R & S: Are you a member of Sermon Audio? If Not.Why not?
Jeremiah: I want to be....but I am spread too thin right now. Long story...
R & S: You seem to want people who are member here to go to other site. Why not support this one is it because you want to leed people away and this site belives in covernant theology..
Jeremiah: If you visited my blogspot and other places I post...I promote Sermon Audio and recommend sermons. I also pray for the ministry. There is more here than covenant theology...there are dispensational teachers like Gil Rugh and Greg Barkman.
R & S: The next thing you might say the reformers where ingorant and didn't really reform anything but had too many Bad things attached..The 1800 to modern man is the enlighten generation free from that old nonsence..
Jeremiah: I respect the reformers and the Reformation...but it was by falible men saved by grace. They returned many of the precisous truths and gave freedom for the Separatist they needed to get what they had been teaching for a century to be heard. This symbiotic relationship lead to the improvement of Church doctrines...especially eschatology. So Protestants joined us...some choose to oppose us and stay with what they had developed from the 15th-17th century.
Craig: "SANCTIFICATION is one of the most glorious gifts which, by the Covenant of Grace, the Mediator bestows upon the saint.
Jeremiah: Sorry Craig...there is no "Covenant of Grace." We are under the "New Covenant in Jesus' blood." God graciously justifies the sinner through faith in Christ Jesus. They are placed into this "New Covenant" when they are cleansed by Jesus' blood. This sanctifies them by the Spirit...making them part of the priesthood of believers to offer up spiritual sacrifices unto the Lord.
Typically, Covenant Theology views the history of mankind's redemption from sin under the framework of three over-arching theological covenants:
*the Covenant of Redemption *the Covenant of Works *the Covenant of Grace
These three covenants are called "theological covenants" because they are not explicitly presented as such in the Bible, although covenantalists see them as theologically implicit.
Covenant Theology teaches that God has established two covenants with mankind and one within the Godhead to deal with how the other two relate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_theology
I do not want to debate it with you here. E-mail me and we can select a forum that will give us the room we need to discuss this.
MurrayA: You cite the story of the discovery of Codex Aleph...Now please, tell the rest of the story about his discovery of the Aleph New Testament in 1859. That puts a different light on things.
Jeremiah: This is why I provided a link to the article. This is NOT a discussion board medium...so I cannot give a full quote. This medium is only to make a statement on why one voted on the survey as they have. I limit any discussion here for this reason. If you are a member of a discussion board...or want to discuss at my blog...let me know...and we can expand our dicussion.
MurrayA: What does the story above prove? Nothing at all, except to provide some emotive innuendo against ancient sources for the NT.
Jeremiah: Agreed. Until I understood textual criticism and the Baptistic history on the Bible...I was woefully ignorant and ill equipped to know how to respond to KJVO when it came to me in the guise of "defending the Word of God." But I have since learned more...and see the deception of defending a translation as "infallible and inerrant."
R & S: If you dont have a bible you can truly trust what do you have? if you have men saying that 5% of the bible before 1800 were not suposed to be there then how can we be sure we dont have another 1% or more still to come and which ones?Do you see the problem what is the word of GOD.
Jerry: I have 100% confidence that my translation of the Bible from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into English...IS THE WORD OF GOD.
Here where ignorance and knowledge get seperated. KJVO's say it is the Textus Receptus and the KJV that are infallible. Where did they get this idea? From Wilkerson, J.J. Ray and Otis Fuller....who plagerized from him. Biblicist say that the totality of copiest manuscripts on where they agree is the infallible word of God because they preserved what was written in the original autographs. Not one single polyglot or translation qualifies as "infallible and inerrant for the English speak people of the world." We accept a translation as the "the word of God" as far as it agrees to the manuscript evidences. Thus paraphrase and dynamic equivences fall so far short.
R & S: The copies that were found in a dust bin speaks for itself dont you think?
Jerry: It just means that the monks did not know what they have...and did not know the value of what was being burned.
Tischendorf first saw Aleph when he visited the monastery in 1844. During the visit he noticed pages of vellum (a kind of parchment) in a trash-basket which, he learned, were going to be used as fuel in the furnace. He was also told that two baskets-full had already been burned. Tischendorf persuaded the monks to let him have 43 of the pages, which were all from the Old Testament, and not to burn the rest. He presented the 43 pages to his patron, the King of Saxony, and the pages were placed in the University Library at Leipzig. http://www.kjvonly.org/other/riplinger_lockman.htm
R & S: Just because they claim their older doesn,t mean they are more reliable. as all the other versions exert in some degree or greater.
Jerry: It is not said to be "more reliable"...but "closer to the time of the original autographs." There are still variations...this "fact" cannot be avoided. Our confience is manuscript evidence is on how much they agree and how many we have....not on the variations.
Dwayne Mayor: You are just quoting Bible verses that have no real application to YOU!
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Not only am I a "saint in Christ Jesus" (Philippians 4:21)...but also a "man of God." Now my respomsibility is to live up to the identity God expects of me....but not in my own strength and the efforts of my will....but by the "law of the Spirit of life" (Romans 8:1-13).
Do Not Judge Other Believers http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=91604171529 Romans 14:1-12
The church was never meant to be a cozy club of like-minded people. One race or social position or intellectual caliber. Christians are not clones, identical in all respects. One of the difficulties the church has always faced is that included in its membership are the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, those from every stratum of society, the old and the young, adults and children, conservatives and the radicals. People from a great number of nations are Christians and people of every temperament. Now we bring that all together in the body and we are now to function in a harmonious, unified loving way in our relationship to one another.
Response To Weaker Believers http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=9160417369
Every believer is responsible to serve with his Master and being accountable to his Master. And I as a believer must keep in mind that other believers are not accountable to me in the area of Christian liberty, they are accountable to God.
Yamil: I guess you do not recall about what Jesus and John the Baptist called the Pharisee. Or maybe when Paul rebuked Peter to the face for messing with the message of the gospel.
Gal. 5:14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.
Gal. 4:12 Brethren, I beseech you, be as I am; for I am as ye are: ye have not injured me at all. 13 Ye know how through infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel unto you at the first. 14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. 15 Where is then the blessedness ye spake of?
16 Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?
17 They zealously affect you, but not well; yea, they would exclude you, that ye might affect them. 18 But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing...
19 ...I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you.
Acts 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand. 4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live. 5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
The term "independent Baptist" is a far-reaching label (and the term "Bible-believing Fundamentalist" is even more far-reaching). In its most basic definition, "independent Baptist" simply describes a church that is Baptist in polity and that is unaffiliated with a denominational structure. Beyond that common denominator, there is wide variety among independent Baptist churches--on such matters as Bible versions, the name Baptist and the authority for baptism, Calvinism, the doctrine of repentance, evangelistic methods, the congregation's relationship to associations and organized fellowships, the Christian's relationship with the world and the definition of worldliness, music, the definition of legalism, the practice of divorce and remarriage, standards for workers, mission boards, and many other things. Discussions of these topics among independent Baptist preachers can be very energetic!
David Cloud Way of Life http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/churches.htm
??? from ??? : Jay Miklovic stated "Eternal security is in the fact that you cannot change your nature."
Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil. Jeremiah 13:23
There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins. Ecclesiastes 7:20
For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. Romans 7:19-20
8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives. 1 John 1:8-10
God gives us a new nature when the Holy Spirit indwells. He does not eradicate the sin nature. Rather we learn to not sin dominate and live by the Spirit. Romans 6 and Romans 8:1-13
So what then does it mean to "hear" and "believe"???
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? Romans 10:14
17Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. 18But I ask: Did they not hear? Of course they did: "Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world." 19Again I ask: Did Israel not understand? First, Moses says, "I will make you envious by those who are not a nation; I will make you angry by a nation that has no understanding." 20And Isaiah boldly says, "I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me." 21But concerning Israel he says, "All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people."
First comes preaching, then hearing, then believing. Hearing can be hindered by disobedience and obstinacy.
As to the Old Testament: http://www.bible-researcher.com/hebrewtext1.html
No translation from the manuscripts are infallible nor inerrant:
Defects of the King James Version http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html
Volumes, instead of a few pages, might easily be written to illustrate the existing defects of the Authorized Version. From a few of the many existing compilations on this subject, some specimens will be drawn. Members of the Revision Committees have a special right to be heard on these points.
Fortunately we have enough copies to establish what the original read like with a good degree of certainty. This is the task of textual criticism: to examine the manuscripts and determine what is original text and what are copying errors. One of the drawbacks of making copies is that once a mistake has been made, unless it is so obvious as to be corrected, it will appear in all the copies of that copy from now on. Because of this, consideration must be given to the age of the manuscripts that contain a particular reading as well as the number of manuscripts that contain it. If an error is made in an early manuscript, all the copies from it will contain that error. If it was an often copied manuscript, there will be many manuscripts that contain that error, so the true text cannot be arrived at by counting manuscripts.
Manuscripts that were copied from the same or similar manuscripts shown similar readings and similar errors. These manuscripts are grouped together in what is sometimes called text families, or in this book, types of ancient text. In the second to fourth centuries four major types of ancient text appeared. They are commonly given the names Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean, and Byzantine.