As iron sharpens iron,
one person sharpens another. (Proverbs 27:17)
I’ve come across a doctrine that stipulates the saints are never under wrath prior to conversion. It seems to be coming from the US. Has anyone come across this and do you have any idea where it originates?
Quote: ”Those Christ died for are never in a condemned state before God.
They were never under God’s wrath at any time because their sins
have been charged to Christ in their behalf: God is propitiated.”
Thanks in advance.
In Joshua 22:10-34, the eastern tribes constructed an altar which they said reminded them of their unity with the other tribes. Was this a good thing, a bad thing, or what? Comments welcome.
(Thanks, Jim Peet, for the idea)
Poll Results
Was the altar in Joshua 22 good, evil, neutral, or ambiguous?
“OK, men, everyone gather around, and let’s get this football season under way,” Coach Paul deTarsus bellowed out.
As the young recruits swaggered over, jostling each other manfully, Coach deTarsus continued gruffly, “This year the school steering committee has asked us to try a totally new approach to the game developed by a new assistant coach they’ve hired for me—Coach Terry Trzwijiasck. He wants you to call him Double T, so do it.” With that, the grizzled old coach turned to a young fellow standing nearby: “Double T,” he said, “They’re all yours.”
As one, the recruits turned to give their attention to Double T.
The new coach smiled winsomely and began speaking. “I know that you’re used to working hard, striving to meet the team’s high standards, and knowing the rulebook and playbook from cover to cover. But this year, we’re trying a new approach,” he said. “And the key to the new approach is to remind yourselves over and again that your coaching staff accepts you no matter what. Win or lose, we accept you. Fumbles or first downs, we accept you. Turnovers or touchdowns, we accept you. And when you’re laying flat on your back after you’ve missed that game-saving tackle, don’t despair. Just remind yourself one more time that we accept you. Winning is fine, but when it’s all done, it’s not about what you do. All that matters is that we accept you. Any comments or questions?”
Not interested in a debate with those that disagree with premillennialism thanks.
Anyways trying to do my book and am stuck on a page and the following passages. Perhaps I am stuck because I am reading from the NIV when a NKJV would be more technical and may pinpoint the locations more clearly.
Mic 2:12
Isa 34:1-8
Zechariah 14:4
Rev 18:10,17,19
Joel 3:12
Zechariah 12:10
Rev 16:12-16
Zechariah 14:2
If you grew up in American evangelicalism, like I did, your grasp of church history, especially of the church fathers, may be relatively weak. Like a good fundamentalist, I grew up knowing all about D.L. Moody, George Whitfield, and Billy Sunday. I also had heard of Martin Luther and John Calvin, although I had more suspicion of them. But the church fathers were Roman Catholics from who knows when, and they didn’t have anything to teach me.
This idea, mind you, was “caught,” not “taught.” Church history has much to teach us, and the church fathers wouldn’t so easily fit into the mold of Catholicism as we know it. The early church fathers, especially, are worthy of study, and to them we owe thanks for an orthodox understanding and articulation of such important doctrines as the deity of Christ, the Trinity, and the deity of the Holy Spirit.
Basil of Caesarea (329-379 AD), a Greek-speaking Bishop in what is now Turkey, was so important a figure in the fight for biblical orthodoxy, that he is remembered as Basil the Great. He may be the most significant church father that most people haven’t heard of. Athanasius gets more notoriety for defending the Trinity contra mundum (against the world), but Basil was right there with him. Basil’s writings against the Arians, and his work On the Holy Spirit, helped to provide the church with some of the terminology that would eventually make up the orthodox definition of the Trinity: “one essence, but three persons.”
Some folks at SI have been discussing Paul Henebury’s review of Chisholm’s new commentary on Judges, which I do not personally own (although I love Leon Wood’s, which Henebury also respects). The question came up about Jephthah’s daughter from Judges 11.
[amazon 1433539675 thumbnail]
Ours is an age of conferences. Dozens of conferences vie for our attention, from a variety of ministries. For those who cannot attend, livestreaming is a way to experience the thrill from afar. Another common way to expand the reach of a conference is to turn the series of messages into a book. The success of such books is usually limited, but in this book we have an exception.
It may seem odd to suggest that the book entitled Apocalupsis in Greek does not belong to the genre of literature commonly referred to as apocalyptic; nonetheless that is my suggestion here. The term employed in the title of the book denotes a revelation or disclosure.1 While this particular revealing or disclosing describes a broad swathe of eschatological events, it is not its own literary genre.
Apocalyptic as a genre is described as “characteristically pseudonymous; it takes narrative form, employs esoteric language, expresses a pessimistic view of the present, and treats the final events as imminent.”2 Henry Barclay Swete (Cambridge), even while arguing that Revelation is apocalyptic literature, admits that the book differs from that genre in that the book of Revelation (1) is not pseudepigraphic, (2) it engages a specific audience (seven churches), (3) has a significant church focus, rather than a purely Israel nation-centered focus, and (4) includes notes of insight and foresight that are more indicative of inspiration than is found in earlier extra-biblical apocalyptic literature.3
(
Discussion