ECT The Gospel Proper

[Clete]

That's why I threw it out there with a smiley face. I knew you were expecting it but probably didn't really care to discuss it. I figured, as you said, have been debating baptism for years.

I am fully convinced that baptism is part of the gospel and is required to "wash away your sins". Let's take your hypothetical, someone believes but dies before being baptized. I strongly suggest hypotheticals shouldn't be used to go against what scripture says.

Hypotheticals are used to test the logic. The truth is never afraid of sound reason.

You said "I had remarked that Acts 16:31 states simply that "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved..."" That is absolutely 100% true.

Then you said, Therefore, since one makes no mention of baptism, the only way for both verses to be true is if it's belief that's required and not both.
I'm going to disagree with you here.
1, baptism is mentioned in this passage. 33 And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he was baptized at once, he and all his family. Just like all the conversions(that have any detail) before and like Mk. 16:16 says, believers are to be baptized.
2, by this time in scripture there is really no need to mention baptism. It has been commanded and established that believers are to be baptized. To believe the gospel is to be baptized. About 20 years after he was sent by Jesus to proclaim the gospel, Paul is baptizing believers just as Peter did on Pentecost.
Acts 18:8 Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized.[/quote]
You're disagreeing with my sixth grade self. As I said, it was not at all a valid argument.

I am a dispensationalist,

:up:

...but I draw the line at the cross.

This is the reason you are confused about water baptism.

Assuming that the Body of Christ began with the cross, is the cause of all sorts of division, debates and even outright fights throughout church history. You're focusing here on water baptism but others might focus on Saturday worship, whether or not one can lose their salvation, whether good works are required for salvation or any number of other disputes, all of which are cleanly and nearly effortlessly resolved by simply realizing that Israel's prophesied program, which the death of Christ was a part of, was still intact up until God cut Israel off and turned instead to the Gentiles. Getting this timing off makes a HUMONGOUS difference.

Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is part of the gospel, wouldn't discrediting baptism be a good tactic?

This logic works as well against you as it does for you.

"Think about it. If Satan was going to pervert the gospel and baptism is NOT part of the gospel, wouldn't convincing people that baptism was required be a good tactic?"

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Why not? Excellence should be copied and pasted... especially when the website gives approval.
Clete, are you a Yooper?

I have no problem with copy/pasting something per se.

It's an excellent way to bolster a point that has been made. It offers not only a second witness but often a more eloquent manner of communicating the point.

It's laziness that's boring.

If you have a point to make, then make it yourself, for your own sake if for no other reason. If you want to post something someone else said to help boost your comments then fine, just don't be lazy. Lazy people suck.

Clete

 

[MennoSota]

I have no problem with copy/pasting something per se.

It's an excellent way to bolster a point that has been made. It offers not only a second witness but often a more eloquent manner of communicating the point.

It's laziness that's boring.

If you have a point to make, then make it yourself, for your own sake if for no other reason. If you want to post something someone else said to help boost your comments then fine, just don't be lazy. Lazy people suck.

Clete

The quote makes the point for the OPs question. The OP finds the point "boring." This is not surprising.

 

[Clete]

... I have an open invitation for you to explain your foundation and to respond to specific questions, but you said it would waste your time and that you would that I buy someone else's book.

This amounts to an outright lie and will now permanently land you on my ignore list.

I've tried and tried and tried from multiple different directions to explain my doctrine to you but you'd not allow me one step in any direction I tried to go - not one single solitary step! Then, in an effort to prevent making an enemy of you, I decided that you and I simply cannot communicate with one another and chose to offer to help purchase a rather expensive book that would accomplish the same task, which you also flatly refused.

You have done exactly nothing but waste my time and intentionally so.

No longer!

Clete

 

[Clete]

The quote makes the point for the OPs question. The OP finds the point "boring." This is not surprising.

You aren't getting it.

The point isn't boring - YOU ARE!

Think for yourself man!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Jesus Christ is Truth. There is no other Truth.

Faith in that propositional fact is what saves the soul and that faith comes as a gift from God alone.

Clark was not in error at all.

Thanks for weighing in, Nang. It is so good to see you here and about.

Clark believed the traditional threefold definition of faith as notitia (understanding), assensus (assent) and fiducia (trust) is improper (tautological as he claimed) and, in the end, he felt it made no sense. If we are to accept Clark's own definitions of "trust", for example, there is no argument. However, the Reformed majority reject such attempts to redefine the terms Clark prefers.

The point of my post was in response to an uninformed view appealing to Clark. I would hope we are at least co-belligerents concerning the same.

For humans, all knowledge is a product of experience (as in reading, hearing words, etc.) and that is exactly what Rom. 1:20 teaches. As Calvin says "men cannot open their eyes without being compelled to see him... But upon his individual works he has engraved unmistakable marks of his glory, so clear and so prominent that even unlettered and stupid folk cannot plead the excuse of ignorance."

The Christian religion is certainly about propositional truth—ideas that can be expressed in axioms and conclusions—but it is far more than that. When Adam is said to know Eve there is much more communicated than some sort of cold, rational calculation where Adam expresses his knowledge of her in axiomatic language. We know things which surpass knowledge. That is because God is greater than our hearts, and hence greater than our knowledge. The object known surpasses the subject knowing. Humans have always communicated with their young with non-propositional knowledge. That is why the Bible places as much importance on the manner in which we say things as on the matter which is spoken.

Clark's rejection of the ecytypal and archetypal views of Reformed epistemology are not the direction we should be going. Contra Clark, we do not know things exactly as God knows them.

The matter has and continues to be debated ad infinitum. We will just have to agree to disagree.

AMR

 

[steko]

In the parable the ruler still returns on schedule.

Who is the ruler?
Has He returned yet?

 

[MennoSota]

You aren't getting it.

The point isn't boring - YOU ARE!

Think for yourself man!

LOL, Nice distraction from the Gospel. R.C. Sproul provided an excellent definition and you can't refute it, so you attack me. Again, nice distraction.

 

[JudgeRightly]

LOL, Nice distraction from the Gospel. R.C. Sproul provided an excellent definition and you can't refute it, so you attack me. Again, nice distraction.

And this is why you have 0 rep.

Clete wasn't attacking your point at all, let alone trying to refute it. If I'm reading his posts correctly, He was AGREEING with your point.

He was saying that YOU'RE the one that's boring, not your point.

Use your head once in a while, please?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Who is the ruler?
Has He returned yet?

You need to fix your formatting.

 

[steko]

You need to fix your formatting.

Yep, it was here:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?131175-The-Gospel-Proper&p=5290319&viewfull=1#post5290319

I had somehow deleted the last bracket on Glorydaz' quote function which led to further problems that I cannot correct in Gd's posts and Rosenritter's posts.
I fixed mine.

Thank you!

 

[Clete]

LOL, Nice distraction from the Gospel. R.C. Sproul provided an excellent definition and you can't refute it, so you attack me. Again, nice distraction.

Refute it?

Why would I refute it?

I pegged it as a copy/paste after about five words and stopped reading it.

You're a complete waste of everyone's time, including your own.

 

[MennoSota]

And this is why you have 0 rep.

Clete wasn't attacking your point at all, let alone trying to refute it. If I'm reading his posts correctly, He was AGREEING with your point.

He was saying that YOU'RE the one that's boring, not your point.

Use your head once in a while, please?

You have been around enough to know that I couldn't care less about some imaginary "rep" meter that you cling to.
This deflection from y'all is fascinating. The Gospel has been well defined and y'all don't care. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

 

[Clete]

You have been around enough to know that I couldn't care less about some imaginary "rep" meter that you cling to.
This deflection from y'all is fascinating. The Gospel has been well defined and y'all don't care. That tells me everything I need to know about you.

It's defined in the very first post of the thread! What in the world are you even talking about?

I'm telling you, folks - Calvinism is a mental disorder! :bang:

 

[7djengo7]

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ience-of-God&p=5271614&viewfull=1#post5271614

In the post to which that link is attached, you wrote:

God and I know that my house exists, but I certainly do not know of that existence to the same extent that God knows.

Both God and Joe know the true proposition, 'Joe's house exists'; that is, both God and Joe know the same true proposition as the other knows. What, exactly, would you say it is for one knower to know that true proposition to a greater (or lesser) extent than another knower knows it?

 

[MennoSota]

It's defined in the very first post of the thread! What in the world are you even talking about?

I'm telling you, folks - Calvinism is a mental disorder! :bang:

So...your definition is Calvinist since you have no gripe with what I posted. Good to know.

 

[Clete]

So...your definition is Calvinist since you have no gripe with what I posted. Good to know.

What?

The copy/paste you posted was from a very famous Calvinist. That, along with the other nonsense you've posted here and elsewhere has me convinced you're a Calvinist. That's all I was alluding to.

As for having "no gripe" with your copy/paste job, I've already voiced that. As for having "no gripe" with it's content, I didn't read enough of it to know.

Clete

 

[Clete]

In the post to which that link is attached, you wrote:



Both God and Joe know the true proposition, 'Joe's house exists'; that is, both God and Joe know the same true proposition as the other knows. What, exactly, would you say it is for one knower to know that true proposition to a greater (or lesser) extent than another knower knows it?

Brilliant question! There's no way for him to answer the question without contradicting himself.

The best he could do would be to answer, "I have no idea whatsoever whether there is any difference at all between the extent of one knower's knowledge over that of the other.", but there's no chance at all that he's going to say that and even if he did, that too would conflict with his premise.

 

[glorydaz]

In the post to which that link is attached, you wrote:



Both God and Joe know the true proposition, 'Joe's house exists'; that is, both God and Joe know the same true proposition as the other knows. What, exactly, would you say it is for one knower to know that true proposition to a greater (or lesser) extent than another knower knows it?

God knows where the wood came from. :think:

 

[MennoSota]

What?

The copy/paste you posted was from a very famous Calvinist. That, along with the other nonsense you've posted here and elsewhere has me convinced you're a Calvinist. That's all I was alluding to.

As for having "no gripe" with your copy/paste job, I've already voiced that. As for having "no gripe" with it's content, I didn't read enough of it to know.

Clete

So you didn't read it and yet you're complaining. LOL