Is this a contradiction?

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle,

Stop and think.... How the people got saved through many centuries long time before 1611 A.V. translated?
--------------------------------------------------


Through Faith, and that Faith is in Jesus Christ, and it is through and by Faith in the words of God that have convicted me.

John 5

37. And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
38. And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41. I receive not honour from men.
42. But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45. Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
47. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?


Romans 10

1. Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2. For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.
4. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
6. But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above
7. Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
8. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9. That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15. And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16. But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17. So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
19. But I say, Did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger you.
20. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.
21. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:


This discussion is between believers, not unbelievers and believers. You should know what I am talking about and I approach you in this manner.

I agree in some ways. But you still must have reasons for your faith. If you do not and are not able to articulate them then you must study more. People understand reasons not a feeling you might have. People can examine reasons but feelings are subjective. Otherwise it is like you are trying to convince people of what they see as a fairy tale that you believe exists while at the same time they are convinced you are a little goofy. When we communicate something, people respond to reasons for what we believe.

If I remember right you mentioned that God has shown you the KJV is right. Now that you mention that give us reasons. When Jesus dealt with the Sadduccees he dealt with them form the Torah and with the Pharisees he dealt with them from the OT. So if you are going to convince anybody of anything you need to use wisdom in using things they see as credible.

For example to use Ruckman who has proven himself as a person who considers the KJV to correct the Greek text is poor. I don't think many see him as credible. He is a man that lacks many qualities of a godly man. So who will you use as a credible source to convince us you are right in such way that we can have an intelligent discussion and debate? If it is an us against them attitude nobody gains from that. So we want to see documentation to back up your thoughts so we can have intelligent discussion that all of us can understand.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by michelle:
If an unbeliever senses, or sees, in any way, shape or form, that I doubt God's words, in any way, THIS is what will do the damage. If I do not have faith in God's words myself, that they are HIS words 100%, and 100% the truth, that I am sharing with them, it shows I have not faith at all, and my efforts are in vain, and so is my faith.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Okay, first let's look at what we agree on so we have some common ground to continue. I don't think there is any doubt that all of us here agree that the gospel is number uno "primary-big time, the number one issue." I agree with you Michelle, and I also hear you when you say that what you say to us is going to be different than how you explain it to a lost person. I can agree with that.

Now, let us look at "not necessarily a disagreement", but maybe more of a confusion. You make the comment that you must show 100% faith in those Words of God to that lost person or that weakens your testimony.

I also agree with that 100%.

Now, here is the gatcha (and I'm not trying to corner you, I really just don't understand how you would handle this)...If a lost person walks up to you with an NIV and says: "Look Michelle, I have been reading about the Son of God and I understand that if I put my trust in Him that He is the only path to God. Is this true? -- you say "Sure it is." The person continues the discussion and starts bringing up verses out of the NIV. Do you waiver and let that person know that you do not feel the NIV is the Word of God? That they should switch to the KJV to get the real Word?

What if they are holding their NIV open and they point to the Roman road and ask you about it...do you whip our your KJV and show them their NIV may be wrong? Or do you try to lead them to the Lord using the Bible that they brought to you?

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
I agree in some ways. But you still must have reasons for your faith. If you do not and are not able to articulate them then you must study more. People understand reasons not a feeling you might have.
--------------------------------------------------


I don't have a feeling. I have FAITH.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[av1611jim]

((Raising his hand in classic Horshack fashion))
OOOO, OOOO, OOOO, OOOO!
Can I answer that one?
I help 'em get saved using their own Bible.
I never try to take it from them.
After all, ain't that what we ALL are supposed to be doing?
Winning souls to Jesus?
I would HOPE that ALL men on both sides of this aisle would do the same.
In His service;
Jim

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
If I remember right you mentioned that God has shown you the KJV is right. Now that you mention that give us reasons. When Jesus dealt with the Sadduccees he dealt with them form the Torah and with the Pharisees he dealt with them from the OT. So if you are going to convince anybody of anything you need to use wisdom in using things they see as credible.
--------------------------------------------------


I have done this, to which many have said I either take the scriptures out of context or that I am giving scriptures that have nothing to do with this issue or single translation onlyism. I am not on here posting about single translation onlyism. I am on here posting about the words of the Lord, and that we have them 100% perfectly in our own language, just as God has said. The scriptures I have posted are those to which my belief in this comes from.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Now, here is the gatcha (and I'm not trying to corner you, I really just don't understand how you would handle this)...If a lost person walks up to you with an NIV and says: "Look Michelle, I have been reading about the Son of God and I understand that if I put my trust in Him that He is the only path to God. Is this true? -- you say "Sure it is." The person continues the discussion and starts bringing up verses out of the NIV. Do you waiver and let that person know that you do not feel the NIV is the Word of God? That they should switch to the KJV to get the real Word?

What if they are holding their NIV open and they point to the Roman road and ask you about it...do you whip our your KJV and show them their NIV may be wrong? Or do you try to lead them to the Lord using the Bible that they brought to you?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course I would use what they have, but I would also encourage them to a church that uses a KJB, such as my own church, and eventually the Lord will show them.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[gb93433]

If your belief is an application that from taking scripture out of context then it is wrong.

Just because you rattle of a bunch of verses means little. Some you have quoted I am convinced that I know them better than you. when you talk with people who are well educated about the Bible it does little good to quote a pile of verses. Usually the discussion is the background of those verses. If one knows the historical context the correct interpretation is quite easy.

I think most of us are the same page as you when it comes to the truth of scripture but not its corredct interpretation. That is where the problem lies.

If someone tells you that what you quoted is lifted out of context and misapplied then correct them if they are wrong and give the correct historical background that lends to corectly interpreting the text. That kind of argumentation requires a lot of study to get it right.

Sometime just do a study on the word "Word as it is used in Jn 1:1. That in itself will occupy a long time. But when you get done you will have a much better understanding of why Jesus is referred to as the logos. It is often not so simplistic as you iften seem to communicate. IT is simple to trust God but not always so simple to know what scripture teaches in its context.

In 1 Peter 2 Peter 3:14-18 writes, "Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, spotless and blameless, and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand , which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of unprincipled men and fall from your own steadfastness, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

If Peter writes that Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand where does that leave us?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by michelle:
[QB

I have done this, to which many have said I either take the scriptures out of context or that I am giving scriptures that have nothing to do with this issue or single translation onlyism. I am not on here posting about single translation onlyism. I am on here posting about the words of the Lord, and that we have them 100% perfectly in our own language, just as God has said. The scriptures I have posted are those to which my belief in this comes from. [/QB]

We are not talking about belief but about translation. Sometime just try to just a little bit of study on what translation involves. Try to understand what is involved in any kind of translation work not just the Bible. Sometrimes it helps when one undersatnd s the basics of translation work. If you know someone that translates at the court house talk with them sometime. You will get a great appreciation for what any translator does and hard the work is.

 

[michelle]

When asked with the question specifically I would answer them honestly. I have done this, with my own sister, but I explained to her why. She very much understood, not knowing anything of the textual issue. I did tell her that the KJB was very understandable, ecspecially for those who had a desire to learn what God has said. She had not yet read any bible. She was going by what others gave her the impression of, that the KJB is difficult to understand. I showed her that they were indeed wrong. She however, is still rejecting salvation, for other reasons. But at least I can live in peace, knowing that she knows the truth. My nephew (her son - 9 yrs. old) believes in the Lord, although he is not yet saved, but has and reads from the KJB that my Dad gave him. My dad and I use to talk about this all the time, and he was a big mv proponent. He now sees the truth, as he has allowed the Lord to show him from the scriptures after hearing all that I shared with him.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Just because you rattle of a bunch of verses means little. Some you have quoted I am convinced that I know them better than you. when you talk with people who are well educated about the Bible it does little good to quote a pile of verses. Usually the discussion is the background of those verses. If one knows the historical context the correct interpretation is quite easy
--------------------------------------------------


You say I just rattle them off, but have you ever explained how they do not apply to my belief? NO. You say that they do not show King James only in the verses. I have repeatedly said, that you aren't going to find a man made label or name in the scriptures. If the scriptures that I have shared with you, to which my belief in this comes from is interpreted wrong, or taken out of context, it is then YOUR JOB TO SHOW ME with the scriptures, not just cause you say so. Otherwise one shows it is ONLY their OWN OPINION.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[manchester]

Michelle,

Why do the vast majority discern, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to not use the KJV and to use instead a MV?

 

[michelle]

---------------------------------------------------
If someone tells you that what you quoted is lifted out of context and misapplied then correct them if they are wrong and give the correct historical background that lends to corectly interpreting the text. That kind of argumentation requires a lot of study to get it right.
--------------------------------------------------


Correct historical background? Where in God's word does He tell us to use historical background? IN fact, God has told us that the church is the pillar and ground of truth.


1 Tim. 3

14. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


So if the history is needed for you in this issue, you have been looking at the texts that do not come from the churches throughout history, but those that are recent for your argument and belief. God's words of truth have been living in the churches, not collecting dust, until some few men have come to reconstruct what they think was lost.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Sometime just do a study on the word "Word as it is used in Jn 1:1. That in itself will occupy a long time. But when you get done you will have a much better understanding of why Jesus is referred to as the logos. It is often not so simplistic as you iften seem to communicate. IT is simple to trust God but not always so simple to know what scripture teaches in its context
--------------------------------------------------


Thank you for the advide, and it is great advice, but I have already done this. This is where my belief in this comes from. Textual criticism has no part to do with FAITH in this issue.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

2 Peter 3

11. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12. Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13. Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
14. Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16. As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.


--------------------------------------------------
If Peter writes that Paul wrote some things that are hard to understand where does that leave us?
--------------------------------------------------

It actually means, that those who are spiritually discerned, have a hard time understanding the TRUTH in the scriptures.

1 Cor. 2

9. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him?
17. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.


...and show us we are to not only study the words of God, but to rightly divide the words of God:


2 Tim. 2

15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.


2 Tim. 3

13. But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.


This says nothing about textual criticism, and it wouldn't, as the scriptures are known and passed down from generation to generation, yes, even until this day.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
--------------------------------------------------
I say again, faith and logic can not be in opposition, because it is against the nature of God to be illogical. God is perfectly logical. He requires faith. Since God requires faith of us, and God can't be, use, or have illogic in him, faith and logic must be complementary, or else God would be requiring something of us that contradicts one of His own attributes!
--------------------------------------------------


I am not going to get into this whole debate again, but I will say this. You are basically telling me that my faith that God has provided me his words 100%, to which comes from God's mouth himself, is illogical. There goes human reasoning for ya.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

No, michelle, that isn't what I'm saying. You have shown your faith is illogical yourself. I am saying that your faith is in fact logical, but you use illogical means to arrive to the conclusions upon which you base it. I think that if you would make the effort to actually study logic, which is the process of linear thinking you would see that faith and logic are, in fact, complementary processes. The problem with the KJV 4 and 5 definitions is that, without fail, its adherents have to resort to one or more logical fallacies. If faith has as it's basis a logical fallacy it is a sure sign it could be in the wrong thing. If it always resorts to that, it IS in the wrong thing. If you can support your faith with logic, it is in the right thing. There is not one doctrine that can be shown be illogical. This is one way we know that what we believe is correct.

You say that you believe what you believe because of some kind of "burning in the breast" kind of feeling. You assume the truth that God preserves his Word is something that God has shown you applies to the KJV. When you back is against the wall, you revert to "God has shown me this," but you offer nothing other than some sort of insight that God has given you. You then use contradictory thought processes. For example, to say that God preserves His Word, the Bible teaches this, therefore it is true is logical only if your thought process is linear. However, left on its own that statement is called a logica fallacy. It's called "Begging the Question"

Begging the Question - Assuming the thing to be true that you are trying to prove. It is circular.

Example: God exists because the Bible says so. The Bible is inspired. Therefore, we know that God exists.

Example: I am a good worker because Frank says so. How can we trust Frank? Simple. I will vouch for him.

No, you and I do believe that God exists, and part of the reason we believe that, michelle, is because the Bible says so and the Bible is inspired. That is derived from Scripture, but it is, in fact, circular. I have never said that illogical faith is wrong. I have, however, said that illogical faith is not godly faith, and that we have to be careful, because you can have logic without personalization, which is faithless logic and one of the ways that human reason rejects God, Jesus, the Bible, creation, salvation, etc. On the other hand we can have faith with no logic at all, and place our faith in the wrong thing or worse, the right thing, but w/o the ability to support it and so fall victim to every whim and fad. Christians and nonChristians alike do this. Christians that, for example, say that they believe in the KJB 4 and 5 definitions or they become wrapped up in "feeling" versions of Christianity like the Word of Faith movement and the Oneness Pentecostal movement (which rejects the Trinity, but appears otherwise Christian), and other sorts of things.

There are centuries of Christian theology that is Protestant and evangelical that repudiates the notion that faith and logic are not complementary for all these reasons and more, and, if you'd take the time to learn some Christian apologetics, you'd not only just learn some things for your own personal benefit, but I think you'd realize that "Hey, the things I believe are actually very logical," and not just "leaps of faith."

You and others have also said at various times that you believe the KJB is God's Word, using the KJV 4 and 5 definitions in this thread based on the idea that because God has blessed it for 400 plus years that is a basis for your faith. You take that as a sign from God confirming something you already believe.

That is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Tradition or Appeal to Popular" depending on the way it's phrased. Appeal to the popular - the hearer is urged to accept a position because a majority of people hold to it.

Example: The majority of people like soda. Therefore, soda is good.

Example: Everyone else is doing it. Why shouldn't you?

Appeal to tradition - trying to get someone to accept something because it has been done or believed for a long time.

Example: This is the way we've always done it. Therefore, it is the right way.

Example: The Catholic church's tradition demonstrates that this doctrine is true.


It is because you and others so frequently have to adopt these methods that I say what I say, because logic is the check on faith. I believe that God exists, Jesus is real, that He died for my sins, that He rose from the dead, that the Bible is God's Word because of faith AND logic, and I know, because I have tested my faith and I have tested my logic with faith and found, without fail, that they are always, without exception complemented by one another. Where there is a contradiction it has always been because my logic was faulty or my faith was based on incorrect exegesis or something else. Correct doctrine is inherently logical.

The proof of this can be shown by the simple logical "proof" (like a proof you learned how to do in geometry) that God exists, what God is like, and that, because God exists and what God is like, faith is, in fact, logical.

We are told to be like Jesus, who is the image of the Father. If you reject logic and your faith uses illogical means, then, frankly, you are not being like God and therefore, yes, you are being disobedient.

 

[russell55]

You may only consider the words of truth only a translation. I however, Know they are the words of God, to which are the truth.

I don't consider the scripture we have only a translation. I consider it a precious translation of the words of truth.

If there was some sort of reinspiration process--if God exhaled his word into each language, or even only our language, if the translators put down the words as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit in the same way the prophets of old were--He would have told us. We would find scripture directly related to it in our absolute rule of faith. If it is true, and it is important that we know it in order to be fully equipped men and women of God, then we'll find clear assertions of it in scripture.

Where are those statements? Where does it say so?

Correct historical background?

Absolutely. Words don't exist in a vacuum. They mean whatever they mean within the context they are written, and just as the surrounding text is part of the context, the historical situations surrounding the text are part of the context. Context--including historical context--is one of the wonderful tools God gives us for understanding His text. It's one of the tools we've been given for rightly dividing the word. It's one of the ways we can study to show ourselves approved.

 

[GeneMBridges]

Originally posted by michelle:
---------------------------------------------------
If someone tells you that what you quoted is lifted out of context and misapplied then correct them if they are wrong and give the correct historical background that lends to corectly interpreting the text. That kind of argumentation requires a lot of study to get it right.
--------------------------------------------------


Correct historical background? Where in God's word does He tell us to use historical background? IN fact, God has told us that the church is the pillar and ground of truth.


1 Tim. 3

14. These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.


So if the history is needed for you in this issue, you have been looking at the texts that do not come from the churches throughout history, but those that are recent for your argument and belief. God's words of truth have been living in the churches, not collecting dust, until some few men have come to reconstruct what they think was lost.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

Michelle, you say that Bible says that the church is the pillar and ground of all truth.

That is a CATHOLIC statement. If you say this, because Scripture says it, then you believe this based on Scripture. Therefore, Scripture is the pillar and ground of all truth not the church.


Yes, michelle, the historical background is VERY important for understanding what Scripture means.

For example, right now, up in the General Baptist Forum, there's a discussion about homosexuality and Christianity going on right now. One poster has stated that nobody that "practices sin" can do so and be a Christian. He has, however, gone too far with this to state that he is himself without sin and implied that "real" Christians don't sin.

He uses, in part 1 John 3 to justify his position. If you don't understand the historical background of 1 John, then you might agree with him. However, God's Word to US, can not mean something completely different than what it did to its writers and to its first hearers, since God and His Word do not change.

Here is the correct exegesis of 1 John's background that shows why this person's statements are a misunderstanding of the text. If you didn't study it in light of its historical background, you'd arrive at precisely the wrong conclusions about what is being taught:

1 John is where we get the idea that one can not "practice sin" and be a true Christian. It is important we do something called proper exegesis. What does John mean by this? Some people talk about "lifestyles of sin." (Well, if we apply this to the homosexual who is single but not at this moment having sex, then that would say that person isn't at this moment practicing sin. In short, if that is what this is talking about, then one would have to practice sin all the time and habitually). The point, though, that freeatlast and others miss is that the sin John is talking about is the sin of apostacy, the falling away from the faith. He is saying that if a person continues to repudiate the gospel and deny Jesus, then one is not a Christian.

The entire letter turns on the repudiation of the Gnostic heresy. This heresy was a rejection of the entire gospel message, specifically that Jesus is God the Son and hat He made a real atonement for our sins and that He bodily rose from the dead. These Gnostics had left the congregation and were claiming in fact that they had no sin.

John says that if they contintue to repudiate Christ, there is no propitiation for them. Why? Because in continuing in their sin of apostacy, they prove they did not know Jesus to start with. Their sins are not covered, they are not paid for by Jesus (no matter which way you go with limited or unlimited atonement, we all agree, their sins aren't ultimately paid for here, because they are going to hell). In other words, these people that say they have no sin, are, in fact, the greatest of sinners, they make God out to be a liar (for Jesus did come, He really did die, and He really did rise bodily from the grave and not spiritually), and they further make God out to be a liar because they make a claim that they don't have any sin in them anyway (one of Gnosticism's key teachings). In doing this, they prove they do not have the truth in them and they are making God out to be liar.

Basically, folks, if you sit there and say to us and, thus to God that you don't practice sin of some sort, you are, in fact, the biggest sinner among us, because you deny the truth. The practice of sin that was going on in the Ephesian church was an outright apotasy, but it's ethical effect was an asceticim, an austere type of separation from the world. It effectively set the Gnostics off and they said, because of their practices, that "they had no sin in them," and so they proved the truth not to be in them and God to be liar. How ironic, then this truth becomes for us today. If you say that you have no sin, that you do not practice sin, you are in fact practicing sin! Your anthropology is way to high and you have likely forgotten that, while some sins, like homosexuality, do have greater consequences than others, you have forgotten the standard for sin and the practice of it is the holiness of God, not the relative comparison between individuals. Anybody that sins "just a little" or "every so often, but not that much" is, in fact practicing sin. It may not be the same sin all time, but the bottom line is that the Bible doesn't say "if you keep on in the same sin, you're not really a Christian," it simply says that if you practice sin you aren't a Christian," and, when we look at what it really means, the sin that is being practiced is apostacy and the effect of the apostacy is the claim that you don't have any sin in you to start with!

The type of "practicing" or "habitual" sinning that John writes of in Chapter 3 can not be divorced from this context. Once we know what John was writing about, apostasy, then we can clearly see that one the type of "lifestyle" of sin about which John is writing is, in part, the sin of sayingy you have no sin in you. It is also a repudiation of God's salvation and orthodox doctrine. John is not saying, in a blanket manner, that anybody that practices sin is not a Christian. (In fact, he says just the opposite, because part of the sin in that manner is actually to say you have no sin at all). That is only true if that person also rejects evangelical doctrine, experiences no conviction for sin, and actively repudiates the gospel, all of which we know, by examing the letter in light of its historical background (e.g. its original context) encompass the type of lifestyle of sin that John describes in his letter. If we don't understand this, we might think that anybody that sins or has a sinful habit is not a Christian. That might be the case, but it's not always the case. It is ONE sign of not being a Christian, only because nonChristians don't struggle with sin. Christians do have sinful habits and practice them frequently, so we have to be careful about blanket statements. If they practice them and experience no conviction, and, worse yet say they have no sin in them (and honestly don't think so) at all, then that is a sign of not being regenerate; however that isn't the end all and be all sign of that. In order to be classed an apostate (a person who was not saved but was once a part of the local church) one must do the above w/relation to sin AND fall from evangelical doctrine AND repudiate the gospel. All of these evils are included in apostasy. Otherwise, we may classify them as a backslider. Backsliders may deny they are sinning, but, inside, they are (usually) struggling, miserable souls. Why? Because they are Christians and the Holy Spirit won't let them go.

So, you see, michelle, you do have to understand the historical context so you can know what God was saying to the original recipients, for we know that God's Word doesn't change in meaning, since God doesn't change.

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
Michelle,

Why do the vast majority discern, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to not use the KJV and to use instead a MV?
--------------------------------------------------


I do not mean this as an attack on another, but to answer your question truthfully and honestly, which is that they are most likely "greiving" the Holy Spirit of God in this issue:

Ephesians 4

17. This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that ye henceforth walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind,
18. Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:
19. Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
20. But ye have not so learned Christ;
21. If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus:
22. That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24. And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.
25. Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.
26. Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
27. Neither give place to the devil.
28. Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needeth.
29. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers.
30. And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.
31. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
32. And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
You say that you believe what you believe because of some kind of "burning in the breast" kind of feeling. You assume the truth that God preserves his Word is something that God has shown you applies to the KJV. When you back is against the wall, you revert to "God has shown me this," but you offer nothing other than some sort of insight that God has given you. You then use contradictory thought processes. For example, to say that God preserves His Word, the Bible teaches this, therefore it is true is logical only if your thought process is linear. However, left on its own that statement is called a logica fallacy. It's called "Begging the Question"
--------------------------------------------------


God has shown me that he has provided us His words of truth 100% not only by the evidence we have it, but by the scriptures that my FAITH in this comes from. You are calling this illogical fallicy. You expect me to bring in illogical reasons into the equation, rather than relying upon what God has said about HIS own words. You indeed have it backwards, as you are the one relying upon illogical fallicy. It is called textual criticism. It is not Godly, and most definately not based upon FAITH, nor is it faithful.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle