2. My concern came up with the post from 11/12/13 2:20 PM penitent - which borders on adding a work to salvation
1. Are you saying that Judas 'repented unto salvation' (Matt 27:3)? And are you saying that Esau also 'repented unto salvation'? Is that what you take from these verses in answer to your question re sorrow for sin, below?
2. The penitent post is introduced by the qualification, "Evangelical repentance is ... a gracious principle and habit implanted in the soul by the Spirit of Christ," - What "work" AFTER regeneration do you credit the sinner with which is 'separate' from the indwelling Holy Spirit's work in the born again Christian?
Mike wrote: a. not all men respond to the same temptation the same way. b. #(1) No, sin is not created by circumstances. #(2) Circumstances create the condition in which temptation may come about c. As to commonality, the temptation of 1 Cor 10:13 does not speak of a single temptation common to man, but that temptation of various types is common to man
a. But the point is that all men respond to temptation - which is common effect in fallen mankind. b. I perceive your points #(1) and #(2) as being the same thing with the same end result. Circumstances are crucial to the temptation. If the circumstances did not exist in the first place then the sin/temptation could not exist. The circumstance of David seeing Bathsheba in her bath created the temptation which resulted in the sin. Remove Bathsheba from the picture and David would have behaved himself. c. The common factor is temptation. Man is born with a built in attribute of temptation. He is a sinner. The difference between one person being tempted and another not, - is personal decision based at that moment, upon inherent characteristics borne from life experiences. Even the NAZI guards thought they were right. Their "sins" are part of our judgment not theirs.
John UK wrote: Yes, I can understand your wanting to "win a debate" rather than edify a brother...
QED - to KJVO tactics.
So how does Quod Est Demonstrandum indicate a desire for winning a debate?!
Looking through your postings on the textual debate it is apparent to me that you are the one seeking such a victory.
John UK wrote: It is unfortunate that you are unable to hold up your Bible and say, "This is the word of God", because the "scholars" you trust in tell you not to, because the mss they trust in cannot (according to them) be trusted to be the word of God inerrant.
You again demonstrate how little you understand about the whole field of textual criticism. But I am not here to educate you. If you truly care, listen to:
John UK wrote: ..if you regard the Bible as someone's "pet subject"..
The pet subject I was referring to was not the Bible per se, but your bashing of modern versions and scholars who advocate them, or to be more precise, any version/scholar that does not hold to the exact text underlying the KJV!
It seems pointless to me to continue this converstion. Goodbye John.
Not your ministry to convince anyone that the TR or KJV is God ordained. You're too irascible when it comes to what appears to be your pet subject: probably because beyond what you're spoonfed by the TBS you don't know much. Ah well, so be it.
John UK wrote: 1. Because 5% of poison in a beaker can kill you.
How do you conclude that any variation from the various TRs is poison? You start from a position without any proof and consider all else as deviants!
John UK wrote: 2. If you are innocent, you are innocent.
Seems like false accusations are OK.
John UK wrote: 3. If that is what he said, then I disagree with you. Why grumble at the facts?
You have a jaundiced view of history and textual criticism so I would expect no better from you.
John UK wrote: 5. Are you still interested in learning about the texts at the back of the NASB? Or do you prefer to be hoodwinked by so-called scholars, some of whom are not even born again?
So far all I have seen from you is typical KJVO tactics. I am learning from better sources thanks. And please keep your ad-hominems to yourself. If you think that by this you somehow honor God you are very mistaken.
John, ever occured to you that you could be hoodwinked and that you oppose God by your tactics?
Where in the Bible does it say that the KJV or the text underlying the KJV is the only God ordained version?
John UK wrote: 1. Not at all. Some 95% of each modern version agrees with the TR...
Then why your hue and cry over textual issues? And since the aim of lower criticism is precisely to establish the text that God left, then surely it should receive your whole hearted support since you care to know what God hath said. This is not being negative!
John UK wrote: ..But then, you're always spoiling for a fight, picking up on the slightest little thing which you can play with. ..
Oh really John! Based on what? One post that you have miscontrued?! Do me a favor!
John UK wrote: 3. The comment by CV was to me unintelligible, and I would have asked him what on earth he meant. But to cast him off as an ignoramus is something you need to repent of.
May have been unintelligible to you, but equating my stance with that of W/H, and ascribing all of the modern church's ills to the textual issue is a pretty ignorant thing to say.
BTW one ignorant post doth not an ignoramus make. That's you putting words in my mouth! Not that you are spoiling for a fight.
John UK wrote: ..Of course, if you are an American, this Christian principle will grate, and you will find it hard to accomplish.
Ah I see! You've decided to take offence on someone else's behalf.
Well John, you might care to read the part of his/her post to which I responded. According to him/her I am a supposedly holding to very intelligent Jesuit/German scholarship articulated impressively to which W/H would agree etc.
It is easy to make accusations and assertions. What proof was produced to make the accusation and assertion good? Your bias seems to have overlooked this.
You too, have made a judgement and imputed intellectual pride to me. On what basis? Simply for saying that someone posted something which demonstrated ignorance?! Really!!
And why do you assume that my saying that his/her post was an ignorant rant meant that I would think him/her worthless and not worthy of participating on this forum?
You appear to have a bias against me (presumably for speaking against your revered TR). This wouldn't have anything to do with your accusation now would it?
Thanks too for revealing what you really feel about us Americans! No pride there then!
Frank wrote: I am not familiar with this fellow who uses the moniker "question". I hope he reads my response to him and responds. But, I know it was a blessing to him regardless.
I must have missed your post Frank. Can you please point me to it?
Neil wrote: ...unbelieving scholars often commit childishly simple errors in reasoning, & pose no real threat to Christianity at all
I find it interesting that Spurgeon was a self taught linguist and those who have written of his knowledge testify that he had a very good grasp of Greek and Hebrew. Also in the Pastors' college, which was set up to raise a generation of educated preachers, many had to be taught English because their previous education was so wanting. But, the syllabus, as they studied farther, included among other subjects the original languages of Scripture and also the formal study of logic.
I believe that this was the practice in the better schools and colleges of the day (and carried on into the mid-20th century), which often sought to sharpen student intellects by engaging in debating societies.
John UK wrote: ..Humbling, eh?
John I have no idea why you've gone down this rabbit hole!
"A man to comment well should be able to read the Bible in the original. Every minister should aim at a tolerable proficiency both in the Hebrew and the Greek. These two languages will give him a library at a small expense, an inexhaustible thesaurus, a mine of spiritual wealth. Really, the effort of acquiring a language is not so prodigious that brethren of moderate abilities should so frequently shrink from the attempt. A minister ought to attain enough of these tongues to be at least able to make out a passage by the aid of a lexicon, so as to be sure that he is not misrepresenting the Spirit of God in his discoursings, but is, as nearly as he can judge, giving forth what the Lord intended to reveal by the language employed. Such knowledge would prevent his founding doctrines upon expressions in our version when nothing at all analogous is to be found in the inspired original"
John UK wrote: Correct. Check out the acquaintance of these simple folks. Acts 4:13 KJV 13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
Firstly, koine greek was the common man's language in those days, and so greek would not have been an issue for them.
Secondly these unlearned and ignorant men had the direct guidance and leading of the Holy Spirit as well as direct inspiration as they penned the NT.
Thirdly, among the apostles one was a trained pharisee, and although as one born out of due time, he was the one who of whom Peter wrote that there were many hard things to be understood in his writings, and certainly of all the apostles he has contributed most to the NT.
If ignorance were the virtue you try to make it out to be then certainly todays churches are very blessed indeed!
Neil wrote: You might appreciate this:
Thank you Neil. Incredible indeed.
It is said of Isaac Watts that he could read greek at the age of 4!
I did want to post an apposite quote from Spurgeon, but sadly space prevents. Maybe next time.
isitonthemenu wrote: ..remember even brother James White is not the last word in textual matters! Look forward to your SA critique after the expected summer publication (D.V.)
NT greek is a dead language and so it is impossible to get the kind of acquaintance which one can obtain with a language still spoken today. However with daily usage, one can become fairly proficient.
BTW James White has studied NT Greek to a high standard and I am sure that linguistically he is able to hold his own.
All that said, textual questions go way beyond linguistics and require an aquaintance of far more than just the mechanics of the language.
I shall look out for brother Hembd's book and shall certainly read it, although I suspect that he will also not have the last word on the subject! If I have the time to critique it for SA readers, I shall certainly try and post up something.
Just in case you should think that all I have read is White and Carson, I should add that I have read extensively from the other side too: which includes stuff from the TBS, Dean Burgon, Scrivener, David O. Fuller, Theodore Letis, Edward Hills etc.
Michael Hranek wrote: Question Seems we are getting far afield from Digitizing the Dead Sea Scrolls but your comment made me want to ask you. 30 to 40 years ago a lot of Pentecostal people would have been considered people who feared God and loved the Bible and took it as having authority over their lives, people who believed and preached "Ye Must Be Born Again", people who believed in repentance for the remission of sin, who believed in being holy separate from the world and false religions such as Roman Catholicism, people who believed in believers baptism by immersion like the Baptists, people who believed in praying for the lost until they were saved. Have you seen their drift into "playing church" with becoming more and more like other denominations with less fiery preaching against sin and hell for 'entertainment', ecumenism, a non-offensive social gospel and their own version of Purpose Deceived emergent mysticism where they seem to avoid the KJV and the Truth of Scripture and Biblical holiness like the plague unless of course it suits their agenda?
Sure Michael no denomination is exempt from infiltration.
Republic wrote: Boy, have I stepped into a hornets nest.
That is what happens when you step into the arena with little or no knowledge.
Republic wrote: Question, I guess it depends on what you mean by â€śflourishâ€ť and what you mean by â€śfree.â€ť Capitalism unchecked by Godly principles will lead to control by the largest most powerful companies. Monsanto is flourishing. Other seed companies are dead or dying at monsanto's hand. The dairy industry has successfully made it to difficult for small dairy farms to survive through heavy legislation and regulations. There will be a demand and there will be a supply. However, it wont be flourishing. I have no problem with people making lots of money. It is wonderful. May they get it honestly and use it for God's Glory.
What country do you live in where the entire population is godly and ruled by godly principles?!! Or what country can you point to that has relied on such to make free enterprise work?
Besides which, what you state begs the question viz. that godliness is required to make free enterprise work. It demonstrates that you have no clear conception of what a free market is.
I beg to differ. What you write is not even close!
CV wrote: "Question" Very intelligent Jesuit/German scholarship articulated impressively what you hold to. W/H agrees with you. But every place this has taken hold, God lost out. History and scripture support you, even if it only bears bad fruit.
What an ignorant rant. If you have no meaningful contribution to make, why bother posting?
Christopher000 wrote: John, you always get these deep, lengthy discussions going. I noticed one on another thread as well. I used to think that the Bible was so simple and clear and I always thought that there was no need for apologetics if people just read the Bible with simple innocense. I guess I was wrong because things can go much deeper than I ever thought. What bothers me sometimes is that both sides of whatever particular argument seem to have good arguments.
Christopher, you will stand before the Lord and have to account to him for all that you believe and do. So, please study and make your own mind up about the issues that come your way.
Study diligently and as widely as you can, because we live in difficult times and there are many who will want to tie you to their beliefs!
Being brought up a good pentecostal, I started with the KJV. But the more I have studied the less I am convinced about the translation and the underlying texts.
Oh don't get me wrong, I am on no crusade to change those who use it. But I do get upset by those who know little on textual matters who nevertheless offer dogmatic assertions against any text other than the TR.