Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Christ at the Campfire Question on the Bible

Good old "honest Abe!" Kinda sounds like a minority view that carried some weight. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Blaine -- think about the majority government idea. And then tell me you still think the majority view is always right. That whole things kinda sounds like, "We must be right. Look at all of us who agree. How could those few over there be right. There's not enough of them to impress anyone."

But Blaine, I defend your right to do whatever you want to do, even if I think you are wrong. Will you defend that right for me? Sure, you say. As long as the majority will defend it. Hang the majority. Decide something on your own.

I spent too long doing Law Enforcement and being in the minority view there, to worry about what the majority says a whole lot. Vote on it all you like. Take a quorum, or a majority, or whatever you like. Most of the time, the majority is sincere, and informed, and wrong.

The majority says that Bill Clinton was a good guy. Would you trust him around your daughters? Would you vote for him if he ran again?

Again, people like Sanlen and myself find ourselves in the minority. That's fine. I'm used to it. I've been wrong before, and I may be again.

Though all the cabinet here vote against it, me and Abe vote "Aye for a preserved, perfect English Bible." Enjoy your NIV or whatever else you read. Glory will settle it.

Majorities don't decide what's right except by occasional accident. In matters of opinion (especially opinion on spiritual matters) in fact, the size and the suddenness of a majority's rise are good indications that they're wrong.

Majorities tell us what the most people prefer � that's all.

.

To paraphase John the Apostle, as long as the scriptures (pick your translation here) teach that Jesus is the Christ and was God made flesh to save mankind, then God will receive the glory and it will probably not matter what version we read or follow if we believe Him and keep his commandments. Understand I am not talking about Good News..., Watchtower and others, but specifically the ones we have been debating on. It is possible we have been straining at gnats and swallowing camels...

I don't know where all this came from. I asked a simple question based upon your obvious attack of those who believe in election. It had nothing to do with attempting to discredit you at all. I thought you were doing a pretty good job of that by yourself (just kidding). Seriously, I was just asking because of your comment "Those who consider themselves "the elect" ".

Maybe it is me, but it is sometimes hard for me to get a straight answer from you to a question. You usually mask it in statements like "...as to whether I believe in election, a colleague of mine put it well", or other such stories that have little to do with answering the question, and more to do with making you look like someone people shouldn't question.

I think your answer is in there somewhere, and if I'm reading it right, you may have a similar belief to mine, which is that for subjects such as election people are normally more concerned with finding what matches their particular brand of Christianity rather than what the Bible says. I find the statement you said you found attributed to Hugo of St Victor particularly offensive, as you do. I find far too many people by nature look in the Bible until they find something that matches what they believe instead of letting the Bible interpret itself.

My feelings are that it is none of my business who the elect are. That is God's business. Mine is to simply teach the gospel. I believe in it because the Bible says it is real, and I do also believe God is in charge of everything, but if someone falls down stairs I think it has more to do with consequences of our own actions (not watching where you're going) than a predestination to it by God. This is a generalization as there are obvious exceptions, such as Paul. In the end, I do not believe election is something God means for us to understand.

I once heard of some guys in the back of my first church in Harrison, Ohio who said that they believed that God would forgive them if they got someone saved who wasn't one of the elect. Talk about foolishness..... But the subject has divided whole congregations, and even denominations, usually because people take stands due to dogma like you mention. This I do know, salvation is of the LORD, but each of us is responsible to respond to the command of God to be saved. It is not just election, or free will, but both, because the Bible says so.

I have found that tunnel vision, or concentrating on one aspect of anything in the Bible always leads to error. This has included churches I have been familiar with who preached long and hard on the wrongs of homosexuality at the exclusion of love, or those who fought against church registration so strongly they forgot to be a church. The stands of the preacher may or may not have been corerect Biblicly, but the tunnel visioned approach led them to error. This can especially be applied to subjects such as election.

I too do not believe anyone is ammune from deception. That, I believe is why the Bible says the pray always, and study to show yourself approved.

The comparison between things of the world and the things if God is a faulty analogy.

Being in the minority because you are a believer in the midst of unbelievers is the right kind of minority to be in.

Being in the minority among conservative, Evangelical Bible scholars is rarely the right kind of minority to be in.

It is fine to be "odd man out" on a point, but to do so without humility before God is nothing more than an attempt to satiate one's ego. Been there, done that, have the t-shirt, try hard not to do it anymore�����..

We can puff ourselves up in pride about how we are able to "stand firm for God" and be ridiculed because of our "minority" view. What a load of crap. We can't indulge the flesh much more than to take that stance. (Been there, done that, work hard to NOT do it anymore��.) In North America today, very few folks care enough about what you believe to ridicule you unless you completely ignore the Spirit, talk when you should shut-up, and try to "win" your argument with them. On those rare occasions where the Spirit does lead us to a confrontation, it is very clear and it often doesn�t even occur to us we are being ridiculed.

It is also very ego-rewarding to think we have discovered some "secret" that makes us know better than those God has called to lifetime of Biblical scholarship. Once again, I have been there and done that. After all, we have no end to the list of tools at our disposal to justify our view. Here are some that I have used:

1. I have attacked their motivations
2. I have called them liberal modernists
3. I have said they�ve fallen away
4. I have said they aren't really saved
5. I have said are not following the leading of the Spirit

It is so much easier to condemn what we don't like than to accept the uncertainty that God has not chosen to make everything clear. After all, if everything is not completely black and white, than how can we be certain of anything? I am learning to have faith that God has it sorted out and to accept 55:8.



You really mean I should decide in favor of your view. I should do things your way. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

Here is how I make my decisions. Any viewpoint that happens to pop into my head, anything I come up with on my own--whether via Bible study, life experience, or I hear it form someone--MUST be in line with orthodox Evangelical doctrine unless God has made it VERY clear to me I am right and the majority of those devoted men He has called to be Bible scholars and Theologians are wrong (that doesn�t happen very often). I do not go with what �feels� good or what I wish it said.

The first step is to study the Word and see what I myself think. The next step is to study the views of the scholars, majority AND minority. Throughout this process I remain sensitive to the Spirit--to the best my flawed humanity will allow--as to which view to give more weight. Rarely does God lead me to a minority view. NEVER has he led me to a minority view on the Key Issues. I suppose the main minority view I hold is:--I think Intelligent Design is a better model for the origin and development of life than Creationism. However, that is NOT a Key Issue, and I am not dogmatic about it. I am also not sure it is such a minority view any more�������.

I have no ego in this. I absolutely do not care where the truth leads. If tomorrow archaeologists find ancient scrolls that clearly show how Textus Receptus is right and the other manuscripts are wrong--confirming what the �KJV only� folks believe, then I will change my view.

My approach, the majority approach <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> , guards against extremism in all forms--whether it is liberalism, dogmaticism, extreme moderate �ism�. If Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, and Charles Taze Russell had used this approach then the cults of Mormonism, Christian Science, and Jehovah�s Witnesses would not have been founded. If their followers had used the majority approach the cults would not have flourished. The pastor of that little Assembly of God in Elma, Washington I attended would not have become controlling and exclusionary had he been accountable to the majority of conservative, Evangelical theologians.

Interestingly, today I asked my buddy who is attending Dallas Theological Seminary about Bible translations. (BTW, Dallas Theological has been called everything form right wing to liberal, depending on who was doing the name calling). He said NO ONE there is �KJV only�. Think about that. One of the major Evangelical Seminaries in the world has NO ONE that is KJV only. My friend said most of the professors prefer to study from the New King James or the NASB, but almost all preach from the NIV. Imagine that. I did not know that until I talked to him today, but very early in this thread I said that I preferred the NIV for general reading but liked the NASB for in depth study. Of course, that cannot be God�s confirmation to me���������.. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I can hear it all now. Let me say it for you. �Your friend is just wrong.� Or if you prefer: �Dallas has become too liberal, many don�t like what they are seeing out of Dallas these days.� �These so called Bible scholars are giving in so they can be academically accepted.� Or: �What do you expect from an institution that has become so corrupted.�

I am sure glad that none of those statements against Dallas can be applied to the �KJV only� view����������..

"I asked a simple question ... "
No, you said declaratively that you "took it" that I didn't believe in something that I hadn't mentioned. You assumed something that I'd neither stated nor implied. An assumption is a self-supplied "answer" to an unasked question � it is not a question.

"... based upon your obvious attack of [sic] those who believe in election. "
"Obvious" only to you in your imagination. I didn't attack anybody. Never had such a thought. I focused my remarks on crystalline-clear scripture and a common misapplication of it.

"It had nothing to do with attempting to discredit you at all."
It sure looks as though that was your intent, just as your uncalled-for remark "I thought you were doing a pretty good job of that by yourself (just kidding)" still gives me that impression (whatever your real intent may be).

" ... I was just asking because of your comment 'Those who consider themselves 'the elect.'"
Which was not a comment but a phrase that refers to the vanity of certain unnamed people, in no way an attack on the truly elect or on the concept of election (a concept that I did not refer-to or allude-to, in any way). Don't focus on the last two words. Notice that they're in quotes, and take notice of the meaning of the entire expression.

Also, your remark that " ... it is sometimes hard for me to get a straight answer from you to a question. You usually mask it in statements like '...as to whether I believe in election, a colleague of mine put it well', or other such stories that have little to do with answering the question, and more to do with making you look like someone people shouldn't question" has all the odor and flavor of an ad hominem criticism aimed at discrediting me, my method of answering, or the content of my post.

"Straight answer?" Ask me any honest, unloaded question that you like, but then don't expect me to answer it within your narrow, unspecified guidelines � allow me to answer it accurately according to my own understanding of what I believe, mean, etc. Otherwise, if you don't like the way that I answer questions, and if you're not questioning me out of a lurking hostility with the intent of belittling or discrediting me, simply don't ask me any question. It'd probably be equally wise and easier on your mood to skip-over any post that has my name high in the left-hand column.

As to election, my answer is indeed there � clear, I thought. I accept it as a concept mentioned positively in the Bible, even though I have neither knowledge nor opinion regarding precisely what it is or to whom it applies. My belief is that those who so obviously consider themselves "elect" are not only making an unwarranted assumption and, in assuming that they can't be deceived, are (a) arrogant, (b) enhancing their susceptibility to deception, and (c) deceived. Scripture and a multitude of real-life observations have both generated and supported this belief.

I merely sought, by using an anecdotal, parallel answer, to make that answer no less clear but more palatable and less likely to be mistaken for an "obvious attack on ... election. "

The entire tone and tenor of your references to me, my posted comments, and what you assume are my thoughts, intents, and motives indicate an awaiting hostility that colors the way that you "read" me and my posts. Whatever your intent may be, that's the clear impression that arises like strong, visible wisps of odor from your ad hominem references especially. Only you, with the help of the Holy Spirit, can properly deal with that � so I leave it to you, now that you know how you come-across in your posts.

.

Blaine,

What I meant by decide something on your own, was exactly that. Make a decision on your own that is not guided by what the majority of acredited scholars agree on. Touchy, touchy touchy.

And I do NOT take the stand on the Bible version issue that I do from a sense of pride, or a lack of humility. I may be guilty of both those sins, but not in the area of the Bible. If I were to be prideful, I would stand and say, I have decided that the majority of the conservative Bible scholars are right, or that the minority view is right.

I have chosen to believe God when he told me he would preserve his word pure. He did. You see, before anyone had a chance to teach me one thing or another on Bible versions, right after I got saved, I decided that there had to be an authority in my life for Christ. I took a stab in the dark and figured it was likely the Bible. I also guessed that the Bible was God's book for mankind. I went way out on a limb in my thinking and figured that if a perfect, pure, holy, sinless God wrote a book, it would reflect his character. I just decided that God's word must be perfect because God is perfect. I lived quite happily in that belief until someone decided that God had appointed them as an authority over HIS authority, and tried to point out all the mistakes in my Bible - any version. At the time, I had a Good News, a NASV and an Authorized Version. I had already noticed the differences in those three in several places, and had decided, on my own, that the AV was stronger in its doctrine and condemnation of sin. Nobody taught me that. I discerned it from reading.

Along comes the self-professed authority who decides it is time that I grew in "grace" and he points out a bunch of errors in my King James Bible. He was a meagre student at best, and certainly not a scholar, because in an evening of Bible study, I was able to find out just by reading every word in the context, that Mr Corrector was incorrect. I showed him the next day, and he accused me of following a man. I asked him if God had shown him those "mistakes" in the AV. He told me his pastor had. His mistakes were easily answered by a simple reading of the word. They were not mistakes. No-one has ever showed me a mistake in the King James Bible that would hold any water, and the mistakes they showed me, they never got from God alone.

I have seen things that I thought were contradictory at first blush, but on closer inspection, I discovered the mistake was in my attitude, and reasoning. God is still perfect, and so is his word. I mean the one that I read and teach and preach and live my lfe by.

Pride has nothing to do with it. You sit in judgment on God and say he has not preserved his word, and I am proud because I say he has, because he said he would? Something is smelly.

And if the majority of "godly, dedicated, fundamental, evangelical, conservative, scholars" band together and say that there is no perfect Bible, politely they can take a flying run up their left leg and disappear. I have a perfect Bible, until God - - GOD shows me otherwise.

If I am proud, I am proud of a God that does what he says, every time, on time. I am "proud" to call him my Heavenly Father, by faith in Christ Jesus.

If you want to live out the rest of your days with an imperfect pile of junk that comes pretty close, in your own mind, or in the mind of the majority of good, godly, etc. etc, then help yourself! You have my blessing, for whatever good it will do.

You haven't said I was possessed of a devil yet, and others have said that. I'm not. I just love the Lord of the Bible, and I love the Bible of the Lord.

Praise the Lord, anyway!

Shootist, if you didn't walk to a different beat within your denomination, you would make the perfect hardshell Baptist. You are as bull headed on some things as I am, but in spite of our imperfections we still give God all the glory.

So I should decide against them for the sake of being able to say I did it all by myself?



Didn't say you did, but did point out that I myself had been guilty of that in the past. Talk about touchy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



That is becasue God has not called you to be a Bible scholar. (I am not called to be that either). God has called others to be Bible scholars and God expects us to listen to them. While we can grow in Christ and live victoriously with simple Bible reading (and we all should do this), we cannot make credible critiques of Bible translations this way. We need to humble ourselves and consult those who God has called to that task. Even if we do become Bible scholars, with an impressive understanding of Ancient Greek and Hebrew, we still to check our views against the views of the others God has called before us.

Paul makes it very clear in I Cor 12 that we are not "one-man shows". Because it is a fine translation, and because it is your preference, the following quotes are from the KJV.

"4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit"
"5 And there are differences of administration, but the same Lord."
"6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all."
"7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal."
"28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, diversities of tongues."
" 29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?

This issue seems to be seperating into two extremes. One extreme is to rely totally on oneself to hear correctly from God in determining what the Bible says. The other is to rely totally on others regardless of what you yourself may think. Neither of these extremes is correct.

The best way is to make your own decision AFTER your own reading of the Word, prayer, and then consult those God has called to be scholars. Ideally, we find our initial understanding of the word is in line with how God leads us and what those conservative, Evangelical, scholars and theologians say. If the three are not in agreement, it's a safe bet the it's not God or the scholars/theologians He has called that are in error................



I am not judging God. I am judging a belief that is not based on Scripture. This belief is that God will reveal everything to us directly, relieving us of the requirement to consult others.

I have not said God hasn't preserved his Word. In fact, I have said the opposite and marveled at how He has kept his Word true through imperfect human languages.

And the pride I see--you can decide if it applies to you or not--is not being proud of God for preserving His Word, but being proud of what we think we know. This is a used to be a huge struggle for me, and I still must guard against it today.



God speaks through those He has called at least as much as He speaks directly to us. After all, why would we need preachers and teachers if God spoke to each of us directly on every issue?

Pastor, quit kicking against the goads! You do NOT have to do this all by yourself. It's not "you and God" against the world. God has called many to work with us, each with their own special gifts. I implore you to search out these people, read what they have to say, gain the fullest understanding of the issue possible, continue to seek God, then make your decision--just don't let chasing down any particular issue distract you from your primary calling. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I'd rather retract everything I have said here than be part of distracting a pastor from his calling................

THIS is how a man of God, who also happens to have-IIRC--a doctorate in theology, presents his view on this kind of an issue.

He first tells us that yes, he is aware of the Biblical concept. Then he admits he is not 100% sure what it means. Next, he presents his own belief, and is very clear that it is a belief.

This kind of answer shows humility, knowledge, and faith.

I suspect he cares more about the approach (i.e., avoiding unwarranted asumptions that make oneself suceptible to deception) than he does a person's exact view on the issue.

Some might view him as wish-washy because he has not taken a dogmatic stance on this issue. However, just ask him his opinion on a Key Issue of Christianity, and I doubt you will find any wavering. On non-Key issues, he will most likely tell you if his opinion represents the minority view, because he happens to know both the minority AND the majority view very well.

Why would anyone NOT want to consult someone like this on Biblical issues?

Blaine,

The scholars in Jesus Christ's day were the ones that cried, "Crucify him." The also said, "We have no king but Caesar." Another great scholarly quote was, "His blood be on us and on our children."

Those are quotes from the Scribes and Pharisees that demanded the death of the perfect Son of God. The scholars of old demanded he die. The scholars of today demand that his deity and blood be removed from the Holy writ. Not much difference in my book.

But Blaine, press on. I'm done on this topic. And other than the scribes, I don't see anywhere in the New Testament where God "called" anyone to be a scholar. I see him commanding men to be students, and to study (if you have a KJB - 2 Tim 2:15).

Shootist,thank you for pointing out an oversight which I shall immediately correct:
Your posts have made it obvious that you ARE"posessed";posessed by ego-fed by bull$hit.That may not be the same as the devil,but if I was gonna be hung for not meetin' him before sunup,I'd give a hunnerd dollars for your start.
Yeah,I'd say it at a real campfire with you present.I'd count myself more in God's will if I was huntin' with BIg Stick than if I was in a church house populated with the likes of you and your supporters on this thread.
I'm gonna shut up now before I let anger take over and I say something I have to apologize for later.

huh?
gene, you ain't said anything since the 28th and now this?
i must be missing something ...

Gene,
I'm praying for you Gene. The anger and contention your posts reflect must be more damaging to you personally than even the damage you do to the forum. I hope you will find peace.

No, Brother � not all � only those whom you delight in citing in blanket denunciation of Bible scholars. Many are polar opposites of the ones whom you cite.

I'm sure that you wouldn't accept ghetto opinions of cops as accurate descriptions of all cops � or deny that they're accurate descriptions of some cops, whom you do not approve or admire.

It appears that you need to open yourself to be spiritually purged of animosities and distrusts that stunt your spiritual growth. I'm sure that you don't claim that you've already reached the level that Paul described as a future expectation and ideal: "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."

Also, if scholarship in the Bible always and automatically led to disbelief and rejection, this in itself would be proof that the Bible were perilously false. The disqualifiers that you cite disqualify the scholars who so wrest the scriptures unto their own destruction � these disqualifiers do not hinder or disqualify scholars who reject them.


.

Concerning the original poster's question(tho I think he's gone for now)

There is some peril in relgion making the book itself some sort of icon or subject for study and dissection for the sake of that alone.


The Holy Spirit draws, convicts, and is the primary element in salvation and knowing the Father...and is essential for any who would follow Christ.
Jesus stated that the gospel was so simple that a fool or a wayfaring man could grasp it and that except we come as little children....


Even as the Law of Moses became little more than a sentence of death written in stone for many of the religios 'scholars' of Christ's day, so the bible words, without the reader-hearer first being willing to hear the Holy Spirit, can become a lifelong study with little true efficacy.

Ever learning, but never able to come to a knowlege of the truth..

I have searched long and never found any passage where Jesus commanded any of the disciples to 'write this down'..:)


The early church functioned just fine with spirit-filled and lead believers ministering one to another... and many thousands...( millions?) came to know Christ, receive Him,receive His baptism and the new birth long before a single written record was penned by the disciples/apostles.
They were not all jews with a knowlege of YHWH or proselytes either..

Christ designed the church so that His Holy Spirit working first thru the 11 disciples, then each new believer, would be built and sustained.

This was primarily a spoken ministry with the believer's life and works proving-demonstrating- manifesting the truth of the new covenant and all it holds.

Personally, I enjoy reading the word aloud to myself or with others..
Seems the word settles down into my being better so it becomes a part of me and helps direct my thoughts and deeds and words when I hear it.

Ultimately tho, the Holy Spirit is the one who has come to my life who leads and guides me into all the truth of Christ in me.jim

Is any of these errors worse than the others? Is any of these not an error?


� worshiping the Bible

� considering the Bible a spiritual smorgasbord where one selects what he likes and dumps or ignores the rest

� rejecting the Bible as unnecessary in light of the fact that so many have come to God without it

.

One thing that this board has exposed all too frequently is the problem with individual egos hampering spiritual development. It has been alluded to many times here. We have our preconceived ideas/doctrine/denominational bias and we search the scripture to prove only our points, rejecting all text that would seem to be in conflict with what we believe. Ken had a name for it, but I forgot what he called it. One thing is certain: Just because we have been at it for a long time does not mean we are right. We all need to pray more for the Spirit to guide us in our study and in everything we do. This board can be a real blessing. I hope we don't destroy it out of petty jealousy or "oneupmanship".

Ken, all would be errors of omission at least..:)

On my earlier post, I wrote:

"I have searched long and never found any passage where Jesus commanded any of the disciples to 'write this down'..:)"

Shootist gently reminded me that John in Revelation was specifically commanded by Christ to write the things he'd seen and heard in a book..( and later told NOT to record some things)
He is correct.

Likewise, Christ by His Spirit directed-compelled every writer to record what we have in the NT..tho we may not have specific record in the NT of that directive to them..

In my previous post, I was primarily referring to Christ's earthly ministry when the disciples and others heard and witnessed all He did..and Christ never told any of them that a written record of His words and deeds was to be integral in the establishment of His church.....but I failed to be specific about that..

Sorry if I confused anyone...jim

Well Ken,
You obviously are far too wise for me to communicate with.... at least in the ways of hard heartedness and means spiritedness. I'm done with you.