Marturia fostului politist Petru Tiboi din Chisinau

  1. fr Petru Tiboi- politist crestin din Chisinau, care a adus o marturie extraordinara a lucrarii lui Dumnezeu in viata sa. Fratele Petru Tiboi a fost marinar in armata Sovietica si a luptat in razboiul cu Afghanistan unde a fost ranit rau la cap. In vremea lui de ateu a studiat toate religiile din punct de vedere filozofic ca sa isi avanseze cariera. Printre aceste religii  studiate, el citise si Biblia si o cunoscuse suficient sa treaca toate examenele cu note bune. Reintorcindu-se acasa el o stirneste pe mama lui care era foarte religioasa (ortodoxa) si se ruga si se inchina mult la icoane, spunindu-i ca degeaba se roaga la icoane ca nu au nici o valoare. si impreuna cu
  2. fr Emil Bartos (la minutul 25)- care L-a laudat pe Domnul prin  3 cantari si un scurt mesaj (17/7/2011)

Mai multe inregistari puteti viziona la:

Secular companies take over Christian publishers

Jim Fletcher of the World Net Daily website writes about the recent announcement that Harper Collins Publishers has just purchased Thomas Nelson-the biggest Christian Publishing House in the world. His well founded concerns have a huge resonance in my own experience in gauging the bookstores for the last 10 years and as I am seeing them order twice the number of copies (on average) of the non orthodox books at their publishing debut. This may just be a (local) regional issue, but nevertheless it is my experience. Jim Fletcher has worked in the book publishing industry for 15 years, and is now director of the apologetics group Prophecy Matters. His new book, „It’s the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)” has just been released by Strang’s Christian Life imprint.

You can read the entire article here at the WND website. article by Jim Fletcher, posted Dec. 1, 2011

With news that HarperCollins Publishers has purchased Thomas Nelson – the biggest Christian publishing company in the world – we see the biggest assault yet on the Christian industry.

Harper, which owns Zondervan, a major competitor to Nelson, is adopting the strategy that began in the ’90s: We won’t join Christian publishing, so we’ll beat it.

What I mean is that (and this column will use generalizations; please understand there are still good things being done in the Christian book publishing industry) a couple decades ago, when large New York houses began to see the money made from Christian publishing, they decided to buy good-sized companies, usually ones that had grabbed the brass ring in sales with a hot title or series („The Prayer of Jabez”; the „Hugs” series).

This meant that Christian companies like Howard and Multnomah became imprints of large, „secular” companies. They still function and produce Christian books and present at Christian trade shows … however.

It doesn’t take a shuttle scientist to see that once a Christian company becomes the property of a secular company, the Christian entity is no longer independent. There used to be a few independent publishers out there, and no one compromised their messages, and no one told them to steer clear of certain conservative authors.

I remember once bringing all this up at dinner with some publishing friends; we were at the big summer Christian trade show, sponsored by the Christian Booksellers Association.

I said something that sounds off-the-wall to anyone but a Bible-believer. I said that if we were indeed living in the last days (someone else had brought it up), then we should be able to track compromise in Christian publishing. In other words, if the writings of Paul and the other apostles are true, we would arrive at a time when people would not put up with sound doctrine.


Thomas Nelson will now belong ultimately to Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which also bought Zondervan in 1988. A private equity firm, Kohlberg and Company, acquired majority ownership of Nelson in 2010; former HarperCollins CEO Jane Friedman became a board member.

So the stage was set for the transfer of the largest independent Christian publisher to a publishing goliath that will publish anything spiritual, including Buddhists and other religions.

click to read more

When we lose doctrine we lose the Gospel by Ligon Duncan III

This article/interview was posted on by Faith online website here.  Richard Dorster of By Faith magazine interviews J. Ligon Duncan III, Pastor of Presbyterian Church in Jackson, Mississippi.

When We Lose Doctrine, We Lose the Gospel


Proclaiming A Cross-Centered Theology is a book of essays composed by various theologians to help pastors understand what the Bible says about God, man, and the curse; about Christ and his substitutionary atonement; and about the call to repentance and sacrifice.

The book also equips pastors to develop and preach sound theology, because sound theology, says contributor J. Ligon Duncan, is essential to faithful ministry.

ByFaith talked with Duncan, who pastors First Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Jackson, Miss., about the state of theology in the Church.

In Proclaiming A Cross-Centered Theology you argue that there are unhealthy attitudes today toward doctrine and theology. What have you seen and heard that leads you to that conclusion?

I have seen in both the general culture and in the churches attitudes that are anti-doctrinal in sentiment. People say that postmodernism is a “suspicion of meta-narratives.” I think that fits in with the suspicion of doctrine and systematic theology, that it’s seen as a meta-narrative that imposes itself on people and life, and is therefore suspicious. So, the postmodern mood can be blamed for a lot of it.

You see it in the church as well, in that so many people are suspicious of doctrine or dubious about the whole project of systematic theology. You read this in books—it’s really the majority report today, certainly in liberal theology, in moderate evangelical theology, in emergent circles, and in Pentecostal/charismatic circles. It’s really only in our neck of the woods [Reformed theological circles] that there is still a strong respect for doctrine and systematic theology—although I see the trends pressing some of our guys to be sheepish about their affirmation of the importance of doctrine and systematic theology.

In the book you write, “in days when the narrative form of biblical theology is attracting great (and deserved) attention, it is too often being pitted against systematic theology.” What’s the difference between these kinds of theology? How would they be pitted against one another?

Narrative simply refers to the form of story as the means of conveying truth. There has been a penchant for pitting story against proposition or doctrinal articulations—this has been growing for about a half century in the Protestant world.

Two more helpful terms might be biblical theology and systematic theology. If I were to define those two types of theology rather than narrative and systematic, I’d say that biblical theology looks at the Bible diachronically, that is it moves chronologically through the revelation of God’s redemptive plan. It asks: What’s the unique emphasis of that era of special revelation? It also asks: What’s the emphasis of the writer who’s being studied? That’s opposed to asking the larger question of systematic theology: What does the total deposit of special revelation say about this particular topic?

So, biblical theology [looks at the text] historically and developmentally, whereas systematic theology asks the question: What does the whole Bible say about X—whether it’s angels or predestination or humanity? Systematic theology studies the Bible synchronically as opposed to diachronically.

„To make a statement that the Bible is storied narrative is just a reductionist statement. It serves—if it’s taken as absolutely true—to buttress a false view of the Bible.”

Now, systematic theology benefits from the insights of biblical theology. And biblical theology can’t actually be done without systematic theology. Some people think that you can do biblical theology without systematic theology, but actually you can’t.

They’re sometimes pitted against one another because there’s a myth that says that systematic theology puts the Bible in a straitjacket, whereas biblical theology liberates the text; it allows the text to speak for itself. That’s a false contrast. Biblical theology done wrongly is just as confining as systematic theology done wrongly. But when they’re done correctly—and they have been, gloriously, for well over a century in our particular tradition—then they work beautifully together.

Sticking with this idea of “narrative form,” you react pretty strongly to the claim that the Bible is a “storied narrative.” Why is that a problem? How does it relate to your concerns about theology?

All you have to do is look at the second half of the second book of the Bible to put the lie to the idea that the Bible is storied narrative. There’s zippo storied narrative in this portion of Exodus: it’s a description of how to build a tabernacle. When you get to Leviticus, the lie is again put to the Bible-is-a-storied-narrative idea. Now, there’s plenty of narrative in the Bible, but the Bible was not given to us as one complex narrative. We actually have to put that together because God didn’t give us a continuous, unbroken story.

Mai mult

Did Jesus preach Paul’s Gospel? by John Piper (An important sermon)

From Together for the Gospel 2010 Conference. Read entire sermon here at the website

The aim of my title is not to criticize the gospel of evangelicalism but to assume that it is biblical and true, and then to ask whether Jesus preached it. If I had it to do over again, I would use the title “Did Jesus Preach Paul’s Gospel?”—the gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on the basis of Christ’s blood and righteousness alone, for the glory of God alone.

What I am driven by in this message, and in much of my thinking since my days in graduate school in Germany, is the conviction that Jesus and Paul preached the same gospel. There is a 300-year history among critical scholars of claiming that Jesus’ message and work was one thing, and what the early church made of it was another. Jesus brought the kingdom; it aborted; and the apostles substituted an institution, the church. And dozens of variations along this line.

Did Paul Get Jesus Right?

So the problem I am wrestling with is not whether evangelicalism gets Paul’s gospel right, but whether Paul got Jesus’ gospel right. Because I have a sense that among the reasons that some are losing a grip on the gospel today is not only the suspicion that we are forcing it into traditional doctrinal categories rather than biblical ones, but also that in our default to Pauline categories we are selling Jesus short. In other words, for some—perhaps many—there is the suspicion (or even conviction) that justification by faith alone is part of Paul’s gospel, but not part of Jesus’ gospel. And in feeling that way, our commitment to the doctrine is weakened, and we are thus less passionate to preach it and defend it as essential to the gospel. And we may even think that Jesus’ call to sacrificial kingdom obedience is more radical and more transforming than the gospel of justification by faith alone.

So I am starting where R. C. Sproul left off in his message to us yesterday. And I consider this message as an exegetical extension and defense of what he said: “If you don’t have imputation, you don’t have sola fide (faith alone), and if you don’t have sola fide, you don’t have the gospel.” And my goal is to argue that Jesus preached the gospel of justification by faith alone apart from works of the law, understood as the imputation of his righteousness through faith alone.

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

Did Jesus Preach the gospel of Evangelicalism?P…, posted with vodpod

A Word About Method

First, a word about method. One of my goals in this message is to fire you up for serious lifelong meditation on the four Gospels as they stand. I am so jealous that you not get sidetracked into peeling away the so-called layers of tradition to find the so-called historical Jesus. I want you to feel the truth and depth and wonder that awaits your lifelong labor of love in pondering the inexhaustible portraits of Jesus given us by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

After spending 12 years of my life in the heady atmosphere of academic biblical studies, here is the conviction I came away with—and it has been confirmed every year of my life for 30 years. I commend it to you. It’s the basis of the exposition I am about to give.

If you interpret faithfully the deeds and the words of Jesus as he is portrayed in the four Gospels, your portrait of Jesus will be historically and theologically more in accord with who he really was and what he really did than all the varied portraits of all the critical scholars who attempt to reconstruct a Jesus of history behind the Gospels.

Or to state it even more positively: If, by means of historical and grammatical effort, accompanied with the Spirit’s illumination of what is really there, you understand the accounts of the four Gospels as they stand, you will know the Jesus who really was and what he taught.

Mai mult

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!

România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari