Results 261 - 280 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | sins of the father | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 222839 | ||
Dear lightedsteps, God does, indeed, judge and sentence nations. It is an entirely different situation, though, from the judgment of individuals. Nations do not have souls. Their judgment is always a temporal one. Humans either live or die eternally. Without the imputation of Christ's righteousness, all men are under the sentence of death. Their guilt is due to their departure from the righteousness demanded by a holy God in act, thought, word, and nature (either by commission or by omission). (See the first three chapters of Romans concerning the universality of sin.) Men are also guilty because of the sin of Adam, their federal head, which was imputed to all of his descendants (cf Romans 5:19). I would encourage you to obtain that book. In fact, if you want to write individually to me, I will see that you receive a copy. In Him, Doc |
||||||
262 | Bible Plan for someone new to the bible | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 222851 | ||
I would be cautious concerning this "Alpha Course." I am given to understand that it strays frequently from sound Bible doctrine. | ||||||
263 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 223507 | ||
Hi, ariel... Both as a Jewish convert to Christianity and as a student of the Bible, I do not agree that the mikveh practiced by Jews has any connection with Christian baptism. Any modern sense of connection tends to arise from Christianity's influence on Judaism or as promulgated by American Judaizers. If you would like to have some sort of analogy, you could stand on much more certain Scriptural footing in seeing baptism as the Christian equivalent to Jewish circumcision. Before Christ, a child was circumcised as a sign of familial solidarity in the Old Covenant. After Christ, a child was baptized as a sign of familial solidarity in the New Covenant. In Judaism -- and there is no universal consensus, in theology or in practice -- the mikveh is a matter of achieving a ritualistic, external purity; e.g., women cleansing themselves after giving birth or at the conclusion of their period. In Christianity, baptism is an ordinance from the Lord Jesus Christ, in which the one being baptized is identifying with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-7; Colossians 2:11-12). All that we are in Christ -- salvifically, practically, and eternally -- is rooted in this union with Him (1 John 5:11-12). Note, that I do not deny that there are popular teachers, in Judaism and in Evangelicalism, who are attracted by the superficial similarity of these practices. Nevertheless, Jesus had great disdain for the Jewish practice that had been transmogrified by the scribes and the Pharisees. (cf Luke 11:39-40; Mark 7:3-8; Matthew 23:25-28) In Him, Doc |
||||||
264 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 223516 | ||
Dear ariel, See the following chapter entitled: "The reasons why Christian Baptism is not founded on, and taken from, the pretended Jewish Baptism of Israelites and proselytes" by John Gill. http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Practical_Divinity/Book_5/book5_05.htm Study takes effort. I apologize, but I do not have the time to predigest Gill. Suffice it to say that his evaluation of the subject stands the test of time by orthodox Christianity. Certainly, at least, in reformed orthodoxy. In Him, Doc |
||||||
265 | location-examples | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224273 | ||
Dear Pew, Over time, we've had this kind of question asked quite a bit. The problem is that people start digging around for symbolism whenever the Scripture mentions a number, a quantity, a name, a location, etc. etc. The Alexandrian School of Interpretation runs rampant in our churches. It is, of course, common to the Roman Church. E. W. Bullinger, an Anglican, would be expected to have come under such influence. His hyper-dispensationalism necessarily promotes that kind of thinking. Our gracious host, the Lockman Foundation, explicitly affirms -- in their translation and in this forum -- the doctrine of sola scriptura. Thus, we might wish to take care to qualify anything that falls short of the Antiochian School of Interpretation; i.e., a commitment to historical-grammatico exegesis. Bullinger's "Spiritual Significance of Numbers" and similar numerological approaches to interpreting Scripture simply lack sufficient authority for us to assert them in such a definitive manner. So let's be very careful about promoting something in a manner that lends more credence to speculation than is rightfully there. Let's encourage people to see 40 days in the wilderness as simply 40 days, unless somewhere else in Scripture we are granted the authority to see it as something more. In Him, Doc |
||||||
266 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224591 | ||
Dear Inquisitor, I marvel that this discussion -- in a forum dedicated to the the study of the Word -- should persist in the promotion of some kind of political correctness. God invented labels before there were people (Genesis 1:5). Since our every word will be judged (Matthew 12:36), is it any wonder that "people don't like labels" (sic). (See John 3:19) "The type of religion which rejoices in the pious sound of traditional phrases, regardless of their meanings, or shrinks from 'controversial' matters, will never stand amid the shocks of life. In the sphere of religion, as in other spheres, the things about which men are agreed are apt to be the things that are least worth holding; the really important things are the things about which men will fight." --J. Gresham Machen Let's have done with this subject. We need to be more concerned with saying things as correctly as possible (Ephesians 4:29), than with how people will feel about what is said. It is the truth that sets us free -- not the warm-fuzzies we create in our hearers. In Him, Doc |
||||||
267 | Overview of the Bible | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224756 | ||
"The Story of the Bible" A lecture by Dr. Mark Dever. Looking at the Bible as a whole. http://vimeo.com/14884769 Under one hour. Good stuff! |
||||||
268 | Overview of the Bible | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224765 | ||
I can and will! :-) Try the following... look down the page under "Overviews." There are MP3's that you can download there. http://objectivegospel.org/church/exposition/ |
||||||
269 | Text Clarification | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224766 | ||
Not trying to be difficult here... Clearly the beast would be of the "spirit of antichrist" (1 John 4:3). Whereas the devil, beast, and false prophet appear to be individuals based on Revelation 20:10. Assuming that individuals may be antichrists, for John tells us there are many (cf 1 John 2:18): how does one associate the beast as an antichrist except in a general categorical fashion? |
||||||
270 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224819 | ||
Dear Beja, Regarding your question #1: Rabbinical teaching asserts that the truth of Torah is for all men. However, the Mosaic Law is for Jews, although they will readily admit that benefits accrue to anyone complying with them. Briefly, the thinking runs along these lines: God gave six laws through Adam, all are descended from Adam, therefore those laws apply to all men. God gave seven laws through Noah -- reiterating the six and adding another. (These are referred to as the "Noachide Law".) Since all men are descended from Noah, those laws apply to everyone. In the Siniac revelation, God gave laws through Moses to the sons of Israel (Leviticus 26:46) -- reiterating the seven, and adding others. It is taught that Gentiles who faithfully follow the seven laws, will achieve a place in heaven. (Such Gentiles are called B'nai Noach. There are even Rabbis who have outreach to non-Jews, instructing them on how to live compliantly with the seven laws.) (By the way, this may also help you understand why Jews do not find proselytizing important. They deem that, after all, if you were really one of God's chosen, you would have been born that way.) I can dig up references if you want them. This question has been debated since the time of Moses, and I have heard Rabbis discuss it as recently as a few months ago. :-) Disclaimer: Although I am Jewish, as a Christian, I do not hold to these auto-soteriological teachings, nor do I believe that they are in harmony with Scripture. I am simply reporting them as you requested. In Him, Doc |
||||||
271 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224832 | ||
Dear Inquisitor, All error and all heresy, no matter the stripe or color, is a matter of contravening the Bible... hence Peter's warning to God's own, concerning the unlearned and unstable, who distort and misinterpret the Scriptures (cf 2 Timothy 3:16). Thus Paul may say to all men, "Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man. Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:29-31 NASB) In Him, Doc |
||||||
272 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224853 | ||
Dear Pastor Beja, Concerning your question/comment #2: I agree, that the audience is the church. However, I do not think he is rebuking the false teachers, rather he is characterizing them. They are in the church, denying Christ, blind, under judgment and preserved for judgment, sensual, greedy, exploitive, immoral, rebellious, independent, bold, self-willed, arrogant, irrational, ignorant, apostate, unashamed, revelers, insatiable, adulterous, licentious, immature, loud, boastful, errant, enslaved to sin, scornful, unstable, corrupt, enticers, etc. The Greek word "autos" occurs 24 times in 2 Peter... self self self! Speaking of word counts, have you noticed how often the words "gnosis" (knowledge), "epignosis" (deep knowledge), "ginosko" (knowing), and "epiginosko" (thorough knowing)? John makes even heavier use of those words in dealing with the gnosticism. Just thinking, but I wonder if that error might have been primarily in Peter's mind? Regardless of the particular error, clearly the response of the believer is to grow in the grounding of those things that God has already provided: the Scriptures. I have to admit, I love these epistles. In Him, Doc PS Have you ever thought of how 2 Peter 1:1-10 might be portrayed in a diagram? |
||||||
273 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224860 | ||
Dear Pastor Beja, When I asked about diagramming I wasn't thinking about sentence diagramming. I was thinking more along these lines: God has given us faith (2 Peter 1:1-4)... therefore supplement your faith with virtue (v5), knowledge (v5), self-control (v6), steadfastness (v6), godliness (v6), brotherly affection (v7), and love (v7)... which yields effectual fruit in true knowledge of Christ (v8). Linguistically it looks like those middle items are linked like a chain. Or think of faith as the stem, and the other attributes as leaves, budding into the fruit. Or think of faith as a central circle, with the attributes spiraling outward, into the fruit. I can't say that I've decided. Great to think about, though. :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
274 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224863 | ||
Dear Tim, That sounds very good. However, it still implies a chronological sequence, that is probably not implied in the middle series of attributes. One would not say, for example, "Work on your virtue, then when you have that down pat, start working on your knowledge. Don't worry about your self-control, until you have you have the knowledge thing pretty much out of the way. Etc." (Certainly hyperbolic, but I think it makes my point. On the other hand, there is a certain chronology that ought not to be abandoned.) Furthermore, the virtue without knowledge is pointless, just as virtue and knowledge is pointless without self-control, etc. Just as faith that does not give rise to these attributes is self-deceptive, if not a false faith altogether. Today I was thinking about this question between Sunday School and Worship Service. I was wondering if we might think of it as a regular heptagon, which is the God given faith. Imagine each side of the heptagon as giving rise to a spiraling curve, each curve resting on the next -- virtue, resting on knowledge, knowledge resting on self-control, all the way around. Imagine the curves ending with the shape of an arrow head. The outside of the figure is the abundantly fruitful life. You see, this also pictures the deeply internal things growing into the manifestly external things (the fruit). Thus, it makes clear the error of many, falsely believing that works give rise to a God-pleasing internal condition. The Word teaches us the exact opposite. In Him, Doc |
||||||
275 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 224864 | ||
Dear Pastor Beja, This morning I brought your question to Dr. Chrisope. He said that there certainly was an aspect of antinomianism in Peter's teaching. He pointed out that a denial of Christ's return (2 Peter 1:16), a denial of God's Sovereignty in the Word (v2:1), and a denial of Divine judgment (vv2:9-11), all lead to a conclusion of antinomianism. (I think he mentioned two things leading into it, rather than three. I may be mixing in my memory the class instruction from his comments this morning.) In Him, Doc |
||||||
276 | Did God the Father create Jesus | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 226014 | ||
Dear DD4Truth, Thank you for sending that correction. I double checked, and the United Church of Christ does, indeed, embrace the Nicene Creed. Mea culpa. I stand corrected. Much appreciated. (Proverbs 9:8) In Him, Doc |
||||||
277 | Did God the Father create Jesus | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 226059 | ||
Dear justme, You asked, "The other night we watched a program that told about a group that came after the Nicene Creed. The program said this later group clarified more specifically something about the Trinity. Are you aware of this group?" The Nicene Creed was revised in Constantinople about sixty years after the original. There was a lot of stuff going on at that time, so your program might have been talking about a number of groups. I will hazard a guess that they were talking about the Cappadocians. I dug through some of my books, summarizing the history something along these lines: The East and West Church were in disagreement concerning the appropriate Greek word for the essential nature of the Son. The East preferred homoiousia (similar) and the West preferred homoousia (the same). It seems minor -- only the difference between a single letter in the word -- but it made a very large theological difference. The heretical group were gaining ground, exploiting the issue. The Cappadocians, in response, laid the groundwork for the revised Nicene Creed. Here is a couple of quotes from two of these scholars: "Wherefore, in the case of the Godhead, we confess one essence or substance so as not to give a variant definition of existence, but we confess a particular hypostasis, in order that our conception of Father, Son and Holy Spirit may be without confusion and clear... For as there is one Father and one Son, so is there one Holy Ghost." (Basil of Casesarea) "If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were so too." (Gregory of Nazianzus) If I understand rightly, the revised Nicene Creed is the one we use today. The heresies were dealt final and decisive blows. However, as we are all too aware, heretics rarely read church history -- or anything else, for that matter. Consequently, the same errors drift in and out with the passing of generations. Judges 2:10 keeps happening. In Him, Doc PS We continue to pray for those adversely impacted by the weather. |
||||||
278 | where is Christ battling Satan in HELL | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 226275 | ||
Just a point of order here: We are a Study Bible Forum, not a Study Talmud Forum. As interesting as Talmudic thought might be, it is not the basis by which we form doctrine. This forum is explicitly based on Sola Scriptura. | ||||||
279 | where is Christ battling Satan in HELL | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 226276 | ||
I am a Jewish believer. I will happily "summarily discount the Talmud and Jewish oral tradition." I am able to do that because God has summarily discounted them. "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie. The wise men are put to shame, They are dismayed and caught; Behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, And what kind of wisdom do they have?" (Jeremiah 8:8-9 NASB) "And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form. You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;" (John 5:37-39 NASB) "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it." (Acts 7:51-53 NASB) "Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and it was your fathers who killed them. So you are witnesses and approve the deeds of your fathers; because it was they who killed them, and you build their tombs. For this reason also the wisdom of God said, 'I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.' Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves did not enter, and you hindered those who were entering." (Luke 11:47-52 NASB) I would rather listen to the Pope than listen to those who have overtly and explicitly rejected the Word become flesh. |
||||||
280 | where is Christ battling Satan in HELL | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 226283 | ||
Let me explain... Joseph Smith, Aleister Crowly, and Richard Dawkins sometimes align with scripture, too. I had a theology professor who used to say, "Even a blind hog can stumble upon an acorn from time to time." As one of the ancient church fathers put it, "Every page of the Bible is a hymn to Christ." A right conclusion arising from antichrist is the worse kind of error. We teach others sola scriptura in word, thought, and deed... the doctrine does not external bolstering. The axe was laid at the root (Luke 3:9) for good reason (Ezekiel 15:1-5). We do well to observe why they were removed, and make great effort to avoid the error that was left for an example to us. Furthermore, we have too many modern Judaizers -- even in the forum -- to leave any room to fuel their error. Please have mercy on the silent flock. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [302] >> |