Revolve Bible

And we already see that you are backtracking from your argument. Your exact words: "Scott, it is not only possible to change the faith of others, but it is your duty." So we see, that you hvae changed your tune considerably, and my point has been one.

It is in black and white on their site. You should be upset at them - not me.

And more ad hominems? You should know by now that they don't work, and are a product of a person who is unable to argue based upon merit.

Read my last post. I make it clear that the Holy Spirit is the only one who can enable a person to choose Christ. I also make it clear that man's responsibility is to preach the Word of God. You are making a straw man argument, and it is your second logical fallacy in a row.

Which you are completely wrong about - go to page 344 of the Revolve Bible.

And this is what the Revolve Bible says. This is NOT what the site says. The site says that it is man's responsibility to judge the person. The Bible says that judging is NOT our responsibility. The Revolve Bible is closer to Truth than the site. Disagree? Go to the actual source and read what Revolve has to say about it.

"John the Baptist openly rebuked and judged. . . THE KING. . . " He then listed other men who went out there and judged the world. It's not being made up - it is right there.

The site uses the actual word - "judge." Complain to them.

Read closely at the answer that Revolve gives. It says to go and speak to them. Revolve isn’t advocating not speaking to them. All you have to do is read it to find that out.

And if you read the Bible, that’s what it says.

Actually, the “judge not” part was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so you should be very careful about attributing to Satan what the Holy Spirit has done. You are treading on thin ice here.

I didn’t condemn them. I didn’t call them a non-Christian. I’m just pointing out that what they have said is not just unbiblical, it’s anti-Biblical.

You are saying that man can somehow convict others of sin. This is not true. The Bible says that role goes to the Holy Spirit. You ignore the context and understanding of the phrase “co-laborours with God.”

Accordingt o the site, specific laws specifically apply. They don’t say anything about choosing one law, and not the other. So, we must conclude in their silence that if we must obey one of the laws, then we must obey all of the laws. They are the ones who were silent.

Prostituting your neighbor specifically falls under loving your neighbor as yourself. Getting a tattoo does not invalidate that command. If my child wants a tattoo, and he or she is old enough, what problem would I have?

Do a little anthropological research on “grape juice” during the time of Christ. Let’s use a little bit of common sense here. If it even has just a touch of alcohol, it is still alcohol. The facts are that the grapes became fermented, so there was alcoholic content. Thus, Jesus drank alcohol.

Who said anything about mother earth? God indeed instructs us to take care of our world. The site says that God doesn’t care about it. There’s a specific difference there. That’s the point I made, and you ignore that point.

There’s a pretty good causation listed in the site, is there not? Read the rhetorical question. Only someone with poor understanding couldn’t see that the author of the site specifically links these things with modern versions.

There was a definite cause and effect in the testimonies of the couples. That’s good enough for me.

And another straw man. I never said that I encouraged youth to get tattoos, drink beer, substitute personal witness for community service. I do discourage dating couple to pray together alone. I encourage students to keep their bodies pure, and would never encourage a student under the age of 18 to get a tattoo. It is a big decision. I tell them that drinking beer is a poor witness of our faith and is against the law according to the US. Because of that, underage drinking is a sin. While I do stress that community service is important, specific verbal personal witness is a direct commandment of Christ and should be of the utmost importance in a believer’s life. The believer who does not do that is outside of God’s will. So stop saying that I don’t believe in these things.

Nope again. The fact that they blatantly lie on their site speaks poorly of their testimony.

 

You are just a master at half truths aren’t you. The first sentence of my first post asked you “do you believe that people have no role in changing another persons faith”. Revolve had stated “Don’t try to talk them into changing their faith”, thus squelching the primary avenue through which the Holy Spirit works.. The fact is you can, and that is your role, as I have pointed out over and over to you, through the Holy Spirt’s work in the born-again your life. The context is clear that it is your duty to play this role as a born-again believer or you are hindering the Holy Spirit’s work. Revolve is hindering the Holy Spirit’s work by encouraging people to not be actively engaged in trying to “talk” them into changing their faith. This is in context Scott. You said “There is nothing you or I can do to change a person's faith”. This is grossly incorrect and flat out denies the command of scripture for our lives. There is plenty we can do and that is our role in the Holy Spirits plan. That’s how the Holy Spirit uses us!!!! How are you missing this?????? Again, telling someone to not try to talk others into changing their faith is a false non-scriptural doctrine. Of course, if your hyper-Calvinist you might think witnessing or preaching is against God’s will, but I’m addressing people who believe the Bible. It is not a Pelagianism or man-centered faith to believe we have a role, a duty, to talk others into changing their faith. This is called witnessing Scott. This is the will of God for our life and the avenue through which the Holy Spirit reaches people with God’s word, brings them under conviction, repentance and salvation. Just admit it, you have mischaracterized what the article is saying and what I am saying.

Black and white, verily. I say again, your original statement was that you learned from this article that “It is possible for a person to change another person's faith”. You know full well they were not saying you can do the work of the Holy Spirit, or force a conversion. You have completely misconstrued what they are talking about.

No ad hominem here, you have made false accusations, twisted their words and mine, and have defended your actions. That was the original contention I made, and I have successfully proven this contention.

Do you even understand what a strawman argument is? I did not miss the point. Let’s start from the beginning, again, Scott. You claim you learned that “The Holy Spirit's job is not to convict the world of sin” from this website, Here is exactly what I said in my last post: You learned no such thing. You just made that up to be inflammatory. You know very well what I mean when I say we are colabors with God. You said “We are to proclaim what is right and wrong”. Yes Scott, that’s how it works, that is how the Holy Spirit works in the life of the believer to convict people of their sin. Get it? I think you do, you just want to argue don’t you. No strawman here. You have made a contention that cannot be supported by the facts. Plain and simple.

So “The Bible says that judging is NOT our responsibility”. Really?? For the lost and unspiritual that is no doubt true. However, don’t you know Scott that we shall judge angels? I personally have no problem with judging such small matters as kicking someone out of church for continually living in open sin, do you? It will invariably be perceived by the lost and the backslider to be a judgment of their hearts.

So you think the Holy Spirit is what prompts these folks (who arose out of the 60’s peace and love pothead movement) to accuse born-again Bible believers of judging them when they witness? Is that what you think Scott? You have not done much personal work have you? This is the very first thing you will hear if you ever step out on faith and witness regularly. It is so pervasive it is just incredible. It is obvious you just exposed yourself as one of these humble non-judging folks. Strangely enough you seem to have little problem with judging these people on this website. No Scott, I’m not treading on thin ice, but those who try to stifle the work of the Holy Spirit by quoting scripture, well as we say in East Tennessee, “now that’s something else”.

I say again, you claim you learned from this website “The Holy Spirit's job is not to convict the world of sin”. You learned no such thing. You just made that up to be inflammatory. You know very well what I mean when I say we are co-laborers with God. You said “We are to proclaim what is right and wrong”. Yes Scott, that’s how it works, that is how the Holy Spirit works in the life of the believer to convict people of their sin. Get it? I think you do, you just want to argue don’t you.

You are the one who simply does not understand the role of the Holy Spirit in our growth, witnessing and preaching. These things we do are empty without the Holy Spirit, so yes, used in your sense they have no power to convict. I have no doubt that the great majority of Christians have no power in the Holy Spirit. But used in submission to the Holy Spirit of God they have the power to convict. Yes we give God all the glory. We are nothing without Him. But as believers, we have chosen to yield our vessels to Him. God uses the yielded vessel as one of His instruments for convicting others of their sins.

This is a distraction fallacy from ignorance where something is not known to be true, so it is assumed to be false, or vise versa.

What, prostituting your neighbor, falls under loving your neighbor? Just kidding.

Oh, I’ve done a little research. Why don’t you answer the questions I have posed, seeing as you are such an expert and all. Here they are in case you forgot: How much alcohol content does naturally fermented wine have? Did they ever water it down? You mentioned refrigerators, what about granulated sugar? Is that important to fermentation and alcoholic content? Do you contend that fermentation was the only way to preserve grape juice? Furthermore, you fail to address what I said about the wedding feast at Cana and the NIV rendering about the guests having had too much to drink. Are you afraid of the logical fallacy of your argument? I look forward to your reply.

So they did say “go ahead and pollute” as you have claimed? And you are on board with the “Top Ten Random ways to make a difference in your community”. That in their list 5, or exactly half were environmentalism related. Zero, zip, nada about witnessing, passing out tracts, inviting people to church. Are you on board with that Scott?

Your false accusation that this site claims “Rock and roll and abortion exist today because of the NIV” is still false.

It’s not for me. Now, intimacy in other areas would be forbidden, but not praying. This would be a post hoc causal fallacy where it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the thing was caused by the other.

I would do more than not “encourage” tattoos and beer drinking. I am proud to hear you stress personal witness as being of the “utmost importance”.

You have not shown one lie, let alone a blatant one. Come clean on this Scott.

Scott, your entire list “would be” a classic case of the hasty generalization inductive fallacy if it were not so obvious that you are trying to mischaracterize the intent and heart beliefs of the authors of this website. You have judged them as teaching multiple false doctrines without a shred of evidence. They have provided clear proof of their allegations from the source they are disputing. Now, it is probably a hopeless cause to get you to admit to your error, but I hope that everyone who reads this takes special note of how you have sidestepped your claims and have shown yourself to be what you are, a false witness on these particular claims you have made.

 

And we see that you are in error concerning the truth of what Revolve actually says. Go back and read the answer. The editor comments that you are not to remain silent. Twice the answer says to speak to the person. The part that you are quoting is taken out of context. The phrase is there for the specific instruction of not forcing them to accept something. Again, we cannot talk anyone into changing their faith. That is the role of the Holy Spirit.

So who is doing the work of regeneration – man or the Holy Spirit? I say the Holy Spirit.

The role as I have said in previous posts is to proclaim the gospel. We do not change another person’s faith.

Again, you act that if a person says the magic words that a person could come to change their faith. The reality is that there is nothing a man can do to cause a person to change their faith. Nothing. The Holy Spirit is the only one Who can enable a person to do this.

Then show one instance in which a person (except for Christ) made someone’s faith change. Just one.

I say that we preach the Word and allow the Spirit to work in the person’s life. This is quite Biblical. I honestly cannot imagine which Scripture you are taking this view of salvation from.

Then show the Scripture that says we are to talk others into sharing their faith. You commit an egregious error in thinking that preaching is equivalent to changing a person’s faith.

Witnessing is sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. Witnessing is not changing another person’s faith. That is the role of the Spirit.

I don’t think you yourself understand what you are saying. You have said over and over that man can change another person’s faith. Here you get it right – the Holy Spirit reaches people with God’s word, brings them under conviction, repentance, and salvation. Where you err is in saying that man has a part in changing another’s faith. That is, quite simply, Pelagian heresy. But – if you have Scripture that says that man can change another person’s faith, let us see it.

In black and white from the site: “Remember "it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict her and teach her". Can a saved person actually READ the Bible and be that far off base.” Your beef is with the site, not me.

Again, if you think you have proven anything, then you should enroll at your local university’s argumentation class. Perhaps you can audit it.

Quite well. Did the debate thing in college. Taken the classes. I know what it is.

And the aforementioned quote says exactly that.

And I said that that specifically the site does indeed say what my first point was. It’s there in black and white. No matter of twisting of the text, the site says what it says. I have shown the Scriptural role of the Spirit and of Christians. Your beef, again, is with the site.

Could you rephrase that linguistic monster of a question?

I don’t hear it at all. And I am an active witnesser, having led five people to Christ in the last few months. How do I go about it? I let them know my story – about how terrible I was because I was without Christ, and how He saved me, even though I didn’t deserve it. I show them the love of Christ and the peace that they can find through Him. And not once have I heard someone say, “Stop judging me.” They know that I was where they are now, and that Christ rescued me. This doesn’t take away from the reality of sin. In fact, reading through Acts, I can’t find an example of a non-Christian saying, “Stop judging me.” Sharing your faith through love presents the gospel in a non-judging atmosphere.

Not when you Biblically share your faith.

I’ve been called worse.

Not judging them. Merely pointing out what they believe.

 

I’m just concerned that you believe that something that may be done by the Spirit is being called Satanic. Jesus was very clear about what happens to people who do that.

Here it is again: Remember "it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict her and teach her". Can a saved person actually READ the Bible and be that far off base

So who changes a person’s faith? Man or the Holy Spirit?

I understand the role of the Spirit quite well. I know what the Bible says. Again – name one person who was able to convict another person because of his words (besides Christ).

I don’t know of any recognized Christian creed that would say that man can convict another person. Let’s see the Scriptures, if you have them.

This would be true if the site was silent. Since it is not and the assumption is made that if Leviticus 19:28 isn’t valid, then the next one wouldn’t be, your claim of fallacy is incorrect.

Naturally fermented wine is 7 and 12 percent alcohol. Watering it down was not something that was done, and even then, it would not eliminate the alcohol. Granulated sugar (according to a website about the history of sugar) didn’t exist 2000 years ago, and sugar in and of itself was a luxury, owned only by royalty in Palestine. Furthermore, sugar would have fermented as well, adding to the alcoholic content. The only way to preserve grape juice for the length of time needed for Jesus to drink the fruit of the vine at Passover was to either make molasses from it (which was edible, but not drinkable) or ferment it to make wine. Check Hastings Bible Dictionary for the full proof.

The Greek word for wine is oinos. We know that it is alcoholic because the Good Samaritan used it as an antiseptic. So, Jesus did, indeed, turn the water into the wine…which was alcoholic. There is no way to treat Scripture fairly to say that it wasn’t.

Specifically from your site, “[God] doesn’t care about the earth.” That is what I learned from reading the site, which is why it made the point. I may not agree with the Revolve magazine on this point, but that is not what is in question. The credibility of the av1611 site is what is.

Then talk to the author of the site – he is the one who makes the causal link, not me.

Post hoc fallacies are often made when we are merely looking at occurrences of two events, and proclaim that one leads to another. However, in this situation, those couples who were actually in the situation are the ones who made the association. Because they have “investigated” the situation (actually living it out), they concur that the prayer time led to intimacy in which they were not prepared.

Go to the site, find the Hell page. Right in the middle. Using a tabloid article and attributing it to fact is a lie.

The intent of the author is to demonize any Christian who is not a fundamentalist, KJV-onlyist, and apparently who does not go about witnessing by judging the fire out of the sinner. The result of it is that they are causing dissension in the body of Christ, and, even worse, painting Christianity and Jesus Christ in a very, very harmful way. I hope that people do continue to read. The fact that you believe that a person can change another person’s faith should automatically show the discerning reader that your theology is built upon something other than Scripture.

 

Hey Faith, might I suggest you stop attacking Scott personally. Forget the whole "Love your brother thing," just for your own good--stop. It undermines your entire argument when you can't write a post without making personal attacks on those who disagree with you.

 

Now you know Jonathan, Scott is against rebuking and judging. So, if you say to forget the whole "Love your brother thing", are you suggesting I do not love Scott? Furthermore, are personal attacks on someone you disagree with wrong? I can just see you standing in a crowd near the group of Pharisees that Jesus was rebuking. I wonder what you would have thought of this man Jesus?

 

I wasn't judging you, just giving some advice on why you shouldn't attack Scott. If I were to judge and rebuke you I would do it with a PM, no reason to make it public.

I'm suggesting that your posts show no love. Not saying you do or don't love him, just that your actions on this board don't give witness to any love.

Even the secular world knows personal attacks are wrong! The Bible is full of verses about love and grace, and it also condemns slander many times.

 

I'm trying to figure out what any of these posts have to do with the Revolve edition of the Bible.

 

Speak to the person? I doesn’t say that in the section in question (see below).

Certainly the Holy Spirit does. Here is yet another example of you creating a strawman argument. This is exactly how you falsely accuse the website of things they never said. You’re making stuff up. No one has even mentioned regeneration until now. You are really struggling with admitting your error aren’t you.

Last time you accused me of saying we could change someone’s faith, as if I had not said that in the context of our role. Now you continue to beat this drum after you have been shown to be pulling things out of context and misrepresenting the facts. Again, this website does not teach what you contend that “It is possible for a person to change another person's faith”. You have made this up.

But we have a role and the Holy Spirit works through us. The issue is your made up contention that this site teaches “The Holy Spirit's job is not to convict the world of sin”. This is a lie. It is a fabrication from your own mind. They do not teach this!!!!!!

I can show you many where they have a role, which is my contention.

What???? We have bantered about enough about this. It is obvious to everyone reading these posts. You are just being argumentative to keep from admitting you have mischaracterized the nature and intent of the author’s article on the website in question. Again, this website does not teach “The Holy Spirit's job is not to convict the world of sin”. Simply admit you made this up.

Here you obviously do not know what you are saying. The Pelagian heresy was that man is basically good and did, indeed, have control of his own eternal destiny. It denied the doctrine of original sin, and by extension, the necessity for and the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Now if you are accusing me of this then this is another lie you are propagating. I believe we are children of disobedience, born in sin, and the wrath of God abides on us, and only through the saving grace of Christ can this be rectified and we be reconciled to God. Don’t falsely accuse me of this again. I have stated clearly what man’s role is in this matter. You are continuing a false accusation.

Grossly out of context and you know it. It is clear, in context, the issue they are addressing:

In another "BLAB" dealing with homosexuality (p. 43) a teenage girl asks advice on how to deal with another girl who is in love with a female teacher. Look at this lame and pathetic answer.
Q; This girl at church told me that she was in love, yes, in love with one of her female teachers. This girl is fourteen years old. I just need some advice on what I should say to her if I get to speak to her again.
A: For a woman to fall in love with another woman is considered a sin according to the Bible. You’ve got to remember one thing though: It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict her and teach her. In the Bible it says that God remains faithful even when we are faithless. Your job is to show this girl the love of God. How? Stay her friend. Prayer changes things. It can move mountains. It can radically alter lives. Just make sure you remember who God is and that you’re not him.
(Revolve, p. 43)
In other words, do not "judge" her for the lusts of homosexuality. And don’t dare tell her it’s wrong – that would be judging her. But just "show her the love of God". Remember "it’s the Holy Spirit’s job to convict her and teach her". Can a saved person actually READ the Bible and be that far off base? Look at the last part of the BLAB – now preachers, this is a nugget – "Just make sure you remember who God is and that you’re not him." What spiritual insight! That had to come through hours of study and prayer. . .

It speaks for itself, in glaring contrast to your accusation. The statement by Revolve tells you to keep your mouth shut and the Holy Spirit will teach her it’s a sin. This ignores the obvious that it is your job to tell this young lady it is a sin. That is how the Holy Spirit works through believers. Then the Holy Spirit will convict her of this sin.

Exposing all your logical fallacies in my last post make you a little upset?

Well, isn’t that special.

In your mind and the minds of your cronies.

I’m not the one who has a beef with this site. You’re the one that posted 9 false accusations.

Trouble reading? That is another class you could retake. In fact, that may be the entire problem here—your inability to read and understand within context.

I work with highly educated people in a corporate work environment, a very hard crowd to reach. Many of them are religious, but lost. They will throw just about everything at you. The Bible says that not many wise after the flesh are called, and I believe it. I, like you, had a wonderful conversion and love to share it, and do often. I believe sharing it is the best way to reach the lost. The people you witness to may be less likely to throw “judge not” in your face? I witness almost every day and it only happens once in a while, but when it does it makes things very uncomfortable, so it stands out. I assure you, it is a real phenomenon. Having not experienced this may explain why you don’t understand the perspective of this article. Jesus set the example for ministering. He was very patient and loving toward the lost that sought Him. But the other side of the coin is that He was often harsh and direct with the “wise after the flesh” Pharisees that were religious and lost and were always tempting Him. The Bible says that many of them were converted. Regarding an example in scripture of “judge not”, remember the time frames we are dealing with. Jesus’ quote “judge not” is being misused by an educated, modern and liberal society today. The religious lost of Christ’s day tempted Him with other areas of scripture extant in that day. Try to understand that I may have a different witnessing environment than you. Some groups of people are hard to reach with the gospel no matter what your approach is. If you doubt this, talk to some missionaries to Israel and broaden your understanding.

That depends on who your dealing with.

So .

Merely lying about what they believe.

 

Are you implying I’m blaspheming the Holy Spirit? Are you Baptist or Church of God? If there is one thing I’m sure of, the one’s that throw “judge not” in the face of witnesses today are being lead by a spirit, and it’s not the Holy one.

See above.

This is a false dilemma fallacy of distraction where two choices are given when in fact there are three options.

By the same token, do you believe the Holy Spirit brings people under conviction without a person sharing the Word orally or in print?

Are you a Calvinist?

That’s funny. Your assumption is the root of your fallacy.

You are painting an entirely false picture of wine in the Bible. First, watering down certainly was something they did and they drank it this way regularly. Also, boiling it down to a syrup was frequently done for preservation. This boiling killed the yeast that would cause fermentation. The syrup could easily be reconstituted later for drinking purposes. A third form of preservation was by straining out the yeast to prevent fermentation.

Furthermore, nature NEVER forms spiritous liquors. The fruit (grape) may rot and turn sour but it takes ART to convert juice to alcohol. The indispensable conditions for vinous fermentation are exact proportions of sugar, yeast or gluten and water with air temperature between 50 and 75 degrees. Chemical science forbids vinous fermentation when heat exceeds 75 degrees and assures the acetous (vinegar). Since the Middle East is well above that even at night most of the year, something had to be done to preserve the juice (wine) for the year, or else it would all turn to vinegar! To assume it was all turned to alcoholic wine is a ridiculous assertion and flies in the face of historical fact. Josephus, famous Jewish historian declares that he has seen provisions at the Jewish fortress Massada including grapes and fruits, kept fresh to last for 100 years!!!! Pliny the Roman historian confirms this. Don't let anyone tell you that grapes have to be kept by making alcoholic wine so they can last the year!!

So we see that your portrayal that grape juice was only preserved by fermentation is utterly false. Unfermented wine was the most common wine in biblical times. It was not what we know as wine today which is always alcoholic. You cannot defend wine drinking today on the basis of biblical times because the two are totally different.

Wow, you call that treating scripture fairly??? If you know anything at all about Greek you know that oinos can refer fermented or unfermented grape juice. The word oinos is used at least 33 times in the LXX to translate tirosh the Hebrew word for grape juice. The word "wine" not only in Greek, but in Old English, in Latin, and in Hebrew is a generic term including all kinds of wine, unfermented and fermented.
In the 1828 Webster’s dictionary wine is defined as unfermented and fermented juice. Only by context can one know whether the wine in question is fermented or not. Thus, the fact the wine made by Christ at Cana is called oinos offers no grounds for concluding hat it was fermented wine. Your false private interpretation of these passages fits the NIV rendering that the guests, including Jesus, were drunken and then Jesus made more to further the intoxication. The fact is that the context tells us otherwise. By the simple fact that the governor of the feast noted that He had saved the good wine until last. If they had been intoxicated, as you assume, the governor would not have been able to tell it was the best because his senses would be dulled. Surely you are not stating that oinos always means alcoholic wine are you?

I’m glad to see you don’t agree with Revolve here, neither do I.

No causal link made.

Their fallacy, your fallacy.

It looks like your right here. But that does not mean all their stuff is wrong. If you’re implying this, that would be a hasty generalization inductive fallacy.

We are now judging intent? They are causing dissension in the body of Christ? I hope they continue to read also and see how you not only mischaracterize this website, but me as well. They should take special note of how you pull things out of context and setup strawman arguments to accuse someone of believing something they do not over and over again. The discerning reader will find that I base my Theology on God’s Words, and you are just a trouble maker.

 

JonathanDT,

So, are you accusing me of slander now? You guys that don’t believe in a direct personal confrontation are not a bit hesitant to throw innuendo around. Do you believe an indirect attack is any less personal? You have implied that my behavior is not consistent with what the Bible teaches about love, and you have now implied that I am slandering someone. This doesn’t feel like love Jonathan.

Scott has personally made some very serious accusations regarding the intent of the website article on the Revolve Bible. My contention is his claims are false, baseless and inflammatory. We are debating this. I do not care for the nature of this debate either, but he persists in that his 9 accusations are factual when it is very clear they are not. I also contend that the criticisms of the Revolve Bible made in this website are accurate. This is the essence of the debate and why it is germane to the thread.

 

What the debate boils down to is this:

The website says certain things. Specific things. All one has to do is read the site for themselves, and they can decide for themselves if those nine things that I "learned" from them hold true or not. If one is an apologist from the site, they will jump up and down and defend it. That is often my reaction from those who would disagree with Scripture, so I can understand the reaction. However, I believe that the page in which the Revolve Bible is "reviewed" - along with the rest of the site - presents many extra-Biblical assertions. Those assertions are the nine points that I made. Anyone who wishes can go through the page and see how one would "learn" those points.

1. Does the site say that it is possible to change another person's faith? It seems clear to me. Others have defended that assertion, that it is possible to change another person's faith. I disagree, because I believe that the Spirit is the only one who can draw a man and cause his faith to be changed. I believe I have solid Scriptural backing in this area. Others do not.

2. I believe that when reviewing the Revolve Bible, the site makes some errors, albeit semantic, that would lead someone to believe that it is not necessary to love their neighbor, and "present the gospel" in way that goes against showing love. When Revolve Bible states that a person should love the sinner, the site answers, "Can a saved person actually READ the Bible and be that far off base?"

3. The site is quite clear in saying that the old law is still applicable to the New Covenant. Therefore, since mixed fabrics are a sin in the old law, then wearing mixed fabrics must also be a sin.

4. The site says, "[God] is not concerned about it," when referring to the health of the planet earth.

5. The site also says that even just a touch of alcohol makes one a drunkard - so no more cough syrup!

6. The site does, indeed, make a causal link between modern versions and the things that are wrong with the world.

These are all things that someone who is not an apologist would take from the site. I believe that these things are extraBiblical, along with many other things that the site teaches.

Faith, Fact, and Feeling may disagree that the site says these things, and that's fine. People can read something and take different things from it. If you wish to defend something, you may be blind to its faults.

I take Christianity from perhaps a different understanding, which may be where we are not meeting. I believe that our role as Christians is to show love to our neighbor first and foremost. I don't see a single instance in which Jesus Christ approached a sinner and began condemning them outright. He met them where they were. The only people who Jesus Christ spoke out in condemnation where the religious people. As I understand the application in today's world, I have found that by showing love first and foremost, even to the "worst" sinners, not a single one has seen a gospel of judgement from me. I haven't seen or heard a person complain that I was taking a superiour or judging perspective. Instead, I found that through the love of Christ, they begin to understand their sin nature and the Holy Spirit begins to draw them.

In fact, there have been times where I will begin confessing to them the sins of Christians - not just the sins of the Crusads and things like that, but the sins of today's Christians, who would rather judge them to death without showing them an inch of Christian loves. The sins of indifference by people who profess to love Christ but do nothing about it. I confess my sins to them, about how I mess up and screw up in spite of my relationship with Christ. Something strange happens - they realize that I, too, am a man who messes up, who doesn't live a perfect life, but I am someone who has a love relationship with God, and because of that love, my life has meaning. It has purpose. It has hope and joy. And because of it, I understand what love is. Yep, to me that is the gospel message. Others may disagree, but if they would just try it, they may see that the "old" way of witnessing misses the mark in oh, so, many ways.

But that is my perspective. That is why I am a fan of the Revolve Bible. I don't like parts of it, and I wish that changes were made, but what I have personally seen from my students has been encouraging. Teenagers are sharing their relationship with Christ and are giving these Bibles away for people to read. Students who have never cracked open a Bible are reading the New Testament. To me, that is more important than seeing how I can mince the words of the Revolve Bible to disprove it and tell the world how sinful it is.

As upset as Faith Fact and Feeling got by my characterization of the site, that is how upset that I was about the characterization of the Bible. You see, the site misses the Truth in its characterization of everything that isn't exactly like them. And I honestly have a problem with that. If you choose to believe it, fine and dandy. But don't try to tell other people that may not specifically agree with you that they are doing something sinful and wrong without specific Biblical application that is used in context. The site fails to do that over and over again (and not just on that site.) Many people have demonstated this, and will continue to do so.

I would like to perhaps pursue in another thread the wine topic. I haven't read a single Bible dictionary or other scholarly book that asserts the position that you have taken, so it may be interesting to see where that would take us.

 

ScottEmerson,

Now this is the reasonable post I have been waiting for. Thank you. I think there is a difference between the groups of individuals we deal with and that affects our perspectives a great deal. Your profile says you are a middle school minister. From what you have said it seems you are probably a good one. I agree with you on the issue of condemning and judging sinners. I also agree that all we can do is pray, witness and preach and hope the sinner will allow the Holy Spirit to work in their lives. I am as gentle as possible with these folks, and nothing like I am in an apologetics debate. Unfortunately for me, my ministry seems to be, at least for now, with dead orthodox Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Catholics with masters and doctorate degrees. Getting them back to belief in the Bible and salvation is not easy. Even when you are nice with these folks you get a real stinker every now and then. Can you imagine an Episcopalian telling you to “judge not” when you say homosexuality is a sin? This is the mindset that has lead them to appoint a homosexual bishop.

As you know, most of what we have been doing in this debate is posturing. I could tell from the onset you believe like I do on important theological matters. I certainly have no personal grudge against you, nor am I angry at you. Hey, its hard to be mad at a soul winner like you. This website we are debating is written from a certain point of view. I know this perspective very well and I assure you they do not believe what you contend. They are attacking a liberal movement today that is even leading born-again Baptists down the same path of spiritual death that the protestant denominations went down this past century. They believe as I that some of this poison is sprinkled in the Revolve Bible. But, by the same token, I can also see where someone might think they believe these things not being fully familiar with their point of view. I, like you, think the only meaty issue left between us is the one on alcoholic wine. We have both done a lot of research and it would be good to see the perspective of others too. Thank you for helping to end this debate between us on a friendly note. Hopefully a forceful debate will not leave any one of us with any bitterness or hard feelings. God bless.

 

I thank you for your grace and being willing to meet in the middle. I, too, recognize that we are on the same side. We may have theological disagreements, but we agree on the really important thing - that God sent His Son to redeem us from certain death. I wish that more people who I disagree with would be as generous, and your post inspired be to be as gracious as well.

I look forward to a future discussion on alcohol!

Peace,

SEC

 

Since Scott seems happy to ignore some things, I will follow his example and ignore them too. God bless,

`JD

 

Jonathan,

When I first began debating with Scott I had a certain perception of him. After we debated for a while I realized we probably agree on a lot more than we disagree on, and it seemed we were just looking at things from different perspectives and defending these perspectives as positions. I was glad, as was he, that we could quit beating this dead horse and put things to bed in cordial manner. Obviously I have offended you through all this, for this I apologize. Enjoy your Sunday brother.