Hi
PB1789,
Quote:
|
Will K. made a good Post above (#122) and made a valid point---turn about is far play---in that you don't seem ( at least my eyeballs haven't seen it) to have a Solid Base. This is why I titled my Post (#98) "What do you do when you see a red Traffic Light ?" { Don't know-I assume Canada is like our road rules... in the States we have Green=Go, Yellow= Caution, Red= Stop.} If you don't stop at a red Traffic Light,,, then you will never understand what Will K. or anyone else has been trying to convey to you
|
Yes, turn about is fair play. However, I've already responded to Will's points in #122, several times in fact. Your traffic light analogy (I missed it in the title earlier) is an excellent way to explain it again. Red traffic lights
have authority. If I run an official red light, I am subject to fine for breaking the law. However, that does not mean anybody can put up their own red lights whereever they want and expect them to have the same
authoritative binding. I you put up your own red light on a road, which is not backed by the authority of the local government, I am not subject to fine if I run it. I am not required to stop at "personal" stop lights, and you are not authorized to put them up nor hold anyone subject to them. This is perfectly analogous to KJV-onlyism. The real authority does not say teach what KJV-only supporters hold about the KJV. KJV-only supporters have put up their own red traffic lights, of their own authority, and expect everyone else to be bound by that authority. Not me, for I recognize that these personal red lights are unauthoritative. If you claim a doctrine not taught in scripture, I question the authority behind such a claim just as I would question the authority behind my next door neighbor putting up his own red traffic light in the middle of our street. If my neighbor did such a thing, and if I did question his authority, would it not be foolish for him to reply to me (as Will has done) by saying "where is your authority for not stopping at my red light?" I do not need an official authoritative law passed to excuse me from not being bound to my neighbor's personal red traffic light. I do not need a scripture to challenge someone else's unbiblical doctrinal claim, just as I don't need a scripture to challenge someone's claim that the tooth fairy exists. The one making the doctrinal claim in the first place, like the neighbor who puts up his own red traffic light, needs to demonstrate he has the authority to do so.
Quote:
I've been reading this Thread and posting on it since early-on, and I still don't know IF you have a favorite English Translation that you can point to and turn to and say "Thus saith the Lord!"
If you are an NIV guy, then just say so. RSV ? NLT ? New Jerusalem ? Something ? A ship must have an anchor or it will drift,,, and very often will hit the rocks and shatter and sink...!
|
My anchor is the same anchor that existed for the first 80% of church history. I use the range of available and reliable manuscripts and translations. I see no authoritative reason to believe the good old anchor isn't good enough anymore.
Hi
Diligent,
Quote:
|
I was wondering if you had read Thou Shalt Keep Them. It may not change your mind on anything, but it does address many of the issues you have posted questions about. In the end, what we believe about the preservation of God's word is a matter of faith, but Thou Shalt Keep Them may provide you with a more thorough understanding of the theological basis for what we believe than forum threads can.
|
No, I have not read it. Thank you, I will put it on my list of books to read.
Hi
Forrest,
Quote:
|
You completely misunderstood and misrepresented what I wrote
|
I apologize for the misunderstanding. It was not intentional.
Quote:
|
You cannot make an assumption that just because there are 2 different views on any given doctrine, by fallible man, that the specific doctrine has no authority.
|
Now it seems you are misunderstanding me.
Quote:
|
True doctrine that comes from the King James Bible is always absolute and final authority.
|
By what authority do you claim that, since the KJV itself doesn't say that? You followed that by saying "We may not always get it right" - well how do you
authoritatively know you got it right about the KJV being the absolute and final authority? Do you not see the circular argument?
Hi
Bro. Parrish,
Quote:
|
Brian, with all due respect, you pulled down your pants and spanked yourself in front of the entire forum with that one comment back in post no. 9.
|
The only difference between what I said and what others have said is that I see no
authoritative reason for things to have changed in 1611.
Quote:
|
we reject "your" authority
|
I hope so! I am not authoritative! I would rebuke anyone who tried to put my personal convictions on things that scripture doesn't explicitly say into a doctrinal statement. What I can't figure out is why you and others don't mind extra-Biblical opinion added to doctrinal statements, or why you oppose those who point out this contradictory practice.
God bless,
Brian