@Toneskeee And yet people say the WSC is neither devotional nor beautiful!
English
MarkMacd
16.4K posts
The souls of believers are, at their death, made perfect in holiness, and do immediately pass into glory; and their bodies, being still united to Christ, do rest in their graves until the resurrection.
English
@CSWCF1646 Yes, but controversy in the 17th century wasn’t about what was in men’s minds, but what was in their publications.
English
We know from his Scripture Gospel Defended that his views justification that you'd read of in his Aphorisms are fairly settled by 1645. Even though Aphorisms on Justification isn't published until 1655, Baxter is still expressing views on the doctrine as an ordained minister approved by the Assembly
English
@ClarkeMicah I have no care what the RC church does. It has a long history of the Groucho Marx approach to principles.
Is any church making this change doing so because they have got light on Scripture which the church has never previously had?
And - this cannot be framed as conservative.
English
OK, it's an unserious comment. But I strongly suspect that, within a century, the RC church will have fully conceded on married clergy (the freedom to do so, not an obligation) and on the ordination of women. And it will have been right to do so, greatly strengthening itself against the secular world. .@markmacdonald75
MarkMacd@MarkMacdonald75
@ClarkeMicah @tomscrace “Startling piffle” that the whole church held to until essentially yesterday? That’s not a serious comment.
English
@turnerOnTheGrid @TexasPreacher @redeemed_zoomer @EddyEkofo The opposite of formalism isn’t formlessness.
English
@TexasPreacher @redeemed_zoomer @EddyEkofo The implicit assumption is that formalism = meaninglessness, and conversely, formlessness = meaningful. This typically reduces down to a radically individualistic faith untethered from any substantial communion with the Body of Christ.
English
The guy didn't become a papist because of Aquinas. Don't be fooled. Millions of protestants have read Aquinas without crossing the Tiber. The man became a papist because he was lost, and he also happened to read Aquinas. Blaming Aquinas was just his out. The simplicity of Christ wasn't enough for this man, because He had never experienced Christ in the first place. If he had, all the pomp, superstition, and excess of Rome would be seen for what it is: a distraction & diminishing of Christ's glory and thus to be rejected.
English
@ClarkeMicah @tomscrace “Startling piffle” that the whole church held to until essentially yesterday? That’s not a serious comment.
English
Of course you do, .@tomscrace. We all believe what we want to, and it would be a shame to spoil your nice neat rule that, as there were no women apostles, no women can be ordained. Even so, I think your reason for believing this startling piffle lies elsewhere.
Tom Scrace@tomscrace
@WalkerMarcus @ClarkeMicah @LaCatholicState Which is why I think he must have meant it in a more general sense.
English
@ClarkeMicah @JacobMinya54203 “His obvious closeness to his friends Mary and Martha”
And their brother Lazarus… John 11:5. But he wasn’t an apostle either.
English
@JacobMinya54203 It is uninteresting and unsurprising that Christ's 12 apostles were all male. This was first-century Judaea. What is much *more* interesting is his obvious closeness to his friends Mary and Martha, and of his choice of Mary Magdalene to be the first person to see him after he rose from the dead.
Jacob Minyard@JacobMinya54203
@ClarkeMicah @tomscrace Peter Hitchens: 'Try a different argument other than the example of Christ'.
English
@ParticularBapt Indeed. Worthy of no more than a shrug of the shoulders.
English
Baxter approved for ministry by the Westminster Assembly in 1647.
Baxter published his controversial Aphorisms in 1649, after which he was embroiled in controversy over his views of justification for the rest of his life.
Baxterians react:
𝕽𝖊𝖋𝖔𝖗𝖒𝖊𝖉 𝕽𝖊𝖙𝖗𝖎𝖊𝖛𝖆𝖑 🕊️@RefRetrieval
Baxter is orthodox? Excuse me… what?
English
@ParticularBapt I can assure you that these features were as thoroughly woven into it among the Scottish Presbyterians!
English
No need for the plus. This is old school Calvinism, especially as it was practiced amongst the Particular Baptists.
Ryan Denton@TexasPreacher
Old-school Calvinism plus prayer meetings, evangelism, & Holy Ghost preaching. This is the way forward, America.
English
"His Person was tall and slender and stooped much, his countenance composed and grave, somewhat inclining to smile, and he had a piercing eye."
–– Matthew Sylvester
English
@ToCelestialCity What had he had published at this point?
I’d say that’s the key to whether this is even slightly significant.
English
THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY'S APPROBATION AND APPROVAL OF RICHARD BAXTER FOR MINISTRY.
On the 9th of October, 1647, Richard Baxter was formally approbated by a committee of the Westminster Assembly:
"This committee, having lately sequestered the vicarage of Kidderminster from Mr. George Dance, the late vicar thereof, for scandal and insufficiency, do hereby order and appoint Mr. Richard Baxter, a godly, able, honest, orthodox divine to be minister thereof."
And the following year, on the 30th of March, he was formally approved for ministry by the Assembly:
"According to an order dated the 9th of October, 1647, from the committee of the city and county of Worcester concerning Mr. Richard Baxter to gain the approbation of the Assembly of Divines for his fitness to officiate the cure of the vicarage of Kidderminster in the county aforesaid. These are to certify the said committee for the county and city aforesaid, that having received a laudable testimony of the life, learning, and pastoral abilities of the said Mr. Baxter, he is approved by the Assembly to officiate the cure of the church of Kidderminster in the county above mentioned."
English
@ClarkeMicah @WalkerMarcus It might be a potent question, if Luke 6:13 didn’t exist.
But, it does, so…
English
Thank you, .@walkermarcus. I am jndeed pleased ‘What lacks she?’ is indeed a pretty potent question.
Marcus Walker@WalkerMarcus
@ClarkeMicah @opticswolfe You will be pleased to know that your defence of Mary Magdalen stands in the finest tradition of Lancelot Andrewes. Here he is in his Easter Day sermon of 1622.
English
@ClarkeMicah @tomscrace The Bible reveals God’s will by precept and example. In both these ways it testifies to male-only office-bearers in his church. The 12 apostles is a part of this testimony, and a compelling part. You surely see how fallacious is your retort about one being a traitor?
English
.@tomscrace Nor was it a coincidence one of the 12 betrayed him. But that doesn’t mean one in every 12 ministers has to be a traitor, and none of them can be female. Try a different Argument.
Tom Scrace@tomscrace
@maryjoanderson3 @ClarkeMicah @nuntiatoria Yes, I don't think it can be a coincidence that Jesus appointed 12 men and no women to be the seed of the priesthood.
English
@reformedtexan @RyanHurst171 @jared_555 Ok, in the same way that the sections in the standards on the Trinity need an only, otherwise Westminster is not “strictly” in contradiction with a six-person Godhead.
English
@MarkMacdonald75 @RyanHurst171 @jared_555 You need an only in the second thesis or else those aren’t strictly in contradiction.
English
@GillianRussell3 @DavidGr08051597 @ClarkeMicah Or perhaps more prosaic, her vision was obscured by tears. And v16 suggests that perhaps she hadn't been facing him during the exchange.
English
@DavidGr08051597 @ClarkeMicah Oh good, thank you for that. Emmaus had slipped my mind. Much appreciated.
English
.@davidgr08051597 1/2 WE don't actually know all that Christ said to Mary Magdalene. We do know (from John 20) : 'Then the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11 But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.'
David Gress@DavidGr08051597
@ClarkeMicah @opticswolfe The risen Christ did not tell Mary Magdalene to "guard my sheep." He told her to tell the apostles. I register a rare disagreement with @ClarkeMicah on women's ordination, but, not having been Anglican for 51 years, I have no dog in this fight.
English
@MarkMacdonald75 @RyanHurst171 @jared_555 You may want to try a novel approach from your previous one and interpret the documents through the minutes, debates of the time, close reading or perhaps if possible critical thinking.
English
English
@jared_555 @RyanHurst171 @WoodsReflection I find sufficiency/efficiency a red herring which doesn’t get to the heart of our difference, viz, has Christ made satisfaction for the sins of all who ever lived.
English
@RyanHurst171 @WoodsReflection @MarkMacdonald75 That's not the view of Westminster. Nor is at the view of Dort btw. Christ's death being of infinite worth sufficient for the sins of the whole world ≠ Christ dying sufficiently for all.
English
@WesternCatholik @RyanHurst171 @jared_555 By your method of argumentation, you will find it impossible to deny that the standards are likewise not incompatible with a six-person Godhead.
Congratulations…
English
@MarkMacdonald75 @RyanHurst171 @jared_555 If the standards had wished, they could rather have spoken in such a way as to deny an ordained sufficiency.
English
@RyanHurst171 @jared_555 HU stated positively: Christ has satisfied for the sins of all who ever lived. The elect will be saved.
LA stated positively: Christ has satisfied for the sins of the elect. The elect will be saved.
Which of these is in Westminster?
English
@RyanHurst171 @jared_555 They don’t denounce HU in terms, if that’s what you mean. Rather, they’re incompatible with it as they teach LA. Happy to go through them. Where shall we start?
English