Comments on: The Church is not the visible church? http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/ The cyberstalkable freelance writer making retractions on the web since 2000.... Oops, 1993? Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:24:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/comment-page-1/#comment-113761 David Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:55:11 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/#comment-113761 Hey Mark, I liked this post. The root problem is the way in which we have been trained to read Scripture at a fundamental level. How many of us read all the first person plural pronouns as reference to the elect? It was Calvin who taught me to stop doing that. For example, 2 Pet 3:9, the "us" etc. We could put some distance between the text and that simple assumption that every critical "us" or "we" or even third person reference refers to the elect and not to the body of Christ, even the body in vital living union, we would see things differently. Take care, David Hey Mark,

I liked this post. The root problem is the way in which we have been trained to read Scripture at a fundamental level. How many of us read all the first person plural pronouns as reference to the elect? It was Calvin who taught me to stop doing that.

For example, 2 Pet 3:9, the “us” etc. We could put some distance between the text and that simple assumption that every critical “us” or “we” or even third person reference refers to the elect and not to the body of Christ, even the body in vital living union, we would see things differently.

Take care,
David

]]> By: pentamom http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/comment-page-1/#comment-113411 pentamom Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:12:36 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/#comment-113411 Okay, now you've corrected it (just to avoid confusion to future readers.) It's mildly satisfying to know I wasn't missing the point THAT badly. ;-) Okay, now you’ve corrected it (just to avoid confusion to future readers.) It’s mildly satisfying to know I wasn’t missing the point THAT badly. ;-)

]]> By: mark http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/comment-page-1/#comment-113373 mark Wed, 23 Jan 2008 01:54:33 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/#comment-113373 Yes, I had an attack of dyslexia. Yes, I had an attack of dyslexia.

]]> By: pentamom http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/comment-page-1/#comment-113295 pentamom Tue, 22 Jan 2008 23:22:37 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/#comment-113295 Did you reverse "visible" and "invisible" in paragraph 2, sentence 1? If not, I guess I have to reread your whole post more carefully because I'm missing something. Did you reverse “visible” and “invisible” in paragraph 2, sentence 1?

If not, I guess I have to reread your whole post more carefully because I’m missing something.

]]> By: al http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/comment-page-1/#comment-113251 al Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:17:43 +0000 http://www.hornes.org/mark/2008/01/22/the-church-is-not-the-visible-church/#comment-113251 <i>Oddly, one doesn’t have to be a paedobaptist to know better. </i> This same discussion occurred over at Frank Turk's blog. There were a couple of paedobaptists defending the "invisible body" concept at least implicitly and that really bothered me. Baptists sure, but paedobaptists? Come on... al sends Oddly, one doesn’t have to be a paedobaptist to know better.

This same discussion occurred over at Frank Turk’s blog. There were a couple of paedobaptists defending the “invisible body” concept at least implicitly and that really bothered me. Baptists sure, but paedobaptists? Come on…

al sends

]]>