Annoyed by Church Signs

[Reformed1689]

am made all things to all men, that I [you got that? "I"] might by all means save some (1Co.9:22).
So someone is going to be heaven because of Paul? "How blasphemous and arrogant!"

Do you really think that is what Paul is saying? Paul is literally the one doing the saving? You might want to check your theology there.

Even the author of that gnat-straining article you quoted had enough grace to say of the church sign he saw: "First, let me say I understand what they mean."

I'm aware since I am the author of the aritcle.

 

[George Antonios]

Do you really think that is what Paul is saying? Paul is literally the one doing the saving? You might want to check your theology there.

I'm aware since I am the author of the aritcle.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

What grace would you like me to extend? Grace for you to keep talking out of both sides of your mouth? Grace to allow you to keep saying this article is a Calvinist attack when it isn't?

So let me ask you, who gets us into Heaven? Is it me, is it Christ, is it both, is it Christ and others, or is it a team effort?

 

[George Antonios]

What grace would you like me to extend? Grace for you to keep talking out of both sides of your mouth? Grace to allow you to keep saying this article is a Calvinist attack when it isn't?

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.

So let me ask you, who gets us into Heaven? Is it me, is it Christ, is it both, is it Christ and others, or is it a team effort?

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.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

What in the world are you talking about? English is my 3rd language. I have a photostatic copy of the 1611 and I understand all its words as in my regular KJB. The differences are in the forms of the letters and sometimes spelling.

Is it possible you have misconceptions about the 1611?

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.

 

[George Antonios]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

What saves George? What actually saves? What gets us to an eternity in Heaven?

 

[1689Dave]

Does anyone else get annoyed when they see church signs that have a clever statement that is theologically incorrect?

Because of Me? - Reformed Truths

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

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Ask Paul who penned 1Corinthians 9:22, .

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

It amazes me that the article should be wholeheartedly upheld in this forum and yet there is controversy over it. The biblical illiteracy is worse than I thought.

 

[George Antonios]

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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. That's the ISSUE.

Spoke in similar terms? No, no they didn't. I have said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth. Paul, nor Ezekiel said anything remotely like someone was in Heaven because of them.

 

[George Antonios]

Spoke in similar terms? No, no they didn't. I have said no such thing. Do not put words in my mouth. Paul, nor Ezekiel said anything remotely like someone was in Heaven because of them.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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 am arguing that it is very different.

 

[George Antonios]

And I am arguing that it is very different.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

So then you actually agree with the premise of the article? Notice, it was not a condemnation in the way you are trying to make it out to be. Rather, it was an exhortation to be more precise in the way we present things.

It seems to me you are being combative for the sake of being combative.

 

[George Antonios]

So then you actually agree with the premise of the article? Notice, it was not a condemnation in the way you are trying to make it out to be. Rather, it was an exhortation to be more precise in the way we present things.

It seems to me you are being combative for the sake of being combative.

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.

 

[Reformed1689]

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.

If Paul was saying the same thing I would not correct them. But it is not the same thing.

 

[robycop3]

How do you know its a false doctrine? They might believe modern translations are fine, yet choose to use KJV for unity purposes.

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.

 

[Reynolds]

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.