GCM Home | Bible Search | Rules | Donate | Bookstore | RSS | Facebook | Twitter

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10
Theology Forum / Re: Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration
« Last post by S.T. Ranger on Today at 06:55:29 AM »
While I have a few problems with some views of the Reformed, it cannot be denied that they adhere to a closer doctrinal position of God's Sovereignty in regards to salvation then a great many groups do.

What?  The idea that God decided who was saved and who was to be thrown into hell before He even formed the world?  The to support that idea you have to invent Total Depravity to keep the hell-bound from making a positive decision to follow the gospel and Irresistable Grace to make sure the "elect" DO decide to follow the gospel. 

Its soverign alright - in a mechanistic despotic kind of way.

Let's not derail the thread, but in short...that is a caricature view of what many Reformed teachers present. In a recent Reformed conference, which held some teachers that I believe are some of the best (you might be surprised should you hear them, lol) teachers available to the Church today, the question concerning babies going to Hell came up in the Q & A. I was a little surprised that none of them would confirm that they thought babies go to Hell.

As I said, I am not a Reformed Christian, I am a Transformed Sinner, lol. I take issue with both Calvinist and Arminian theology and see their fatal flaw, as I see among some of you here, is that there is a notable lapse in understanding and incorporating the Ministry of the Holy Spirit into the equation of regeneration.

To give a brief outline of my view concerning the Grace of God towards man, and how one who is natural can come to believe, repent, and turn in faith to Christ Jesus, I see the Ministry of the Comforter as the Key to unlocking that debate. Keeping in mind that the New Covenant held promise of God's indwelling and the remission of sins (never to be remembered again, because they would be forgiven in completion), and that the Covenant of Law was only given as a "parable" of sorts of the True that would come (i.e., the "rest" of Canaan which was temporal and did not guarantee eternal relationship with God and the true Rest found in Christ which is itself that very eternal relationship, guaranteed by the indwelling of God Himself).

In considering whether or not babies go to Hell, we simply have to look at the Old Testament principle of Grace, and the principle taught in Scripture that God judges according to man's understanding of the revelation provided him, and we understand that babies have no understanding at all.

Now some may protest, "But wait a minute, all men have a sin nature," or, the sin of all men must be dealt with in order for them to be able to dwell with God."

That is true, but if we look at the simple pattern of grace seen in the Old Testament, we see that not one person before Pentecost had an understanding...of Christ. What that means is that while men might have had faith in the First Principles of the Doctrine of Christ (and we see in Christ's Day that even the Disciples misconstrued that and looked for a temporal salvation), not one of them placed their faith in the Risen Lord. Why not?

Because that revelation was not provided to Man until after the Lord died, rose again, ascended into Heaven...and sent the Comforter to convict men of that knowledge.

So why didn't a murderer and adulterer like King David not go to Hell? Surely he could be found far more guilty than a babe that dies of some malady, or his/her life cut short through life's circumstances...right?

It is by the Grace of God that David did not go to Hell. God made provision for Man before the Revelation of the Knowledge of the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

...why would that change?

There are three specific means of revelation shown to us in Scripture: the internal witness of God, the witness of God in Creation, and direct Revelation, such as we have through God's direct intervention in appearing to Man and through His Word. Babies cannot be expected to understand any of those. So it seems reasonable that the same provision made for man before the Gospel was given to man is still available to man today.

God bless.
Christian Marriage Forum / Re: how to interact while standing
« Last post by jayandmeli on Today at 06:49:44 AM »
I know this in no way replaces my need for counseling it helps to write out your worries and fears. Thank you for your honest opinions and insight.  ::smile::
Christian Marriage Forum / Re: She won't talk, only text
« Last post by AVZ on Today at 06:42:59 AM »
Chosen - IMO you are jumping to assumptions here.  There is nothing in the OP's posts to indicate that he was even emotionally attracted to her; or her to him; let alone an emotional affair.

There may have been something on her part; but if so, he seemed rather blind to it.

I take him at his word that as far as he knew, nothing happened.

Something made him want to text a young single woman back and forth 400 times. That is not the normal behavior of a married man with a single female colleague. I am sure nothing did happen physically, but there is far more to a relationship than merely the physical, and I am not at all surprised that his wife can no longer trust him. At the very least he was opening the door to one or both of them getting far too close emotionally to the other.

 There are many books written today about how we need to set clear boundaries or hedges around our marriages, and the dangers of people getting too close to others of the opposite sex. I have seen far too many people get into affairs with people they have met at work, and marriages being destroyed as a result.

I think he has learnt his lesson, but it may take a very long time for his wife to trust him again.   

With who do you spend more time?
Your husband or the internet?
Theology Forum / Re: Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration
« Last post by S.T. Ranger on Today at 06:35:17 AM »
Here you basically state you believe that water baptism is the means of remission of sins. While this does seem to be Peter's statement in Acts 2, we have to wonder how it is that the many various and explicit passages in Scripture that teach that remission of sins is through the vicarious death of Christ in the place of the sinner...can be ignored.

They aren't ignored.  If one understands baptism to be the place where the sinner accepts what Christ did by faith, then this is not a problem at all.

Romans 6:3 marries the two in fact, where Paul says it very succinctly:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?

If you're having trouble reconciling baptism with Christ's death with regard to how a sinner receives remission of sins, then that is the missing link.

We are identified with Christ through Christian Baptism...that does not mean that water baptism has salvific value.

Of course Christ's death is applied to believers, but, it is still Christ's death that provides for salvation, not water baptism:

Matthew 26:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

His blood was shed for the remission of sins.

End of story.

Now let's look at John's baptism:

Mark 1

King James Version (KJV)

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Now do we compare the remission of sins associated with John's Baptism with the remission of sins accomplished through Christ?

Of course not.

To say that remission of sins requires Christ's death and water baptism denies the singular effectiveness of the Cross to take away sins. This too seems to be ignored by the Baptismal Regenerationist.

Acts 10:40-43

King James Version (KJV)

40 Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;

41 Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

We could list many verses and passages that affirm that believing on the Name of Christ is sufficient for one to be saved. Water baptism is simply an act of obedience that publicly supports the claim of belief.

Note that the command to preach is mentioned...but not water baptism. That comes after they have received the Holy Ghost, or in other words...have been Baptized with the Holy Ghost.

44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

The fact that these received the Holy Ghost apart from water baptism cannot be ignored. The preaching of Peter...cannot be ignored. While it is true that we have certain events in the early Church that do not establish a lasting pattern, we can see that these men were saved apart from water baptism, and that they had received remission of sins through the shed blood of Christ cannot be ignored.

God bless.

Cooking and Recipes / Re: Secret Ingredient in Pizza!
« Last post by St.ReastlessHeart333 on Today at 06:23:42 AM »
Not bad at all. Love eating it at any time of the day. :)
History Forum / Re: Dinosaurs and their place?
« Last post by jimkids on Today at 06:16:02 AM »
Thanks for this awesome post , I always interested about Dinosaurs.
Sports Forum / Re: Any NFL Fans?!
« Last post by jimkids on Today at 06:13:48 AM »
NFL Fans +1 , I'm NFL fan too and my favorite is Detroit Lions .
Published July 30, 2014 ∙ FoxNews.com

A Florida resident has died after contracting “flesh-eating bacteria,” officials confirmed Tuesday.

The unidentified patient was middle-aged and had chronic health problems, a Florida Department of Health spokesperson told MyFoxTampaBay.com.

The victim contracted the bacteria after saltwater entered an open wound, the spokesperson said. It is not clear when the incident occurred, and officials did not release what body of water the patient contracted the bacteria in.

The bacteria, called vibrio vulnificus, is potentially fatal for victims with chronic health conditions.
I think that this is  major acquisition  .

News from Around the World / Martha Stewart: Why I Love My Drone
« Last post by Victor08 on Today at 05:58:14 AM »
Martha Stewart   July 29, 2014

There’s been a lot of discussion and a tremendous amount of speculation lately about the nature of drones and their role in our society as useful tools and hobbyist toys.

Last year, while celebrating my birthday in Maine, I was given a drone fitted with a high-definition camera. After a quick introduction to the mechanics of operating the contraption and a few words about its idiosyncrasies, I loaded the appropriate app on my iPad and went down to the beach.

In just a few minutes I was hooked. In near silence, the drone rose, hovered, and dove, silently and surreptitiously photographing us and the landscape around us. The photos and video were stunning. By assuming unusual vantage points, the drone allowed me to “see” so much more of my surroundings than usual. The view I was “seeing” on my iPad with the help of the drone would have otherwise been impossible without the use of a private plane, helicopter, or balloon. With any of those vehicles, I would have needed a telephoto lens, and all of them would have made an unacceptable commotion on the beach. What’s more, I would not have been in the photos!

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 10