Simplificare? Simplism? Firul roșu al Bibliei în 16 versete?
Cu această ocazie iată și cele mai populare versete ale anului 2014:
Și pentru că tot este începutul anului și citim Biblia într-un singur an, iată cîteva idei pentru cei care doresc să facă acest lucru pentru prima dată AICI
Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is known for making aggressive New Year’s Resolutions, and apparently keeping them. For 2015, he plans to become a bookworm, reading a book every other week. His plan may include the Bible:
My challenge for 2015 is to read a new book every other week — with an emphasis on learning about different cultures, beliefs, histories and technologies. . . . Rachel Brown, Bill Munns, Marlo Kanipe and others suggested I read the Bible.
Maybe the Bible won’t make the cut — it’s pretty tough to read it in two weeks even when you aren’t running one of the nation’s largest companies — but it definitely fits the bill for “learning about different cultures, beliefs, histories. . . .” So as as thanks (/punishment) for founding Facebook, I’d like to offer him — and any other new Bible readers out there — some Bible-reading tips.
Un excelent interviu cu Randy Alcorn AICI
For example, an Arminian says, “People have the freedom to choose as they wish.” A Calvinist responds, “Oh, so you don’t believe people have sin natures or that God is sovereign?” Shocked, the Arminian responds, “What? I believe in both!” The Calvinist insists, “No, you don’t,” because he doesn’t understand that what to him are logical conclusions to the Arminian’s statement arenot logical conclusions to the Arminian!
Similarly the Arminian hears the Calvinist say, “God elects people to salvation and empowers them to believe.” The Arminian concludes, “Then you don’t believe people have the ability to make choices; you think they’re robots, and there’s no point in prayer, evangelism and missions.” In his mind, all these are perfectly logical conclusions to the Calvinist’s statement. But they are notwhat the Calvinist believes! That’s why we need to ask a person what they believe and listen to their answer, asking clarifying questions, instead of reducing them to a theological stereotype.
Both Calvinists and Arminians say “God is sovereign,” but mean different things by sovereign. The same goes for the term “free will.” When Calvinists and Arminians use these terms in conversation without understanding what it means to the other person, miscommunication is inevitable. Then tensions rise, and soon one or both are frustrated and defensive.
I’ve heard Calvinists argue against saying “God allows” because they think “God causes” is more biblical and consistent with his sovereignty.
But what does the Bible say? Of course, there are “God determines” passages, such as Romans 9:18, but there are also the “God allows” passages. For instance, an ax head flies from its handle and kills someone. So what does God say? “If [the man] does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate” (Exodus 21:13, ESV). It doesn’t say God caused the accident but rather “lets it happen.” The term “let” or “allow” or “permit” are all good translations. Or, take Mark 5:12-13, where demons beg Jesus to send them into a herd of pigs and Jesus “gave them permission.” God said of disobedient people, “I let them become defiled” (Ezekiel 20:26).
Similarly, Arminians should accept the language of determinism whenever Scripture uses it. God told Abimelech, “I have kept you from sinning against me” (Genesis 20:6). When casting out demons, Jesus “would not allow them to speak” (Luke 4:41).
I like what you say, Trevin, about being willing to sound more Calvinist or Arminian depending on the passage of Scripture we’re explaining. Let’s not posture ourselves and worry about whether we sound Calvinistic or Arminian, but focus on whether we are being biblical. Since Scripture uses the indirect “allow,” “permit,” or “let” along with the direct “cause” and “make,” I think we should do the same. Don’t we need both kinds of words to get the full biblical picture?
Știați că Marcion este responsabil că avem Noul Testament atît de supraevaluat în dauna Vechiului TEstament .Predicăm 75% din timp din 25% din Scripturi. Iată un articolaș despre Marcion AICI.
Că tot am vorbit toată săptămîna de libertăți, să cumpănim și alt punct de vedere.
The legalization of same-sex marriage cannot and will not infringe upon religious liberty, he claims, because such laws “do not pertain to religious services or what happens in a church, temple or mosque; no clergy member will be compelled to preside over gay nuptials. Civil weddings are covered. That’s it.”
The really chilling part of his statement is the restriction of religious liberty to “religious services or what happens in a church, temple, or mosque.” This is becoming more and more common, as major political and legal figures speak more and more of “freedom of worship” as a replacement for religious liberty. Religious liberty certainly includes freedom of worship, but it by no means stops there.
Furthermore, when the proponents of same-sex marriage and the new sexual revolution promise even to respect what goes on in a church, temple, or mosque, they evidently cannot keep their arguments straight. In the very same column, Bruni complains that religious congregations are given too much liberty to define their own ministry. He laments that “churches have been allowed to adopt broad, questionable interpretations of a ‘ministerial exception’ to anti-discrimination laws that allow them to hire and fire clergy as they wish.”
The front lines of the battle for religious liberty will be at the door of your congregation very soon, if this column is any indication — and it is. While promising to respect “freedom of worship,” Bruni openly implies that congregations should not have the right to hire and fire ministers or clergy on the basis of their sexual orientation or beliefs. What kind of liberty is that?
Vezi tot articolul AICI
Un articol emoționant. Sînt sigur că va naște gînduri contradictorii, dar merită citit cu mintea limpede. Vorba aceea: cine are o conștiință curată are o memorie foarte scurtă.
Teen dating does not prepare your child for marriage — I’ve never heard anyone say, “I’m so glad I dated as a teen and up until marriage. Those relationships really improved my God-honoring relationship with my husband.”
Teen dating says “Jesus Christ is not enough for me.” — when we put something or someone at a higher priority than the Lord, our relationships suffer; all of them.
Teens and teen parents, please listen to me!
The minor “life lessons” your teen may take away from a dating relationship are not worth the risk of falling into sexual sin and the affect those sins will have on the rest of their lives.
I understand that some teens may rebel against your “no dating” rule, but the Lord has commanded you to raise them with God honoring principles. The Lord has commanded you to protect them from and steer them away from sin, not to condone and promote the possibility of it.
But, if your child has been taught from early childhood that the Lord has the perfect mate for them, that waiting for your spouse is God-honoring and holy, and that the years and years of saying no to every member of the opposite sex will be beyond worth it when you can tell your spouse on your wedding night, “I waited for you.”
Citește tot AICI