[Pim Pendergast]

Soon after the Nye-Ham debate, Answers in Genesis posted this video response to Nye's claim that the Bible came to us like a game of telephone.

These two young ladies enthusiastically tell us why they think the Bible is reliable. There are 5,366 ancient New Testament manuscripts and they are 98.3% in agreement.

This figure, for which I cannot find a reliable source, is widely quoted on the internet among false Christians, and it is plainly untrue. There are over 5,300 ancient New Testament manuscripts, but they vary in around 200,000 places. The book of Acts contains the most textual variants, with Western texts being 10% longer than Alexandrian texts. One of the women in the video tries to convince us that these are merely spelling and punctuation mistakes and nothing that affects doctrine. While many of the variations are due to spelling, none are due to punctuation -- for the simple reason that early Greek didn't have any punctuation! There were no spaces between words and no distinction between upper- and lowercase letters.



Sometimes even spelling mistakes affect the meaning of a passage; for example, Luke 2:14 --

ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας (on earth peace to men of good will)

ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (on earth peace, good will toward men)

(Whenever quoting Greek manuscripts, you use ^this kind^ of Greek with punctuation to make it easier to read.)

The alteration of a single numeral can also affect meaning. For example, is the Number of the Beast 666 (χξς), or 616 (χις) as the oldest manuscript of Revelation reads?

Many textual variations do affect doctrine. Sometimes entire phrases or passages have been added or omitted. The doctrine of election is affected by the addition or omission of the last half of this verse:

Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

The doctrine of the incarnation is affected by the addition or omission of a noun clause (underlined) in this verse:

1 Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

The doctrine of the Trinity is affected by the addition or omission of this passage (underlined):

1 Jn 5:7-8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

These are just a few examples from the New Testament. There are even textual variants in the Old Testament that significantly affect the meaning of a passage. The ladies in the video mention fulfilled prophecy as proof of the Bible's reliability, and I agree it is. The hairs on the back of my neck stand up every time I read Isaiah 53:2b.

Is 53:2b [H]e hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

800 years before Jesus was born, the Prophet Isaiah predicted that the Messiah would have average looks, and although the Gospels give no physical description of Jesus, we know that this prophecy was fulfilled! What are the odds that Isaiah could have just guessed there would be an average-looking person in the future? Yet there are some textual variants that affect messianic prophecy. For example, does Psalm 22:16, one of the fulfilled prophecies mentioned in the video, read "they pierced my hands and my feet" or "like a lion, my hands and feet"? Not only does the latter reading undermine prophecy; it makes it look like God's Word doesn't make any sense.

The ladies in the video go on to boast of 25,000 archaeological finds that confirm the existence of people and places mentioned in the Bible. They neglect to mention the finds that contradict the Bible. As I said in another thread, you can't trust secular archaeology.

But after they effectively demolish the accuracy and reliability of God's Word, they end the video with God's promise to preserve His Word.

Ps 12:6-7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Mk 13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

God can preserve His Word, and He has! It is the King James Bible, the only version that can claim to be 100% accurate. It is based on the Textus Receptus, the most reliable New Testament text, compiled from reliable late Greek manuscripts, not corrupted older manuscripts. It agrees perfectly with the texts that agree with it. Of course, there are different versions of the KJV and the Textus Receptus, but the 1611 KJV is the only uncorrupted version of the KJV and the version of the Textus Receptus the KJV was based on is the only uncorrupted version of the Textus Receptus.

The KJV is the complete Word of God. Other (mis)translations, like the Notoriously Inaccurate Version, omit words, phrases and entire verses.

The KJV did not come to us like a game of telephone. It is the perfectly-preserved Word of God.

[Elmer G. White]

Thank you! This is most important. It also shows that AiG can no longer be considered a community of Bible-believing Christians. On the contrary, it has surrendered to lieberal sexegetics and systemathic 'theology'. We can now state with certainty that LBC is the ONLY True Church™ that remains and Freehold the only community where unbiased Creation Science is being conducted.

Where would we be if we relied on 'manuscripts'? We would lose the last Chapter of John and thus the Apostolic authorship of this Gospel. We would lose the last Chapter of Mark and the Biblical basis for exorcism. We would lose the wonderful pericope of the sinful woman and the first stone in John. We would have to admit that all 'manuscript' are different and we could no longer rely on the inerrancy of the Bible. We are so lucky to have the only inerrant Word of God in KJV.

John 21:24
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.


Look at that verse. AiG apparently wants us to discard this!


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Calvinist]

Great post. I thought maybe you could touch on other objections given by unbelievers looking for ways to discredit the Holy Bible. I do not doubt the inerrancy concerning the Bible, but there are some questionable discrepancies one should be prepared for in defense of the faith.

For example, the alternative endings of Mark 16 and concerning John 8 the adulteress woman. And likewise the controversy with the King James Bible with 1 John 5:7.

This is what I thought the article was going to be about, but never address the article based on the title!

Also, concerning the differences in various endings for example, in Mark 16, would you not recommend someone build theology around verses in Mark 16 due to the questionable nature? That is, for example, take Mark 16:16, Baptismal Regenerist love to use this verse. Do you think it is something they can stand on with solid assurance, and you yourself would try to pull the rug out from under their feet? Of course, this is to assume you don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

I'm not addressing whether one particular translation as say the Non Intellectual Version NIV is accurate due to its dynamic equivalence, but how one can contend that the Manuscripts themselves before Translation are not more accurate? Especially pertaining to earlier manuscripts than what the King James uses?

Thanks in advance if you have and take the time to answer my questions.

God bless

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

Also, concerning the differences in various endings for example, in Mark 16, would you not recommend someone build theology around verses in Mark 16 due to the questionable nature? That is, for example, take Mark 16:16, Baptismal Regenerist love to use this verse. Do you think it is something they can stand on with solid assurance, and you yourself would try to pull the rug out from under their feet? Of course, this is to assume you don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

We follow the whole Bible:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy 3:16

I'm not sure why you think Mark 16 is questionable. We True Christians™ talk to Jesus regularly, and He has NEVER told us that there's a problem with ANY verse in the KJV 1611.

I don't think Baptists use rugs. That sounds more like a Moslem thing. But they don't get Baptized--even taking a bath is against their religion.

How one can contend that the Manuscripts themselves before Translation are not more accurate? Especially pertaining to earlier manuscripts than what the King James uses?

You never know who wrote any of those. That's why we stick to the ORIGINAL Word of God, the KJV.

Thanks in advance if you have and take the time to answer my questions.

It's nice to get an intelligent question. Thanks!

God bless

Right back atcha!

[Pim Pendergast]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I do not doubt the inerrancy concerning the Bible, but there are some questionable discrepancies one should be prepared for in defense of the faith.

For example, the alternative endings of Mark 16 and concerning John 8 the adulteress woman. And likewise the controversy with the King James Bible with 1 John 5:7.

We go with the 1611 KJV. If it's in there, it's Scripture. If it's not, it isn't.

Also, concerning the differences in various endings for example, in Mark 16, would you not recommend someone build theology around verses in Mark 16 due to the questionable nature? That is, for example, take Mark 16:16, Baptismal Regenerist love to use this verse. Do you think it is something they can stand on with solid assurance, and you yourself would try to pull the rug out from under their feet? Of course, this is to assume you don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration.

The KJV retains Mark 16:9-20. You can build your life around anything it says with confidence. We can handle snakes and drink poison.

I'm not addressing whether one particular translation as say the Non Intellectual Version NIV is accurate due to its dynamic equivalence, but how one can contend that the Manuscripts themselves before Translation are not more accurate? Especially pertaining to earlier manuscripts than what the King James uses?

The translators of the KJV also didn't have access to the fossil record. Does that mean we should doubt the reliability of their translation of Genesis 1? The same stubborn refusal to acknowledge God that drives palaeontologists to find fossils also drives archaeologists to find variant texts. Why should accept their biased and skewed findings?

[Calvinist]

I tried to edit, but seemingly lack that feature on this forum.

When you say, "It agrees perfectly with the texts that agree with it." My honest thoughts are that King James despised the version of the Bible that I use, for the notes of it are written by the early Reformers - it questioned or threatened his authority. Also, it is like saying no other manuscripts have 1 John 5:7, go find me just one manuscript to agree and I won't remove it.

I'd like to talk about The Geneva Bible, as it is said to be more a Bible by the people for the people, where the King James is more a Gov't friendly version. Would you disagree with that or offer a response for it? Further more, the Geneva was the Bible the first settlers that came to America used, and held tightly, as 2/3rds of the soldiers that fought in the Revolutionary War were Reformed. Why do you think the Geneva's footnotes by the Reformers should not be in the Bible if you disagree with it and side with King James?

I'm not trying cause a ruckus, as I never engaged King James Onlyist, I use the KJV in my Bible Study, but at home on Esword I use the Geneva in my personal Studies.

God bless

[WWJDnow]

The Geneva Bible isn't too bad, if you don't mind getting a bunch of things wrong. It certainly beats all of the Catholic "Bibles." Still, why put your soul in danger by trusting a less-than-perfectly reliable translation?

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

I do not doubt the inerrancy concerning the Bible, but there are some questionable discrepancies one should be prepared for in defense of the faith.
For example, the alternative endings of Mark 16 and concerning John 8 the adulteress woman. And likewise the controversy with the King James Bible with 1 John 5:7....
Also, concerning the differences in various endings for example, in Mark 16, would you not recommend someone build theology around verses in Mark 16 due to the questionable nature? That is, for example, take Mark 16:16, Baptismal Regenerist love to use this verse. Do you think it is something they can stand on with solid assurance, and you yourself would try to pull the rug out from under their feet? ...how one can contend that the Manuscripts themselves before Translation are not more accurate? Especially pertaining to earlier manuscripts than what the King James uses?

You are suggesting here the path taken since the 19th century by exegetics. Textual criticism, comparing manuscripts, the Nestle-Aland or Westcott-Hort Greek text, putting into brackets the last chapters of Mark and John and the adultress pericope, dismissing some Pauline Epistles as pseudepigraphies.

You also seem to suggest that this path is ultimately compatible with faith. It actually isn't. The path you suggest starts with bringing insecurity into Bible study. The manuscripts are different. The are sometimes incompatible. Either the last Chapter of John is there or it isn't.

Next step. You hide behind comfortable statistics. This is what AiG is doing now as clarified by Brother Pim in the OP. They calculate 'pivotal differences' and come up with a figure of approximately 98 %. Seems good. Let's keep on believing.

What they ignore is that from that point on it is no longer belief. It is statistics, consensus voting, insecurity. There are the 2 % that are unreliable. BASED ON WHAT THEY HAVE ASSESSED UNTIL THAT MOMENT. What if there are other percentages, other insecurities? Where are they? And case endings of Koine Greek DO matter. Do we bring one percent more insecurity with them? Or more? At this point you start weighing probabilities. This manuscript is probably right here and the other one there. Probably right also equals possible wrong. Certainty is gone whenever you bring in probability. It leads to modern day wonders, fuzzy logic, polling the congregation for the right doctrine.

Older manuscripts the most reliable? Why? We did not see them being written. There was A LOT OF OPPOSITION to Christianity back then. What if the oldest papyrus was written by a heretic trying to promote his views? There is no way of knowing, just making 'educated guesses' and statistics. And what about manuscripts that we haven't found yet? Or never knew existed. Or were destroyed long ago? Perhaps they were the one correct ones!? Should we try to find the alleged Aramaic original or is Peshitta in Old Syriac the real deal? It never ends. The path of probability.

If you follow it with intellectual logic it never ends. You can NEVER be certain about any original. Unless you employ cognitive dissonance and conciously stop somewhere there is NO WAY to keep the Faith. You can only keep some probabilitis. Agnosticism. This is old stuff since the 19th century. It is still mostly kept in silence from the congregation by false Christian denominations who place their teachings on these versions based on probability and guesswork. They can be possible correct by a degree, they are almost certainly wrong also. But you can never know the correct verses from the false ones with certainty.

LBC is different. No probabilities, no guesswork. Faith is not based on a popular vote. It is not a court case beyond reasonable doubt. All doubt can be cast aside. Jesus remains.

Psalms 12:6
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Calvinist]

You also seem to suggest that this path is ultimately compatible with faith. It actually isn't. The path you suggest starts with bringing insecurity into Bible study. The manuscripts are different. The are sometimes incompatible. Either the last Chapter of John is there or it isn't. - Elmer G. White

I'm glad you said "seem," because I can clarify exactly why I asked the questions I had. These questions have come up in the past to me, and I'm glad that you addressed them in such an intelligent manner. I agree with you, holding to that position does suggest bringing insecurity into the Bible Study. That's why I think we should be prepared to help answer such questions by doubters or skeptics for the faith 1 Peter 3:15

As far as John 8 goes, an interesting point to make towards skeptics is that in many earlier manuscripts that DO NOT have John 8, there is a space left as if something belongs. Not all have them, but considering the time period in which they were written, I think it would cast a doubt upon the skeptics charge.

You make a great point about heretics and the tampering of the Bible, as I have heard accusations towards the early church as to why John 8 was excluded, as some contend the church worried about the people misinterpreting the verses, and inappropriately showing mercy for certain practices. I think John 8 can be supported by other verses as Pim Pendergast suggested, and one should not feel uncertain about basing any theology around that chapter as other Scriptures will interpret those Scriptures.

Can the same be said regarding Mark 16 and 1 John 5:7? I haven't ran into anyone that approached me on this.

Faith is not based on a popular vote. It is not a court case beyond reasonable doubt. All doubt can be cast aside. Jesus remains.- Elmer G. White

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Anyone who actually contends for this seemingly, in my view reveals to a degree their belief about an absolute moral law giver. We find your example demonstrated by many professing believers, who seemingly think the Bible is culturally based, and that society makes the moral standard by which all should follow. If they deny moral laws, it is only reasonable to assume that they deny a moral law giver, and that would be an opportunity to help demonstrate.

All doubt can be cast to the side, and doubt comes in many flavors, considering emotional, factual, and volitional doubt. We as the body of Christ can address them.

Lastly, beautiful statement. And I am reminded of what some say in their testimony, they claim that they were being dragged kicking and screaming into the faith. I think C.S. Lewis said this, and I think what he meant is that the overwhelming evidence overpowered or overcame any initial charges and doubts. Presuppositional Apologetics defintely has it place in defense of the faith.

Thank you for sharing your thoughtful response from which you obviously invested much time.

God bless.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

...I agree with you, holding to that position does suggest bringing insecurity into the Bible Study. That's why I think we should be prepared to help answer such questions by doubters or skeptics for the faith 1 Peter 3:15

As far as John 8 goes, an interesting point to make towards skeptics is that in many earlier manuscripts that DO NOT have John 8, there is a space left as if something belongs. Not all have them, but considering the time period in which they were written, I think it would cast a doubt upon the skeptics charge... We find your example demonstrated by many professing believers, who seemingly think the Bible is culturally based, and that society makes the moral standard by which all should follow. If they deny moral laws, it is only reasonable to assume that they deny a moral law giver, and that would be an opportunity to help demonstrate.

All doubt can be cast to the side, and doubt comes in many flavors, considering emotional, factual, and volitional doubt. We as the body of Christ can address them...

Thank you for your kind reply. You couldn't guess how many come to this Forum only to argue and ridicule Christian Faith. I would like to ask something, though. You've chosen to present yourself with the username "Calvinist". I presume you identify yourself with this denomination. I find this somewhat contradictory with our previous discussion. Jean Calvin used very complex sentences and language and it is not always easy to follow his thoughts on the matters of Biblical interpretation and belief.

However, I do think that similar to Luther, he opened up the path that begins with questioning Biblical inerrancy by casting doubt on the literal interpretation of Genesis. It is generally surmised that he believed in the literal 6-day Creation. Where the doubt enters is, however, 16th century astronomy and its contradictions with the Bible.

Calvin's concern was to make clear that the language of "greater" and "lesser" lights in Genesis in no way conflicted with contemporary astronomical calculations that showed that seemingly small stars and planets such as Saturn were actually much greater in size than the "great" light of the moon ordained by God to "govern the night." Calvin's approach to the problem is simple: the words of Genesis 1:16 are not to be taken literally.

Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

And in the Genesis by Calvin:

...he [Moses] had been appointed a guide of unlearned men rather than of the learned, he could not fulfill his duty except by coming down to their level. If he had spoken of matters unknown to the crowd, the unlearned could say that his teaching was over their heads. In fact, when the spirit of God opens a common school for all, it is not strange that he chooses to teach especially what can be understood by all.

This is the usual explanation isn't it? God could not come up with words that would be accurate enough to explain things for the layman, so He had to resort to approximations and simplifications. Calvin is defending God's "error" and at the moment admitting that the cosmology of Genesis 1 is less than perfect. Questions ensue... What else is less than perfect? What else can we interpret according to secular science? Can we really draw a line that is acceptable to everyone? Of course we cannot. Calvin is, in fact, patronizing the Bible and God. Many modern academics follow these footsteps.

Thus, the path to probabilistic interpretation opens. The same took place with Luther and his doubts on some parts of the Bible, such as Revelations. Why not doubt other parts? If Genesis 1:16 is a metaphor, why not take virgin births and resurrection as metaphors? Why not original sin? Obviously, many people do and these doubts are at least partly triggered by the aftermath of the writings of 16th century reformators.

I do not know if you share Calvin's views on this but you present yourself as one of his disciples. What are you thoughts on this?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Calvinist]

I must say that no matter where I being, I must start with this, Martin Luther and John Calvin are fallible men, they were sinners saved by Grace - 1 Thessalonians 5:21. I haven't read every work written by Martin Luther or John Calvin as to this day, but my list of reading material is ever growing. I must also admit when I read from these men, I read it as if I were hearing any Pastor, and if I contend they are wrong I approach them, after asking myself if whether I have understood them correctly, and whether I am ready to be edified myself?

Both men, and Reformed in general hold to the 5 Solas. I bring this up because Sola Scriptura tells me that whatever man says, no matter how dear our Pastor, beloved brethren, scientific community ect., it is to be weighed in the Balance of Scripture. "By Scripture Alone," as the ultimate authority in this context. And as you probably know, this was to combat the the Roman Catholics in regards to traditions and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope - See more at: http://www.christforums.org/

and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope - See more at: http://www.christforums.org/

and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope. The Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, and understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work.

Regarding what you stated, and I along the lines of men being fallen. I consider and define Science as the interpretation of nature, and Theology as the interpretation of Scripture. We must take into account the depraved state of man.

Regarding a non literal interpretation concerning Genesis, I somewhat read, but haven't read in depth the views of these men concerning the Scripture provided. I am aware of Martin Luther having said, - “When Moses writes that God created heaven and earth and whatever is in them in six days, then let this period continue to have been six days, and do not venture to devise any comment according to which six days were one day. But, if you cannot understand how this could have been done in six days, then grant the Holy Spirit the honor of being more learned than you are.”

Genesis 1:16 - yes, I am aware that the light of the Luminaries had not been put in place until day 4. For me personally, a study of John chapter 1, brought me into a week's study of the Logos, as I dived into the Jewish, Greek perspectives, I then began trying to understand it through to John. As you know John has a style of writing that brings the writer to various other places within the Bible, especially Genesis chapter 1. It changed my perspective, and how I now understand the Genesis chapter 1 account.

As for the literal interpretation, I hold to it. And that is with respect to context, grammer, and even genre. Although, I'm beginning to lean amillennial concerning Eschatology, which Luther considered to cryptic and never finished a commentary on. I, personally am looking for clear indicators that would suggest the reader actually read in symbolism, and I have to some point accepted some places to be read as such, and as you probably are well aware having now been accused of being an anti-semite, because I don't just blinding accept everything that Theocratic Israel does. Regarding my ongoing studies throughout the various perspectives of Eschatology, I'm still studying, it took me over a year to feel comfortable enough to begin talking about Soteriology, so it is no wonder that I am uncomfortable at this time concerning my end time beliefs.

On a personal note as to why I chose Calvinist, it's because I do acknowledge, through creed and confessionals, what has been coined as Calvinism. Lutheran theologians began calling those who held to the doctrines of Grace "Calvinist" in a derogatory way. As you probably know the acronym T.U.L.I.P was the response to the heresy of Jacob Arminius who taught the five points of Arminanism. Calvinism, is therefore, a response to the perversion of Scripture and of the church, as the TULIP was so called the five points of Calvinism after convening in the the Council of Dort. Just as the Council of Nicea convened to respond to Arius, and produced the Nicene Creed as a response.

G'nite, and God bless!

[Calvinist]

Hmm, the links for some reason showed up not intentionally, when I quoted the definition of S. Scriptura. I can't go back to edit it, so please disregard.

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

?..Reformed in general hold to the 5 Solas. I bring this up because Sola Scriptura tells me that whatever man says, no matter how dear our Pastor, beloved brethren, scientific community ect., it is to be weighed in the Balance of Scripture. "By Scripture Alone," as the ultimate authority in this context. And as you probably know, this was to combat the the Roman Catholics in regards to traditions and the teachings of the magisterium and the pope ...
The Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, and understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work.

On a personal note as to why I chose Calvinist, it's because I do acknowledge, through creed and confessionals, what has been coined as Calvinism. Lutheran theologians began calling those who held to the doctrines of Grace "Calvinist" in a derogatory way. As you probably know the acronym T.U.L.I.P...

Thank you for your reply.

Sola scriptura. It is a very nice concept and and an admirable principle. I think your denomination is closer to it than Luther. Obviously, just claiming it does not mean one follows it. As for both the Lutherans and the reformed, infant baptism is an example of a doctrine that has very meagre support in Scripture. By using interpretations and 'arriving systematically' to the issue these denominations allegedly find support of it although infant baptism is never explicit in the Bible.

Can you see? An extra layer of 'systematical approach' is spread over Scripture and a doctrine that was uncertain and consisted of probabilities is taken as a fact. A concept that comes from the paradigm of scholarly work (infant baptism) is 'an educated interpretation', i.e., a glorified opinion that has uncertainties. It is adopted by the paradigm of Faith where the uncertainty is dismissed and the guesswork becomes 'fact'. Now what were we talking about? Yes! Sola scriptura.

The lutherans have obviously gone further. They have the Confessio Augustana, Liber concordiae and the Catechism that are supposedly a form of Scripture made concise. Now, what was the issue? Yes! Sola scriptura, not CA or LC.

TULIP? We share much of it. Total Depravity until repentance and Grace in Jesus. OK. Unconditional election? Hmmmm... I'd include the Repentance. Limited atonement for the elect. OK, no unbeliever will enter Heaven with us. Irresistible Grace. I'll have to think about it but I've seen many who harden their necks and do not hear.

Nehemiah 9:29
And testifiedst against them, that thou mightest bring them again unto thy law: yet they dealt proudly, and hearkened not unto thy commandments, but sinned against thy judgments, (which if a man do, he shall live in them;) and withdrew the shoulder, and hardened their neck, and would not hear.


Perseverance of Grace. Of course. You cannot fall out of Grace once you have been saved.

There is some common ground but there are also serious discrepancies. Sola scriptura? Yet supplemented by the tradition of infant baptism. How about Tota scriptura? All of Bible? The parts of comfort and joy and the parts of genocide, furnace, deceit and bottomless pit. Are they of equal value?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

[Faith_Machine]

I would love to learn Greek so I can better explain to people the accuracy of the Bible. Pim, do you speak Greek? Do you think I could learn to speak Greek?

I'm worried it might be difficult, or even painful, but I want to give it a try.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

Unconditional election? Hmmmm... I'd include the Repentance.

There is some common ground but there are also serious discrepancies. Sola scriptura? Yet supplemented by the tradition of infant baptism. How about Tota scriptura? All of Bible? The parts of comfort and joy and the parts of genocide, furnace, deceit and bottomless pit. Are they of equal value?


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

G'day Elmer,

You bring up some great points. I'm going to just type out what I think, and put questions out there and answer them. I'm not being as concise as I can possibly be, due to space and time constraints. Your topics are highly divisive ones, especially between Reformed Baptist and Baptist. I think when we view the TULIP, we must understand that it was a response to Arminianism. Repentance is a fruit of regeneration, the work of the Holy Spirit. An Axiom in the Reformed church is that Regeneration precedes faith. And good works are a result of the Holy Spirit which man is credited through the process of sanctification unto Holiness.

Lets think about this for a moment, if we ask someone to repent and they are unregenerate to whom are they repenting? And how genuine is the repentance? It is like me saying, I'll repent to a god that I don't believe in. Is that genuine repentance? Wouldn't that be righteous of a fallen man? If it were to the true God, and not some idol made mentally as false, it would speak of the depraved state of the natural man who was affected by the fall in what you brought up as original sin, and testify that man alone has power to overcome his sin nature - therefore, the emphasis on man's responsibility and the doctrines of free will - why Christ crucified?

Consider Isaiah 64:6. There's nothing natural man can do. This is further reiterated Romans 3:10-11. The natural man does not understand God, the best deeds are not only filthy rags, but they are not seeking after Him. We see this all the time in professing believers, they say only God, if you give me material wealth, or that job position ect., I'll believe and I'll do this or that. Think about Matthew 4:8, Jesus was tempted in such ways that only God can be tempted by. If we take Satan and cross the word out, and replace it with Christian, how many Christians do we hear tempting Jesus with earthly riches and the power of earthly kingdoms in order that He may be glorified? Satanic tactics used by professing believers in the name of the prosperity doctrine. Fact is, man isn't left to his free will choices, he is bound by a sinful nature, and in consideration of Romans 1:21-25 - They worship the creature, boasting in themselves, and give man credit and attempt to rob Him of due Glory.

The differences held by Paedo Baptism and Credo Baptism is highly controversial. I will say this, it is not about church tradition, so if someone is doing this for that reason, we should question through the Scriptures and teach from where this practice comes. If we view Paedo Baptism through the lens of Covenant Theology it has a very strong argument in Scripture. Paedo Baptist argue that the children of the OT covenant are to bear the sign of circumcision of the new convert. Therefore, they argue since the NT Covenant sign is water, they are too to be baptized. How long much children suffer? Have they lost their place in the transition from the OT to NT covenants Acts 16:31. And if we take Credo Baptism or confessional baptism we have a very strong argument from Scripture. However, my personal view is the premise Credo Baptist make in general falls flat when we ask, if only confessional baptism is genuine and authentic, we should expect no credo baptist to have ever turned away from the faith. But we do have them, so the same arguments being made against infant baptism for they cannot confess the Lord and don't know what they are speaking, and so Credo baptism is genuine and authentic, and none have fallen away from us? 1 John 2:19, considering only adults were baptized in the NT in relation to the Old Covenant and New Covenant. Considering Romans 3, I don't see a personal difference between infants and adults, are they regenerated inside? I can't tell from one infant who is Elect and one Adult who is Elect. Are they demonstrating obedience by being baptized, and know what it represents? If a child is baptized and brought up into the ways of the Lord, and later professes his faith, does it make the baptism any less? No paedo baptist as far as I am aware is stating that Baptism by water saves anyone, but baptismal regenerationalist believes this. So does it? When considering what man is able to actually "do" in his depraved state, I ask does man have autonomous free will and/or libertarian free will whereby he can act independent from his sin nature, and obey God and confess him and repent of his sins without the regenerational work of the Holy Spirit?

Jesus spoke to Nicodemus 3:1-21. He said a man must be born again "from above." I am also brought to Ezekiel 36:26-27, where God will through the Holy Spirit regenerate a man, taking away the heart of stone, and doing a heart transplant, a heart of flesh will "ENABLE" him to be both receptive and obedient to the word of God. This is why some respond to the Gospel and why some do not. I am brought to Ezekiel of this passage, because, it is asked of Nicodemus how can you be a teacher and not know this? This isn't anything new. Some people don't realize that they are speaking to dead men, as told through the following chapter in Ezekiel, and yet they expect a dead man to do something. This comes down to further divisiveness if we ask is Salvation an act of Monergism or Synergism? Matthew 19:25-26 and Emphasis on Romans Chapter 9.

So what must we do to be saved? I agree with you that we must repent, but we must take into account Jesus' own words, and realize that the stony ground has to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and since we don't know who the Elect are and when or at what time they are Regenerated we are to preach the word without distinction. Many are called, but few are chosen. Also see Ephesians 2:8-10.

I think you understand and probably will agree with what I am sharing, All Glory belongs to God, and tis Grace, beautiful grace that led a Calvinist to write the Hymn - John Newton

Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound,
That saved a wretch like me.
I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now I see.

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Through many dangers, toils and snares
I have already come;
'Tis Grace that brought me safe thus far
and Grace will lead me home.

The Lord has promised good to me.
His word my hope secures.
He will my shield and portion be,
As long as life endures.

Yea, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease,
I shall possess within the veil,
A life of joy and peace.
Yes, when this flesh and heart shall fail,
And mortal life shall cease;
I shall profess, within the vail,
A life of joy and peace.


God bless! And thank you!

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

...the usual explanation isn't it? God could not come up with words that would be accurate enough to explain things for the layman, so He had to resort to approximations and simplifications. Calvin is defending God's "error" and at the moment admitting that the cosmology of Genesis 1 is less than perfect....
Thus, the path to probabilistic interpretation opens.

Originally Posted by Calvinist

...The differences held by Paedo Baptism and Credo Baptism is highly controversial... we should question through the Scriptures and teach from where this practice comes. If we view Paedo Baptism through the lens of Covenant Theology it has a very strong argument in Scripture. Paedo Baptist argue that the children of the OT covenant are to bear the sign of circumcision of the new convert. Therefore, they argue since the NT Covenant sign is water, they are too to be baptized. How long much children suffer? Have they lost their place in the transition from the OT to NT covenants Acts 16:31. And if we take Credo Baptism or confessional baptism we have a very strong argument from Scripture...

I'm sorry I shortened our previous discussion. I can see that you are quite verbose. So am I and this can be tiresome for everyone else. I'm going to mend my ways any day now, any moment, quite soon...

I concentrate on baptism once more. I think the issue is not as complicated as the theologians on both sides argue. And I'm going to refer to the founding Father of your denomination, Calvin, based on my post above.

1. While I don't vouch for his tendency of patronizing the Bible, I cherish his idea of God's Word being clear and Pure enough to be understood by the average adult man of any age. It must be approachable to the layman. What the baptism discussion is all about is finding loopholes for infant baptism. And if you study hard enough, you do find them. The logic you presented is a good example. By cross-references and searching for parallelisms you get a result that shows that possible infant baptism could be based on Scripture, if we take into account many other issues with probabilistic interpretations. By this time we've taken a leap away from the common man and the principle of God's Word being accessible to them. If Calvinism wishes to present a unified doctrine, this basis of it (approachability) should not be discarded to gain a probabilistic victory in infant baptism.

2. The defense of infant baptism is a good example of confirmation bias. This does not necessarily mean that the conclusions are flawed. It only means that the hypothesis can be skewed because of biases. These biases are usually unintended and hard to recognize - they are basic psychology. Please let me elaborate. Human beings tend to concentrate on hypotheses, information and conclusions that support their preconceptions. Other information tends to be dismissed or belittled. I think that we can see this phenomenon at work here. The denominations with infant baptism have allocated enormous resources to it. It is the principal form of maintaining a decent base of disciples. You are baptized before you become sentient and the effort of leaving the denomination as an adult is - well - too bothersome.

The Biblical study on infant baptism is conducted with the question "How can we support infant baptism Biblically?". A nice question but a biased one. The unbiased question would be "What does the Bible teach us about baptism, how should it be done and who should receive it?". Using this tabula rasa the scholars could arrive to the conclusions via a much simpler path. I do not generally endorse the use of secular philosophy but in this case (confirmation bias) the Theory of Justice by Rawls offers us a practical tool to use: the Veil of Ignorance. With it you can pose study questions that are not intended to affirm the practice, the tradition but to actually study the Bible de novo. Asking questions by not knowing in advance how you wish to be answered.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Matthew 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
Matthew 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Veil of Ignorance. Tabula rasa. No previous knowledge on baptism. No tradition that dictates infants have always been baptized in our Church, the parents like it and we will lose members if we discontinue it. Tabula rasa. Who are being baptized? Repenting adults who understand the procedure.

4. back to Calvin and the layman. I am also not too keen on bringing historical studies into Bible study. There is, however, one thing I cannot ignore. Literacy vs. illiteracy and the Bible. The scholarly discussion you summarized is based on the unspoken premiss that Bible is principally a text and that all the (later added) commas and section breaks (added later) matter. No. The Bible is the SPOKEN Word of God that has been written down as He dictated. It was written down during Biblical times when the average literacy was <1%. It was read aloud for the congregation. It was to be understood without the elaborate referencing. The cross references you need are already there. Jesus' virgin birth in Isaiah, etc. You should be very careful when defending e.g. infant baptism with parallelism that are not readily understood by reading the Bible aloud. I think that the text itself also reveals this nature of the layman. Take revelations 1:4, for instance. It's been the target of lots of well-meaning but destructive patronizing and corrections because in "good Greek" the preposition "apo" should have the genitive (and God gives us nominative)*. God gives us layman language and not the scholarly posh. Keep that in mind!

That was my account on baptism. Still hoping you'll give us some ideas on your views about Good and Evil and how to explain the obvious "atrocities" of the OT to the congregation.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

*TR gives us ιωαννης ταις επτα εκκλησιαις ταις εν τη ασια χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο του ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος και απο των επτα πνευματων α εστιν ενωπιον του θρονου αυτου. The Byzantine version is ιωαννης ταις επτα εκκλησιαις ταις εν τη ασια χαρις υμιν και ειρηνη απο θεου (they place the genitive here to "correct God") ο ων και ο ην και ο ερχομενος και απο των επτα πνευματων α [εστιν] ενωπιον του θρονου αυτου.

[WWJDnow]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

If a child is baptized and brought up into the ways of the Lord, and later professes his faith, does it make the baptism any less?

You're putting way too much thought into something simple. Jesus didn't say that infant baptism was invalid. He didn't say that it was valid. He didn't say what happens to those who find faith in Him but were never properly Baptised. He did say that if you believe and you are baptized, you will be saved. We KNOW that that works. So everyone who accepts Christ should get baptized ASAP, just in case.

People can spend another 2,000 years arguing about how to get baptized (well, probably not 2,000, with the Rapture coming soon) or they can just follow us True Christians™ and ensure their place next to Jesus. If someone accepts Christ as his Savior, has all of his sins washed away by the blood of Jesus, lives a good Christian life, and still winds up in Hell on a technicality, it's HIS OWN DAMNED FAULT.

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

Still hoping you'll give us some ideas on your views about Good and Evil and how to explain the obvious "atrocities" of the OT to the congregation.


Yours in Christ,

Elmer

A great defense of Credo Baptism! I think, you as well as I have witnessed the ping pong effect between Paedo and Credo Baptist. I'm not ready to engage in such debate on this night, and I appreciate your comment about boring the bageebers out of others.

I don't know what you mean by my views of Good and Evil. It is quite simple, and this will probably end up answering to the charge that there were atrocities of the OT.

You brought up secular thought, and I'm going to reject it also and say, there are no atrocities committed by God. The accusation assumes that morality is defined by someone or a group or society ect other than God. God is the standard bearer of Goodness. If someone has a problem with the way Goodness is given through the actions to the Glory or "sum" of all God's attributes, than they'll have an opportunity one day to present it.

I can hear in the back of my mind those asking why is there evil and suffering then? And I would like them to actually ask the question the right way by acknowledging the present condition held by fallen man. Why hasn't God killed us all in our sleep last night? Don't we all deserve His Just Wrath? Secular thought assumes that God owes anyone anything. Why would unbelievers want to go to heaven? A person cannot see, let alone enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being Regenerated. What is the Kingdom of Heaven in which they speak?

Lastly, Grace is unmerited favor, and this is also touching upon witnessing some people resist Grace. I am not quoting per verbatim, as I'm pressed for time. Common grace, God makes the rain come down on the unjust and just alike - Matthew 5:45. This should also address the unbelievers question. However, the TULIP is referring to the irresistible grace or efficacious grace, where God's grace is effectual to those who he has determined to save - John 6:65.

That's all I'll write in order to be brief.

As much as I have enjoyed this conversation with you, and in hopes of us both Glorifying God, I must call it too for at least a few days.

God bless! and G'nite!

[Elmer G. White]

Originally Posted by Calvinist

...You brought up secular thought, and I'm going to reject it also and say, there are no atrocities committed by God. The accusation assumes that morality is defined by someone or a group or society ect other than God. God is the standard bearer of Goodness. If someone has a problem with the way Goodness is given through the actions to the Glory or "sum" of all God's attributes, than they'll have an opportunity one day to present it.

I approach this in a slightly different manner. God is beyond human good or evil. The definition of good is the problem. However, your (not necessarily shared by you) defense of infant baptism included the "emotion" of the new Covenant not being "fair" to children that are not yet sentient, capable of repentance. It is the same thing, isn't it? The defenders are questioning good and evil and decide based on their preconceptions that leaving children outside Salvation would be evil. Thus, it must not be so and we have to find a way to prove this Biblically, no matter the confirmation bias.

Definition of Good:
Good is what God orders and does.
We don't have to understand it or like it.
We are here to accept it as Good.

What a tough lesson to learn. I summarize it with these verses:

Exodus 3:13-15
And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations.


First time I realized what this was all about I literally wet my pants. God is what He is. If He destroys a nation including the women and children, it is GOOD. If he rejects children until mature enough to be baptized, it is GOOD. Don't negotiate! In my opinion those scholars we discussed are negotiating based on their likes and dislikes.




Yours in Christ,


Elmer

[Calvinist]

Originally Posted by Elmer G. White

I approach this in a slightly different manner. God is beyond human good or evil. The definition of good is the problem. However, your (not necessarily shared by you) defense of infant baptism included the "emotion" of the new Covenant not being "fair" to children that are not yet sentient, capable of repentance. It is the same thing, isn't it? The defenders are questioning good and evil and decide based on their preconceptions that leaving children outside Salvation would be evil. Thus, it must not be so and we have to find a way to prove this Biblically, no matter the confirmation bias.

Yours in Christ,


Elmer

I see your points, and would also caution as the same argument for the not yet sentient, capable of repentance could lead to abortion debates or the line of thinking. I could just as easy use defensive arguments based on Scripture against abortion to respond to these, as far as leaving every child outside of Salvation would be evil, in my view all children and adults are deserving of the Just Wrath of Hell, and are going to hell if it weren't for election. I think most are going to back themselves into a corner and end up redefining Grace if they attempt to merit it towards a particular group or a peoples. As Ephesians 2:8 says, the Elect have nothing to boast in of themselves.

First time I realized what this was all about I literally wet my pants. God is what He is. If He destroys a nation including the women and children, it is GOOD. If he rejects children until mature enough to be baptized, it is GOOD. Don't negotiate! In my opinion those scholars we discussed are negotiating based on their likes and dislikes.

Amen. While I don't necessarily feel compelled to defend the scholars discussed, I appreciate them. And say, the will of God will be done, regardless if it is revealed to an individual, group, or nation ect. If anything, it sometimes causes paralysis, over thinking and non action. But as you suggested, even this could be the reason. I try to avoid fatalism (if all is God's will, why try thinking), which is inherently Hyper-Calvinism. As far as Calvinism being the "father" of my denomination, he is. But then again, his works can be seen in our gov't through the presby. style of check and balance system.