Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from June, 2014

Conviction and anguish over sin cannot save you from hell - William S. Plumer

Do not believe that your convictions are too deep and too strong ever to leave you. They are perhaps not stronger than those of Felix when he trembled, of Herod when he heard John and did many things gladly, of Ahab when he humbled himself, or of king Saul when he lifted up his voice and wept. Conviction of itself, is not a saving grace. It is itself no pledge of salvation. It may leave one midway between carelessness and conversion, just as Lot’s wife was left between Sodom and Zoar. If your convictions do not lead to Christ, and that speedily, you may become familiar with them, and their effect be lost up on you. Conviction of itself, is not conversion. Conviction can save no man. Misconceive not the terms of salvation. On this point there is much danger. Be specially guarded that you do not attempt to substitute your own distress of mind for the sufferings of Christ. Sin is neither pardoned nor expelled, by the anguish of any sinful worm. The more distressed men are, the stouter i…

RE: Pastor Mark Jones On Baptist Children

In a post entitled Daddy, am I really forgiven?, Pastor Mark Jones asked a series of leading questions for Baptists raising their children. I wanted to post my response to those questions in an effort for paedobaptists to better understand the position of baptists, and perhaps to help other baptists who encounter these types of questions.

1. When my children sin and ask for forgiveness from God, can I assure them that their sins are forgiven?

Yes. The apostle John says, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9 ESV)

2. When I ask my children to obey me in the Lord should I get rid of the indicative-imperative model for Christian ethics?

There is one standard, which is God's, according to which both believers and non-believers are accountable. There are not two different standards. So the commandment for children to obey their parents shows no distinction of believers and non-believers, a…

On 1 Corinthians 7:14 "as it is they [the children] are holy"

For the unbelieving husband is set apart for God by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is set apart for God by the husband. Otherwise your children would be corrupt, but now they are set apart for God. (1 Corinthians 7:14 HCSB) Most Bible versions translate hagios here to "holy" which is correct, except that it results in some interpreting the word in some salvific or new-covenant-inclusive sense by some paedobaptists, but I think the HCSB's rendering of "set apart" alludes to the correct understanding. The reason is this: The children are not made holy in the sense of being saved from the wrath to come. They are not justified. The only way that a child could be holy in a justified sense is according to the Scriptures, which is by their own faith, not because of the faith of their believing parent(s). So it follows that "holy" here means something other than faith. One common understanding shared by some, including John Calvin, is that "holy&quo…

Can a Christian man be a stay-at-home husband or a SAHH?

In this post I offer some arguments to consider the topic of stay at home husbands and attempt to answer one objection I encountered.

The objection is this: Isn't it true that there are other means of husbands providing for their families? Why then is financial support necessarily a function the husband should fulfill? Can't the husband provide for his household as a stay-at-home husband and father?

It is certainly true that there are many ways to provide for one's family, but I think the question we are dealing with here is, is it biblical for the wife to function as the primary financial support, while the husband stays at home and functions as the primary manager of the household? Another way of asking this is, Does the financial support role carry more weight than other roles, such that it should be assigned primarily to the husband, the head of the household? I think the answer to the first question is no and second yes. Let me offer some arguments to consider.

The f…

Aquinas: Should a Christian answer back to a reviler or mocker?

Whether one ought to suffer oneself to be reviled?

Objection 1: It would seem that one ought not to suffer oneself to be reviled. For he that suffers himself to be reviled, encourages the reviler. But one ought not to do this. Therefore one ought not to suffer oneself to be reviled, but rather reply to the reviler.

Objection 2: Further, one ought to love oneself more than another. Now one ought not to suffer another to be reviled, wherefore it is written (Prov. 26:10): "He that putteth a fool to silence appeaseth anger." Therefore neither should one suffer oneself to be reviled.

Objection 3: Further, a man is not allowed to revenge himself, for it is said: "Vengeance belongeth to Me, I will repay" [*Heb. 10:30]. Now by submitting to be reviled a man revenges himself, according to Chrysostom (Hom. xxii, in Ep. ad Rom.): "If thou wilt be revenged, be silent; thou hast dealt him a fatal blow." Therefore one ought not by silence to submit to reviling words, but…

A helpful rebuttal to the paedobaptist argument that Luke uses "brephe" (often translated "infant") in chapter 18.

The Greek for infants, or babes, is usually brephe ; but even this word is sometimes applied to children that are not infants. Thus, Luke, in his narrative of this transaction, once uses the term (v. 15) in the same way as paidia, —rendered in our Version by "infants". Here, however, the fact that Luke, in all other places in the passage, employs the word paidia, as is done in every case in Matthew and Mark, shows that children older than infants are meant; just as, in 2 Tim. 3:15, we read of Timothy, that " from a child" (apo brephous) he was " acquainted with the Scriptures" ; where brephos quite clearly does not mean a babe, or infant.

The manner in which the Evangelists narrate this transaction, proves beyond question, that the children spoken of were not infants but young growing children, capable, not only of walking, but of understanding speech. All three of the Evangelists represent our Lord as saying "forbid them not to come" elthein, …