/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I am.

>Why are you so autistic about the KJV?

Because I hate how modern bible "scholars" change the pure words of God

>>657342

I'm not IFB. I belong to the Old Regulars, but I suppose we could be described as Fundamental Baptists as well as King James only. Honestly where I grew up (rural Appalachia), KJV was the only Bible around. It's still pretty much like that here, almost no one uses other translations. Personally I don't have a big issue with most Bible translations out there, it's just tradition to read KJV and it makes it simpler when everyone sticks to one tried-and-true version.

Former IFB, now Reformed Baptist. I wanted to be KJV-Only, to have a single, flawless text in lieu of a single church, but research and intellectual honesty on the topic lead me to reject that. It's still my preferred source for verse memorization, but my personal bible study involves a number of translations.

>>657350

this

>>657350

Same.

>>657396

>Reformed Baptist

If you believe TULIP, your faith is in a different gospel.

>Because I hate how modern bible "scholars" change the pure words of God

so you're learning Greek right? You like how they deprived Mary of being full of grace?

As a non-native English speaker, the KJV is winnie the pooh hard to read but it's good. The ESV, the NIV, the NKJV, RSV, and NRSV as well as many others omit important keywords (even the NASB, which is still difficult to read even to English speakers.) and even use gender inclusive language.

I'd prefer the ASV or the AMP as a non-native English speaker. Those are good

>>657350

Read Vulgata and Septuagint then

>>657624

>not reading the original masoretic text

>>657625

Or that, yeah

>>657408

It's more likely that you don't understand TULIP. Free will and predestination are not mutually exclusive.

>>657408

This.

>>657714

Andersonites are in a cult.

>>657350

Then why do you read the KJV?

>>657927

your shepherd is Stevie A., not Jesus Christ

where is the cross at Stevie's "Church"?

I just see a noah's ark wallpaper.

>>657953

This >9000%

>>657453

The ASV is the predecessor of those other translations and has many of the same faults.

For instance, the ASV removes the words "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14, and it removes "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" in 1 John 4:3. And the ASV also removes the words "without a cause" in Matthew 5:22 and it completely removes the statement "on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified" in 1 Peter 4:14.

Later translations like the ESV, NASB and NIV would take these corruptions from the ASV and add more to them. The ASV in turn took a lot of corruptions from the Revised Version of 1881, which is the first Westcott-Hort critical text in the history of the world, released the same year. Before 1881, everyone used the received text, which is what the KJV is.

>>657978

Here is a brief timeline leading up to 1881.

1847 Westcott writes of the possibility of his being called a "heretic"

1848 On July 6, Hort writes, "The pure Romish view seems to be nearer and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical. . . ."

1851 Hort writes: "Think of that vile Textus Receptus"

1856 In May the Earl of Shaftesbury states: "[With] all the versions, you must go to some learned pundit in whom you reposed confidence, and ask him which version he recommended; and when you had taken his version you must be bound by his opinion."

1858 On Oct. 21, Hort writes: "Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible."

1859 On Feb. 4, Tischendorf's alleged discovery of Sinaiticus

1860 Burgon examines Codex B

1860 On April 3, Hort writes: "The book which has most changed me is Darwin …. It is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with"

1860 On Oct. 15, Hort writes to Westcott: "The popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit."

1862 In Oct. Tischendorf publishes his edition of the Sinaitic Manuscript

1864 Privy Council of England permits seven Church of England clergymen, who had attacked inspiration of the Bible to retain their position

1864 On Sept. 23, Hort writes to Westcott: " 'Protestantism' is only parenthetical and temporary."

1865 On Good Friday, Westcott writes: "[I] regard the Christian as in Christ-absolutely one With Him, and he does what Christ has done."

1865 On Oct. 17. Hort writes to Westcott: "Mary-worship and 'Jesus'-worship have very much in common."

1865 On Nov. 17, Westcott writes: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness."

1867 Tischendorf studies the Vatican Codex for 42 hours

1867 On Oct. 26, Hort writes to Lightfoot: "But you know I am a staunch sacerdotalist."

1870 A committee is established to produce a Revised Version

1871 Burgon writes The Last Twelve Verses of Mark

1871 On May 24, on the Revised Version Committee, Westcott writes: "We have had hard fighting during these last two days."

1871 On July 25, on the Revised Version Committee, Hort writes: "I felt how impossible it would be for me to absent myself."

1872 Tischendorf publishes his eighth edition based for the first time on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

1881 In May, the Revised Version is published

1881 On May 22, the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Times published with great fanfare the entire Revised New Testament.

1881 Burgon writes three articles in the Quarterly Review against the Revised Version

1883 Burgon publishes The Revision Revised

1886 On March 22, Westcott writes: "[Textual criticism] is a little gift which from school days seemed to be committed to me,"

1888 On August 4, Burgon dies

1890 On March 4, Westcott writes: "No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history- I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did."

1896 L. Miller, publishes The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels and The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text, from Burgon's existing work

1914 Huskier writes: "[Burgon] maintained that Aleph and B had been tampered with and revised."

1921 On Dec. 22. the United Presbyterian gives a description of the "Shorter Bible"

1928 Article entitled "Who Killed Goliath?"

1929 On Dec. 29, it is reported: "Every seminary of standing in this country has been teaching […] almost everything contained in the new Commentary."

1929 Article entitled: "The dispute about Goliath"

1956 J.N. Birdsall writes: "It is evident that all presuppositions concerning the Byzantine text–or texts–EXCEPT ITS INFERIORITY TO OTHER TYPES, must be doubted and investigated de novo." [emphasis added]

>>657953

>your shepherd is Stevie A

More nonsense from the triggered sodomite lover. Scream cult and then when you get called out make up some other some about what others believe. You're sick and twisted.

>>658113

This

>>658675

>There is not explicit teaching of the Trinity in the Bible

Yes there is.

>The fact that you have the Gospel in today's form is a product of church tradition.

No it's not. Also, you chose the wrong books and the wrong mss and made the wrong translation.

>>657978

>Before 1881, everyone used the received text, which is what the KJV is.

TIL The Douay Rheims used the TR.

>>657927

It's been discussed many, many times on this board. I'm not going to spoon-feed you. There are plenty of ex- "New IFB" members who have testimonies on YouTube. Seek and ye shall find.

>>658803

Anderson is irrelevant to any of the points being made here. Bring an argument or stop being a pest.

>>658807

>IFB thread

>Anderson irrelevant

Try again.

>>658815

Try making a point without using Alinskyite tactics.

>>658818

How is Anderson irrelevant to this thread? He's the hottest thing in IFB right now, has been mentioned several times in this thread, and has devoted followers on this board.

>>658829

He said bring an argument next time and he's right. We're here talking about TULIP and the difference between reformed baptist and free grace and all you do is screech about Anderson in every thread. That's all you do.

>>658830

>we're talking about TULIP

>"How many Independent Fundamental Baptists are on /christian/?"

My dude, I brought up TULIP and was promptly told by an Andersonite that I'm not saved. Someone else called him out on being Andersonite, not me. Check the thread IDs. Just because Pope Anderson calls someone "not saved! There I said it!" doesn't mean winnie pooh nothing.

>>658831

>Someone else called him out on being Andersonite, not me.

What if TULIP is just scripturally wrong?

Have you read 1 John 2:2? No, instead of that we devolve to the usual ad hominem garbage. Pretty soon you were getting ready to link to that one guy's wedding video. I just want to ask what does that have to do with defending TULIP? Can you not defend yourself?

>>658836

Ok guy, we can talk more about TULIP. This is now a Calvinist thread.

>1 John 2:2

Indeed, Christ died to save all in some sense, but Paul writes in 1 Timothy 4:10 that Christ is "the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe." It's clear that He sent Christ to save those who believe in a more particular sense. This lines up with the natural reading of John 3:16 as well: the sending of the son is for the whole world, but it is the believers who shall not perish.

>What if TULIP is wrong

It's simply a way of understanding the ontology of grace. It doesn't affect my faith or salvation.

>>658850

>Ok guy, we can talk more about TULIP. This is now a Calvinist thread.

Alright, whatever you say.

>Christ died to save all in some sense

So you're not a 5 point then.

>It's simply a way of understanding the ontology of grace. It doesn't affect my faith or salvation.

So you don't use this to teach Lordship salvation then? Whoever is ordained to eternal life believes?

>>658869

>So you're not a 5 point then.

I just gave you a defense of Limited Atonement. I believe in all 5 points.

>So you don't use this to teach Lordship salvation then? Whoever is ordained to eternal life believes?

I'm more than happy to have an in-depth, bible-based, theological conversation with you, but it can't be productive if you're going to strafe me like an attack helicopter, jumping to a new topic before the first one is settled. We can talk about Lordship Salvation vs. Easy Believism, but I'm not convinced you even know what Limited Atonement is, and you haven't engaged my biblical defense of it at all.

>>658881

>I just gave you a defense of Limited Atonement.

Well the usual response they give is that 1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 4:10 don't refer to all men but to some other "all" that is more restrictive. So if you agree that 1 John 2:2 applies to all then how is the atonement limited anymore? Because 1 John 2:2 says that he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Based on what you said here I think you would disagree with the typical 5-point Limited Atonement which says that Christ died for only for the elect's sins and appealing to verses like 1 Cor. 5:7 and 1 John 3:5. But if you say you aren't Amyraldian, then I guess you aren't, but now do you have to deal with 1 John 2:2 and 1 Tim. 4:10.

>but it can't be productive if you're going to strafe me like an attack helicopter,

The original contention was that TULIP builds into different gospel. That's why I wanted to ask if you are building into another gospel with it and whether this difference therefore brings Galatians 1:9 into consideration:

As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

>>658894

Limited Atonement says this: the offer of salvation is afforded to all (this is the in some sense), but its only the people who accept it who are ultimately atoned, and therefore, the ones whom Christ paid the price for. Nobody who is atoned for goes to hell, and so atonement is limited to those who would ultimately be saved: the elect.

>different gospel

Faith alone, as described in Ephesians 2. I don't see how TULIP changes that.

Here's a debate on Open Theism which highly influenced me towards Reformed theology. This is the crux of the issues mentioned.

>>658920

>but its only the people who accept it who are ultimately atoned, and therefore, the ones whom Christ paid the price for.

Alright, so what is 1 John 2:2 about? It says he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Did John the Baptist not say that the Lamb of God taketh away the sin of the whole world in John 1:29? So if he's the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and if the Christ is able to offer one sacrifice for sins for ever, then why wouldn't it be effectually paying the price for it all? Paying the price for something and giving it is another thing.

>but its only the people who accept it who are ultimately atoned,

Oh, I think I see what you're saying just in this part though, you are just showing the fact that the election is conditioned on accepting it— that one can only follow the other. And you wouldn't be saying that the effectiveness of the blood of Jesus Christ is somehow limited or that the offer is. Because that would clearly not be the case.

>>658928

Ok, I don't think anyone who believes in any part of the Bible holds to open theism. There is more to it than a choice between James White's position and open theism.

Unironic Andersonite reporting in. This documentary mainly.

>>658943

>Alright, so what is 1 John 2:2 about? It says he is the propitiation for our sins and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

"ours" = jews

"whole world" = gentiles

>So if he's the propitiation for the sins of the whole world and if the Christ is able to offer one sacrifice for sins for ever, then why wouldn't it be effectually paying the price for it all?

Are you implying that Jesus's blood paid the price for some people, but they still went to hell? Doesn't sound paid to me.

>There is more to it than a choice between James White's position and open theism

The reason I posted it is because James White's arguments are what convinced me that God exists outside of our time-line, and when I consider God's perspective as us from the 4th+ dimension (go watch "the 10 dimensions explained" on YT) all the precepts of TULIP were a logical conclusion. Salvation is conditioned upon faith, which is conditioned upon election (not vice versa as you implied).