tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2018863068019474376.post8830445237089661845..comments2023-06-13T15:39:03.594+03:00Comments on THE RISING SONS OF GRACE: Covenant Theology ?Craig Glennhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13467337337776805827noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2018863068019474376.post-74599402680709886562008-12-01T08:01:00.000+02:002008-12-01T08:01:00.000+02:00Hey Jim...no problem. its awesome to think we can ...Hey Jim...no problem. its awesome to think we can encourage one another with truth...having never seen each other, seperated by an ocean...the word of God has no boundries!! PRAISE HIM!!!Craig Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13467337337776805827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2018863068019474376.post-42072473924955046032008-11-29T19:31:00.000+02:002008-11-29T19:31:00.000+02:00Craig,Thanks for the link to “Law versus Grace” yo...Craig,<BR/>Thanks for the link to “Law versus Grace” you included in your last post. It’s interesting, I read that article a couple of years ago and though I liked it, it did not have near the impact as it did this time. New eyes. And especially helpful were statements like, “Many are unaware of the legalistic aspect of this teaching” (he mentions some aspects of Calvinism) “since its tenets are well known for providing the Christian with solid scriptural foundation of justification and eternal security”. This is so true and why it is many times wrongly assumed that if teaching on justification appears doctrinally sound, then surely the same is true regarding sanctification. WRONG. Stanford goes on to say that the problem is that, “…the law is brought RIGHT ON PAST CALVARY and fastened upon the Christian… throughout the realm of sanctification… this fails to distinguish ‘the things that differ’”. (Phil. 1:10, ASV). Again, this is all very helpful Craig. Much appreciation.Jim Hoaghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00695868245553913477noreply@blogger.com