|
|
USER COMMENTS BY HAILSHAM |
|
|
| RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | More | Last Post | Total |
· Page 1 · Found: 8 user comments posted recently. |
|
|
6/10/09 5:02 PM |
Hailsham | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Guinness wrote: Well, now you've reverted back to your previous postings Ha! Ha! Ha! It is you who got the subject wrong sunbeam! MisReading? or Misconstruing? |
|
|
6/10/09 3:07 PM |
Hailsham | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: 1] but I recognize your accent. Long way from Eastbourne, lad 2] And infant salvation is by God's grace, same source as grown-up salvation, not man-invented ideas about Godly parents. Mike 1] Aye mun, a lang lang stracht awa! 2] Do me a wee favour here Mike, and read this Canon article again slowly. "Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17) Guinness wrote: I'd be more interested if you could provide support for your previous illogical arguments about your unusual perspective on the scope of election rather than changing the subject to infant baptism. Baptism??? |
|
|
6/10/09 9:28 AM |
Hailsham | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: Is there any truth in the rumour that the Canons of Dordt are the protestant equivalent of the papal bulls? Why John, I thought you were a Protestant? But clearly a true Protestant would never allege this about such rich Biblical teaching and truth. So which Popish house do you belong to?As for "Eastbourne" And your buddies speculations? No nowhere near Eastbourne or England - wherever that is. Dont you recognise my accent? _____________ Here is some good teaching to hopefully absorb your interest folks. "The doctrine of infant salvation finds a logical place in the Calvinistic system; for the redemption of the soul is thus infallibly determined irrespective of any faith, repentance, or good works, whether actual or foreseen. It does not, however, find a logical place in Arminianism or any other system. Furthermore, it would seem that a system such as Arminianism, which suspends salvation on a personal act of rational choice, would logically demand that those dying in infancy must either be given another period of probation after death, in order that their destiny may be fixed, or that they must be annihilated." (Boettner) Nota Bene Michael and the DIY brigade on site. |
|
|
6/9/09 5:51 PM |
Hailsham | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
HYH wrote: Do you suppose that if you keep reiterating Dort's interpretation of the covenant and the promise that more people on SA will come to accept it? Only if they are of the Reformed Church.Guinness wrote: By the same reasoning from the same text they also "have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their" unbelieving spouses either 'Can' you doubt anybodies election/salvation?Mike wrote: do not continue the position into the following generation, where the error of salvation by having Godly parents may easily be discerned. Please note Mike the Canons statement is not a negative one. Here perhaps is the point of our mutual agreement."For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." Clearly the children of the elect are in this group. That is BOTH groups. Hence the children of the covenant elect will be saved! Scripture does not disagree with that promise, does it? |
|
|
6/9/09 8:11 AM |
Hailsham | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: Actually Hailsham, My question was serious. If "you and your children" means that the children of Godly parents are elect, you can't stop there. Why? The elect children grow up and are elect adults. When they have children, theirs must then be elect for the same reason: "you and your children." Thus must salvation be by inheritance. Surely you can see the fallacy of this? I reiterate "Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17)Not all can receive this covenant teaching. But the Dordt Synod was correct in making the statement. Paul in Romans reminds us of the codicil which brings explanation to the outworking around us. But the promise and election are Biblical and factual. |
|
|
6/7/09 4:54 PM |
Hailsham | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
HYH wrote: So you are wiser than those who framed the confessions of faith, and Mr Spurgeon and every other Reformed thinker who has believed in Infant Salvation? The Reformed view, based on the Falleness of mankind originally held that the children of the *ELECT* go to heaven."Since we are to judge of the will of God from his Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the *COVENANT* of grace, in which they, together with the parents, are comprehended, godly parents have no reason to doubt of the election and salvation of their children, whom it pleaseth God to call out of this life in their infancy." (Canons of Dort 1:17) "ELECT* infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." (WCF 10:3) The promise is only to the Elect parents and "Covenanted" Elect families. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|