Results 141 - 160 of 11018
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: DocTrinsograce Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | 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 |
||||||
142 | 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) |
||||||
143 | 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 |
||||||
144 | 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 |
||||||
145 | 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 |
||||||
146 | 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 |
||||||
147 | 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" |
||||||
148 | 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) |
||||||
149 | 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 |
||||||
150 | 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 |
||||||
151 | 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) |
||||||
152 | Special, Efficacious Love for God's Own | Gal 2:20 | DocTrinsograce | 243660 | ||
"Wherefore Paul saith here that Christ first began and not we. 'He loved me, and gave Himself for me.' As if he said, although He found in me no good will, or right understanding, this good Lord had mercy on me. He saw me to be nothing else but wicked, going astray, contemning God, and flying from Him more and more, carried away and led captive of the devil. Thus of His mere mercy… He loved me, and so loved me that He gave Himself for me, to the end that I might be freed from the law, sin, the devil and death. "Again, these words, 'the Son of God loved me, and gave Himself for me,' are mighty thunderings and lightnings from heaven against the righteousness of the law and all the works thereof. So great and horrible wickedness, error, darkness was in my will and understanding, that it was impossible for me to be ransomed by any other means than by such an inestimable price. "Let us consider well this price, and let us behold… the Son of God, ...and we shall see Him, without all comparison, to exceed and excel for creatures. "...If thou couldst rightly consider this incomparable price, thou shouldst hold as accursed all other ceremonies, vows, works, and merits before grace and after, and throw them all down to hell. For it is a horrible blasphemy to imagine that there is any work whereby thou shouldst presume to pacify God, since thou seest that there is nothing which is able to pacify Him but this inestimable price, even the death and the blood of the Son of God, one drop whereof is more precious than the whole world." --Marin Luther (1483-1546), from his Commentary on Galatians |
||||||
153 | Church Fathers? Part IV | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243659 | ||
"IV. There are three opinions among the papists as to the authority of the fathers. First, those who put them on an equality with the Scriptures: to which belong those decrees of the Glossator asserting, 'the writings of the fathers to be authentic, individually as well as collectively' (Dist. 9). Second (just the opposite), those who hold their writings to be merely human and therefore incapable of being a rule of faith. This was the opinion of Cajetan ('Praefatio,' Commentarii ... in quinque Mosaicos libros in Sacrae Scripturae [1639], vol. 1) and of the wiser papists. Third, those who, holding a middle ground, concede that the authority of individual fathers is human and fallible, but think that the common and universal consent of the fathers in controversies is infallible and divine. This was the opinion of the Council of Trent, affirming that 'the traditions of the fathers pertaining both to faith and practice must be received with an equal affection of piety with the Old and New Testaments' (Session 4, Schroeder, p. 17). And, in the same place, 'It prohibits anyone from daring to interpret the Scriptures contrary to that sense which the holy mother church has held, or now holds … or even against the unanimous consent of the fathers' (Session 4, Schroeder, p. 19). Most of the papists -- Stapleton, Bellarmine, Canus, Valentia and others -- agree with this." --Francis Turretin, from his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology" (1992-1997) |
||||||
154 | ...with all your mind... | Prov 15:14 | DocTrinsograce | 243658 | ||
"Why have we lost, or neglected [or even denigrated], the ability to disciple the mind for Christ? "In part, it may be that we have confused the need for a childlike faith (that is, an attitude of profound trust in God, and a faithful love for Him) with childish thinking. The apostle Paul, for one, had no confusion on this point. Reading any one of his epistles will show you that. And even Peter – the everyday workman, the fisherman – was no intellectual slouch, judging by his writings. What we have, everywhere in scripture, are profoundly intelligent teachings poured out from minds that are also inspired and centered in a love for God. "Step one generation away from the New Testament writers to meet the men who were discipled by the apostles and you will find treatises, apologies, and circular letters of stunning intelligence from those intensely devoted Church fathers. "Faith and a disciplined mental life were not natural enemies then. A well-informed mind held a place of honor. And it was believed that the Christian mind could be the best mind." --J. P. Moreland, from his book "Love Your God with All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul" (NavPress 1997) |
||||||
155 | "The Gospel for Real Life" | Rom 12:2 | DocTrinsograce | 243652 | ||
Free Book by Jerry Bridges... "Jerry Bridges explains how the Gospel has the power to continuously transform those who believe. It’s not only the gateway to salvation, but the pathway believers should walk daily to experience the fullness of life in Christ. "In a bold explanation of our sinful condition, Bridges makes clear our desperate need for a savior. He shows us how to live thankful, humble lives in acknowledgement that, through grace, our sin has been nailed to the cross. Giving a clear, easy-to-understand picture of sin and redemption, The Gospel for Real Life is a wonderful resource for believers at any level of maturity, and also a great help to those who've never read the Gospel, or don't understand what the Gospel truly is. "'This good news doesn’t begin when we die. It certainly does address that issue, but it also tells us that there is good news for us now. … We can begin each day with the deeply encouraging realization that I am accepted by God, not on the basis of my personal performance, but on the basis of the infinitely perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.'" --Jerry Bridges http://blog.truthforlife.org/the-gospel-for-real-life-by-jerry-bridges For those who read, this sounds like a good book. I'm going for it! |
||||||
156 | Church Fathers? Part III | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243651 | ||
"III. Although some extend their age down to the tenth century, we do not think it ought to be carried down further than the sixth. For it is certain that purity of doctrine and worship became greatly corrupted after the six hundredth year (in which Antichrist raised his head) -- error and superstitions increasing by the just judgment of God. In the first century after the death of the apostles, the principal fathers were Ignatius and Polycarp, fragments of whose writings are extant. In the second, Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. In the third, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius. In the fourth, Athanasius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Hilary of Poitiers, Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Ambrose, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, John Chrysostom. In the fifth, Augustine, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Hilary of Aries, Prosper of Aquitania, Leo I. In the sixth, Fulgentius the African, Gelasius (Cyzicus), Gregory the Great and others." --Francis Turretin, from his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology" (1992-1997) |
||||||
157 | God Provides Orthodoxy to His Own | Acts 13:26 | DocTrinsograce | 243650 | ||
Please, no more bigotry, Ed. It is unbecoming of you, contraindicated by your beliefs, and drives people from the forum. | ||||||
158 | church Fathers? Part II | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243649 | ||
"II. By 'the fathers; we do not mean with Augustine the apostles as the first founders and patriarchs of the Christian church (Psalm 45), but (in accordance with the present usage which is sanctioned by the ancients) the teachers of the primitive church who (after the death of the apostles) taught and illustrated the doctrine of salvation, orally and in writing. On account of age, they lived many years before our times; on account of doctrine (for by inculcating it upon their disciples), they begat sons to God in the church." --Francis Turretin, from his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology" (1992-1997) | ||||||
159 | Nothing New Under the Sun | Mark 13:22 | DocTrinsograce | 243646 | ||
"The the momentous success of Shabbateanism was a remarkable phenomenon. Born in Smyrna (Ismir), Shabbetai Zevi [1626-1676] moved to Jerusalem, then to Gaza where he met with an adept of Lurianic Kabbalah–Nathan Ashkenazi, called Nathan of Gaza. Nathan, receiving a revelation about the messianic role of his companion, became the prophet of the new Messiah. "The terminology he used was derived from Lurianic Kabbalah as well as from concepts of popular Jewish messianism. Although Shabbetai Zevi himself studied other kabbalistic trends and was averse to Lurianic theosophy, this did not affect the enormous success of Nathan’s propaganda. Within a very short time its impact was felt throughout the diaspora in processions of joy, acts of extreme mortification, and innumerable delegations who came to behold the Messiah. "This messianic agitation soon alarmed the Ottoman authorities. Summoned to appear before the sultan, Shabbetai Zevi was given a choice of apostasy or death. To the amazement of all his believers, the Messiah converted to Islam. His prophet Nathan immediately came up with an audacious kabbalist explanation: the Messiah has descended into the depths of the kelippah -- the realm of evil -- to conquer it from within. And so strong was the aspiration for redemption that neither the apostasy nor the death of Shabbetai Zevi destroyed the belief of his followers. "Among them we may distinguish two radical currents. In Greece the sect of the Doenmeh (Turkish for 'converts' or 'apostates') professed Islam in public but adhered to a mixture of traditional and heretical Judaism in secret, believing in the divinity of Shabbetai Zevi and practicing sexual license. This sect survived in Greece till 1924 and then moved to Turkey." --Rabbi Moshe Idel (2016) |
||||||
160 | Church Fathers? | Mark 7:9 | DocTrinsograce | 243645 | ||
"Are the writings of the fathers the rule of truth in doctrines of faith and in the interpretation of the Scriptures? We deny against the papists "I. Although from the preceding question we are already satisfied that the fathers cannot sit as judges in controversies of faith, yet because the papists frequently recur to them and are accustomed to obtrude upon us the consent of the fathers as a rule of truth, we must devote a separate question to this argument which is of the greatest importance in the controversies of the present day." --Francis Turretin, from his "Institutes of Elenctic Theology" (1992-1997) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [551] >> |