Questioning One's Belief Or View Of Scriptural Meanings

[Genevanpreacher]

Quote:

 

"This is an attitude of Frustration.

Your side pretends we never address things Scripturally.  You claim that we are "inventing" things, adding things, preaching a "false gospel" or regurgitating "Brethren" doctrine.  

When one of us takes the time to lay out our understanding of a controversial passage of Scripture, it is as if your side bends over backwards to completely, utterly, and finally DISMISS our side with absolutely no consideration as to the truthfulness of it.   You have blinders on, and refuse to accept anything that does not fit your pre-determined interpretation.  

The fact is that the only way you can get to your conclusion is to blithely dismiss the literal interpretation of Scripture, and settle for less."  [steve Schwenke]

 

Yes. That's it in a nutshell.

 

And it is like that on both sides Bro. Steve!

We all think we have 'the answer' sometimes, and you in particular don't

like others to have their own 'interpretation'.

 

I don't either sometimes. But that's the way life is.

Try not to get frustrated, as I will try also. I can't see why you, and others, don't 'see' the

scriptures the 'same' as I, and others from my 'view'.

 

Let's face it, we just aren't going to agree 100% anyway, so try to be 'understanding' a bit more

and let this be a fact - we are gonna be wrong no matter what we say to you about the scriptures.

And with that idea in mind, you will never be disappointed in our conversations.

[Miss Daisy]

what are the differences between a genevean bible and a KJV bible?

[Genevanpreacher]

what are the differences between a genevean bible and a KJV bible?

 

Maybe you can private message me. I am not allowed to talk about this on the forum.

[Covenanter]

what are the differences between a genevean bible and a KJV bible?

The BIG difference is the marginal notes. 

[Alimantado]

Being a spectator to these eschatology/dispensation conversations over the last few years (think maybe I've chimed in once), as they've gone from being perennial background debates to more or less taking over the forum, I think I've seen some of the more accusatory things Steve talks about being dealt out by both sides. If Covenantor and Invicta have said that Steve and co are preaching a false Gospel (and I certainly recall Invicta saying things close to that), then on the other hand the general impression I've got from Steve, Wretched, Miss Daisy and many others is that if a person doesn't hold to their eschatological views then that person is not IFB, is doctrinally in the same boat as mormons, JWs, muslims and other non-Christians, and is almost certainly unsaved. As someone who hasn't understood a lot of the debate and therefore has had to focus on folks' summing up statements, that's the 'take home' I've garnered. And I say overall impression because although I've heard all those things said I can't attribute quotes to individuals without doing some digging (and I've left some even worse things out).

[John81]

Miss Daisy,

 

I won't go into any detail here so as not to disrupt the thread, but there is little difference between the Geneva Bible and the KJB. The translators of the KJB used and reviewed the Geneva Bible (as they did some others) in the translating of the KJB.

 

The real prOBlem with the Geneva Bible is with regards to the notes. While most of the notes are sound and acceptable to most of us, there are those dealing with the issue of predestination and election which have a "Calvinist" take. That's why non-Calvinists didn't like the Geneva Bible, because of those notes which gave a "Calvinist" explanation to certain verses. That's also one of the reasons King James wanted a new Bible for English people and insisted there be no notes.

[Ukulelemike]

I think one issue in this, is that when we deal with spiritual things, they tend to be extremely close to our hearts, and thus, to stand opposed to one's strongly-held convictions, unless the person has a remarkable amount of grace, will often result in anger, offense and backlash. I think anger can certainly be appropriate, because, well, Jesus was angry at times with those who thought they understood but didn't, as was Paul, Peter and others. Jesus called Peter "Satan"; Peter, I recall, gave Simon the former sorcercer a resounding chewing out for trying to buy a power he had no authority to have.  Sometimes we CAN be angry, yet we must always endeavor to "sin not." And its a great sin, I think, to declare someone not saved because they disagree on how one understands something, saving for having yto do specifically with salvation. We need to remember that not everyone is where we are, and when someone gets saved, the devil is there to seek to pervert their knowledge if he can, get us following the wrong people.

 

I followed, for a while, Jack Hyles' ways of thinking, was even convicted to go into service for Christ under his preaching, yet today, I distance myself from him, because of things I have since learned. I used to be a quick-prayerist, used to be a pre-trib rapturist, (not the place for that discussion). And once I would fight for these things which I have now, after more study and prayer, repudiated in my life.  Yet I was saved before and I am saved now, because Jesus Christ died for my sin and paid the price I owed, and by faith, through His grace, I received eternal life through Him.

[John81]

As to the eschatology threads, for the most part they are a waste. The main contributors are OBviously in debate mode, not discussion mode. Each side firmly committed to putting forth their view as the only possible acceptable view while at the same time firmly committed to attacking opposing views.

 

Therefore, these threads are always argumentative and combative. They serve no good because of the antagonism they breed.

 

There have always been those within IFB holding to slightly or more broadly different eschatological views. That was part of the "independent" aspect and eschatological views were not considered a fundamental matter.

 

Unless there are those willing to actually discuss eschatology with open minds, giving serious consideration to views presented and giving serious examination to whatever view currently held to see if it holds up, needs modified or may perhaps be wrong, there is little profit in getting into the subject here.

[Ukulelemike]

True John. And really, rarely do we see eschotological ro theological view changed in debates. The only time I was ever willing to change was after getting alone with scripture, in prayer, and spending serious time and effort in studying it out, with the goal only of being to please God.

 

I think we should all be willing to hear things that challenge us, even in deeply held things, even in fundamentals, if for no other reason that to take again the time to investigate all the claims given from a biblical perspective, even if just to refresh it into our minds and hearts.

 

I have listened to people claims of losing salvation, of Jesus not being God, many things that I know scripturally are incorrect, and I will often go over the points they seek to make, scripturally. I always come out where I was, because those things are clear, but it also gives me a way to clearly dispute it to them-after all, if I'm not willing to go over their points, why would I expect them to go over mine?

 

Mind you, it isn't being carried about by winds of doctrine-rather, it is faith that the challenge will be met well, because I know the truth. And if I conclude I am wrong, then I can more clearly see to OBey properly. And I HAVE been wrong before, and I suspect I might be again.

[Covenanter]

Only yesterday my Pastor told me that my favourite hymn-writer, Isaac Watts, was a Unitarian. He had heard two Bible College professors making the charge. 

 

I showed him the Hymn:

 

1 We give immortal praise
to God the Father’s love,
for all our comforts here,
and better hopes above;
Hh sent his own eternal Son
to die for sins that we had done.

 

2 To God the Son belongs
immortal glory too,
who bought us with his blood
from everlasting woe:
and now he lives, and now he reigns,
and sees the fruit of all his pains.

 

3 To God the Spirit’s name
immortal worship give,
whose new-creating power
makes the dead sinner live;
his work completes the great design
and wills the world with joy divine.

 

4 Almighty God, to thee
be endless honor done,
the undivided Three
And the mysterious One:
where reason fails with all her powers,
there faith prevails, and love adores.

 

There are people out there with questionable theology, who are prepared to claim respected names to their cause. I could show Pastor the refutation of their claim, but how many others who heard the programme now "know" that Isaac Watts was a Unitarian heretic? 

 

I have heard the accusation before. When a man writes many books, it's easy to selectively quote. 

[Invicta]

Quote:

 

"This is an attitude of Frustration.

Your side pretends we never address things Scripturally.  You claim that we are "inventing" things, adding things, preaching a "false gospel" or regurgitating "Brethren" doctrine.  

When one of us takes the time to lay out our understanding of a controversial passage of Scripture, it is as if your side bends over backwards to completely, utterly, and finally DISMISS our side with absolutely no consideration as to the truthfulness of it.   You have blinders on, and refuse to accept anything that does not fit your pre-determined interpretation.  

The fact is that the only way you can get to your conclusion is to blithely dismiss the literal interpretation of Scripture, and settle for less."  [steve Schwenke]

 

Yes. That's it in a nutshell.

 

And it is like that on both sides Bro. Steve!

We all think we have 'the answer' sometimes, and you in particular don't

like others to have their own 'interpretation'.

 

I don't either sometimes. But that's the way life is.

Try not to get frustrated, as I will try also. I can't see why you, and others, don't 'see' the

scriptures the 'same' as I, and others from my 'view'.

 

Let's face it, we just aren't going to agree 100% anyway, so try to be 'understanding' a bit more

and let this be a fact - we are gonna be wrong no matter what we say to you about the scriptures.

And with that idea in mind, you will never be disappointed in our conversations.

 

 

There are more than two sides.  I believe that both preterism and futurism are incorrect views.  Both were started after the reformation by the Jesuits.  Peterism by Alcazar, futurism by Belarmine et al.  Ian I know that A Mil was suggested by in the writings of Victorinus in the years BC (Before Constantine.)  Victorius is the earliest extent commentary on Revelation.  I have just been reading Elliott's History of Apocalyptic Interpretation.  He says that the a-mil portion at the end of the work contradicts his earlier Millenial comments.

His Commentary is noticed by Jerome, who speaks of it as one of millennarian views And hence has arisen a doubt as to the genuineness of the Treatise still extant, that goes under the name of Victorinus’ Treatise on the Apocalypse; containing as it does, at its conclusion, a distinct anti-millennarian declaration. ^[58] But the OBjection vanishes on examination; for various indubitable millennarian intimations occur in the body of the Commentary: ^[59] and the anti-millennarian passage is an evident interpolation by another hand, prOBably Jerome’s own; ^[60] as well as one or two shorter passages elsewhere.  Edited to add :  Written about 1844.

 

 

 He also shows from early writers that the author of Revelation was John, the apostle, that the date was about 96 AD

[Covenanter]

Invicta, quoting ancient, mediaeval or recent authorities is irrelevant in Scriptural discussions. 

 

You CANNOT discredit my teaching by quoting RC sources. The Bible is the ONLY basis for what we believe & teach. You are doing exactly what Geneva complained about in the OP, quoting Steve.

 

 

 

Your side pretends we never address things Scripturally.  You claim that we are "inventing" things, adding things, preaching a "false gospel" or regurgitating "Brethren" doctrine.  

[Miss Daisy]

Miss Daisy,

 

I won't go into any detail here so as not to disrupt the thread, but there is little difference between the Geneva Bible and the KJB. The translators of the KJB used and reviewed the Geneva Bible (as they did some others) in the translating of the KJB.

 

The real prOBlem with the Geneva Bible is with regards to the notes. While most of the notes are sound and acceptable to most of us, there are those dealing with the issue of predestination and election which have a "Calvinist" take. That's why non-Calvinists didn't like the Geneva Bible, because of those notes which gave a "Calvinist" explanation to certain verses. That's also one of the reasons King James wanted a new Bible for English people and insisted there be no notes.

Thanks for your quick and to the point explanation!

[Genevanpreacher]

Miss Daisy,

 

I won't go into any detail here so as not to disrupt the thread, but there is little difference between the Geneva Bible and the KJB. The translators of the KJB used and reviewed the Geneva Bible (as they did some others) in the translating of the KJB.

 

The real prOBlem with the Geneva Bible is with regards to the notes. While most of the notes are sound and acceptable to most of us, there are those dealing with the issue of predestination and election which have a "Calvinist" take. That's why non-Calvinists didn't like the Geneva Bible, because of those notes which gave a "Calvinist" explanation to certain verses. That's also one of the reasons King James wanted a new Bible for English people and insisted there be no notes.

 

Without trying to get myself in trouble, 11 years of study on the differences means there is a big difference.

As for the 'notes' issue, most is opinion and not fact about the 'Calvinistic style notes', which are very few.

Yet 'partial preterism', of which I believe is taught in scripture, the notes also teach.

[Getting this 'belief' as a KJVO for 16 years, and reading the KJB over 20 times.]

Hence they are more 'partial preterist' than they are 'Calvinistic' and 'predestination'.

 

Besides, what preacher of the word of God didn't 'footnote' while preaching?

[Invicta]

Invicta, quoting ancient, mediaeval or recent authorities is irrelevant in Scriptural discussions. 

 

You CANNOT discredit my teaching by quoting RC sources. The Bible is the ONLY basis for what we believe & teach. You are doing exactly what Geneva complained about in the OP, quoting Steve.

 

I am sorry bro, but to get your view that the Revelation was written at the time of Nero, you have to ignore the teaching of the early church who say it was under Domtian who reigned  AD 81-96