Featured Annoyed by Church Signs

No wonder the spirit was similar!
Now please extend to me the same grace! You know what I meant just as you know what that church meant. But admitting that gets in the way of condemning me.

 

You know which one because I repeatedly told you, the grace of saying: "First, let me say I understand what they mean." as you said of the church.

Ask Paul who penned 1Corinthians 9:22, or ask Ezekiel who penned Ezekiel 3:16-21.
Of course it's a team effort! God says so! For we are labourers together with God: (1Cor.3:9).
And you know what I mean, because I already see you coming with sanctimonious straw-man condemnations.
Sorry bro, the Bible is not a Calvinist book.

 

I'd guess you understand all of the different spellings and archaic words because you have worked diligently at acquiring language skills beyond your mother tongue. Many folks in churches do not have those skills and I would guess that the vast majority using the KJV have the revision done in the 1860s (IIRC), as does our IFB work.

Some years back BJU issued two books on Bible versions which were compilations of separately written articles by differing authors. One of those articles from the first of those books began with the author recounting a drive past a sign similar to what's referenced above in #29. As he owned a 1611 edition, he brought it the next time he drove that way and stopped in to (kindly) show it to the pastor, who was well educated but had trouble reading it, (mainly due to spelling variants, probably.) That pastor reacted by asking, "Is our sign a lie?" The visitor replied, "No, because you were unaware of the differences, but now that you do know, the sign would be a lie if left as is." The first fellow's itinerary next day brought him by that church again and the sign had been changed.

 

I get that point, but it's irrelevant to the issue at hand. The issue is someone who already understands the KJB then reading a 1611.
The next paragraph however is a little more relevant.

It's not "mainly due to spelling variants, probably." it's definitely and only due to that and the shape of letters.
But even here, it's a little irrelevant because @Reformed was targeting "Middle English". And that's not the issue. Spelling and typography are. The English is the same.

 

I see many church signs like warning labels on a pack of cigarettes.

 

Same fellow who penned 1 Corinthians 3:4-7. Verse 6 says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase." and in the next verse Paul reinforces that by inferring he and Apollos are nothing but God who gave the increase is everything.

Christians who are surrendered to their Savior can be used mightily by Him but it is He who saves. We, His human servants/slaves, need to remain humble as we share the Gospel.

 

Every one here understands as much. This is not the issue at hand, even though the sanctimonious pat each other on the back.

The ISSUE, brethren, is that the author himself admits to understanding what the church meant, and that Paul and Ezekiel spoke in similar terms. So there's no reason to condemn that church for that sign. It's sanctimonious pharisaical gnat-straining which doesn't impress God. That's the ISSUE.

 

My syntax was unclear. You didn't say anything about Paul and Ezekiel. That clause I meant to relate to the beginning of the sentence. I should've been clearer.
The issue stays the same: sanctimonious gnat-straining. The church spoke as Ezekiel and Paul spoke. You have the verses.

 

And I'm saying that they meant it the way Paul meant it and you don't know that they did not. So easy on the condemnation. g-n-a-t straining.

 

If you're going to correct them, you need to correct Paul:
1Co_9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

It's not "bad theology" or "dangerous".

That church spoke as the oracles of God do (1Pe.4:11) and gnat-straining is sanctimonious judgmentalism and needs to be checked.

 

Not to derail the thread, but I know the KJVO myth is false cuz it's man-made & has NO Scriptural support whatsoever. No doctrine of faith/worship can be true without Scriptural support.

 

You are missing my point entirely.