Results 41 - 60 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Hyper calvinism and Backsliding? | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243159 | ||
Hi, Ed... Dr. Curt Daniel is a dear friend of mine. I even have an autographed copy of his doctoral dissertation on Hyper-Calvinism. I wouldn't have imaged that you would have read his dissertation. Small world! By the way, Curtis has a wonderful set of lectures on Calvinism. He is a fine pastor and a very learned scholar. So I am curious about something. I keep looking through the syllabi of Pentecostal seminaries and Bible schools. They teach Dispensationalism, but I haven't found the text book that they use. When you taught, did you teach Dispensationalism? If so, what was the textbook that you used. I would very much like to read it. Most of what I can find are criticisms of Dispensationalism -- which strikes me as problematic, as it is like hitting a moving target. I've read a couple of prophecy mongers' books, but that isn't much help. Could you point me in the right direction, please? In Him, Doc |
||||||
42 | Hyper calvinism and Backsliding? | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243166 | ||
Hi, Ed... In that case, when you attended Seminary, what text did you use for Dispensationalism? Given that it is so foundational, it is hard to imagine that AOG men are ordained without it being taught. So what textbook did you use in your seminary attendance? Thank you for your time and attention. In Him, Doc |
||||||
43 | The right Bible for you? | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243579 | ||
Hi, Justme... For me, one of the best things about the KJV, is the distinction between the pronouns: singular nominative (thou), possessive (thy/thine); second person singular (you), plural (ye). It is the only English version that provides this for us. I like it because it is a good reminder, which otherwise causes me to make contemporary English assumptions. Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, "How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." Jesus answered them, "I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." (John 10:24-29) My professors who were involved in the ESV translation have a great advantage in being able to read the Bible in its original languages. (Indeed, I do not know any Reformed Baptists or Orthodox Presbyterian pastors who cannot at least read the Greek.) By the way, the following version comparison chart, seeks to render a comparison in various ways. In the context of our discussion, the grade level necessary for each are estimated. http://dwightgingrich.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/bibletranslationcompv7.1440.jpg Here is another that uses the Flecsh-Kincaid language complexity comparison. (I have used that method on much of my writing. It is very helpful.) http://www.balancingthesword.com/study_support/english_bible_translations.asp In Him, Doc |
||||||
44 | The right Bible for you? | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243581 | ||
Dear Justme, Yes, I know Jim White. I probably don't know him as well as you do. I have talked to him at a number of conferences and by email. I am more acquainted with some of the congregants at the church in Phoenix where he is an elder. I also follow his ministry, through articles and messages posted at aomin.org. Consequently, I keep up with his ministry. James White is a brilliant man. Sometimes I think of him as our generation's Walter Martin. In Him, Doc |
||||||
45 | The right Bible for you? | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243584 | ||
Dear Justme, Reformed theology is the orthodox Biblical teaching known as the Five Solas; Faith alone, Scripture alone, Grace alone, Christ alone, and Glory to God alone. These doctrines were primarily articulated by Martin Luther in the 16th century. The Roman Church did a very thorough explanation and denial of them in the Canons of the Council of Trent over a . The Solas are the superset of Biblical Christian teaching; sometimes it is even called the Five Pillars of Christianity. http://www.alliancenet.org/cambridge-declaration Calvinism is a subset of Biblical teaching. Not all who are Reformed are Calvinists (e.g., Lutheran, Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodism, and the majority of other denominations (independent or otherwise), particularly those which originated here in America.) Calvinism is often called the Doctrines of Grace (something that John Calvin would have much preferred). These Biblical teachings are a subset of Reformed theology; indeed, one cannot be a Calvinist if they are not also Reformed. An analogy would be: No horse can be an animal that is not a mammal. (If you meet anyone who claims to be a Calvinist but not Reformed, they simply do not understand the categories properly.) The doctrines of Grace were most clearly documented in the Netherlands in the Council of Dort (1619); although they are also articulated in John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, written a century before; and by Augustine of Hippo in the 4th century; however Calvinists are persuaded that they were originally expressed in the greatest systematic theology by Paul in his epistle to the Romans. These doctrines are remembered with the acronym TULIP, although there are far more to them than just that mnemonic. https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/gracelist.html Replacement theology is also known as supersessionism; it is something that does not necessarily fall into Reformed thinking. Basically, it asserts that Biblical Judaism falls short of God's eternal purpose, which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ; thus the Old Covenant is replaced by the New Covenant. That is the traditional Christian perspective, all the way back to the earliest times of the church. There are many variations that now form a spectrum from one extreme to another. On one side, there are those who assert that Jews have no place at all in God's redemptive plan; that they are not part of His plan at all. On the other side, people maintain that the Jews will be saved in addition to Christians without the necessity to find that salvation in Christ. I hope that these brief paragraphs will be helpful to you. There is a book that is very short and easy to read, written by Rev. Daniel R. Hyde, that is entitled "Welcome to a Reformed Church." The book is very inexpensive. However, you can read it free here: http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9781567692037.pdf In Him, Doc |
||||||
46 | Earth's fate | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243616 | ||
Dear Lionstrong, Thank you for the book you recommended. I see it is available as an ebook. I may well purchase it. My eyesight is so poor, I have to get large print or ebooks in order to read. I am curious to know if you have looked into evidentialism versus presuppositionalism in apologetics? If so, do you lean one way or the other? I hope this isn't too far off topic. I am just curious. In Him, Doc |
||||||
47 | Earth's fate | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 243619 | ||
Hi, Lionstrong... As is often the case, no single perspective fits every circumstance. Paul sets out a very good evidentialism in Romans 1; nevertheless, his preaching to the Greeks in Acts 17 is certainly presuppositional. Thanks again for recommending the books. In Him, Doc |
||||||
48 | Bye | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 194755 | ||
Dear Cheri, I haven't read through the other answers to your post, so forgive me if I repeat what has already been said. First, when someone places a prayer request on the forum as a question, it is generally allowed to remain without an "answer." This is so that it can stay on the front page for a while, increasing the likelihood that more forum readers will see it. Second, not all of us agree as to what degree of social activism is appropriate on which topics. (Some people are heavily involved in national politics of Christian interest; some in local politics; some in resisting abortion, gambling, pornography, etc.) Third, believers are not all the same. Some feel strongly about some issues, while others feel strongly about other issues. Each could fault the other for being insensitive or unloving, but that is hugely presumptuous. Fourth, the Scriptures set out very specific standards that are we are to be concerned about. As strongly as we all feel about other social, cultural, and political issues, the vast majority of them are not explicitly mandated concerns of the church. That doesn't mean that these things are not worthy causes. Only that they become more a matter of personal inclination and less a matter of universal concern. Fifth, God has, in His providence, seen fit to imbue you with strong feeling for this particular subject. Consequently, He has used you to make the rest of us aware of a topic with which we might have otherwise remained ignorant. You do not know, nor can you rightly determine, what He will ultimately do as a result. He may choose to let you know, but chances are you will never know. It is His business. Sixth, the website that you have specified, does not give complete information. It would be unwise to sign a petition without knowing both sides of the issue (Proverbs 18:13). A quick search of the web has not yielded the text of the original "DOS warning." Last, this is a text based forum with the focus on the text of Scripture. You ought not attempt to infer an emotional state based purely on our posts. Statistical analysis of such attempts has demonstrated that people are mistaken more often than not when attempting such an inference. What is more, most of us simply aren't that skilled at properly conveying our emotions via text. Furthermore, Scripture doesn't speak of emotion as a fruit from which spiritual states are to be judged. Ours is a faith of truth to which our often respond. Not a faith of feelings from which truth is deduced. In Him, Doc PS In the meantime, I am praying with others for the widows and fatherless in Guatemala. Thank you for drawing our attention to the need there. |
||||||
49 | halloween | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 195337 | ||
Dear Cheri, Sorry... can't resist replying... Tradition forms a backdrop for all peoples. For example, in Judaism much of the way that holidays the holidays (i.e., holy-days) are observed was cobbled together down the centuries -- the majority of it well after the Diaspora. How Pesach seder is observed in the time of Christ, for example, would look very different from how it is observed today. Christianity is no different. Traditions arise out of how things are interpreted, usually starting in the generation in which the original questions arose. The question of just how Jewish ought Christians to look is one that dates from the apostles in the first century. (Have I recommended Galatians, by the way?) The conclusion was that Christians should look a lot like the Jews in external norms of moral behavior (Acts 15:29; 21:25), but more than that, they were to walk in righteousness that originated on the inside (Galatians 5:16-24). Thus, the imperfect things that foreshadowed Christ were abandoned (Colossians 2:16-17) -- which things included holidays. Consequently, the day of primary significance to Christians -- Resurrection Day -- gained a preeminent place. That's certainly understandable, considering that our faith stand or falls on this single historic event (1 Corinthians 15:14). The Scriptures do not prohibit, however, setting up a schedule on which we may fully mediate on the life, death, and resurrection of our Lord. Since the church also needed to teach these truths to the flock, gradually overseers and elders put together what is known in modern times as the Liturgical Year. (By the way, it is really quite ingenious. Those who designed this commemorative and educational cycle of seasons are lost in history. But somehow, I suspect they wouldn't mind! It makes for a great study subject, by the way.) Days like Christmas and All Saints Day, etc. grew out of the Liturgical Year. During that whole time, though, lots of different cultures participated, and there was plenty of time for things to get pretty confused. Finally, it took the Reformation -- and a lot of blood, sweat, and tears -- to get it sufficiently straightened out. Still and all, the old Romanist thinking pervades cultural thinking. Therefore, I suspect that the reason Halloween is the focus of so much antipathy arises from the fact that it is a celebration to which it is difficult to apply a some kind of positive spin. (I think calling it a Harvest Festival doesn't accomplish much.) We don't think of Christmas as some sort of special day as Bible believers, but we can use it as a day to think about the Advent. But try as one may, it is hard to wrench something positive like that out of Halloween. Hence, michael03's, bream925, and jesusman's attitude toward this holiday. It is also why I ignore it. Still and all... October 31, 1517 was a date in which God providentially gave the world a great and precious gift. Without it, we'd still be trying to work out our own righteousness. Without it, there would be no sola Scriptura. Without it, there would be no Lockman or SBF! In Him, Doc |
||||||
50 | covering heaven with a cloud? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 195479 | ||
Dear Yonder... etc... Please note that Lockman grants the privilege to participate in the forum based on a specific set of doctrines. One in particular is sola Scriptura. We desire to study the Word of God, not the word of yonderwhatzit. Perhaps there are other forums where you might find people who will have an interest in extra Biblical teaching. Furthermore, it is a violation of the forum guidelines, Christian charity, rationale thought, and amicability to make derogatory statements of other forum participants. It is unlikely, but one might have some slight interest in your self proclaimed giftedness if your posts the character and nature of the Holy Spirit. Contravening the Scriptures, though, provides sufficient evidence of the true nature and origin of that "gift." In Him, Doc |
||||||
51 | are there errors in the bible? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 195481 | ||
Hi, Makarios... Your answer is succinct and to the point! When I read the question, I was mindful of the words of one of our old Southern Baptist theologians, John A. Broadus. His writing doesn't get a lot of attention these days, unfortunately. However, he wrote the following back in 1893: "The inspired writers learned many things by observation or inquiry, but they were preserved by the Holy Spirit from error whether in learning or in writing these things... Those who concede errors in the Scriptures as to matter of fact, in order to remove conflict with some scientific opinions of our time, may tell us that they have great satisfaction in being at peace with science. But there are two drawbacks upon such a peace. It is the peace of sheer submission... And it is only a partial and temporary peace. Other scientific men at once make still further demands, tending ever toward the complete abandonment of the supernatural... If we assume that the inspiration of the Bible is only partial where are we to stop? Every man must then select adlibitum what portions of the Bible's teachings he will accept as true." In Him, Doc |
||||||
52 | are there errors in the bible? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 195492 | ||
Hi, G... I wouldn't exactly say that "Ghost" was an erroneous choice of words -- let alone a translation error. William Tyndale was probably responsible for that, if we can "blame" a single person. For example, he translated Matthew 1:18 as "The byrthe of Iesus Christ was on thys wyse. When hys mother Mary was betrouthed to Ioseph before they came to dwell to gedder she was foude with chylde by ye holy goost." The Geneva Bible translation followed suit with "Nowe the birth of Iesvs Christ was thus, When as his mother Mary was betrothed to Ioseph, before they came together, shee was found with childe of the holy Ghost." Like with the majority of their work, the KJV translators simply adopted Tyndale's work. The problem was choosing a word in English that properly carried the notion of the Greek pnuema and the Latin spiritus. Remember, language changes over time. If you were a contemporary of Tyndale, you might well have agreed with his choice of words. Nonetheless, to call it a translation error would require great expertise in the 15th century English. In Him, Doc |
||||||
53 | are there errors in the bible? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 195557 | ||
Amen, sister Val! John Piper has an excellent, though short, discussion of the life of William Tyndale: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Biographies/ It is entitled "Always Singing One Note -- A Vernacular Bible." I thought you might be interested. In Him, Doc |
||||||
54 | Matthew 6:11. Is spritual or physical? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 195909 | ||
Dear Searcher, You can verify my assertion for yourself with a Greek lexicon: look for the word "artos" (Strong's G740), and you will find that this word for bread is never used in a metaphorical fashion in the Synoptic Gospels or the Epistles. It always refers to the provision of food. Erasmus suggested that Jesus was speaking of the trans-substantial body of Christ in the Eucharist. There are many problems with that suggestion, most of them obvious without being enumerated. You are right, though, that the focus changes with the fourth petition. The first three petitions are often associated with the "First Table of the Law," directing us to seek God's glory. The final three are often associated with the "Second Table of the Law," sometimes called the duties of love, specifically those things for which we are to ask for ourselves. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown make the following statement regarding the nature of this petition: "Among commentators, there was early shown an inclination to understand this as a prayer for the heavenly bread, or spiritual nourishment; and in this they have been followed by many superior expositors, even down to our own times. But as this is quite unnatural, so it deprives the Christian of one of the sweetest of his privileges -- to cast his bodily wants in this short prayer, by one simple petition, upon his heavenly Father. No doubt the spiritual mind will, from 'the meat that perisheth,' naturally rise in thought to 'that meat which endureth to everlasting life.' But let it be enough that the petition about bodily wants irresistibly suggests a higher petition; and let us not rob ourselves -- out of a morbid spirituality -- of our one petition in this prayer for that bodily provision which the immediate sequel of this discourse shows that our heavenly Father has so much at heart. In limiting our petitions, however, to provision for the day, what a spirit of childlike dependence does the Lord both demand and beget!" That this petition refers to the daily provision for the sustenance of life, does not preclude our need of "spiritaul daily bread" (sic). However, I think that that is thoroughly covered in the other petitions, either directly or indirectly. In Him, Doc |
||||||
55 | does satan know what is said in tongues | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196410 | ||
Dear Kurtee, If you had already decided on the answer, why ask the question? The study of 1 Corinthians 14 is a valuable one, when done in context. In Him, Doc |
||||||
56 | does satan know what is said in tongues | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196439 | ||
Dear Kurtee, You wrote, "...they believe everything else but not that!" I believe it was Thomas Fuller who said, "He that knows nothing will believe anything." I sympathize with your situation. In Him, Doc |
||||||
57 | dreams and visions not scriptural? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196606 | ||
Dear ElderC, We do not argue whether or how God communicates interacts with us. We argue that Scripture is the sole source for doctrine and that God will never, ever contradict His Word, nor will He render revelation beyond what in His Word. Not only do we all believe this -- otherwise we couldn't have honestly created an account on the forum -- but we affirm it regularly. We are not a Study Vision Forum or Study Dream Forum or Study Supernatural Forum or Study Mysticism Forum. We are, explicitly, a Study BIBLE Forum. In Him, Doc |
||||||
58 | Unbelievers taught during millennium? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196631 | ||
Hi, rdcast... You might try using Google for "chiliasm" or "premillenial dispensationalism." Perhaps you will find this teaching somewhere there. The Scripture is not so sanguine with regard to the backslider (Proverbs 1:32; 14:14; Jeremiah 2:19; 8:5; 17:5; Hosea 4:16; Zephaniah 1:6; Hebrews 3:12; 2 Peter 2:20-22). It is an extremely dangerous position for anyone. In Him, Doc |
||||||
59 | Book of life are the lost to be found | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196716 | ||
Okay... ...but what did that have to do with the topic of this thread? |
||||||
60 | number conflict? | Bible general Archive 4 | DocTrinsograce | 196719 | ||
Explain the "contradictions" in the Bible to lost person, and you will have a better informed lost person. I guess Proverbs 26:5 would apply. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [302] >> |