Results 5641 - 5660 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
5641 | Doesn't NT forbid all images-somewhere? | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 132641 | ||
By the way, the historical term for the use of images and symbols for worship in Christendom is "iconoclasty." I thought that knowing this might be handy if anyone wanted to check it out on the web. | ||||||
5642 | Doesn't NT forbid all images-somewhere? | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 132640 | ||
I understand and agree entirely. I was just positting how the flesh tends to superstition. I believe that is one of the reasons that God made this prohibition. One of the great divines of the 16th century said that human beings are, from birth, skilled manufacturers of idols. Even if they aren't of wood and stone, we build them of less substantial stuff! This penchant is rooted in the flesh (Galatians 5:20). I wasn't arguing with you, AO. Just tossing in my own thoughts. |
||||||
5643 | Doesn't NT forbid all images-somewhere? | NT general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 132636 | ||
Hi, Aspiring... I've always felt uncomfortable with images of Christ because of the tendency in my own heart to begin thinking they are, in themselves, holy. I've done the same sort of thing with a Bible, worrying how to dispose of an old one. :-) This kind of thing is rooted in the flesh. The picture is not our Savior, nor can it properly reflect His holiness, authority, honor, power, character, attributes, and glory. The Bible -- i.e., the book itself -- is just an artifact made of leather, paper, and ink. It is not the Word of God in and of itself. Just my two cents. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5644 | Contrition and Repentance | Luke 3:8 | DocTrinsograce | 132635 | ||
"Be wary of conversions that are bereft of contrition and repentance. Be wary of evangelism that is bereft of calling people to contrition and repentance." --Dr. Curtis McClain | ||||||
5645 | What Cause Prayerlessness? | Eph 3:14 | DocTrinsograce | 132634 | ||
The words "this reason" harken back to the doctrine that Paul has been teaching up to this point in the epistle. Doctrines should always drive us to our knees in prayer. Prayerlessness is often linked to a lack of study of doctrine, i.e., ignorance of God. Contrawise, it can be linked to the study of doctrine for the wrong reasons, i.e., for knowledge sake alone, which is arrogance. (From a sermon by Pastor Joseph Braden) |
||||||
5646 | The Abiding Life | John 15:6 | DocTrinsograce | 132631 | ||
We know from this verse that as believers we abide in Christ. Let us contrast our lives with the characteristics in John 15 of an abiding life to see if we are, indeed, abiding in Christ. Verse 2a, 4 and 5: They bear fruit, demonstrating that they are disciples of Christ. Verses 2b: They are pruned by God. (See also Hebrews 12) God decides what needs to be removed in the believers life. Verses 7: They know the joy of availing prayer. Verse 10: They keep the Lord's commandments. Verses 12 and 13:They love those who are abiding in Christ, because Christ loves His own. Verses 18 through 20: They are frequently misunderstood. Verses 26 through 27: They openly testify to what God has done through Christ. |
||||||
5647 | Your screenname? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132609 | ||
Hi, Jo... you have an interesting task ahead of you as you continue to dig into the word! By the way, Lockman locks down any thread with mention of the Five Points. See the restricted message below. I suspect they have a key word search thingy that zeros in on things like this to protect us all from falling down the slippery slope of error. By the way... welcome, again, to the forum! In Him, Doc |
||||||
5648 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132580 | ||
Dear Aixen, you wrote 'I have said here that I have no interest in any human tradition. Yet I read, 'Thanks again for taking the time to think through -- or at least talk -- about these things'. I am left with the question: 'What things?'. I had already decided a long time ago that denominations are a wrong, bad, unscriptural thing. I had felt no need to give any more thought to that." Please excuse me, I do get confused easily, and all of this really has me befuddled. The "things" were the ideas of ignoring or considering what you call "human tradition." The "things" were not human traditions themselves. Regarding the thought part: Since you had brought up the subject I had assumed that you had given it thought. I was thanking you for sharing those thoughts and taking additional thought to respond to my own comments. I am not too certain how one writes anything without taking thought. This is another assumption of mine, I'm afriad, but thought is a pretty fundamental aspect of communication. Your explanation and anecdote have, I believe, clarified your ... Sorry, I'm trying not to call them thoughts ... whatever you call them. Please consider my gratitude withdrawn for your having taken thought when no thought was intended. (Gosh that sounds weird!) I didn't mean to provoke you ... to thought or otherwise. Since the rest of your post had to do with a not uncommon tradition of rejecting other traditions in lieu of ones own (it actually goes back to Genesis 3), I am a bit at a loss as to what to say... and since it is a human tradition, you wouldn't want to talk or think about it anyway. One last thing, you concluded with the words "Consider what I say, and may the Lord give you understanding in all things." Although this statement in and of itself is scriptural, again I am perplexed. Why would you want me to do something that you are unwilling to do? Why would you ask the Lord to give me an understanding of all things? Do you mean that you wish Him to give me an understanding of all things except the traditions of men? In fact ... something else very puzzling ... you use the word "understand" several times in your post which, in turn, is about an unwillingness to learn, study, or take thought for something else. I have an anecdote to relate as well. I am reminded of a fellow I met in an airport. He spent quite some time trying to demonstrate the irrationality of logic. He, in fact, denied the validity of logic altogether. He argued about this at length, but -- much to his disappointment -- I was never quite able to grasp his position. I couldn't quite see how logical argument can be used to demolish the validity of logical arguments. Oh... you've got my head aching! I do not know how to discuss these things with you. How about we just forget it? What do you think? Er... I mean, how does that sound? Let's get on with the study of the Word! In Perfect Perplexity, Doc PS I'm a Reformed Baptist... we don't like denominations either... that's why we aren't one. :-) PSS I don't have an agenda except to preach -- Deo volente -- Christ, and Him crucified. |
||||||
5649 | What's John 14:6 in original language? | John 14:6 | DocTrinsograce | 132573 | ||
Wow, Dalcent! That would be something to see! Have you gone to see it yourself? (I think the Codex Vaticanus is a bit older.) Just think, an actual copy that preceded the invention of the space! Did it predate the Council of Laodicea? Even though the oldest Bible I have held in my hands was from the 16th century, it still amazes me sometimes that things like "talitha cumi" were the very words murmured from the lips of the Savior! |
||||||
5650 | old testiment of use today | 2 Tim 3:16 | DocTrinsograce | 132528 | ||
Hi, brother Hank! Long time no quip! :-) I apologize for connecting antinomianism and dispensationalism so very tightly. Nomianism is a doctrinal position, and antinomianism is simply the doctrinal position that diametrically opposes it. Dispensationalism is a historical and escatalogical interpretation of redemptive history. Thus, they are not interchangeable, although they bear some similarities in origin and thought. Although I have known some antinomians who were not dispensationalists, I have never met a dispensationalist who was not at least implicitly antinominian. Most of the time, the latter do not see themselves as being adherents of antinomian views. The implication of antinomianism arises most frequently when a dispensationalist uses the argument that a specific book of the Bible has no validity outside of the dispensation in which it occurs. I mentioned dispensationalism in the first post because it seemed to me to be the most commonly seen example of antimonian thinking. I was not intending to pass judgment, although I can see how a dispensationalist might take exception to my generalization. I would encourage anyone interested in these subjects to examine covenant theology as well. There is also a third branch of thinking that seeks to reconcile the two called new covenant theology. By the way, some covenant theology advocates can embrace antinomianism by implication as well. The implication of antinomianism arises most frequently when a covenant theologian uses the argument that a specific book of the Bible has no validity outside of the covenant in effect when it was written. Thank you for helping me to clarify. By the way, this post should in no way be construed as an indictment against any of these viewpoints. I am only seeking to offer accurate definitions. |
||||||
5651 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132524 | ||
Sir, I have made every effort to be humble, without being obsequious. I have maintained my probity. On demand I have offered answer, example, opinion, and speculation as appropriate. Christ directed us to turn the other cheek. In our environment we cannot strike with the hands, since we are in a world of nothing but words. So, if there is striking, it is done with words. I am not a great or important person. Far from it. I can forgive any word said against me, because if you knew me like my Savior knows me, you would find many more valid, more egregious, more hurtful things to say! Brother Ed, in your tradition the Holy Spirit plays a supremely significant role. I do not mean any disrespect here at all. What is the Spirit communicating with you about all of this? I do not know how you were wounded by someone who embraced the Reformed perspective. I do not know if you are simply wrestling with some inescapable conclusions or convictions. I wish I did know the root of the problem. I wish that I could fix it all for you. I wish I could bring healing to you. Sadly, I cannot. All I can do is offer you my compassion and friendship. Sir, if it makes you feel better, I humbly apologize for anything I may have misstated, misrepresented, or inaccurately reported (Matthew 5:41). I retract any statement that I have made with which my Lord would not have approved (1 Cor 2:11). I hold nothing to your account and I gratefully accept your generous offer of forgiveness. I do not see any benefit by further participation in this dialog, therefore I humbly withdraw. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5652 | Humility is Foundational | Prov 22:4 | DocTrinsograce | 132502 | ||
"When a certain rhetorician was asked what was the chief rule in eloquence, he replied, 'Delivery'; what was the second rule, 'Delivery'; what was the third rule, 'Delivery'; so if you ask me concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, first, second, and third, and always I would answer, 'Humility.'" --Augustine (354-430) | ||||||
5653 | Overseer Officiating Options | Philem 1:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132501 | ||
There are those who have authority over us. To them we are enjoined to submit (Hebrews 13:17). They have a right to bind our conscience to the Word of God by command. Nevertheless, it glorifies the Lord when we respond to one another in love even when otherwise obligated. | ||||||
5654 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132494 | ||
Oh yeah... one last thing: Anyone who "knows" the Bible and does not practice it does not know the Bible (James 1:22-24). That is self deception. Also, anyone who does not practice the commands of scripture does not know the Bible. Note: I am not saying that "anyone who sins" or "anyone who fails." Our obedience is always a measure of our belief. | ||||||
5655 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132492 | ||
Thank you again for taking time to reply, Nobel. I could go into details about how to narrow down our study, but I do not think that that is something you are really interested in discussing. Especiallly considering your fundamental presuppositions. By the way, this topic is one that has been deliberated many times by many believers. I recall an anecdote that showed this difference very well. I had thought I had posted it here in the past, but I do not find it now. Perhaps you would find it interesting: A Quaker went to a barber. The barber, while cutting his hair, comments on how he has obtained a book on Algebra and has begun to study this area of mathematics. The Quaker laughs and declares that he has no need for such knowledge. He that explains that he does not need Algebra to plow his fields or raise his livestock. All that is needed, declares the quaker, is the Bible. A Puritan went to this same barber. The barber, while cutting his hair, comments on how he has obtained a book on Algebra and has begun to study this area of mathematics. The Puritan commends the barber for his diligence and industry. As he continues the conversation the Puritan comments that God must be the greatest Algebrarian of them all! I am very curious about this notion that God does not command us to study Him nor to study His Word. Nobel, have you ever been in love? I'm sorry, I don't mean to get personal -- that question was rhetorical. You may have heard me speak of my far-better-half. Karen is quite a lady! Being in love with her, I find myself fascinated by everything that is Karen. I delight in finding out about her thoughts, her ideas, her ways, her opinions, her habits, her history, her hopes, her dreams, etc. etc. Finding out something new about her is a great delight! I listen carefully to what she says and how she says it. Even the simplest of comments is a delight. She is my beloved! I have this same experience with my God. Every little nuance of Who He is is of significance to me. Everything He has said, or done, or planned, or thought -- to the degree that I am able to comprehend -- is a delight. The incredible thing is that since He is infinite, no matter how many of us are with Him in paradise, we will never exhaust all that there is to know about Him! One day, a million years from now, maybe I'll come running up to one of the brothers here on the forum and exclaim, "Brother! You'll never guess what I found out about the Lord!" Regarding the "fostering and maintaining of divisions in the church" I think you will find very strong agreement and great unity in the essentials of the faith in orthodoxy. (The cries against divisiveness are most common outside of the conservative, old-time-religion circles. For example, liberals are always throwing this up -- along with the lack of love stuff -- as a means of avoiding the actual theological issues in question.) However -- and I do not mean this to sound sarcastic -- you will never be able to verify the veracity of these statements since you will not be learning anything about us or what we believe. Well, Nobel, I could go on and on about theology proper and hermeneutics. I love the Lord so much! I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Besides, since all of these topics have their roots in theology, we aren't going to get very far, are we? :-) Thanks again for taking the time to think through -- or at least talk -- about these things. I wish we could have been of greater assistance to one another. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5656 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132489 | ||
Brother Ed, I was answering Tim's request for expansion on what I thought of as heresy and apostasy. Are you going to see yourself in every single post I make? I think highly of you, sir, but honestly, I do not think of you to the exclusion of all else. | ||||||
5657 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132488 | ||
Thank you, Kalos. A lot of error seems to stem from a too low view of God and/or a too high view of man. We also often greatly err when we do not fully recognize -- if that is possible -- the true holiness of God. The other side of that coin is to esteem the sinfulness of man too lightly. Although we know from scripture that these errors are rooted in the flesh, in modern parlance we think of these things as ideas. Regardless, if our knowledge is not rooted in the truth, then we will practice error, and live amiss. In Him, Doc PS Such a word of encouragement is very valuable to me at the moment. Thank you again. |
||||||
5658 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132486 | ||
Per your demand, Brother Ed, here are my answers: 1. You accused me of sin when I was innocent of that sin (1 Peter 3:16). I misunderstood you to have asked my forgiveness for that offense (Luke 17:3). 2. ID# 132105 led me to believe that you were satisfied with a narrative basis as suitable foundation for your doctrinal position. 3. Yes. So it seems to me. I was suggesting that perhaps my old fashioned theology was one possible cause for your sensitivity. In my humble opinion and in consideration of the total of our interaction, you seem exceptionally tolerant of most things or people, yet exceptionally intolerant of things or people associated with theology stemming from church history between 500 and 400 years ago. 4. No. We are believers and ought to abide by the Word. Galatians 6:1-6, Titus 2:11-15, 2 Timothy 4:1-4. As brothers in Christ we can and ought to bind one another's conscience by the Word. After all, we are all of One Body. But we are not yet in our perfected state, so it is possible that we may make mistakes. We take it to the Lord, and if He does not convict us, then we move on. In the end, all things are open and clear before the Lord who judges us all. 5. "Claim innocence" means that I have searched my conscience and have found nothing that needs to be confessed as sin in this context. The heart is deceitful (Jeremiah 17:9) and pride is constant temptation (Romans 12:3), so this must be done coram Deo (1 Chronicles 28:9, Psalm 44:21, Psalm 139:23-24). Sir, you have demanded truthful responses from me. I have provided them to you. I have sought to answer fully, unequivocally, and without guile or duplicity. Perhaps we should just place this before the Lord. He understands us better than we do ourselves. It is in Him we find mercy, justice, forgiveness, and grace. |
||||||
5659 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132421 | ||
Dear brother Ed, I most heartily forgive you. It's easy to leap to conclusions when the things we hold dear seem threatened. I hope that you know the great esteem with which I hold you as an elder in your church and a pastor of many years experience. I have great respect for you, sir. (In the following statement, there is no inuendo.) One must not equate respect for a person with respect for their doctrines. Somehow, in our society, we have lost the ability to contend over the truth without it being taken personally. That is to our shame. I, too, will do everything I can to not "push your buttons." I am what I am, however, and that by the grace of God. I am confident that you would not wish me to abandon my principles any more than I would have you abandon yours. With regard to your future behavior, I suggest you ask questions if you need clarity. After I clarify something, then you can jump all over me. How's that? |
||||||
5660 | Rowdy, Rowdy, are you sure? | 1 Tim 2:9 | DocTrinsograce | 132419 | ||
I am grateful for the example that you set. I will pray that God will grant you grace so that you do not falter, and that He will have mercy on your associates. I have appreciated your comments. As a scientist I am sure you recognize the power of terminology. I am afraid I sometimes over analyze what people say. It is fault rooted in over thirty years in my own profession. The next time I watch CSI on TV, I will remember that Sarah Sidal is not representative of every forensic scientist! :-) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 ] Next > Last [302] >> |