Results 321 - 340 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243187 | ||
Meh (I love that word that the kids came up with) Opinions about opinions. Sheesh. Where's the beef? Again, please cite specific scriptures that deny the Perspicuity of Scripture. You should at least have one or two, Ed? |
||||||
322 | Nowhere but in the Scriptures | 2 Cor 4:4 | DocTrinsograce | 243185 | ||
"Nowhere but in the Scriptures, can we learn what is the real condition of the natural man. There his case is diagnosed with unerring precision by the divine Physician. Many are the terms used therein by the Holy Spirit to describe the solemn and direful state to which the fall has reduced every descendant of Adam; and among them probably none is more pointed and awesome than is the term LOST! How dismal is its sound! How much is summed up in that single word! It signifies ... that the natural man is in a sinful, wretched, and perilous state, that he is far astray from God, that he has willfully and wantonly forsaken the path of duty." --A. W. Pink (1886-1952) |
||||||
323 | Praise God for Providing us All His Word | Deut 30:11 | DocTrinsograce | 243175 | ||
"For this commandment which I command you today [to obey the commands of Scripture] is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it." (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) |
||||||
324 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243174 | ||
Dear Ed, The doctrine you have abjured so persistently is called the Perspicuity of Scripture (or the Clarity of Scripture). It is one of three doctrines that are assertions on which the doctrine of the authority of Scripture Alone is based. (The second is the Sufficiency of Scripture and the third is the Necessity of Scripture.) However, it does not edify anyone if these doctrines are so utterly mischaracterized; not me, not our readers, and not even you. (cf Ephesians 4:29-32; Peter 3:14-16) If any of us hope to learn the truth, it will not be through anything save honorable means -- for our King is of infinite honor. Since you evidently don't want to start a new thread, I will continue. I can help with your starting point explicitly. That way, you can tear and ridicule the REAL belief instead of a synthesized one. So here is the actual doctrine: "The Holy Scriptures are the only sufficient, certain and infallible rule [standard] for saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. (Isa 8:20; Luk 16:29; Eph 2:20; 2 Ti 3:15-17) Although the light of nature [this means what man can perceive by his senses of the world around them] and the works of creation and providence give such clear testimony to the goodness, wisdom and power of God that they leave people without excuse, (Psa 19:1-3; Rom 1:19-21,32; 2:12a,14-15) yet they are not sufficient to give the knowledge of God and His will that is necessary for salvation. (Psa 19:1-3 with 7-11; Rom 1:19-21; 2:12a,14-15 with 1:16-17 and 3:21) Therefore it pleased the Lord to reveal Himself at various times and in different ways, and to declare His will to His church; (Heb 1:1-2a) to ensure the preservation and propagation of the truth, and to establish and support the church against human corruption, the malice of Satan, and the world, He committed His complete revelation to writing. The Holy Scriptures are therefore absolutely indispensable, (Pro 22:19-21; Luk 1:1-4; 2 Pe 1:12-15; 3:1; Deu 17:18ff; 31:9ff,19ff; 1 Co 15:1; 2 Th 2:1-2,15; 3:17; Rom 1:8-15; Gal 4:20; 6:11; 1 Ti 3:14ff; Rev 1:9,19; 2:1, etc.; Rom 15:4; 2 Pe 1:19-21) for God's former ways of revealing His will to His people have now ceased. (Heb 1:1-2a; Act 1:21-22; 1Co 9:1; 15:7-8; Eph 2:20)" 2 1689 LBCF 1.1 Now all three doctrines of Sola Scriptura are in that paragraph above. Let's just hold on to the one doctrine that you abjure -- it is too involved to get into all the others. We'll keep it simple. Note also that the old theologians cited Scripture. They had to do so because Scripture alone is authoritative. Okay, now focus here a moment: Please provide all the Scriptures on which you base the belief that only an elite group can understand the Word, while all the rest of mankind lack that ability. Remember, just that one doctrine of the Clarity of Scripture and just by Scripture. Thank you. In Him, Doc |
||||||
325 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243172 | ||
Dear Ed, Good clarifications there! You asked, "Why the interest about Dispensationalism?" Well, to be as honest as possible: Perhaps you have read our Reformed Baptist confession at least in part. Chapter 32 of the 2 LBCF 1689 speaks to eschatology. I have always been satisfied with the old Baptist Divines assertions. Indeed, I find that they go as far as possible, yet no farther, than what we ought to say about the final consummation of God's eternal purpose. Revelation 22 is that denouement that Christians look to with hope. After I posted the quote by A. W. Pink (#243137), you criticized the his assertion in post #243139. That got me thinking. Returning to Pink's "A Study of Dispensationalism" I found that he was definitive in his expression of the fundamental principles of this teaching. However, as we know in properly handling the Word: context is king. I was very erroneously neglecting that rule in my reading of Pink; for, as we certainly ought to be aware, each and every text (be it Biblical or external to the Bible), was penned in a specific historical and grammatical context. So, if I am to understand Pink, I need to understand the teaching he was critiquing. Going back through his study, I found that Pink's primary focus was on the teaching by John Nelson Darby (1800-1882); the father of Dispensationalism and Futurism. I read what Darby had to say on the topic; verifying that Pink was representing him accurately. Then I began to try to read what the various Dispensational teachers had to say on the topic. Oy... there is a lot of stuff out there! What became apparent was that they all seemed to use different assumptions arriving, obviously, upon differing conclusions. Too much to study! One could spend a lifetime trying to harmonize them. Anyway, I thought I could the study down a bit by focusing on the simple question, based in Ryrie's assertion: How many dispensations are there and what characterizes each? Unfortunately, even using that most basic approach failed to show any consensus. That was when I posted #243147. Over the years I had noticed that you affirm various assertions found in Dispensationalism. I consider you to be as representative of Pentecostalism that I could easily find. (The internet repeatedly asserts that Dispensationalism is a fundamental and necessary extension of Pentecostalism.) I knew that any question that I might ask of you would be regarded by you as some kind of attack. However, thought I, maybe by setting out what I found, I might hope to draw you into explaining this thing that I found so diverse as to be almost incomprehensible. No offence, Ed, but your responses failed to clear the muddy waters. Then your assertion that "I am not a 'dispensationalist's'" (sic) confirmed that the job ahead of me was like trying to kill a whole flock of ducks with a single shot. I conclude, therefore, that there is hardly any unanimity in the very diverse teachings about Denominationalism. The diversity resists the efforts of anyone coming from the outside to try to understand. Particularly sans textbooks. I will, therefore, look to more fertile grounds: the Preterists and the Historicists are much more unified in their beliefs. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, but I suspect that ultimately Dispensationalists will need to produce a statement of consensus. Until they do, there really is nothing with which any can argue. Now I understand why my professors touched so lightly upon the tenets of Dispensationalism: They stated as much as was possible those things upon which Dispensational teachers agree. It makes for a very tiny set of statements. I will be leaving off this subject, unless there is anything else that you would like to add. So, as I look at Preterism and Historicism, don't be surprised if I post a few quotes. In the meantime, Ed, thank you for sharing what you could. In Him, Doc PS If you ever do study Dispensationalism, let me know what you find out. Certainly let me know if you find one or another of the Dispensational teachers to be the most persuasive to you. |
||||||
326 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243170 | ||
Dear Ed, Demand? Oh ho... do you think I have such authority? I just want to minimize the amount of reading I need to do (per #243147). Surely somebody thought it fitting to explain it all in a single volume. I just noticed that no two Dispensationalists agreed on the same doctrine. What I have learned from you is that there is another kind of Dispensationalism of those who disavow Dispensationalism in general. Instead of minimizing the amount of reading, now if I am to understand, I must read even MORE and varied positions. The amount of effort to understand this document increases exponentially. Your questions regarding the Reformation are out there to uncover as you wish. None of these things were done in a corner. Just as my efforts to understand Dispensationalism will require further attention. We who do not comprehend these doctrines have little authority to comment on them. To summarize my confusion, it involves the Pentecostal embracing of Dispensationalism, while rejecting or accepting en toto, the teaching of Dispensationalists through history. A rose by any other name, you know? I have a couple other AOG professors I can ask. Thus, I will seek the answers elsewhere with those who are apt to teach. Sorry for bothering you with questions of your Non-Dispensational doctrines expressed in the context of Dispensationalism. In Him, Doc PS You continue to want to talk about Reformed perceptions... Seems odd that a Pentecostal wants to know about Reformed Theology. Please start your questions on another thread. Branching off topic would confuse everyone. In another thread, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you might have. PSS I got an answer from one of my AOG pastor friends. He writes, "Standard A/G doctrine IS dispensational, pre-tribulational and pre-millenial. PERIOD." (sic) He further tells me that there are dissenters among those ordained as AOG pastors. Another one says, "Smile and nod. Just take his name to prayer and hold forth a hand of friendship with a view to hopeful fellowship." These statements have confirmed my growing suspicions that Dispensationalism is a moving target. Reformed theology had that problem at one time. It took a hundred years to iron it out. It looks like it will take more than two hundred years for Dispensationalists to arrive at agreement. |
||||||
327 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243167 | ||
Dear Ed, I recall one of my seminary professors who said, "Never contend with a doctrine until you are able to fully articulate it to its proponents. Anything else is dishonoring to the character of our Lord. A straw man argument is fundamentally dishonest." You criticized Romanist approaches, but even they have their beliefs fully documented. I have a rather large book in my library that is their most recent and most exhaustive confession. (It is just as large as the other systematic theologies that sit beside them.) You see, I can render up to you any number of texts on hermeneutics, soteriology, Christology, covenantalism, eschatology, ecclesiology, anthropology, ontology, pneumatology, ethics, epistemology, theology proper, etc. etc. I can even render up a very clear definition of what I believe to be essential doctrines. Even my profile here gives a pretty good summation. Please understand me, I am not abjuring your beliefs. At Covenant Theological Seminary (a very Reformed school indeed), Dispensationalism was discussed a number times. However, I think that the surface was hardly scratched. Nothing much else than what Theopedia says, was ever presented. http://www.theopedia.com/dispensationalism Would you read through that page and tell me what I think? Do you agree with the definition there? Also, sorry for continuing to press the point; but if you used no textbook for your seminarians, allowing them to learn by implication; did you have a textbook from which you learned Dispensationalism? If not, may I press you to do a google search on "dispensationalism textbook" and point me in the right direction? I read A. W. Pink's book, but it was clear that the Dispensationalism in his time was very different from what it is in ours -- if it can be pinned down at all. I intend to read Vern Poythress' book on the topic. Before I do, though, it would be helpful if I read something definitive -- by which I mean something that won't require my reading everything those dozen or so Dispensational theologians wrote. Someone must have taken up the challenge to define it. Peter Abelard (a theologian of the 12th century) asserted that if you cannot explain something then you do not understand it. Finally, if I can even press you further: What are the differences between Dispensationalism, Progressive Dispensationalism, and Hyper Dispensationalism? Again, thank you for your help, Ed. In Him, Doc PS We can talk about Historic Creedalism, Hermeneutics, and the distinctions between Antiochian and Alexandrian schools of thought in another thread. I'd enjoy doing so; but let's try to stay focused on Dispensationalism for now. |
||||||
328 | Hyper calvinism and Backsliding? | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243166 | ||
Hi, Ed... In that case, when you attended Seminary, what text did you use for Dispensationalism? Given that it is so foundational, it is hard to imagine that AOG men are ordained without it being taught. So what textbook did you use in your seminary attendance? Thank you for your time and attention. In Him, Doc |
||||||
329 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243162 | ||
Dear Ed, Do I understand correctly that you are saying that all of these men are right? Did they all "throw off all normal shackles?" As I read excerpts from each of these Dispensational Scholars, several of them argued that the reason the others differed in the enumeration and identification of the dispensations was because they were either insufficiently spiritual (I'm not sure what that means) or they were inadequately learned in sound interpretation of the Scriptures. If they said that of one another, it is hard to imagine them all rendering sound doctrine. I'm sorry, but it sounds like they did, indeed, need luck (or some other equivalent means) to discern the Word. Certainly the Holy Spirit would not have led them into contradictory and confused interpretations. As Martin Luther wrote, "And what is it that preachers do, to this very day? Do they interpret and expound the Scriptures? Yet if the Scripture they expound is uncertain, who can assure us that their exposition is certain? Another new exposition? And who will expound the exposition? At this rate we will go on forever. In short, if Scripture is obscure or ambiguous, what part is there in God’s giving it to us?" The law of non-contradiction would not permit us to -- in soundness of mind -- accept the diversity of Biblical exegesis as each every one right in the same sense and in the same way. Some of those men must have been way off base. I cannot feret through all of this confusion. It is like being in a room where everyone is talking at once in a different language on different topics. What hope is there for me to understand Dispensation rightly if there is no consensus amongst its adherents? Share with me the textbook that you used in your Bible college on Dispensationalism, and I promise to read it cover to cover (Proverbs 2:4-6). As in the time of Jeremiah (5:1-3), I believe that any sound doctrine can be articulated consistently and with perspicuity (cf Revelation 2:24). In Him, Doc |
||||||
330 | The Two Churches Distinguished | Rev 3:6 | DocTrinsograce | 243161 | ||
"We believe that we ought to discern diligently and very carefully, by the Word of God, what is the true church -- for all sects in the world today claim for themselves the name of 'the church.' "We are not speaking here of the company of hypocrites who are mixed among the good in the church and who nonetheless are not part of it, even though they are physically there. But we are speaking of distinguishing the body and fellowship of the true church from all sects that call themselves 'the church.' "The true church can be recognized if it has the following marks: The church engages in the pure preaching of the gospel; it makes use of the pure administration of the sacraments as Christ instituted them; it practices church discipline for correcting faults. In short, it governs itself according to the pure Word of God, rejecting all things contrary to it and holding Jesus Christ as the only Head. By these marks one can be assured of recognizing the true church -- and no one ought to be separated from it. "As for those who can belong to the church, we can recognize them by the distinguishing marks of Christians: namely by faith, and by their fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness, once they have received the one and only Savior, Jesus Christ. They love the true God and their neighbors, They love the true God and their neighbors, without turning to the right or left, and they crucify the flesh and its works. Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins, through faith in him. "As for the false church, it assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God; it does not want to subject itself to the yoke of Christ; it does not administer the sacraments as Christ commanded in his Word; it rather adds to them or subtracts from them as it pleases; it bases itself on men, more than on Jesus Christ; it persecutes those who live holy lives according to the Word of God and who rebuke it for its faults, greed, and idolatry. "These two churches are easy to recognize and thus to distinguish from each other." --Belgic Confession of 1561 (Article 28) |
||||||
331 | The First Promise of Christ | Gen 3:15 | DocTrinsograce | 243160 | ||
"The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance (Gen. 3:15); in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners." (2 LBCF 20.1) |
||||||
332 | Hyper calvinism and Backsliding? | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243159 | ||
Hi, Ed... Dr. Curt Daniel is a dear friend of mine. I even have an autographed copy of his doctoral dissertation on Hyper-Calvinism. I wouldn't have imaged that you would have read his dissertation. Small world! By the way, Curtis has a wonderful set of lectures on Calvinism. He is a fine pastor and a very learned scholar. So I am curious about something. I keep looking through the syllabi of Pentecostal seminaries and Bible schools. They teach Dispensationalism, but I haven't found the text book that they use. When you taught, did you teach Dispensationalism? If so, what was the textbook that you used. I would very much like to read it. Most of what I can find are criticisms of Dispensationalism -- which strikes me as problematic, as it is like hitting a moving target. I've read a couple of prophecy mongers' books, but that isn't much help. Could you point me in the right direction, please? In Him, Doc |
||||||
333 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243147 | ||
Dear Ed, The more I read on Dispensationalism (from its proponents) the more confusing it seems to me. So these are just a few thoughts. I am not even close to threatening the core issues of this teaching. A confessional on Dispensationalism would not insure its correctness. What it would achieve is concensus. It would fully expose the essential teachings to examination by anyone. It would serve as a tool of instruction and persuasion. It would also allow the theologians who studied it to dispense with minor differences, and work cooperatively toward deeper questions. Without such a statement, what you have is chaos -- internally and externally. As an example, Charles Ryrie asserts, "On the basis of a definition of a dispensation as a distinguishable eceonmy in the outworking of God's purpose, it is not difficult to deduce how many dispensations are revealed in Scripture." (He thought there were seven.) Thus, that would be a great start for agreement, if, indeed, the hermeneutic made it not difficult to deduce. However, taking just this question of, "how many" out to the many teachers of Dispensationalism we get the following: John Nelson Darby - Six Dispensations James M. Grey - Eight Dispensations Cyrus I. Scofield - Seven Dispensations Clarence Larkin - Eight Dispensations Robert Thieme - Four Dispensations Harold L. Wilmington - Nine Dispensations Finis Dake - Nine Dispensations A. E. Koch - Twelve Dispensations Charles H. Welch - Eighteen Dispensations Clarence Mason - Five Dispensations John Phillips - Nine Dispensations None of these men agree on the first Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the second Dispensation. None of these men agree on the third Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the fourth Dispensation. Possibly two of these men agree on the fifth Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the sixth Dispensation. Two of these men agree on the seventh Dispensation. None of these men agree on the eighth Dispensation. etc. I could not find any explicit number from John MacArthur and John Piper -- let alone Copeland and Swaggart. Even Ellen White doesn't quite take a stand. If this is an easy deduction from the Word, why don't any two of these scholars/teachers fail to arrive at the same conclusion? With this kind of division in Dispensational ranks, there are only two possibilities: Only one of them is right; or none of them are right. You said you thought highly of Ryrie. Is he your preferred Dispensational teacher? Truth always unites (Ephesians 4:1-3; 1 John 3:18; 1 Peter 1:22). In Him, Doc |
||||||
334 | Corrective and Directive | Is 29:19 | DocTrinsograce | 243146 | ||
"He doth not afflict willingly, He doth not afflict to afflict, to grieve the children of men, to crush under His feet the prisoners whom He hath taken in His net, to cause their spirits to fail before Him. Towards His own, His ends are gracious, when His dealings seem grievous, His heart is full of love to them, when His hand is heavy in infliction upon them. When He hedges in our ways with thorns, He leaves one open gap, and that leads us home to Himself. The language of the rod is directive as well as corrective: And what doth God intend in our trial, but to curb and check our extravagances, to awaken our languishing faculties, to excite and exercise our graces, to inflame our desires, to enlarge our longings after Himself, and so to put us in to a better capacity of Himself? When by some sharp passages he hath acute our appetites, and raised up our estimations of Himself, then He flows in with heavenly sweets, and satisfies His seeking servants above all that we can ask or think. The truth is clear then: Our God is high in glory and excellency, and must be sought in humility: He is dreadful in displeasure, and must be approached with trembling: He is gracious in His intentions and dealings with His own, even when He smites them, and must be apprehended with greediness and satisfaction. And seeing afflictions in their sanctified use and fruit render God such a God to us, let us seek Him early and earnestly." --Gaspar Hicks (1645) |
||||||
335 | What is Meant by Heresy? | Is 9:15 | DocTrinsograce | 243143 | ||
"Is the flamboyant faith healer Benny Hinn a heretic? He was so branded by Hank Hanegraaff, the 'Bible Answer Man,' in his recent book Christianity in Crisis. Hanegraaff's Charge resulted in a radical outburst of indignant cries directed not at Hinn but at Hanegraaff. "It seems that the only real and intolerable heresy today is the despicable act of calling someone a heretic. If the one accused is guilty of heresy, he or she will probably elicit more sympathy than his accuser. Anyone who cries 'Heretic!' today risks being identified as a native of Salem, Massachusetts. "After Hanegraaff made his charge in print, a couple of things happened. One is that Hinn recanted his own teaching that there are nine persons in the Trinity and apologized to his hearers for that teaching. Such recantations are rare in church history, and it is gratifying that at least in this case on that point Hinn repented of his false teaching. "The second interesting footnote to the Hanegraaff-Hinn saga was the appearance of an editorial by the editor of a leading charismatic magazine in which Hanegraaff was castigated for calling Hinn a heretic. At the 1993 Christian Booksellers Association convention, I was present for and witness to a discussion between Hanegraaff and the magazine editor. I asked the editor a few questions. The first was, 'Is there such a thing as heresy?' The editor acknowledged that there was. My second question was, 'Is heresy a serious matter?' Again he agreed that it was. My next question was obvious. 'Then why are you criticizing Hanegraaff for saying that Hinn was teaching heresy when even Hinn admits it now?' "The editor expressed concern about tolerance, charity, the unity of Christians, and matters of that sort. He expressed a concern about witch hunts in the evangelical church. My sentiments about that are clear. We don't need to hunt witches in the evangelical world. There is no need to hunt what is not hiding. The 'witches' are in plain view, every day on national television, teaching blatant heresy without fear of censure. "Consider the case of Jimmy Swaggart. For years Swaggart has publicly repudiated the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Swaggart was not challenged (to my knowledge) by his church for his heresy. He was censured for sexual immorality but not heresy. I guess this church regards romping with prostitutes in private a more serious offense than denying the Trinity before the watching world. "But what do we mean by heresy? Is every theological error a heresy? In a broad sense, every departure from biblical truth may be regarded as a heresy. But in the currency of Christian thought, the term heresy has usually been reserved for gross and heinous distortions of biblical truth, for errors so grave that they threaten either the essence (esse) of the Christian faith or the well-being (bene esse) of the Christian church. "Luther was excommunicated by Rome and declared a heretic for teaching justification by faith alone. Luther replied that the church had embraced a heretical view of salvation. The issue still burns as to who the heretic is. "We live in a climate where heresy is embraced and proclaimed with the greatest of ease. I can't think of any of these major heresies that I haven't heard repeatedly and openly on national tv by so-called 'evangelical preachers' such as Hinn, Crouch, and the like. Where our fathers saw these issues as matters of life and death, indeed of eternal life and death, we have so surrendered to relativism and pluralism that we simply don't care about serious doctrinal error. We prefer peace to truth and accuse the orthodox of being divisive when they call a heretic a heretic. It is the heretic who divides the church and disrupts the unity of the body of Christ." --R. C. Sproul (1994) |
||||||
336 | Evidences of Holy Spirit in a Believer | Mic 2:7 | DocTrinsograce | 243142 | ||
"Humanity’s fundamental problem is its estrangement from God, which results in eternal death if it is not rectified (Gen. 2:15-17; Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:11-12). Condemnation is the only end for those who do not have their sins covered, but for those who have been justified in Christ, there is no condemnation (Rom. 1:18-5:1). This state of being free from the Lord’s condemnation is permanent and perpetual—there is no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus, for in Him we are set free from the law of sin and death (8:1-2). "Our walking in the Spirit is evidence that we have been justified, so we must also see Romans 8:4 as referring to an experiential fulfillment of the law in Christians. That is developed more in verses 5-6, where we see that setting our minds on the Spirit brings life and peace. In bearing the curse of God’s law, Christ provided for the Spirit of God to be poured out and to dwell in us (Gal. 3:13-14). Since we have been counted righteous before the Lord in Christ, the Holy Spirit can live within us and empower us to set our minds continually on the Spirit, and we enjoy His life and peace even now." http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/setting-ones-mind-spirit/ |
||||||
337 | Christian Tolerance | Prov 25:11 | DocTrinsograce | 243141 | ||
"My friend and former colleague Tim Keller says that tolerance doesn't require us to abandon our convictions. Rather, true tolerance is having convictions that lead us to treat our opponents graciously. "For the Christian witness to be taken seriously in an increasingly pluralistic, non-religious society like the modern West, Christians must 1) be true to our convictions, 2) love, listen to, and serve those who do not share those convictions, and 3) consistently do both at the same time. "We find our model in Jesus, the one who welcomed sinners and ate with them. The one who offered friendship to people before they agreed with him and regardless of whether they ever ended up agreeing with him at all. "Paul said, 'Walk in wisdom toward outsiders. . . . Let your speech always be gracious' (Colossians 4:5-6). Not sometimes. Always. "Doesn’t a gracious tone make the most sense for those of us who live under grace? Even when we’re fighting with him, the Father never holds us in contempt. We are forever embraced because of another, who bore Abba’s outrage in our place. This being true, shouldn’t we Christians be the least offended and least offensive people in the world?" --Scott Sauls (2015) |
||||||
338 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243140 | ||
This might help as a definition. I cannot find a confessionalized one signed off on by Benny Hinn through John MacArthur. https://carm.org/dispensationalism |
||||||
339 | The Grace of Contentment | Deut 11:15 | DocTrinsograce | 243138 | ||
"We should be humbled in our hearts because of our lack of contentment in the past. For there is no way to set about any duty that you should perform, you might labor to perform it, but first you must be humbled for the lack of it. Therefore I shall endeavor to get your hearts to be humbled for lack of this grace. ‘Oh, had I had this grace of contentment, what a happy life I might have lived! What abundance of honor I might have brought to the name of God! How might I have honored my profession! What a great deal of comfort I might have enjoyed! But the Lord knows it has been far otherwise. Oh, how far I have been from this grace of contentment which has been expounded to me! I have had a murmuring, a vexing, and a fretting heart within me. Every little cross has put me out of temper and out of frame. Oh, the boisterousness of my spirit! What evil God sees in the vexing and fretting of my heart, and murmuring and repining of my spirit!’ Oh that God would make you see it!" --Jeremiah Burroughs (1600-1646) |
||||||
340 | Harmonizing the Word Hermeneutically | Deut 19:21 | DocTrinsograce | 243137 | ||
"Instead of being engaged in the unholy work of pitting one part of the Scriptures against another, these men would be far better employed in showing the perfect unity of the Bible and the blessed harmony which there is between all of its teachings. But instead of demonstrating the concord of the two Testaments, they are more concerned in their efforts to show the discord which they say there is between that which pertained unto 'the Dispensation of Law' and that which obtains under 'the Dispensation of Grace,' and in order to accomplish their evil design all sound principles of exegesis are cast to the wind. As a sample of what we have reference to, they cite 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot' (Exodus 21:24) and then quote against it, 'But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also' (Matthew 5:39), and then it is exultantly asserted that those two passages can only be 'reconciled' by allocating them to different peoples in different ages; and with such superficial handling of Holy Writ thousands of gullible souls are deceived, and thousands more allow themselves to be bewildered." --A. W. Pink, from his "A Study of Dispensationalism" chapter 3 paragraph 2 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [302] >> |