Why don't you elaborate on what you're surrendering to and how you apply said surrender?
The A, B, C,s of Faith and faithing.
- Thread starter Watchman22
- 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.
Why don't you elaborate on what you're surrendering to and how you apply said surrender?
I don't have to do anything. Actually, you're the one who should be proving the case you presented FROM Scripture. Why don't you prove your case for "surrender" and why don't you elaborate what you mean by it?
FWIW, I'm not submitting to "what" but to whom as I clearly stated.
It's very easy to see why he was criticized and characterized. There are many things I could say from a personal perspective that I don't need to say. That and more is obviously online, including substantial agreement on being a cult.
The one thing I'll say for him - with zero endorsement - is that when he went to the white board the relatively few times that I saw him in the 1980s I think, he was one of the few, if any at the time, who was going through parts of the Text from the Greek and Hebrew and actually explaining things. IOW, there was teaching about the Text to whatever degree (I have no clue if I would agree today with anything he might have taught - including about Greek - because I don't recall any of it) rather than typical sermons and milk-toast preaching - and I wanted to know what the Text said and meant. I still do.
Glad you looked. You now have some snippets of your own. I haven't found any of him at the whiteboard going through the Text. From one video, his wife's work there looks similar as I recall.
Misunderstood you. No.
Now that Gene Scott's info from the internet is part of this thread and you have 2,000 hours of his work in your upbringing, is Joseph Cortez also someone you think has some credibility?
If I could "prove" my case to you, it wouldn't be Faith anymore would it? If it were proven it wouldn't be me attempting to persuade you.
Vague and avoiding Scripture - of no interest.
You don’t appear able to engage with Scripture directly or provide any of your claimed 2,000 hours of instruction for review.
The only credibility you could have, as far as I’m concerned, rests on your ability to present and explain FROM Scripture - a request I’ve attempted to have you respond to several times.
Lol, we still haven't come to an agreement on the definition of pisteuo!
How can we discuss any Scripture until we achieve that?
I've met you halfway by accepting the word submission, but you won't clarify "what"your submitting, and how you apply it in the relationship.
I've been more than upfront with you concerning my understanding of pisteuo and how it's applied. Like you started out saying in this thread, is think we're closer in understanding that we are apart, (paraphrasing).
If your interested, this will reset our discussion.
1) what are you submitting to God?
A) Are you submitting your life to Him?
B) are you submitting yourself to believe in Him?
C) Is your submission a one time submission, or is it daily, hourly if need be?
D) are you submitting yourself to follow His word?
Can we continue?
"Lol" is simply descent into disrespect I've no interest in.
Your last sentence above quoted says it all. Thinking we can define pisteuo apart from how it's used in Scripture shows me you don't understand exegesis and instead want to insert meaning into the Scripture, which is textbook eisegesis and completely backwards.
Taking Vine's into Scripture is nonsense and it's become clear why you haven't been willing to discuss how Vine is eisegeting the few verses he says speak of surrender, which they don't.
No, not interested in rewriting Scripture with your or Vine's or anyone else's theology.
My expectations for this topic is this.
I've put my understandings on the table to be looked at, tested, commented on.
Disagreement is expected. But if you disagree, be ready to replace what you disagree with, with a better understanding.
I'm highlighting the faithing response to the call of the Father at the beginning of the salvation process. Before we are sealed, before God's word is ours to claim.
It's a simple understanding of the Greek word pisteuo, which I understand as "a personal surrender to Him and a life inspired by such surrender." Vines.
This word is used 248 times in the NT. So remember, whenever God repeats Himself, pay extra attention.
Just to let you know, I can't reply on the rediscovering pisteuo thread. I asked for crftd to be blocked their and it looks like I am.
So this is probably a good bye message.
Rediscover pisteuo.
Why would you ask for @ChristRoseFromTheDead to be blocked?
Discover exegesis and learn to provide links to any credible source that can back you up. I don't think you have any.
We can go back to the earliest translations from Greek into other languages like Latin and even a bit later into Middle English long before Tyndale and see a history of words that mean believe & trust for pisteuo. Even pisteuo itself can be relational and represented quite well with some of these typical English words. Tyndale did coin some English words like atonement and passover as I recall (??), but apparently saw no such need with pisteuo.
It looks like you may be better received at ChristianForumSite than here. If you look at the last link I listed on your other thread here, you're not in good company with this theory. And, as @ChristRoseFromTheDead posted, you're not going to get much support in regard to Scott either. You have to know that he was very controversial and that such criticism was not unfounded.
Honestly, at this point you just seem to be clearly pushing a novel theological theory not unlike others on these forums. I've interacted with several of them and frequently will let them have their say to take me through Scripture. At some point they always fall apart Scripturally.
That rediscovering pisteuo thread isn't a theory, it's my life. The source is the Holy Spirit through me, the desire to understand, and through Dr. Gene Scott. What many understand to be the greatest Bible teacher of our time, maybe since Paul himself.
You don't need to express your distrust of my statement, I know how you feel. I hope we see each other on the other side.
Goodbye studier.
I can appreciate that, but pushing and even requiring a personal vocabulary based upon a single resource that is clearly eisegetical on its face is just not going to go anywhere with some to many of us.
Every Christian I ever deal with on these forums or in person says the Holy Spirit is teaching them and then we argue about what He's allegedly taught us that widely differs.
Scott was absolutely not the greatest teacher of our time and absolutely not remotely close to Paul.
I'm not expressing how I "feel" but what I objectively see after having looked around for hours to see if there was anything remotely credible to back you up since you supply nothing to do so.