James Thomas wrote:
For Example:
Mr. MacAurther is Premil
Mr. Baucham is Amill
Dr. R. C. Sproul is Post mill
All I would say are Christians. All have a different view. They all cannot be right. But that should not cause me to have disregard for their understanding but yet yearn to ask questions to see why they see it that way.
I hope this answers your question.

phylly wrote:
Mr. Hranek,
Can you describe the work of the Father, the Son and the Spirit in salvation?
Would you say salvation is based on a promise or is it based totally on grace?

Neil wrote:
No I haven't. I do not elevate logic above Scriptures, but I do contend that Scripture, or any other written communication for that matter, *cannot* be understood without it, the Law of Contradiction for starters (this is foundational to formal logic, trivial though it may seem). Words must have predictable meanings, or Scripture is nonsense. I would venture to guess, based on other proofs I've seen, that Bickersteth's proof of the Trinity uses syllogistic logic in making its case, whether you recognize it or not, just as Jesus does numerous times while teaching His disciples. Do not assume logic is irrelevant just because the jargon of logic is missing.

What is worrying is logically extrapolated doctrines which are so tenous being made cardinal to the Christian faith, and resulting in man made doctrines that exist only to shackle tender consciences.

______________________________________

NiceOne

Neil wrote:
Sure. The Trinity is. Why exclude Eternal Generation, if it is really a sound deduction? And I mean “if” – I'm not prepared to say it is or not.

What is conspicuous by its absence, is any section dealing with Eternal Generation or some of the other more abtruse teachings of the Trinity logically derived and now made a cardinal part of the Christian Faith.

I fee comfortable with Bickersteth's work. I feel very uneasy about parts of the Athanasian creed and also about some of the doctrines arrived at by the Council at Nicea.

Neil wrote:
An understatement – logic is not merely important; it is *vital*, or else theology, not to mention every other intellectual discipline, is impossible. The doctrine of the Trinity, a manifest deduction, is one example. Men who in principle repudiate logic (as many both in & out of organized Christianity have done) get into serious trouble; they sink their own boat. The problem is not logic at all, but as you suggest, fallible men who, because of sin, do not reason properly at times; they use false premises, perhaps, or make fallacious deductions from true premises...

A great deal of theology is concerned with splitting hairs and logic plays a big part in this. The sophistry of logicians is a huge turn off for lay people? So, should logicians who claim superiority be the new Priestly/elitist class to rule Christian thought?

http://www.monergismbooks.com/The-Silver-Thread-Augustine-vs-Pelagius-in-Church-History-eBook-p-20030.html

See what a Church historian such as Warfield had to say-Augustine gave us the Reformation!

Rome remember is happy with arminianism and all manner of semi-pelagianism and pelaginaism, but why does Augustines doctrine of grace get such a hostile reception from the Antichrist church? Simply because it is Biblical and therefore the doctrine of Pink and Spurgeon

A W Pink First edition of the Sovereignty of God 1918

I note on MH's link all the theologians listed can be found to speak of Augustine including Pink who says he studied Augustine!

Spurgeon says: 'next to Calvin, I love Augustine' http://www.spurgeon.org/misc/bio20.htm

Who stood up against the wicked deception of Pelagius...Augustine? How and why?

Lurker wrote:
I use the KJV ... I rarely get involved in version debates.

There is a minister Malcom Watts on sermonaudio (as well as Roy Mohon, David Silversides) who have material on psalmody.

The link above is looking at what the Bible says.

I know you do not have much interest in the Refomed view but I always found it interesting that one of the greatest baptist preachers C H Spurgeon sang hymns unaccompanied. What convinced him that organs were wrong and why do protestants of an earlier age rank the organ as a popish introduction to worship. I always wondered how we are so rightly willing to accept that God preserved the Holy scriptures (and the Psalms) but it seems virtually nothing of early hymns e.g. the ones that the Apostles supposedly sung? I don't mean to be argumentive as I am in the middle, having though seen a strong case for psalmody. If man is allowed to choose his own compositions that is how we eventually end up with charismatic worship? Imagine their activities to an unaccompanied psalm reverent worship

In the case of John the baptist did the Lord look into the future and see John as a believer and therefore choose him or did He ordain and purpose John and his work before he was even born Isa 40:3 and Romans 9:11 etc?

Acts 13: 48 tells us that God sovereignly ordains first before we can believe. Luke 1: 15 tells us that John was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb-so did he choose God by his own freewill first?

Was Saul seeking Christ or Christ seeking him for a purpose Acts 22: 14,15.

I Corinthians 12: 3 says no man can say Jesus is Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

The scriptures teach that God opens the heart first e.g. Lydia, and Peter's confession in Matthew 16 'Thou art the Christ' Jesus clearly says how such was revealed. Also John 3:8.

John 3:6 and Romans 8: 8,9. If we are in the flesh as unsaved how can we say Jesus is Lord first and then call upon HIM, UNLESS GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT HAS ALREADY OPENED OUR HEART AND BLIND EYES AND ENLIGHTENED OUR MIND... FIRST?

Freewiller did you open your own heart, eyes and understanding? Cooperate with God's leading by an act of the flesh? Or were you born again from above FIRST and therefore believed Luke 18: 26, 27.