|
|
USER COMMENTS BY BIBLICIST |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 6 · Found: 167 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
7/14/09 5:00 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: Their aim, Mike is to provide the world with the best possible scriptures. Their ongoing translation work on behalf of other countries takes into account the language in current use. If the NKJV had excelled the AV in its translation, then maybe the organisation would indeed have ceased producing the AV in favour of the NKJV. But it is a plain fact that 100 different translations of the Bible in English from 1881 to the present day have never come close to bettering the AV, which is why they are committed to it. Does it not strike you as odd that 'modern scholarship' cannot improve on the AV? Or at least have not done so yet? And while I'm at it, why is it that if the AV is defective only in its use of archaic language, why has no-one yet produced ONE BIBLE where the only changes are to these archaic words? If you can answer this question, you have sussed out the wiles. The Defined King James Bible explains all archaisms and also has a grammar guide. |
|
|
7/14/09 4:31 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: Remember he limits God's sovereignty by determining what God will do with it. Thus the either-or scenario. To our friend, if God is sovereign, man must be an ox. Even an ox has a will! But I guess the retort will be this too is predetermined ! |
|
|
7/14/09 10:50 AM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: Unfortunately, there are "history" books that can tell us what we want to believe. I guess we can have itching eyes as well as ears. Thus we must in the first place rely on the Holy Spirit to reveal truth in the Scripture we read, and rely less on our assumptions about it. That begs the question of whether we have the Scripture in the first place! |
|
|
7/14/09 10:19 AM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Presbyfacts wrote: 1] Total Depravity - Man in his natural estate and cannot make any spiritual decision towards God. Is his hatred and rejection of God not a decision? Or are you saying there is nothing spiritual about this? How do you define "spiritual"?Presbyfacts wrote: 2] Unconditional Election - God perceives nothing in all mortals worthy of saving. If that is the case, then why bother making man in the image of God and why go to the lengths which he did in order to save men?Presbyfacts wrote: 3] Limited Atonement - Jesus died only for the elect of God chosen before the world began. And that is why the Gospel comes to "all men" "everywhere" (Acts 17:30) with the command to repent ? Presbyfacts wrote: 4] Irresistible Grace - God alone draws people to Christ. There is nothing in the mortal to prevent this and mans decision about it, either way, is irrelevant. You were an automaton in your salvation?! What do you suppose "faith" is if not something exercised by men? And why is salvation **"by faith"** through grace? Out of space. |
|
|
7/14/09 4:07 AM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Faithful Remnant wrote: Pouring or falling of a substance is a legitimate baptism, Biblicist(See Acts 11:15,16)... household baptisms.. many households include infants and the promise of the Holy Spirit is for our children(Acts 2:38,39). You asked me a while back to deal with the day of Pentecost and I replied 7/10/09 7:10 PM. Since Acts 11.15,16 states that, "..the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning" then the reference is back to Acts 2. So my prev. reply stands.Re: household baptisms - how dare you are a professed Christian take such liberties with the Word of God! Where the scriptures are silent, you dare not draw conclusions that may suit your purpose, but which do violence to the text. If you want to prove to me from those scriptures that they invariably included babies, then by all means let's see your homework. But, if we are going to be silly about this, I could also say that most households have pets of the furry variety. Maybe they too were baptised. Re: Acts 2.38,39 the promise is very clearly stated in verse 38. The promised blessings are the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Ghost. But, these would only be granted upon repentance!! So how exactly does a baby repent? Is there a special cry of remorse |
|
|
7/13/09 8:08 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Presbyfacts wrote: Try and remember that we are not Roman Catholics...Sacrament-baptism is a SIGN not actual grace! So don't be afraid of the word Sacrament. Thats why we call it "sign and seal" of the Covenant. The Reformers were Roman Catholic before the Reformation. The issue is did they go far enough in the Reformation? Did they discard all vestiges of Romanism?In the case of Infant Baptism, though they pay lip service to it being a sign and a seal, they retained the word "sacrament" to describe the rite (The meaning of the word had long been established by the schoolmen), and since infants cannot exercise faith, any virtue received by them from this rite has to be mechanical, and therefore "sacrament" is the correct terminology for it! They also retained the RC sacral view of society, "infant" baptism (as a result of this sacral view) and sprinkling as the mode, which are all Roman practices with no support in the Scriptures! You can bleat all you want, but the idea of the covenant with Abraham, and covenant children etc was a late innovation to try and justify the retention of the rite as Rome practised it, in the face of mounting criticisms from the Anabaptists and other groups in the radical reformation. |
|
|
7/13/09 4:40 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Presbyfacts wrote: You really should not LIE to achieve your ends. Satan is the father of lies. It would be a far more Christian witness if you didn't fully understand a word or concept to either leave it to others or ask! If you want to win friends and influence Christians then lying is not the way. In point of fact it is more YOUR type of Arminian influence to believe in a "mechanical" transmission of grace. I cannot help it if you are ignorant, but if you wish to be educated then I am more than happy to provide it to you Gratis. Just ask nicely next time. As for the meaning of the word, the schoolmen were responsible for defining it ages before the Reformation and you will find it at this link: [URL=http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc5.ii.xvi.ii.html]]] The Sacramental Controversy by Philip Schaff [/URL] In particular I would refer you to the paragraph that commences with the words, "In defining what a sacrament is...." You might want to brush up on Church History, before writing again. Mike/ John You notice that PF (facts indeed. cough!) does not cite his source. Do you suppose a Presby. wrote the dictionary? Even if it was plagiarised from Roman sources!! |
|
|
7/13/09 2:10 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: How about this then: Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the only abiding ordinances of positive and sovereign institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church to the end of the world, and are to be observed in every particular as delivered.These ordinances are newly appointed in the New Testament and are not, as some claim, the replacement of the Old Testament passover feast and circumcision. These ordinances do not in and of themselves convey grace to the receipient, and hence we do not call them "sacraments". The ordinances are to be received by faith in order for them to be efficacious. The ordinances may only be observed by Christ's people, and then only by such as walk uprightly, and not by those who continue to walk in known sin. John this is only a very quick stab at it. I am sure this can be improved. |
|
|
7/13/09 12:53 PM |
Biblicist | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: Hi Steve Well there are but two sacraments in the church: Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and they both ought to be accomplished in a biblical manner - as some of the Baptists (and Brethren) do. John! I'm surprised at you.Baptist do not believe in sacraments! We believe in ordinances. The difference is that "sacrament" conveys the notion that grace is mechanically transmitted to the person taking the sacrament. Baptists do not believe this. The ordinances only convey grace in so far as they are received by faith! Here endeth the lesson. SteveR Fear not. I am equally "picky" about the Lord's supper, and any other deviation from Biblical doctrine and practice! The Presbyterians can celebrate the feast of Booths without booths, but if we read in the law that it must be celebrated with Booths, we do not cavil at it. We heartily repent and fall in with God's instructions. They can quack all they like about the regulative principle, but in practice they deny it! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|