Featured The Received Text vs the Majority Text

You deny Pauline Justification, as well as much of biblical doctrine concerning salvation.

 

IF you deny Imputation of the righteousness of Christ to us, then you are denying Pauline Justification!

 

Note folks I cited Romans 5:19 and the Calvinist cited fiction.

 

Sure. That is why most $$$ Bibles mostly follow the CT.

 

That is because the many are not real experts. They have been taught wrong, and have not seen enough of the flaws of the critical text to know otherwise. I was taught wrong. But I am glad because in the long run I am able to see the flaws in the system. The true, genuine text has been within grasp the whole time. It is KJVOnlyist, and Critical Text folk's that hold us back from seeing the true text, which is before us in the Majority Text. Critical Text, and even Onlyist mean well. But they keep the Genuine Text at arms length, instead of looking at it.

 

Would say that the closest to the original autographs would be the Critical Greek text, and also at times using the MT/Bzt for certain readings!
Great news is that between the CT/MT and the TR vast majority of the time are in full agreement, 95-98 % agreement, and those differences due to variants that affect no main doctrines nor theology!

 

Imputed righteousness of Christ is fiction??

 

Note folks I cited Romans 5:19 and the Calvinist cited fiction. We are made righteous, we are made perfect. Note Calvinism cites nothing.

 

I agree with this. I think it is hard to argue for some of the readings in the T.R. where only a tiny number of ancient Greek MSS support them, but nor is it right to suppose that the oldest reading must necessarily be the genuine one.

It needs to be understood that all ancient writings other than the Bible have a very small number of surviving manuscripts. When I studied Cassics at University, one of my ‘Set Texts’ was the Poems of Catullus. As I recall, there are only three surviving manuscripts of Catullus, all dated 600 years or more after his time. One of these is believed to be older than the others, and so, when they differed, the older one was preferred. This might seem to be reasonable, but there is no assurance in the matter. The older manuscript might well have been copied more times than the more recent ones; or the older one might have been copied badly one or more times while the more recent ones may have been copied faithfully dozens of times. We have no way of knowing.

However, when we come to the New Testament, there are literally thousands of extant manuscripts. So let us consider the last nine verses of Mark 16. The NIV states, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The ESV is a little more circumspect: “Some of the earliest manuscripts so not include 16:9-20.” What are the facts? Well, our old friends Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not contain the verses, although the latter has the space for them left blank, showing that the scribe was at least aware of them. There is also one other Greek manuscript in which the verses are missing. They are contained in more than 600 other Greek manuscripts and in the old Latin and Peshitta Syrian versions as well as being quoted by 2nd Century writers such as Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Tertullian who wrote almost 200 years before the estimated dates of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. I ask, is it sensible to prefer two, admittedly older manuscripts over hundreds of others?

The same is true of various other contested verses. Take 1 Timothy 3:16. 97% of the extant Greek MSS say that 'God was manifested in the flesh.' Only 3% omit 'God' and say 'who.' But almost all the modern versions follow the 3%, much to the joy and satisfaction of JWs and Unitarians.

 

Think back to when you were saved, Guido: you didn't know a heck of a lot, did you?

The moment of salvation takes place for all of us when we are very ignorant of God's will. What we are not ignorant of is the convicting ministry of the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.

I am sure you can remember believing that Jesus Christ died for you, and that He was the means of your salvation, right?

I am sure you remember an overwhelming fear of the reality of Hell and eternal separation, right?

What else was necessary? You didn't consciously think, "Okay, at this point in time I am going to place faith in Jesus Christ so I won't have to go to Hell."

It was more like a man drowning in a lake, who, reaching out and getting hold of something that would keep his head above water—held on.

That is because it is the conviction of the Comforter that made Jesus being your only means of salvation a reality. Your unregenerate mind could not understand that before He enlightened your heart.

Sure, you might have known about God, Jesus, Hell, and Heaven. But you probably also knew about the moon as well. But only a few men have actually been on the moon, and their experiential knowledge differs greatly from our intellectual knowledge.

So my contribution to this thread would be this: men are not saved based on an intellectual knowledge that hasn't been imparted to them and made understandable by God. He does this as He performs the ministry of the Comforter:


John 16:7-9 King James Version

7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;


God bless.

 

That sounds like a very good approach. I went through the same thing not long after I was saved. I used to have a radio on my job sites and listened to preaching all day long, every day. One day it became clear that the preachers were not all preaching the same thing. Some of them said salvation could be lost, some said it couldn't. The church I was a member of said it couldn't. I wanted to believe what my own church held to, but I am not the kind of person who simpkes someone's word for anything, so an internal struggle arose.

The passages that bothered me the most were Hebrews 6:1-6 and Hebrews 10:26-29. A shallow glance at those two passages did seem as though they were teaching loss of salvation.

But then another struggle began: as I studied, I found passages that made clear statements that salvation cannot be lost. So it was then that Satan and the flesh tried to call Scripture into question, lol.

But it was Scripture that resolved the issue. It took years of study and even years of discussion and debate. I heard a preacher say, "Before I presume to teach out of any book, I will sit down and read it fifty times." That sounded like good advice, so I did that with the Book of Hebrews because that Book seemed to be the most difficult to understand. I hadn't gone through it ten times before it started making sense, and at this point, it is the one Book, if I had to choose between all books of the Bible just one, that I would want. It is probably the greatest explanation of the Gospel of Christ that we have in Scripture.

I take that back: it is the greatest explanation of the Gospel of Christ we have in Scripture. That is, when we speak book by book. John 3 is right up there with it. So one thing I would suggest is that you read this book several times.

Secondly, I agree with your caution concerning "what is handed down." Most don't have their own beliefs, they have simply borrowed someone else's. Indoctrination is probably the worst enemy of the church. And I distinguish between indoctrination and sound teaching in this way: Indoctrination is the blind acceptance of what someone tells you is true. Sound teaching is the transference of sound doctrine through those called by God to teach. They are going to be the first ones to tell you, "Don't take my word for it." They are going to be the ones that teach you how to study on your own, and what the typical mistakes are that are made by Bible Students.

I haven't really participated in this thread, and to be honest don't really care to. My suggestion for reading on this topic would be James White's "The KJVonly Controversy." I have perfect faith that God has transmitted and translated His Word sufficiently that He can save men and women regardless of translation, and that is how most hear the Gospel, through a translation in a language that is not the original language.

This goes back to your comments concerning what it is a man must believe in order to be saved: it is God that saves you, not the preacher, not the evangelist, not the radio program, et cetera et cetera.

Man is dead when he is conceived, meaning, he does not possess the Life Christ came to bring. Understanding that this was the reason Christ came the first time is the first knowledge of the Gospel that needs to be understood (for both the hearer as well as those saved). He came that men might have life. The Life in view is Eternal Life, and that is what we receive when we are baptized into Christ. The simultaneous event in the Eternal Indwelling of God the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (John 14:15-23).

This is what we call Reconiliation. Man's reconciliation to/with God is itself the ministry of God, it cannot be accomplished except by His divine will.

Two passages for you to consider:


John 1:11-13 King James Version

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.


Becoming a child of God began with God manifesting in the flesh and dwelling among men (John 1:14). Above we see that it was those that received Him (Jesus Christ) that became sons of God.

We also see that they were born of God (v.13). They were not born of blood (heritage, meaning the Jews did not become sons of God because they were Jews, they actually rejected Him on a national basis), nor of the will of the flesh (they did not for themselves decide to receive Christ and become sons of God, which denies free will, just as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 2), and they were not born of the will of man, meaning, another man (preacher, evangelist, minister, Pastor, Priest et cetera) did not decide for them/us and "make it happen," lol.

When it states "which were ... born of God" it is the same thing Scripture speaks of when it refers to being born from above (John 3:3-5), being born again (1 Peter 1:3 and 1 Peter 1:23; James 1:18), and Regeneration (TItus 3:4-5).

This statement denies man contributed to his salvation. It is God that decides to regenerate, not man. Not for himself, not for others. We can preach and teach until we are blue in the face and it isn't going to change a dead heart to a living heart:


Ezekiel 36:24-27 King James Version

24 For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.

25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


I like to call these the Five I Wills" of God. It is the clearest prophecy of the New Birth to be found in the Hebrew Scriptures (the Old Testament). THe "new heart" is a heart that has the Life Christ came to bring (John 3:14-16). The old heart, the one we are born with, is lifeless. Christ said, "Except ye eat of the flesh and drink of the blood, ye have no life in you." He is referring to believing on His death. When we partake of Communion we symbolize the Body and Blood of Christ, the twain symbolizing one event: His death.


Continued...

 

One more passage and I'm done:


1 John 5:1-5 King James Version

1 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.

2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.

3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


So the order of Eternal Salvation whereupon we receive Eternal Life is laid out clearly in Scripture: God sent His Son to be lifted up (die in our stead) that He might die in our stead for our sin (John 3:14-16; Colossians 1:13-14); Because our sin has been paid (Hebrews 9:12-15) we have the "power" (the opportunity) to become the sons of God (John 1:11-13). God sent the Comforter, the holy Ghost, to perform a unique ministry never performed by anyone in History except Christ, Who, in His earthly Ministry, was the Consolation (Comforter) of Israel (Luke 2:25: His ministry was specific to Israel: He was sent for the world, but sent only to Israel Matthew 10:5-7; Matthew 15:23-24).

What differed between Christ's Ministry and the Comforter sent by Christ was this: The Comforter began revealing the Gospel of Christ unto the world (which was in all Ages prior veiled from men, even the Age of Law, in which Christ's Ministry is found).

It is this ministry by which you were saved, Guido. It was God the Holy Spirit that took hold of that dead heart and reprobate mind and enlightened them to the Gospel of Christ.

I am assuming you believed Him and were brought under conviction of sin, righteousness, and judgment.

That doesn't mean you understood everything you will come to understand as you grow in Christ, but then—none of us did.

It was not until after I was saved that I began understanding the Doctrine of Christ more thoroughly, but I have no doubts that I was saved. One "proof" is that I have been changed. Still have some bad habits but I am certainly not the drinking, drugging, Heavy Metal musician I once was, lol.

So again, I think your concern is not only valid, but it will help you from falling into the pattern of religion. It will cause you to look into the Word of God for yourself, rather than simply taking someone's word on an issue. Along the way, you are probably going to settle on doctrines that will have to set aside as the Holy Spirit brings you into all truth.

Just remember—it is He that is leading and guiding you. So try listen, lol.

The single-most way God speaks to us is through His Word, so if you want the answers to the questions that might trouble your heart, they're there for you to learn. God has been instructing men through His Word for millennia, and He hasn't stopped doing that.


God bless.

 

There are aspects of Calvinism that are true, that's just a fact. Total Depravity, for example, is true. Man is without an inherent ability to receive or perceive the spiritual things of God. The primary thrust of Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 1-2 is similar to all of his teachings, that the Gospel was a mystery and that it is now, in this Age, being unrevealed to men through the Holy Ghost, the Comforter.

So we don't need to debate theological systems of men, advocate for them or even make it our personal crusades to shut them down. We simply study Scripture and then acknowledge what might be right in a system followed by men, and what is wrong.

I reject, for example, the reformed view that men have always been regenerated in order to have faith. Regeneration did not begin until men began to be baptized into Christ. Everlasting life was the reason Christ came. Doesn't mean 1) that I have to hate Calvinists, or 2) I shouldn't do my best to show why I disagree through discussion and debate.

Similarly, I reject the modern teaching of "free will," because again, natural man has zero ability to comprehend the very things by which he can be saved.

He needs God for that. Always has:


Acts 7:51-52 King James Version

51 Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

52 Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:


It was the Holy Ghost speaking through Prophets that revealed to men God's will, and we see it is the Holy Ghost Stephen charges them as resisting.

Only Scripture is going to be able to teach us what parts of man's doctrine might be right, and what part might be in error. It never teaches us, though, that our brothers and sisters are our enemies, and that even if we considered them enemies our response is to be love, correction, rebuke, exhortation, et cetera.

If God can forgive us for being enemies, and we are commanded to do the same for ours, how much easier should it be to show love to those who hold to ridiculous doctrines.




God bless.

 

Here's the Mounce Koine (common) Greek version of Romans 3:25
Bible Gateway passage: Romans 3 - Mounce Reverse Interlinear New Testament

 

Similarly, I reject the modern teaching of "free will," because again, natural man has zero ability to comprehend the very things by which he can be saved.

When you say you reject the {modern teaching of "free will,"} how is that different from the free will of those that heard Peter at Pentecost? I have seen how some on here have mischaracterized freewill by calling it absolute free will, whatever that is? Man has free will to make real choices and we see this all through the bible. You say that man has zero ability to comprehend the things necessary for his salvation, but if that is true then why preach the gospel or for that matter why condemn anyone for not trusting in the Son?