Hi Brother Tim,
Quote:
|
Your illustration is not sensible in the least. One day when I was in front of an abortion mill, I was joined by a group of Catholics and several Krishnas (an eastern religion) who were pro-life as well. Does this mean that we agreed on much else? Of course not. Agreeing or disagreeing on a specific doctrine does not indicate unity or disunity on the whole.
|
I never said it did. My point is simply if you hold the word of God in your hands, but it doesn't make it any further than that, how has it benefited you?
Quote:
|
Your last statement is particularly erroneous. How can one have correct understanding of the whole of Scripture when reading a false or confused text?
|
Simple. Suppose I have three different texts, each claiming to be a translation of the same source: "I lick cookies", "I like corkies" and "I like cookees". I can read any of the three, in isolation or comparatively, and get the correct understanding. I can read "only begotten God" and/or "only begotten Son", and conclude that Jesus is God the Son, begotten.
Quote:
|
The deeper truths are the first to be lost when the text is altered. Example: John 1:3 - the KJB: "All things were made by him" versus the NKJV "All things were made through Him". The NKJV moves the LORD Jesus from being the active agent of creation to being the passive agent.
|
Good example. Yes, you
could understand it that way, but
must you? If I say we are saved "through" him instead of "by" him, does that move him from being an active agent of salvation to being a passive agent - or is the correct understanding still possible?
God bless,
Brian