College and the Bible

Please go back and reread my post. I believe I put a stipulation on when I would not say someone is not saved. (Hint: it has something to do with a confession of faith. ) Also, I said that I would have an opinion, but it is nothing more than that. I would not throw it around like fact, as some here are doing.

God Bless,
Neal

 

That's nice. It still doesn't make them unbelievers.

Neal

 

Burgon made a valiant attempt to do (1), (2) and (3), but didn't succeed because his methodology was *seriously* flawed (one example: his use of patristic citations in non-critical ways from non-critical editions). As for (4), Burgon didn't believe that the KJV was "without error." In one instance he observes "... how very seldom our Authorized Version is materially wrong..." (Revision Revised, p. 232), which is high praise indeed for the KJV, but also a frank acknowledgment that it sometimes *is* "materially wrong." In another place when commenting on a particular textual problem he bluntly notes, "...as our own incorrect A.V. sufficiently shews..." (Causes of Corruption, p. 179). These are hardly the words of a man who believed that the KJV was "without error."

 

I don't know about "groups," since I don't really know what "groups" of KJVOs there are. There are a number of individuals who have attracted some measure of a following because they tickle people's ears on this issue. However, Riplinger is an example of someone who lied about WH and many others. This has been documented on numerous occasions.

But who cares about WH? We are way past that. As I said, the spiritual status of one's life does not have a great affect on one's textual criticism. Textual criticism is not about spirituality but about looking at the evidence in front of you and coming to a conclusion about that evidence. Erasmus did this very thing although he remained associated with the Catholic church. Burgon was not a KJVO by any means. He is often misrepresented by people who need support for their failing position. When you try to attack WH, you only show how desperate you are for material, because they are immaterial to this discussion.

 

Since this is being done in public I am going to call on the moderators publicly. Is it okay to go around saying such and such are unbelievers, even if they confess faith in Jesus Christ? Askjo has done this to Westcott, Hort, and now Metzger. He seems to be adding all kinds of doctrines as essential to salvation that are not part of the gospel. His statements are bordering (if not) libel. Is this tolerated here? He can at least phrase it, "I think such and such was an unbeliever because......" rather than publish it as fact. He readily admits He is not God so he is in no position to pass the judgments he does. He has been called on this and continues to do it. I ask that the moderators step in now, please.

Respectfully,
Neal

 

Neal, as far as I understand, questioning the salvation of non-Baptist Board people is allowed. It is also such a worn out practice of the KJVO that it is just common now for the Mods to accept it. As a former Mod here, I realize that is it impossible to exercise any control on the KJVO side. They are unruly and simply resort to conversational terrorism to hijack threads.

It is absolutely laughable and pathetic that a KJVO person would go after Westcott or Hort. Are they going to argue for the salvation of Erasmus, the catholic?

Apart from people on the board, I do wonder about the salvation of many KJVO people. For example, I wonder about Riplinger, Gipp, Marrs, Ruckman, Waite, and other false teachers.