Chester that was not hard.
Really, you were not being hard on Hervosmies - What about the "on with your meanless attacks . . ." and "your bias blinds you" - you mean I have to take back my red angry face! that was too much fun . . .
Chester that was not hard.
I don't care if you leave it or not that is your opinion and have the right to it. I'm sure you have more context to the person in question than I, as I can see all that everyone saysReally, you were not being hard on Hervosmies - What about the "on with your meanless attacks . . ." and "your bias blinds you" - you mean I have to take back my red angry face! that was too much fun . . .
I don't care if you leave it or not that is your opinion and have the right to it. I'm sure you have more context to the person in question than I, as I can see all that everyone saysand speak from the position on knowing. But you are entitled to your comments
It's probably best to just ask one of us prophets if you're unsure of the divine will and purpose.
That's what we're here for...
You do know ive grown around pentecostals and attended?your bias blinds you. and your attacks on Pentecostals who you disagree with show your unlearned in biblical doctrine. As Pentecostal and bible school grad, I know first hand of Systematic Theology. I humbly remind you that you did not explain what systematic Theology is, I did. A Pentecostal of over 35 years and still reaching into more educational Theologically. If you knew then you are a troll if you did not know as you stated you did not know; you have been enlightened by Pentecostal. Yes, you are wrong in your bet. The proof was given to you in my answer here. Now on with your meanless attacks.
Which is best, or which is correct?
Does one study a particular text to determine what is overall Biblical doctrine?
OR
Does one use overall Biblical doctrine to determine the meaning of a particular text?
Amen,I think systematic theology is great - it is simply an organized way to present the truths gained from an exegetical study of the Bible.
But please do not take your (or your denominations's ) systematic theology and use it to interpret Scripture.
You will have to be more specific: I looked at I John 3 and am not sure what verse or phrase you mean?
Or maybe many formulate theology doctrines based on what they believe the bible says?FYI, all denominations have theology were they formulate doctrine from. Including Yours. lol
Some people just can not handle when anyone disagrees with them bro. Best not to take some of them seriously.You do know ive grown around pentecostals and attended?
Thats why I made the guess, they never discuss theology from the pulpit. Its mostly practical preaching and short sermons, LOONG worship services tho.
Attacks LOL. I dont care if you're a moderator, i didnt write that as an attack, if you thought it was, man you are soft...
I have said jokes about calvinism many times here too. In fact here is one:
Calvinist is never early, nor is he late, he shows up just when he is predestined to!
Or maybe many formulate theology doctrines based on what they believe the bible says?
Amen! I call that the isolate, build and ignore method of interpretation. Isolate a pet verse, build doctrine on it, then ignore the overall full message from the entire Bible on the matter. Some will also try their best to force the rest of scripture to "conform" to their biased interpretation of a pet verse. It's called flawed hermeneutics. We need to rightly divide the word of truth and properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine.Doctrine should only be affirmed when it is supported by the overall message of the Bible..
Too many people establish a doctrine by just one verse of scripture interpreted in isolation without taking into account the full message of the entire Bible on the matter.
Amen! I call that the isolate, build and ignore method of interpretation. Isolate a pet verse, build doctrine on it, then ignore the overall full message from the entire Bible on the matter. Some will also try their best to force the rest of scripture to "conform" to their biased interpretation of a pet verse. It's called flawed hermeneutics. We need to rightly divide the word of truth and properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching our conclusion on doctrine.
Doctrine should only be affirmed when it is supported by the overall message of the Bible..
Too many people establish a doctrine by just one verse of scripture interpreted in isolation without taking into account the full message of the entire Bible on the matter.
I believe there are many interpretations of scriptureDo you accept there is more than one interpretation of scripture?
Some want to argue "theirs" is the only one, like they have the hotline to God ...... oooooo
Actually it makes me laugh, some say
"Prophets do not exist anymore, or the gifts,
but I uniquely can tell you what this passage alone means from God"
which is what prophetic ministry is, lol. Bit of a problem when you get it wrong though.
And ideas have fruit, and the fruit can show the error of the interpretation though it might appear innocent.
So if I say future sin is forgiven, how can this be? I do not know what future sin I will do, or when or if.
As it has not come into being, how can I be forgiven.
But the future sin forgiven concept means the consequences of that sin are not important.
And that is evil and irresponsible. We as the people of God are responsible for our sin, much more so if
we walk with Him. And our witness is as we love the King this sin grieves us so, so we will do anything
to put it right, like David did with Bathsheba.
Now this is just one example I can follow, but if I am wrong, I am open to correction, because that is
the point of growing in grace and truth, we are always open.
There indeed is a penalty to pay for our sins.. People suffer for their sins on earth.. God says He disciplines His Children.. people can be scared for life because of their former sins and face great worldly penalties for the sins of today.. But when it comes to an Eternal consequence for sin that has been removed for those who believe Jesus and trust in the Atonement that pays the Eternal penalty due upon us for our transgressions against Gods will..
People who agree with the will of God, that it is good will naturally avoid sinning against his will.. They will not use the grace of God as a license to sin.. But inevitably we all sin because we are weak and faulty human beings..
David lost his first son from Bathsheba that was the price he had to pay along with the shame of having his sin exposed to the people around him.. Because He did not resist the conviction God put upon him through the prophet Nathan.. But he quickly acknowledged his sin without resistance..
2 Samuel 12: KJV
13 "And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die."
I believe there are many interpretations of scripture
But the fact is, there is only 1 interpretation which is correct.
God is not the author of confusion.
We are held accountable to test all spirit. To study to shew ourselves approved, RIGHTLY DIVIDING the word of truth.
If our interpretation or theology is wrong. All we can do is pray it does not affect us much or take us out of being affective for God. If our gospel is wrong. We are doomed (headed to hell and do not even know it) and a wrong doctrinal stance on certain positions or doctrines can lead to devistation and fights and extreme hatred if we are too proud to admit or to at least confess we have to be open that we are wrong.