IntenseDebate - puritanreformed

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - Sermon: Tim Keller on ... · 0 replies · +1 points

> but meaning is derived through the process of interpretation.

So are we denying the existance of an objective meaning dictated by the text, and propogating reader response theory? Of course, it is is human beings that do the interpretation, but since when has procedures dictate intent and meaning?

Speaking of which, if "texts do not interpret themselves", then upon what basis can you intend your comment to convey the same meaning to me as you wish to express it?

With regards to Scripture and biblical authority, Scripture IS the final authority, and is perspicuous

And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. (2 Peter 1:19-21. Bold added)

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - http://puritanreformed... · 0 replies · +1 points

You are kidding, right? Good preachers "do the exegesis in their prepration, not from the pulpit"?

I'll be very generous to you. Show me any place in Scripture whereby pastors are to label the 20 types of negative people. I eagerly await your scriptural proof for such a feat.

Lastly, show me where in the Scriptures are pastors told to "be themselves", and where is such an activity a valid mitigating reason for not preaching the Word of God? Unless you want to defend the notion that pastors can don't preach the Word of God in their sermons, but their life experiences, in which please defend THAT position from Scripture also.

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - http://puritanreformed... · 0 replies · +1 points

James:

I have listened to the whole sermon. After attacking the sheep and detailing 20 kinds of negative, whatever self-criticism comes across as damage control. I guess you have not experience the shpherding movement at all?

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - http://puritanreformed... · 1 reply · +1 points

I agree.

1) According to JP, the believer only needs to hold fast his righteousness, then he becomes righteous. When a believer thinks of sin, then he starts to sin..
2) According to JP, the Holy Spirit is to convict us of our righteousness.

Needless to say, both of these are heretical nonsense from the very pit of hell itself.

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - Misquoted verses: Jame... · 0 replies · +1 points

It's the stupid comment system. I am considering changing the system

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - Misquoted verses: Jame... · 0 replies · +1 points

6) Why not? Is "fake faith" really faith? The Bible's understanding is no.
7) No, they are not the same, a fact you constantly refuse to acknowledge. There are not two definitions, for the reason which I have mentioned over and over again that Gen. 15:6 is not defined in Jas 2:23. Your reasoning if applied consistently would make Zeus = YHWH in Acts 17. What does Paul mean in quoting the pagan poets? How can you say that the phrase has two different definitions - the pagan definition referring to Zeus, and the Christian one to YHWH?
8) There is no definition of dikiaoo in Jas 2:23, as I have repeated over and over again.

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - Misquoted verses: Jame... · 0 replies · +1 points

1) Utterly irrelevant. Tenses are to be interpreted in context also.
2) That's what you have yet to prove. Fact is, James is talking to professing believers
3) It is not absurd, since we are talking about professing believers, who may or may not be true believers
4) Nope, you miss the entire context. You insist on reading your RC beliefs into the text - a practice called eisegesis.
5) Why not? That is a mere assertion which is not even true since language can be used in such a manner, ie. "show me" can = "prove to me"

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - The nature of justific... · 0 replies · +1 points

> Who said Abraham was justified in Gen 15:6? Paul and many other Protestants I can think of (including White).

That's where you aren't reading. Protestants say that is the formal ratification of Abraham's justification, not the material ratification. Ditto for David.

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - The nature of justific... · 0 replies · +1 points

You said: "I'm giving a reason, the "day of judgment" and contrasted to "condemn" are legal terms and thus legal context to me. "
AND
"I dont see any passage of Scripture standing up to dikaioo in a legal context."

Please resolve your contradiction. Which one of your contradictory assertions are true?

14 years ago @ Daniel's Place - ... - The nature of justific... · 0 replies · +1 points

> The plain reading is this takes place in the future, hence the day of judgement

So according to your reasoning, Rom. 8:29-30 teaches that all believers are glorified already? After all, all the verbs in Rom. 8:30 is past tense.

> Dikaioo needs a definition here

I am not going to repeat myself again. Please inform me why Acts 17:27-28 does not refer to Zeus.

> That's not my point, my point is using your standards,

Show me where did I say that all mention of dikaio- must refer to a legal context. If you cannot, then you are misrepresenting my position.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with puritanreformed

People I'm following

puritanreformed