Particular Baptists

[Reformed]

Well, I haven't bitten anyone recently!
I will only say that the earliest Particular Baptists (Spilsbury, Kiffin et al) were covenantal in their theology.

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

 

[Reynolds]

Well I am reading a book on the history of alcohol in the church and so far it was very accepted as a beverage while alcohol abuse shunned.

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.

 

[Revmitchell]

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.

 

[TCassidy]

Verse 31 is saying not to even look at it. Am I taking this simple verse out of context?

No, you are misunderstanding what it says.

The verse warns against the attraction which the wine presents to the sight and to the sense of taste. A person must not permit himself to be caught as a prisoner by the enticement of wine.

Look not on the wine means not merely “to see,” but “to look longingly at.”

Verse 31c mentions the pleasures of the taste: (that, or, as it) goeth down smoothly (Luther). Instead of הלך (like jâry, of fluidity) there stands here התהלך, commonly used of pleasant going, unhindered and "easily down the throat."

 

[Reynolds]

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."

 

[Revmitchell]

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)

 

[Salty]

I just realized the title of this thread is "Particular Baptists" and we are talking about buzz drinking

 

[Tim71]

God condemns drunkenness, abuse of alcohol throughout the pages of Scripture. That is a "temperance" issue, not an "abstinence" issue. Like Tom, I am historic IFB (not the modern nonsense "X"ers that go around hijacking the name and adding to the fundamentals.

Which of the fundamentals of the faith say people cannot consume alcohol? Just need to be clear here.

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?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

No, it's a matter of the two labels partially overlapping the other.

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

 

[TCassidy]

Correct. I too am an Independent, Fundamental, Historic, Particular Baptist. I fail to see the problem.

 

[Tim71]

I

Correct. I too am an Independent, Fundamental, Historic, Particular Baptist. I fail to see the problem.

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

 

[TCassidy]

I was unaware that an IFB church could accept all 5 points of Calvinism.

That is what "Particular Baptist" means. We believe salvation is all of Grace, non of works.

I just don't see the point in labeling yourself IFB when it sounds more like reformed baptist or Particular Baptist

Well, probably because I am Independent, and not Reformed.

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

Then you know very little about IFBs. Check out the GARBC. The CBA. The FBF. The NTAIBC. Etc., etc., etc.

Those groups were organized IFB before any of the guys who founded the schools you mentioned were even born! The oldest, the FBF, was founded 6 years before Hyles was born.

 

[Tim71]

Then you know very little about IFBs.

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.

The later fundamental baptists in the US separated from the Southern Baptist Convention largely over control of the denomination and "standards." That exodus increased when the SBC began to yield to the Theological Liberalism (Modernism) of apostate Christendom.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

I realize now, stating your an IFB, is meaningless.

Only if you don't understand what an IFB is.

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.

You mean the Cooperative Program. No, that is one of the SBCs redeeming qualities.

Is this a true statement?

No. The Southern early IFBs separated due to Theological Liberalism, and that Theological Liberalism was reflected in the missionaries being sent by the Cooperative Program.

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

I didn't say they were insane.

If a man believes in KJV only, no mixed swimming and no movie going are you saying he is insane?

No. Just ignorant.

I am KJV only.

I am sorry to hear that.

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".

Unfortunately the TR is a poor representative of the Byzantine Textform.

I don't think a Christian is insane simply for not going to a mixed swimming pool or movies.

Nor do I. Just ignorant.

It is extremely clear that God's Word defines our walk as being separate from the world.

Yes, it does. And never mentions mixed swimming.

 

[Tim71]

Unfortunately the TR is a poor representative of the Byzantine Textform.

How do you come to this conclusion?


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

 

[TCassidy]

How do you come to this conclusion?

Due to its many errors, many of which have no Greek manuscript evidence at all.

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

There are still a few hangers on from prior to the conservative resurgence, but such are no longer being enrolled in the CP. Not to mention it is now allowed to designate your missions offerings.

 

[Tim71]

Due to its many errors,

What errors are you referring to?

 

[TCassidy]

What errors are you referring to?

The text of the vast majority of the manuscripts (the Majority Text) differs from the TR in nearly 2 000 places (1838, according to Professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary - 'Studies and Documents', Vol.46, p302, footnote 28). It might be better to say that the TR is similar to the Majority (or Byzantine) Text, but it is not the same.

The TR includes some verses which are found in virtually no Greek copies. These verses include Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5b-6a and Acts 15:34. How did they get into our Bibles? These verses were incorporated into the NT by Erasmus from the Roman Catholic Latin Bible.
Perhaps the most famous problem with the TR is found in 1 John 5:7-8.

Erasmus' first edition was criticized for not including in his Greek NT the words about there being 'three who bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one'. He included these words in his third edition after this criticism, however, these words are only found in Latin MSS of the NT and a handful of very late (i.e. 16th and 17th century) Greek MSS.

 

[Tim71]

The text of the vast majority of the manuscripts (the Majority Text) differs from the TR in nearly 2 000 places (1838, according to Professor Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary - 'Studies and Documents', Vol.46, p302, footnote 28). It might be better to say that the TR is similar to the Majority (or Byzantine) Text, but it is not the same.

The TR includes some verses which are found in virtually no Greek copies. These verses include Luke 17:36, Acts 8:37, Acts 9:5b-6a and Acts 15:34. How did they get into our Bibles? These verses were incorporated into the NT by Erasmus from the Roman Catholic Latin Bible.
Perhaps the most famous problem with the TR is found in 1 John 5:7-8.

Erasmus' first edition was criticized for not including in his Greek NT the words about there being 'three who bear witness in Heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one'. He included these words in his third edition after this criticism, however, these words are only found in Latin MSS of the NT and a handful of very late (i.e. 16th and 17th century) Greek MSS.

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.

 

[TCassidy]

There are at least 3 or 4 editions of "the" Majority Text and they all differ among themselves,

And 31 editions of the TR, all different. (Not to mention at least 5 different editions of the KJV, all different.)

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.

Scriveners TR is "reverse engineered" to reflect the KJV readings.

God put them there via His preservation of His words -- Psa. 12:6-7.

How does God preserving the poor and needy have anything to do with the bible?

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.

Sorry, but the KJV is not actually a new translation. It is a revision of the Bishops Bible, which had been the "Authorized Version" before the KJV (which, by the way, King James never actually got around to "authorizing").

And how do you explain the over 1000 differences between the KJV of 1611 and the KJV of 1762/1769 which most "KJVOs" use today? Even KJVO D.A. Waite admits of 136 "changes of substance" - meaning changes that affect the meaning of the passage, between the 1611 and the 1769.

And about that "meticulous review procedure." You are aware, are you not that one man, Bishop Bancroft, the chief of the translation committees, described by some as a Catholic sympathizer, or even a closet Catholic, made 14 changes, over the protests of the committees and the final revision committee of twelve--two from each team--who were supposed to have made a final review.