Neil wrote:
Effuse's last argument doesn't "wash." Calvin's Institutes Ch. 15 says "it is evident that the term baptise means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church." Hence, the definition is not merely Baptist special pleading.
But Calvin believed the mode to be indifferent, so that is the essential point in dispute.
I believe immersion should be normal practice, but to tip my hat to Calvin a bit, there may be special circumstances warranting pouring instead (and I don't mean the Presby Palmful, either). Psychological hydrophobia, for example.

ExArchbishop Carey of the Anglican heresy is clearly a Bible Nonbeliever too.

Heb 11:3 Through FAITH we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

Mike wrote:
Sometimes we create mysteries when Scripture is clear: "and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes *they* have closed.."
Kinda looks like they closed their own eyes at some point, doesn't it?

Mike; Does this mean you think they "waxed" their own hearts too?

BTW If the fulfilling of prophecy simply means that a mans gonna do what a mans gonna do, then it's not really very prophetic is it?

Since Obama has linked himself to these abominations, then we must assume that God has given up on the next president too.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Sin is it's own reward.

hidemi williges wrote:
Your hearsay evidence has no sway whatsoever since you haven't even read the book "Trail of Blood".

You presume that I have not read the Trail of Blood!

Perhaps you have not seen the evidence for yourself because you don't perceive it in the same light as a non baptist does.

Perhaps you defend it because of your allegiance to your denomination and your acceptance of its flawless existence since the first century!

A Bible Christian Who Believes wrote:
"pew view": Ofcouse, you know that your opinions on "The Trail of Blood" is Purely Satanic-Vaticanist & "Jesuitic"

Christiana wrote:
[QUOTE]At the same time, while Jesus is ruling, there will be peace, and also quick judgment on sin - "the one who does not live to be one hundred will be thought accursed." Living will be completely different - considerably improved, but still not what it will be when the "Kingdom is handed over to the Father."

I think I'll stay with the Bible version of the promise of ETERNAL life.

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Carnal lust and sin in the human condition if allowed to run free of control whether moral or spiritual, inevitably brings destruction to person, church and state.
The Lord does not have to punish man for his rampant iniquity, sin is punishment in itself.

23 And he shall bring upon them their own iniquity, and shall cut them off in their own wickedness; yea, the LORD our God shall cut them off. Psalm 94.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Rom 1.

lyn wrote:
"The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age {before the council of Nicea} is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment" -Phillip Schaff, the Histoy of the Christian Church, vol. 2, N.Y. Chas. Scribner & Co.,, 1884, pg. 482--taken from article "amillennialism-Examining it's Origens"found at www.prewrathrapture.com/2007/07/amillennialism_examining_its_origens.php

"Take for example, the millennial question, “A” “Pre” or “Post.” As Berkhof admits, amillennialism may be the historical position of the church since the days of the apostles, but the term itself was not used until early in the twentieth century (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 708). If we were to ask Calvin about his millennial views he would probably say millennarianism in any form is the view of fanatics. Calvin would have known only two options, non-millennarianism or chiliasm. Since amillennarians are technically postmillennial (Christ returns after the thousand years of Revelation 20), Calvin, I think would simply affirm he was a non-millennarian and argue something like an optimistic amillennial view, especially given his confidence in the spread of the gospel."
(Kim Riddlebarger)

-----------

Neil wrote:
A] Historically, Pretrib-Premill is a recent & minority position in Reformed theology. I don't think Calvin or the Dordt Synod were Premill.

B] And I still have no answer yet to my question for Zionists: how do I know that an allegedly Jewish person today is *really* a descendant of Jacob?

hidemi williges wrote:
Prove it. What examples do you have to validate your assertions?

GG wrote:
Question: According to Calvinism, salvation is all about God. Therefore, if God doesn't want to save you, there is nothing...nothing...nothing that you can do to save yourself...right?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The influence of Calvin created a theocracy. Theocracies without the physical presence of Christ are doomed to fail, such as the Byzantine Empire. By the way, another excellent book on Calvin's time is, [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/sw_index.php?id=book_search]]]Anabaptist Story, The[/URL], not only does it give great insight into the Anabaptist movement, , but a lot of history about Calvin as well.

John UK wrote:
If I had formed a government in Wales, and every member of the Parliament was a Christian, and we decided to run the country solely from the commands in the Bible or commands inferred from the Bible, then would Wales be under a theocracy?

Dictionary on "Theocracy"
= "A form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws BEING INTERPRETED BY the ecclesiastical authorities."

Ie some form of church officers, elders, ministers etc. Interpreting Holy Law for the people.

Trying to establish this on earth in Wales or anywhere else would require the express and direct input of God. Moses came closest to it taking place.
David clearly did not have the full divine power involved.

John UK wrote:
I thought Jean Cauvin did want to start a theocracy.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
The only theocracy that we need is not the type of a Calvin or Knox, but that of Christ--at his return.

Is this your attempt at ecclesiastical comedy???

Dictionary on "Theocracy"
= "A form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities."

When Jesus returns we will not need "Theocracy"!!!!

The only attempt at Theocracy in history has been the papists.

The Pharisees were warned by Christ that they had added their own interpretations and come up with their own version of "truth." The Roman Catholics did the same thing throughout history and do so today.

Lets face it - the reality is that their is only two ways - God's way and Man's way.

Todays Liberalism is man's way of interpreting Scripture - by virtually dismissing all of it, and making man the author, thereby enabling them to apply "modern" mans version in accordance with culture today.

Banned wrote:
Since so many of you believe the Jews, and not Christians, are God's Chosen