Results 121 - 140 of 5155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | An Old Contra-Biblical Doctrine | John 16:14 | EdB | 243678 | ||
One counterfeit explaining why another counterfeit is a counterfeit. We are told to make disciples instead we wangle over philosophies of man. Each theology always made a point of saying why they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Where their strengths exist and where everyone else weakness lies. |
||||||
122 | Worldly Extremes | 1 John 2:11 | EdB | 243677 | ||
Interesting use of labels. A lot of explanation but based on opinion and assumptions. I wonder how Jesus would explain it, I doubt Jesus would have used even one label. |
||||||
123 | Church Fathers? Part V | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243673 | ||
I think I understand the meaning of the word elenctic. Thanks! The problem is man disproving another man’s position using man’s logic. That is like saying this counterfeit dollar bill is more counterfeit than that one. To teach people to identify counterfeit money they have them handle genuine money, once they get use to handling the genuine they can immediately detect a fake bill. Likewise I no longer want to handle the counterfeit teaching of man or his theology I want to handle the truth found in scripture. Not man’s interpretation of scripture but instead what scripture really said. No changes in context, not changes in sentence structure, no changes in word meaning. I take a literal translation unless it is impossible to do so because it conflicts with established truths of scripture. |
||||||
124 | Church Fathers? Part V | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243672 | ||
Sorry posted to wrong thread | ||||||
125 | Church Fathers? Part IV | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243671 | ||
The word infallible conveys the idea of being not open to discussion as in, this is the doctrine of the denomination. Do you consider the Canon of scripture infallible? At first blush you would probably I certainly do not. Yet I think is it safe to say you think it is so accurate you do not question it. No Pentecostals do not hold to infallibly but yet we do believe that our doctrinal truths are certain as stated by church leadership. To doubt those statements of beliefs would put us outside the beliefs of Pentecostalism and therefore no longer Pentecostal. I believe the same holds true for you. You hold the tenets of faith of Calvinism as truths therefore defining you as a Calvinist. If however you if denied Calvin’s tulips you could no longer be considered a Calvinist. So you have to believe those concepts are true. Are they infallible? No but in effect that is how you treat them do you not? Here is a quote from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm which makes the point perhaps better. “Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?†|
||||||
126 | Church Fathers? Part V | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243670 | ||
Doc The word infallible conveys the idea of being not open to discussion as in, this is the doctrine of the denomination. Do you consider the Canon of scripture infallible? At first blush you would probably I certainly do not. Yet I think is it safe to say you think it is so accurate you do not question it. No Pentecostals do not hold to infallibly but yet we do believe that our doctrinal truths are certain as stated by church leadership. To doubt those statements of beliefs would put us outside the beliefs of Pentecostalism and therefore no longer Pentecostal. I believe the same holds true for you. You hold the tenets of faith of Calvinism as truths therefore defining you as a Calvinist. If however you if denied Calvin’s tulips you could no longer be considered a Calvinist. So you have to believe those concepts are true. Are they infallible? No but in effect that is how you treat them do you not? Here is a quote from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm which makes the point perhaps better. “Without infallibility there could be no finality regarding any one of the great truths which have been identified historically with the very essence of Christianity; and it is only with those who believe in historical Christianity that the question need be discussed. Take, for instance, the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation. If the early Church was not infallible in her definitions regarding these truths, what compelling reason can be alleged today against the right to revive the Sabellian, or the Arian, or the Macedonian, or the Apollinarian, or the Nestorian, or the Eutychian controversies, and to defend some interpretation of these mysteries which the Church has condemned as heretical?†|
||||||
127 | Equality in God's eyes | Gal 6:6 | EdB | 243667 | ||
God does not put a premium on the educator he puts a premium on equality. He then goes on and warnsGalatians 6:7-10 (NKJV) 7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. 8 For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith. |
||||||
128 | Church Fathers? Part V | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243666 | ||
“ 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,†Again does this not depend on which side you stand? If early church fathers interpretation of scripture agrees with yours most will say see even the early church fathers agree with me so on that authority it is correct. But it their interpretation disagree with yours most will day they are only men and not infallible. Scripture provided a boundary for us. If an interpretation falls within that boundary without modification of words, modification of sentence structure, without abandoning context or without violating a clear explanation else where in scripture, which of us was given the authority to call it false teaching. |
||||||
129 | Church Fathers? Part IV | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243665 | ||
Does not that all depend on which side of the line your are standing. If there is two sides of the interpretation of scripture can not either side claim the other is trying to supersede scripture with their interpretation. Then if either position accepted by some can it not be said they are acting as if it is infallible? If someone is in a denomination that holds church only on Saturday night instead of Sunday morning can’t someone that disagrees say you are acting like your denomination leaders are infallible? To be a member of a denomination the worships only on Saturday don’t you for all practical purposes have to agree that the decision to do so was correct or infallible? |
||||||
130 | Education treasured but not worshipped | Eccl 4:1 | EdB | 243664 | ||
Education is to be treasured but it should never be used to in an attempt to gain superiority over someone. Christians are instructed to do unto others as they would have others do unto them. Elitism is easy to detect and very distasteful to be seen in those that try to use education to bull over others. There is a lot of erroneous theology that some attempt to support with man’s education rather than God’s truth. Some try to limit a limitless God, remove parts of the Holy Spirits ministry and even totally disregard words clearly used in scripture, and often they do this by saying if you had my superior education you would see the error of your ways. |
||||||
131 | God Provides Orthodoxy to His Own | Acts 13:26 | EdB | 243663 | ||
I fail to see where I was intolerant. I expressed my admiration for the doctrine of faith that was expressed, that to me had an appearance of following the truth rather than merely following a concept developed by man. |
||||||
132 | Build on your own foundation | 1 Cor 3:10 | EdB | 243657 | ||
Many of us, alas are happy to get the scraps that are left over from another man's ministry. But Paul built upon no man's foundation. Leonard Ravenhil |
||||||
133 | Vision of God not intellect | Prov 29:18 | EdB | 243656 | ||
Quote by Leonard Ravenhill | ||||||
134 | Vision of God not intellect | Prov 29:18 | EdB | 243655 | ||
Proverbs 29:18 (NASB) 18 Where there is no vision, the people are unrestrained, But happy is he who keeps the law. No man lives beyond his vision. Heavy-minded theologians cannot break open the iron curtains of superstition and darkness behind which, for millenniums, millions have perished. Only men with less breadth of intellect, maybe, but with more depth of vision can do that. |
||||||
135 | Church Fathers? Part III | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243654 | ||
I still think the real church fathers were the men and women that committed their lives to making disciples and passing the truth of Gospels on to following generations. Most of these people, names long forgotten, gave everything for Christ. Many suffered horrible deaths, starved, were murdered, mistreated, mocked and never made a name for themselves other than mockingly being call a Christian. There were many renowned men of the church as you mentioned but I doubt their contribution to the forwarding of the church was greater than any of those unnamed faithful servants. Matthew 6:4 (NKJV) 4 that your charitable deed may be in secret and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly. Matthew 6:6 (NKJV) 6 But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly. I think these verses convey the idea I am trying to make. |
||||||
136 | God Provides Orthodoxy to His Own | Acts 13:26 | EdB | 243653 | ||
Bigotry???? I thought I was praising their view of scripture. Sounded like theology that I agreed with I don't see the bigotry. |
||||||
137 | Church Fathers? | Mark 7:9 | EdB | 243648 | ||
I disagree in an effort to combat being in submission to Rome the reformers in fact did throw the baby out with the bath water The disciples were charged with making disciples and those disciples were likewise charged with making more disciples. The idea had it not been stopped made have converted the earth by now to Christianity. Two things interrupted that process man and greed. In an effort to cleanse themselves from Jews third and following generations devised a hatred for Judaism. This made us lose many aspects of worship that were rooted in the early Christian church fathers. Greed man wanted to control his own destiny, if you will, this included money matters, matters of marriage and divorce, heirs to political positions, heirs to thrones. Man wanted power so instead of making disciples man tried to gain power by controlling religion. They developed the concept of the Clergy and Laity, implying clergy had higher ranking in the grand scheme of things. All of this worked together to pit man against the what ever was over him. So man started to reject all authority and developed the idea he could decide for himself what God said. In the name of liberty man enslaved himself to secular authority rather than subjecting himself to religious authority. Hence we live in a social environment where God is mocked, churches are empty, and millions of babies are aborted. Yet we can not say this wrong unless we want to be labeled intolerant, often by mainline secular churches that claim reformed teaching. |
||||||
138 | God Provides Orthodoxy to His Own | Acts 13:26 | EdB | 243647 | ||
Sound like great Ariminians! And rigid anti Calvinist. Great to hear! | ||||||
139 | Teaching and Being Taught | Deut 32:2 | EdB | 243641 | ||
My objection to Dr. Trueman’s quote was the statement, “For such is the proper order of things, if teaching is truly about truth and not about power or making disciples.†Matthew 28:19 (NASB) 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Jesus expected His disciples to do greater things than He. John 14:12 (NKJV) 12 "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. So having a student do greater has nothing to do with disciple making, it is the natural progression of Christianity or should be. My objection to Metaphysical-ism in relation to religion is the concept that people can bring things into reality by merely speaking, much like God speaking creation into existence. Caught up in this metaphysical nonsense are people like Shirley McClain who once explained that her daughter’s death by burning to death was her fault because she voiced the concern of getting in a car accident, being trapped and burned to death. McClain’s taught that she viewed her daughter’s death as enviable because she had Metaphysically spoken it into existence. Pure hogwash! Psychobabble (a portmanteau of "psychology" or "psychoanalysis" and "babble") is a form of speech or writing that uses psychological jargon, buzzwords, and esoteric language to create an impression of truth or plausibility. The term implies that the speaker or writer lacks the experience and understanding necessary for the proper use of psychological terms. Wikipedia Metaphysics Metaphysics is a traditional branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it, although the term is not easily defined. A person who studies metaphysics is called a metaphysician. Wikipedia Perhaps I would should have said Hogwash instead of Psychobabble. But I consider it babble by someone that does not know what they are talking about trying to get into someone’s head as an intellectual. |
||||||
140 | Sola Scriptura in China | Deut 17:11 | EdB | 243639 | ||
Good doctrine, Too bad it is not adhered to by everyone that claims sola scripture. I especially like the last sentence. And the one right before it speaks tons about where they are coming from. Great statement of faith! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [258] >> |