What folks have learned via CC discussions:

[GWH]

The qualitative difference is that the former results in the sealing of the earnest of the Spirit. Whereas the latter results in sanctification by the Spirit.

It is the same faith regarding both results.
Do you have an example of learning GW, gaining insight and amending belief due to discussion on CC?

 

[Anchorite]

It is the same faith regarding both results.
Do you have an example of learning GW, gaining insight and amending belief due to discussion on CC?

I have one point I’d like to gently pass on to you.

I understand that you use your own acronyms to save you the time and effort of spelling out phrases, but you greatly reduce the ability of others to understand what you’re trying to communicate.

Most people will not bother with going to your profile about page, or asking you in a comment, what is the meaning of GW, KOTH, MFW, GRFS, TOP, PP, UMI, LIC, PC, DOD, WB, SB, POS, etc.

Thus, you sabotage your clarity and impact by using unfamiliar acronyms. I suggest, for your own benefit, that you abandon the acronyms and spell out the words.

 

[cv5]

It is the same faith regarding both results.
Do you have an example of learning GW, gaining insight and amending belief due to discussion on CC?

Personally, I have made MANY greater and lesser course corrections over the years, constantly striving to regress to the mean. However, astute scholars such as @TheDivineWatermark and @studier are as rare as hen's teeth.

BTW, the signal-to-noise ratio around here is massively skewed toward noise. A lot of the content is patently absurd or brazenly heretical, and much of it—such as those proposing their 'interpretation thesis' of eschatological historicism—is little more than baseless, unfalsifiable, bizarre, clueless conspiracy theory rubbish.

 

[Mem]

I have learned to offer my left cheek, but not the one on my face

 

[Mem]

I have learned to offer my left cheek, but not the one on my face

Haa, that was funny tho.
But seriously, Jesus exampled offering His left cheek in John 18:23 when He said, "If I said something wrong then show me where I am wrong, but if I spoke the truth, why do you strike me?" A similar approach might be, "Do you think yourself to be my superior and master and I your lowly and obstinate property?" So, if you put it all into perspective, offering the left butt cheek isn't necessarily all that inappropriate with regard to certain scenarios.

 

[Roger316]

I have noticed a similar low number of views and comments on YouTube sermon videos by local churches.

But there are huge numbers of views and comments on sermon videos by pastors who are more famous.

If a church member attends a sermon in the church, there is probably no reason to watch it again on YouTube.

People who are seeking a church to attend may want to watch YouTube videos of sermons.

YouTube sermon videos should have interesting titles and be promoted on social media.

I was thinking about teaching through Romans on my channel. But I don't have a connection to Social media unless CC is social media. I got the idea that Christians didn't like to watch Christian videos. But maybe I'm not that interesting to watch.

 

[GWH]

I have one point I’d like to gently pass on to you.

I understand that you use your own acronyms to save you the time and effort of spelling out phrases, but you greatly reduce the ability of others to understand what you’re trying to communicate.

Most people will not bother with going to your profile about page, or asking you in a comment, what is the meaning of GW, KOTH, MFW, GRFS, TOP, PP, UMI, LIC, PC, DOD, WB, SB, POS, etc.

Thus, you sabotage your clarity and impact by using unfamiliar acronyms. I suggest, for your own benefit, that you abandon the acronyms and spell out the words.

I sincerely appreciate your comment, but for anyone who is serious about discussing theology and posts frequently as I do, these acronyms will become second nature as follows:

Those who discuss the issue of baptism should find WB and SB quite handy along with the parallel PC and SC regarding circumcision.
Those who discuss election ad nauseum should find TULIP and MFW rather necessary.
Those who are interested in apologetics, logic and philosophy should find the UMI and PP insightful.
Those who are concerned about expressing love and unity should use LIC (Love in Christ) along with frequently.
Those wanting to learn how to be saved and the history of God's plan of salvation should be familiar with GRFS and POS.
Those interested in the teachings of Jesus and Paul have no reason to balk at using TOJ and TOP.
Those who believe in the importance of God's Word and the Holy Spirit have no problem with GW, HS, NT and OT.
Those who wonder about hell should understand that both heaven and hell are the duo of desirables (DOD).
And I trust everyone on Christian Chat knows what CC means.

I urge everyone on CC to adopt the use of these handy acronyms as easy, convenient and time-saving,
so they will become familiar and impede clarity only for new members only briefly--they are not rocket science formulas!
(Not sure which is more lazy: using them or not learning them :^)

PS: I have recently begun using SPUR for Scripture Provided Upon Request, especially in threads where I already cited relevant Scripture but it has been continually/repeatedly ignored.

 

[GWH]

Personally, I have made MANY greater and lesser course corrections over the years, constantly striving to regress to the mean. However, astute scholars such as @TheDivineWatermark and @studier are as rare as hen's teeth.

BTW, the signal-to-noise ratio around here is massively skewed toward noise. A lot of the content is patently absurd or brazenly heretical, and much of it—such as those proposing their 'interpretation thesis' of eschatological historicism—is little more than baseless, unfalsifiable, bizarre, clueless conspiracy theory rubbish.

Do you have a specific example of a course correction you have made due to discussion with folks both astute and inane on CC?

 

[GWH]

Haa, that was funny tho.
But seriously, Jesus exampled offering His left cheek in John 18:23 when He said, "If I said something wrong then show me where I am wrong, but if I spoke the truth, why do you strike me?" A similar approach might be, "Do you think yourself to be my superior and master and I your lowly and obstinate property?" So, if you put it all into perspective, offering the left butt cheek isn't necessarily all that inappropriate with regard to certain scenarios.

Okay, do you have an example of being slapped by GW and turning your cheek/amending your belief due to discussion on CC?

 

[GWH]

I was thinking about teaching through Romans on my channel. But I don't have a connection to Social media unless CC is social media. I got the idea that Christians didn't like to watch Christian videos. But maybe I'm not that interesting to watch.

Hope your preaching through Romans will have more viewers than my thread on Systematic Study of Scripture has had commentators.

 

[Roger316]

Hope your preaching through Romans will have more viewers than my thread on Systematic Study of Scripture has had commentators.

Thanks.

 

[Roger316]

Hope your preaching through Romans will have more viewers than my thread on Systematic Study of Scripture has had commentators.

Thanks for your encouragement. I am feeling a bit discouraged with my channel lately. Do you have any recommendations regarding presentation? Do people prefer to see my face or the scriptures projected on the screen or both? Or something different?

 

[ZNP]

Thanks for your encouragement. I am feeling a bit discouraged with my channel lately. Do you have any recommendations regarding presentation? Do people prefer to see my face or the scriptures projected on the screen or both? Or something different?

Do not try to please people. The channel should be solely your offering to the Lord. As long as the Lord is pleased with it that is the only thing that matters. 2nd, as a believer what did you need? That is what your channel should be providing, you are ministering the same comfort you received.

 

[Roger316]

Do not try to please people. The channel should be solely your offering to the Lord. As long as the Lord is pleased with it that is the only thing that matters. 2nd, as a believer what did you need? That is what your channel should be providing, you are ministering the same comfort you received.

Thanks for your answer and your advice. I will bear in mind what you have said.

 

[BartholomewB]

I sincerely appreciate your comment, but for anyone who is serious about discussing theology and posts frequently as I do, these acronyms will become second nature as follows:

Those who discuss the issue of baptism should find WB and SB quite handy along with the parallel PC and SC regarding circumcision.
Those who discuss election ad nauseum should find TULIP and MFW rather necessary.
Those who are interested in apologetics, logic and philosophy should find the UMI and PP insightful.
Those who are concerned about expressing love and unity should use LIC (Love in Christ) along with frequently.
Those wanting to learn how to be saved and the history of God's plan of salvation should be familiar with GRFS and POS.
Those interested in the teachings of Jesus and Paul have no reason to balk at using TOJ and TOP.
Those who believe in the importance of God's Word and the Holy Spirit have no problem with GW, HS, NT and OT.
Those who wonder about hell should understand that both heaven and hell are the duo of desirables (DOD).
And I trust everyone on Christian Chat knows what CC means.

I urge everyone on CC to adopt the use of these handy acronyms as easy, convenient and time-saving,
so they will become familiar and impede clarity only for new members only briefly--they are not rocket science formulas!
(Not sure which is more lazy: using them or not learning them :^)

PS: I have recently begun using SPUR for Scripture Provided Upon Request, especially in threads where I already cited relevant Scripture but it has been continually/repeatedly ignored.

No, @Anchorite got it right in his post #62. For me, and I suspect for most people here, your overelaborate private code is definitely a turnoff.

 

[Mem]

Okay, do you have an example of being slapped by GW and turning your cheek/amending your belief due to discussion on CC?

GW doesn't offer any backhanded remarks. It's always reflective of Jesus. I entertained the notion of losing salvation for a spell, but only long enough to give it fair consideration before rejecting it altogether.

 

[GWH]

Do not try to please people. The channel should be solely your offering to the Lord. As long as the Lord is pleased with it that is the only thing that matters. 2nd, as a believer what did you need? That is what your channel should be providing, you are ministering the same comfort you received.

Great advice!
All we can do is hope for the butterfly effect--our pebble's ripple in the pool.

 

[GWH]

No, @Anchorite got it right in his post #62. For me, and I suspect for most people here, your overelaborate private code is definitely a turnoff.

There is no need for it to remain private; there is no good reason for acronymaphobia,
but just out of curiosity, which acronyms in the list do y'all like to use or at least not mind others using?

Re baptism and circumcision - WB, SB, PC and SC
Re election - TULIP and MFW
Re apologetics - UMI and PP
Re love and unity - LIC
Re salvation history - GRFS and POS
Re the teachings of Jesus and Paul - TOJ and TOP
Re God's Word and the Holy Spirit - GW, HS, NT and OT
Re heaven and hell - DOD
Re Christian Chat - CC

I will try to limit my use of those that are very objectionable to the majority for some good reason.

 

[BartholomewB]

There is no need for it to remain private; there is no good reason for acronymaphobia,
but just out of curiosity, which acronyms in the list do y'all like to use or at least not mind others using?

Re baptism and circumcision - WB, SB, PC and SC
Re election - TULIP and MFW
Re apologetics - UMI and PP
Re love and unity - LIC
Re salvation history - GRFS and POS
Re the teachings of Jesus and Paul - TOJ and TOP
Re God's Word and the Holy Spirit - GW, HS, NT and OT
Re heaven and hell - DOD
Re Christian Chat - CC

I will try to limit my use of those that are very objectionable to the majority for some good reason.

Quote: “There is no good reason for acronymaphobia.”

I strongly disagree. There is a very good reason for it. The tiresome superabundance of your joky little word puzzles slows down reading and repeatedly interrupts the flow of meaning from your keyboard to my brain.

Obviously none of your acronyms are “objectionable” in the sense of being offensive in themselves. The problem is that your use of all these abbreviations conveys the impression that you’re not prepared to take the trouble to make your posts readily intelligible, that is, to make them user-friendly. You’re signaling that it’s not worth your while to take your readers’ convenience into consideration. You’re dropping a heavy hint that you don’t give a hoot whether people read your posts or not.

Among the acronyms you’ve listed here, I would pick out four that are perfectly acceptable. OT, NT, and TULIP are entirely above suspicion. They are established abbreviations that have long been in widespread use in print and on the internet alike. To these three we can add CC, for obvious reasons. But, with all due respect, I think it might be a smart move on your part to leave it at that.

 

[Anchorite]

There is no need for it to remain private; there is no good reason for acronymaphobia,
but just out of curiosity, which acronyms in the list do y'all like to use or at least not mind others using?

Re baptism and circumcision - WB, SB, PC and SC
Re election - TULIP and MFW
Re apologetics - UMI and PP
Re love and unity - LIC
Re salvation history - GRFS and POS
Re the teachings of Jesus and Paul - TOJ and TOP
Re God's Word and the Holy Spirit - GW, HS, NT and OT
Re heaven and hell - DOD
Re Christian Chat - CC

I will try to limit my use of those that are very objectionable to the majority for some good reason.

People are not going to memorize your idiosyncratic acronyms.

Your persistent use of them is merely adding bursts of noise to your signal, diminishing your effectiveness at communication.

It is unfortunate that members do not have signatures at the bottom of their posts in this forum.

Signatures tend to be verses or quotes or statements. In your case, the spelling out of the words of your acronyms could be your signature.

But you could put the meanings of your acronyms on a clipboard or notes on your computer, then copy and paste it at the bottom of every post, so people would know what you are talking about.

Post all of this on every post.

——————————————————————-

Acronyms used in my threads:

GW = God’s Word (Scripture), OT = Old Testament (Covenant),
NT = New Testament, [GN, EX, LV, NM, DT;MT, MK, ACTS, RM, 1CR, etc.] = bible books, HS = Holy Spirit, JC = Jesus Christ (or Christ Jesus),

LGW = learn/ing GW, TOJ = teachings of Jesus, TOP = teachings of Paul (& Peter), POS = plan of salvation, GRFS = God’s requirement for salvation, LIC = love in Christ

MFW = moral free will (volition), KOTH = king of the hill (struggle), PP = propensity principle (logical reasons to believe in God), UMI = universal moral imperative (God’s will), DOD = duo of desirables (heaven & hell),

TULIP = God loves/favors only the elect, KOG/H = kingdom of God/heaven, RC = Roman Catholicism, RE/BE = Roman/Byzantine empire or emperor, EP = evangelical protestant. WB = water baptism, SB = Spirit baptism, PC = physical circumcision, SC = spiritual circumcision, SIT = speaking in tongues

Coined terms often used:

kerygma = the essential Gospel/GRFS/foundation/minimal creed
didache = secondary teachings that build on the kerygma (1Cor. 3:10-11)
tulipist = one who believes tulipism/TULIP,
Actser = one who believes that WB & SIT are part of GRFS

———————————————————-