Results 5921 - 5940 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
5921 | How Many? | Rom 8:30 | DocTrinsograce | 127336 | ||
Was that your answer to question one, two, or both? You ask, "why do you restrict the perameters of this question specifically to the above verse?" Because the mechanism of this Bible Study promotes single verse analysis. And because we learn by studying one verse, one line, one sentence, one precept at a time. |
||||||
5922 | Order of occurance | Bible general Archive 2 | DocTrinsograce | 127307 | ||
By the way, if anyone is interested, the theological term for what we are discussing is the latin "ordo salutis;" i.e., the order of salvation. I did some research and here is what I found: In the Reformed Camp: 1) election, 2) predestination, 3) gospel call 4) inward call 5) regeneration, 6) conversion (faith and repentance), 7) justification, 8) sanctification, and 9) glorification. In the Arminian camp: 1) outward call 2) faith/election, 3) repentance, 4) regeneration, 5) justification, 6) perseverance, 7) glorification. Note in the former ordo salutis that spiritual life is a prerequisite for existence of the other aspects of salvation. The latter camp they hold that the natural man retains some moral capacity to receive or reject the gospel on his own power. There's my two farthings worth. |
||||||
5923 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | DocTrinsograce | 127289 | ||
Thank you again for your comments, Ancient. I've enjoyed reading your posts. I would say, then, that love compels us as members of the Universal and Invisible Body of Christ to take active part in the local assembly of believers. |
||||||
5924 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | DocTrinsograce | 127285 | ||
Either you are intentionally misrepresenting me, or I have failed to express myself clearly. Since a lot of folks say that I can be a bit obscure, I'm sure that it is the latter rather than the former. If you will kindly let me clarify. I do not blame Christianity for the evils done in its name. Evil men do evil things. Even believers fall in sin periodically. Nevertheless, this is not an inadequacy or a fault of Christianity. Rather it is the fault of the unholy triangle of the flesh, the devil, and the world system. Perhaps you take offense at my use of the word orthodoxy. By this word I do not mean the Roman Catholic Church, or any other organization. I use this word in the strictest sense of its original Greek meaning; i.e., "correct worship." People that deviate from orthodoxy are called "heretics," and are associated with heterodoxy. (There's another word "apostasy" that we could discuss sometime too.) A number of groups consider themselves orthodox. But God always has His remnant, and there is a line of faithful people stretch back through time. Although there are distinctions, you can trace back through time some of these great men of faith. Although there are deviations and disagreements, there is a set of consistent theological perspectives and interpretations of scripture that remain constant through the ages. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:19 that God makes use of heresy to make manifest the faithful. Ultimately, these crimes you mention were not committed by the orthodox faithful, but by the politically established heterodoxical organizations. |
||||||
5925 | Does anyone have a good way to explain t | Bible general Archive 1 | DocTrinsograce | 127281 | ||
Dear Pastor Glenn, thank you for your exegete on this question. It is a blessing to receive your insights, just as it must be a blessing for your congregations. (I pray that they are attending to your instruction per Hebrews 13:17 and are bearing much fruit.) A fundamental principle of hermeneutics is that the best interpretation of scripture is scripture. Is it from Matthew 13:38, therefore, that you conclude that the tares are "natural men?" By extension, then, when Christ said that the Pharisees were the children of the devil (John 8:44) he meant they were "natural men?" Thank you, again, sir, for taking the time to respond. God bless you in your ministry! |
||||||
5926 | Can we learn anything from Naaman? | 1 Sam 15:22 | DocTrinsograce | 127279 | ||
Well, in my humble opinion, it is easy to get in over my head ferreting out too much significance from details. Leprosy is often analogous to the damaging, detrimental, and death inducing nature of sin. Water is often symbolic of the Holy Spirit. Dipping/washing is analogous to the washing away of sin. Seven is a number that reflects holiness and perfection. The condescending attitude toward the Jordan appears to reflect the way the world looks at the Gospel as foolish. Although all of this is probably true, I think the significant thing is that Naaman had to follow the prescription exactly. God can only be approached in the way that He has prescribed. Doing anything outside of His specific parameters is doomed to failure. No man can come to God on his own terms, he must come via the straight and narrow gate. That message is driven home over and over in scripture. |
||||||
5927 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | DocTrinsograce | 127268 | ||
One cannot judge a philosophy based on how the people behave who claim it as their own. A philosophy has to be judged by its own merits; i.e., what it says for and about itself. Although Christianity is not a philosophy, the same principles apply. Just because people called themselves Christians does not mean that they were applying the tenents of Christianity. We know that Christ never instructs His disciples to coerce anyone into anything. So, when we see coercion it does not flow out of Christianity, regardless of what people call themselvles. The scriptures foretold that there would be false believers and false teachers and false doctrines. The surprise is that it hasn't been far worse. | ||||||
5928 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | DocTrinsograce | 127251 | ||
Further good stuff, Ancient! You and Country Girl have a lot of good things to contribute. I think we were posting simultaneously to Country Girl's post. (Please excuse my interjection.) Is it possible that church attendance -- or perhaps I should say more broadly involvement in a local assembly -- could fall under both the categories of "Apostolic Example" and "Necessary Inference?" Apostolic Example because they gave themselves so thoroughly to the instruction and equipping of the saints and none of them went off and became hermits. Necessary Inference because: (1) (As I posted to Country Girl) God has created this unity through Christ (Ephesians 2) and (2) For the exercising of the gifts to the edification of the saints (Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12) Or do I err in the application of the principles you are discussing? |
||||||
5929 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | DocTrinsograce | 127247 | ||
Good stuff, Country Girl! (With regard to immediate punishment, three things popped into my mind: (1) Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) (2) the sick or dead who take communion "unworthily" (1 Corinthians 11) and (3) chastening/scourging of God's children in Hebrews 12. I doubt, though, that these directly relate to failure to assemble.) I have to wonder: If God has gone to such lengths to bring us all together in Christ (Ephesians 2), why would anyone want to repudiate His Word and will by avoiding corporate worship? Perhaps this represents something more fundamentally amiss in a person than that he/she is in disobedience. |
||||||
5930 | Spurgeon on Error | 2 Cor 10:4 | DocTrinsograce | 127218 | ||
"He [Paul] probably had in his mind's eye the corvus, which the Romans employed in destroying fortifications, and certainly it aptly sets forth the work of Christians when attacking the citadels of error. We must sharply grapple the false doctrine, driving the sharp hook of truth between its joints; we must clearly understand the error, and study the Word of God, so as to be able to controvert it. The great corvus of Scripture is a mighty puller down. Then unitedly with earnest tug of prayer and faithful testimony, we must throw down piece by piece the mischievous system of falsehood, be it never so great or high." --Charles Hadon Spurgeon | ||||||
5931 | Puritan Quote on Loving Christ | 2 Pet 2:20 | DocTrinsograce | 127217 | ||
"Reader, remember this: if thy knowledge do not now affect thy heart, it will at last, with a witness, afflict thy heart; if it do not now endear Christ to thee, it will at last provoke Christ the more against thee; if it do not make all the things of Christ to be very precious in thy eyes, it will at last make thee the more vile in Christ's eyes." --Thomas Brooks | ||||||
5932 | Puritan Quote on the Heart | Matt 15:11 | DocTrinsograce | 127216 | ||
"Impress the young convert from the very beginning with the coviction that God has called him into His kingdom to struggle with the corruptions of his heart." --WILLIAM B. SPRAGUE | ||||||
5933 | Reconciled People | Eph 2:19 | DocTrinsograce | 127214 | ||
I like how my pastor put it, "The body of Christ is a gathering where unreconciled relationships are so at odds within the reality of what Christ has done that it cannot endure without casting doubt on our true participation in the body. We must be a reconciling people because we are a reconciled people." | ||||||
5934 | God's Poetry | Eph 2:10 | DocTrinsograce | 127192 | ||
This verse states that we are God's workmanship. What a delightful word! The Greek word here is "poiema," which is where we get our English word "poem." In Genesis we see the awesome power and creativity of our God. Here in Ephesians we see that God continues exercising that power and creativity in our salvation. When I realized the root of this word, I saw that I had not properly recognized the creativity of our God. He is the greatest and most brilliant artist, composer, and poet. He is the source of all that is wonderful and aesthetic. And it is He Who is employing that unimaginably great power and genius to create a work of beauty and holiness in us! | ||||||
5935 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | DocTrinsograce | 127165 | ||
Good observations, Country Girl! Clearly you are searching the Word of God. You have some very interesting ideas here that are worthy of further exploration. You are right that the word "dispensation" does appear in scripture (1 Corinthians 9:17, Ephesians 1:10, 3:2, and Colossians 1:25; the same word is translated "stewardship" in Luke 16:2-4). This is the root Greek word from which we get the English word "economy." The word covenant is in the Bible too (Genesis 6:18; 9:9-17; 15:18; 17:2, 4, 7, 9-11, 13-14, 19, 21; 21:27, 32; 26:28; 31:44; Exodus 2:24; 6:4, 5; 19:5; 23:32; 24:7-8; 31:16; 34:10, 12, 15, 27-28; Leviticus 2:13; 24:8; 26:9, 15, 25, 42, 44-45; Numbers 10:33; 14:44; 18:19; 25:12-13; Deuteronomy 4:13, 23, 31; 5:2-3; 7:2, 9, 12; 8:18; 9:9, 11, 15; 10:8; 17:2; 29:1, 9, 12, 14, 21, 25; 31:9, 16, 20, 25, 26; 33:9; Joshua 3:3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17; 4:7, 9, 18; 6:6, 8; 7:11, 15; 8:33; 23:16; 24:25; Judges 2:1, 20; 20:27; 1 Samuel 4:3-5; 11:1, 2; 18:3; 20:8, 16; 23:18; 2 Samuel 15:24; 23:5; 1 Kings 3:15; 6:19; 8:1, 6, 9, 21, 23; 11:11; 19:10, 14; 20:34; 2 Kings 11:4, 17; 13:23; 17:15, 35, 38; 18:12; 23:2, 3, 21; 1 Chronicles 11:3; 15:25-26, 28, 29; 16:6, 15-17, 37; 17:1; 22:19; 28:2, 18; 2 Chronicles 5:2, 7, 10; 6:11, 14; 7:18; 13:5; 15:12; 21:7; 23:1, 3, 16; 29:10; 34:30, 31, 32; Ezra 10:3; Nehemiah 1:5; 9:8, 32, 38; 13:29; Job 31:1; 41:4; Psalms 25:10, 14; 44:17; 50:5, 16; 55:20; 74:20; 78:10, 37; 89:3, 28, 34, 39; 103:18; 105:8, 9, 10; 106:45; 111:5, 9; 132:12; Proverbs 2:17; Isaiah 24:5; 28:15, 18; 33:8; 42:6; 49:8; 54:10; 55:3; 56:4, 6; 57:8; 59:21; 61:8; Jeremiah 3:16; 11:2, 3, 6, 8, 10; 14:21; 22:9; 31:31, 32, 33; 32:40; 33:20-21, 25; 34:8, 10, 13, 15, 18; 50:5; Ezekiel 16:8, 59, 60, 61, 62; 17:13-16, 18-19; 20:37; 34:25; 37:26; 44:7; Daniel 9:4, 27; 11:22, 28, 30, 32; Hosea 2:18; 6:7; 8:1; 10:4; 12:1; Amos 1:9; Haggai 2:5; Zechariah 9:11; 11:10; Malachi 2:4-5, 8, 10, 14; 3:1; Matthew 26:15; Luke 1:72; 22:5; Acts 3:25; 7:8; Romans 1:31; 9:4; 11:27; Galatians 3:15, 17; 4:24; Ephesians 2:12; Hebrews 8:6-10, 13; 9:1, 4; 10:16, 29; 12:24; 13:20.) If you choose to use a word in a theological sense then you have two choices (1) Define it for purposes of discussion (the word is then extra Biblical) or (2) define it in a strictly Biblical sense. If you choose to do the latter, you only derive a definition of the word from the specific places that it is used; i.e., the specific passages of the Bible in which the word or term is used. You can also go on searching the Bible in other locations if the text itself makes your word synonymous with another word. (For example, in our discussion of "the kingdom of heaven" versus "the kingdom of God.") Your statement that "I think it's a mistake for them to introduce concept completely new and independent of the Bible" may be misplaced in this instance. Both concepts are Biblical concepts as evidenced by the terminology. I do have a position on this, but I can sincerely say that the scholars on both side of the issue didn't pull this stuff out of a hat. They were -- the ones alive are still -- sincere students of the scripture. The beauty of orthodox Christian theology is that we can't pull things out of a hat; whatever we say must be based on scripture alone, otherwise it is only opinion. We could discuss the relative merits of Biblical scholarship, but I think that might be out of scope in this thread. I hope you see that I'm not trying to persuade you to abandon dispensationalism for covenantalism, or vice versa. I encourage you to continue your study. To remain consistent with your hermeneutic I further encourage two things: 1. Check all of the scriptures mentioned above to become familiar with what the scripture says about the subjects. 2. Refrain from labeling things (in this case epochs) without the explicit permission of scripture. I don't mean to scold, dear sister. I'm just encouraging you on how to "be very cautious ... if its outside the parameters as set by the Bible." Be sure to question your assumptions just as vigorously as you question other people's assumptions. I can tell that you want to be solidly grounded in the Word! This is a very noble and blessed effort. God bless you as you continue to pursue. |
||||||
5936 | A Superior Home | Heb 13:14 | DocTrinsograce | 127156 | ||
Quite a difference! I love the KJV, but I use the NASB for study. Our congregation is switching -- en masse -- to the ESV for consistency sake. I'm okay with that... except that I can't quite get used to its cadence. The KJV and NASB seem to have retained the cadence -- or at least a sense of it -- in the original language. I also had a hard time with tossing out "Woe!" and replacing it with "Ah" (or some similar sound). I guess I'm so used to the "Woe" that anything else sounds funny. One last thing I do miss from the KJV is second person plural... which is lost entirely in all modern translations. :-( | ||||||
5937 | A Superior Home | Heb 13:14 | DocTrinsograce | 127066 | ||
Spock once said, "You humans are so dependent on language, yet so few of you are masters of it!" Thanks for the compliment... I hope quoting Spock won't lower your opinion of me! :-) |
||||||
5938 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | DocTrinsograce | 127058 | ||
What you are expressing is a view that is most frequently promulgated by a form of theology called dispensationalism. Dispensationalism's strongest opponent is covenant theology, although, as you can imagine, there are variations on these themes all over the place. :-) Another area in which these ideas come into play is in nomianism and antinomianism. Dispensationalism is often pushed by organizations like Dallas Theological Seminary and books like the "Left Behind" series. This view seems to have its roots in people like Schofield, supporting it in his Bible notes. Dispensationalism teaches that God deals with man in distinct "dispensations" or epochs. Each dispensation is unique and has little to do with the other dispensations. I have heard of as many as 11 dispensations but mostly they teach that there are 7. The final dispensation is the 1000 year reign of Christ. Covenant theology, is most clearly articulated directly out of the Reformation. Some of its forms even include the notion of covenant nations. This view has its roots in people like John Calvin, John Knox, and others. Classical covenant theology teaches that God deals with man by cutting covenant with him. Thus, Adam and Eve had a covenant (contract) with God in which both parties fulfilled specific terms. There was also a Noahic covenant, a Mosaic covenant, and the covenant of grace ushered in by Christ. Covenant theology is why we call the Old and New Testament testaments... that's just another word for covenant. Nomianism and antinomianism deal with how the Law comes into play in our lives. Antinomianists say not at all. Nomianists believe that the Law is sacrosanct, but is satisfied through Christ. I'm really glad you are thinking about these things! They are important questions. Before you completely settle in on one side of this issue or another, do some research. Find some good scholarly papers on the subject by people who support one side or the other. Read them carefully. Look at their scriptural arguments. Pray for insight and search the scriptures to "see if these things be so." You will learn lots about theology, and your grasp of scripture will grow! In the end, you will have settled on a position that will guide much of your later thinking. Disclaimer: Everyone, please forgive me if I have not represented your theological perspective adequately or entirely accurately. I wanted to just introduce these terms for people to be able to better research them. Lord, guide us all into a clearer understanding of Truth. Show us clearly what are the philosophies of man and what are the verities of your word! |
||||||
5939 | Logos Word Logic | John 1:1 | DocTrinsograce | 127055 | ||
Did you mean "logos" instead of "locos?" No, the word "logic" is not found in the Bible. I do not find it used in any translation of the Bible. It is a modern word that comes from Greek root logos (i.e. word). By expressing this connection, it simply gives us insight into what Greek speakers meant when they chose certain words. In this instance, we are reminded of the importance of rhetoric. God is ultimately and supremely rational. (Many of the scientists after the reformation believed that as we uncovered the order in the universe or even the truths in mathematics, that we were gaining insight into the very mind of God.) Of course, such insight is of a lower value than God's clear and perspicuous revelation in the Word. However, rightly dividing the Word is at least partially an application of proper logic (rhetoric). Nowadays even logic itself is questioned. People place greater emphasis on experience than on reason, for example. Even what is meant by commonly understood words (like marriage) is being questioned, so that people can flee logic and indulge their own whims. No, I'm not formaly trained. I wish I had been! I just read a lot! :-) I also listen to a dozen or so sermons and lectures a week. Also, there are so many powerful tools that we can use: Greek lexicons, concordences, commentaries, etc. Here on my computer I have over 5,000 complete works of theologians since the times of the early church. Amazing that such knowledge is right at our fingertips! "Much is required for whom much is given." Technology is a wonderful thing! :-) By the way, Country Girl, all this stuff is available to you, too. Much on the Internet. Just learn how to leverage it all. But most of all, let us each be "Doers and not just hearers." Can we do any less for He who "spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all?" |
||||||
5940 | Out of curiosity? | Is 14:16 | DocTrinsograce | 127054 | ||
I'm sorry that my responses to you have been somewhat flippant. Until your last post, I didn't realize that you were seriously questioning. Although you frequently appear argumentative for its own sake, I will give you the benefit of the doubt for the time being. I will try to respond as clearly as possible. However, the full treatment of these doctrines are not appropriate in this forum. Furthermore, they have been dealt with much more effectively than I could by much more learned and godly men than I am. So I will leave it up to you to research fundamental Christian theology. 1. The canon is closed 2. God speaks entirely through His Word 3. There is no new revelation of God 4. Scripture is sufficient and complete 5. There is no private interpretation of the Word 6. Holy Spirit brings the Word to life in us Many people have spent life times pouring over the scripture. What has grown up is a set of commonly accepted interpretations of the entire Bible. Now there is rarely 100 percent agreement, and there is rarely 100 percent correctness. These interpretations are not in themselves necessarily inspired or inerrant. Instead, they serve only as a guide. Now, I checked over 10 of the most classic, and universally accepted commentators in orthodox reformed Christendom; men whose knowledge and insight have been recognized and utilized by believers for the last four centuries. They concur on the interpretation of Isaiah 14:16. This does not, in itself, make them right. But it should give us pause when we see a different interpretation. (The distinction between these views is the meaning of orthodoxy and heterodoxy.) We should then ask, what is the source of this interpretation? In other words, how authoritative are they? Are they a recognized scholar? Is there the fruit of holiness in their life? Do they properly declare the truth of the Word and the Gospel? Bill Clinton declared that abortion was no sin. When asked, he sited "a Baptist pastor" told him so. Now, is Clinton a great authority on morality and theology (let alone the Bible)? Does his single authority carry very great weight? So, it is perfectly acceptable to ask about the authoritative source of a doctrine. I have to tell you, though, if you say "Henny Binn" teaches this interpretation of the passage, I confess that I will not be greatly persuaded. Note: These are all just pieces of the puzzle. First and foremost is how does scripture interpret scripture? What is the context of the verse? What is the plainest and simplest interpretation of the passage? Etc. Etc. But those are things I'll leave for posts on proper hermeneutics. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 ] Next > Last [302] >> |