Asbury "Revival"

[AustinC]

Obviously, I knew when I posted something against that mess going on at Asbury in Kentucky that it would go over on this board about as well as a skunk at garden party.

I refuse to along with the idea of accepting an amorphous gospel that can have just about anything crammed into it with people believing just about anything they come up with in their imagination about Christ, who do not believe He is an actual Savior but only a partial Savior that didn't "finish the job", because they think they make the difference between being saved or lost.

I am not tolerate toward false gospels. There is only one gospel of Christ. I go along with what the apostle Paul stated about those who preach false gospels:

Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Is God speaking the true gospel into His elect who are at Asbury College? I believe God is doing just that.
Is their wolves at Asbury? Absolutely. But, God is at work, no matter who is there.

 

[KenH]

Is God speaking the true gospel into His elect who are at Asbury College?

If a speaker is stating a false gospel, then how would they be hearing the gospel of Christ?

 

[AustinC]

If a speaker is stating a false gospel, how would they be hearing the gospel of Christ?

God's Word spoken or read or sung.

 

[KenH]

God's Word spoken or read or sung.

You mean like some preacher spending 2 minutes reading a passage of Scripture and then spending 45 minutes preaching a false gospel? Something along those lines?

 

[JonC]

No problem. Thanks for the link.

I don't know him personally. I don't know why he made that statement back in 2017. I would be surprised if he made such a statement today about "we are good in God’s eyes" seeing as he published a book in 2022 on the subject of Biblical Reprobation: A primer on the most hated and neglected doctrine, and, for example, wrote this:

"The doctrine of reprobation is biblical, and it teaches the following: in accordance with His free and immutable will, and to the praise of His glorious grace, God actively and unconditionally predestined the wicked to hell, and has an unremitting hatred towards them.

According to Scripture, God does not desire to save reprobates, God does not love reprobates, God does not give grace to reprobates, and God never offers salvation to reprobates."

I think he may have pointing to all man being made in God's image, and therefore of worth.

I have noticed that some "take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked" while God does not. Reading his comments, I assume he was trying to avoid being charactized along the lines of Westboro "church".

 

[KenH]

I have noticed that some "take pleasure in the destruction of the wicked" while God does not.

So you think that teaching the Biblical doctrine of reprobation equals taking "pleasure in the destruction of the wicked"? Is that what you are saying?

 

[JonC]

So you think that teaching the Biblical doctrine of reprobation equals taking "pleasure in the destruction of the wicked"? Is that what you are saying?

Where did I say that? (You already know I believe in predestination and reprobation).


BTW, here are some of my favorite quotes from Moody (the "satanist", as you seem to think):

“All the churches in the world can’t save a soul. It is not to have faith in this church or that church, this doctrine or that doctrine, this man or that man, but it is to have faith in the man Christ Jesus at the right hand of God. That is the only faith that will ever save a soul.”

“Hundreds of people spend time in looking at their own hearts, but faith is an outward look. We are to have faith in God, and not in man.”

“Let us get back to the simple gospel–Christ died for our sins. We must know Christ at Calvary first, as our substitute, as our Redeemer; and the moment we accept Him as our Savior and our Redeemer, then it is that we become partakers of the gospel.”

“A rule I have had for years is: to treat the Lord Jesus Christ as a personal friend. His is not a creed, a mere doctrine, but it is He Himself we have."

“If Jesus bore the cross, and died on it for me, ought I not to be willing to take it up for Him?”

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

But, we do need to look at their doctrine (I haven't, but will here)

I like this part:

"Recently, the debate on human sexuality has gripped the Western Church. Some argue that Christian love demands the acceptance of homosexual relations, while others contend that standing firm on Scripture requires excluding homosexuals from the church all together. Again, Asbury Seminary’s stance has not shifted, but remains clear. We will continue to demonstrate God’s love for all people even as we affirm the Bible’s teaching that all sexual relations outside of a committed heterosexual marriage between one man and one woman constitute sin."

But that isn't actually the gospel.

Amen and that is why there is a move on to split their churches.

 

[KenH]

the moment we accept Him

Christ is not up for accepting or rejecting. His status as the Savior is not in human hands.

 

[KenH]

Amen and that is why there is a move on to split their churches.

Churches split over homosexuality, yet after they split, if they were preaching a false gospel together, they will still be preaching a false gospel separately. They have not improved their status one little bit.

 

[KenH]

this doctrine or that doctrine,

The apostle Paul had a different view of the importance of doctrine compared to Moody:

Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.

 

[JonC]

Christ is not up for accepting or rejecting. His status as the Savior is not in human hands.

You are assuming Moody rejects that.

We are to repent and believe. This does not mean that we do so without that being God's work in us.

Same with believing (accepting as true) the gospel of Christ.

Point is Christ used the same language, and unless the author is willing to call Jesus "satanic" then he is somewhat hypocritical.

 

[JonC]

The apostle Paul had a different view of the importance of doctrine compared to Moody:

Titus 2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine.

You have obviously not read much of Moody (especially post-Chicago fire).

 

[KenH]

You have obviously not read much of Moody (especially post-Chicago fire).

Just going by what you posted about him.

 

[KenH]

Point is Christ used the same language

You got a verse from one of the gospels where Jesus said, "Please accept me."?

 

[AustinC]

You mean like some preacher spending 2 minutes reading a passage of Scripture and then spending 45 minutes preaching a false gospel? Something along those lines?

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.

 

[JonC]

Just going by what you posted about him.

He was an outstanding Christian that God used to reach many.

 

[JonC]

You got a verse from one of the gospels where Jesus said, "Please accept me."?

I never said Jesus said "Please accept me". I said God said "repent and believe the gospel".

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Churches split over homosexuality, yet after they split, if they were preaching a false gospel together, they will still be preaching a false gospel separately. They have not improved their status one little bit.

 

[KenH]

I never said Jesus said "Please accept me". I said God said "repent and believe the gospel".

You said Moody said, "accept".