Results 5681 - 5700 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
5681 | Scriptural evidence? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131860 | ||
I apologize for the generalizations, Tim. You asked for the origins of my doubts, and I provided them. Pentecostalism is a 20th century doctrine. So it isn't true that "the vast majority of holiness denominations have pentecostal roots." John Wesley originated the holiness doctrine, which has a number of contradictions with orthodoxy (as Ed defines the word.) Furthermore, the implication that only pentecostal denominations are interested in holiness is easily disputed. Luther was continuously interested in this subject, speaking and writing often upon it. Calvin spends an incredible amount of time on the subject as well. Even the word "Puritan" has its roots in a desire for purity and godliness. All that the Puritans wrote on the subject of the Christian's pursuit of holiness would fill libraries. The Baptists John Bunyan, Roger Williams, and Charles Spurgeon spent an incredible amount of energy on this important discipline of the believer. Gentlemen, I do not find further discussion of this topic to be of value for our edification. I love you both. There are many things that we can and ought to discuss to the glory of our God. Let us please have done with this subject and move on. |
||||||
5682 | Scriptural evidence? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131858 | ||
Thank you, Ed. If you insist on talking about my own experience, then I will again answer open and honestly. I actually have "pentecostal" roots, at least that was the group that I became a part of when I was first saved -- I will always be in their debt for their instruction. I was a member of Jack Hayford's church in Southern California. I have been in many so-called "Spirit-Filled" services. The consistent impression that I came away with were people who needed emotional pumping up in order to remain obedient to the Lord from week to week. Interest in careful exposition of scripture was almost non-existent. I watched people with eyes still red from weeping in the service or even being "slain in the spirit" go out to the parking lot and engage in gossip and criticism. I can honestly say that in over twenty years of attendance, service, teaching, and preaching, that I have seen no greater hunger for obedience and holiness to the Lord than I what I am seeing in my current church. In addition, my brothers and sisters there are growing in love for one another, and bearing much fruit. Nevertheless, thank you, Ed, for the suggestion. |
||||||
5683 | Scriptural evidence? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131857 | ||
The greatest amount of evangelism to take place around the world in the last four centuries are predominantly out of groups with Calvinist roots. This is easy to demonstrate. For example, look at the number of converts under Whitfield versus Wesley. Even today, the revival that is occuring in Korea is predominantly Presbyterian. | ||||||
5684 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131849 | ||
Dear Brother (excuse the gender assumption if it is incorrect, but in the absence of explicit profile information, it is how I think of you)... I like how you always seem to be in the background. Sometimes I've wondered if you were there. Then, suddenly I find you've been following everything very closely! At the times you appear, it seems as though you always instill a strongly applicable, cogent, and clear scripture reference. Your posts are solid, sound, sincere, and spiritually salubrious for us all (sorry, alliteration can be habit forming). Thank you for always reminding us why this forum exists! Respectfully, Doc |
||||||
5685 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131848 | ||
Great quote, kalos! Of course, I am always partial to PhD's out of Aberdeen! :-) I wish I was one! :-) | ||||||
5686 | Other gifts throughout history? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131847 | ||
Brother Ed, I can add my unequivocal amen to these statements. You should know me well enough by now that my heart is in it, too. The lost do not change, in spite of their "ever learning but never coming to the truth." In your example of of the "identical churches" I couldn't help but think of John 6. The people were more interested in his feeding of the multitude than they were in spiritual truth (v42). The lost are ever this way, unless by Providence they are given a thirst for the things of God (v65). I also thought about the prosperity teachings that are so common in our nation today. One Sunday, in my own church, a discussion began on how one might be blessed by God in material ways. You've read my statements on this forum, so you can probably guess my disappointment. When we have been given the a Gift greater than a million universes, why in the world would we even care if God blesses us in ANY other way??? Brother Ed, we differ in a lot of fundamental ways, but I think we are very much alike in our love for the Savior. Thank you, again, for sharing. |
||||||
5687 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131837 | ||
Thank you, brother Ed. I appreciate your letting me clarify my position. My far-better-half has not been posting lately, but she'll jump in here any time. :-) We'd better behave. :-) | ||||||
5688 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131836 | ||
Doctor Martin said something in grudgingly or angrily? Of course, I never saw him in person, but I've listened to a lot of his tapes. I never have heard him sound angry in the least. As to the definition of orthodoxy, clearly we do not mean the same thing when we use the word. Clearly. As I suggested in another post, we ought to have a discussion of the meaning of this word. I do hope and pray that those 50 million will persevere in the faith. I bear them no ill will. How can I, for my Lord loves them! For a decade I worked side by side with AOG pastors in prison ministry. I have been very, deeply saddened when ordained men of God walked away from their faith. I do not mean any disrespect, Ed. I can well understand why this is a sensitive issue with you. In my own tradition the seed sometimes does not take deep root. Only time will tell. Thank you for your input, sir. |
||||||
5689 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131832 | ||
Prove a negative? Not I, sir! Furthermore, I have not said that I hold to that position regarding the use of tongues in our day. I have not said so, because I am not certain that that position is more sound than your own. Please do not put words in my mouth and then argue with me. I will not participate. Now, in the words of Roger, who denies our veracity anyway, "Thank you!" :-) 'Nuff said. |
||||||
5690 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131831 | ||
Regarding your paragraph one: We are in agreement. Tongues was just not being practiced by anyone other than the Montanists. Chrysostom -- presumably appealing to Paul -- thought that it had passed away. Ed, please stop asking me to defend a bunch of dead guys. All we have is their own writings. They can't defend themselves. But I am certainly not anywhere near their level anyway. All I know is what I read. If it disagrees with your polemic its not my fault. Nor, if it agrees with my polemic can I take the credit! Regarding your paragraph two: Okay. Regarding your question, "if tongues have ceased how do we explain the fact that many hear the Word of God being preached in English in their own language and thus come to salvation through it?" If tongues still exist, this would be the only valid expression of it. In every case in Acts where tongues took place there was great evangelism. (I do not find the "unknown prayer language" or "mystery languages" in scripture.) If it is attributable to Satan, then we will see that the converts you mention will fall away, without any evidence of changed lives. Still and all, it would be great to have some documentation one way or another. With regard to the dancing, I'm a Baptist and we don't dance -- especially in church. :-) Sorry, just kidding! :-) However, metaphorically speaking, I'll dance on the side of orthodoxy especially when everything else is equal. Now, lets have done with all this dry and dusty stuff. Onward to the study of "the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience," the Holy Scriptures. (Whose authority is not dependent "upon the testimony of any man or church [or experience], but wholly upon God (Who is truth itself), the Author thereof".) |
||||||
5691 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131827 | ||
I thought the Montanist Heresy was condemned due to their bringing practices of the orgiastic cult of Cybele. Eusebius records "Many [leaders in the church] thought Montanus to be possessed by an evil spirit, and a troubler of the people; they rebuked him and tried to stop his prophesying; the faithful of Asia assembled in many places, and examining the prophecies declared them profane, and condemned the heresy, so that the disciples were thrust out of the Church and its communion." What really got folks upset was "the declaration that the new prophecy was of a higher order than the old, and therefore unlike it. It came to be thought higher than the Apostles, and even beyond the teaching of Christ." (as the Catholic Encyclopedia puts it). The sect was founded by three "prophets:" Montanus and two women, Maximilla and Priscilla. The entry in the same source goes on, "Priscilla went to sleep, she said, at Pepuza, and Christ came to her and slept by her side 'in the form of a woman, clad in a bright garment, and put wisdom into me, and revealed to me that this place is holy, and that here Jerusalem above comes down'." Sorry for summarizing. There's just too much to write about. Tertullian on the Montanist Heresy's side, Chrysostom, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Zephyrinus on the other. I do not find undocumented claims of anything to be very persuasive. Christianity is about facts rooted in verifiable, truth. Paul said, "Test all things, hold to that which is good." You're right, Montanism in its various forms have caused a great deal of strife, turmoil, and schism in the church. Ed, the truth of a doctrine cannot be verified by the number of people who adhere to it. Just as the truth of a doctrine cannot be falsified by the number of people who abuse it. We need to carefully search the scriptures, and test the fruit of the adherents, as we are commanded. Regarding my use of biased information, my sources were from early church documents. I also found a lot of useful information in the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org. I won't try to defend them or their bias. Not that this has anything to do with the discussion of tongues: Where did you get your 50,000,000 figure for the AOG? The AOG in 2002 had 2,687,366 members in the US according to National Council of Churches annual publication "Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches." That is about half the number of LDS, and about an eighth of SDC. Only the RCC exceed the 50,000,000 number you mentioned. Just curious. At some other point we ought to have a discussion on what is meant by "orthodoxy" since it specifically relates to the handling of scripture. |
||||||
5692 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131824 | ||
Not sure how Chick Publications popped into this discussion. Sorry I got their founding date wrong. The testimony of Charles Chiniquy was from a web site of Central Highlands Christian publications. http://www.chcpublications.net/thegift.htm Let's see now ad hominem, post hoc, and now straw man. Chiniquy's testamony must be pretty potent stuff to elicit so much misdirection. |
||||||
5693 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131798 | ||
Charles Chiniquy lived in the 19th century. Chuck Publications was founded in 1984. I suspect that Chiniquy used a French translation. Ad homenim arguments might seem persuasive from the perspective of your papal ptolemic, but it will not change minds here. |
||||||
5694 | is tounges a sign of holyghost | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131797 | ||
Hi, Ed... Yes, I agree that it appears throughout history, both in and out of the church. I've done a bit of digging in my books and electronic library. I was rather surprised at some of what I found. Let me summarize: After the time of the Apostles, tongues appears again in the second century with a convert by the name of Montanus. His teachings -- which would be recognizable by us today -- gained significant acceptance. Probably the most influential of Montanists was Tertullian of Carthage (about 160 AD). Ultimately its adherents split from the church. The rise of Montanism that originated the great synods of the church. In addition, the Montanists insistence on what they called "new prophecy" also gave the church the impetus to establish the canon of scripture -- a closed canon. By the time of John Chrysostom Montanism (360 AD) had been discounted and all but disappeared. It was Chrysostom who attested to the fact that speaking in languages had stopped altogether even among fringe groups where suspicion had held that they occurred. Justin Martyr, though he he states that he had "heard of prophetic gifts," does not even mention tongues. In fact, Dr. George Cutten of Colgate University, took a close look at any historical instances of this speaking in tongues. After thorough research, it was Cutten’s conclusion that in the ancient church at least, the church of the fathers, there was not one well-attested instance of any person who exercised speaking in tongues or even pretended to exercise it. However, outside of Montanism I did find a reference where Irenaeus in the second century claimed that he had encountered people who spoke all sorts of languages. The long centuries passed on into the Middle Ages. During this time there was so much stuff going on that was superstitious, mystical, inexplainable, awesome, weird, and monastic its hard ferreting out instances of New Testament spirituality, let alone anything about the gifts! The next thing that seems somewhat verifiable is around the early 1500's with Francis Xavier who claimed to have the ability to speak to people of India. Urbane VIII sanctioned this claim, which seems interesting in view of the things going on in Spain at the time. After the Reformation marked a great burst of vitality and hunger for truth. In this period there are a few incidents of "the ecstatic and the uncontrollable." It pops up among the Anabaptists, Munsterites, Albigenses, etc. It blossoms, however, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. During the founding days of America the Pilgrim fathers, Puritan leaders, Baptist preachers, Presbyterian divines, and Methodist laymen did not at all indulge in these practices. It continues to predominate outside of orthodox Christian circles. Note: This is not speculation, provocation, or interpretation. All I did was dig around in church history for glosia, as suggested. Therefore, if anyone has issues with what I found, please search out the sources and examine them for yourself. :-) It has been a long week and I'm tired of thinking for tonight! |
||||||
5695 | "son of God" vs. "son of Man" | Ezek 2:1 | DocTrinsograce | 131788 | ||
Hi, brother Ray... Brother Brad offers a good discussion of this word. I suggest you look at his post in this same thread. Meanwhile, I'll try to give you some of the little bit that I understand. "Monogeneis" is what we commonly see translated as "only begotten." John is the only writer in the New Testament to use this title associated with Christ. (It only appears one other time in Hebrews.) It literally means "sole born." However, as Brad aptly points out, we cannot take it in this strictly literal sense. In fact, if I were going to translate the word -- and remember that I'm not an expert, so this is just opinion -- I would have used the phrase "utterly unique one." Of course, that doesn't quite capture it either. :-( Athanasius (297-373) has some great things to say about this. As you probably know he's been called the Father of the Nicene Creed (325). I tried for a couple of hours on this post to work through his thinking, but I just ended up botching it. So I deleted about five paragraphs. :-) Let me just quote him: "Holy Scripture very plainly makes [a distinction] between begotten and made or created. It declares the Son of God to be the former, and that He has no beginning of existence, but is eternal. And, on the other hand, it asserts the creature to have had such a beginning, and that the being and substance of creatures are wholly external and foreign to the divine nature." See, Jesus Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. As "very God of very God" He has no origin, and yet is eternally begotten. The word monogeneis is not an easy word to define. But then, how can we possibly capture all that is Christ Jesus in just a word? |
||||||
5696 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131666 | ||
Wow! Those of us who are believers in this forum will pray for you as they read this. Furthermore, we will pray for you again as the Lord brings you to mind. Thank you for you for being a ministering servant of the Lord, both in your former occupation and your current one. Although fruit may not be visible -- as with Ezekiel and Jeremiah -- no doubt your obedience will bring God glory. May the peace of Christ be with you, brother! | ||||||
5697 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131661 | ||
Been there... been bashed... I sympathize! | ||||||
5698 | Have you ever read a book by a Catholic? | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 131658 | ||
Hi, gods son. :-) If you read up the thread you will see I was responding to a challenge to Protestant literacy. By the way, you would thoroughly appreciate Chiniquy... http://www.chcpublications.net/thegift.htm | ||||||
5699 | Traditional answer? | 1 Pet 4:6 | DocTrinsograce | 131655 | ||
John Calvin was only 27 when he wrote the Institutes, and I appreciate your faith in my ability to present a Reader's Digest version of his exegesis... :-) Nevertheless, I don't think I'm quite up to the task. I apologize. However, I can give you the scriptures that he cites, even though alone they will not adequately synopsize his reasoning. (There is just no substitute or shortcut for study.) Psalm 107:16, Zechariah 9:11, 1 Peter 3:19, Isaiah 53:5, Acts 2:24, Hebrews 5:7, Psalm 22:1, Matthew 27:46, Matthew 3:17, Hebrews 2:15, 1 Peter 3:22, John 13:21, Matthew 26:37, Hebrews 4:15, Hebrews 2:17, Luke 22:44, Luke 22:43, Matthew 26:39, John 12:27-28, Matthew 15:13 * * * * * * * * * * * * * Now, for an encore, I will summarize William Shakespeare's play of Macbeth: Fate, stab, bleed, boo, sad, coup, dead :-) |
||||||
5700 | had to look up the word pugnacious | 1 Tim 3:3 | DocTrinsograce | 131573 | ||
Hmmm... interesting. I think that pugnacious is a very good translation for the Greek "plektes." The word has, at its roots, a conotation of violence. But I do not think that that was Paul's intent. He is talking here more about a person who is quick to retaliate to an insult or slight. Someone who is easily provoked into a quarrel. Perhaps kalos or Pastor Tim can comment. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 ] Next > Last [302] >> |