Christian: You Can Fight Sin

Christian: You Can Fight Sin Because You’re New! – Ryan Fullerton

If my heart is desperately wicked and evil as all things, I have as much chance of obeying as Israel. I need a new heart. And I got news for you: I have one! God made me new. He saved me. He took my heart, that was always bent on evil and only desired evil continually, all the time. He took that heart out of me and He gave me a heart of flesh. – Ryan Fullerton

MP3 & PDF:…
Full Sermon:…
Ryan Fullerton pastors at

John Piper – Why God designed doctrine

photo credit

Right Thinking Is for Deep Feeling. John Piper | From the message „Don’t Waste Your Seminary,” John Piper explains that God designed doctrine to serve delight, for the seminarian and for every human being on the planet.…

VIDEO by Desiring God

Phil Johnson – The story of Calvinism

Photo from which also happens to be one of Phil Johnson’s websites. It contains an entire library of Spurgeon’s sermons.
phil johnsonPhil Johnson (Pyromaniacs) does a survey of Calvinism. Phil Johnson is Executive Director of Grace to You. He teaches regularly as a lay pastor at Grace Community Church, Sun Valley, CA. He has been closely associated with John MacArthur since 1981 and edits most of Dr. MacArthur’s major books. Phil is an elder at Grace Church, a trustee of the UK-based Martyn Lloyd-Jones Recordings Trust, a member of FIRE, husband to Darlene, father of three sons (two of them married), and grandfather to three precious children. Phil is probably best known for his websites, which include The Spurgeon Archive ( and a blog known as Pyromaniacs (

The Video –  Published on Nov 18, 2012 by needanewstartcom.

The Christian doctrine of ‘Election’ has caused more difficulties to believers than any other. It is indeed one of the most frequently misunderstood of all Biblical teachings. Many have been distressed by what they think this teaching means. But rather than causing Christians concern, this doctrine is actually one that should fill believers with comfort and a much better grasp of the great and sovereign God that they serve.

In the first message Phil introduces us to this doctrine, and begins by dispelling the myth that election was an addition to the gospel invented by the Apostle Paul, and which cannot be found in the teaching of Christ. But as Phil shows us, this is simply not the case, and he then goes on to explain what election is really all about, directly from the teaching of Christ.

The second message provides a very helpful overview of Calvinism and its history, which actually sets the doctrine of election in the context of the Biblical teaching with which it is most commonly associated. Once correctly understood, election is seen to be actually a demonstration of the Lord’s love for his people. These two recordings will be a great help to those who are struggling to understand this most difficult doctrine.

Related posts

(5) Martyn Lloyd-Jones – On Schism (5th February 1961)

Pentru traducere automata, fa click aici – Romanian

Read Part 1 here – a history

Read Part 2 here – 1962 Address by Lloyd-Jones

Read Part 3 here – An accounting from those who attended

Read Part 4 here – What the newspapers reported

 From via Reformation 21 blog, Eryl Davies: This article attempts to summarize the main teaching and challenge of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones on the important subject of schism.

Schism in the writings of Lloyd-Jones

The 5th February 1961- One of his sermons based on Ephesians 6:10-13 dealt with the subject of schism. He maintained that churches eager to adhere believingly to Scripture faced a major problem: „How are we to draw the line between allowing heresy and apostasy on the one hand, and being guilty of schism on the other?”.1 Lloyd- Jones was clear concerning the answer and this can be expressed in the following way:

  1. Only Christians who are agreed on fundamental doctrines can be guilty of schism.
  2. Schism involves the division of Christians concerning non-essential or secondary matters.
  3. New Testament commands concerning unity and warnings about schism are addressed only to Christians, those who enjoy Gospel unity.
  4. Evangelicals have not taken these commands and warnings seriously enough and ecumenism has exposed this inconsistency.
  5. The New Testament requires a unity of churches, not merely individuals or movements; Evangelicals need to express their claim to unity in a meaningful way at church level.June 1963 – A major address based on Haggai 1 and given to the Westminster

Fraternal touched again on the present situation, the evangelical commitment to movements and the failure of this strategy. He then addressed key questions, namely, the nature and marks of the Church before discussing „the true nature of schism”.2 He does not discuss the latter subject in detail as his intention was „simply raising it as an issue”.3 Here are the main points:

The Protestant Reformers were not guilty of schism when they left the Church of Rome for they separated themselves from apostasy.
1 Corinthians „is the locus classicus with regard to this matter”. Schism is „division in the true visible Church about matters that are not sufficient to justify division and separation”, e.g. personalities, learning, observance o f days and meats, variations in spiritual gifts. The „sin of schism occurs when such people allow themselves to be divided from one another for inadequate causes and reasons”.4

„The trouble has been always that men have tended to approach schism in terms of the existing state of the churches instead of taking it right back to the New Testament conception of the Church and asking: Are we dividing that? We have allowed the opposition to govern our thinking on this question of schism, and…put ourselves into a false position. What I should ask myself is this … Am I guilty of dividing the truly spiritual New Testament Church?”5

June 1965 -Westminster Fellowship address from Psalm 74. „Two years ago”, Lloyd-Jones declared, „I tried to make a statement. I appealed for unity, a unity at the church level .. .I was convinced two years ago that many were not convinced of schism and so should be given the opportunity to be convicted…”.6 He asks: „Is there any hope of evangelical unity?…My conclusion is that there is no hope at all at the church level…because there is no agreement among Evangelicals…”.7

18th October 1966- NAE address in which Lloyd-Jones discusses schism after considering the nature of the Church. His view of the sin of schism is unchanged: „It is division among people who are agreed about the essentials and the centralities, but who separate over secondary and less important matters…that is the only definition ofschism which can claim to be Biblical…the only people…who are guilty of the sin of schism are Evangelicals”.8

July 1967- Westminster Fellowship address majoring on the unity to be sought on the part of those opposed to ecumenism. Here Lloyd-Jones warned of a danger because while Ecumenists go for minimum and ambiguous doctrinal content, Evangelicals „tend to become too precise…the opposite extreme…”.9 Major essential doctrines for him included the sole authority of Scripture in faith and practice, the Trinity, the devil and evil powers, the plan of redemption, the person and work of Christ, man in sin, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, justification by faith alone, sanctification. The non-essentials („not so important as to divide us”) included election, views on baptism, church policy, assurance,

prophecy and gifts. „We must not break fellowship”,10 he warned.
13th November 1968- An address by Lloyd-Jones to the BEC on What is the

Church?. 11 The uniqueness, spirituality and unity of the true Church „makes schism a terrible sin. It is not merely that you disagree with others: it is that you are dividing Christ, you are dividing a body, you are dividing a family. And so the apostle brings out his mighty powers of ridicule in 1 Corinthians 12…For brethren who are agreed about the essentials of the Gospel, and who are sharing the same life, to be divided by history, tradition, or any consideration, is the sin of schism, and it is a terrible sin”.12

4th November 1970- The Doctor’s theme at this BEC conference was Wrong divisions and True Unity13 and he distinguished between separation and schism. Again, he turned to 1 Corinthians and showed how the Corinthian Christians had a defective understanding of the Church and failed „to draw the line properly between” essentials and those matters which are „important but not essential”. 14 He nescribes the Corinthians as „standing and dividing on carnal matters”,15 „intellectualism”16 and „false spirituality”.17 Lloyd-Jones is adamant that the essentials „on which me must stand”18 include the Scriptures,19 the Fall,20 God’s plan of redemption21 and the Person of the Lord.22 On these doctrines we must stand „unflinchingly… even unto death, but be very careful about anything else you stand on, lest you become guilty of the sin of schism and offend a dear brother for whom Christ died. I f you think he is mistaken, patiently, quietly, prayerfully, try to instruct him and to help him. And as you value your own conscience and always try to obey it, remember that he has got a conscience also and you must not cause him to offend it. Let us love one another. Let us bear with one another but hold the centralities, the first things, boldly, courageously and unflinchingly, together”.23

Dr Eryl Davies is the Principal of the Evangelical Theological College of Wales

I have been in the ministry and trying to preach now for getting on for forty-four years. I have seen strange things in the life of the churches, but I have never known such confusion as prevails at the present time. Of course, those of us who belong to this Evangelical Council are not a bit surprised that there is confusion among people who are not evangelical. They cannot but be confused. Indeed they are not evangelical because they are confused. So that does not surprise us. But, even in that realm, the confusion is more and more confounded than I have ever known it.

But what should be of particular concern to us is that we have to confess, if we are honest, that there is some confusion amongst us. This is serious…

This is important because the greatest need in the world tonight is for a united evangelical message. It is the only hope for mankind. It is the only hope for the world and, in general, it is the only hope for the church. The people are confused, utterly confused. All their famous ‘nostrums’ fail to give them healing. All the prophecies of the false prophets have been falsified. They are all just disillusioned. That is the real meaning of this calamitous drug-taking and alcoholism. I believe the world is waiting for an authoritative statement. And it can only have it from those who take a scriptural view of the way of salvation-that is from evangelicals. That is why it is so urgently and vitally important that there should be no confusion amongst us but that we should speak with a united and a certain voice concerning these vital matters.

DM Lloyd-Jones, Wrong Divisions and True Unity, in Unity in Truth

Foundations 37 – Autumn 1996.tiff…/37_27.pdf

Why can’t we all agree ? A wise and ‘different’ answer

Photo –

An excellent article, Why doesn’t everyone agree with me?  from the Parchment & Pen Blog by C. Michael Patton:

Why doesn’t everyone agree with me? Who is causing this disunity in the body of Christ, them or me? Do these divisions demonstrate the doctrinal bankruptcy of sola Scriptura? Should we elect a Pope of Protestantism? Or could it be that God has a purpose in his allowance of disagreements?

Michael gives 7 answers we might give to this questions such as – They don’t agree with me because „they have not studied long enough” or maybe „they have sin in their life that is blinding them”.

But he concludes that we should probably look at 2 other options before all the others and those are:

  1. Others don’t agree with me because they are right and I am wrong. But the possibility always exists that I am the one who is in error, misinformed, motivated by false pre-understandings, tradition-bound, or lacking perspective. I must consider this with great humility…
  2. Others don’t agree with me because God does not want us to agree, regardless of who is right.

and here is where I find so much wisdom in his reasons for point # 2:

A) I believe that it is a real possibility—even likelihood—that God does not want absolute doctrinal unity right now. In fact, practically speaking, it could do more harm than good. I believe doctrinal disagreements are often healthy for the church. When there is conflict between opposing viewpoints, the issue at hand is understood at a more profound level than is possible in the absence of conflict. Conflict, in the end, can bring about a deeper conviction of the truth. When there is no conflict, there is no iron sharpening iron in the same way.

B) What I am saying is this: it may actually be God’s sovereignty that brings about division over the doctrine of God’s sovereignty! This does not mean that wrong belief is always justified. Wrong belief is often (though not always) the result of sin. Neither does it mean that we need to be content with agnosticism or lessen our conviction about any doctrinal issue. To the contrary. It means that we engage in it more vigorously than we did before, being confident that God has a dignified reason for conflict resulting from diversity. In the end, we will find that through the conflict our beliefs become stronger, not weaker. I believe we must open ourselves up to the possibility of being wrong in order to find truer faith and conviction.

You can read the article in its entirety here why-doesnt-everyone-agree-with-me/ and you may also enjoy reading this article too – why-do-i-a-calvinist-go-to-an-arminian-church/

John Piper – cautions

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

You can read the edited transcript of the audio at Desiring God, here.

Would there be any cautions that you would have for the New Reformed/New Calvinist Movement you referenced earlier?


I will give you one that is from a prophetic word given to me yesterday—take it or leave it. I’m cautious when people come to me with these kinds of things. But this rung true, and you can see that it is true without making a claim to special divine authority.

My caution concerns making theology God instead of God God. Loving doing theology rather than loving God.

Sam Crabtree said to me once, „The danger of the contemporary worship awakening is that we love loving God more than we love God.” That was very profound. And you might love thinking about God more than you love God. Or arguing for God more than you love God. Or defending God more than you love God. Or writing about God more than you love God. Or preaching more than you love God. Or evangelizing more than you love God.

Piper interviewed by Adrian Warnock

Adrian Warnock blogs at Here’s an interview (Part 4) done in Wales by Adrian Warnock, at the New World Alive Conference 2008, where John Piper discusses his family, his ministry, and among other things – which preachers he personally listens to :

Parts 1, 2, and 3

Here are the links to watch Part 1,  Part 2  („whether you are satisfied in God really makes a difference whether you can glorify God”) and Part 3 (what he learned from George Muller about how he now prays).

Related articles

Why the knowledge of doctrine is intended and very necessary for „everyone” by Jonathan Edwards

Edwards makes 3 main points here
1) None of the things which God hath taught us in his word are needless speculations, or trivial matters; all of them are indeed important points.
2)  When God hath opened a very large treasure before us, for the supply of our wants, and we thank him that he hath given us so much; if at the same time we be willing to remain destitute of the greatest part of it, because we are too lazy to gather it, this will not show the sincerity of our thankfulness.
3) However diligently we apply ourselves, there is room enough to increase our knowledge in divinity, without coming to an end.

In this 18 page sermon, Jonathan Edwards observes two things. First, that Paul reproves the Hebrews of „dullness and backwards in understanding”  because Paul’s expectation at that point they should have known enough of divinity and the Holy Scripture to be able to understand matters such as he would have liked to engage in (i.e. Melchizedek). Second, Paul observes that every christian should make a business of endeavoring to grow in knowledge of divinity (doctrine). As Edwards points out: The short answer for the „why is knowledge of doctrine necessary?” It is because, as seasoned christians, we all should be teachers by now, as Paul reproved the Hebrews in 5:12.

Jonathan Edwards goes on to show:

Theologian Jonathan Edwards

1. What divinity is.
2. What kind of knowledge in divinity is intended.
3. Why knowledge in divinity is necessary.
4. Why all Christians should make a business of endeavoring to grow in this knowledge.
Sermon is from

A Sermon by Jonathan Edwards

[from Works (Worcester reprint), IV:1-15.]
Hebrews 5:12 – For when, for the time, ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.

Christian Knowledge or The Importance and Advantage of a Thorough Knowledge of Divine Truth

If the print in this reader is too small you can either click on the link below the reader to view it on Scribs, or you can click here to read it at

Vezi acest document pe Scribd

My personal notes and highlights from the sermon:

(Note: Edwards is not  indicating that this endeavor for acquiring this knowledge of doctrine involve anything other than God’s revealed Word in the Old Testament and New Testament. He is not referring to church creeds or church history, although he believes it very profitable for the christian to read as much as possible on each of those subjects.)

  •  There is an order of men whom Christ has appointed on purpose to be teachers in his church. They are to teach the things of divinity. But they teach in vain, if no knowledge in these things is gained by their teaching. (According to Edwards, the fault here lies not with the teacher (on occasion this may be the case), but mostly the fault is with the learner, whose duty is to learn, just as the teacher’s is to teach. This brings to mind the  visible biblical illiteracy of some of the modern churches. How many christians even find and bring a/their Bible to church service on Sunday? How many even pick up the one that is sitting on the back of the pews? If this is indeed an indication, it would prove Edwards premise that these christians are failing in their duty as learners)
  • By divinity is meant, that science or doctrine which comprehends all those truths and rules which concern the great business of religion. There are various kinds of arts and sciences taught and learned in the schools, which are conversant about various objects; about the works of nature in general; as philosophy; or the visible heavens, as astronomy; or the sea, as navigation; or the earth, as geography; or the body of man, as physic and anatomy; or the soul of man, with regard to its natural powers and qualities, as logic and pneumatology; or about human government, as politics and jurisprudence. But there is one science, or one certain kind of knowledge and doctrine, which is above all the rest, as it is concerning God and the great business of religion: this is divinity; which is not learned, as other sciences, merely by the improvement of man’s natural reason, but is taught by God himself in a certain book that he hath given for that end, full of instruction.
  • This is the rule which God hath given to the world to be their guide in searching after this kind of knowledge, and is a summary of all things of this nature needful for us to know. Upon this account divinity is rather called a doctrine, than an art or science.
  • There are many truths concerning God, and our duty to him, which are evident by the light of nature. But Christian divinity, properly so called, is not evident by the light of nature; it depends on revelation.
  • It is only the word of God, contained in the Old and New Testament, which teaches us Christian divinity.
  • 1. That there are two kinds of knowledge of the things of divinity, viz., speculative and practical, or in other terms, natural and spiritual. The former remains only in the head. No other faculty but the understanding is concerned in it. It consists in having a natural or rational knowledge of the things of religion, or such a knowledge as is to be obtained by the natural exercise of our own faculties, without any special illumination of the Spirit of God. The latter rests not entirely in the head, or in the speculative ideas of things; but the heart is concerned in it: it principally consists in the sense of the heart. The mere intellect, without the heart, the will or the inclination, is not the seat of it.
  • 2. Neither of these is intended in the doctrine exclusively of the other: but it is intended that we should seek the former in order to the latter. The latter, even a spiritual and practical knowledge of divinity, is of the greatest importance; for a speculative knowledge of it, without a spiritual knowledge, is in vain and to no purpose, but to make our condemnation the greater.
  1. It should not satisfy them that they know as much as is absolutely necessary to salvation, but should seek to make progress.
  2. They should make it part of their daily business….. There are no things so worthy to be known as these things….
  3. Such things as these have been the main subject of the study of the holy patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, and the most excellent men that ever were in the world, and are also the subject of the study of the angels in heaven; 1 Pet. 1:10,11,12.
  4. The things of divinity not only concern ministers, but are of infinite importance to all Christians. It is not with the doctrines of divinity as it is with the doctrines of philosophy and other sciences.
  5. The doctrines: this nearly concern every one. They are about those things which relate to every man’s eternal salvation and happiness. The common people cannot say, Let us leave these matters to ministers and divines; let them dispute them out among themselves as they can; they concern not us: for they are of infinite importance to every man. Those doctrines of divinity which relate to the essence, attributes, and subsistencies of God, concern all; as it is of infinite importance to common people, as well as to ministers, to know what kind of being God is. For he is the Being who hath made us all, „in whom we live, and move, and have our being;” who is the Lord of all; the Being to whom we are all accountable; is the last end of our being, and the only fountain of our happiness.
  6. The doctrines also which relate to Jesus Christ and his mediation, his incarnation, his life and death, his resurrection and ascension, his sitting at the right hand of the Father, his satisfaction and intercession, infinitely concern common people as well as divines.
  7. The same may be said of the doctrines which relate to the manner of a sinner’s justification, or the way in which he becomes interested in the mediation of Christ. They equally concern all; for all stand in equal necessity of justification before God. That eternal condemnation, to which we are all naturally exposed, is equally dreadful. So with respect to those doctrines of divinity, which relate to the work of the Spirit of God on the heart, in the application of redemption in our effectual calling and sanctification, all are equally concerned in them. There is no doctrine of divinity whatever, which doth not some way or other concern the eternal interest of every Christian. None of the things which God hath taught us in his word are needless speculations, or trivial matters; all of them are indeed important points.
  8. Seek not to grow in knowledge chiefly for the sake of applause, and to enable you to dispute with others; but seek it for the benefit of your souls, and in order to practice. If applause be your end, you will not be so likely to be led to the knowledge of the truth, but may justly, as often is the case of those who are proud of their knowledge, be led into error to your own perdition. This being your end, if you should obtain much rational knowledge, it would not be likely to be of any benefit to you, but would puff you up with pride: 1 Cor. 8:1, „Knowledge puffeth up.”
  9. Seek to God, that he would direct you, and bless you, in this pursuit after knowledge. This is the apostle’s direction, James 1:5: „If any man lack wisdom, let him ask it of God, who giveth to all liberally, and upbraideth not.” God is the fountain of all divine knowledge. Prov. 2:6, „The Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.” Labor to be sensible of your own blindness and ignorance, and your need of the help of God, lest you be led into error, instead of true knowledge. 1 Cor. 3:18, „If any man would be wise, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.”

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

Christian Doctrine 3 – Creation: God Makes

History has a beginning The Bible begins with God and the Creative act that sent time into motion. As we study the essential doctrines of the church we must address the origin of man and the universe itself. Scripture gives us the account of this origin in Genesis 1 and 2, These first chapters of the Bible have sparked many debates over the years inside and outside the church. As we begin our study, let us take care to be faithful to what scripture reveals about creation and be content with the mystery in the areas it is silent.

Theology: What does scripture say about Creation?

Which of the Christian views on Creation do you subscribe? Support your position with Scripture?
What are the non-negotiable issues with regard to creation and which should we hold in an open hand?
When you read Genesis 1-2, what do you take a way as the focus of the first two chapters of Scripture?
Are the 6 days of Creation literal 24 hour days? Support your answer.
What is the significance of Creation being made out of nothing (Heb 11:3)?

Implications: We will know discuss the implications of God revelation to our daily lives.

What is the personal significance to you that Genesis 1-2 are focused on the Creator vs. Creation?
How does this view effect the way that you look at other aspects of your life?
Why is understanding Creation an essential doctrine?
What have you learned about God from observing His creation?
How does you life look different with the perspective of God as Author and Subject of History?

Prayer: Reflect and meditate on the work of Creation and what it reveals about the glory of God.

Pray that we would worship the Creator and not Creation.
Pray for a God centered perspective of history.
Pray for those who do not yet know Jesus , that they would see the glory of God in Creation itself.

Vechiul si Noul Legamant, Iosif Ton

Textul din

  • Ieremia 31:31-34

1,,Iată, vin zile, zice Domnul, cînd voi face cu casa lui Israel şi cu casa lui Iuda un legămînt nou.

32Nu ca legămîntul, pe care l-am încheiat cu părinţii lor, în ziua cînd i-am apucat de mînă, să -i scot din ţara Egiptului, legămînt, pe care l-au călcat, măcarcă aveam drepturi de soţ asupra lor, zice Domnul.„

33,,Ci iată legămîntul, pe care -l voi face cu casa lui Israel, după zilele acelea, zice Domnul: Voi pune Legea Mea înlăuntrul lor, o voi scrie în inima lor; şi Eu voi fi Dumnezeul lor, iar ei vor fi poporul Meu.

34Niciunul nu va mai învăţa pe aproapele, sau pe fratele său, zicînd: ,Cunoaşte pe Domnul!` Ci toţi Mă vor cunoaşte, dela cel mai mic pînă la cel mai mare, zice Domnul; căci le voi ierta nelegiuirea, şi nu-Mi voi mai aduce aminte de păcatul lor.

  • Matei 26:26-28

26Pe cînd mîncau ei, Isus a luat o pîne; şi după ce a binecuvîntat, a frînt -o, şi a dat -o ucenicilor, zicînd: ,,Luaţi, mîncaţi; acesta este trupul Meu.„

27Apoi a luat un pahar, şi, după ce a mulţămit lui Dumnezeu, li l -a dat, zicînd: ,,Beţi toţi din el;

28căci acesta este sîngele Meu, sîngele legămîntului celui nou, care se varsă pentru mulţi, spre iertarea păcatelor.

  • Evrei 9:15-19

15Şi tocmai de aceea este El mijlocitorul unui legămînt nou, pentru ca, prin moartea Lui pentru răscumpărarea din abaterile făptuite supt legămîntul dintîi, cei ce au fost chemaţi, să capete vecinica moştenire, care le -a fost făgăduită.

16În adevăr, acolo unde este un testament, trebuie neapărat să aibă loc moartea celui ce l -a făcut.

17Pentrucă un testament nu capătă putere decît după moarte. N’are nici o putere cîtă vreme trăieşte cel ce l -a făcut.

18De aceea şi întîiul legămînt n’a fost sfinţit fără sînge.

19Şi într’adevăr, Moise, după ce a rostit înaintea întregului norod toate poruncile Legii, a luat sînge de viţei şi de ţapi, cu apă, lînă stacojie şi isop, a stropit cartea şi tot norodul

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

1st collector for Vechiul si Noul Legamant, Iosif To…
Follow my videos on vodpod

Interview of the decade- John Piper with Rick Warren (video)

Videourile Vodpod nu mai sunt disponibile.

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