SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
What can I say? I'm a marshmallow.And then you did his homework...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What can I say? I'm a marshmallow.And then you did his homework...
I'll have to yield to the expertiese of others on that issue.Some psychopaths are highly intelligent and think people are tasty.
Pastor Tim Conway recently delivered a sermon on this actually, based around the text which spoke of not throwing pearls before swine. Worth a watchI refuse to do homework for people who are too lazy to look it up for themselves, but to get you started: Jesus famously refers to (some people) as being “dogs” and “pigs” in Matt 7:6.
Link?Pastor Tim Conway recently delivered a sermon on this actually, based around the text which spoke of not throwing pearls before swine. Worth a watch
[...] When talking with people the attitude of a conversation reflects what is being said. We are not called to condemn. We are called to discern and and understand. We are to pass on our understanding for the sake of the hearer and for fellowship sake. The Law actually is the Law of Love. For us it is to life. For those who refuse it it is death. [...]
The Gospel is temporary, but the law is eternal and is restored precisely through the Gospel. Freedom from the law consists, then, not in the fact that the Christian has nothing more to do with the law, but lies in the fact that the law demands nothing more from the Christian as a condition of salvation. The law can no longer judge and condemn him. Instead he delights in the law of God according to the inner man and yearns for it day and night.
Herman Bavinck on Law and Gospel
I am still moving my other blog posts over to this page. This is one of my favorite portions by Bavinck that historically sets up the differences between Lutheran and Reformed Theology concerning…rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com
or Zacharius Ursinus
But when it is joined with the gospel, which is the Spirit, it also commences to become the Spirit, which is effectual in the godly, inasmuch as those who are regenerated commence willingly and cheerfully to yield obedience to the law.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...s-law-is-joined-to-gospel-and-becomes-spirit/
"To teach morality [i.e. Law: precept, guilt, punishment] as a substitute to the Gospel is a sheer waste of time. The best it can ever do is to frighten certain timorous people against certain particular sins; it will do nothing more. It cannot change the heart, it cannot change the desires, it cannot change the man."
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones (Romans, vol.6, p.81)
We also condemn, for example, rapist and child abuser, or not?
By the way, I would also call rapist and child abuser a filthy pig. Would you reject that too?
If I call someone a filthy pig, then I want to condemn him morally. I use this dramatic formulation so that the condemnation becomes absolutely clear. What's theological and biblical wrong with it?
Most of you have previously called pragmatic or tactical arguments against my position. But the real question is not how people see that, but as God sees that.
I'm not sure what your intent was in posting these verses. Without commentary I am left to assume what you are trying to communicate.11 God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day. 12 If a man does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and readied his bow; 13 he has prepared for him his deadly weapons, making his arrows fiery shafts. (Psalm 7:11-13, ESV)
5 Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury, saying, 6 "As for me, I have set my King on Zion, my holy hill." 7 I will tell of the decree: The LORD said to me, "You are my Son; today I have begotten you.
(Psalm 2:5-7, ESV)
15 Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, 16 calling to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,
(Revelation 6:15-16, ESV)
Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy."
(Revelation 22:11, ESV)
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
(Revelation 22:15, ESV)
15 From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords. (Revelation 19:15-16, ESV)
He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! (Revelation 22:20, ESV)
I'm not sure what your intent was in posting these verses. Without commentary I am left to assume what you are trying to communicate.
The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.I'm not sure what your intent was in posting these verses. Without commentary I am left to assume what you are trying to communicate.
These verses do in fact speak for themselves. But when one sites a handful of verses without commentary it does not explain your intent.The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.
They are posted in context of the discussion. I.e. not repaying evil for evil. "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." Like what @Anti-Babylon said I wanted to highlight God's sovereign denunciation of sin-- his holy wrath abiding on the wicked.
These verses do in fact speak for themselves. But when one sites a handful of verses without commentary it does not explain your intent.
You could have been trying to communicate that since God clearly denounces sin as wicked with His holy wrath abiding on the wicked, it is therefore justifiable to call sinners pigs and dogs.
Or you could have been saying that since God clearly denounces sin as wicked with His sovereign denunciation of sin, and His holy wrath abiding on the wicked, and since He states, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay", that we therefore have no business calling sinners pigs.
The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.
Would have been funnier if you added "dogs" to "lazy".I refuse to do homework for people who are too lazy to look it up for themselves, but to get you started: Jesus famously refers to (some people) as being “dogs” and “pigs” in Matt 7:6.
I do agree with his application of these scriptures.But if the verses speak for themselves, then his intent is irrelevant. Scripture leads to truth regardless of human commentary.
He could have been trying to but what is more important: his intent or the direct thrust of the meaning of Scripture? It certainly would be unfair for one to assume that was his position since it is nowhere to be found in the post.
Same comment as above. When I deduced its application to the OP, I made clear my conclusion from the direct summary of the verses as well as used other verses I am aware of like Paul claiming he is chief among sinners as an indication that it is inappropriate for any believer to think oneself beyond the filth to a point where they can call another a filthy pig.
But mostly, when I read the verses, I got the sense of the filth and nastiness of sin from God's perspective and it lead me clearly to the fact that all sin is filth and all sinners are as dogs before God. The unavoidable implication is that I am not nearly as holy as He.
And I cannot call a homosexual a "filthy pig" with a clear conscience of my own flesh nature added with a generous dash of hypocrisy if I ever did.
@hLuke 's actual position became clear to me as day when I read each one carefully in the context of the OP and in the context of each other.
As an aside re: the thread starter's question, I also believe this to be the only defensible position Biblically.
I do agree with his application of these scriptures.
However, one person may believe that the scriptures speak for themselves and be dead wrong in their interpretation and application. And since I do not know him nor his intent I asked for commentary to help me, call me the weaker brother if you will, to better understand the point he was trying to make. I assumed he was making the point that he later explained but I could have been mistaken.
This is a message board where the point is to discuss reformed doctrine and to convey the wisdom of scripture from a reformed/confessional point of tradition. I could and do read scripture often. But I come here for commentary and interaction.
I guess that there is no need for commentaries since scripture stands alone?
I apologize, I went back and read your previous comments and they made clear the context of your comments.The verses speak for themselves. You are deliberately left to assume.
They are posted in context of the discussion. I.e. not repaying evil for evil. "Vengeance is mine. I will repay." Like what @Anti-Babylon said I wanted to highlight God's sovereign denunciation of sin-- his holy wrath abiding on the wicked.
Thanks brotherI actually appreciate this kind of back and forth. I believe God Himself wrote the Bible to be used like this from one person to another.
Both as believer to unbeliever and also from one brother to another sharpening each other.
It kind of illuminates the difference between one person's opinion and truth gleaned from the Source of Truth. That is an important distinction that gets lost. Rather if you had simply posted your conclusion straightforward even with a general reference to "the Bible says", it still comes off as just another thought that passed through your neurons.
The way you framed it engaged the reader and let the processing of Scripture itself take root without *your voice* at all.
Brilliantly done.
No worries. God bless you.I apologize, I went back and read your previous comments and they made clear the context of your comments.
Thank you very much for the link, it contains excellent food for thought!Ad hominem arguments are rarely if ever useful. One can speak directly to the sin without calling people names. I am giving a link to an article as an example of being clear about sin (it shreds the idea of "identifying as") without making an attack on a person.
Sometimes a man may indeed be called by his sin. "When you drink to excess, you are a drunkard who defies the image of God," uses the terminology of scripture. "When you drink too much you are a lousy jerk," merely calls names with no real explanation as to what is wrong.