Results 5841 - 5860 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
5841 | what is trinty ? | 1 John 5:7 | DocTrinsograce | 157453 | ||
Hi, Kepha... I'm sorry, but what you have presented here is an error known as Modalism. "We worship one God in trinity and trinity in unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the Substance." --The Athanasian Creed "There be three persons in the Godhead, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one true, eternal God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory; although distinguished by their personal properties." --Westminster Larger Catechism "To know this God, who both condescends to share all that we are and makes us share in all that He is in Jesus Christ, is to be lifted up in His Spirit to share in God’s own self-knowing and self-loving until we are enabled to apprehend Him in some real measure in Himself beyond anything that we are capable of in ourselves. It is to be lifted out of ourselves, as it were, into God, until we know Him and love Him and enjoy Him in His eternal Reality as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in such a way that the Trinity enters into the fundamental fabric of our thinking of Him and constitutes the basic grammar of our worship and knowledge of the One God." --Thomas F. Torrance For an excellent outline for the Biblical support for the doctrine of the Trinity, please see: http://www.apologetics.com//articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-trinity.html In Him, Doc |
||||||
5842 | question about the comma johannim | 1 John 5:7 | DocTrinsograce | 175102 | ||
Interesting... Thank you! | ||||||
5843 | God's Revelation is Propositional | 1 John 5:8 | DocTrinsograce | 235614 | ||
"It is not the mark of a Christian mind to take no delight in assertions. On the contrary, a man must delight in assertions or he will be no Christian. And by assertion -- in order that we may not be misled by words -- I mean a constant adhering, affirming, confessing, maintaining, and an invincible persevering. Nor, I think, does the word mean anything else either as used by the Latins or by us in our time. I am speaking, moreover, about the assertion of those things which have been divinely transmitted to us in the sacred writings… Nothing is better known or more common among Christians than assertion. Take away assertions and you take away Christianity." --Martin Luther "What is called the dogmatic spirit is not popular among men. It is characterized by an authoritative method of presenting truth; by an unwillingness to modify truth to fit it to current conceptions; by an insistence on what seem to many minor points; and above all by (what lies at the root of most of its other peculiarities) a habit of thinking in a system, and a consequent habit of estimating the relative importance of the separate items of truth by their logical relation to the body of truth, rather than by their apparent independent value. Such a habit of mind seems to be the only appropriate attitude toward a body of truth given by revelation, and committed to men only to embrace, cherish, preserve, and propagate. It seems to be, moreover, the attitude toward the body of revealed truth commended to those who were to be its 'ministers' and not its masters, by the Lord and His apostles, when they placed it as a rich treasure in the keeping of stewards of the mysteries of God. But it is irritating to men. They would discuss rather than receive truth. And, if they must receive it, they would fain modify it here and there to fit preconceived opinions or permit cherished practices. Especially in a busy age in which Pilate's careless question, 'what is truth?' represents the prevailing attitude of men's minds, the dogmatic habit is apt to fare somewhat badly." --B. B. Warfield |
||||||
5844 | RECALLING | 1 John 5:13 | DocTrinsograce | 155465 | ||
Dear Brother Brad, With all due respect, the majority of the verses you provided are pointing to the present, rather than the past. Consequently, I'd prefer to say that it is far more important for the believer to be showing the evidences of regeneration right at this moment, than to depend on some kind of experience in the past, remembered or otherwise. I hope you will agree... Please do not construe that I am attempting to correct you, sir. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5845 | Confirmation in Consistent Conduct | 2 John 1:4 | DocTrinsograce | 225528 | ||
"It is not one or two good actions, but a consistent conduct, that tells whether a man is a true Christian. A true believer, like the heavenly orbs is constant and unwearied in his motions and actions. 'Enoch walked with God.' It is not taking a step or two in a way that demonstrates that a man is a walker, but a continued motion. No man is judged to be healthy by a flushing color in his face, but by a good complexion. God considers no one holy for one particular act, but for a general course. "A sinner in some few things may be very good: Judas repents, Cain sacrifices, the scribes pray and fast; and yet all were very false. "In the most deadly diseases, there may be some intermissions, and some good symptoms. A saint in some few acts may be very bad: Noah was drunk, David defiled his neighbor's wife, and Peter denied his best friend; yet these persons were heaven's favorites. The best gold may have some grains of alloy. Sheep may fall into the mire, but swine love night and day to wallow in it. "A Christian may stumble, he may even fall, but he gets up and walks on in the way of God's commandments; the bent of his heart is right, and the scope of his life is straight, and thus he is considered sincere." --George M. Swinnock (1627-1673) |
||||||
5846 | As commanded... | 2 John 1:5 | DocTrinsograce | 242416 | ||
"I did little think ever to have lived to see the day wherein the churches of Christ should have so little concern in one another as they have. There is not that love among ourselves which there ought to be." --John Owen (1616-1683) I wish that I could have seen how the churches related with one another during Owen's lifetime that prompted his statement. I would like to have seen the before as well as the after. Although I would deem that Owen would be astonished by what we see exemplified daily in our own time. |
||||||
5847 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129129 | ||
The church has the responsibility to declare the Gospel. The scripture do not command the people of God to go out and condemn the false theories, morals, ideas, beliefs, etc. of the lost. (If you clean up a corpse, you only get a clean corpse.) We are to correct these things in the church. Besides, declaring the truth is easier... there are an infinite number of ways to be wrong! Remember, too, that we were lost once too. What if God had been less merciful to us? Perhaps God will spare some of them. Paul encourages us (Titus 3:2-7) "To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men. For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." |
||||||
5848 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129153 | ||
In my church you would be hard pressed to find someone who would believe what the world says about the world. The lost people in the world can swap one set of theologies for another and it matters not one bit: they still are lost. Momma, are you afraid that this will make it harder for God to save them? The world will rage against us and will seek to suppress the truth, and they will do this via all kinds of avenues. Are you afraid that they will succeed in silencing the message of the Gospel? There are more pressing problems in the churches of America than what is going on in the darkness: Seeker-friendly movements that waters down the truth to make it less offensive to the world. It further seeks to define the church in terms of demographics and marketing. Pluralism that sees all paths leading to God, making the cross of none effect. This viewpoint offers solace to the lost by assuring them of their salvation. Subjectivism that sees truth as a matter of experience, even to the point of denying logic. It even goes to so far as to say that words only have meaning to the hearer, thereby eliminating even the necessity to understand the intent of the speaker. Egoism that teaches us to "have good self esteem" instead of doing as the Bible directs "let each esteem other better than themselves." Popular books teach people to focus on themselves in a "purpose driven life" instead of focusing on God and His eternal purpose. Ecumenism that teaches the worship of unity even at the cost of truth. That would put us back under the authority of priests and popes, with no apology or consideration of the hundreds of thousands who were killed and tortured for trying to put Bibles in the hands of common people. False gospels that make man's decision part of salvation, replacing God with man as sovereign, and denying the complete work of Christ on the cross. The list goes on and on. Momma, I don't mean that we shouldn't have compassion on Muhamadans. I don't mean that we should ignore them. I just see that the inside of the church is in shambles. If we don't correct these things, God will not use us to bring the Gospel to others. These issues should be dealt with from the pulpit... these issues of the blackness of sin in our own hearts. A. W. Tozer's words should haunt us all, "How can we expect such grace to save us from the flames of hell, if it lacks the power to change our lives?" |
||||||
5849 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129192 | ||
Who said anything about denominationalism? I'm a Baptist. We tend to not care for denominations since, historically, they tend to get us burned at the stake, thrown in jail, exiled, or all of the above. That's why we have associations and conventions -- of course, I have to admit, sometimes there's a bit of hair splitting that goes on. :-) Momma -- I like that screen name, it makes me think of my own dear blessed mother! -- perhaps you are right. In our fervor for the truth, we can be less than loving. One thing I'm certain of, though, and that is that we must be diligent at the work of pursuing holiness and truth in our own life. We are a living stone, and we must be certain of our utility in the structure that is not made with human hands. Let us make our own calling and election sure. I know without persuasion from anyone that I can see my own failings and vices far, far, far more clearly than I see yours! Excuse me while I go tend to this 2 by 4 hanging out of my eye! |
||||||
5850 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129195 | ||
Brother Ed, thank you for your comments. I'll quote a few historians. (By the way, I don't hold any modern Roman Catholic responsible for the acts of people in history. We weren't there. Had we been there, we probably would have done no better. I haven't been placed in a position to do such things, but that is strictly by the grace of God. Furthermore, I am not making any condemnation of Romanism. I am simply responding to a question of the accuracy of a previous post.) Robert Kentch author of "French Wars of Religion" gives estimates as high as 78,000 Huguenots killed The Catholic historian Vergerius, who states that during the Pontificate of Pope Paul IV (1555-1559) "the Inquisition alone, by tortures, starvation, or the fire, murdered more than 150,000 Protestants." "This was the century of the last religious wars in Christendom, the Thirty Years, War in Germany, fomented by the Jesuits, reducing the people to cannibalism, and the population of Bohemia from 4,000,000 to 780,000, and of Germany from 20,000,000 to 7,000,000, and making Southern Germany almost a desert..." --Cushing B. Hassell, "History of the Church of God" "Need I speak to you of the ... Irish rebellion, of the inhuman butchery of about 15 millions of Indians in South America, Mexico and Cuba... In short, it is calculated by authentic historians, that Rome has shed the blood of sixty-eight millions of the human race in order to establish her claims to religious dominion..." --S. S. Schmucker, "Glorious Reformation" "There perished under pope Julian 200,000 Christians: and by the French massacre, on a moderate calculation, in 3 months, 100,000. Of the Waldenses there perished 150,000; of the Albigenses, 150,000. There perished by the Jesuits in 30 years only 900,000. The Duke of Alva destroyed by the common hangman alone, 36,000 persons; the amount murdered by him is set down by Grotius at 100,000. There perished by the fire, and tortures of the Inquisition in Spain, Italy, and France 150,000. In the Irish massacres there perished 150,000 Protestants" --W. C. Browley I could add more quotes, but suffice it to say that one of us is wrong. If I'm wrong, then a lot of historians are wrong. Please site any sources you have to support your position of Rome's benign treatment of Protestantism. (By the way, have you ever read Foxes book of martyrs?) I'll respond to your other comments in a subsequent post. |
||||||
5851 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129196 | ||
Regarding your second point, please look up the biographies of men such as John Huss, John Wycliffe, John Purvey, Martin Luther, William Tyndale, John Rogers, and others. Each of these men sought to put the Bible in the languages of the common man. Each were denounced by Rome. "Starting about 1080 there were many incidents where the Pope, Church councils, or individual bishops forbid the translation of the Bible into the language of the common people (the vernacular)." --Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity," page 273. (This author is Catholic.) If anecdotes are acceptable in our arguments, then I have to include that I've watched Catholic TV myself. I have seen the very words of scripture be explained away as being contrary to the authority of their traditions. In this one program a young lady told a number of children said, "You cannot read the scripture without having a priest interpret it for you." This is consistent with the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," paragraphs 85, 87, 100, 862, 891, 939, 2034, 2037, 2041, and 2050 I'll answer your third point in another post. |
||||||
5852 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129197 | ||
Regarding your third point: When did I ever say that the reformation was about putting Bibles into the hands of the people? Brother Ed, if you are going to dispute with me, please dispute with what I actually say. This way, when I'm wrong, I have a chance to retract my statements! Mistating my position is close kin to the straw man fallacy, but worse! That said, let me state what the purpose of the reformation actually was... then you argue with an accurate expression of my position. The purpose of the Reformation was to bring the doctrines of the Church back into agreement (that's why we use the word "Reformed") with the truths written in the law of Holy Canon. I can't believe that you would write off men like Martin Luther as mere pawns! Sure there was political intrigue and sure religion was used as an excuse for a lot of excesses. That's been true since Cain and Able! Sir, I do not mean to demean Catholic TV and TBN, but if this is the sole source of your perspectives on the Reformation, you'll be excited to know that you can actually read what a lot of those pawns with religious convictions actually had to say. You can read their debates. You can read their discussions of scripture and of their deep love for a God Who saved wretched men through no merit of their own. Getting it from the "horses mouth" so to speak is better than depending on these second-hand, pre-digested sources. Remember that "evil communications corrupt good manners." That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But your understanding of church history will grow and, I think, benefit your understanding of God's washing of Christ's bride through the centuries. I even read St. Francis, Brother Lawrence, and other Catholics. I don't agree with them on everything, but I certainly find men who dearly loved the Lord. I'm a five pointer, but I still see the devotion and godliness of John Wesley. If you spend some time doing this, brother, I think you will be pleased to discover that we had faithful bretheren way back then. They didn't look like us, and they didn't sound like us, but they were there, walking with the Lord. May God be pleased to grant us grace that we might be found so faithful! |
||||||
5853 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129198 | ||
Regarding your third point: When did I ever say that the reformation was about putting Bibles into the hands of the people? Brother Ed, if you are going to dispute with me, please dispute with what I actually say. This way, when I'm wrong, I have a chance to retract my statements! Mistating my position is close kin to the straw man fallacy, but worse! That said, let me state what the purpose of the reformation actually was... then you argue with an accurate expression of my position. The purpose of the Reformation was to bring the doctrines of the Church back into agreement (that's why we use the word "Reformed") with the truths written in the law of Holy Canon. I can't believe that you would write off men like Martin Luther as mere pawns! Sure there was political intrigue and sure religion was used as an excuse for a lot of excesses. That's been true since Cain and Able! Sir, I do not mean to demean Catholic TV and TBN, but if this is the sole source of your perspectives on the Reformation, you'll be excited to know that you can actually read what a lot of those pawns with religious convictions actually had to say. You can read their debates. You can read their discussions of scripture and of their deep love for a God Who saved wretched men through no merit of their own. Getting it from the "horses mouth" so to speak is better than depending on these second-hand, pre-digested sources. Remember that "evil communications corrupt good manners." That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. But your understanding of church history will grow and, I think, benefit your understanding of God's washing of Christ's bride through the centuries. I even read St. Francis, Brother Lawrence, and other Catholics. I don't agree with them on everything, but I certainly find men who dearly loved the Lord. I'm a five pointer, but I still see the devotion and godliness of John Wesley. If you spend some time doing this, brother, I think you will be pleased to discover that we had faithful bretheren way back then. They didn't look like us, and they didn't sound like us, but they were there, walking with the Lord. May God be pleased to grant us grace that we might be found so faithful! |
||||||
5854 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129200 | ||
I know the sentence brother Ed was referring to... I don't see the word "Reformation" in there. The period of history I was talking about began several hundred years before the Reformation. (Now that you bring it up, thank you for your resistance to Ecumenism. It is gratifying that some of the laity don't see eye-to-eye with the ECT agreement. I think we'll both be happy if I hang around in my relegated condition of 1564!) As I stated before... I intend no offense to anyone. Let history stand on its own feet and justify itself. The scripture is all about truth... and truth is what I pursue... and to that end, let us do, indeed, return to the study of the Word... the supreme, all sufficient, efficacious, and perspicuous source of all revealed truth! Psalms 19:7-8 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. |
||||||
5855 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129206 | ||
I stand corrected. Forgive me for presuming on you. Please consider my statements that stemmed from this misunderstanding retracted. | ||||||
5856 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129217 | ||
I can't seem to find any unbiased historical accounts that support what you are saying. Even the contemporary historical accounts of Rome don't jibe. These adjustments represent a consensus of opinion that is not easily moved. That's especially true when such stolid immobility is so unwaveringly affirmed. Although I can't prevent a bit of irony in my tone as I say this, perhaps the shifting of a decimal point will, by the same proportion, make some these things more tolerable to our modern sensibilities. In any case, I retract my statements of facts and figures. As I said elsewhere, we'll let history justify itself. |
||||||
5857 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129236 | ||
It would appear that using this method puts us in good company around here. :-) I had read about the apology to the Jews. I had also read about a similar apology to all of Islam that came out a few months later. Since then I've been waiting in vain for more. Since I had offered some documents from the same source for your perusal, it would only be fair for me to look at these other documents that contain the improved figures. I'll even take your word on their impartial researcher seal of approval. Brother Ed, as far as the world is concerned, there is no difference in the colors we paint ourselves. Things done in the name of Christianity -- for good or ill -- are stigmas that we all carry as believers. Unfortunately, the face-lifts, adjustments, and euphemisms do not mitigate the distinctives which are based on things that make a world of difference for a man's eternal destiny. |
||||||
5858 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129266 | ||
All of these men (including the heretic Servetus) were excommunicated. Tyndale and Huss were martyred by the same authorities. Attempts were made on Luther's life and very nearly succeeded. (If you actually read the records on Servetus incident, he was sentenced to death by the city council of Geneva in spite of Calvin's pleadings to them to show mercy. Calvin wasn't even on the city council -- which was composed of men who frequently disagreed with him.) You are right about Wycliff. He had the discourtesy of dying too quickly, but the Council of Constance ordered his body disinterred, burned, and the remains thrown into a river, all done by the cover of night. Lets drop Calvin and Servetus out of the mix, I never mentioned them. (Really, Ed! Use of the ad hominem fallacy???) All of the rest of these men were excommunicated because of their connection with what was called "Wycliffism." Wycliffism was condemned by the pope in a bull issued on December 20, 1409. (This, by the way, also made "free preaching" an act of heresy against Rome.) I wish I could lay my hands on the actual text of these early bulls, but they don't seem to be extant these days. The Council of Trent, about 150 years later, put it this way "...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures." Furthermore, "But if any one shall teach, or entertain sentiments, contrary to these decrees; let him be anathema." Okay, I'll let you improve all the numbers by three orders of magnitude. I'll even grant that I was inexact and swept too broad of a brush in ruing the death of martyred believers. Besides, as you pointed out, you wouldn't change your opinion regardless. However, you need to think about the multiple meanings of your phrase " not the rewrites done by people with an axe to grind." Meanwhile, I'm with you in at least this one point, and I paraphrase, "Lets get the facts right." Let me see if I can accommodate your sensibilities with the following politically corrected statement. Remember, I was complaining about modern evangelicalism, of which I am a part. "Ecumenism that teaches the worship of unity even at the cost of truth. That would put us under the authority of persons who will decide what we ought to believe, although they killed and tortured an unspecified number of people who taught, or felt, otherwise. (Note: Martyred figures vary depending upon source, but it is certain that these unspecified persons are repentant due to relatively recent apologies which were delivered to two other world religions.)" In future posts, I promise to take greater care with my wording. Now, shall we let God be the judge of the dead? As Emmaus put it, "On with the Bible study." |
||||||
5859 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129294 | ||
Didn't those experts figure the death of Servetus was exagerated by a factor of a 1,000? That should reduce Calvin's guilt down to nothing more than spitting in his general direction. Of course, it still might be wise if the Presbyterians follow suit and apologize to the Moonies and the Mormons. | ||||||
5860 | Does Islam fit here? | 2 John 1:7 | DocTrinsograce | 129370 | ||
Please forgive me, Ed. Sarcasm never edifies or ministers grace to the hearer (Ephesians 4:29) no matter the provocation. What's more in this particular case it is hypocritical, since I was complaining about an ad homenism with sarcasm, which is in itself just thinly veiled ad homenistic statements! Harboring resentment regardless of the cause is a repudiation of the unity that Christ accomplished on the cross (Ephesians 2:10-22). My trespass against you, Brother Ed, was public. Therefore I acknowledge that tresspass publicly, and make my request for forgiveness publicly. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 ] Next > Last [302] >> |