Asbury "Revival"

[JonC]

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

What you mean is that my position is not an argument. My view (on that topic) is Scripture itself. My argument is that the text of Scripture is written in such a way that those foundational teachings are present "on the surface" (in the words written).

That's one reason I enjoy the topic. All others can do is disagree with what I don't believe or they reject the text of Scripture. I can't do that with every topic.

Makes a fun day even funner

 

[KenH]

ll others can do is disagree with what I don't believe or they reject the text of Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Towards which verse is Mr. Collins directing his disapproval?


Seriously, though, we do need to at least try to hold Scripture as our position. Guys here have complained that I don't explain my view but just give Scripture without expounding on the verses. But that's my point - the text is the explanation.

 

[KenH]

Towards which verse is Mr. Collins directing his disapproval?


Seriously, though, we do need to at least try to hold Scripture as our position. Guys here have complained that I don't explain my view but just give Scripture without expounding on the verses. But that's my point - the text is the explanation (the NT is the fulfillment of the Old).

Glad that you know who Barnabas Collins is.

 

[AustinC]

What you mean is that my position is not an argument. My view (on that topic) is Scripture itself. My argument is that the text of Scripture is written in such a way that those foundational teachings are present "on the surface" (in the words written).

That's one reason I enjoy the topic. All others can do is disagree with what I don't believe or they reject the text of Scripture. I can't do that with every topic.

Makes a fun day even funner

No, I mean exactly what I said. You are making an argument and that argument has been shot down by many folks here at the BB. But, you are free to hold your argument.

 

[JonC]

No, I mean exactly what I said. You are making an argument and that argument has been shot down by many folks here at the BB. But, you are free to hold your argument.

No, what I believe on the topic has not been shot down (it can't because God's Word stands).

Many have argued that I should still accept what they believe about what is in the Bible, i.e., their explanation of Scripture.

But I sincerely believe that Sripture's explanation is the text itself.

 

[AustinC]

No, what I believe on the topic has not been shot down (it can't because God's Word stands).

Many have argued that I should still accept what they believe about what is in the Bible, i.e., their explanation of Scripture.

But I sincerely believe that Sripture's explanation is the text itself.

You have no biblical support Jon, even though you imagine you do. We will not agree. You think you have a point when in reality you have none.

 

[JonC]

You have no biblical support Jon, even though you imagine you do. We will not agree. You think you have a point when in reality you have none.

There are facts and there are opinions.

Your opinion is my position is incorrect.
My opinion is my view us correct.

BUT it is a fact that my view is literally the text of Scripture (what is written, literally....the words on the pages).

Where we disagree is when it comes to what you feel those words may be teaching. I believe they teach what is written....literally....those words.

You believe "what is written" is given for interpretation and one must extract from those words, from biblical history, and from philosophy what is being taught.

My point stands. That doesn't mean I am correct, but it does mean that my position stands the test of Scripture where yours does not (you test what you believe Scriptute teaches with what you believe is taught in Scripture while I can simply take Scripture as written in a meaningful way).

 

[KenH]

That doesn't mean I am correct, but it does mean that my position stands the test of Scripture where yours does not (you test what you believe Scriptute teaches with what you believe is taught in Scripture while I can simply take Scripture as written in a meaningful way).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Glad that you know who Barnabas Collins is.

Everyone knows the TV show Dark Shadows!

 

[KenH]

Everyone knows the TV show Dark Shadows!

Well, at least us older folks.

I have all of the episodes in a carboard box shaped like a coffin. The Pluto TV app has a free streaming channel that shows episodes 24/7. I don't think that they show all of the episodes, but they show a lot of them.

 

[JonC]

Jimmy Stewart?

My challenge is for you to post something I posted of my belief (when I described my view - what is foundational rather than opinion - on this topic) that is not in Scripture. Provide a passage that I have rejected.

If you, or @AustinC , could then it'd be settled. But you can't. You both have made that abundantly clear.

That was your (Austin and Iconiclast, anyway....Im not sure about you) complaint about what I believed - that it was just Scripture without explanation.

But the reason is I do not see what man can add to Scripture to make it better. The NT and OT forms a narrative (IMHO) that needs no explanation.

 

[AustinC]

Jimmy Stewart?

My challenge is for you to post something I posted of my belief (when I described my view - what is foundational rather than opinion - on this topic) that is not in Scripture. Provide a passage that I have rejected.

If you, or @AustinC , could then it'd be settled. But you can't. You both have made that abundantly clear.

That was your (Austin and Iconiclast, anyway....Im not sure about you) complaint about what I believed - that it was just Scripture without explanation.

But the reason is I do not see what man can add to Scripture to make it better. The NT and OT forms a narrative (IMHO) that needs no explanation.

Jon, in this area we tried to get you to express something tangible and you could not. All you did was whine excessively that Penal substitutionary atonement was not shown in the Bible, despite many people showing you the documented proof.
You would respond with no scripture for any view you had and simply say you have the Bible. Your position is that you have no legitimate position that anyone should be persuaded. You're like a clanging gong and a cymbal, but there is nothing of substance to discuss. We had multiple threads on the issue and you were as slippery as an eelpout.

 

[JonC]

Jon, in this area we tried to get you to express something tangible and you could not. All you did was whine excessively that Penal substitutionary atonement was not shown in the Bible, despite many people showing you the documented proof.
You would respond with no scripture for any view you had and simply say you have the Bible. Your position is that you have no legitimate position that anyone should be persuaded. You're like a clanging gong and a cymbal, but there is nothing of substance to discuss. We had multiple threads on the issue and you were as slippery as an eelpout.

I provided my position. You said it was insufi isn't and nothing of substance....it was "only" Scripture.

Rather than dismissing Scripture (what I had posted) as too illegitimate a position, why not discuss it?

I understand how you derive the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement out of the Bible. But that is not proof it is correct.

You quickly dismissed God's Word ("what is written") as nothing of substance because you insist it makes no sense without expounding on Scripture. But that is subjective. "What is written" makes sense to most Christians historically, and it makes sense to me in regards to the Cross.

Why should I go beyond the text of Scripture to reaffirm what you believe is its hidden teachings when the text itself is plain enough for me?

Why do you believe God's Word is insufficient - just a "clanging gong" without human explanation and clarification?

That is the difference between our approach to theology. At one time I assumed your position, that God's Word needed to be examined and studied to discover what was really being taught beneath the text. But my approach has changed. Now I seek to understand God's Word as the revelation of God (not, as you suppose, some type of code that must be deciphered in order to figure out what is really being taught).

Where you find the text of Scripture lacking substance, I view "what is written" as suffience without the "substance" men would provide.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Well, at least us older folks.

I have all of the episodes in a carboard box shaped like a coffin. The Pluto TV app has a free streaming channel that shows episodes 24/7. I don't think that they show all of the episodes, but they show a lot of them.

I wil have to check it out. Remember the show The Wild Wild West? Used to watch that show every Friday like clockwork. It’s gotta be playing somewhere!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Brother, in readingDeuteronomy I was harkened back to the Jews stoning Stephen… why, because he was teaching Jesus! Could this scripture have been used as a means to kill Stephen? Just saying.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Brother, in readingDeuteronomy I was harkened back to the Jews stoning Stephen… why, because he was teaching Jesus! Could this scripture have been used as a means to kill Stephen? Just saying.

Sure. Men twist God's word to fit all sorts of anti-Christ agendas. There are true and false applications for all scripture.

 

[JonC]

@AustinC

So as not to derail this thread I've started on of my position. You are welcome to explain exactly why you believe it lacks substance there.

The Cross

 

[Jec81]

I haven't read anything one way or the other on said revival's gospel messages.

From an interview last night yesterday's message as "look and touch the person beside you and tell them 'jesus loves you and had a plan for you'" sounds like 1cor 15 to you?

 

[37818]

From an interview last night yesterday's message as "look and touch the person beside you and tell them 'jesus loves you and had a plan for you'" sounds like 1cor 15 to you?

Re: 1 Cor 15[:3-4]. No.