Featured Fundamental View of the Bible

Don, I addressed, and answered this issue many posts before. Perhaps you should reread my posts and try to actually understand the doctrine of scripture alone over scripture plus traditions of men.

 

Bump bump

Originally Posted by Van View Post
9. In Psalm 119:89 we see that God’s word is “settled in heaven” forever. Thus we are to abide by it, and not seek to change it, or take away from it or add to it. If it does not fit with our understanding of other scriptures, we are not to nullify it, we are to change our understanding. (From the OP)

Because of my trust in the completeness of God's Word, I find the tools of scriptural nullification to be repugnant. My times a poster will say or imply that God did not mean what He said, and go with such inventions as "the secret will of God." Thus when God says He remembers no more forever, what He really means is He remembers the act or thought, and its consequence of divine retribution, but simply decides not to apply the divine consequences of those sins. Thus they equate forgiveness with remembering no more, and the phrase "remember no more" becomes redundant and does not convey anything in addition to forgiveness.

But to support this view, rather than rely upon some specific passage that says this is what God meant, they rely instead upon a man-made addition to the text.

Every time we see "God did not mean what He said" it demonstrates lip service to the doctrine of scripture alone and reveals the actual doctrine of scripture as understood by the tradition of men.

Still trying to have someone actually address the topic rather than some misstatement of my view.

 

Hi Don, you really do need to read my posts. I addressed Luther's secret will, and the use of a preferred witness (such as the MT/Byz or CT) of the original autographs, excluding the TR.

 

Several online sources say the Byz/MT differs from the TR in about 1005 places. Others say 1800 or so with 1005 being translatable differences. I could not find the number of the 1005 that are in agreement with the CT. But, guessing, if there are X (500?) places where the CT and MT agree against the TR, would it not be great if the NKJV was revised to match the MT in those places. I do not understand why this has not happened already.

 

Until you read my posts and refer to the post number where I answered your question, I am going to conclude your questions are disingenious. Why not ask a question on the topic?

 

JOJ, I asked you to teach on the subject of why you prefer the MT/Byz witness over and against the TR. Tell us about the places where the MT/Byz and CT agree against the TR.

 

Scripture alone is a doctrine proclaimed by most if not all Baptist Churches. But what is the proof of the pudding. Do they really trust in the traditions of men over and against scripture alone.

 

Hint for Don's eyes only:

Scripture is given by God inspiring the very words of the original authors and is therefore the message of God without error and is the only basis of faith and practice. We believe the best representation of the NT original autographs is the 1993 NA27/UBS4 Critical Text. [Alternately a local church could say the 1550 TR or the WH or any other published version using a specific reference.] This copy is our best effort to preserve the Word of God and is completely trustworthy, having removed what we believe were some of the corruptions that occurred during the transmission of the text over the intervening years since the originals were first written. This original language text is superior to any translation, because translation is imperfect. However, any of the more literal translations is fully suitable for study, instruction, and growth, such as the NET, the HCSB, the NKJV or the NASB95. However, since all these contain some poor choices, a comparison of the various translations seems sound for study.

 

Returning yet again to topic, why do folks give lip service to the fundamental doctrine of scripture alone, and then turn around and nullify scripture in order to follow the traditions of men?