Results 541 - 560 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
541 | eph 1:4-5 what is predestination, chosen | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185392 | ||
Hi, John... It is popular in many circles to sagely resort to the priority of love when faced with discussions of the importance of sound doctrine, exegesis, reason, or learning. The claim is based on Paul's assertion concerning the three virtues of faith, hope, and love in 1 Corinthians 13:13. This use of Biblical love is highly misleading. One could easily, for example, refute the line of reasoning by looking to the attributes of God. He is, we are told, love (1 John 5:3). However, we do not find the love of God thrice affirmed as we do His holiness (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8). Furthermore, faith comes by hearing God's word (Romans 10:17), and we are sanctified by God's word (John 17:17). With that in mind, we do not find God elevating love above His own name, yet that is what we are told He does with His word (Psalm 138:2). Indeed, our Lord Jesus tells us that we live by every word of God (Luke 4:4) -- was He forgetting the importance of love? Is it love that sets us free (John 8:32)? Finally, we could simply study the entire first epistle to the Corinthians to rightly understand Biblical love in its proper context in a Christian's life. Love is, indeed, the summum bonum -- the greatest good. But that isn't the whole story. Nor is it appropriate to appeal to it as being somehow superior to the truth. No, our Brother Hobbs was speaking well as he encouraged Edwin the all-import activity of the pursuit of truth in the Scriptures. Indeed, these were words that had their very roots founded in love. Please note that the raising of this question also has nothing to do with the discussion of God's grace and man's inability -- the topic at hand. However, perhaps it succeeds where my incredulous "Huh?" failed. If you'd like to discuss love further, let's do so in a new thread. In Him, Doc "True love likes to become familiar with the object of its affection; its heart is set upon that object, it studies it, and can never know it too well or too closely. True love to Christ thinks of Him from morning till night; it is glad to be released from other thoughts that it may follow only its one darling pursuit." --Charles H. Spurgeon |
||||||
542 | eph 1:4-5 what is predestination, chosen | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185419 | ||
Hi, stjohn! I have no tactic save to expose the truth of the Bible, in the hopes that His Spirit will illumine it for those redeemed by the Son, to the glory of God. The only embarrassment I worry about is my own before the Lord God Almighty (Hebrews 13:17). Winning or losing a debate doesn't matter one single jot. What matters is our complete submission to the Word. You wrote, "I don't believe election is sound doctrine. By the way." (sic) I do not understand. Are you saying that you don't believe in the doctrine of the effectual calling of the saints (a matter of presuppositional hermeneutics). Or are you saying that you don't believe in the Bible's teaching on election (a matter of ultimate authority)? Or are you saying that you don't believe the Scripture addresses election? You wrote, "And very frankly I do not think that it is substantively efficacious to even discus it." (sic) In didactic passages of the New Testament alone there are over 50 references to election. There are at least as many references to God's calling. Now, I can understand if you are saying that you don't want to know doctrinal positions on election in general, or orthodox Christian doctrine on election in particular. However, for the sake of clarity, I am forced to ask: Are you suggesting that some of the topics of Scripture are unnecessary or unworthy of our study? In Him, Doc PS See post #185415 for my further reply to the of the priority of the Word, stemming from your sideline topic of post #185400. |
||||||
543 | eph 1:4-5 what is predestination, chosen | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185427 | ||
Hi, stjohn... Thank you for further explaining your position. You can see my own discussion of the doctrine of election in posts #151193, #151386, and elsewhere. Election is the cause, redemption and regeneration are the means, and adoption is one of the benefits. However, our salvation is not based in a proper understanding of election (see the quote by Spurgeon in post #151484). Since the Scripture uses these terms so extensively, we can be certain that God places some importance on their being understood. Therefore, it behooves us to be very certain that we understand them as He has explained them. We live by every word of God. The Christian life is founded on doctrine (post #165448), so it is important for us to make certain that our terms are clear. This is not only crucial for our walk with God, but also so that we can clearly explain what God has said to others. In addition to Titus 1:1, you will find this same Greek word for "elect" in the following verses: Matthew 20:16; 22:14; 24:22, 24, 31; Mark 13:20, 22, 27; Luke 18:7; 23:35; Romans 8:33; 16:13; Colossians 3:12; 1 Timothy 5:21; 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Peter 1:2; 2:4, 6, 9; 2 John 1:1, 13; Revelation 17:14. In addition, you'll find a related word in Mark 13:20; Luke 6:13; 10:42; 14:7; John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19; Acts 1:2, 24; 6:5; 13:17; 15:7, 22, 25; 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28; Ephesians 1:4; James 2:5. It could lead to error to base one's understanding of the use of a word on a single verse. May the Lord be gracious to you in your study. In Him, Doc "This temper of mind is hostile to precise definitions. Indeed nothing makes a man more unpopular in the controversies of the present day than an insistence upon definition of terms... Men discourse very eloquently today upon such subjects as God, religion, Christianity, atonement, redemption, faith; but are greatly incensed when they are asked to tell in simple language what they mean by these terms." --John Gresham Machen |
||||||
544 | A church that does not practice tongues | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185742 | ||
Dear GE, In theology the study of salvation is called "soteriology," from the Greek "soteria" meaning "salvation". Salvation can be thought of as synonymous with redemption. It has a past, present, and future components: As Christians we are saved from the penalty of sin, God having brought us to faith in Christ. We are presently saved from the power of sin, by the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification. Ultimately we will be saved from the presence of sin in glory. Salvation also has initial, progressive, and ultimate aspects. For further details read the posts on the ordo salutis. In Him, Doc "Christian! the only thing that makes you differ from the vilest being that pollutes the earth, or from the darkest fiend that gnaws his chains in hell, is the free grace of God!" --Octavious Winslow "Repentance unto life can only be exercised by a soul after, and in consequence of, its regeneration by the Holy Spirit. God regenerates; and we, in the exercise of the new gracious ability thus given, repent... If genuine, it infallibly springs from regeneration and leads to eternal life." --A. A. Hodge "...the whole purpose of your salvation and mine is that we should glorify the Father. Oh, that we might grasp this! I know that we are all guilty at this point -- and I am as guilty as anyone else -- of tending to think of God and the whole Christian salvation as something to solve our problems. People come and talk to me and it is generally put in that way: 'What will salvation do for me?' they ask. And the answer that is given so often in our evangelism is 'Believe the gospel, and it will do some marvellous things for you.' I say, thank God that that is true, but my dear friends, we should not put that first. The ultimate aim and object of our salvation is that we may glorify God." --Martyn Lloyd Jones |
||||||
545 | eph 1:4-5 what is predestination, chosen | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185783 | ||
Dear Mark, You asked, "...how do we separate his salvation from his regeneration?" It is clear from your post that you have your terms confused. Before I help you, let me point out that salvation and regeneration have the same definition in the Reformed camp, as they do in the Arminian camp as taught in your church. Regeneration is a categorical component of salvation. Regeneration is not synonymous with salvation. Scripture speaks of it as a component of the full blessing that is achieved in God's work of redemption. Those components -- or individual blessings -- are part of a "package deal." The Scripture frequently discusses them in a distinct fashion to help us doctrinally understand what God has done. However, experientially, these components aren't necessarily distinct. When a person is saved, he is gifted "the whole enchilada." A saved person is regenerate, justified, adopted, sanctified, etc. Consequently, you won't find a saved person who isn't adopted; or one who is adopted, but still needs justification; or yet another who is justified, but lacks regeneration. Therefore, you need to understand clearly that the ordo salutis is a logical order, not necessarily a chronological order. Regeneration occurs at salvation, right along with justification, instantaneously, etc. Dr. John Frame explained it well: "We should be flexible as to what goes into the ordo and what does not. The Bible does not use the phrase ordo salutis any more than it speaks of an order of the decrees. And Scripture does not include anywhere a list of all the events theologians typically include under that label. Myself, I think that the ordo is mainly a pedagogical devise. As you go through the various items on the lost, there is no consistent principle of ordering." Now note the following very carefully: "Some items precede other items because the first comes earlier in time, and the other later. This is the case with effectual calling and glorification. Other items on the lost precede others because one is the cause, the other an effect, as with regeneration and faith. Still others come before others not because of temporal priority or causal priority but because of what theologians call instrumental priority, as in the relation of faith to justification. And still other pairs of events are simply concurrent or simultaneous blessings, like justification and adoption. So, the 'order' means different things: sometimes cause and effect, sometimes earlier and later, sometimes instrument and object, sometimes mere concurrence." In Him, Doc |
||||||
546 | eph 1:4-5 what is predestination, chosen | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185784 | ||
Hi, Apollos... We know that faith comes by hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17). Cornelius had yet to hear the word (Acts 10:22). Therefore, Cornelius salvation took place upon hearing the gospel message. For "everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" (Romans 10:13-15 ESV) I'm a little surprised that evangelicals would wonder about this. After all, the Acts 10 is all about the communication of the gospel to the gentiles, in the progression that Christ spoke of in Acts 1:8. In Him, Doc |
||||||
547 | eph 1:4-5 what is predestination, chosen | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185843 | ||
Dear Mark, You wrote, "Whether or not this seems logical, I will accept what the Bible says." Oh my... ? ! LOGICAL (sequence by cause) as opposted to CHRONOLOGICAL (sequence by time)... not... LOGICAL (reliable inference) as opposed to ILLOGICAL! I guess I should have gotten even more basic in defining terms. In Him, Doc |
||||||
548 | What is the star of David? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185936 | ||
Dear Minister, Over the years we notice that some forum participants prefer to use the words of others rather than invest the time, energy, and effort in smithing their own words. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. For example, bringing a particularly well written quote from someone with greater authority than our own can often be a valuable exercise for us all. Of course, when we fail to attribute to the rightful owner the words we use, it becomes a different matter. This is what is called plagiarism. Plagiarism is a fancy word for stealing. Its a bit worse than that, however, because it is also an effort to elicit admiration for prowess of intellect, creativity, and academic industry that rightly belongs to another. Consequently, this sort of behavior is rooted in violations of at least two and more probably three of the Ten Commandments; i.e., it is sin. Furthermore it is disrespectful to your fellow forum members. Finally, it is expressly forbidden by our gracious host, Lockman. You see, it puts them in a legal bind. One that could threaten the existance of the forum. We welcome your participation... but please walk uprightly. In Him, Doc |
||||||
549 | What is the star of David? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 185960 | ||
Hi, John... I was thinking about this again today. Just sharing a few of my thoughts: I was reminded that Charles Spurgeon once wrote, "Biblical truth is like the pinnacle of a steep, slippery mountain. One step away, you find yourself on the downgrade. Once a church or individual Christian gets on the downgrade, momentum takes over. Recovery is unusual and only happens when Christians get on the 'up-line' through spiritual revival." He wrote elsewhere, "If we do believe in the inspiration of Scripture, the Fall, and the great sacrifice of Christ for sin, it behooves us to see that we do not become accomplices with those who teach another gospel." Today we have people affirming the inspiration of the Scripture, claiming sola scriptura, but still insisting on some additional kind of light and even denying the doctrine of the necessity of Scripture. They speak of the Fall, nevertheless, they speak in terms of ignorance and illness, instead of the inability of the dead. They talk of the cross, while draining the graciousness from the gospel, rendering the work of Christ of no effect. Let us pray that our merciful and gracious God will bring spiritual revival. Certainly the hubris we see in others we have had in ourselves. So we beg of the Lord that He would show the same mercy to others that He has shown us. Further that He will continue to show mercy to ourselves, that the gospel might not be hindered. (1 Corinthians 9:12) In Him, Doc |
||||||
550 | Jesus , the Messiah - Yeshua ha Mashiach | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 186406 | ||
Dear Cheri, Wouldn't consistency require that you also call God "Yahweh" and the Holy Spirit "Kodesh Ruach?" ;-) I am Jewish by birth as well. There are several ways to pronounce Jesus' name in Aramaic beyond the ones you have used, depending on the area at the time of His life. Our ancient Greek brethren chose to transliterate Jesus' name. Actually, they retained the sound of the name pretty well. It was just that the I -- for various historical reasons I can't quite recall -- gradually shifted to J. Consequently, Iesous, became Jesous. Tyndale spelled it Jesus, and that was picked up in the Geneva and later KJV translations. My Hispanic in-laws, in Spanish, pronounce Jesus' name differently than they do in English. I have a Portuguese friend who pronounces it even differently than that! In Hebrew the word for name is shem; i.e., what a person is called. But it is a bit different than the English word name, since it also contains the idea of the character and nature of the person or thing being identified. It isn't the sounds that are so important when we speak of the Persons of our Triune God. Rather, it is their unique nature, character, authority, etc. I have to admit, though, that the Russellites make such a point of all this that it puts a sour taste in my mouth. If for no other reason, than that, I think the old Phil Keaggy song says it well, "Jesus is Jehovah to me!" In Him, Doc |
||||||
551 | Jesus , the Messiah - Yeshua ha Mashiach | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 186407 | ||
Dear John, Well said! Galatians is all about just this very point! There are no classes in Christianity. A Jewish Christian has no merit to grace than does a Gentile Christian, nor does a Gentile Christian have any less merit to grace than does a Jewish Christian. Indeed, grace isn't a matter of merit at all. (Notwithstanding the efforts of our forum friends who want to make salvation possible other than through Christ alone!) Paul was rightly offended by this idea. The Jews had abandoned the faith based righteousness of Abraham, for a works based righteousness. A complete failure! So why in the world would they want to take the grace out of the gospel and load folks up with the old failed practices of the Jews? But that was what they tried to do. There is something deep within our fallen nature that wants to try to meet God half-way in our salvation. "Upon Your own finished work (John 19:30) I now cast myself. 'Save, Lord and I shall be saved!' Before this stupendous truth, let all creature merit sink, let all human glory pale, let all man's boasting vanish, and Jesus be all in all." --Octavius Winslow In Him, Doc |
||||||
552 | Jesus , the Messiah - Yeshua ha Mashiach | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 186421 | ||
I think we'll be vastly in the minority! :-) | ||||||
553 | Calvin or Armini | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 186778 | ||
Hi, John... I haven't read all the thread... but you need to be careful not to present what is called a false dichotomy. In my own tradition, the old divines wrote "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience..." However, they added "We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church of God to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scriptures; and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, and the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, and many other incomparable excellencies, and entire perfections thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts. (John 16:13,14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-12; 1 John 2:20, 27)" * Both the Word and the Spirit are absolutely essential for the believer. Both. In Him, Doc * 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 1 |
||||||
554 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 188503 | ||
From Post #157835. "4. Check to see if Jesus or other Scriptures interpret the parable for you." "The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. (Matthew 22:29, 31-32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:2)" --LBCF 1689, Chapter 1, paragraph 10 Christ Himself is the Word (John 1:1; Hebrews 1:1). |
||||||
555 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 190041 | ||
"To preach the Bible as 'the handbook for life,' or as the answer to every question, rather than as the revelation of Christ, is to turn the Bible into an entirely different book. This is how the Pharisees approached Scripture, as we can see clearly from the questions they asked Jesus. For the Pharisees, the Scriptures were a source of trivia for life's dilemmas. To be sure, Scripture provides God-centered and divinely revealed wisdom for life, but if this were its primary objective, Christianity would be a religion of self-improvement by following examples and exhortations, not a religion of the Cross." --Michael Horton | ||||||
556 | Properly Interpreting the Bible | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 190265 | ||
"When the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual, literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context, studied in the light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate clearly otherwise." --Dr. David L. Cooper | ||||||
557 | Keep the Sabbath Holy? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 190884 | ||
Hi, only... Welcome to the forum! Hebrews 4 seems to be a a very good proof text on the adoption of Sunday by Christians for worship (i.e., God finished His work on the seventh day of the week, Christ finished His work on the first day of the week.) However, I'd like to quote from Chapter 22, paragraph 7 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, which states "As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God's appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by His Word, in a positive moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, He hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord's day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. (Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10)" Be very careful about the SDA doctrines. They are rooted in the teachings of Ellen White, rather than the Scriptures alone. For example, see the following: "How repugnant to every emotion of love and mercy, and even to our sense of justice, is the doctrine that the wicked dead are tormented with fire and brimstone in an eternally burning hell. . . . And how utterly revolting is the belief that as soon as the breath leaves the body the soul of the impenitent is consigned to the flames of hell! ... the doctrine of natural immortality first borrowed from pagan philosophy, and in the darkness of the great apostasy incorporated into the Christian faith, has supplanted the truth. ... The theory of eternal torment is one of the false doctrines that constitute the wine of the abomination of Babylon. ... But those who have not, through repentance and faith, secured pardon, must receive the penalty of transgression ... covered with infamy, they sink into hopeless, eternal oblivion. . . . There will then be no lost souls to blaspheme God as they writhe in never-ending torment; no wretched beings in hell will mingle their shrieks with the songs of the saved" (Ellen White, The Great Controversy, pages 469, 470, 477, 478, 483). You will note that Ellen White doesn't use Scripture to base her assertions on. "When they came to the point in their study where they said, 'We can do nothing more,' the Spirit of the Lord would come to me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me. ... Thus light was given that helped us to understand the Scriptures... they accepted as light direct from heaven the revelations given [to Ellen White]" --Ellen G. White Messenger to the Remnant, pages. 34, 38, 39). In Him, Doc |
||||||
558 | Keep the Sabbath Holy? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 190894 | ||
Indeed. I believe the King James translators used "vain jangling" (1 Timothy 1:6b)... or, perhaps, that was some similar Greek word. :-) | ||||||
559 | Keep the Sabbath Holy? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 190895 | ||
Dear onlyme, Hebrews 4 is not about which day is the Sabbath. It simply uses the already extant change in the Sabbath -- and the reason for it -- as part of the argument being made in that passage. Hence, even at the time of the writing of this book, the practice had been established as normative by the church of that day. The old divines of the London Baptist Confession of Faith were simply restating the orthodoxy behind the orthopraxy. If you can't find a "clear cut answer" in Scripture, do not demean tradition. The old divines simply expressed the thought and practice of 2000 years of the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Saints. The strict Sabbitarian has a tendency to fall into an unhealthy nomianism, which thing is certainly unsupported by the clear doctrine of Scripture. In Him, Doc |
||||||
560 | Keep the Sabbath Holy? | Bible general Archive 3 | DocTrinsograce | 190976 | ||
Dear onlyme, Briefly, what I was trying to say is that it is clear that the practice of the observance of the Sabbath on Sunday had been established by the apostles before Hebrews 4 was penned. Sabbatarianism was promoted by Judaizers at least as early as 56 AD, because of Paul's admonition to the gentile believers in Colossians 2:16b. This topic has been run into the ground long before we discussed it, and well past the point of rendering any real value to our forum readers. I expect that anything that can be said about it has already been said. The full spectrum of opinion -- and imagination -- on the topic can be found using the search option. Let us move on to other Biblical topics for the edification of us all. In Him, Doc |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ] Next > Last [302] >> |