Jim Davenport wrote:
Uh Jim! Bob Jones Jr. is the worst possible examle to quote if you are trying to use someone who is a Fundamentaist to prove your point. Now is you came up with Bob Sr. or John R. Rice, that would be another thing. But hey wouldn't back up what you are trying to get across

and also

John UK wrote:
....And just as it is impossible for a man and a woman to "join", and then for the man to say, "Well I never felt a thing", ...... Of course the feeling is spiritual, but that is a faculty given by God in order to KNOW him and delight in HIM. It is a SENSE that the unbeliever knows nothing of.

Conversion was a radical felt change, but is not a daily experience

I don't look to "feel" the Lord near me. I seek to believe his word and obey him. And guess what? He proves himself to me, by giving me understanding, proving faithful to his promises, giving deliverance from sin, giving a love for spiritual things, answering prayers etc. It is this way that I have a relationship with him. Out of love for him I do the things that he wants me to do, and he for his part does loads more for me. Like in a marriage where the partners love each other. They don't bang on about their "love" as a feeling, but they show their love by actions! That is the union, that is the fellowship (or sharing)!!

John UK wrote:
...Here's my question:
You say: "It is one thing to say that the truth impacts on you in a certain way, it is quite another to talk of some mystical spirit to spirit experience that you cannot even explain, which is what you were advocating earlier. That is pure mysticism, and no amount of dressing it up in Christian terminology will make it genuine Christianity!"
So how do you explain 1 Cor 6:16-17?

John UK wrote:
....You say you don't KNOW him, you only know "about" him........

Care to address the lies in your previous post too? Answer the question in the 2nd para of my last to you?

As for the mystical union, what does this have to do with "mysticism"? Or are you saying that somehow the use of "mystical" justifies your mysticism?

Bob wrote:
We can debate if this church is right or wrong but the fact remains that one little church in Florida has the whole world in a tizzy because they are not afraid to back down in what they believe in...hmm!

Joe the Protestant wrote:
I sure am glad we have you on S/A to correct all of us ignorant fundamentalist. Up till now we only had Jim.
It's so good to have the two of you react aginst all of our posts. You see, we lack your creativity. We are so dull witted, that we can make comments about the news articles. But folks like you, you can bypass the article and go right to correcting us all.
It must take an awful smart person to point out all the mistakes everyone else makes. I have viewed all of your posts, so I know you and Jim are the prophetic voices crying in the wilderness and you will be rewarded.
Well; Hope you enjoyed your reward.

John UK wrote:
Tom
...
What liberals and modernists mean by lack of experience is that no man can have any actual spiritual or physical interaction with God. Thus man can only have some sort of vague groping after him in the dark, never quite getting there.
..But while God is sovereign in redemption, there is hope for him yet, and I would not write him off as unsaveable.

John, how do the accusations you make in your 1st two paras. sit with what I stated in the 2nd para. of my post?! Or you saying that Christians who have experienced the kind of work that I mention but who do not subscribe to your mysticism are all liberals?!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
For those who don't have this [URL=http://www.ihcc.org/sw_index.php?id=book_desc&item_id=JHlGJ0p2hD9qgupPo0xHyHFnk]]]Charismatic Chaos[/URL], you should go somewhere and get a copy, but to make things shorter, [URL=http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1047CDNotes.htm]]]Combating Charismatic Theology [/URL] from which,

I am sure that John UK would not call himself a "charismatic", BUT then he does NOT seem to see the similarities between their "experience" centered theology and his own views.

What Christians in the past meant by "experiential Christianity" is that Christians must experience God's dealings with them. So giving light, guiding, answering prayer, sanctification, fruit for labour etc.

John UK wrote:
Oh dear oh dear oh dear, it sounds like we really have to go back to basics, doesn't it. Well, if it helps, we must needs do it.
...

Even the intimacy of which you speak is not really experiential in the sense that one can sense it at all times. The Christian walk is a walk of faith and not feelings!

There are times when I "feel close" to God, but actually I could be wholly mistaken! My compass for gauging a close walk is simple - how much do I obey the Lord out of love for him. This is how my faith and love manifest themselves.

You are on a slippery road when you make the Christian walk dependent on feelings!

John UK wrote:
...Is not Christianity the most wonderful thing? Something to delight in every day? Sure it is, and there is nothing like a deep meditation on some sound doctrine to set to flight the devil and his cold water. Enter within the veil in prayer and meet God "face to face" as it were. It is a good remedy for the New Paths Illness.

John UK wrote:
Are you asking what is the difference between biblical Christianity and mysticism?

John UK wrote:
......
I would challenge any believer to act on this privilege we read about in the book of Hebrews and experience this remarkable close fellowship with the Creator, and then post up their response to such an experience.
I have no doubt whatever that.....
Try it and see!
.......

DavidD1960 wrote:
Maybe you could provide some scriptural evidence that God has a different plan of salvation for the Jews,other than through belief in Jesus as the Christ.( By grace through faith).

Maybe God in His mercy will open your eyes to the truth!

And to help you, since you don't seem to understand even the basics of dispensationalism, try reading [url=http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/fcharges.htm]]] False Charges Against Dispensationalism [/URL]

DavidD1960 wrote:
I would suggest that you read Paul's letters prayerfully and slowly.Especially Ephesians chapter 2.
Maybe God in His mercy will open your eyes to the truth.

John UK wrote:
Oh, so you've rebuilt the partition, eh?
Trying to undo the work of Christ again?

These guys really believe that God lied to the Jews and that the promises to the Jews are all meaningless!!

John UK wrote:
According to Peter Masters of the Metropolitan Tabernacle, London, it is a sin to deliberately and consciously listen to, or read, teaching which is known to be false, and therefore is no laughing matter.
Those who encourage others to sin, even in this way, are in a position not very desirable, according to the teaching of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the writers of the New Testament.
A solemn thought.

You are beginning to sound like the RC church, which asks for blind obedience, and any dissent is a sin that leads to death!

Trust in the Lord wrote:
....As for Mr Kutilek - He like Mr Linkon appears to have his own agenda which is anti-KJV/TR, regardless of what GOD has done in history.

John UK wrote:
Are you saying Horn that you have evidence for your own bizarre position? If so, please present it and let us all see it.....

Trust in the Lord wrote:
1. Spurgeon used the KING JAMES VERSION.
The success of his work in London demonstrates that the Lord blessed Spurgeon's work with the KING JAMES VERSION.
2. Spurgeon would not have used a Bible he did not trust implicitly.
3. I guess HornNest you cannot trust the Lord to bring His Holy Word through human history.
Or is it until modern (sinless) man writes the perfect version???

That his ministry was blessed when he held to such views is the thing that you have to account for!!

If he were alive today, would he still be someone you look up to? I doubt it very much!!

Jim Lincoln wrote:
from, [URL=http://www.christianbeliefs.org/kjv/testimonies/testimonies-chspurgeon.html]]]Heart-Disease Curable[/URL]

Spurgeon was an honest Baptist. He acknowledges that the text underlying the KJV is not "the correct text"!

These guys on SA who are either KJV onlyist or TR onlyist are not interested in the truth!