George Galis la TVRi (Bucuresti 2009)…si faze din Biblioteca

Vizionati interviul Pastorului George Galis, realizat de Stela Nacu, realizator emisiunii „Lumea si Noi” la TVRi (Televiziunea Romana Internationala) in vizita ei la Chicago in anul 2009. Interviul a fost transmis in Romania, Europa, Australia, si Nord America.

George Galis este Pastor fondator al Bisericii Philadelphia Romanian Church of God din Chicago Illinois.  Actualmente, Pastorul Senior al Bisericii Philadelphia este Bishop Florin Cimpean. In anul 1971, George Galis a sosit in Statele Unite ca emigrant, s-a stabilit in orasul Chicago, de unde a facut chemari si garantii prin Ambasadele guvernelor Americane, Romane, si straine (cu lagare in Germania, Austria, si Italia) la peste 5,000 de persoane. Prin aportul si munca lui neobosita, dinsul a primit si a ajutat familii si indivizi din diferite denominatiuni (Penticostali, Baptisti, Crestini dupa Evanghelie, Adventisti, Ortodocsi,etc) pentru a se stabili in Statele Unite ale Americii..

In acest video puteti viziona interviul doamnei Stela Nacu si  secvente filmate din biblioteca Tatalui meu.
http://blip.tv/file/4614881/

 preluat de la Romanian Television Network.(Mii de multumiri Presedintelui RTN Petru Amarei)

Reclame

The Hole in Our Holiness by Kevin DeYoung

I read this back in November, before I started this blog and I think it can be very useful to us.

It is a post written by Kevin DeYoung (Pastor at University Reformed Church in East Lansing, Michigan) for the Gospel Coalition website.

The Hole in Our Holiness

Posted: 23 Nov 2010 03:55 AM PST

I have a growing concern that younger evangelicals do not take seriously the Bible’s call to personal holiness. We are too at peace with worldliness in our homes, too at ease with sin in our lives, too content with spiritual immaturity in our churches.

God’s mission in the world is to save a people and sanctify his people. Christ died “that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised” (2 Cor. 5:15). We were chosen in Christ “before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him” (Eph. 1:4). Christ “loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her…so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish” (Eph. 5:25-27). Christ “gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14).

J.C. Ryle, the Bishop of Liverpool from the nineteenth century, was right: “We must be holy, because this is one grand end and purpose for which Christ came into the world…Jesus is a complete Saviour. He does not merely take away the guilt of a believer’s sin, He does more–He breaks its power (1 Pet. 1:2; Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 12:10).” My fear is that as we rightly celebrate, and in some quarters rediscover, all that Christ saved us from, we will give little thought and make little effort concerning all that Christ saved us to.

The pursuit of holiness does not occupy the place in our hearts that it should. There are several reasons for the relative neglect of personal holiness.

1) It was too common in the past to equate holiness with abstaining from a few taboo practices like drinking, smoking, and dancing. In a previous generation godliness meant you didn’t do these things. Younger generations have little patience for these sorts of rules. They either don’t agree with the rules or they figure they’ve got those bases covered so there’s not much else to worry about.

2) Related to the first reason is the fear that a passion for holiness makes you some kind of weird holdover from a bygone era. As soon as you talk about swearing or movies or music or modesty or  sexual purity or self-control or just plain godliness people get nervous that others will call them legalistic, or worse, a fundamentalist.

3) We live in a culture of cool, and to be cool means you differentiate yourself from others. That has often meant pushing the boundaries with language, with entertainment, with alcohol, and with fashion. Of course, holiness is much more than these things, but in an effort to be hip many Christians have figured holiness has nothing to do with these things. They’ve willingly embraced Christian freedom, but they’ve not earnestly pursued Christian virtue.

4) Among more liberal Christians a radical pursuit of holiness is often suspect because any talk of right and wrong behaviors feels judgmental and intolerant. If we are to be “without spot or blemish” it necessitates we distinguish between what sort of attitudes, actions, and habits are pure and what sort are impure. This sort of sorting gets you in trouble with the pluralism police.

5) Among conservative Christians there is sometimes the mistaken notion that if we are truly gospel-centered we won’t talk about rules or imperatives or exhort Christians to moral exertion. To be sure, there is a rash of moralistic teaching out there, but sometimes we go to the other extreme and act as if the Bible shouldn’t advise our morals at all. We are so eager not to confuse indicatives and imperatives (a point I’ve made many times) that if we’re not careful we’ll drop the imperatives altogether. We’ve been afraid of words like diligence, effort, and obedience. We’ve downplayed verses that call us to work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), or command us to cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit (2 Cor. 7:1), or warn against even a hint of immorality among the saints (Eph. 5:3).

I find it telling that you can find plenty of young Christians today who are really excited about justice and serving in their communities. You can find Christians fired up about evangelism. You can find lots of Generation XYZ believers passionate about precise theology. Yes and amen to all that. But where are the Christians known for their zeal for holiness? Where is the corresponding passion for honoring Christ with Christlike obedience? We need more Christian leaders on our campuses, in our cities, in our seminaries who will say with Paul, “Look carefully then how you walk”? (Eph. 5:15).

When is the last time we took a verse like Ephesians 5:4–“Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving”–when is the last time we took a verse like this and even began to try to apply this to our conversation, our joking, our movies, our you tube clips, our t.v. and commercial intake? The fact of the matter is if you read through the New Testament epistles you will find very few explicit commands that tell us to evangelize and very few explicit commands that tell us to take care of the poor in our communities, but there are dozens and dozens of verses in the New Testament that enjoin us, in one way or another, to be holy as God is holy (e.g., 1 Peter 1:13-16).

I do not wish to denigrate any of the other biblical emphases capturing the attention of younger evangelicals. But I believe God would have us be much more careful with our eyes, our ears, and our mouth. It’s not pietism, legalism, or fundamentalism to take holiness seriously. It’s the way of all those who have been called to a holy calling by a holy God.

1 Corinthians 15:2, William D. (Bill) Mounce

William D. [Bill] Mounce posts about the Greek language, exegesis, and related topics at Koinonia. He is the author of numerous books, including the bestselling Basics of Biblical Greek, and is the general editor for Mounce’s Complete Expository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. He served as the New Testament chair of the English Standard Version Bible translation, and is currently on the Committee for Bible Translation for the NIV. Learn more and visit Bill’s blog (co-authored with scholar and his father Bob Mounce) at www.billmounce.com.

This post is from Mondays with Mounce,  Bill Mounce’s weekly blog, hosted by Koinonia. KOINONIA is hosted by Zondervan Academic and Friends.

“Are being saved” – 1 Cor 15:2

(Monday with Mounce 88) Posted: 10 Jan 2011

Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved (σωζεσθε), if you hold fast to the word I preached to you— unless you believed in vain” (ESV).This is one of the main verses used when speaking of the three “times” of salvation — past (on the cross), now (as we walk the path), and the future (Day of the Lord). I was asked the other day whether σωζεσθε should be translated“are saved” (NASB, NIV, HCSB, KJV) or “are being saved” (ESV, NET). In other words, is it an aoristic present or a continuous or even a futuristic present?

There are varied and unrelated translations that go with either, so part of the answer is, yes, you can translate it either way. But why the difference, and which is to be preferred?

Fee and Garland see the progression of the verse as going from the past (“received”), present (“stand”), and the present process with the future reality (“are being saved”), understanding that salvation is in one sense a process that will not reach completion until the Day of the Lord.

That there is a future aspect to salvation is undeniable. Rom 5:9 makes it explicit. “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved (σωθησομεθα) by him from the wrath of God” (see also 1 Thess 5:9-10). More importantly, because of its contextual proximity, is 1 Cor 1:18 where the continuous (or imperfective if you wish) participle σωζομενοις requires a present sense. “For the word of the cross is  folly to  those who are perishing, but to us  who are being saved it is  the power of God” (ESV). Surprisingly, most translations go with “who  are being saved” here even if they say “are saved” in 15:2, but this is required by the obviously continuous “are perishing.”

So which is to be preferred?

Thiselton says the commentaries are agreed that the  continuous aspect “is to be explicated” as it “denotes what is done for them in the future,” and think this is best in this context. What would it mean if Paul said they “are” saved “if” they persevere? Not sure that makes sense. The necessity of perseverance and the meaning of the passage does not make sense if in fact the person’s salvation is in every way wholly accomplished in the past.

I know this is constantly a hot topic, but I guess part of your decision comes down to your theology. (What doesn’t?) But as I see it, it makes less sense to say they “are saved if” and more sense to say “are being saved if,” and I would point primarily to 1 Cor 1:18.

Ever since I started pastoring, I think this has been the main question that haunts me. What is a Christian? What is a simple, straight forward, easy-to-understand answer that makes use of all biblical data?

For me, it is Jesus’ gate and path analogy. Being a Christian is a being a follower of Jesus. You start following at the gate, continue following as you walk along the path, and at the end of the path of perseverance is life. So for me, it is easy to say that while I celebrate the finished work of Christ on the cross and the underserved, grace-filled, regenerative work of the Holy Spirit at my conversion, there is a very real sense in which my salvation is an ongoing process culminating in glorification, provided of course that I hold fast to the gospel.

Isn’t that what Paul is saying?

IF   YOU   ARE   INTERESTED   IN   READING   FUTURE   WEEKLY   POSTS   FROM   THE   BILL  MOUNCE   BLOG,  YOU  CAN  SUBSCRIBE   HERE TO  RECEIVE  THEM.

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari