Comments on: Welcome to a Reformed Church

By: treadmills for sale

treadmills for sale — Thu, 08 May 2014 14:46:41 +0000

The treadmill itself is angled to fit neatly below the desk, with the controls rising just
over your work station for easy access. If you
maintain your belt well and keep it properly lubricated it will not only make your belt last longer, but also keep your
treadmill running better for longer. One may also do fast upgrade walking on this
specific treadmill.

By: decaptcher

decaptcher — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 20:19:09 +0000

Great blog here! Alsο yοur website loadѕ up fast!

What web hоst are you using? Can I get youг
affilіatе link to уour hoѕt? I wish my web site loaded up аs quicκly
as yours lοl

By: fernseher auf rechnung kaufen

fernseher auf rechnung kaufen — Thu, 23 Dec 2010 19:36:48 +0000

What did Adam say on the day before Christmas ? It’s Christmas, Eve !

By: Nicholas T. Batzig

Nicholas T. Batzig — Wed, 19 May 2010 19:32:56 +0000

Kenneth,

I would certainly consider you to be in the Reformed camp, rather than simply Calvinistic. The difference, in my opinion, lies in your adherence to the doctrinal teaching of an historic Reformed confession. But I am sure that my opinion doesn’t count for much.

By: Kenneth Clayton

Kenneth Clayton — Sun, 16 May 2010 21:33:37 +0000

I know it was talked about a little bit in the show but I was still wondering how many in the Reformed church would understand and classify baptist. For instance I am a member of a Southern Baptist Church which is slowly reforming to embrace doctrines of grace, church discipline etc. I would consider myself a 5 point calvinist, read the scripture covenantally (still learning covenant theology), a cessasionist, embrace the teachings of the 2nd london baptist confession and the Baptist Catechism as well as the apostles creed, learning still but falling into a deeper belief in the regulative principle of worship, have a high view of the ordinances of baptism, Lord’s supper, prayer, and the read and preached word. The only differences I can think of are that I don’t believe infant baptism is biblical based upon covenantal arguments seeing that everyone in the new covenant is a believer in Christ and some differences in how the church is ruled having a congregational view. So would it be improper for me to consider myself a “Reformed Baptist” having baptist qualify that I don’t hold to infant baptism?

By: Nicholas T. Batzig

Nicholas T. Batzig — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:50:36 +0000

Paul,

Thank you for finding the place in Brooks I mentioned. I remember reading it years ago, but did not know where it was. It is listeners like you that make this ministry so very enjoyable. Thank you for doing the work to find the precise place. Blessings. Nick.

By: Nicholas T. Batzig

Nicholas T. Batzig — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 23:49:28 +0000

Daniel,

You are absolutely right that preaching evangelistic sermons from the pulpit does not exhaustively fulfill the command to “do the work of an evangelist.” The example we see in the book of Acts is probably what Paul had in mind when he charged Timothy. Thanks for writing.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 14:33:09 +0000

When interviewing Danny Hyde, the point was made that when the minister preaches from the pulpit during the regular worship services of the church, he is fulfilling the command to do the work of an evangelist because, in light of 1 Cor 14, these services should be places where unbelievers can come in and hear the Gospel proclaimed. Thus you argued against a sharp dichotomy between worship and instruction of God’s people on the one hand, and evangelism on the other hand (not least because of course God’s people need to hear the Gospel regularly).

I agree with that, but I wonder if you would agree that preaching from the pulpit on Sunday doesn’t exhaustively fulfill the command to do the work of an evangelist? And if you agree with that, then how else is the minister to do that work? And how does one (or can one?) integrate this with a view that (a) is skeptical about â€˜every member ministry’ and â€˜every member evangelism’, and (b) emphasises the centrality of the means of grace? Does this lead us to open-air preaching, for example?

Perhaps to better explain my concern, I am personally skeptical about every-member-ministry. In some presentations of it, the minister ends up sounding like a coach: his job is just to train up the members of the church; they’re the ones who then do the real work of the ministry. But while we want our members to be engaged and to use their gifts for the Lord, I think this puts inappropriate burdens upon them. And I also think we should have an emphasis on the means of grace as the way of conversion and growth in the Christian life. But I fear that it becomes too easy for a minister simply to get up in the pulpit each Sunday and preach, and then say to himself, â€œ Well done good and faithful servant! How diligent you are in discharging the duties of an evangelist. Isn’t it a shame the unconverted aren’t coming to church to hear you?â€

Do these concerns make sense? Or am I trying to marry together things that are incompatible?

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:13:24 +0000

Good show again.

The section possibly referred to by Brooks in the Banner edition is found in Volume 5, Page 102-114. The section is entitled “That Christ did suffer torment though not in a hellish manner”. I have not read it so cannot comment on whether Brooks denies the creedal clause and its historic interpretation, or nuances the definition, a quick skim would suggest that he is seeking to protect the absolute divinity of Christ’s person and impeccability etc. while still holding that he did suffer Hell. He also posits clear water between the reprobates experience of Hell and Christ’s because of the different essential natures.