-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Real debates
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
Sapper Woody
Well-Known Member
No translation needed. If you have to refer to a book other than scripture, it is impossible to debate you. Because we wouldn't be debating you; we'd be debating your representations of someone else's viewpoints. It's a pointless exercise in futility. Your only answer this far towards those that disagree with you is "keep reading" or "read this other book". You are incapable of defending your own positions, primarily because you have none.
You have been told this for years.
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk
Not true not true. The book is the vehicle but scripture the foundation. Since the method is defended in the book it must be backed up with scripture.
I think you're not accurately distinguishing "backed up with scripture" vs. "derived from scripture"
We have gone thru his teaching on the way of the Master video, and would just say that he seems to be teaching almost a salvation that come to sinner AFTER they repent of all sins and change lives before getting saved!
Everything Joel Osteen "preaches" can be backed up with scripture. Everything the "name it and claim it" bunch preach can be backed up with scripture.
Because it can be backed up with a verse doesn't make it true.
There used to be a gentleman in your neck of the woods named Bob Enyart; he wrote a book or two on theology. He used a lot of scripture to support some conclusions of his, that a friend of mine ascribed to.
Peter Ruckman used a lot of scripture to support his conclusions, that a lot of people still ascribe to.
In both cases, looking at the scripture itself, and critically reviewing the words and their context, pointed out that both authors were using verses to support their positions, rather than allowing scripture to be their position.
That's what I call the voodoo of you-do.
Almost all "evangelism" today incorporates this shady tactic of a response doctrine. I've fought against it in several churches and at Sunday School conferences sponsored by those hacks at Lifeway.
Take all the care in the world to accurately represent the Christ of scripture and the merit of the cross, only throw somebody in the ditch of self effort on the issue of access.
Instead of a simple hope firmly fixed upon Christ, it boils down to "if you do this, God will give you eternal life"
The ONLY thing God requires from a sinner to do is to look upon Jesus, as Spurgeon said, and trust in Him to save you, NOT to clean up your life before he will and can accept you!
Does he not demand the lost to repent of sins and change their lives before getting saved then?
If this is true then you ought to be able to debate the Ten Commandments method straight from Scripture without the books. (Remember, "the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice," or if you prefer, sola scriptura.) I tried to do this with you once on a thread you started, but you begged off--kept saying you'd get back to it, but never did.
You and me, straight Scripture on using the Ten Commandments in evangelism, no other books allowed--any time. But I'll not lose any sleep waiting for it to happen.
Until then, your own animal is the lemming.
Does the phrase the ten commandments appear in scripture?If this is true then you ought to be able to debate the Ten Commandments method straight from Scripture without the books. (Remember, "the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice," or if you prefer, sola scriptura.) I tried to do this with you once on a thread you started, but you begged off--kept saying you'd get back to it, but never did.
You and me, straight Scripture on using the Ten Commandments in evangelism, no other books allowed--any time. But I'll not lose any sleep waiting for it to happen.
Or is it like the phrase The Covenant of Redemption?
So according to your previous posting.....it cannot be spoken of even if we can count them up.....no....just like you suggested Peter did not use the word covenant
I like your style JoJ.
If this is true then you ought to be able to debate the Ten Commandments method straight from Scripture without the books. (Remember, "the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice," or if you prefer, sola scriptura.) I tried to do this with you once on a thread you started, but you begged off--kept saying you'd get back to it, but never did.
You and me, straight Scripture on using the Ten Commandments in evangelism, no other books allowed--any time. But I'll not lose any sleep waiting for it to happen.
It is not fair that others can post animals but I cannot post rabbits. Anyways I won't give JOJ one but will look up some verses to quote. It may take a while as I work 60 hours a week.
No comparison. The Ten Commandments are delineated clearly in Scripture so that the entire Christian world and the Jewish world even before that has known of them and called them that. On the other hand, the Covenant of Redemption has only been taught for a comparatively short time (just like dispensationalism), so it behooves its advocates to actually prove its existence from Scripture.
If this is what you think, you certainly misunderstood my posts.So according to your previous posting.....it cannot be spoken of even if we can count them up.....no....just like you suggested Peter did not use the word covenant
Considering the negative nature of this post, I assume this is sarcasm. But I'll say thanks anyway.
And of course, this post has nothing to do with the OP.
We need to be just a little bit careful here.
The same Scriptures that say, 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved' (Acts 16:31) also say 'Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor adulterers.......nor thieves nor covetous........will enter the kingdom of God' (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Our evangelism needs to reconcile these two positions.
John of Japan
but...there is.
And that is valid.....I do not question it.
In like manner....when millions of Christians see the Covenant of Redemption taught in scripture....clearly....it is also valid.
I asked you in another thread to show where the age or dispensation of conscience, or human government was taught in the bible. You said you could show it....even when the words are not written that way.....so....what is good for the goose is good for the gander as the saying goes.....
Those phrases are not in scripture at all....dispensational persons insert them in their teachings.....but I believe that is okay. I know what they are trying to convey, even if the idea is a false one and easily disproven.....I do not make believe that I do not know what they mean.
Many of our formal teachings have been of recent origin.....yet clearly understood , or rejected by many.....so let's be a bit more consistent in our explanations if we can.
Frankly a denial of the importance of the law of God in reference to the gospel is horrible and close to a denial of the gospel itself, if we want to stay on topic with the OP.
We are saved by the law keeping of another...
21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
John.... I respect you, and your service in the kingdom of God. You have put your life into the kingdom....yet although we share many common things, we have some differences which are substantial. We cannot interact without these differences coming out in some way or the other.
The system of theology you espouse is going to force you in a certain direction, and likewise the things I am considering are doing a similar thing to me.
You challenge Evan...and that is fine as he is attempting to stand for what he believes, even though he struggles to clarify what he has gathered from these teachings....we know who he reads...
He nevertheless offers what he see's as a healthy method of evangelism even though most here do not want what he offers them....
That being said the law is necessary to be used to show sinners their need of a Saviour....and what they are being saved from.
To the degree it strays is the degree which you have perhaps strayed as I responded to your post.
.
but...there is.
And that is valid.....I do not question it.
In like manner....when millions of Christians see the Covenant of Redemption taught in scripture....clearly....it is also valid.
I asked you in another thread to show where the age or dispensation of conscience, or human government was taught in the bible. You said you could show it....even when the words are not written that way.....so....what is good for the goose is good for the gander as the saying goes.....
Those phrases are not in scripture at all....dispensational persons insert them in their teachings.....but I believe that is okay. I know what they are trying to convey, even if the idea is a false one and easily disproven.....I do not make believe that I do not know what they mean.
Many of our formal teachings have been of recent origin.....yet clearly understood , or rejected by many.....so let's be a bit more consistent in our explanations if we can.
I agree overall if a person is going to go public with a view, he should be able to do so to some extent. The poster in question might not be fully up to it, and yet what he says is in fact more correct than wrong.
Frankly a denial of the importance of the law of God in reference to the gospel is horrible and close to a denial of the gospel itself, if we want to stay on topic with the OP.
We are saved by the law keeping of another...
21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.
Your responses in times past indicate to be that you do not follow what I am saying many times...I will have to be clearer when I answer you as your response shows you missed what I was saying to you.
John.... I respect you, and your service in the kingdom of God. You have put your life into the kingdom....yet although we share many common things, we have some differences which are substantial. We cannot interact without these differences coming out in some way or the other.
The system of theology you espouse is going to force you in a certain direction, and likewise the things I am considering are doing a similar thing to me.
You challenge Evan...and that is fine as he is attempting to stand for what he believes, even though he struggles to clarify what he has gathered from these teachings....we know who he reads...
He nevertheless offers what he see's as a healthy method of evangelism even though most here do not want what he offers them....
That being said the law is necessary to be used to show sinners their need of a Saviour....and what they are being saved from.
perhaps a bit ...yes...It just struck me when I read in principle what you wrote here, [which I agree with in part] and yet you do not see where you did the same exact thing in the other thread.Considering the negative nature of this post, I assume this is sarcasm. But I'll say thanks anyway.
To the degree it strays is the degree which you have perhaps strayed as I responded to your post.
So let me get this straight. You are castigating me for sticking to the OP of that thread and avoiding the detour into dispensationalism, correct?
(Again for the nth time--a position on the new covenant is not necessary to dispensationalism.)I have not denied the importance of the law of God in reference to the Gospel. What I deny is that we must use the 10 Commandments in our evangelism. Sorry, the Bible doesn't teach that.
As for your quote, I could better work with you on it if you were to source it.
He and I go way back on this. He'll say that WOTM is the only way (or seem to say that), then he'll say it's the best way but not the only way, then he'll say that he often uses some other way. I just try to hold him accountable to present Scriptural proof for the WOTM.
I myself have used the law in evangelism many times. God uses it sometimes, but other times it is the wrong approach, as I have found to my sorrow.
I don't object to any valid method of evangelism. I am for all methods. What I object to is the WOTM position that theirs is the best or even only way.
No, the Holy Spirit is necessary to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11). He may or may not use the law in that regard. Often the sinner is already under conviction without the law, as even the WOTM method agrees. Read the book of Acts. There are many evangelistic scenarios where the Law is not even mentioned there.
Just for the record, I'm speaking of the actual, written, OT law here. Many times on the BB it is a quite ambiguous term.
Last edited:
There's nothing to reconcile there at all.
One is for unbelievers to hope in Christ,
while the other is for believers to not walk in the flesh.
Trying to reconcile those two has led many to adopt a "compilation" theology that isn't faithful to anything written. Just a hodgepodge of confusion and a whole host of pseudo-Christians trying to work for eternal life
Fair enough John. Thanks for your clarification.So let me get this straight. You are castigating me for sticking to the OP of that thread and avoiding the detour into dispensationalism, correct?
I have not denied the importance of the law of God in reference to the Gospel. What I deny is that we must use the 10 Commandments in our evangelism. Sorry, the Bible doesn't teach that.
As for your quote, I could better work with you on it if you were to source it.
He and I go way back on this. He'll say that WOTM is the only way (or seem to say that), then he'll say it's the best way but not the only way, then he'll say that he often uses some other way. I just try to hold him accountable to present Scriptural proof for the WOTM.
I myself have used the law in evangelism many times. God uses it sometimes, but other times it is the wrong approach, as I have found to my sorrow.
I don't object to any valid method of evangelism. I am for all methods. What I object to is the WOTM position that theirs is the best or even only way.
No, the Holy Spirit is necessary to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11). He may or may not use the law in that regard. Often the sinner is already under conviction without the law, as even the WOTM method agrees. Read the book of Acts. There are many evangelistic scenarios where the Law is not even mentioned there.
Just for the record, I'm speaking of the actual, written, OT law here. Many times on the BB it is a quite ambiguous term.
So let me get this straight. You are castigating me for sticking to the OP of that thread and avoiding the detour into dispensationalism, correct?
I have not denied the importance of the law of God in reference to the Gospel. What I deny is that we must use the 10 Commandments in our evangelism. Sorry, the Bible doesn't teach that.
As for your quote, I could better work with you on it if you were to source it.
He and I go way back on this. He'll say that WOTM is the only way (or seem to say that), then he'll say it's the best way but not the only way, then he'll say that he often uses some other way. I just try to hold him accountable to present Scriptural proof for the WOTM.
I myself have used the law in evangelism many times. God uses it sometimes, but other times it is the wrong approach, as I have found to my sorrow.
I don't object to any valid method of evangelism. I am for all methods. What I object to is the WOTM position that theirs is the best or even only way.
No, the Holy Spirit is necessary to convict of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11). He may or may not use the law in that regard. Often the sinner is already under conviction without the law, as even the WOTM method agrees. Read the book of Acts. There are many evangelistic scenarios where the Law is not even mentioned there.
Just for the record, I'm speaking of the actual, written, OT law here. Many times on the BB it is a quite ambiguous term.
WOTM is the best but not the only way. What makes it so good is it's approach is aimed at the conscience while other methods the intellect.