# Puritan Board and it's potential for edification



## Scott Bushey (Jul 30, 2005)

*Puritan Board and it\'s potential for edification*

How do you define edification, or that which is edifying? Is edification confused with happiness and joy? Could one be edified (biblically) and yet not happy or joyous over the edification process?

edÂ·iÂ·fiÂ·caÂ·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-f-kshn)
n. 
Intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement; enlightenment.

edÂ·iÂ·fy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-f)
tr.v. edÂ·iÂ·fied, edÂ·iÂ·fyÂ·ing, edÂ·iÂ·fies 
To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement. 

Main Entry: edÂ·iÂ·fy 
Pronunciation: 'e-d&-"fI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -fied; -fyÂ·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French edifier, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin aedificare to instruct or improve spiritually, from Latin, to erect a house, from aedes temple, house; akin to Old English Ad funeral pyre, Latin aestas summer
1 archaic a : BUILD b : ESTABLISH
2 : to instruct and improve especially in moral and religious knowledge; also : ENLIGHTEN, INFORM 

Rom 15:2 Let every one of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. 

Act 9:31 Then had the churches rest throughout all Judaea and Galilee and Samaria, and were edified; and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. 

1Co 14:26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying. 

2Co 12:19 Again, think ye that we excuse ourselves unto you? we speak before God in Christ: but we do all things, dearly beloved, for your edifying. 

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: 
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; 
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: 

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.

If the board IS edifying; how is it edifying?
If it is not, how is it not?

*Feel free to add your definition!

[Edited on 7-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 30, 2005)

I couldn't have said it better.



> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Could one be edified (biblically) and yet not happy or joyous over the edification process?



I would definitely answer yes to this question, and in fact add that in order to have a full, rounded edification in time, such a lack is even necessary at times, for it is one thing God uses to edify us.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2005)




----------



## JonathanHunt (Jul 30, 2005)

The PB has great POTENTIAL to be edifying.

However, I have often found it cold, insulting, and particularly recently, bizarre.

Let's look at the POTENTIAL and get to it.

JH


----------



## Augusta (Jul 30, 2005)

It had better be edifying! I spend enough time here.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2005)




----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> The PB has great POTENTIAL to be edifying.
> 
> However, I have often found it cold, insulting, and particularly recently, bizarre.
> ...



1) What can we do to press towards "edifying" (i.e. identify the "potential things).

2) Insulting - this is part of the character of the posters that should be chagned. We have to work on this. 

3) Bizzare - what is bizzare? (Explain?)


----------



## just_grace (Jul 30, 2005)

*Usefulness...*

I find it a bit stiff at times but that's the 'Reformed' thing. I like it. It's one of the best Christian boards on the net, mind you I have not been to many.

Keep up the good work. 

David


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2005)

No Baptist Fire is better


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 30, 2005)

I have a serious question - 

5 people voted that the PB is NOT edifying.

Why are you still here if it is not edifying?
I somewhat do not understand that.

I'm looking for consctructive criticism to make the board better, so I ask this in all sincereity.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2005)

The only thing is maybe some feel out numbered so it can create a sense of cat backed into corner type feeling. 

Blade


----------



## alwaysreforming (Jul 30, 2005)

I always find the Board edifying. 

Certainly debates can become overheated, but one has to understand going in that the potential for misunderstandings and hurt feelings is raised significantly due to the "monotone" of the typed word, and the potential for a sentence to be read in a negative light is always there due to the inner voice of the reader.

However, even in the "barbed exchanges" the spirit of the Board usually wins out as most people come around to working things out charitably.

If there was a better Board, I'd be there instead of here. But having so little like-minded fellowship elsewhere, the PB is like a drink of water in a desert. I need it!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 30, 2005)

I am greatly blessed by this Board and enjoy the virtual fellowship immensely. Just yesterday I had the privilege of meeting a fellow PB'er in person for the first time and I hope to meet more in time, as the Lord wills. I am also thankful for the prayers of so many as well as the encouragement to pray. There are times when there is more heat than light on the Board, but cooler heads usually prevail. When it gets too hot, I like to retire to the Puritan Pub for a pint with the brethren



or the Prayer forum . I count it a great joy to be a part of this forum and I say with Tiny Tim, "God bless us, everyone!"


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 30, 2005)

I haven't posted the most edidying posts lately... i need to get my priorities straight...


----------



## turmeric (Jul 30, 2005)

I like discussing theology with people when they are gentle in their approach. I understand that on doctrinal essentials we shouldn't give an inch, but on non-essentials, or in debates on essentials where a person is genuinely struggling (sometimes with their own unwillingness to believe the truth), I wish we'd be slower in lowering the boom. It makes conversation about non-essentials seem more threatening than they should be, especially when these latter conversations are pursued with the same degree of intensity as the ones on essentials. (Read; I don't want to get banned for not being a preterist or for believing EP is a matter of conscience, I would rather tell jokes any day.)


----------



## Tirian (Jul 31, 2005)

I definately find PB to be edifying.

Though I havent suffered the following - one thing I have noticed is that new posters trying to enter into a discussion are sometimes told "we've discussed this line of thinking many times before" etc. You know, the search tool on this site only goes so far... For example, I've found it to be poor at multi-word searching. I think it is more helpful (an edifying) for those who have participated in discussions previously to provide the link to the relevant threads. I know that when I am familiar with a particular thread, I find it easier to search & locate it than if I were doing a general search on a topic.

Also, we must also be mindful of encouraging each other at all times. I'm encouraged when I see people with differing points of view gently draw out arguments on either side to cement their thinking (or change their mind). In this kind of atmosphere, it may become easier for more lurkers to become posters knowing that they will recieve loving encouragement - even if they only new to the faith or new to reformed theology.

Matt


----------



## satz (Jul 31, 2005)

I've found this board to on the whole be edifying and challenging. As with any internet medium, peopl are emboldened by the anonymous nature of the board to speak in ways they wouldn't do face to face, which can lead to some overheated arguments. But on the whole i find the spirit of this board to be a good christian witness. Certainly this is the best board is have yet found on the 'net.

I think that all because topics may not be on grand gospel issues does not mean they are not edifying. The gospel should be our primary focus, but all of life is to be lived to the glory of God and discussing even trivial things with christian brother can, as long as time considerations are taken into account.

Also, some questions regarding if certain things are sin or not may seem stupid to some who say the answer is simply to focus on the glory and holiness of God. While this is certainly good counsel, different christians struggle with different things and sometimes need more rebuke and encouragement to give up sins which may feel very 'obvious' to us.


----------



## Arch2k (Jul 31, 2005)

The puritanboard is wonderful. For me, it is so great to retreat to a place that as far as the reformed confessions are concerned, we are for the most part like minded. Even in my own church, exception after exception is given to the standards with distaste for debate or discussion. Simple things like images of God are forbade not because it is absolutely wrong and idolartry in the sight of God, but because it might cause us weak "ultra" reformed folk to stumble.

Debate and discussion is good. Ignorance is bad. If any of us is corrected in our thinking, we should be extremely thankful for our new found knowledge of the truth. THIS is sanctification. Let us debate with rigor, but be honest with the truth, and all in love.

Thank you all for this board.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 31, 2005)

It has been on my mind a great deal in the past few months that I should resign from the Board. There are things that are having undue influence on my posts. I don't like the way I wrote some things after I wrote them, but I am very reluctant go back and change posts after my initial edit. I feel I must leave them as I wrote them. And they rub me constantly. 

But what has kept me from resigning is that this Board is edifying. I mean, I can write my thoughts or ideas down, and I get feedback from godly people that build me up. Either I am wrong about something, and I am corrected, or I may be right but not very precise, or even misleading, and I get corrected. Or we discuss and it becomes a learning and growing for all the participants. That to me is what edification is. I grow in the Word and in the fellowship with my Saviour and with His other servants, my fellow boarders. 

The leadership has been great. Whenever it was challenged to lead, it led. Whenever it was challenged to solve, it solved. Whenever it was challenged with things to overcome, it overcame. Are we heading the right way? Sometimes it is right to question that, when we look at snippets of the Board's life, but on the whole we have certainly headed the right direction, as proven, I believe, by the kind of participation we've achieved.


----------



## BrianBowman (Jul 31, 2005)

Until God led me to the Reformed Faith a little over a year ago, I was a former Charismatic (1980-88) then profligate (1989-94) then Dispesationalist (1994-2004). Generally I have found the PB to be edifying. I so agree that sometimes our banter gets a bit overheated. If we were face-to-face and willing to pray on our knees together I think we would all have much more charity and fewer words to say.

Even though I don't always understand his depth of "Covenantal Logic" I am extremely grateful to Matt for his scholarship and leadership on this board. What I have experienced here so far is helping me grow in sound doctrine, Christian character, and into Christ's image.

Much Love, Grace, and Peace in our Lord Jesus Christ!


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 1, 2005)

To JohnV


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2005)

Let me tell you what the PB has done for me.

I had a very hard marriage which ended in divorce. I ended up with my 3 lovely boys though. During the time of my marriage I had to quit discipling others and got left out in the dark concerning theological controversy. NPP and NCT infected some of my friends in the mean time. I happened on apuritansmind and started looking at the PB. I had never done a forum because I just didn't have the time or energy.
So I came to the forum out of sync and pretty beat up.

As a Reformed Baptist I did feel a little ganged up on in a few threads but I learned to live with it. At least people were serious about their relationship with Jesus and they knew what they were talking about.

To put it mildly, The Puritanboard pulled me up to where I needed to be concerning the knowledge of what was going on in modern day theology. I have been able to competently discuss the issues with my friends. Plus, I have been incredibly encouraged in my pursuit of God and His righteousness. I have also picked up a few friends along the way. 

So I give the Puritanboard an A+ for edification and encouragement. 

Thanks Matt, Scott, Fred, Josh, Phil, and all the other moderaters. Thanks to all of you who participate on the board. I am a better person because of you all. Thanks for your prayers. My Kidneys are doing better for some Unknown reason. God has been faithful. 

And I also like the dancing .

Be Encouraged, Randy

P.S. I am not a dispensationalist as I have been accused. I believe in Covenant Theology. And I am Reformed. Just not a paedo-baptist. 


[Edited on 8-1-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 1, 2005)

Thank you all! This thread has been edifying. Randy, I got a bit misty reading your last post, thank you for the encouraging words.

The gripe I hear about fellowshipping on the internet is that because of the insulation of the virtual distance and the partial anonymity of the posters, they will be more brazen, bold and boisterous (intentional alliteration) than they are in 'real' life. As new members come in and participate I have seen this exagerated bravado but over time it's gets tempered.

I think the insults are a product of posters who have learned to communicate on other less civil websites. I believe the PB approximates the same type of personal dynamics one would find in any 'real' world setting. When someone oversteps their bounds others will usually chime in and matters are handled in a manner worthy of the gospel.

I sure have grown since meeting you people. I agree with those who assess this board as one of the more gentler on the web. Some discussions we have are fun and benign and others are more serious and pointed. Those that are more serious ought to be so and remind us that there ARE matters of GREAT consequence in the church, and matters we ought to be passionate about.

Gentleness is the defining characteristic of very few children of men and we do struggle here to give a well reasoned and edifiying response but we will find that struggle anywhere. 

Praise God that the moderators dare to ask such a question.


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 1, 2005)

We have a great liberty and freedom in this country to enjoy and benefit from such resources as the Puritan Board chat room. While I don't post as often as I would like, I do read many of the strings, which spurs and challenges me to further study. I also gain from the insight and community, albeit "a virtual community", from which I find edification and encouragement. The reality of occasional friction among posters does not diminish the benefit gained and the quenched thirst of reformed fellowship poured out to those like myself who live amidst a desert of religious syncretism.


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 1, 2005)

My honest, tough answer is yes sometimes but mostly no.

Strengths:

There are a handful of truly gifted teachers and ministers of the Word who occasionally make very edifying posts. Some of the things posted even years ago by such men continue to influence me for the better. The PB has the potential for much good. We provide helpful information to one another such as the best places to buy Reformed books on the cheap, the location of solid churches when members relocate, and first-hand evaluations of various theological seminaries across the country. It has been edifying to join in praying for a member´s specific need and seeing God answer our prayers. I have had the privilege of meeting several members in person and making strong and faithful friends in the Lord as a direct result of this board.

Weaknesses:

The church today is weak and compromised with worldliness, and the board reflects that. The main problems that detract from the board´s edification potential can be summed up in three categories: 1) unstable leadership, 2) unstable groupies, and 3) rampant, uncharitable immaturity. By leadership, I primarily refer to Matthew and, secondarily, to Scott. Matt recently made the very good point that "œwe ought not to propagate anything written by [Doug Wilson] since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving." What I believe Matt meant by this is that Wilson is not a trustworthy guide because he has made significant shifts in so short a span of time that we have no safety in knowing where he is ultimately going to end up. It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows? Well, it was also not long ago that Matt was a Reformed Baptist and a prolific critic of paedobaptism. Last week, he was a critic of the psalm-only camp. There´s nothing wrong with sweeping changes and massive theological shifts in keeping with one´s conscience, but it makes for unstable leadership. If a Presbyterian in the mold of Fred "“ a firm rock whom you know where he stands today and where he will still be standing tomorrow even if you disagree on some points "“ were to be the owner of the board, we´d have a more edifying board. The problem is severely compounded when Matt makes these exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online. This is where the groupies come in to play.

Matt has obviously been gifted with a sharp, active, and forceful mind. As a prolific writer, thinker, and owner of APM, it is natural that he would attract groupies. I have seen similar websites emerge, and it is inevitable that whoever is the webmaster will receive a certain number of disciples. He steps out of the role on occasion, but Scott for the most part is Matt´s most faithful disciple. When Matt makes a new shift, I imagine that after he forcefully uses his logic to convince his wife ("œwe need to baptize our babies," for example), Scott is the next to conform. Yet, it´s the other groupies that I see as problematic because they often conform too quickly to even give the semblance of having studied the issue at hand. Most of them grew up in a-theological SBC churches, logged on to the Internet, went to the PB, and now seem to drink whatever kool-aid Matt offers, little to no questions asked. As this happens the circle of orthodoxy appears to narrow ever tighter and those of us on the outside begin to feel a bit less welcome. I maintain that, given the added responsibility of having disciples one did not ask for, Matt´s exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online are inappropriate. However, the greater fault is with those who conform to Matt without due diligence or who examine a thing not because it is the thing God wishes for them to examine in their heart at the time but because it is the faddish thing on the PB at the time. The recipe for disaster is when newly converted groupies lack the maturity and graciousness to interact in a manner worthy of their calling go charging at others with their new weapon.

This may sound old-fashioned, but the young need to know their place. They need to respect their elders. They need to quietly listen to those more mature in the faith. Above all, they need to show reverence and respect for those who are actively serving the church as pastors. Frankly, among those of all ages, there is a lot of worldliness, pride, arrogance, immaturity, and thin-skinned little boys who ought to know by now how to be men of God. There have been many examples over the years of juvenile behavior. That Christians behave this way in a very open and public setting reflects the fact that we live in times in which the church is weak and compromised. There was recently a thread with pictures comparing America's President to a monkey and an ape. Most Calvinists like to argue, and I am no exception. However, just from reading most threads, one gets the impression that many, in a personal encounter, could reduce an atheist to tears and a fetal position but not have the first clue about how to lovingly offer them the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. I realize that human nature tends to interact in ways online one would never do in person. Yet, we must call this what it is "“ hypocrisy. I´ve personally participated in the guilt on this board of being thin-skinned and ungracious and immature, and I ask your forgiveness. I don´t have nearly the time I once did to participate here (classes begin again in 2 weeks for me), but I am resolved to be, as often as I am here, a part of the solution.

I realize I´ve been blunt and a bit personal. If I´ve wounded anyone´s pride with my answer, I pray it is the faithful wound of a friend. To summarize, here are the three things that I believe need to be done to tap into the board´s potential for edification. 1) Matt, you need to become a leader in the mold of Fred. You didn´t ask for disciples but you got "˜em. So, you need to be careful what you say, when and how you say it, and think about how the groupies are going to receive it. Stop being a fanatical hyperist; start being a rock. 2) Matthew fans, you need to let God set the agenda for what areas, theological and otherwise, He needs to be dealing with you about, rather than this message board. Also, submit to and respect your elders. 3) We all need to mortify our pride, esteem all other posters as higher than ourselves, love the brethren, and get thicker skin.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 1, 2005)

Greg,
Is it possible that I was paedo or EP before Matt was?


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Greg,
> Is it possible that I was paedo or EP before Matt was?



Scott,

Absoutely! In fact, over the years you've begun to influence your teacher almost as much as he influences you. As with EP, you made the switch while Matt was still wrestling with himself. By dubbing you his disciple, I don't mean to imply that you don't think for yourself. You're the kind of disciple any teacher would want. Somehow, you and Matt do follow the same trails to the same destinations at more or less the same time.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 1, 2005)

Thanks Greg.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

> My honest, tough answer is yes sometimes but mostly no.
> 
> Strengths:
> 
> There are a handful of truly gifted teachers and ministers of the Word who occasionally make very edifying posts. Some of the things posted even years ago by such men continue to influence me for the better. The PB has the potential for much good. We provide helpful information to one another such as the best places to buy Reformed books on the cheap, the location of solid churches when members relocate, and first-hand evaluations of various theological seminaries across the country. It has been edifying to join in praying for a member´s specific need and seeing God answer our prayers. I have had the privilege of meeting several members in person and making strong and faithful friends in the Lord as a direct result of this board.



Great!



> Weaknesses:
> 
> The church today is weak and compromised with worldliness, and the board reflects that. The main problems that detract from the board´s edification potential can be summed up in three categories: 1) unstable leadership, 2) unstable groupies, and 3) rampant, uncharitable immaturity. By leadership, I primarily refer to Matthew and, secondarily, to Scott. Matt recently made the very good point that "œwe ought not to propagate anything written by [Doug Wilson] since his views are currently being disseminated and evolving." What I believe Matt meant by this is that Wilson is not a trustworthy guide because he has made significant shifts in so short a span of time that we have no safety in knowing where he is ultimately going to end up.



This is not what I meant at all about Wilson. Time has nothing to do with it. Wilson is no longer trustworthy because he is 1) teaching things contrary to the Scriptures and 2) teaching things contrary to the WCF. As David King rightly said about offering information on one´s views on another thread: "œI don't think such a question's answer can be reduced to the mechanics of time, anymore than one's maturity in Christ on any given subject can be reduced to a measurement of time."



> It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?



Of all things, Wilson´s paedocommunionism is the least of the trouble. Justification is much more important a topic to deal with. 



> Well, it was also not long ago that Matt was a Reformed Baptist and a prolific critic of paedobaptism.



4 years is not long enough to make a switch after studying CT for 15 years? Maybe its not for _some people_. Maybe they need 20 years. It was "just right" for me - I needed 4. But I´m not following you. How long is too long, and how short is too short? Again, "œ"œI don't think such a question's answer can be reduced to the mechanics of time, anymore than one's maturity in Christ on any given subject can be reduced to a measurement of time." Isn´t sanctification something God does in us?



> Last week, he was a critic of the psalm-only camp.



This has been an ongoing study for me for over 6 years. Is 6 years too short? I think the time issue is going to bite (bit) you. I will always be a critic until I switch views so that I´m sure I cover my bases. Can you give us a "œchart" or something that may help us determine what is too long or too short a time to make theological changes (i.e. sanctification)? 



> There´s nothing wrong with sweeping changes and massive theological shifts in keeping with one´s conscience, but it makes for unstable leadership. If a Presbyterian in the mold of Fred "“ a firm rock whom you know where he stands today and where he will still be standing tomorrow even if you disagree on some points "“ were to be the owner of the board, we´d have a more edifying board. The problem is severely compounded when Matt makes these exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online. This is where the groupies come in to play.



This is not against Fred at all "“ but that is bunk. Bunk is a good theological word to use occasionally. Was the Reformation unstable? A stable leader who is in error, would not be a stable leader that we would want. If continually conforming to the Bible and Confession is wrong, a bad thing, that is not "œinstability" - Luther and Calvin would call it *Reformation*. Semper Reformanda? Now if I, or anyone else, was credo this week, and paedo next week, and credo the week after, and paedo the week after that, then please, by all means, call _that_ unstable. Double minded and unstable in all I do. That would definitely be unstable. But does reformation mean instability?



> Matt has obviously been gifted with a sharp, active, and forceful mind.



If I were unstable, that could not be the case! But I appreciate the compliment. 



> As a prolific writer, thinker, and owner of APM, it is natural that he would attract groupies. I have seen similar websites emerge, and it is inevitable that whoever is the webmaster will receive a certain number of disciples. He steps out of the role on occasion, but Scott for the most part is Matt´s most faithful disciple. When Matt makes a new shift, I imagine that after he forcefully uses his logic to convince his wife ("œwe need to baptize our babies," for example), Scott is the next to conform. Yet, it´s the other groupies that I see as problematic because they often conform too quickly to even give the semblance of having studied the issue at hand. Most of them grew up in a-theological SBC churches, logged on to the Internet, went to the PB, and now seem to drink whatever kool-aid Matt offers, little to no questions asked. As this happens the circle of orthodoxy appears to narrow ever tighter and those of us on the outside begin to feel a bit less welcome.



This is a problem that every pastor has to deal with, and every theologian has to deal with. No one should ever accept information at face value. That is a problem that we have all through church history. Scott, though, just for the _record_, was a paedo-baptist and someone who held to EP before I did. My switch never takes place unless I am sure I have covered every exegetical angle I can, and I´m sure I´m not going to be surprised, for example, by satire. 



> I maintain that, given the added responsibility of having disciples one did not ask for, Matt´s exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online are inappropriate.



Greg, come on, this is a ridiculous assertion.  Take five minutes and think about what you wrote and how it applies to Augustine, Luther, Owen, Calvin, etc. The greats of the church history. I´m not saying I´m great, but think about the application of the "œdon´t publish your switches" mentality. If you mean "“ "œMatt writes things" "“ by "œexhibitionist" that is an impossible inappropriateness to deal with. Augustine, for example, wrote far more prolifically than I, volumes and volumes, and towards the end of his life finally composed a "œretraction" of his errors. I guess he swayed lots of people and should not have been such an exhibitionist. Calvin revised the Institutes how many times before we have it in its current form? How many pages did it expand? How many chapters? And this is the most widely accepted reformation document _ever written_. Calvin was Roman Catholic and became protestant and lots of people followed him. Is that bad? Was he unstable? Study Calvin´s life and you will see he went through a great amount of writing and editing in the Institutes as he refined his views. Even in Strasbourg, during his sabbatical, it was a time of prolific writing. Lots of people followed him. The Institutes must have been an inappropriate exhibition. Cutting to the chase: What the real problem is, people _don´t like where I´m going._ For example, if I was gradually becoming a Credobaptist, you would be *cheering me on.*  Be honest! 



> However, the greater fault is with those who conform to Matt without due diligence or who examine a thing not because it is the thing God wishes for them to examine in their heart at the time but because it is the faddish thing on the PB at the time. The recipe for disaster is when newly converted groupies lack the maturity and graciousness to interact in a manner worthy of their calling go charging at others with their new weapon.



I wholly agree with this. People should never follow a fad, and never accept something unless they are doing their due diligence and study in a prayerful manner. But this is a different problem than whether I should or should not write down my thoughts and place them on APM or the PB. 



> This may sound old-fashioned, but the young need to know their place. They need to respect their elders. They need to quietly listen to those more mature in the faith. Above all, they need to show reverence and respect for those who are actively serving the church as pastors.



True. This needs to be kicked up a notch on the board.



> Frankly, among those of all ages, there is a lot of worldliness, pride, arrogance, immaturity, and thin-skinned little boys who ought to know by now how to be men of God. There have been many examples over the years of juvenile behavior. That Christians behave this way in a very open and public setting reflects the fact that we live in times in which the church is weak and compromised. There was recently a thread with pictures comparing America's President to a monkey and an ape. Most Calvinists like to argue, and I am no exception. However, just from reading most threads, one gets the impression that many, in a personal encounter, could reduce an atheist to tears and a fetal position but not have the first clue about how to lovingly offer them the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ. I realize that human nature tends to interact in ways online one would never do in person. Yet, we must call this what it is "“ hypocrisy. I´ve personally participated in the guilt on this board of being thin-skinned and ungracious and immature, and I ask your forgiveness. I don´t have nearly the time I once did to participate here (classes begin again in 2 weeks for me), but I am resolved to be, as often as I am here, a part of the solution.



I agree with this overall.



> I realize I´ve been blunt and a bit personal. If I´ve wounded anyone´s pride with my answer, I pray it is the faithful wound of a friend. To summarize, here are the three things that I believe need to be done to tap into the board´s potential for edification. 1) Matt, you need to become a leader in the mold of Fred. You didn´t ask for disciples but you got "˜em. So, you need to be careful what you say, when and how you say it, and think about how the groupies are going to receive it. Stop being a fanatical hyperist; start being a rock.



I don´t mind personal at all. I do mind when its incorrect.  Let´s say for argument´s sake that I´m turning to Theonomy (I´m not, but let´s just say that) "“ at what time do you think it would be best to let others know? Is there a set time period? How long, how short? Etc? Your "œrock analogy" isn´t going to hold up in comparison to the sanctification process that Christ has laid on each one of us, and for each of us its different. Moses is int he wilderness, sees a bush burning and learns something new in 5 seconds. When God is around, bushes can burn and not be consumed. That was about a radical thing as anyone had ever seen. It did not take him long to process the information. Maybe it´s a _bad thing_ Fred is a rock. Maybe there are views he needs to change. Is it a good thing, then if he didn´t change them? This is not a "œpride issue" it´s a practical question. Luther was not a rock in this respect. Neither was Calvin. Their works represented their views at the time. If retractions are needed to be made because of Christ´s sanctification, they made them. Otherwise, we would be a church bereft of any writings at all. No one would ever be "stable enough." 

Since Greg is very much right about my influence, I repeat "“ I am not becoming a theonomist.



> 2) Matthew fans, you need to let God set the agenda for what areas, theological and otherwise, He needs to be dealing with you about, rather than this message board. Also, submit to and respect your elders.



I don´t necessarily agree here either because God uses lots of things in our lives to change our minds on things towards further sanctification. I do agree that PB should not be the MAIN source, but it certainly could be a huge source. Lots of churches have little fellowship of this kind because people do not like to talk about things as deep. And yet, I have received thousands of emails from people all over the planet who tell me that APM and PB have helped them immensely change their views of things that they needed to see more clearly. I praise God for that (who am I?). That does not mean they neglect the means of grace they have at their local church "“ that for them should be their #1 means of grace. The PB or APM should be WAY down the list. But could it be that God is sovereign over the PB as well, and just maybe there are theological ideas that are being sparked here so they, and you, consider them Greg? I guess that would include "œGod´s agenda" in our sanctification!



> 3) We all need to mortify our pride, esteem all other posters as higher than ourselves, love the brethren, and get thicker skin/



I agree very much.


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > Weaknesses:
> ...



Oh, okay. Then we disagree a bit about the time thing. 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?
> ...



 I agree. 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > Well, it was also not long ago that Matt was a Reformed Baptist and a prolific critic of paedobaptism.
> ...



Four years is about right. I certainly didn't mean to imply that you make these shifts lightly or even hastily.



> Last week, he was a critic of the psalm-only camp.





> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> This has been an ongoing study for me for over 6 years. Is 6 years too short? I think the time issue is going to bite (bit) you.



Ah, I see where our thoughts are diverging. As far as time goes, I put as much emphasis on the maturation time _after_ a great shift (one needs time to move beyond the cage stage) as I do on the time of study leading up to the shift. But shifting, per se, is not a bad thing. As I wrote:



> There´s nothing wrong with sweeping changes and massive theological shifts in keeping with one´s conscience, but it makes for unstable leadership.



I didn't mean unstable leader. I specifically meant unstable leader_ship_. 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> This is not against Fred at all "“ but that is bunk. Bunk is a good theological word to use occasionally.



It's a good word. 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Was the Reformation unstable?



Yes, in a good way as I'm sure you'd agree. 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> A stable leader who is in error, would not be a stable leader that we would want. If continually conforming to the Bible and Confession is wrong, a bad thing, that is not "œinstability" - Luther and Calvin would call it *Reformation*. Semper Reformanda? Now if I, or anyone else, was credo this week, and paedo next week, and credo the week after, and paedo the week after that, then please, by all means, call _that_ unstable. Double minded and unstable in all I do. That would definitely be unstable. But does reformation mean instability?



Let me clarifly what I meant. You are an influential leader over many who visit and participate here on this Internet site. Imagine a real world leader, say a pastor of a Reformed Baptist church. He becomes convinced of paedobaptism. Does he hint at the Wednesday night service that he is about to undergo a major theological shift to be announced on Sunday? Does he take to the pulpit on Sunday and preach against the evils of not giving covenant children the sign and seal? Or, does he speak to the other elders in private, make organized arrangements to be replaced as pastor, and then graciously leave to find fellowship in a paedobaptist communion? One way is more stable than the other. 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > Matt has obviously been gifted with a sharp, active, and forceful mind.
> ...



 But seriously, I meant the structure, not you personally.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > As a prolific writer, thinker, and owner of APM, it is natural that he would attract groupies. I have seen similar websites emerge, and it is inevitable that whoever is the webmaster will receive a certain number of disciples. He steps out of the role on occasion, but Scott for the most part is Matt´s most faithful disciple. When Matt makes a new shift, I imagine that after he forcefully uses his logic to convince his wife ("œwe need to baptize our babies," for example), Scott is the next to conform. Yet, it´s the other groupies that I see as problematic because they often conform too quickly to even give the semblance of having studied the issue at hand. Most of them grew up in a-theological SBC churches, logged on to the Internet, went to the PB, and now seem to drink whatever kool-aid Matt offers, little to no questions asked. As this happens the circle of orthodoxy appears to narrow ever tighter and those of us on the outside begin to feel a bit less welcome.
> ...



I know it and covering every exegetical angle should be exemplified.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > I maintain that, given the added responsibility of having disciples one did not ask for, Matt´s exhibitionist doctrinal shifts online are inappropriate.
> ...



You took what I said wrong. I'm not advocating "never publish your switches." What I meant by "exhibitionist" was the way in which you first posted a "teaser" stating that you were about to make a shift. You hinted that it had to do with worship. A guessing game ensued. You then gave a word jumble. Then, after everyone understandably waited expectantly, you made your shift. Again, I'll pick on Fred again. Had someone in Fred's mold made such a shift, I doubt he would have publicized it the very day he made the shift, let alone before he had made it. Considering you have a following, it would make sense to be a little more prudent and give it a while.



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > However, the greater fault is with those who conform to Matt without due diligence or who examine a thing not because it is the thing God wishes for them to examine in their heart at the time but because it is the faddish thing on the PB at the time. The recipe for disaster is when newly converted groupies lack the maturity and graciousness to interact in a manner worthy of their calling go charging at others with their new weapon.
> ...



Yes, I agree. 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > I realize I´ve been blunt and a bit personal. If I´ve wounded anyone´s pride with my answer, I pray it is the faithful wound of a friend. To summarize, here are the three things that I believe need to be done to tap into the board´s potential for edification. 1) Matt, you need to become a leader in the mold of Fred. You didn´t ask for disciples but you got "˜em. So, you need to be careful what you say, when and how you say it, and think about how the groupies are going to receive it. Stop being a fanatical hyperist; start being a rock.
> ...



Maybe instead of "rock," I should have said more pastoral. I obviously think that there are several views Fred needs to change, and I am not knocking change itself. We are all being sanctified. Yet I do think that change in leaders leads to less stable leadership. A leader can get a "shifty" reputation. A lot of shifts beg the question, "what next?" 



> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > 2) Matthew fans, you need to let God set the agenda for what areas, theological and otherwise, He needs to be dealing with you about, rather than this message board. Also, submit to and respect your elders.
> ...



I don't doubt that God _could_ lead people en mass out of error and into deeper truth through the late night stirringd of one man on an Internet board, but I don't believe that's what's happening here. I've noticed that God rarely does the "en mass" thing even in local churches. It is usally on an individual basis. This makes sense since each believer is at a different place, struggling with different failures, needing to be corrected in different areas. I find it implausible that Exclusive Psalm singing was the pressing sin issue in the lives of your individual followers, even if it may have been for you. I certainly may be wrong, though. Please take whatever is constructive from my criticisms and disregard the rest.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 1, 2005)

> > It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And even this is not half as bad the the glaring mistake of contempt for the church and for the Word, preaching things based solely on his own convictions, which are as changing as the wind even for the most stable of men. For me, I don't have to get into all these new perspectives, they've already blown their convincing ability, no matter how solid they think their reasoning is, simply because they acted unilaterally, which is a betrayal of their office, not a licence within their office. No matter how glaring a heresy one preaches, the real fault is that they presented it as God's Word when they had no warrant from anyone but themselves. It doesn't even have to be a heresy; it becomes a heresy when they preach it as God's Word when it isn't. 

That is the reason not to listen to anything any of the A-4 men preach. That's my reason, anyways. And Matt is by far well within that bounds to advise as he did. 

You won't find this schismatic kind of attitude in Matt or Scott. No matter how strong a stand they have taken, they have always respected the person and the individuality of each of us. What they have had issue with is not that people have different views, but that they jump to certain conclusions without hearing either the tenor or the particulars of what was said with the same amount of care that Matt or Scott had when they presented their sharpened views. Maybe they haven't reacted in the best way every time, but neither have I so I am not going to throw stones at them. They have my respect, for they have earned it.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

I think your post was very helpful overall. I appreciate your friendliness and your forthrightness, and your clarifications.


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > It was not long ago that Wilson was a Reformed Baptist, and now he gives communion to babies. What next? Who knows?
> ...



Actually, at the risk of getting both Matt and Greg on my case, I would disagree with this. Why?

Because I don't think that Wilson has been clearly articulating against _sola fide_. He has made some problematical statements and other problematical associations. But he has clearly embraced paedocommunion. And I would argue that paedocommunion will lead nearly inevitably to the denial of evangelical (in the old, good sense of the word) theology. Paedocommunion is all about membership over profession, presumption over revival. I would argue that any problems that Wilson would have with traditional Reformed formulations on justification (a-la WCF or 3FU) stem from his paedocommunion, rather than the reverse.

There is a reason why paedocommunion has only been adopted by Eastern Orthodox churches, and why EO churches have the doctrine of salvation that they do.


----------



## raderag (Aug 1, 2005)

I find it extremely edifying.

However, I find myself posting on another board much more often as I get to interact with Christians from other traditions. I would hope that somehow PB could somehow be a beacon of light to others in that people in other traditions could directly interact with PB through honest questions without having to affirm a reformed confession.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 1, 2005)

I've been thinking some all day on this and other issue related to leading a forum such as this. Whether we like it or not we must realise that everything said here has a much larger audience than those registered, and what is said here because of the nature of rapid written response is very different from the written 'debates' of ages past. In that light:

Greg beat me to the punch on one account: how are switches and theological positions handled by one in leadership? I am a pastor. There are positions which I hold that I do not share openly with everyone in my congregation at the same level of information. Do they affect my preaching? Certainly. For example: I believe in the RPW. I've taught that principle from the pulpit and never once used the theological name tag. I hold some views that are vastly more conservative theologically than many in my congregation. I don't however air those all or most of the time. I try to prayerfully and wisely use the underlying principles of those convictions in education and edification and trust that the Holy Spirit will use that to shape the hearts and lives of our members.

Secondly, there is a great deal of potential for edification on the PB. It's existence is not something to be taken lightly and involvment with it in a leadership level is not to be taken lightly as well. There are 'oodles' of people who lurk this board; both Christian and non-Chrisitian, reformed and unreformed. Words said here show up in some of the strangest places and conversations. Given that it adds gravity to what is taking place here. Its edification factor or tearing down factor are greater that what appears on the surface.

I apologise for the rambling nature of this post. I'm still perculating on more thoughts and directions.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



Not to jump on your case - do you think laymen would be more intrigued by new covenantal ideas surrounding justification, or surrounding paedocommunion? I would tend to think new ideas on justification would be more attractive that "paedo...what?" But I see your point.


----------



## raderag (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> There are 'oodles' of people who lurk this board; both Christian and non-Chrisitian, reformed and unreformed.




Do we know this is true, and if so, to what extent?


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



No jumping perceived. 

I think that laymen are more intrigued by paedocommunion, and that teachers are more intrigued to teach it. Why? Becuase it has the appearance of orthodoxy. It also has the advantage of being able to hold on to some classic formulations and merely be presenting an improvement, or a _semper reformanda_, even a _sola Scriptura_.

Experience bears this out. Which did NT Wright teach first? Wilkins? It was paedocommunion. In fact, there is no coincidence to me that the vast majority of NPP and FV supporters in the PCA and OPC were _first_ paedocommunion advocates.


----------



## raderag (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



I agree, but I think it would be nice for it to be opened up for questions and interaction in a limited way. If you really want to understand your theology, then test it against those that disagree.

[Edited on 8-1-2005 by raderag]


----------



## fredtgreco (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> ...



Yes, it is absolutely true. Both Lawrence and I can vouch for firsthand conversations with many who are lurkers or non-posters.

But as objective evidence, consider this:



There are 1215 members of PB. This is AFTER I purged all zero-posters about 6 months ago
In the past year alone, AFTER we established membership validation procedures (a bio, membership in a church, etc), roughly 400 people have joined
Right now (3:17 CT), there are 18 registered user online. There are also 21 Guests online.

[Edited on 8/1/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## raderag (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



That is great to here. Of course, I am sure that some of my statements will live in infamy.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> ...



As Fred stated I, he, and others on the board have had many converstations with lurkers. Mine are mostly people in my geographical area who recognise me and then contact me. Other times people have mentioned reading something here in conversation. It would be interesting to do a study of hits and IP if that were possible.

To see why this might be taking place just use google. There is a growing awareness of Reformed thinking among many younger Christians. In this they often begin to be intrigued by the Puritans. (This wonderful by the way!) They will inevitably turn to the internet for research and reading. Let's just suppose that they read something about EP. Type 'exclusive psalmody puritan' into google and see what pops up. Type in baptism. I could go on. APM and PB pop up regularly at the top end of search engine lists.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 1, 2005)

See this thread.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 1, 2005)

Lawrence writes:


> ......who recognise me



Lawrence, how do they _ recognize_ you??? isn't that a picture of Pastor James?


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 1, 2005)

Actually, it was the posting of that photograph that led to my discovery by some folks. They went to all the trouble of going to the 11th GA Artillery site and finding my email address there. As it turns out they live just a little piece from us. The others are young folks who are connected to our ministry in one fashion or another, or know folks that are. It doesn't take much when you already know me to know that its me. 

Well, even while trying to be clandestine I've been found. There are no other pastors with my name in the state. So, if you'll notice, I've now thrown caution to the wind and listed my church. I've already been 'hauled up' for my doctrinal stances by the higher ups so it really doesn't matter any longer. But, neither am I spoiling for a fight.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 1, 2005)

Why do people stay if they are not edified?

Blade


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> Why do people stay if they are not edified?
> 
> Blade



Nathan,
That question has been posed with no response. I'd surely like to know as well???


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2005)

That is not the correct question to ask in the first place. 

If one is not edified we should not ask, "Why are you here?" or even worse, "Why haven't you left yet?"

We should ask, "Why are you not edified and what can we do to change that so that you might be edified in your future participation."

And personally, I give a big  to Greg and Lawrence and what they have posted. The board used to be more edifying than it is currently. The more narrow the discussions become the more hostile an environment we seem to have to endure.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-2-05 by pastorway]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> I find it extremely edifying.
> 
> However, I find myself posting on another board much more often as I get to interact with Christians from other traditions. I would hope that somehow PB could somehow be a beacon of light to others in that people in other traditions could directly interact with PB through honest questions without having to affirm a reformed confession.



(1Ti 6:3-5) If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmises, Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

(2Ti 2:23-26) But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.

I actually believe having a confessional group helps keep focus. The adherence to the confessions keep us central to the scriptures and each other. Our conclusions are more focused around the doctrines of God instead of ideas about them. *If anyone wants to ask a question they can e-mail the webmaster and I am sure he will respond in kind.* This helps to keep the unity we have on this board. It limits the strife and problematic people who would just want to cause problems. Since we are not an organized church it helps us keep the unity of spirit. I believe keeping confessional members is a mainstay and very beneficial to all who look from afar and near. It is definitely beneficial to us who participate In my humble opinion.

For Christ's Crown and Covenant, Randy


P.S. I believe we are a beacon of light. I have visited other boards and find them to be just one big disagreement and very little unity. We may disagree on baptism and ep but we have much more in common and better fellowship in spirit than the other forums I have visited. I have had much more personal interaction with these guys also. What a great group of guys and gals to pray with. We all know who our head is. It isn't Matt or Scott or anyone else. It is the Holy Triune God. That is light.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> ......And personally, I give a big  to Greg and Lawrence and what they have posted. The board used to be more edifying than it is currently. The more narrow the discussions become the more hostile an environment we seem to have to endure.
> ...



I do agree with Phil about this.


----------



## BrianBowman (Aug 1, 2005)

I have had some more time to ponder the "edification factor" here on PB. In the spirit of what Pastor Way has just shared, I would add the following:

In general "Educated Reformed folk" tend to have the reputation of being a bit stiff, doctrinaire, and not able to fully suffer those with less finely tuned rhetorical skills. A clearly visible theme in the Scriptures is the responsiblity of "superiors" to nuture, teach, and instruct "inferiors". The Westminister Larger Catechism says the following:

129. What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?
It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God has put upon them.

Of course there are numerous New Testament Scriptures that bear on this with great authority, clarity, and precision.

Clearly there are many here (e.g. Matt, Scott, Fred, Bruce, etc.) who are "superiors". While I'll admit that given my background I may be an "odd duck" here on the PB, I think an extra measure of tenderness for newcomers who at not seasoned in the Reformed Faith would be welcome. Frankly, I know enough to "argue dangerously", but that's about it in this circle of intelligentsia.

I think the "Reformed Crowd" in general would do well to a page out the Southern Baptist (... and I dare say even Pentecostal) "playbook" and give some "sloppy agape" every once in while. I'm honestly not trying to be critical, and I'll admit that I'm probably still a "wounded pup" from seeing my former "dispensational nirvana" slowly meltdown as a tangled web of deception, immorality, and severe doctrinal error was exposed in the leaders of my former ministry. Also, there many other such wounded out there in cyber-space and I would hope the solidity of the Reformed perspective, presented here on the PB, would offer healing for us one and all.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by BrianBowman]


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Aug 2, 2005)

I think you guys missed what I was saying I wasnt implying that we should try to figure out why people are not edified. Its nto that per se. Its more if you are not getting anything out of this then why stay? its simple I think i dont mean to be rude but if you dont like it here or anywhere why stay? Im not saying I dont want people to stay I dont want people to leave. i want to see this place grow. I just dont understand why when some people are clearly disgusted with this place why stay? you understand what Im saying. I Love it here best message board Ive been on. i by all means want this place to be welcome to all who subscrine and am disapointed by those who are discouraged. But that is why we have moderators. There there to listen and help out with any concerns. anyway sorry if rubbed people the wrong way.

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> I think you guys missed what I was saying I wasnt implying that we should try to figure out why people are not edified. Its nto that per se. Its more if you are not getting anything out of this then why stay? its simple I think i dont mean to be rude but if you dont like it here or anywhere why stay? Im not saying I dont want people to stay I dont want people to leave. i want to see this place grow. I just dont understand why when some people are clearly disgusted with this place why stay? you understand what Im saying. I Love it here best message board Ive been on. i by all means want this place to be welcome to all who subscrine and am disapointed by those who are discouraged. But that is why we have moderators. There there to listen and help out with any concerns. anyway sorry if rubbed people the wrong way.
> 
> In Christ,
> Blade



Nathan,
I agree. It's that simple, if you do not find edification here and you continue to frequesnt this place, then you may be even sinning coming here. Do something more constructive, more edifying with your time. As well, edification comes in degree's as well as it is interpreted differently by different people. These people have different intellects. One person could be edified by the deep cerebral conversations and another person bored to tears, not understanding at all what is being said. The person whom is bored will not be edified.

As far as your comment Phillip, even though Lawrence and yourself feel that the board was more edifying in days past, does not mean that it is not more edifying today to another individual. You mention conversations that have become more narrow leading to this sentiment. Why wouldn't you want to 'narrow' things down? Christ was accustomed to looking at even the jots and tittles; should we not follow His lead. As Matt has said, having to use one's brain and really think is painful; sanctification is painful. If pain brings sanctification, so be it.


[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 2, 2005)

I have no problem at all with one narrowing his theological understanding. As a matter of fact I work in that direction all the time. However, what disturbs me at times is how some take their narrowing and then imply that unless others are in the self same position then they are lesser in some form or another. In the epistles of Paul we see him making statments that allow for a great variety of personal convictions in areas such as days, meats, etc. He does this without judging - except for the one who foists his convictions upon others.

Jesus said that not a jot or tittle of the Law would pass until all was fulfilled. That is the only time the words are used in the entirety of the gospels. In referring to the minutae of the law and its interpretation he presses that the weightier matters of God's word have primary importance. We must be sure and keep our priorities straight. I'm not implying anything here, just stating a position. (Matt 23.23)


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2005)

Lawrence,
I appreciate what you have said. I only mention 'jots & tittles' as an example that Christ did in fact give creedance to the 'minutia'. 

My point is, what might be edifying to one person may not be to the next & vice versa.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 2, 2005)

we cannot make the mistake of believing that change in theological positions _automatically_ means that people are being sanctified. Sanctificiation does lead us into deeper understanding of the Word and will of God, but we cannot always equate change with growth. 

In fact, it is also true that, as Greg rightly posted, we look to those who do not make major shifts, those who are mature in what they believe, as being able to provide reliable, stable leadership. It is difficult to follow a person who makes major changes in quick successsion, even if by quick we are looking at several years. 

Pastors especially are to be mature, stable, settled in the areas of major doctrinal stance. I am not saying that pastors cannot change, but if he does, especially in a major area, he needs wisdom and understanding in conveying that to his congregation. A sudden change in leadership is usually never good for the congregation as a whole. 

And it is the CHURCH we are to be edifying ( "building up" ), not ourselves!! So when I say that the board has been more edifying in the past, I do not say that just about edifying me, but overall my concern is that things have become so narrow that those new to the reformed faith will not even know what we are talking about and certainly then the church is not being built up, but confused.

I tend to look at the board pastorally rather than personally - what benefit is this to the church corporately. And of late, in my opinion, it has been far from edifying.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-2-05 by pastorway]

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> we cannot make the mistake of believing that change in theological positions _automatically_ means that people are being sanctified. Sanctificiation does lead us into deeper understanding of the Word and will of God, but we cannot always equate change with growth.
> 
> In fact, it is also true that, as Greg rightly posted, we look to those who do not make major shifts, those who are mature in what they believe, as being able to provide reliable, stable leadership. It is difficult to follow a person who makes major changes in quick successsion, even if by quick we are looking at several years.
> ...



 Thank you. You just articulated one of the points I was trying to make above, and you did a much better job of it. Also, "it is the CHURCH we are to be edifying ( building up ), not ourselves!" 

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

{MODERATE}

I don't think that discourse really is edifying for the conversation. What was said in the Admin forum should remain there unless you want us to move the entire thread where this was being discussed into the public forum. That also would not suit the gist of this conversation.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 2, 2005)

> what might be edifying to one person may not be to the next & vice versa.



Yes, that is true.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

If that is true, then Phillip and Greg are misunderstanding the nature of the board, as to what they just posted and dittoed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by pastorway_
> ...



So..............edification does not happen at a personal level? This board is not a church; this is not to say that the invisible as well as the visible is not edified. However, much like the exhortations to 'Rubn the race' etc. , many things happen at the personal level.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 2, 2005)

so the board is not a place to build up the church, but only a place to come to edify _ourselves_???? That was the whole problem that Paul addresses in 1 Cor 12-14 - using gifts to edify self to the exclusion of the church. And that is an abuse and misuse of spiritual gifts.

First, some her emay not be understanding edification. Secondly, when the church is edified we are ALL edified.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-2-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> so the board is not a place to build up the church, but only a place to come to edify _ourselves_???? That was the whole problem that Paul addresses in 1 Cor 12-14 - using gifts to edify self to the exclusion of the church. And that is an abuse and misuse of spiritual gifts.
> 
> First, some her emay not be understanding edification. Secondly, when the church is edified we are ALL edified.
> ...



Did I say that? I said:


> So..............edification does not happen at a personal level? This board is not a church; this is not to say that the invisible as well as the visible is not edified. However, much like the exhortations to 'Rubn the race' etc. , many things happen at the personal level.



"this is not to say that the invisible as well as the visible (CHURCH) is not edified."

Clear? I was responding to the idea that edification does not happen at the _personal_ level as well.

[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## just_grace (Aug 2, 2005)

*Fellowship...*

Where 2 or 3 gather...


----------



## blhowes (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Bladestunner316_
> ...I wasn't implying that we should try to figure out why people are not edified. Its not that per se. Its more if you are not getting anything out of this then why stay? Its simple. I think I don't mean to be rude, but if you don't like it here or anywhere, why stay?



I think for me, the title of the thread says it all..."Puritan Board and it's potential for edification". There's an amazing potential for edification here at the board, not based on how I feel or whether or not I "like it here", but based on the caliber, learning, and Biblical focus of the people here. And the neat thing about edification is that it doesn't always come from the most seasoned or smartest in the group, it at times comes from those less "educated" and experienced.

Like myself, some of you may have come from a background characterized by this statement:

_We're a fundamental, *Bible Believing*, Independent Baptist Church..._

To me, posters on this board epitomize what I like best about that branch of the Christian church - you're Bible believing, and you take that seriously, farther than many fundamentalists do, and 'to the extreme' (in a good way). Even when things seem to get out of hand with some of the interactions, I just try and take it with a grain of salt and glean what I can. Its my impression that, for most, its much more than just a desire to win a debate that causes undo friction. I've learned at times to look past how something is said to try and see what valid things were said.



> *Scott's definition*
> edÂ·iÂ·fy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-f)
> tr.v. edÂ·iÂ·fied, edÂ·iÂ·fyÂ·ing, edÂ·iÂ·fies
> To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.



Based on the definition provided by Scott, I think the board is (for me, anyway) edifying in different ways, some of which are more obvious than others. Most of you are either officers or members in a church that preaches the doctrines of grace, a church where you feel comfortable worshipping at ... and for that I am at times 'envious'. Your steadfastness in your church and your high opinion of Christ's church in general are very edifying for me, more in a moral/spiritual way than an intellectual way. 

As many of you know who have been here for a while, I left a dispensational church several years ago for reasons I won't go into now. When I met with the pastor and deacons to talk about my leaving, one thing the pastor said proved to be oh so true. He said that if I leave the church, I'll have a hard time finding a good church. What an understatement that was! 

To say the least, its been a very disappointing and frustrating time in my life, trying to find a church. The folks on the board, simply by virtue of your faithfulness to your churches and your desire to defend God's word, have been very edifying to me. I'll admit that there were stretches where I gave up looking, but threads about the Sabbath or one's commitment to their church encouraged me to start looking again. I praise the Lord for the edification I've received, and continue to receive here. Its definitely not a replacement for attending a church (nor is it intended to be), but it definitely does serve a much-appreciated purpose.

Thanks,
Bob


----------



## LadyFlynt (Aug 2, 2005)

I'm not going to get into the arguements going on...just state what I've seen.

I found the board very edifying, especially as someone who was relatively new to covenant theology at the time I signed up.

I've been challenged to do my research and have learned about ppl and writings that I would never have heard about elsewhere.

You all have put up with me. I know some of you have wanted to hit the roof over my postings a few times, but have born with me through discussions. Because of this...I've been able to work out all the arguements and in several cases have been totally debunked and come to a better understanding of things...to the point of being able to make a change in areas that I thought I could never change in (baptism, the feasts, eschatology, etc).

Amidst the seeming sarcasm and "insults"...I've learned that, yes, we get passionate on this board...but unlike other boards most of us try to deal with the issue and not with personal attacks. And those that have made blatant personal attacks are dealt with. We do seem to eventually come to some agreement or at the very least a brotherly (and sisterly) understanding of the others position. This is charity. We get frustrated, but we work on working it out...rather than calling names and throwing in the towel. I know this seems trivial to some...but it's made it a safe place for many of us to come and discuss and learn.

Ppl here have learned to keep their humor. I think it's helped all of us. We're in this boat together.

Many of us have gotton to really know eachother...even if it is only virtual. Unlike most other boards, ya'll are REAL ppl to me. We discuss, we laugh, we cry.

I'm also thankful that we are here under these certain Confessions. This eliminates the constant bickering of other boards and I can fairly trust what is being said. However, I have also been thankful for the diversity of this board within those realms...that we can have differing views on some things and be able to have something to discuss.

I don't know if there is more I can say...just a great big thanks!


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 2, 2005)

I'm going to quote myself from another thread. (Have I no shame?)

Here's something to keep in mind. Debating and arguing do hone our debating skills but that is not the end we seek. We are seeking to learn and teach and preach the whole counsel of God. We are obligated by scripture to do that and yet because of the noetic effect of sin, we can never comprehend the whole counsel of God.

We do one another a tremendously valuable service by challenging, debating, arguing, and even knocking down the others observations for in doing so, we do procure more of God's counsel. To sharpen another's iron is to expand the bulk of our knowledge and hammer down and condense the best parts to a fine edged weapon - a weapon used to tear down strongholds and set captives free.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 2, 2005)

How does one know whether his "iron" is being sharpened, or whether the hammereing at it is making it a ragged edge? Is it not the Word, the truth contained in it becoming living and active in our soul? Is it not that we come more into contact with Christ Himself when we read His Word, when we are in that communion with others who are in contact with Him also? 

I think that is the question of "edification". Learning more it greart, gleaning off each other is great too. But all that is nothing if it doesn't bring us closer to our Saviour.

I came onto this Board from the opposite end of some of you. I come from a conservative orthodox, deeply Reformed setting, where catechism is taught to all the children of the church at an early age, where fathers teach their children at the supper table, proper church practice that was generations old. I can only imagine what it was like for men like Bob. But I don't see superiors and underlings here, I see equals. I am not disputing a previous post about responsibilities to each other; I agree with it. But this is a discussion Board. This is a lot different than a church setting. Some things go on on this Board that would not be condoned in a church setting, or at least should not be. But here we not only may, but we have to let our hair down when it comes to what we are thinking or believing. This is where the forum is to work things out. And sometimes it means that we are going to get what we didn't expect. We may react poorly at first, or overall, but that is also part of the edification process. 

Its the nature of this Board to confront and to expose, both ourselves and each other, and hit closer to home than is normal. It's a discussion Board, a practically impersonal cyber discussion Board at that, for the purposes of discussing. We aren't going to settle any church problems here because we're not the church. But we are going say things here that we may not be willing to say in other venues. So we're going to get hit where it hurts. 

For myself, I am in the battle of my life, and its getting to be too obvious that I am working it out here on the Board. I don't know what I would have done without all of you. I believe the Puritan Board is a Godsend. The timing, the issues, the people, everything, was just what I needed. There are some things I find so important as I go through this that I am dumping it on the Board members as well. That is why I have often contemplated leaving. But then I think about it, and realize that its not how important the Board is to me, or how important I may sometimes think I am to the Board, but how important our communion together is to Christ. He doesn't need us, and yet He treasures us, one and all. There is certainly a lot going on that He does not like. And yet He knew that already when He died on the cross for each of us who worship Him in spirit and in truth, before He called us in His infinite wisdom to commune together on this Board, before a watching world. 

This Board has had a direct hand in bringing me closer to Christ. That means that this Board has been edifying for me. 

I'm not giving a blank stamp of approval to everything that goes on. There's work to be done yet, I'm sure. But my focus is on the work that has yet to be done in me. And the Board is helping me out a lot. I only hope I've given even part of that back to the Board.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

Could any of you put up with "discussion (if we could call it that) with Luther or Calvin, or would you have said "this is not edifying" and stomped off?


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 2, 2005)

Okay..y..y..y

So I am ALLOWED to be a member here as I adhere to the 1689 Baptist confession.

Therefore I would not expect to be attacked and undermined for doing so!

If you (Presbyterian mods/owners) are so convinced of the Westminster Confession, then you should kick all the baptists off the board - but, as you would tell me, this is not what you want to do, and I would agree with you.

I really do feel that we as a group of people would be so much better served by focusing on what we have in common rather than by going down the covenantal (and governmental) alleyways all the time. Yes, I KNOW its very important to you, as it is to me, but these are differences that WILL NOT be reconciled. What the church has not resolved these past hundreds of years will not suddenly be solved by the writings of Dr McMahon!

So why not call an end to threads such as 'Baptists shouldn't teach their children to pray'? Why not call an end to presumptive, young, inexperienced, and frankly arrogant young men spouting off as if they had already BEEN to seminary and had some pastoral (or ANY) responsiblity in their lives? Many threads have been started with wrong motives, In my humble opinion - not people asking genuine questions, but people asking leading questions to get certain responses so that a long line of correspondents can pop in their  and  icons _ad nauseum_.

Why not call an end to the 'Baptists aren't reformed' comments and other such things?

Dr Matt has a whole website at his disposal, and dispose he will until he gets terminal keyboard cramp. He'll probably be buried with a keyboard, actually. 

Let Dr Matt's doctrinal stances be, as they are, documented there, and so forth. Let him say there why he believes Baptists aren't reformed - that's fine. BUT Let US discuss those things which we hold dear, and in common - there are many articles on Matt's website which we never discuss, and we could.

Brother Kerry Gilliard has a site called theologicallycorrect.com. I believe that he has an impossible site name - perhaps it should be called moretheologicallycorrectandcertainlyascorrectasIcanbe.com? 

We are not talking about false ecumenism here, and liberalism, we are talking about true biblical ecumenism, true fellowship, between those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. 

I don't want to feel like a second class citizen on this board, but that is how I DO feel. I feel despised, belittled, patronised. Maybe I'm over-sensitive.

Or maybe, just maybe, you owners need to go back to the drawing board, decide WHICH confessions you will admit, and having admitted those confessions, draw some clear lines about the spirit in which certain differences will be discussed, and MODERATE the uncharitable tendencies until the posters a) change, or b) leave.

Now for my


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

Scott came up with a good analogy that I think works, and will explains how this board works.

The United States has a governmental structure made up of Republicans and Democrats, and some other smaller parties that we will simply eliminate for the sake the of the point.

Under the Banner of the United States Government (i.e. the government will be liked to the Puritanboard) you have two main groups - the Democrats and Republicans. These two groups are both political bodies under the banner of the country to make decisions and laws and such for the good of the commonwealth. They work as a team in that regard. However, they have different views that will never meet because of their political stance.

In the same way, the Puritanboard has two main groups - Presbyterian and Baptists, and just like the US government, also has a few others represented in varying denominations, but we will eliminate those as well for the sake of the discussion.

In the beginning, the board was about 50/50 Presbyterians and Baptists. Everyone was, as the registration page says, "under some level of harmony" in the discussion because it was, for all practical purposes, 50/50 in the discussions. Discussions at that point were very basic and elementally. Just like education, the level of conversation and the topics being discussed have augmented typically. One would expect this. Currently, the board is about 80/20, with the heavier side leaning toward Presbyterian. 

Government parties agree on all sorts of things (to some level of harmony) under the banner of the US. Here, the same is true. But never shall the two parties become one party. Their political disciplines are at odds with each other. Does this make them any less family under that banner in which they both sit? No.

Think about it - the Baptists here all want us to become Baptists because their campaign is right. The Presbyterians all want the baptists to become Presbyterians because their campaign is right. That will never change. 

The solution to the boards edification is the same as in the house or congress when they have one moderating the positions as they come up. With that moderation, and with order, any topic here can be edifying. Not everyone will like the topics, but not everyone is on the same page. 

In the same way, our lines here on the board will *never* meet this side of heaven. It will not be until we reach heaven that this will change. (Then we'll all be Presbyterian!)  (Sorry, when on the campaign trail, you always have to give it a plug!)


----------



## doulosChristou (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Currently, the board is about 80/20, with the heavier side leaning toward Presbyterian.



Does that include hanging chads? I demand a recount! 

Since we Baptists are now in the minority, I think we need to start fillibustering some of these threads.


----------



## Ravens (Aug 2, 2005)

I've been lurking on this board for two years or so, and I believe my total post count is under ten; two of the posts were about the Grateful Dead, so I don't even know if those count. :bigsmile:

I'm sure this board has its problems. All boards do. 

However, bottom-line, where else are you going to go to find people so committed to the Scriptures and passionate about Reformed theology? Where else are people going to take the Bible so seriously that they have exhausting debates on exclusive psalmody? ExNihilo said on another board that, even in heated debates, it was good to be able to see the respective strengths of the different, firmly held positions.

Some people probably need thicker hides, and some people need to consider their tone, but the vast middle is probably fine & dandy.

I appreciate this place. Am I always in the mood for it? No. There are other things to do online. But there'd probably be a lot of us scratching our heads, drooling, and staring at a blank screen if we couldn't come here when we *were* in the mood.

Anyway, blessings.

Josh


----------



## blhowes (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...


I don't know if I'm with you on this one. It may turn out to be 90/10 instead.


----------



## satz (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Mudandstars_
> I've been lurking on this board for two years or so, and I believe my total post count is under ten; two of the posts were about the Grateful Dead, so I don't even know if those count. :bigsmile:
> 
> I'm sure this board has its problems. All boards do.
> ...



At the risk of incuring Mr Hunt's ire, let me add a 

and just maybe an 

Seriously, for all the problems this board has, and after reading all the posts i see there are a few, i can think of few better places to spend time on the internet ( work related sites not counted ).

After you get used to coming here its understandable that it might become annoying to see people banging on the same old drums day in day out...be it baptism, church government or as of late, EP. But go to most other christian forums on the 'net and you can chose from a wonderful array of topics like 'is abortion wrong?' 'Should we condemn buddhists?' 'is pre-marital sex always a sin'? Yeah...i know i am purposely pointing out the worse...but those are real topics i have seen before...and they were all in excess of 7 pages.

So while, yeah there are problems here, as there will be anywhere, we shouldn't miss the fact that there is a lot, i would tentatively say a lot more right with this site as well. I love the fact that everyone here is so biblically minded, and even when views that oppose mine are expressed, they normally give me something to think about at the very least, as opposed to simply being (forgive the langugue) opinionated rubbish.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by satz_
> 
> At the risk of incuring Mr Hunt's ire, let me add a
> 
> and just maybe an



Hunt->   <- satz


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 2, 2005)

With all due respect, Matt and Scott, I think that the analogy of political parties is seriously flawed. I am a baptist. Yet, I am not campaigning to have all of Christendom become baptists; nor am I campaigning to have all of Reformed Christendom become baptists. That is a terribly wrong focus. My campaign, and I propose it should be all ours, is to make disciples. Period. When we focus upon the body to make disciples like ourselves we are misuseing (sp?) the entire purpose of our gifts. Do I believe that credobaptism is correct? Certainly. Do I think it is my role to convince paedobaptists to my position? No, that is something I leave up to God as surely as I leave the results of my preaching up to God. 

God help us if we think we are to convince each believer to line up with our rubric of personal theology. That will ulitmately lead to Phariseeism. We can discuss our difference in a charitable manner if we remember that God is sovereign over his body. Not us. Not synods. Not GA's. Not GC's. Not elderships. Not pastors.

Our campaign is against sin and Satan's influence in the world We each serve under the banner of Christ. No military unit is effective in the bar when it fights those of another branch. It only is effective on the battlefield-facing down the enemy.

The 'other camp' is not our enemy. Sin and Satan and the flesh are our enemies!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

Lawrence,

Do you think your view of the ordinance of Christ are the biblically closest? Why would you not want others to be as biblically close to Christ as you believe?

As Christ said, "The truth shall set you free." If that is true (and it is) then we are only sanctified and brought closer to Christ, and set at liberty, with the truth. Sanctification will only be possible through the truth. You would have to, by necessity of believing what you believe, believe it is the truth and want others to believe it.


----------



## Augusta (Aug 2, 2005)

There is no perfect church this side of Glory so I don't know how we can expect there to be a perfect discussion board this side of Glory. I have been on a couple of discussion boards and this is by FAR the best I have seen. 

The people here are much more intelligent for one. The conversation though sometimes a little heated is never outright rude or offensive. You find that on a lot of other boards. The conversation is always interesting. 

The debates are the best thing about this board. As someone who was raised from a young age in a theological vacuum. I had been converted to reformed theology for several years but was so insulated in my arminian social circle that I didn't know ANYONE who was reformed. I just kept listening to RC on the radio. Then I came here and was introduced to the White Horse Inn. So now I had three inlets of reformed teaching. 

It was here that I was able to find a church to go to. I didn't even know what church was what so hubby and I decided to find a church that held to WCF. That narrowed it down. Based on asking people on here and searching the internet we found our current church which is such a blessing.

I watched debates on here alot before I ever became involved in them. Seeing both side of an issue argued really helps you to see both sides. I was like a clean slate when I came to reformed theology. I got to see both sides of alot of different issues here. It was really helpful. My biggest leap was from credo to paedo. I did not think that would ever change. Then I watched both sides argue and I was also learning more about CT and I couldn't believe it when the switch was flipped on that. I never expected it. 

As far as I am concerned this board was a literal Godsend. It was God's providence in my families life. Thank you Matt for starting this board!!!

There will always be debates on here. Even when we are worn out from debating a certain subject people start debating something else. Twice so far in this thread alone people have debated wether someones analogy was a good one!! What a crack up.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 2, 2005)

I agre with Lawrence - there are not two political parties here, two camps. We are under one banner, the banner of Christ.

I also second what he has stated. I have never had as my aim the conversion of people from one denomination to another. I want to uphold the truth of the Word of God and make disciples. If in the course of that happeneing people change their views, okay. But I see no need to convert Fred to be a Baptist. God is using Fred right where he is. 

This may be a fundamental issue here - why do we debate? If it is to present truth, fine. If it is to sharpen each other, fine. If it is to win debates, out argue, out think, out convince others, then we are just arguing for arguments sake and the Bible condemns that outright.

Yes there is heat in debate - but there is also to be love, esteeing others as better than self, self-denial, a desire to rightly handle the Word to God's glory, and a desire to build up the church.

I still go back to the fact that we are never told to edify ourselves. Edification is for those to whom we minister. It is the building up of the church.

Phillip


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 2, 2005)

Matt, 
I agree with you, to a point. That point is this, and this I think is crucial, I must not see the thrust of theology to be that of winning other Christians to my position. And, in reality, are we not sanctified by the Holy Spirit? Are we not brought into closer communion with Christ by Him? 

Yes, I would that everyone might have my enlightened understanding of God and his teaching! The entire world would be better off. :bigsmile: Seriously though, I understand what you are saying. But, I don't believe that it is my job to bring every believer to my position. I will espouse my convictions, and God will use it. Even with that I never expect that Godly sincere students of the word will by their study arrive at identical conclusions. History proves that it impossible. How do we function then given that? We must have charity with those that are within orthodoxy yet differ from us on nonessentials. Discussion of those nonessentials is good when it is done with humble spirits. It sharpens us. Discussion of nonessentials without humility is schismatic. But, we must always remember that we are discussion nonessentials. Camels go down all to easily at times! 

Yes, the truth sets us free. But, what is that truth to which Jesus refers in Jno. 8.32? It is his Messiahship. He is contrasting their dependancy upon Abrahamic lineage for their relationship with God and the truth of his being Messiah. He was demonstrating that their view of Mosaic Law was a bondage. So, what is the message here. Is it that real freedom comes from a full understanding of the entire corpus of revelation? I certainly hope not, for then none of us will ever experience freedom.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

Remember why the Westminster Assembly met:

1) for bringing the kingdoms to a more near conjunction and union

2) for reformation and defence of religion

3) the preservation of the reformed religion in the Church of Scotland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, against our common enemies

4) the reformation of religion in the kingdoms of England and Ireland, in doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, according to the Word of GOD, *and the example of the best reformed Churches.*



I'm not trying to win, but simply making a point as to why the WA got togeher.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 2, 2005)

the WA is not the end all of sound theology. The whole reason we have the 2nd LBCF (taking so much from the Savoy Declaration) was to show how much Baptists and Presbyterians had in common, not to show how much they had in differences! The confessions were there to unite the church, not divide it.

Phillip

[Edited on 8-3-05 by pastorway]


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> the WA is not the end all of sound theology. The whole reason we have the 2nd LBCF (taking so much from the Savoy Declaration) was to show how much Baptists and Presbyterians had in common, not to show how much they had in differences! The confessions were there to unite the church, not divide it.
> 
> Phillip
> ...



Phillip,
Who was involved in the penning of the LBC? Were the divines of the WCF involved? Did they advocate it? Two different confessions divide; you cannot escape this fact.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Aug 2, 2005)

There is an automatic tension built in to the Puritan Board by virtue of the fact that members may subscribe to more than one historic Reformed creed. Typically, that inevitably leads to differences of opinion on such issues as baptism, church polity, worship, etc. That makes for lively debate and -- given the rules and purpose of the Board -- provides an opportunity for cross-denominational fellowship and edification which does not always happen in other contexts. So, I am thankful for this opportunity to fellowship with my brethren from different denominations and creedal backgrounds, while I recognize that we are simply not going to all agree on all things. I do believe that creeds have a dual purpose, which includes both unity _and_ division in matters of faith, worship and practice (see Hodge and Gentry). I am persuaded that the 1646 WCF is the basis for church unity par excellence. I am also grateful for the contributions of the 3FU as well to the edification of the church. The Savoy and LBCF, being primarily derived from the WCF, are very solid too, though I of course hold to Presbyterian principles. If the PB was a church, the allowance for multiple creeds would be a matter for confusion. Here on the PB it makes for built-in tension at times, but also, I think, gives us an opportunity to say where we are coming from (within a generally historically Reformed framework) and, by God's grace, put into practice what we all want to see in terms of the unity of the church (John 17). Let us recognize that there are limitations here on this Board but also great potential. In understanding that reality and that promise, I hope the PB can be a source of great edification for us all, no matter what our creedal affiliation.

[Edited on 8-3-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## BobVigneault (Aug 2, 2005)

Amen and Amen Andrew!


----------



## Augusta (Aug 2, 2005)

Andrew.


----------



## JohnV (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LawrenceU_
> Matt,
> I agree with you, to a point. That point is this, and this I think is crucial, I must not see the thrust of theology to be that of winning other Christians to my position. And, in reality, are we not sanctified by the Holy Spirit? Are we not brought into closer communion with Christ by Him?
> 
> ...



Lawrence:

I know that you are saying this in reference to the political parties analogy. But that aside, I agree with you about convictions, essentials and non-essentials. I would only add to this that we have to recognize that even the most learned of us has but a smattering of the whole truth. Some of the differences, I believe, are there by God's design, so that we do not become proud of our beliefs. If I believe that, for example, credo baptism is wrong, I still have to answer the very difficult question as to why some credo baptists are indisputably God's elect children. The question automatically turns on itself, and points to me: I know I am saved, but that doesn't make me right in everything I believe. So it is evident that there is a lot to work out. And it would be best if God's children worked them out under the mutual respect of each other, and having the Word as the only true guide. 

As someone pointed out to me once, whenever you point your finger at someone else, three other of your own fingers are pointing back at you. In other words, we should be humble in our views, bold in the truth, and steadfast in our convictions.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I have a serious question -
> 
> 5 people voted that the PB is NOT edifying.
> ...



Matt, I couldn't have said it better myself.

Even when I can't reply to what someone said here, I can always read what was said and put things into perspective.

(Even though I'm replying to what you said), sometimes it's best for me not to reply, but to read.


----------



## JasonGoodwin (Sep 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> I have a serious question -
> 
> 5 people voted that the PB is NOT edifying.
> ...



Now it's up to 13 not edifying. How could this be?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 28, 2005)

Just for the record, this board is (as I have said previously) vigorous to say the least. it is challenging. It rebukes! Corrects! Exhorts! Not everything posted here will float down upon your conscience as a butterfly fluttering in the cool breeze. Much of it cuts to the quick, like Gods word. 

Personally, I don't want to be patronized. I want to be convicted. I want to do what Gods word commands. I reject luke warmness; it disgusts me like it disgust my God. Do we love eachother here? Absolutely! it is commanded, so it is done!

Not everyone will enjoy their stay here. I hate the dentist, yet he is needed!



[Edited on 9-29-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 29, 2005)

In my short time here I've found the board to be edifying, especially the links to resources that pop up.

But the apostrophe in the "it's" of the thread title, well, I don't find that so edifying.

Vic


----------



## gwine (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> In my short time here I've found the board to be edifying, especially the links to resources that pop up.
> 
> But the apostrophe in the "it's" of the thread title, well, I don't find that so edifying.
> ...



True, it's not correct. But it's correct to use the apostrophe in these two sentences. :bigsmile:


----------



## LadyFlynt (Sep 29, 2005)

I have definately found this board to be edifying. I will admit that when I first came to the PB...the first topic that interested me caused me to be heated, have a hissy fit, and want to run. But that was due to the of understanding of how ppl on this board relate to eachother (I've learned ALOT since!).

Hubby has been grateful as this board has helped me to understand covenant theology. As a mom, I don't have much time in my day for reading heavy books (though I love to do so). I also learn best in discussion and research. You've all pushed me in that way. THANKS!

Also, when we've had questions, we've been able to bring them here for discussion till we've been able to settle our mind on one side of the fence or the other (ya'll remember when we fell off one fence...the RBs were making mad grabs to hold us back and the Presbyterians were cheering...LOL)


----------



## bond-servant (Sep 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> I have definately found this board to be edifying.
> 
> I also learn best in discussion and research. You've all pushed me in that way. THANKS!



 and


----------



## Scott Bushey (Sep 29, 2005)

Closing!


----------

