Jump to content

reformed baptist

Members
  • Content count

    795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

reformed baptist last won the day on May 1

reformed baptist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,050,887 Excellent

About reformed baptist

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Gender

  • Gender
    Male

Denomination

  • Den
    Reformed Baptist

Recent Profile Visitors

136 profile views
  1. reformed baptist

    Alfie Evans Has Died: 'We are Heartbroken,' Say Parents

    Rubbish! Your obviously commenting on something you know very little about - and your turning this poor child into a political pawn and I'm sorry but I think that's disgusting!
  2. reformed baptist

    Jacob final servant of Jehovah

    I'm still not following you - this all appears somewhat random to me
  3. reformed baptist

    How can the trinity be one God?

    That isn't the case, a tree can is a being, but it isn't a person (at least philosophically speaking) - we are dealing with theology here so normal everyday definitions are not always helpful - you have to allow us to define the terms we are using. In Regards to the trinity getting the language exactly right perplexed the church of Jesus Christ for a long time - finally it was settled on these terms that we use today. In English they are 'essence/ being' and 'person' and we make a distinction between the two (as philosophy often does) and we state: 1) God is one essence 2) There are three distinct (but not separate) persons who are partake of that one essence Now, personally I am loath to go beyond that into explaining the difference between 'essence' and 'person' - for this God we are talking about and to be frank if I could figure him out he wouldn't be greater then me would he. However, my friend, if you cannot accept that we mean different things when we say: "God is one" and "there are three are who are God" then we won't get anywhere (I'm not asking you to agree with me on this point I am asking you accept that this is the language I am using and understand that I am making a distinction - can you do that? Now, moving on. How many persons does the scripture identify as God? (1) The scripture identifies the Father as God - 1 Thess 1:1 (2) The scriptures identify Jesus as God - John 20:28 (3) The scriptures identify the Spirit as God - Acts 5:3-4 And yet clearly these three persons are distinct - at the baptism of Jesus we read of the following occurrences: When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mat 3:16-17 NKJ) So, we have three divine persons each taking on specific functions at the baptism of Jesus: (a) The Son is being baptized (b) The Father is speaking from heaven (c) The Spirit is alighting on Jesus Three persons - each of whom is God - but not three Gods! Indeed Jesus declare "I and my father are one" (John 10:30) - we have just seen that he and the father are distinct persons - yet here Jesus says they are one! He can't mean they are the same person (that makes a nonsense out the Bible) but he can mean they are one essence/ being.
  4. reformed baptist

    Was Judas saved?

    I have never claimed Jesus did not mean what he said. I have said what you understand Jesus to mean is wrong. Those are two very different things - and I have explained why I think your wrong - Judas knew what he was doing! (1) Judas knew who Jesus was - he was presenting when Peter declared it and Jesus confirmed it (Matt 16:13-17) (2) Judas knew he was betraying Jesus - Matt 26:14-15 , "Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests and said, "What are you willing to give me if I deliver Him to you?" And they counted out to him thirty pieces of silver." (Mat 26:14-15 NKJ) (3) Jesus warned him of the consequences of his actions - Matt 26:24 (4) Jesus tells Judas what he is doing is a betrayal - Luke 22:48 And on the cross Jesus Christ prays these words: Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do." - Jesus is praying for the forgiveness of those who are acting in ignorance - of everyone involved in the death of Jesus Christ Judas was the most knowledgeable (least ignorant) - he knew exactly what he was doing! Jesus Christ was not praying for Judas on that occasion! Just as hours earlier he refused to pray for Judas as well, John 17:12. Why - no one is denying that Judas did as God intended! What we are questioning is your assumption that this demands his actions were somehow good, proper and righteous! Listen to Peter on the day of pentecost as he accuses the crowd before him of delivering up Jesus for execution - what does he say: Act 2:23 "Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;" - Peter is clear that the actions of the people were all according to God's plan, and he is clear that there actions were lawless! Maybe your not aware of the biblical principle theologians call, "the liability (or contingency) of secondary sources." it is illustrated best in the actions of David numbering Israel - it happened according to God's decree - but it was sinful and led to judgement - compare 2 Sam 24:1 with 1 Chron 21:1! This is true of all the events surrounding the cross as well - everything that happened went according to God's plan - but those who perpetrated the events are guilty in God's sight. The fact that Judas did according to God's decree does not absolve him of guilt anymore then David is absolved of guilt for sinfully numbering Israel according to God's decree! Let's bench that one - it has the portntial to become a red herring and take us off topic! I'm sorry - I don't read Spanish - but I do read Greek and I have already addressed this point! Matthew 27:3 Τότε ἰδὼν Ἰούδας ὁ παραδιδοὺς αὐτὸν ὅτι κατεκρίθη, μεταμεληθεὶς ἔστρεψεν τὰ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσιν καὶ πρεσβυτέροις (Mat 27:3 BGT) The word the Bible uses for repentance unto salvation is μετανοέω - Matthew does not use that word here - he uses μεταμέλομαι This verb Matt uses is "much rarer in the New Testament than the typical verb for “repenting” (metanoeō) and seems here to refer to a change of mind or feeling of regret,56 which falls considerably short of full-fledged repentance (cf. 2 Cor 7:8, in which such remorse precedes repentance; and Heb 7:21, in which it refers to a change of mind and not sorrow for sin), even if in other contexts the semantic ranges of the two words overlap (e.g., Matt 21:29, 32). Judas does acknowledge his sin and Jesus’ innocence, but he does not demonstrate the mark of genuine repentance—appropriate corrective action. He confesses to the wrong group of people and then simply gives up on life." [Blomberg, C. (1992). Matthew (Vol. 22, p. 407). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.] Here is another quote: "Much has been written about the word μεταμέλομαι, to become a care to one afterwards, the nom. sing. masc. aor. participle μεταμελήθεις of which is here used. It is clear that no deeply religious sense can be assigned to the word as used in verse 29 (contrast verse 32). On the other hand, even in verse 29 it has a favorable connotation, for otherwise it could not serve as a basis for its occurrence in verse 32: there must be a link between the parable and its lesson. Only the verbal form is used in the New Testament, not the cognate noun μεταμελεία. Also, in the New Testament the verb occurs only five times (21:29, 32; 27:3; 2 Cor. 7:10; and in a quotation from Ps. 110:4, Heb. 7:21). It should be compared with its synonym μετανοέω, discussed in connection with 3:2. While the idea of repentance or regret is certainly implied in both verbs, μετανοέω goes much farther, as has been indicated, while μεταμέλομαι stops here; that is, here the emphasis is on the negative and retrospective. While heart, mind, and will are all deeply involved in μετανοέω, it is especially the emotional element that is stressed in μεταμέλομαι. For that reason, too, μεταμέλομαι is not used in the imperative. The regret of which this verb speaks may have value for eternity, leading to—and being an element of—full-fledged faith (see verse 32), but the word as such does not necessarily imply this. Judas “repented” and then hanged himself (27:3–5). He experienced remorse. On μεταμέλομαι see also W. G. Chamberlain, op. cit., pp. 27–34; R. C. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament, par. lxix; and L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 482."[Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. (1953–2001). Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Vol. 9). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.] But if the commentaries aren't enough - how about a lexicon: "25.270 μεταμέλομαιa: to feel regret as the result of what one has done—‘to regret, to feel sad about, to feel sorry because of.’ ὅτι εἰ καὶ ἐλύπησα ὑμᾶς ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ, οὐ μεταμέλομαι ‘for even if that letter of mine made you sad, I do not regret (having written it)’ or ‘for even if I made you sad by my letter …’ 2 Cor 7:8." [Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 1, p. 317). New York: United Bible Societies.] μεταμέλομαι does not mean repentance unto salvation! Now, I believe I have responded meaningfully to all your questions
  5. reformed baptist

    Matthew 19:19-20 For Everyone?

    I guess Peter was acting out of character then in Acts 10 and Acts 15! So speak to Jews Peter addresses them as Jews - we would expect as much. However to draw from that why he addressed a Jewish audience a conclusion that his message was for the Jews - that is not how we do theology (it isn't even how we read a book). I'm talking to you now so I might say , 'Hi Dok' does that mean I only have a message for you? Peter went to Cornelius and preached the same gospel as he preached to the Jews (Acts 10:24-48) There is no switch - salvation never came through the pharisees or their interpretation of the law - it was always through repentance and faith! The law, says paul, is a tutor designed to bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24) and David wrote, Ps 51:16-17 "For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it; You do not delight in burnt offering. 17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart-- These, O God, You will not despise." The law never had any power to save! You don't want to remove anything - or so you claim but then: 1) You simplify the gospel to Rom 10:8-13 2) You want to take the gospel of John and the gospel of Paul (??) - but not the rest of the bible 3) You don't think people need to have a clue at the OT 4) You don't think people need Matthew, Mark or Luke (or most of Acts) Sounds like your removing quite a lot to me! Who's trying to? I don't even know what that means - Rom 10:8-13 does exist in isolation, it is part of a larger argument Paul is making within a larger argument that is being made (the Bible) Now, of course, what you have done is exactly what Marcion did - you have taken a scalpel to the scriptures and removed all the parts that don't fit with your theological construct (or so you believe) - to your mind salvation is simple as a one off profession of faith in Jesus Christ - what is interesting to read is Paul own defense (and explanation) of the gospel he preached Acts 20:21 "testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ." - Paul's message was one of repentance and faith, not mere verbal profession! Agreed Paul would disagree - Eph 6:10-20 - or is that another part of scripture you wouldn't saddle people with? Paul said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2Ti 3:16-17 NKJ) We don't get to pick what bits of the bible we like and reject the others - we need it all!
  6. reformed baptist

    Matthew 19:19-20 For Everyone?

    Marcion did it and we called him a heretic - now it happens all the time and we let it go!
  7. reformed baptist

    Jacob final servant of Jehovah

    Welcome to the forum - forgive my ignorance but I don't really see the point your making in these two posts would you please be kind enough to spell it out for me?
  8. reformed baptist

    Hi! I'm Willie T

    Hello
  9. reformed baptist

    Hello brothers and sisters

    Hello
  10. reformed baptist

    How many tribes of Israel?

    I'm glad you used the word 'usually' - God only needs to say something once! However I am even happier that you wrote this - because actually it is the whole point of what I'm writing So many people jump into Rev 7 and see this list assume it is a reference to a remnant from national Israel - a 144000 made of 12000 from each tribe - they do so based on this text alone (which as you point out is enough to question the view) and they do so without doing the proper homework in regards to the clear Old Testament allusions to the numbering of the tribes. To my mind that is one of the first places we go - if I want to understand what the Bible tells me about the judgement of God - I go to texts about his judgement. If I want to know what the Bible tells me about censuses I do to the censuses of the biblical - it's just a consistent hermeneutic. In effect I'm doing the homework then should be doing - and it raises more question for the futurist view then it answers in my opinion.
  11. reformed baptist

    What is the Rapture?

    Sarcasm doesn't help you case Jesus Christ said: Mat 24:21 "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be." - Jesus says, "Something terrible is going to happen and it will be worse then anything that comes before it, or comes after it" - I'm just taking him at his word. Bear in mind the whole context of this discussion is the destruction of Herod's temple (Matt 24:2), v4-14 sound very much like a description of the age we are in. You have it the wrong way round - you're one making the claim as to what the text means so it's up to you to defend that claim! As for others not being wrong - that is certainly the case. However we cannot both be right. I believe the 'tribulation' and the 'millennium' are concurrent events (they are the experience of the church in this age - that is what “Parable of the wheat and the tares” is all about. The proper approach to understanding the Bibles teaching about the tribulation is found in the “Parable of the wheat and the tares” (Matt 13:24-30) and most significantly we must note the words of the Lord Jesus Christ in Matt 13:30 “Let both grow together until the harvest…..” Jesus Christ reveals in those words that it is the will of God the father to allow the righteous and the unrighteous to coexist in the kingdom of God throughout the last days of this age. Some systems suggest that the wheat will outgrow the tares and push them out. We call these systems postmillenial and other systems suggest that the tares will grow so strong that the wheat will no longer be able to grow, those are premillennial systems. However in this parable Jesus Christ explains that for the sake of his church he allows the wheat and the tares to grow together until the harvest. In regards to our interpretations then - we can both be wrong, but we can't both be right This is your a priori assumption that the tribulation will be a worldwide event that is the universal experience of mankind - I don't believe the Bible supports that notion. The next big event the Bible describes that will be akin to the flood is the actual return of Jesus Christ in judgement and he says when that happens life will be going on as normal. Matt 24:37-42 "But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be. Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left. Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming." (NKJ) - This isn't universal tribulation for the church (or anyone else) - this is believer and unbeliever living together in relative harmony. It is the clear testimony of scripture that every generation of God’s people will experience the tribulation. 1. The Bible teaches that the tribulation of the Christ is the pattern and norm for the experience of the Christian community. Thus tribulation is inevitable and to be anticipated (Mt. 13:21; Jn. 16:33; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:35; 12:12; 1 Thess. 3:3f.; 2 Thess. 1:4; Rev. 1:9). The tribulation of Israel under the Old Testament finds its counterpart in the tribulation of the church under the new (Heb. 11:37; 12:1). This tribulation is particularly the lot of the apostles who exemplify in a special manner the path of suffering discipleship (Acts 20:23; 2 Cor. 1:4; 4:8, 17; 6:4; Eph. 3:13). 2. The tribulation of the people of Christ is in some sense a participation in the sufferings of Christ (Col. 1:24; cf. 2 Cor. 1:5; 4:10f.; Phil. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:13). 3. The tribulations of the people of Christ are instrumental in promoting their moral transformation into the likeness of Christ (Rom. 5:3f.; 2 Cor. 3:18 with 4:8–12, 16f.). In particular the experience of tribulation promotes the building up of the community of believers through enabling the comforting of others in similar experiences (2 Cor. 1:4f.; 4:10f.; Col. 1:24; 1 Thess. 1:6f.). 4. The tribulations of the people of Christ are eschatological; i.e. they belong to the last days. As such they are a witness to the breaking in this age of the age that is to come (Mt. 24:9–14; Rev. 1:9; 7:14). Some may see in scripture a certain intensification of these tribulations as the return of the Lord Jesus Christ grows nearer, see for example Matt. 24:21; Mark. 13:24; 2 Thess. 1:5–6; 2 Tim. 3:1f.). What about the Great Tribulation: The New Testament refers to a great tribulation in three separate places, Matt 24:21; Rev 2:22; 7:14) A common belief nowadays in some Christian circles is the idea that the believers enter a seven year period of tribulation. Others believe this tribulation was experienced by the Jews around AD70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem[1]. The basis of each of those New Testament passages is Daniel 12:1 which says “At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.” In Daniel’s prophecy this period of suffering seems to be tied to the time of the end, notice the mention of the general resurrection in v.2-3), “And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise shall shine Like the brightness of the firmament, And those who turn many to righteousness Like the stars forever and ever.” However the basis for the tribulation God’s people face is their covenant loyalty to God in the face of external persecution (by the state) and false teaching (from within) which causes the apostasy of many within the covenant community (cf. Daniel 11:30-39; 44; 12:10). The same idea is found in the letters to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3. Three of the churches mentioned (Ephesus, Sardis, and Laodicea) are suffering greatly, and two other churches are thoroughly compromised in their witness to Christ (Pergamum and Thyatira). In the light of struggles these churches are experiencing, in Revelation 2:22, we read “Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds” Here, “great tribulation” is being poured out upon those in the church of Thyatira who delight in this woman's false teaching. This, the text explains, is a time of "great tribulation" for unbelievers (apostates). In Revelation 7:14, one of the elders tells John that “these [John sees] are the ones coming out of the great tribulation. They have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.” This refers to the faithful remnant across time who endured the persecution of the world and who have been put to death. Having been given white robes, every tear is wiped from their eyes as they serve in the heavenly temple. In both passages in Revelation then, the idea of a “great tribulation” refers to events occurring at various points between Christ’s own tribulation on the cross and the end of the age. As Beale puts it, “the great tribulation has begun with Jesus’ own sufferings and shed blood, and all who follow him must likewise suffer through it.” Beale goes on to say this is the point of passages such as Revelation 1:9 (where John states he is already a participant in tribulation because he follows Christ); Colossians 1:24; and 1 Peter 4:1-7, 12-13 (cf. G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, 433-435). While Jesus speaks of “great tribulation” in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in A.D 70 (Matthew 24:21), in Revelation, John speaks of such periods of “great tribulation” as re-occurring throughout the course of this age, perhaps even intensifying at time of the end. The great tribulation then is synonymous with the tribulation and should not be considered to be a separate event. It is the experience of the church in every generation. Nowhere in the bible do we read of a seven year tribulation. It is based upon a speculative[2] reading of Dan 9:27 “Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate." Yes I believe I have thought it through! - much of this is taken from a paper i presented on the subject some time ago! [1] This view is called Preterism and is considered heresy as it also teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ returned in AD70 and we now live in the post second coming world. [2] The reading is speculative because it introduces a chronological break between Dan 9:27 and the preceding verses of the prophecy of the 70 weeks which cannot be supported.
  12. reformed baptist

    What is the Rapture?

    Cool - I will get to it tomorrow This forum needs more Bible discussion and less political ones in my opinion so it will be good to start a new thread on the resurrection.
  13. reformed baptist

    What is the Rapture?

    Jesus said 'until now' meaning his day - not necessarily ours! Can you exegete Matt 24:21 to demonstrate it refers to a final period of tribulation (I presume 7 years) and not simply the last days? Are you suggesting I haven't thought my theology through? Are you aware of the type of persecution Christians suffer in some parts of the world today? - I imagine many of them would gladly drown as alternative to what they are going through! Here is the thing, in every generation of the church there are persecuted believers - and for each one of them, that persecution is their great tribulation. In my opinion it belittles the things they endure to suggest their tribulation is not great enough to qualify as 'the great tribulation' - as I said previously it is telling to see how these theories abound in modern western theologians who exist with this blip in church history where we face so little in the way of persecution.
  14. reformed baptist

    What is the Rapture?

    Can you clarify 'pinned' - I'm not sure what you mean?
  15. reformed baptist

    How can the trinity be one God?

    Let's work through this a step at a time shall we - if you give me opportunity I will address all your points as we come to them? Do you understand the distinction I am making between 'being' and 'person'? These two words are at the heart of the trinity - but it is obvious from your statements that you either conflate them or do not believe that more then one person can share one being - so how do you understand these two terms, 'being' and 'person'? Moving on: (1) Do you agree that the scriptures tell us there is only one God? (2) Do you agree that the scriptures tells us about more then one person who is that one God? (3) How many persons does the scripture identify as being God? I think once we have established where we are at in regards to these points we will be ready to move on
×