Featured Particular Baptists

I don't know about you, but I froth at the mouth and howl at a full moon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

It has always been forbidden by SBC churches in this area. Some are loosening up a bit on it now. Of course they tolerate a lot of things now.
I don't drink personally, but I do not digmatically say its wrong for everyone. For me, when I did drink, (in my backslidden days)I drank to get drunk. Drinking for any other reason was a waste of time, money, and to me not fun. I tried it all and none of it tasted good. I was not an alcoholic. I did not drink often, but when I did drink it was to get hammered.

 

What I have found around here is people who vigorously defend drinking differentiate between being buzzed and being drunk. They think the former is acceptable because its not the latter. Fact is buzzed is drunk. Period.

 

Agreed. One of my friends used to say "I never get drunk." I asked him about it (basically card him a liar)and he said "no man, drunk is only when I am pukeing."

 

Some folks around here like to defend their "buzz" (drunk)

 

All these labels you call yourselves is confusing me. In one post you label yourself a particular baptist. This post you mention yourself as a historic IFB. Is there a difference

There is not a fundamental statement about people not consuming alcohol. What direction are you going in this questioning?

 

I

I was unaware that an IFB church could accept all 5 points of Calvinism. I just don't see the point in labeling yourself IFB when it sounds more like reformed baptist or Particular Baptist

I have always associated IFB with Hyles Anderson. West Coast Baptist College. Crown college

 

That is correct. I'm just trying to figure out where you stand on doctrines, compared to the labels you attach to yourself. I realize now, stating your an IFB, is meaningless.

I was under the impression (I realize I could've been mis-informed) that fundamental Baptist separated primarily from Southern Baptist Convention because of the cooperative. Is this a true statement? If later fundamental Baptist left the SBC on the grounds of Theological Liberalism (Modernism) of apostate Christendom. They don't sound insane to me, as you were insinuating in post #5

If a man believes in KJV only, no mixed swimming and no movie going are you saying he is insane? I realize we are probably going to have to define each one of these individually

I am KJV only. Using the Baptist Board criteria I would say I fall in this category KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT OF THE KJV IS BEST".

I don't think a Christian is insane simply for not going to a mixed swimming pool or movies. It is extremely clear that God's Word defines our walk as being separate from the world.

 

How do you come to this conclusion?


Do you believe the cooperative program funds entities that would contradict the Word of God?

 

What errors are you referring to?

 

1.) "the" Majority Text is a compilation of extant, Greek [only] manuscripts, and it's possible that said compilation/collation only involved some 200 or so manuscripts. The evidence for the readings underlying the KJB comes from a much wider and more varied set of sources than just Greek manuscripts (and includes old versions, lectionaries, quotations from the church fathers, etc.). [The foregoing statement would deal with the OP's "virtually no Greek copies" comment, as well as "handful". Furthermore, the age of the MANUSCRIPT is not the most fundamental issue, but rather the age of the READING -- Burgon deals extensively with the foregoing issues in his book, The Revision Revised.]

2.) There are at least 3 or 4 editions of "the" Majority Text and they all differ among themselves, as well as from the readings underlying the KJB.

3.) There is no "the" TR -- there are about 30 editions of TR family texts which differ some among themselves, and all of which differ to one degree or another from the readings underlying the KJB. So Wallace's or anybody else's grousing about "differing from 'the' TR" is really a bit disingenuous.

4.) Every available published edition of a Greek N.T. [TR family or not] differs in some places from the readings underlying the KJB. In other words, as far as I know, there is no available published edition of a Greek N.T. which is all the exact readings underlying the KJB. Consequently, any grousing about "differs from 'the' TR" is really irrelevant.
Now if one wishes to say, " 'x' edition of 'the' Majority Text, (or 'x' edition of a TR family text) differs from the readings underlying the KJB in 'x' number of places, that'd be fine.

Now to answer the question as to "how these verses got into our KJB", there are two basic answers:
1. God put them there via His preservation of His words -- Psa. 12:6-7.
2. The 47+ learned men, plus all their consultants, plus their meticulous review procedure, all concluded that the readings underlying the KJB are the best attested readings and were used as the basis for the KJB translation.