Asbury "Revival"

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The split was because one church group preached a false gospel while the other group was preaching a scriptural doctrine.

False man centered doctrine will never dominate Gods universe… rather it will perish.

 

[KenH]

God uses those 2 minutes, Ken. The elect will come from places that seem extremely dark, yet in that dark place God set them aflame because the Word was read.
I am going to rejoice when God's word is read, even if the motives for that reading are all wrong. God tells us His word does not return void.
I hear what you're saying and what you are warning against. I also know that Ephesus lost its first love because it fought against all perceived doctrinal wrongs.

If those two minutes do as you say, then after being regenerated a person will not continue to sit under false teaching, at least not for long.

 

[KenH]

The split was because one church group preached a false gospel while the other group was preaching a scriptural doctrine.

As I understand it, and I have a female cousin who is a song leader at a Methodist church(also has a woman preacher, by the way), that split away, it was over acceptance of homosexuality.

 

[KenH]

He was an outstanding Christian

Not based on the gospel he preached. Got anywhere where he told his listeners to look to Christ as the Lord our Righteousness and that salvation is conditioned on Christ ALONE and nothing conditioned on a person, that there is absolutely nothing they can do to be saved outside of God's sovereign grace exhibited by Christ dying for His sheep and not the goats(reprobates)?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Romans 16:17

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

As I understand it, and I have a female cousin who is a song leader at a Methodist church(also has a woman preacher, by the way), that split away, it was over acceptance of homosexuality.

Among other things

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

These are all colliding with Gods true church … and they won’t win.God is sovereign!

 

[JonC]

Not based on the gospel he preached. Got anywhere where he told his listeners to look to Christ as the Lord our Righteousness and that salvation is conditioned on Christ ALONE and nothing conditioned on a person, that there is absolutely nothing they can do to be saved outside of God's sovereign grace exhibited by Christ dying for His sheep and not the goats(reprobates)?

Yes, based on the gospel he preached.

Nobody preached limited atonement until the 16th Century (the Scope of Atonement was not a theological issue). So per your description of the gospel, there were no Christians until the 16th Century.

I just can't buy that.

 

[KenH]

Nobody preached limited atonement until the 16th Century

Christ preached particular redemption.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

 

[JonC]

Christ preached particular redemption.

John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

John 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

The problem is Scripture doesn't actually speak of the "elect" prior to being saved.

"The elect", "His Sheep", "the Bride", ect are (biblically) those who are saved.

Calvinism (I know you are not a Calvinist, but your position here is identical and is ultimately derived from the doctrine of John Calvin filtered through the post-16th century churches) makes assumptions and demands all heed these assumptions as gospel.

But you are still talking about understandings of the gospel without speaking of the gospel itself.

 

[KenH]

The problem is Scripture doesn't actually speak of the "elect" prior to being saved.

Your statement is false.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. - Ephesians 1:4

, but your position here is identical and is ultimately derived from the doctrine of John Calvin

My position is from the teachings of God's Word.

But you are still talking about understandings of the gospel without speaking of the gospel itself.

I don't even know what you mean by that. Seems like a nonsensical statement to me.

 

[JonC]

Your statement is false.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. - Ephesians 1:4



My position is from the teachings of God's Word.



I don't even know what you mean by that. Seems like a nonsensical statement to me.

No, the statement is true. He chose us (the audience is Christian). Never once does the Bible speak of the unconverted elect.

Much of your position is from the Bible, but much of your position is from Calvinism steeped for a few centuries.

My comment is not nonsense. If one examines your post it does not take long to see that you are demonizing Christ by demonizing Christians for not agreeing with your ideas about the gospel - not for the gospel they hold.

You talk about election - about the scope of the Atonement. But that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is ideas about the gospel.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

There is about as much revival at Asbury in Kentucky as in the herd of swine that Christ cast the demons into in Matthew 8:32. Asbury is a fake Christian school that trains female Methodist ministers who aspire to be pastors. They also promote charismatic will-worship and have zero evidence of the true gospel in their institution. Yet, spiritually dense and gullible people, who have no discernment, think a revival is taking place. Nonetheless, God will have "...mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth" (Rom. 9:18).


View attachment 7433


- Sonny Hernandez, Trinity Gospel Church, Shelbyville, Kentucky

That explains the untold number of Charismatic "don't quench the Spirit" remarks on twitter aimed towards those who would desire to evaluate the function on the basis of Scripture. More Charismatic strange-fire in all likelihood. People searching for euphoria and experiences as their religion. I believe Deuteronomy 13 would be an appropriate parallel.

 

[AustinC]

Jonathan Edwards observed 5 parts in a revival.

A Five-Fold Test
Edwards gives five marks whereby a work of the Spirit of God may be distinguished.

1. It should convince men of Christ and lead them to him in the assurance that he is the Son of God, sent to save sinners.

2. It should operate against the interests of Satan’s kingdom, causing men to forsake sin and to set their affections on the things that are above.

3. It should lead men to a greater regard for the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God.

4. It should awaken the ability to discern spiritually between truth and error, light and darkness.

5. It should manifest a spirit of love, both to God and to one’s fellow men.

Jonathan Edwards on Revival

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Your statement is false.

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world. - Ephesians 1:4

My position is from the teachings of God's Word.

Hallelujah ! God alone is sovereign.

 

[KenH]

That explains the untold number of Charismatic "don't quench the Spirit" remarks on twitter aimed towards those who would desire to evaluate the function on the basis of Scripture. More Charismatic strange-fire in all likelihood. People searching for euphoria and experiences as their religion. I believe Deuteronomy 13 would be an appropriate parallel.

So much of what passes for "Christianity" is pretty boiled down to "Jesus gets us"(the tagline on those awful TV ads), and folks looking for some kind of emotional high.

If you draw a crowd by entertaining them or getting them emotionally riled up, then to keep them coming you're going to have to keep entertaining them or keep getting them emotionally riled up.

Much of what people think is "Christianity" is nothing more than entertaining and pandering to goats.

 

[KenH]

Never once does the Bible speak of the unconverted elect.

Yes, the elect are regenerated in time, yet in the mind of God they were always His chosen people, as the apostle Paul said, "chosen before the foundation of the world."

Much of your position is from the Bible, but much of your position is from Calvinism

My aim is to have ALL of my position from the Bible.

If one examines your post it does not take long to see that you are demonizing Christ

I request that you withdraw that remark.

demonizing Christians for not agreeing with your ideas about the gospel - not for the gospel they hold.

I reject the man-centered gospel that much of what is called "Christianity" teaches. I reject your attempt to slide around the issue by claiming it is not about the gospel of Christ. I can imagine the Judaizers using similar language to yours, saying to the folks like the apostle Paul, "You're demonizing us over ideas about the gospel, not the gospel itself."

You talk about election - about the scope of the Atonement. But that is not the gospel of Jesus Christ. That is ideas about the gospel.

What Christ accomplished at the cross is part and parcel of the gospel. If one rejects what Christ accomplished at the cross, I don't see how he can possibly consider himself a Christian, other than in a cultural way which is what much of Christianity in the United States consists of.

 

[JonC]

Yes, the elect are regenerated in time, yet in the mind of God they were always His chosen people, as the apostle Paul said, "chosen before the foundation of the world."



My aim is to have ALL of my position from the Bible.



I request that you withdraw that remark.



I reject the man-centered gospel that much of what is called "Christianity" teaches. I reject your attempt to slide around the issue by claiming it is not about the gospel of Christ. I can imagine the Judaizers using similar language to yours, saying to the folks like the apostle Paul, "You're demonizing us over ideas about the gospel, not the gospel itself."



What Christ accomplished at the cross is part and parcel of the gospel. If one rejects what Christ accomplished at the cross, I don't see how he can possibly consider himself a Christian, other than in a cultural way which is what much of Christianity in the United States consists of.

We cannot know the mind of God except what is revealed to us. Scripture never speaks of the elect except they already be true converts.

I apologize if my remark regarding demonizing Christ was extreme. I cannot in all integrity sply withdraw it, BUT I will accompany the remark with an explanation:

What we do to one another we do to Christ. In your posts you have demonized (literally) Christians for not holding the same view of ele tion as you (i.e., for disagreeing with you about the thoughts of God prior to Creation). When we demonize a Christian we demonize Christ.

In today's culture this is done so nonchalantly that any onlooker would assume Christianity exists only in theory as at its core our visable faith (our witness) is measured by our interactions with one another and mankind in general.

I sincerely am sorry you took offense to my remark. I do not mean them to call into question your faith and I have every reason to believe you are my brother in Christ.

I do not share your theology regarding the scope of the Atonement. Your comments include me as being demonic (preaching a satanic gospel for rejecting your position about divine election).

I not offended and ask for no apology (which would be nothing but politeness). The reason is I dont matter snd your accusation speaks nor of me but Christ in me.

Please understand. My remark, although extreme was not overstatement. It is biblical truth that exists in Scripture for this precise reason. What we do to one another we do to Christ.

Christians (myself included) need to be more careful in how we deal with disagreements over theology, doctrine, and Christian philosophy.

 

[JonC]

My aim is to have ALL of my position from the Bible.

Having read John Calvin, D.L. Moody, A.W. Tower, and John Wesley I can say they all shared that aim as well (although they ended up holding different views).

I also aim to have all of my positions from Scripture - and to hold those positions which are by necessity not in the text of God's Word as secondary rather than foundational to my faith.

That is why I can no longer affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (I believe the issue too important to rest on human extrapolation so I have to rely on what is written in God's Word). But I was no less saved when I believed the theory correct.

 

[AustinC]

Having read John Calvin, D.L. Moody, A.W. Tower, and John Wesley I can say they all shared that aim as well (although they ended up holding different views).

I also aim to have all of my positions from Scripture - and to hold those positions which are by necessity not in the text of God's Word as secondary rather than foundational to my faith.

That is why I can no longer affirm the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (I believe the issue too important to rest on human extrapolation so I have to rely on what is written in God's Word). But I was no less saved when I believed the theory correct.

Jon, we've gone over your view. It is a very weak argument from scripture. But, you are free to hold it.