Results 221 - 240 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 217360 | ||
Dear Brother Makarios, We would not want to lose in there the general call (Matthew 22:14) and the effectual call (Acts 2:39; Romans 11:28-29; 1 Corinthians 1:26; Hebrews 9:15) of the gospel. Based on this young lady's response to Brother CDBJ, the best we could do is refer her to that calling (2 Peter 1:10); for it from that calling that all others will give rise. In Him, Doc |
||||||
222 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 217389 | ||
Clearly, I am not as observant as I ought to be. Thank you for the correction. | ||||||
223 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 217401 | ||
Are you sure that is Francis Roberts? It does not sound at all like the very solidly Scriptural, Puritan I am familiar with. | ||||||
224 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 217417 | ||
Dear srts5, You wrote, "I am absolutely positive Francis Roberts wrote that. Just not the Francis Roberts you are thinking of." (sic) Ah... that explains it. You wrote, "I am however puzzled by the statement 'very solidly Scriptural, Puritan'." Doctor Francis Roberts was an English Puritan born in 1609 and died in 1675. I will briefly -- not exhaustively -- explain a bit of the obvious disconnect: No Puritan would presume to assert broadly, without knowing them, that they belong to Christ (Jeremiah 6:14; Matthew 7:20-24), as your Roberts has done. No Puritan would presume to assert that God needed anything from men (Psalm 50:12-14; Isaiah 40:14-18; Acts 17:25), as your Roberts has done. No Puritan would affirm assurance outside of the promises and work of God (Matthew 7:21-24; John 3:8; Luke 6:43-45; Acts 4:12), as your Roberts has done. No Puritan would presume to assert that God could be thwarted by human willingness (Zechariah 4:6; Romans 9:16), as your Roberts has done. No Puritan would presume to speak for God (Jeremiah 23:31-32; Matthew 7:22), as your Roberts has done. Actually, Francis Roberts -- the Puritan -- wrote, "There must be constant caution that all tongues, arts, histories, translations, and comments be duly ranked in their proper place, in a subserviency under, not a regency or predominancy over the Holy Scriptures, which are to control them all. For when Hagar shall once usurp over her mistress, it's high time to cast her out of doors till she submit herself." Although it is kind of you to share with us what your Roberts has written, we are a Study Bible Forum. Our love, interest, focus, and rule is the Word of God itself. It alone has the authority to bind and persuade. Hence, had your Roberts made her assertions backed by the Word of God -- that which God holds above His own Name -- we receive enlightenment, edification, and encouragement. You wrote, "I find the two [Scriptural and Puritan?] to be at odds..." I would be interested in what you can cite from American, Dutch, English, or Scottish Puritans that you find contrary to Scripture (providing references to that, too, of course). To what extent are you familiar with them? You continued, "...unless you wish to return to the law." My wishes, your wishes, our wishes would neither make the long dead Puritans more Scriptural or less Scriptural in their doctrines -- they were what they were by the grace of God. If you like, we can discuss Pro-Nomianism (legalism) and Anti-Nomianism (libertinism) -- in the light of the Word -- in another thread. I can speak somewhat knowledgeably about the Puritan understanding of these things. However, I can speak a bit more knowledgeably about the Historic Baptist understanding, if you are interested. In Him, Doc |
||||||
225 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 217468 | ||
Dear Mike, I never read "tone" into posts. Too much subjectivity is necessary to ferret out what people are emoting. I just treat the text as text, and take what people write at face value. The frees me from the burden of interpreting emotion. It is a difficult enough task to derive denotation from what people are writing than to have to worry about connotation too. Dr. Francis Roberts was quite distanced from the Salem witch trials to which -- I think -- you are referring. He was over 3,000 miles away, and dead for 25 years before the first incident. Even those trial transcripts, though, if read within the context of what was actually taking place in New England make more sense to believers than they do when obliquely and critically referenced by non-Christian historians of the twentieth century. It was Puritan ministers that put a stop to the witch trials being carried out by the colonial government in Massachusetts. How often will you hear that fact these days? You might be interested in Cotton Mather's account of that period in America in his book entitled "The Wonders of the Invisible World." Given what they were facing, I wonder how men like you and I would have dealt with the issues? I also wonder how we will fare in the eyes of believers who come hundreds of years hence. Will the only descriptions accepted of us be from people like Barney Frank and Richard Dawkins? Or will we be known by having quotations of Joel Osteen and Robert Schuller? Will they wonder how we tolerated the killing of millions upon millions of infants? Perhaps they will even say that "Christian America" was responsible for the legalization of abortion. In Him, Doc |
||||||
226 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 217480 | ||
Dear Mike, Interestingly enough, the Puritans were much given to writing journals. Consequently, we have a huge quantity of information about how they thought and lived. Jonathan Edwards represents the pinnacle of Puritan thought wrote, "The enjoyment of [God] is the only happiness with which our souls can be satisfied. To go to heaven, to fully enjoy God, is infinitely better than the most pleasant accommodations here. Fathers and mothers, husbands, wives, or children, or the company of earthly friends, are but shadows; but the enjoyment of God is the substance. These are but scattered beams, but God is the sun. These are but streams. But God is the fountain. These are but drops; but God is the ocean." Predestination is actually a very minor point in Puritan thinking. Like the fear thing, it looms large in the minds of those who resist the doctrine of God's sovereignty. Paul is the one who brings it up in his epistles to the Romans and the Ephesians in the context of assurance in God's eternal purpose. As I pointed out before, the Puritans were concerned that nothing of the Scripture be ignored or augmented. (By the way, predestination is a Baptist doctrinal distinctive too, you know.) In terms of the idea that works give rise to salvation -- this is called legalism -- that doctrine is alien to Puritanism. The ordo salutis is well documented in the Westminster confessions. The Baptist thinking on this point actually lifts that language directly from the Westminster confession. :-) Mike, I hope that you would seriously ferret out the truth. Historic revisionism has stolen a wonderful set of Christian brothers from many of us these days. What a shame that our modern shallowness, ignorance of history, and reverse chronological chauvinism prevents us from knowing those who went before us. The consequence is that we fail to learn from them, no matter whether those lessons might represent correctness or error. Consequently, we continue to fail in revival, zeal, righteousness, knowledge, etc. If you want to begin to ferret out the truth, a very easy and enjoyable read is Peter Marshall's "The Light and the Glory." It will help to put the Puritans in proper historical perspective. In Him, Doc |
||||||
227 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 217506 | ||
Dear Searcher, You asked, "Why are you pushing the Puritan Roberts?" Any teacher that magnifies God's Word is worthy of SBF attention. Any teacher that puts words in God's mouth is not. The doctrine of the former, I will push, promote, and promulgate. The doctrine of the latter, I will reject, renounce, and repudiate. (Alliteratively or otherwise!) You wrote, "I believe you are wrong and owe Mike an apology." If it will magnify the Word, I most gladly render Mike a deep and humble apology for my error. More than that, I deeply and humbly apologize for the many other errors I may have made, am making now, or will make in the future. No doubt their enumeration is beyond us all. You wrote, "Next time do a little research." I am trying, dear Searcher... honestly, I am trying. I have quite a pile of books still to read, and I doubt I will make it through them all before I breathe my last. Furthermore, all the reading is in addition to the Bible studies I am attempting and planning to attempt. Tempus fugit. Nonetheless, I will take your rebuke as encouragement to persevere. In Him, Doc |
||||||
228 | Born under the law of Moses | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218015 | ||
I would even argue that one's obedience is an expression of his love for the Lord. John 14:21 states that... and for good measure, John gave the clear instruction regarding this in his first epistle. | ||||||
229 | Born under the law of Moses | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218022 | ||
I have less of a problem when you state it that way. "That which does enliven and animate the obedience whereof we have discoursed, is love. This Himself [Christ] makes the foundation of all that is acceptable unto him. 'If,' saith He, 'ye love Me, keep My commandments,' John 14:15. As He distinguisheth between love and obedience, so He asserts the former as the foundation of the latter. He accepts of no obedience unto His commands that does not proceed from love unto His person. That is no love which is not fruitful in obedience; and that is no obedience which proceeds not from love. So He expresseth on both sides: 'If a man love Me, He will keep my words;” and, 'he that loveth Me not keepeth not My sayings,' Verses 23, 24." --John Owen |
||||||
230 | John's letter in Revelation | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218095 | ||
Hi, Breaddown... Pompeii is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, as you surmise. Actually, it was a rather unremarkable city, although I am given to understand it was a kind of resort town for some wealthy people from Rome. I guess what really makes it famous to us is its remarkable preservation. People have been digging around in it since the early 18th century. I read Biblical Archaeology Review, from time to time. You might be able to find articles that discuss it there. http://www.bib-arch.org/ I think what you will notice about the church planting efforts of Paul is that he sought out places that were cross-roads to commerce. If the gospel was to be spread, places like Ephesus and Antioch were significant in that respect. Of course, Rome itself certainly was significant as a hub from which people traveled through to all of the known world. In Him, Doc |
||||||
231 | online multiple translations-more than 2 | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218125 | ||
Yes, you can do that from that website. I count eight translations there, plus a broad spectrum of commentaries. Click the book. Click the chapter. Click the verse. Here's an example: http://www.ccel.org/wwsb/2Samuel/6.html |
||||||
232 | ... | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218491 | ||
Yes, that's a good example -- I am glad you pointed it out. We who believe in the sole authority of the Scriptures, must make sure that our explicit professions are not contradicted by our behavior (Matthew 15:7-9). People will be taught by the tacit instruction associated with accompanying someone to their place of worship, or joining them in their studies, or otherwise participating in their organizations. We want to honor the nature and character of our Lord by our open and active veracity. | ||||||
233 | Why did Eve react like that? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218509 | ||
Hi, Tigerwillow... What you are conjecturing about would be called a Christophany. Sola Scriptura is all about asserting all that Scripture says about a thing, but no more than Scripture says about a thing. There are a lot of implications associated with that extreme of a view of Old Testament Christophanies. A thorough treatment of the question has been undertaken by many scholars of the church over the last twenty centuries. As our study of the Bible here on the SBF is rooted firmly in Sola Scriptura, why don't we just accept what the Bible explicitly says, and avoid speculations about things that it does not explicitly say -- lest we become a Speculative Bible Forum. :-) In Him, Doc |
||||||
234 | Why did Eve react like that? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218521 | ||
No, I would not. Scripture interprets Scripture. Take what it says and leave it at that. | ||||||
235 | Why did Eve react like that? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218522 | ||
Dear Flinkywood, Not at all. Your priest (do you call them "pastors?") would have been referring to apostolic succession. Given this anti sola Scriptura stance handed down through Romanist tradition since the seventeenth century, he has a vested interest in such a presupposition. A sound understanding of John 20:22-23 in context, and in the light of the rest of Scripture, doesn't need extra Biblical interpretation from Rome. Consequently, if you start for an anti sola Scriptura position, you will find yourself arguing for your presuppositions rather than arguing for the Word of God. Perhaps we can provide you with a better understanding of the meaning of sola Scriptura. Since you explicitly promised to uphold the sole authority of Scripture when you joined the forum, and as your participation tacitly agrees, it would be of exceeding importance that you to rightly understood this Biblical doctrine. Sorry... about to leave on a trip to visit family. We can discuss this further later on. In Him, Doc |
||||||
236 | Can Angels repent? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 218779 | ||
Hi, Joshua... Welcome to the forum! 2 Peter 2:4 states what God did to the fallen angels. A couple of notes relative to our forum: 1. This was an old post from back in April. Jay123 popped onto the forum, made about five posts on the same day, and hasn't been online since. Nevertheless, this question has been asked before. You can use the search option to find those responses. 2. Thank you for qualifying your answer with "a personal standpoint." The focus of the forum is Scripture, and the objective of our gracious host is sola Scriptura. Consequently, we are most interested in those things which can be directly supported from the Word itself. In Him, Doc |
||||||
237 | What does this dream mean? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 219078 | ||
Hi, Justme... So much emphasis on experience, and so little emphasis on the Word these days. I have been benefiting much by a recent study of Jeremiah. When I saw your post, I thought of this passage: "The prophet who has a dream may relate his dream, but let him who has My word speak My word in truth. What does straw have in common with grain?" declares the LORD. "Is not My word like fire?" declares the LORD, "and like a hammer which shatters a rock? Therefore behold, I am against the prophets," declares the LORD, "who steal My words from each other. "Behold, I am against the prophets," declares the LORD, "who use their tongues and declare, 'The Lord declares.'" (Jeremiah 23:28-31 NASB) I'm not certain I even want a dream, when there is so much power in God's Word! In Him, Doc |
||||||
238 | Correct Understanding of verses? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 219249 | ||
Good quote. | ||||||
239 | how I can Eat God's Words? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 219267 | ||
Well answered, brother CDBJ! | ||||||
240 | Who are GOD's chosen people? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 219654 | ||
Well answered, Brad. (cf Ephesians 1:4) | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [302] >> |