Results 121 - 140 of 6029
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Nothing Illegal or Blameworthy | Deut 12:32 | DocTrinsograce | 243752 | ||
Thank you, Ed... What struck me the most about that discussion was the last paragraph. The early church fathers' emphasis on ethics, even to the point of inviting scrutiny of the lives of Christians as apologetic evidence. That is both a powerful provocation to piety, and an awesome attestation to the achievement of our Lord's atonement. As the old aphorism goes: Christianity is observable! In Him, Doc |
||||||
122 | Repentance Unto Life | Acts 11:18 | DocTrinsograce | 243751 | ||
"Q. 76. What is repentance unto life? "A. Repentance unto life is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, and upon the apprehension of God's mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, he so grieves for and hates his sins, as that he turns from them all to God, purposing and endeavoring constantly to walk with Him in all the ways of new obedience." --Westminster Larger Catechism (1648) |
||||||
123 | Nothing Illegal or Blameworthy | Deut 12:32 | DocTrinsograce | 243749 | ||
"The Didache is in two or three parts. The first part draws heavily from the gospels and follows the 'two-ways' ethical tradition of Proverbs and the Psalms. It quotes and elaborates subtly upon the Sermon on the Mount, which elaborations (e.g., substituting 'fasting' for blessing one's enemies) seem to locate it more in the 2nd century than the first. The second part of the work is a fairly detailed account of the early Christian practice of baptism (by effusion) and the Lord's Supper. ... The third part is a brief apocalyptic section. Naturally, there is much discussion among scholars about the source criticism and how to relate the three aspects of the document to each other. "The Didache was not indifferent about abortion nor does it hesitate to list abortion (and infanticide) with other gross violations of the natural and moral law: murder, adultery, pederasty, sexual immorality, magic and sorcery, coveting, perjury, greed, and conspiracies (2:1–7). The pagans were known to try to induce abortions, which the Didache prohibits. It is hard to imagine the author of the Didache announcing that he is personally opposed to abortion but supported it as a matter of public policy any more than they would say the same about murder of adults, pederasty, and the like. "The moral rigor of the Didache is also in contrast to the way some late-modern Christians speak about sexual ethics generally. "I am impressed again this term with the emphasis the Apostolic Fathers (e.g., 1 Clement, Ignatius, and Didache) place on what we might call orthodox Christian ethics. In some of the authors, e.g., Didache, ethical exhortation is not well grounded in the gospel but in others, e.g.,Polycarp, Barnabas, and Ad Digonetum, it is. "Still, it has been a persistent question: why such a strong emphasis on ethics among the early Christian writers? Part of the answer is that much was outside their control but their behavior was within their control. Another part of the answer is that one way the Christians distinguished themselves from the surrounding pagan culture was to adhere strictly to the biblical moral teaching. Reports from some of their pagan interrogators (e.g., Pliny the Younger) suggest that they really were regarded as morally blameless before the watching world. Thus, Justin Martyr invited scrutiny from the pagan authorities because he was confident that they would find nothing illegal or blameworthy among the Christians." --Dr. Robert Scott Clark (2016) or Westminster Seminary California (See https://www.wscal.edu/academics/faculty/r-scott-clark) Note: You can read the "Didache: the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" at the following link: https://carm.org/didache |
||||||
124 | Doctrine of the Perspicuity of Scripture | Deut 30:12 | DocTrinsograce | 243746 | ||
"For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it." (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) "All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them. (2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130)" 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith 1.7 And my favorite... "The main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things." --Alistair Begg (2014) |
||||||
125 | Doctrine Called to Mind | 2 Pet 1:15 | DocTrinsograce | 243743 | ||
What a contrast the God of the Bible is with the god of Islam, who is so transcendent that his ways are inscrutable (beyond understanding)! How different He is from the irrational, fickle, finite deities of the Greek pantheon or other polytheistic religions! These mythological ‘gods’ exhibit the folly of human emotion and the danger of ignoring revelation. The God of the Bible requires teachers who diligently study His Word and handle it accurately (compare 2 Timothy2:15 and 1 Timothy 4:15-16). He demands of His evangelists that they give rational justification to questioners who ask them why they believe as they do (1 Peter 3:15). On one occasion His chief apostle, Paul, emphasized that his gospel preaching was by way of ‘words of truth and rationality’ (Acts 26:25, NASB) when Festus charged that his great learning was driving him mad (Acts 26:24, NASB). No anti-intellectualism here! By contrast, the monistic religions of the East promote gurus who offer koans, paradoxes like the sound of one hand clapping, upon which to meditate in order to free the devotee from dependence on reason and enable him to escape the laws of logic. The Buddhist is to leave this mind behind, but the Christian God requires transformation by way of its renewal (Romans 12:1-2). "Is it any wonder that we Christians started the first universities and have planted schools and colleges everywhere our missionaries have gone? Is it any wonder that science began in Christian Europe because of the belief that the same rational God who made the human mind also created the world so the mind would be suited to discern the world’s rational structure placed there by God? God is certainly not a cultural elitist, and He does not love intellectuals more than anyone else. But it needs to be said in the same breath that ignorance is not a Christian virtue if those virtues mirror the perfection of God’s own character." --J. P. Moreland (1997) from his book "Love Your God with All Your Mind" ... the role of reason in the life of the soul ... from the section entitled "A Biblical Sketch of the Value of Reason" |
||||||
126 | Doctrine of the Sufficiency of the Word | 2 Pet 1:1 | DocTrinsograce | 243738 | ||
"Just before her martyrdom [July 1553], Lady Jane Grey inscribed a few words in her copy of the New Testament that she was leaving for her sister. She wrote of how outwardly it was not trimmed in gold, as some of the finer books in her library were, but 'it is inwardly worth more than precious stones.' Peter speaks of God's granting us 'all things that pertain to life and godliness' in the 'precious and very great promises' of His Word (2 Peter 1:3–4). God's Word is sufficient to tell us what we must believe to be saved and how we can please God." --Stephen Nichols (2016) |
||||||
127 | God's Providence | Dan 2:30 | DocTrinsograce | 243736 | ||
“The providence of God is like a Hebrew Word: it can only be understood by reading it from the end to the beginning.†--John Flavel (1628-1691) |
||||||
128 | We do not live by telling a lie! | 1 Cor 7:33 | DocTrinsograce | 243731 | ||
"And reckon ye that it is for your sakes we have been saying these things; for it is in our power, when we are examined, to deny that we are Christians; but we would not live by telling a lie. For, impelled by the desire of the eternal and pure life, we seek the abode that is with God, the Father and Creator of all, and hasten to confess our faith, persuaded and convinced as we are that they who have proved to God by their works that they followed Him, and loved to abide with Him where there is no sin to cause disturbance, can obtain these things. This, then, to speak shortly, is what we expect and have learned from Christ, and teach. "And Plato, in like manner, used to say that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked who came before them; and we say that the same thing will be done, but at the hand of Christ, and upon the wicked in the same bodies united again to their spirits which are now to undergo everlasting punishment; and not only, as Plato said, for a period of a thousand years. And if any one say that this is incredible or impossible, this error of ours is one which concerns ourselves only, and no other person, so long as you cannot convict us of doing any harm." --Justin Martyr (100-165) |
||||||
129 | What is the translation for 1 John 5:7 | 1 John | DocTrinsograce | 243730 | ||
Good stuff, pastor! Thank you! | ||||||
130 | No examples | Matt 28:1 | DocTrinsograce | 243726 | ||
Hi, Cole... Without any intention to contradict or affirm any notions already held one way or another: there are some Halakhic discussions of possible bearing: For example: https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/cj/classics/11-29-11-calendar/counting-day-night.pdf That paper alone should yield a sufficient number of keywords to enable a more extended search for other Rabbinic deliberations on the topic. In Him, Doc |
||||||
131 | Sweet Fellowship Walking Together | Ps 55:14 | DocTrinsograce | 243725 | ||
"But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. "The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. "We cannot walk alone!" --Martin Luther King, "I Have A Dream" (1963) |
||||||
132 | New is not necessarily better than old | 2 Kin 19:25 | DocTrinsograce | 243689 | ||
"In view of the lamentable defects of modern life, a type of religion certainly should not be commended simply because it is modern or condemned simply because it is old. On the contrary, the condition of mankind is such that one may well ask what it is that made the men of past generations so great and the men of the present generations so small." --J. Gresham Machen |
||||||
133 | An Old Contra-Biblical Doctrine | John 16:14 | DocTrinsograce | 243682 | ||
Hi, Ed... And in your emotional and experiential and low view of the Scriptures, how will you be able to make men obedient disciples. As you assert that Reformed theology is wrong -- without even knowing the history or the logic or the word behind it -- what tool have you found to be superior to the very Word of God? The proof of your success will be men who walk consistently in the fruit of the Spirit. I cannot comprehend the AOG position that places such a low priority on discipleship that way. How in the world does anyone even deal with John 14 and 15 in such a fashion. Well, as Christ said, so eloquently, your wisdom will be proved by her children. You may have difficulty in presenting such people as evidence. However, I am utterly delighted to have found Pentecostal pastors who are sound in doctrine as well as in practice. I had become fearful that your example was all that would be found anywhere in the midst of your particularly perspective. If you ever want to meat these wonderfully Godly fellows, let me know, and I will arrange it. They are like a breath of fresh air, even drawing of my own heart to their words. One explained to me, citing the AOG position paper, that the denomination believed that all the "sign" gifts could be manifest in complete absence of the fruit of the Spirit. I had never imagined such a thing. I apologize for having expected this when it is such a low priority for those who espouse Pentecostalism in the form it has taken over the last hundred years. I had misjudged it as hypocritical. It never occurred to me that those virtues would be thought of as so incidental. Slowly, I am learning. In Him, Doc |
||||||
134 | Worldly Extremes | 1 John 2:11 | DocTrinsograce | 243681 | ||
Hi, Ed... We do not meet with your approval, that has always been clear. So, all we can do is to define our terms for one another -- or at least, we can explain our terms to you, if not the other way -- just as God through the Prophets did, and Jesus Christ did, and the Apostles did. If our presuppositions are not adequate for your purposes, then that's okay. It won't make the tiniest difference in how you teach, preach, or discuss. You've not been hesitant to put fourth your own many opinions and assumptions. I wonder how Jesus would explain it that stuff? I never quite understand hatred of language. It is odd, though, because God invented labels... and He even holds us responsible for our use of those labels (Matthew 12:3). So it just seems so weird to have people hate nouns so much. Of course, you can demonstrate that perspective by just avoiding them altogether... as if that could be done! J. Gresham Machen described liberalism as, "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." So, your Spirit Filled love of us will certainly forgive us for trying to use language as precisely as our God and our Lord Jesus and the Apostles have done. We do not find any others providing a better pattern. Someday you will find defining labels as something of benefit in presenting the truth. Perhaps you will emerge from the liberal morass into a far superior way of defining words Biblically. Fundamentalism is within your reach, I do not doubt. I look forward to seeing it, and if I do not see it now, it is probably my own limitation. In Him, Doc |
||||||
135 | Church Fathers? Part V | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243676 | ||
Dear Ed, Since logic is the characteristic of God's thinking, and scripture is a part of the mind of God (1 Corinthians 2:16), it follows that scripture must be logical. What is said in Scripture is God's infallible and inerrant thought. This is why Paul could reason with people from Scripture (Acts 17:2). Even God calls us to reason together with Him (Isiah 1:8). Hinduism is anti-thought. As one famous Guru said, "Thought is like a snake in the grass. It must be beaten until it is dead." Christianity at its very roots is a matter of logic. How else do we interpret the first three chapters of Genesis? We understand the anti-intellectual aspects of popular independent church doctrine (a sort of non-sequitur, that!). As Reformed people, we do not reject thought. If we did, your objection would be utterly unintelligible. Yet you clearly demonstrate thought in the choice of words and their sequence. Teach people to handle sound reason, not disband all reason altogether. Then they will immediately detect faulty logic. God, making us in His image, is a rational being. To deny that which is rational is to deny God, to deny the Word (Logos), and to deny sanity. Although, from what I can tell, abandoning logic sure opens the door to a myriad of false doctrine. I do not criticize you, Ed. Abandon thought in your own church among your own congregants, to whatever extent you feel right in doing. I will defend your right to do so. However, you will never, ever be able instruct a Reformed person with that which is fundamentally irrational. I thought you should know. I remember being on an airplane years ago when a young man carefully and quite rationally, explained that logic was an entirely faulty approach to anything in life. Whenever anyone uses logic and rhetoric to deny logic and rhetoric... well, they are hoist with their own petard. We do not need to work very hard in refuting their position. In Him, Doc |
||||||
136 | An Old Contra-Biblical Doctrine | John 16:14 | DocTrinsograce | 243675 | ||
"We persuade men to take the Scripture as the only rule, and the holy promised Spirit of God, sought by ardent prayers and supplications, in the use of all means appointed by Christ for that end, for their guide. They [Quakers] deal with men to turn into themselves, and to attend unto the light within them [doctrine of the inward light]. Whilst we build on these most distant principles [far different], the difference between us is irreconcilable, and will be eternal... Until, therefore, they [the Quakers] return unto 'the law and the testimony' [Isaiah 8:20] -- without which, whatsoever is pretended, there is no light in any [Jeremiah 17] -- we have no more to do but, labouring to preserve the flock of Christ in the profession of 'the faith once delivered unto the saints,' [Jude 3] to commit the difference between the Word and Spirit on the one hand, and the light within on the other, unto the decision of Jesus Christ at the last day [Matthew 25:31-46]." --Dr. John Owen (1616-1683), from his book "A Puritan Theology" |
||||||
137 | Worldly Extremes | 1 John 2:11 | DocTrinsograce | 243674 | ||
"It is entirely wrong to place the rationalism of the Enlightenment in contradiction to pietistic mysticism [17th and 18th century]. It is popular nonsense that reason and mysticism are the two great opposites. Historically, Pietism and the Enlightenment both fought against Orthodoxy. The subjectivity [vs truth that is external to man] of Pietism, or the doctrine of the 'inner light' in Quakerism and the other ecstatic movements [experientialism, emotionalism, spiritism], has the character of immediacy or autonomy against the authority of the church. To put it more sharply, modern rational autonomy [radical individualism] is a child of the mystical autonomy of the doctrine of the inner light." --Professor Paul Tillich (1886-1965), from his book "A History of Christian Thought" (New York: Simon and Schuster) |
||||||
138 | Church Fathers? Part V | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243669 | ||
Dear Ed, Turretin cites what the East and West churches actually confess. Those confessions are publicly available then as now. Thus, he lays out their positions as they express them, then contrasting and comparing those positions to the Reformed position. He refutes the opposing arguments by following through to their conclusion. That is what is meant by the word "elenctic." These were the practices used from the earliest times of the church; e.g., Augustine vs Pelagius; Athanasius vs Arius; Luther vs Erasmus; etc. etc. This pattern was originally used by the Apostles -- as in Paul vs Peter (as described in Galatians 2, for example.) This is an academic method that has served the church very well. It requires everyone involved to clarify exactly what they mean. An ideal example of this was with the Canons of the Council of Trent. Although it took a couple of decades, the magisterium was able to very explicitly define the Protestant position. This is commendable for both "sides" as you call them -- for the Protestants to so clearly express their doctrines and for the Romanists to carefully use just those expressions. It might be a helpful exercise for you to read what Trent had to say. In Him, Doc |
||||||
139 | Church Fathers? Part IV | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243668 | ||
Hi, Ed... Assuming you really want to know: I cannot speak for everyone, of course. Most denominations do not hold to the infallibility of their leaders -- with, perhaps, the few that believe in moral perfectionism. Do Pentecostals believe that their pastors, teachers, etc. are infallible? Perhaps because of the high view of personal divine unction? I find that my own mind has often been ignorant of the truth, resistant to the truth, or entirely denied the truth. By the grace of God, I learned something of the truth when He saved me. But the process of becoming informed, ferreted out the lie, and submitting to the Word, is an ongoing process. I continue to pour over the Scriptures myself, and listen to others who have done so, putting it all to the test, and holding to what is good (Isaiah 8:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). If the pastors and teachers are given for this purpose (Ephesians 4), then it is my objective to listen to them (2 Timothy 4:2); i.e., to be ready to be reproved, rebuked, and exhorted. Over time I have noticed that I find some teachers to be more sound than others. I can give a couple of examples: I was very blessed by A. W. Tozer when I first came to the Lord. Yet, over time, I found that there seemed to be greater depth from Charles Spurgeon. I later began to appreciate Richard Baxter, but over time, I found some of his teaching questionable. Then I learned about John Owen, for whom I continue to have much respect -- even though reading him is like drinking from a fire hose. Chapter 1 of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, says it pretty well: "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 28:23)" Thus, the old theologians were even including themselves! Thus, if someone confesses that "Jesus Christ is Lord" then it does not matter who they are or what they are, insofar as that statement, as I understand the words to mean, they are expressing the truth. Of course, as we interact with people more, and they start to define those words in ways that are not consistent with the Word, then we may begin to doubt their veracity. I don't know how it is in Pentecostalism -- I keep reading what I can find here and there -- but this is how it is for the Reformed, holding to the doctrine of sola Scriptura. I answered your question about doctrine; what we do arises directly from what we believe. Have we always chosen to do what is pleasing to the Lord? I do not think so. However, we work on it as our heads, hearts, habits, and hands are brought into the light of the Word. God is so gracious to have given us two thousand years of His Spirit's work in the church by which we are able to learn. In Him, Doc |
||||||
140 | Church Fathers? Part V | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243661 | ||
"V. The orthodox (although they hold the fathers in great estimation and think them very useful to a knowledge of the history of the ancient church, and our opinion on cardinal doctrines may agree with them) yet deny that their authority, whether as individuals or taken together, can be called authoritative in matters of faith and the interpretation of the Scriptures, so that by their judgment we must stand or fall. Their authority is only ecclesiastical and subordinate to the Scriptures and of no weight except so far as they agree with them. [As does you, me, and any who seek to speak God's truth]" --Francis Turretin, from his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology" (1992-1997) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [302] >> |