climate of toleration? Yes, it is..

Now Tolerance means that we have to accept that the 2 ideologies are equally valid even though they may be completely contradictory!

This is not Tolerance. It is intellectual suicide!

Christopher000 wrote:
Would anyone disagree that praying to another god will ensure their eternal destruction if they don't repent and come to the living God?
Roman Catholics pray to Mary and many saints. How is this any different than praying to a false god?

Hope you're feeling a little better.

I agree with you entirely. This is one of the glories of Christianity. That all believers are priests and can come directly before God the Father through Jesus Christ who is the only mediator.

To interpose any other mediator insults Christ as well as sets up idols for worship.

chuck it overboard wrote:
....."descended into Hell"

As for the Roman Catholic church, though the corruptions in the early church started fairly early on, Rome was not then the controlling church nor the Bishop of Rome viewed as anything special. With time this changed and once Rome and the bishop of Rome had any kind of Primacy, the corruptions grew apace.

Rufus wrote:
I will answer you if you first answer this. Can someone have their works burned and yet still be eternally saved?

Now look at Matt 5.16, Eph 2.10, 2 Tim 3,17, Heb 10.24, 1 Pet 2.12 and pay careful attention to good works and what part they play in the Christian life. These are the works that James has in mind when he says in effect that though we are saved by faith alone yet faith is never alone! Any person who claims to be a genuine believer but whose life is devoid of such good works and the fruit of the Spirit is deluded!

America wrote:
Go from the presence of a foolish man,when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.
Proverbs 14:7
Seems to fit SteveR perfectly.

Rufus wrote:
We ought to inspect fruit for the purpose of determining if one is a false prophet, whether your going to fellowship with someone or how you might teach or preach to someone etc.
However, there are believers that have good fruit and believers that have bad fruit and all areas in between. Their fruit does not determine their eternal salvation condition. Their work can be burned yet they are saved...
1 Corinthians 3:15 - If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
As examples...
There are believers who have trouble with gluttony, even pastors that not only have problems with the sin but joke about it from the pulpit. I don't think them to be not saved, I think them to be in trouble with the Lord.
I quit going to churches for a time because the women seem to have significant challenges with lasciviousness. Doesn't mean they are not saved, just means they are not walking right.

If believers can bring forth good fruit and bad, what was the Lord's point in Luke 6.43, 44?

John UK wrote:
My, my, let's hear about this one, please.
And OPC stands for...?

Rufus wrote:
You gentleman...are forwarding a doctrine of men.

Matt 3.8 Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance

The fruit in one’s life indicates the goodness or corruption of it

Matt 7.17 ....every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit

Genuine faith always produces works

James 2.14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

James 2.17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone (mental assent to the truth is not saving faith!)

How can we be sure that we/others are genuinely converted?

I John 1.6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth

1 John 2.3,4 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

1 John 2.10,11 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

Rufus wrote:
You gentleman that propose that someone has to show they are saved by their deeds are forwarding a doctrine of men. Eternal salvation is by belief in the shed blood of Jesus Christ, plus nothing, minus nothing and only by the blood.

Is that sentence not arrogant?

John UK wrote:
The only conclusion I can come to is that SteveR is a Romanist.

Notice how he has failed to back up any allegation he has made!

Notice too how he despises the doctrines at the heart of the gospel? Justification, substitutionary sacrifice, imputation, faith, repentance etc don't matter. All one needs is some sort of sentimental gushy love towards God together with a delusional assurance that God also loves me and BINGO you're saved!!

No wonder he believes that there are millions of 'saved' individuals in the RCC.

One wonders why Christ spoke of a narrow way? Did he know what he was talking about? Why were the epistles written to preserve right belief if none of it matters in salvation? Maybe SteveR should have been there in an advisory capacity so that the Holy Spirit could have avoided such blatant errors!!

Also why was Christ so critical of the Pharisees etc Surely he knew that there were the elect among the Pharisees and Saducees?! What a poor example by the Head of the Church!!

John UK wrote:
It is a shame that the RCC anathematises me rather than accepts me as a true child of God. I take it from what you say, that you do not believe I am a child of God?

Do you not find it interesting that SteveR considers anyone evil for speaking out against the RCC false religion on the grounds that it may have some of God's elect. By analogy we should then not speak out against any erroneous movement in case God should have his elect in that movement.

But then it gets worse because he considers the RCC a Christian church!! The appointed Bride of Christ according to him! This is wilful ignorance of the worst kind.

We are evil for speaking out against the dogmas of an evil false religion that has the blood of millions of true believers in the Lord Jesus on its hands and prounounces anathemas against all true believers!! We're the evil ones?!!!!

Christopher000 wrote:
JY obviously isn't familiar, but Steve knows his stuff and that is what tears at me because I can't wrap my head around the logic...

There is no logic in spiritual blindness and from what I have read of SteveR's posts, I see little to support your assertion that he understands the Scriptures any more than JY.

Christopher000 wrote:
......what's the point...deaf ears.
Boy, oh boy. Crazy.

Its the spiritual condition of the natural man (as opposed to the spiritual man). It does not mean that they cannot understand it - often unbelievers have a better grasp of theology than believers - the point is that they account it foolishness! And that is why they reject it. (1 Cor 2.14)

So, as tempting as it is to get frustrated and perhaps even angry, we have to remind ourselves that we were once like that too and were it not for the grace of God we would still be in darkness.

When interacting with those who are blind we should rather speak with compassion and kindness, unless of course they happen to come on here wishing to teach their errors when we have to be firmer and maybe also rebuke. There are a couple of characters on here who claim to worry about the elect, as though God cannot take care of his own and needs their help, who, as someone has pointed out seem to care very little, if at all, for the genuine believes who post here, who certainly fall into this latter category.