Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Michael,
Ditto! Excellent first post.
Ditto! Excellent first post.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"The adjectival expression "˜prompted by the Spirit´ (pneumatikais) refers materially to all three terms"
Colossians and Philemon, (ET, Philadelphia 1971), p. 151.
"[the adjective pneumatikais] characterises all that the congregation sings as being inspired or produced by the Spirit"
Ephesians (ET, Edinburgh 1991), p. 238.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
In other words, we are not commanded to either write or sing uninspired songs, and to not allow a congregation to do so can, in no way, bind the consciences of the believers involved.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Chris: I didn't see it that way. Maybe I'm wrong, but "binding" of the conscience is often used in a negative way, not in a positive way. If it is being used as a "good" thing in this case, I must've missed that part.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
If so, ignore what I said, except the good defense of EP mentality.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Any sect that includes the Apostles, Augustine, Calvin, and others is a sect I'm proud to belong to.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I'm chilled. I honestly don't see much humor in attributing one's Biblical convictions to "sectarian" beliefs, though. Maybe I just take things like ... you know ... God's Word and my convictions about it ... pretty seriously.
[Edited on 6-23-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
sect ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skt)
n.
1. A group of people forming a distinct unit within a larger group by virtue of certain refinements or distinctions of belief or practice.
2. A religious body, especially one that has separated from a larger denomination.
3. A faction united by common interests or beliefs.
Originally posted by JohnV
Please allow me this brief comment:
I believe that "good and necessary" in the WCF refers only to those doctrines which the Church has rightfully concluded from Scripture, and are therefore considered to be God's doctrines, not man's. They must follow, given other doctrines. These bind the conscience, for one does not have the option to appeal to freedom of conscience to believe otherwise. In such cases 'good' and 'necessary' cannot be separated.
. . . Necessary ones are always good, but good ones are not always necessary. A necessary inference leaves no escape. But we are allowed to follow our conscience, and not lord it over others in these mentioned matters, by making good inferences from revelation.
Originally posted by blhowes
Is this a good definition of necessary inference?
necessary inference is a logically valid argument from true premises, such as: 1. the children of believers are covenant members; 2. covenant members are to receive the entrance sign of the covenant; therefore (this follows necessarily from the premises) the children of believers are to receive the entrance sign of the covenant.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Hello everybody!
It's very pleasant to be on this forum.
I think it is possible to have a necessary consequence which is not good. One brother wrote earlier:-
Originally posted by blhowes
Is this a good definition of necessary inference?
necessary inference is a logically valid argument from true premises, such as: 1. the children of believers are covenant members; 2. covenant members are to receive the entrance sign of the covenant; therefore (this follows necessarily from the premises) the children of believers are to receive the entrance sign of the covenant.
As Mr Howes says, the consequence is necessary from the two premises. But if the premises are false as I believe them to be, then the consequence is not good.
There is such a thing as Good and Necessary Consequence, but we need to be very careful in respect of it. 1Cor 4:6 and 2John 9 warn us not to wander from the written word.
Grace & Peace,
Martin
Originally posted by JohnV
Okay, another question: who decides what is good and necessary, as per the WCF use of the term? The WCF refers to doctrine, what is "expressly set down in Scripture" or "the whole counsel of God" as equal to it, not as the counsel of men. It speaks of what may be deduced from Scripture without imposing the will or traditions of man upon it. May a person decide that for himself? Or is this the task of the Church only? Or may a group within the Church decide that? Is it a possibility that what is "good and necessary" for one is not "good and necessary for another? Or, to say it another way: it is possible that one millennial view could be deemed "good and necessary" in one church, and not in another? Is it then good and necessary consequence?
By the way, both Michael and Martin, glad to have you both a-Board with us.
Please, what am I missing in this quote. I can only assume you are a Baptist, because there is nothing wrong with the premise and nothing wrong with the consequence unless I am really missing something here. Nevertheless, if I am missing something I cannot see how you can accept from a WCF position something that is necessary and not good. The whole point is that the "˜good and necessary´ clause of the confession stands or falls together. Just how careful are we to be? After all the Trinity is a good and necessary consequence, is it not?
I live in Wales for three and one half years. And loved London. What part of England are living in?
Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received [Peter's] word were baptized.'
Logical Inference 1. Those who did not receive Peter's word gladly were not baptized.
Logical Inference 2. Very young children are not able to understand the Gospel in order to receive it.
Logical Inference 3. Very young children were not baptized.
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I believe that it is vital to stay very close to the Bible. It is possible to stray from it with a whole series of inferences, which may appear to be good and necessary, but which are ultimately based upon human reasoning, not Divine revelation.
I gave a series of inferences on the 'Baptism' forum just recently, which you might like to consider:-
Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received [Peter's] word were baptized.'
Logical Inference 1. Those who did not receive Peter's word gladly were not baptized.
Logical Inference 2. Very young children are not able to understand the Gospel in order to receive it.
Logical Inference 3. Very young children were not baptized.
So, I may disagree with Martin, but I can appreciate his respect of the Word. I believe that paedo-baptism is founded on good and necessary consequence: once it is understood, there is no escape from its soundness anymore. But that does not mean that I love those less who don't yet understand that, or consider them any less a child of God. Salvation does not depend on our apprehension, but rather our apprehension depends upon salvation, and the fruits of it. "I know because I believe; help me know more that I may believe more." ( "believe" here is deemed a fruit of the gift of faith. )
'I bewail the stae and condition of the reformed churches, who have come to a full-stop in religion, and will go no further than the instruments of their reformation. The Lutherans cannot be drawn beyond what Luther saw; the Calvinists, the stick where Luther left them. This is a misery much to be lamented; for though they were shining lights in their times, yet God did not reveal His whole will unto them, and if they were alive today, they would be as ready to and willing to embrase further light as that they had received.'
John Robinson
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
I gave a series of inferences on the 'Baptism' forum just recently, which you might like to consider:-
Acts 2:41. 'Then those who gladly received [Peter's] word were baptized.'
This passage does not exclude children. Trying to hold to the idea that the Jews watching would have naturally (or by devine revelation) thought that their children were all of a sudden excluded from an equation such as this, when in the past, families were always dealt with as a unit is reaching.
Logical Inference 1. Those who did not receive Peter's word gladly were not baptized.
This is true.
Logical Inference 2. Very young children are not able to understand the Gospel in order to receive it.
Here we go again; God regenerates infants. Discipleship does not necessarily imply conversion. Please substantiate this claim that God cannot regenerate the infant.
Logical Inference 3. Very young children were not baptized.
An assertion.
Based upon the general idea of your premise, again I table the challenge to deal with the rest of items that are NI; it cannot be both ways; we cannot pick and choose those things which support our system alone. Having said this, are you ready as well to toss things like the trinity, the NYT tithe or woman taking the Lords supper? Either we are consistant or we are not. I know earlier you mentioned that you would deal with this later, however, it is my opinion that you cannot deal with the passage in Acts unless you deal with NI now. As mentioned, NI is not railing against sola scriptura, it IS SS.
JohnV says:
So, I may disagree with Martin, but I can appreciate his respect of the Word. I believe that paedo-baptism is founded on good and necessary consequence: once it is understood, there is no escape from its soundness anymore. But that does not mean that I love those less who don't yet understand that, or consider them any less a child of God. Salvation does not depend on our apprehension, but rather our apprehension depends upon salvation, and the fruits of it. "I know because I believe; help me know more that I may believe more." ( "believe" here is deemed a fruit of the gift of faith. )
I agree John. :bigsmile:
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
The Bible speaks many times of credo-baptism; never of paedo-baptism.