Has anyone changed their mind?

[Mel Miller]

Dr.Bob and npetreley,

I have kept a personal record of "changes" of
ideas on Scriptural truths for fifteen years.
These changes have come directly from studying
the Greek text ... because manuscripts to not agree among themselves and two important
Greek manuscripts discovered recently do not always agree with each other. A case in point
concerns the future of "nations" given below.

While the different translations are not so
critical as to affect one's vital doctrinal
position, the Greek makes a difference in understanding the Big Picture. That was
obvious for npetreley on Eph.2:8 and it has
been so vital in my understanding that the
Day of the Lord is a "Single 12-Hour Day".

Also, because the KJV refers to the "nations that are saved and keep God's commandments
will have the right to the Tree of Life and will be healed by its leaves whenever they come into the New Jerusalem from earth," the NASB and NIV OMIT the word "saved" and change the condition for the "right to the Tree of Life" from keeping God's commandmets to having "washed their robes" in the blood of the Lamb.

One of the two major reasons requiring the
Millennial view (as opposted to the Amil view)
is that God will provide the opportunity for
the "descendants of Ishmael's 12 tribes" to be
"blessed" with eternal life as a NATION by
"keeping God's commandments" for 1000 years.
That "blessing" is the final one of 7 in the
Book of Revelation. Rv.22:14 after Rv.21:24-26
and Rv.22:2.

Another example in which only the New Jerusalem
Bible differs from "all" the other versions is
the translation of the word "thumos". This word
is never translated as "anger" in the KJV ...
not even where "thumos and orgay" appear in the
same verse!! The Gnostics influenced the ECF's
to never translate "thumos" as "anger" because
God cannot be made subject to the "perturbations
of human emotions" as taught by Plato.

The study of these examples of "differences" among the versions has dramatically "changed"
my viewpoint of God's purpose for the "nations"
during the Millennium on the one hand and my
understanding of the time for "God's and the Lamb's DAY of wrath" on the other hand.

Mel Miller www.lastday.net

 

[whatever]

On a different site I once argued with someone that modern Baptists did not have Gnostic tendencies. I have changed my mind about that. I also used to think that Pelagianism did not exist, but I have been proven wrong there as well.

 

[dcorbett]

yes, I was saved in a Southern Baptist church, but didn't have a full understanding of God's grace and my blood bought salvation until I joined an Independent Fundamental Baptist church where I was fed the "meat" instead of the "milk"

I also grew to understand the meaning of having a complete Bible, not a paraphrased one.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

When I first came to the Baptist Board 6 years ago, I was a strong believer that it was a sin to exclude women from the ministry and from leadership positions. I think Dr. Bob and others who have been here that long can attest that I was a total pain in my apologetics and defense of the egalitarian view of women in leadership roles. Since meeting several women in leadership roles on this board as moderators and some who aspired to be pastors, I have sense changed my mind.

I still am not convinced that the arguments against it are Biblically solid, but in a pragmatic manner, I understand the wisdom behind those who are against women in ministry, and it has caused me to seriously rethink my position about women in ministry and in leadership roles.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Originally posted by dcorbett:
yes, I was saved in a Southern Baptist church, but didn't have a full understanding of God's grace and my blood bought salvation until I joined an Independent Fundamental Baptist church where I was fed the "meat" instead of the "milk"

I also grew to understand the meaning of having a complete Bible, not a paraphrased one.

This board never stops with the smackdowns, does it? This post looks like a slam on the SBC, saying it only serves "milk", and doesn't use valid translations of scripture. Sheesh!

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Magnetic,

Maybe that church D was in was using a paraphrased version. if that is the case, she truly was not getting the full meat of the Word.

 

[doulous]

Helen wrote:

By the way, although an increase of faith may well be a gift from God, faith itself isn't.

If you're talking about temporal faith, you're correct. If you're referring to the faith that leads to life in Christ, the bible clearly teaches that this type of faith is a gift from God. I quote:

Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

What is the gift of God? To answer this one only needs to look at the antecedant. Grace and faith are both part of the "gift of God." God not only grants grace, He also grants the faith to believe.

 

[doulous]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
Not necessarily a change in position, but I have tried to change my attitude and demeanor in my postings, after seeing people complain about "angry Calvinists" and what-not. I observed that some of my former posts could be construed as angry, judgmental, arrogant, etc., so I have since tried to be careful with how I construct my posts and wording to not unnecessarily offend someone. I'm sure I still fail at times, though.

Andy, it doesn't matter. You're a Calvinist. That means you are to be vilified and considered worse than an infidel. Didn't you get the memo?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

You robots.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by doulous:
Helen wrote:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />By the way, although an increase of faith may well be a gift from God, faith itself isn't.

If you're talking about temporal faith, you're correct. If you're referring to the faith that leads to life in Christ, the bible clearly teaches that this type of faith is a gift from God. I quote:

Ephesians 2:8 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

What is the gift of God? To answer this one only needs to look at the antecedant. Grace and faith are both part of the "gift of God." God not only grants grace, He also grants the faith to believe. </font>[/QUOTE]Bill, this verse has been the whole discussion of the entire post. Just quoting it does no good. I'm not sure Greek grammatical analysis would do any good, either, since it has been done before and it appears that only npetreley paid any attention.

BUT... I will gladly do it briefly.

In Greek, it is important to understand that pronouns must agree with the noun they modify in gender, number and case. The word in question is touto which is translated "that." The phrase is "For by grace you have been saved through fatih and that not of yourselves." The question is "what is 'that' referring to.

Touto is neuter in gender, so the noun it modifies must also be neuter in gender. The problem is that grace and faith are both feminine and "have been saved" is a verb. So, touto cannot individually modify grace, faith, or "have been saved." Therefore, the only solution is to have it modify the whole phrase "by grace you have been saved through faith."

The same is true of the last phrase - "it is the gift of God." Gift is the Greek word doron which is also in the neuter gender. The gift cannot individually be grace or faith because they are feminine in gender. It also cannot be salvation because that is a verb. The gift must be the whole phrase.

Being that it is the whole phrase (grammatically), then it is also true that each individual part of the phrase is also the gift. Therefore, grace and faith are both gifts of God as is "you have been saved." Grammatically, this verse supports the idea that the faith which saves is a gift of God.

But, I don't suppose it will convince people who already believe that everyone has faith...

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by standingfirminChrist:
Magnetic,

Maybe that church D was in was using a paraphrased version. if that is the case, she truly was not getting the full meat of the Word.

I think by "paraphrased" D was referring to any translation that is not the KJV. Therefore, those evil Southern Baptists only drink paraphrased milk rather than eating the completed meat.

 

[tinytim]

When I came to this board, I was looking for answers about KJVOism. Man, did I find them here! I had googled "KJVO" and "Baptist" and was led to baptistboard.

I thank God He led me here. It solidified my belief that onlyism is not biblical.

I want to thank all my brothers and sisters in Christ that debated for and against KJVOism. It was heated even back then, but I still learned somethings. To think about it now, I think I learned more from the way people said things than what they actually said.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I still am not convinced that the arguments against it are Biblically solid, but in a pragmatic manner, I understand the wisdom behind those who are against women in ministry, and it has caused me to seriously rethink my position about women in ministry and in leadership roles.

LOL! I'd have to say I've gone the other way on this, in part due to a post I read a year or two ago on BB.

I always felt that God had specific roles for men and women, and that if the Bible says women should not be teachers, then so be it. In fact, I recall just a year or two after I was saved that a young woman question why women shouldn't teach, especially if they are good leaders and talented teachers? I responded (and I have to paraphrase loosely), "Because God said so, and if God said so, He must have a good reason. It may seem like a waste to us, but God sees things differently than we do, and He is always right."

BUT, I never took it seriously enough to care about whether or not anyone enforced it. I watched several bible study videos done by women and never gave it a second thought.

Then I read that post a year or two ago. It had a lot more in it than just the issue of teaching, and it was quite a good post. I wish I could find it for you, but I'm not sure how.

Anyway, I read it, and it really solidified my views that the Bible is right, and women should not be teachers or pastors.

(Just to avoid being misunderstood: The Bible does say that women should teach other women, especially younger women, and even says what they should be teaching...so I don't mean women shouldn't teach ANYTHING.)

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by tinytim:
When I came to this board, I was looking for answers about KJVOism. Man, did I find them here! I had googled "KJVO" and "Baptist" and was led to baptistboard.

I thank God He led me here. It solidified my belief that onlyism is not biblical.

I want to thank all my brothers and sisters in Christ that debated for and against KJVOism. It was heated even back then, but I still learned somethings. To think about it now, I think I learned more from the way people said things than what they actually said.

Agreed, how we say things is much more important than what we actually say.

From the pride and arrogance exhibited by some with their new positions, it sounds like changing ones mind has only resulted in moving their position around and they haven't really learned anything.

I arrived at this board with a sense of incredulity for how rational bible believers could hold the posistions of Tee-totalism, Landmarkism, Majority Text preferred and many fundamentalist positions. The usual shouters reinforce that incredulity. But the tone, grace and knowledge of coversations with folks such as rlvaughn (Landmarkism), TCassidy (Byzantine priority) and John of Japan (fundamentalism) have humbled my arrogance. While I have not changed my mind on any of these issues, I have gained a greater appreciation and sense of grace for my brothers and sisters who do hold those position.

 

[tinytim]

I grew up in fundamentalism and have experienced the extreme too often. But I have to agree that John of Japan represents the fundamentalism I grew up with.

Thanks JoJ for your witness.