Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Balancing The Christian Life


GraceSaved

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

You do understand that GraceSaved couldn't get that teaching of his if he used the AV?

I don't know what your point is but I was addressing his violating OB rule #3. Everything in my post to him that follows the colon in the first sentence is a direct C/P quote of the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I don't know what your point is but I was addressing his violating OB rule #3. Everything in my post to him that follows the colon in the first sentence is a direct C/P quote of the rule.

my point is he had to paste the other version in violation the the doctrinal Statement of the site and the C/P in order to teach that Col 2 20-23 means legalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Colossians refers to the OT law.  What is legalism today?  Excessive conformity to a religious code that restricts free choice.  Dress, type of music, church activity, spiritual disciplines.  This is just a band-aid and do nothing to attack the real problem of a sinful heart tempted to trust ourselves through laws and rules. We are not subject to fundamental principles.  Christianity is not a list of do's and don'ts.  It is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

GraceSaved, just a note from the Online Baptist rules: 3) Feel free to quote the Bible, if you do we ask that you use the KJV. This is done to avoid confusion.

The Administrators and Moderators of this site believe that the KJV is Gods preserved Word for the English speaking people, and we ask that you respect that and use the KJV when quoting scripture.

This is legalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

GraceSaved,

 

you do know the "since you died" (past tense) and "If ye be dead"(present tense) are two differnt statements and mean two differnt things?

 

 

Dead = adjective

Died = verb

 

If you are now dead then at some point you died.  How is the meaning changed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

This is legalism.

Whether it is or not is not the point -- the point is that it is an OB rule. Just as if you do electrical work with me you do not cuss or change my truck's music or you do not have a job.

We have others on here that are not KJV only or even KJV preferred but adhere to the rule (whether they agree with it or not) because it is an OB rule just as I follow rules in some other places that I don't agree with.

 

Also, nothing said it was or wasn't a sign of spirituality to use the KJV here, it was stated that OB has a KJV posting rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know what your point is but I was addressing his violating OB rule #3. Everything in my post to him that follows the colon in the first sentence is a direct C/P quote of the rule.

 

This is legalism.

 

No it isn't, it's pragmatism. Asking everyone to use the same version so that discussions don't get sidetracked by arguments about translation is just good sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Are you telling me you cannot read and understand the AV text as it stands?

 

Hi AVBibleBeliever. Since you worded that question in such a leading way, I think I'll be the first (perhaps only) on this thread to say that yes, I cannot read and understand the AV text as it stands. I admit that I have always struggled with the AV's sentence constructions and words, and I often have to use a dictionary. Perhaps part of this is owing to unfamiliarity, because I think and write in a different style of English to the AV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The word “legalism” does not occur in the Bible... If we remember these guidelines and apply them in love and mercy, we will be safe from both legalism and heresy.

 

You make some good points, but I would add that there are two sides of the legalism coin. Strictly defined, legalism is the strict literal adherance to a law or set of rules rather than the spirit of them. Often times people will tout verses on liberty and ones that offer enough ambiguity so as to allow for wiggle room and justify behavior that is otherwise deemed unacceptable. To use an example that others in this thread have touched on from the other perspective, many people who want to drink alcohol will quote Ephesians 5:18 and point at that it says not to get drunk but doesn't say not to drink at all. A strict adherence to the lack of definitive commandment not to drink despite the spirit of multiple Scriptures regarding alcohol is a textbook form of legalism as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Hi AVBibleBeliever. Since you worded that question in such a leading way, I think I'll be the first (perhaps only) on this thread to say that yes, I cannot read and understand the AV text as it stands. I admit that I have always struggled with the AV's sentence constructions and words, and I often have to use a dictionary. Perhaps part of this is owing to unfamiliarity, because I think and write in a different style of English to the AV.

And that is true of most people, Al.  Folks who have been saved for a lot of years and studied and read (and been taught) the AV can understand it by just reading it.  Folks who get saved as adults don't always have that ability. Yes, the Holy Spirit teaches us as we read it - but nowhere in scripture does it tell us we are sinning if we get help outside scripture to understand the historical aspect of the verse(s), the meanings of the words in Hebrew or Greek, etc. (and someone who lambastes another for doing so has a real problem) 

 

It used to be said that the KJV was written in such a way that a 6th grader could understand it. And that was true (actually, younger than that, too).  But with the dumbing down of teaching (not saying you were dumbed down!!!), kids have a struggle understanding what was understood two generations ago by their same-age counterparts.

 

All of us think and write in a different style than that KJV.  It is a learning process to convert our thought processes to the KJ English.  Hang in there - you've certainly come a long way in your growth process. I really enjoy your posts (and your humor cracks me up!  :icon_smile: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One example: I've heard at least half-a-dozen people on this forum say that they wouldn't fellowship or stay in a church with people who had 'reformed' beliefs, What do you say about just that issue?

Sadly, Christians are known for splits and strife.  First of all, fellowship is important.  We need each other for encouragement, edification and to provoke each other unto good works.  This should go beyond our church building.  If possible, we are to seek to live at peace with everyone.  We are not to judge and argue over opinions but walk in love.  We are first and foremost accountable to God and need to walk out or own faith.

 

However, in order to preserve our own spiritual lives, fellowship may be broken with an unrepentant brother/sister and it should be done in order to restore them back into fellowship.  We have instructions on how to deal with those who sin against us.  First, we are to go that person alone.  Second, If that doesn't work, we are to take two or three witnesses.  If that doesn't work, the last step would be to take him/her before the church. 

 

Why would we break fellowship?  As I stated above, it shouldn't be over minor disagreements or matters of opinions.  There are more specifics such as a professing Christian's immoral involved in sexual sin, drunkeness, idolatry, abuse, foul tongue, theivery, etc.  Anything we do to limit our contact with them is an unfortunate result of their actions.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

While there's plenty of sound advice in there, GS, at the same time you haven't really taken my point on-board or answered the question I asked. My point is, you were saying that telling the fundamentals (ok to divide over) apart from the "minor disagreements or matters of opinions" (not ok to divide over) was a no-brainer and I'm saying I'm not convinced it's that easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And that is true of most people, Al.  Folks who have been saved for a lot of years and studied and read (and been taught) the AV can understand it by just reading it.  Folks who get saved as adults don't always have that ability. Yes, the Holy Spirit teaches us as we read it - but nowhere in scripture does it tell us we are sinning if we get help outside scripture to understand the historical aspect of the verse(s), the meanings of the words in Hebrew or Greek, etc. (and someone who lambastes another for doing so has a real problem) 

 

It used to be said that the KJV was written in such a way that a 6th grader could understand it. And that was true (actually, younger than that, too).  But with the dumbing down of teaching (not saying you were dumbed down!!!), kids have a struggle understanding what was understood two generations ago by their same-age counterparts.

 

All of us think and write in a different style than that KJV.  It is a learning process to convert our thought processes to the KJ English.  Hang in there - you've certainly come a long way in your growth process. I really enjoy your posts (and your humor cracks me up!  :icon_smile: ).

 

Such a helpful response. Thanks HC!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No it isn't, it's pragmatism. Asking everyone to use the same version so that discussions don't get sidetracked by arguments about translation is just good sense.

I believe in the preserved word but not in the KJVO.  However, if I post scriptures, I will use KJ out of respect for the forum rules.  I usually paraphrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

While there's plenty of sound advice in there, GS, at the same time you haven't really taken my point on-board or answered the question I asked. My point is, you were saying that telling the fundamentals (ok to divide over) apart from the "minor disagreements or matters of opinions" (not ok to divide over) was a no-brainer and I'm saying I'm not convinced it's that easy.

Sorry.  I'm not clear on your question.  I thought you were adressing breaking fellowship with those that have reformed beliefs. What "reformed" beliefs are you referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...