A plea to return to scripture.
- Thread starter OMC
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Paul tells us to test everything, your not exempt.
I've been testing you since you got here. And the results are for me, not to spread around, good or bad to use against you or to build you up.
Im just always looking to know Him better. You opened a door by giving your name and title , I was just attempting to walk through it.
I thought I've developed some trust with you in our conversations.
I made a promise to myself and the Lord that if I joined this chat room, it wouldn’t be about me. I’m an old, disabled retiree who has studied scripture all my life and wants to spend my time here doing just that. It was never meant to be personal, and of course, I took no offense.
many of us are retired and disabled. Yet provide the context of our claim when we give it. If its not about you , why have this at the end of your correcting of others if not to show all your education in academia ?
Dr. O.M. Crowe Senior Scholar of Biblical Languages & Scriptural Theology
Does anyone else need to be verified to share the Gospel, or is this just because so many disagree with the scripture that they resorted to this tactic? I am who I am, and I can be nothing more, nor do I claim to be. If my education is in question, then by all means, ask about scripture in a way only a theologian would know. otherwise everyone is boarding on invasion of privacy.
“Brother, the signature was not self‑promotion.
It was identification.
When you write a corrective letter — especially one addressing tone, pride, and misuse of Scripture — you sign your name so the words are accountable, not anonymous.”
“The signature was not meant to elevate me.
It was meant to remove any suspicion that the correction was coming from a faceless, nameless voice hiding behind anonymity.”
“Authority was not claimed.
Responsibility was.”
To be clear, guess who knows scripture in and out?
The devil.
But the devil don't obey scripture teaching.
That's the reason Jesus said, if you love me, obey my commandments.
The devil.
But the devil don't obey scripture teaching.
That's the reason Jesus said, if you love me, obey my commandments.
Well we all are who we are. You offer your name but no way to verify anything. That is most likely what the 'tactics' are all about.
Yeah well it actually is anonymous since you have no website or church affliation or other way to ID you in a factual manner.
Other people here who identify as a teacher make readily available who they are. This is not a teaching platform but many come
here wanting to teach and some are severely off course with what they teach. Kindly do not conclude I am saying that about you, however, it is a fact.
You are using a very broad brush in your comments and yes, people want to know who you really are. That's normal. It is not
some kind of tactic or dismissal of what you say.
Ask questions only a theologian would know? smh
Thing is though, you want to teach and wish to be respected as such and also wish to correct those who put themselves under
your teaching.
I’m not asking anyone to put themselves under my teaching.
I’m asking all of us to put ourselves under the text.”
“Respect is not something I’m seeking. Accuracy is.”
“Correction is not an act of authority — it’s an act of accountability.
If Scripture is mishandled, anyone who sees it has the responsibility to speak.”
Not because they are a teacher.
Not because they hold rank.
Not because they want followers.
But because the Word is the authority, not the person speaking it.
I do not disagree with your message. I myself have been guilty of a few of those charges. However after spending a week++ with you, having experienced your own "teaching/debate' style.. Do you think you are immune to these same charges?
Here is an example where you masked your own personal exegesis and represented it as a quote from the bible.
OMC said:
Here is what 1 john 5: 1 actually says:
Faith is not even the central subject of this passage. so the explanation you gave has nothing to do with what is written in 1 john 1:5.
When confronted with this discrepancy here is what you said:
So I’m not making anything up, and I don’t need to retract:
1 John 5:1 ties ongoing belief to prior new birth—God’s act first, your believing as its fruit.
Brother you represented your own words in the same light as scripture, when you assigned book chapter and verse denotations to your exegesis. You are saying your explanation of 1 John 5:1 IS what 1 John 5:1 says. You are literally changing God's word to fit your explanation.
How is this whole thread, this plea to return to the bible not convicting you yet? How can you call your brothers to repentance and judgement under the scriptures you claim to have studied and hold dear if you yourself feel no obligation to retract a personal exegesis that you disguised as actual book chapter and verse?
I will leave you with this message:
Matthew 7
Be Careful About Criticizing Others
“Don’t judge others, and God will not judge you. If you judge others, you will be judged the same way you judge them. God will treat you the same way you treat others. “Why do you notice the small piece of dust that is in your friend’s eye, but you don’t notice the big piece of wood that is in your own? ...
I’m not immune.
And yes, the way I phrased 1 John 5:1 was too tight and sounded like a quotation instead of an explanation.
That’s on me.”
I’m not dodging it.
I’m not defending it.
I’m not pretending it didn’t happen.
“The exegesis was right.The wording was wrong.”
I should have said:
“1 John 5:1 teaches that ongoing belief is the evidence of prior new birth.”
Not:
“1 John 5:1 — faith is present because new birth already occurred.”
That phrasing blurred the line between text and interpretation.
You called it out.
You were right.
I accept it.
“I retract the phrasing.
I do not retract the exegesis.”
And yes — the very thread calling everyone back to Scripture applies to me too.
I’m not above correction.
I’m under the same Book.
That is not believeable since you are actually doing all of the above. Yes absolutely 'the Word' is the authority but if you are a teacher, and no doubt you certainly reflect on yourself as such, surely you must realize what an electic group of people come here to post?
Correction is not an act of authority? Really? Who do you think you are addressing here? and I don't mean me personally.
I can't take you seriously because I find you evasive with a touch of bait and switch in the way you describe how you view your own words.
Of course you are asking people to see what you write as truth (it is certainly not all scripture; you are obviously quite enamored of your words). YOUR idea of accuracy/truth etc. is not what other people here might view as such. Personally, I have read a number of your posts and did not find them to be offensive or even inaccurate, but I have not read all of them. If this op is the summation of your thoughts regarding what goes on here, guess what? It's a FORUM. Notice the name says 'chat' and not 'teaching'?
FYI, a good number of people have come here thinking to dispense all the truth all the time while saying sola scripture. Alas, it is always going to be THEIR sola scripture.
You know, people do show who they are by what they say and when someone is rude, crude, dismissive, calls names and some have even 'cursed' others (think OT here) they submit a CV of their personality, Christian or not. I make somewhat frequent use of the ignore feature here because if that is what a person does? Perhaps they need to go back to Sunday School.
You are not unique and yet those who come here with a 'special' message of some kind, view themselves as such.
I'm not unique, but I am definately not like everyone else.
I hear your concerns.
If anything in my tone made it sound like I was claiming authority, or expecting people to treat my words as the standard, then that tone was wrong — and I accept that.”
“The letter wasn’t written to elevate me.
It was written to call out attitudes that damage how Scripture is handled — including attitudes I’m not immune to myself.”
“You’re right — this is a forum, not a classroom.
People here are diverse, blunt, emotional, inconsistent, and sometimes unkind.
I don’t expect anyone to treat me as a teacher, and I’m not asking anyone to submit to my words.”
“If my style ever felt evasive, too polished, or too confident, that’s something I need to correct.
I’m not above the same failures I warn others about.”
“My aim is not to be taken seriously — my aim is to keep the conversation anchored in Scripture.
If my tone ever obscured that, then the tone needs adjusting, not the people.”
no nobody does however why did you provide them? Please correct me if I am wrong but your post would have had the same effect without you giving them would it not? Or was it given as a mean to show all you have authority and learned or was it used to intimidate? Or validate your post. If you were not seeking to be elevated, why did you? Could not responsibility been addressed without your Credentials?