Separational Issues

[JOHN3:16]

I Like the biblical standards of H/A, but I not for the, 1,2,3, pray after me, mentality.The(#)church.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by paul hadik:
paidagogos:

would you separate from our group? We use a parallel Bible to help the islanders who are weak in English. The KJV is there as is the NKJV and about 6 other translations. It has proved to be an invaluable tool in Bible study.

But would you separate from us for doing this?

I don't know. There would be other more important factors such as your ecclesiastical separation, separation from worldly behavior, etc. I don't know enough about you to answer accurately. I am defending separation over this issue as an argument but not necessarily a personal conviction or action. My whole point is that we cannot define another's standard of separation. You may want to separate from me. That's okay if it is your conviction. I'm not offended. The usual MO is outrage: "How dare you separate from me; I'm as holy as you are!" Consider II Corinthians 5:10.

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Paidagogos, I stand behind my statement that the KJVO movement is built upon ignorance. Ignorance is the absence of knowledge. Most KJVO refuse to listen to truth when presented. I know I used to be one! I used to be ignorant. (If you talk to my wife she will say nothing changed

) Anyway, most KJVOnlyist I know slander anyone that God has allowed to go to seminary, they condemn higher learning.
If I had to do my post over I would accentuate that being ignorant of something is not a sin, but being willingly ignorant of the truth is!
As I said I used to be ignorant of the KJVO issue until I studied my Bible and church history. BTW I've never been to seminary but hope to some day.

Well, I wonder if seminary would help your ignorance. You gotta be a skeptic, not about Biblical truth, but skeptical of a bunch of wannabe intellectuals dispensing weak broth for meat. I find few, if any, seminaries that foster good, hard thinking as opposed to swallowing and regurgitating the pabulum that they spoon out for meat. They are more effective in changing attitudes and stroking egos than stimulating thought. I'm skeptical of seminary profs who dish out the same nonsense that their milk toast profs taught them. Like Pascal, I sometimes think no one should study theology before he has mastered physics and mathematics (FYI, I am conversant with both).

The only advantage that I can see in seminary is learning Greek and Hebrew as tools for further study. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

BTW, I say this carefully and advisedly but I think you are still ignorant of the real issues of the KJV question. Based on the fact that you have never acknowledged or addressed my objections, then you are ignorant (lack of knowledge) in some KJVO arguments. You have listened too often to the refutation of the nut cases (Ruckman, et. al.)rather than thinking for yourself. You have placed too much faith in the cemetery...uh...I mean...uh...seminary-educated hacks who major on blowing down straw men. Brother, use your own brain and don’t be impressed by someone else’s argument just because he or she has a sheepskin from a seminary. Remember there is a vested, self-justifying interest here. Be a skeptic but be a Bible-believing skeptic.

BTW, I think there is good reason to be skeptical toward seminary education. A lot of it is sheer foolishness. A good university education in real courses may be better. It's not just education but the religious faith in education that I find repulsive. I am not opposed to higher learning but I am opposed to higher ignorance by degrees (pun intended).

[ February 06, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: paidagogos ]

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by paidagogos:
Those who call KJVO ignorant are simply displaying their own ignorance and lack of Bible knowledge.

No. Not really. Many of us used to be KJVO.

If one’s conviction is KJVO, regardless of another’s opinion of KJVO, should that KJVO person use other translations? Of course not! Whatsoever is not of faith is sin! Read your Bible.

If it is not biblical then it is a false faith. We should not encourage them to use another version necessarily but we should discourage KJVOnlyism.

You may not agree with their logic, convictions, or beliefs but you have no call to resort to name-calling (i.e. ignorance). By so doing, you display your own lack of knowledge, discernment, and spiritual character.

This sounds like relativism. We should stand for the truth. Not knowing the truth is ignorance. Ignoring the truth is willful ignorance.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by JOHN3:16:
I Like the biblical standards of H/A, but I not for the, 1,2,3, pray after me, mentality.The(#)church.

Which standards?

Some of the standards they stand for are not biblical but rather extra-biblical. Having standards by conviction that are more conservative than the teachings of scripture is not wrong- making an issue of it, is.

 

[JOHN3:16]

hey scottj,

I agree in the fact that "when the standard becomes the standard",its wrong, but I shure don't have a problem with extra modesty.
ex. dresses to the knee
no shorts higher than the knee for men
short hair for men
longer hair for women
ect.

 

[Fraser]

Separation Issues.
When I went to a Fundamental Baptist Church.
I was taught anyone who doesnt beleive like you do, you were to have NOTHING to do with them.
this included Family members, your own blood!
How can you wittness to these people, or loved ones, if your suppose to stay away from them?
This is man made, not God made!
Nothing against other Baptists Churches.
Just this church.

 

[Maverick]

I guess I don't have a camp aligned with me. I consider myself balanced and I think BJ is slipping towards Neo-evangelicalism. Hyles is a bit much for me. Don't know the third group and not a Billy fan. Guess that's why they call me Maverick.

 

[Maverick]

Speaking of balance. That is where TR only comes in. The MVs are based upon heretical texts and the KJ English is not inspired but the TR is the Word of God preserved and an accurate translation of it without the bogus notes that NKJV uses would be just fine and dandy, Randy!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by paidagogos:
Those who call KJVO ignorant are simply displaying their own ignorance and lack of Bible knowledge.

No. Not really. Many of us used to be KJVO. </font>[/QUOTE]Then you may have been ignorant KJVO and misplaced the KJVO part. There are lots of dupes following Ruckman & Co., so it is no wonder that they would fall for other silly fallacy as well. So, my argument stands.

If one’s conviction is KJVO, regardless of another’s opinion of KJVO, should that KJVO person use other translations? Of course not! Whatsoever is not of faith is sin! Read your Bible.

If it is not biblical then it is a false faith. We should not encourage them to use another version necessarily but we should discourage KJVOnlyism.

Yeah, I suppose Paul ought to have straitened out those who were offended in eating meat offered to idols too. It is passing strange that he would rather deny himself the pleasure of eating flesh than offend.

You may not agree with their logic, convictions, or beliefs but you have no call to resort to name-calling (i.e. ignorance). By so doing, you display your own lack of knowledge, discernment, and spiritual character.

This sounds like relativism. We should stand for the truth. Not knowing the truth is ignorance. Ignoring the truth is willful ignorance.

What? There’s no relativism here! Do you know what relativism is? I think you know a word beyond your comprehension and used it to cast doubt on my orthodox epistemology. BTW, please explain how you establish that your position is truth (not what is true, but TRUTH). Where is it revealed? I contend that TRUTH is not discoverable by man but it can only be revealed by God. So, where is it exactly revealed?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Maverick:
Speaking of balance. That is where TR only comes in. The MVs are based upon heretical texts and the KJ English is not inspired but the TR is the Word of God preserved and an accurate translation of it without the bogus notes that NKJV uses would be just fine and dandy, Randy!

So how do you handle the fact that there are no manuscripts with 1 John 5:7,8 before the sixteenth century?

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Fraser:
Separation Issues.
When I went to a Fundamental Baptist Church.
I was taught anyone who doesnt beleive like you do, you were to have NOTHING to do with them.
this included Family members, your own blood!
How can you wittness to these people, or loved ones, if your suppose to stay away from them?
This is man made, not God made!
Nothing against other Baptists Churches.
Just this church.

That's called uniformity and not unity.

 

[Fraser]

Piadagogo,
If people have personal convictions " Fine"
The problem is when you dont have the same personal convictions, your told your wrong,and you are sinning! Thats why I think alot of us get upset.God deals differantly with each of us.Sure we have our bibles to live by. But if your called to preach in Asia, and I am called to preach in Arizona. Obviously, God is dealing with us differantly.It doesnt mean one is wrong!

 

[paidagogos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Maverick:
Speaking of balance. That is where TR only comes in. The MVs are based upon heretical texts and the KJ English is not inspired but the TR is the Word of God preserved and an accurate translation of it without the bogus notes that NKJV uses would be just fine and dandy, Randy!

So how do you handle the fact that there are no manuscripts with 1 John 5:7,8 before the sixteenth century? </font>[/QUOTE]Simple. The verses were lost in the Greek MSS but they were preserved in the Latin. What's your problem with that? Since brute fact does not exist, there is any number of possible explanations, interpretations, and conclusions.

 

[onestand]

Hmm I think I'd rather separate myself from ripping other christians apart because I don't agree with their stands or doctrines.

 

[12strings]

maybe someone can help me out and tell me what "camp" i fall into.

I would definitly not be in the Billy-grahm (let's all have a party together). however, here are somethings that don't seem like big deals to me.
-someone mentioned "ecclesiastical separation". I would definitly not separate from a brother over this issue because in all reality, its not very clear in the scriptures. disagree maybe, but not "separate"(whatever that means in the first place.
-If given the opportunity, i would probably go work for a group like say Intervarsity, which doesn't take a stand on some issues (toungues, end times, ...etc)
-I would take part in something like a "right to life" stand (holding signs on that sunday) even along side Catholics, who take the same stand.
-I would go to a bar (but not drink alchohol) if a not-christian friend said, "hey i need to talk to someone."

have i pitched my "camping tent" yet?
-andy

 

[richardsherratt]

Originally posted by Scott Cline:
Most Fundamentalists and Evangelicals agree that there is Biblical mandate to separate from unbelief and apostacy.
So, in this matter of separation, where do you stand?

I adhere to neo-fundamentalism and so am towards the extreme of separation. I believe that the Bible teaches that God has given over this world to Satan and so we believers must separate from the world. But separation is NOT isolation, evangelism is vital.

Regards,
Richard Sherratt

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Nobody but me believes everything exactly like I believe it.

If I separate from everyone who is wrong in their theology as I see it then I will be all alone.

 

[Johnv]

I agree with Paul of Eugene. If we were to separate over every issue, we'd all be a church of one.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I recommend for your reading the supporting material in the Catagories of Truth thread at the top of this forum's first page. Amoung the handouts is a chart discussing the degree of relationship mutual agreement on a Catagory of Truth allows.