Comments on: Saved: have been, are being, and will be… http://www.dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/ Similar to the constable in charge of the Watch of Messina, I try to be sincere and try take writing seriously but fear I will use the wrong words to convey my thoughts and that my desire to speak eloquently will become an occasion for parody. Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:59:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: YeOleImposter http://www.dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-16226 YeOleImposter Fri, 21 Dec 2007 19:50:52 +0000 http://dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-16226 <p>I really would like to post more on this topic but just don't feel like I would be contributing anything more than fueling the fire. It is easy to take people's comments and use them against them. I can say that Mark above does not believe in "We are saved by Faith alone" because he writes: "We are not saved by the covenant or by baptism or by anything but Christ’s blood." So which is it? Faith or Blood? Silly question. But that is the way that the FV people are being attacked.</p> I really would like to post more on this topic but just don’t feel like I would be contributing anything more than fueling the fire. It is easy to take people’s comments and use them against them. I can say that Mark above does not believe in “We are saved by Faith alone” because he writes: “We are not saved by the covenant or by baptism or by anything but Christ’s blood.” So which is it? Faith or Blood? Silly question. But that is the way that the FV people are being attacked.

]]> By: Chris Sybrandy http://www.dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-16220 Chris Sybrandy Thu, 20 Dec 2007 06:32:38 +0000 http://dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-16220 <p>Hi, I'm very new at this. Not sure how to do it. Mark, I too am from an ocrc in Mt. Vernon. As far as a covenant not being a relationship, nearly every minister in our federation has, either in our publication the trumpet, or in their published sermons, called the covenant a relationship. Also,if you read Ralph Allan Smiths' "Defining the covenant: What Consensus", you will find that your dogmatic statement about it NOT being a relationship is simply not true. Further, I agree with Ralph's assesment that this is being made a mountain out of a molehill. Our former minister pretty much regarded the view of the covenant being a relationship as heretical. Fortunately, that heresy-hunting liar is no longer with us, but unfortunatly, him and his ilk are still doing damage to the reformed community. Chris.</p> Hi, I’m very new at this. Not sure how to do it. Mark, I too am from an ocrc in Mt. Vernon. As far as a covenant not being a relationship, nearly every minister in our federation has, either in our publication the trumpet, or in their published sermons, called the covenant a relationship. Also,if you read Ralph Allan Smiths’ “Defining the covenant: What Consensus”, you will find that your dogmatic statement about it NOT being a relationship is simply not true. Further, I agree with Ralph’s assesment that this is being made a mountain out of a molehill. Our former minister pretty much regarded the view of the covenant being a relationship as heretical. Fortunately, that heresy-hunting liar is no longer with us, but unfortunatly, him and his ilk are still doing damage to the reformed community. Chris.

]]> By: Gary Paulson http://www.dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-576 Gary Paulson Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:45:13 +0000 http://dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-576 <blockquote>But the fact remains that not all in the "church" are elect or predestined or saved-not now, not then.</blockquote> <p>I think we agree - except for the fact of this extra-biblical use of the terms "visible" & "invisible". There is one church. A distinction can be made about the elect, the hypocrites, the unsaved, the wheat and the tares, whatever. I am not sure how the distinction between "visible" and "invisible" help the discussion. I do not see Paul addressing the two groups seperately. But am open to hear your thoughts.</p> But the fact remains that not all in the “church” are elect or predestined or saved-not now, not then.

I think we agree – except for the fact of this extra-biblical use of the terms “visible” & “invisible”. There is one church. A distinction can be made about the elect, the hypocrites, the unsaved, the wheat and the tares, whatever. I am not sure how the distinction between “visible” and “invisible” help the discussion. I do not see Paul addressing the two groups seperately. But am open to hear your thoughts.

]]> By: Mark Reimers http://www.dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-568 Mark Reimers Mon, 25 Jul 2005 05:34:46 +0000 http://dogberrypatch.com/archives/saved-have-been-are-being-and-will-be/#comment-568 <p>How silly? Is this a matter of what sounds silly or what is true to scripture? I agree there are grave limitations to the delineation many make between a visible and invisible church. I try not to use that language. But the fact remains that not all in the "church" are elect or predestined or saved--not now, not then. Why should we react so much if someone uses such means to make a biblical point?</p> <p>One of the key things to remember is that the covenant is simply the structure through which the elect are saved. We are not saved by the covenant or by baptism or by anything but Christ's blood. The covenant is the structure by which God has chosen to bring us to Christ--to, as the Heidelberg puts it, "focus our faith" on Christ. Unfortunately this point is being lost in some circles.</p> <p>I hope this isn't just a shot in the dark. I'm piecing together a lot of information at the moment. Btw, I'm from the OCRC in Lynden.</p> <p>I think I'll be following along here whenever I can.</p> <p>Cheers Mark</p> How silly? Is this a matter of what sounds silly or what is true to scripture? I agree there are grave limitations to the delineation many make between a visible and invisible church. I try not to use that language. But the fact remains that not all in the “church” are elect or predestined or saved–not now, not then. Why should we react so much if someone uses such means to make a biblical point?

One of the key things to remember is that the covenant is simply the structure through which the elect are saved. We are not saved by the covenant or by baptism or by anything but Christ’s blood. The covenant is the structure by which God has chosen to bring us to Christ–to, as the Heidelberg puts it, “focus our faith” on Christ. Unfortunately this point is being lost in some circles.

I hope this isn’t just a shot in the dark. I’m piecing together a lot of information at the moment. Btw, I’m from the OCRC in Lynden.

I think I’ll be following along here whenever I can.

Cheers Mark

]]>