introducing Bible Protector

[SteveF]

It is obvious to any Protestant that the same Church of Peter is the same Church of the Reformers.

So, did the apostles believe in infant baptism to the extent that they said anyone who taught strictly believer’s baptism is doing the work of satan and/or had them put to death?

If a commentary does not agree with the Scripture, we may say that a commentary is wrong on that point

Something crossed my mind when I read this. Are you genuinely open to the possibility that your commentary may be wrong about the KJV bible?

[Paidion]

The bounds of the discussion would assume that it is obvious that the Reformation Church is the same as that of the Apostles...

What "bounds of the discussion"? Why should there be bounds? Why not examine the teachings and practices of the churches of the Reformation (There were several of them), and compare them with the Apostolic Church?

1. The Apostolic Church met in houses (Rom 16:5, I Cor 16:9, Col 4:5, Phm 1:2)
The Reformation churches met in big, fancy church buildings or cathedrals, following the example of their mother, the Catholic Church.

2. The Apostolic Church had a body ministry, that is, each member of Christ's body, ministered to the others (1 Cor 14:26)
The Reformation churches had a one-man ministry,following the pattern of their mother, with an altar at the front, directed by one man. There was only formal participation by the people, singing hymns together or reciting creeds.

3. The Apostolic Church wrote against heresies (2 Peter 2:1).
The Lutherans and Calvinists put heretics to death by burning them at stake or drowning them, again following the practice of their mother church. They even put to death the Anabaptists as heretics, whereas in fact, the Anabaptists comprised one of the Reformation Churches.

No, the reformation churches were a far cry from the Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church was at least a gradual development away from the Apostolic Church, whereas the "reformers" were revolutionists.

[bibleprotector]

So, did the apostles believe in infant baptism to the extent that they said anyone who taught strictly believer’s baptism is doing the work of satan and/or had them put to death?

The Apostles' beliefs are carried on through the gathering process of the Reformation. It is, of course, unjust to slight or reject the Reformation because of some people's incorrect statements.

Are you genuinely open to the possibility that your commentary may be wrong about the KJV bible?

First, I do not claim infallibility. Second, I don't have a "commentary" in comparison to the types of works by the likes of Poole, Henry, Gill, Barnes, Clarke & B. W. Johnson. Third, I see that you are avoiding acknowledging the context of Zephaniah chapter 3. Fourth, if one is open that they are wrong when they express something, they would be mad or double minded, for one cannot genuinely argue for something in which one holds the (Jesuitical) mental reservation that one is against it. Fifth, your mode of attack is only to attempt to doubt what I say, and never to justify the subjectivity of your own (i.e. that it is your side's modus operandi that it is more important to say that something is not absolute than it is to defend something which is not absolute). Sixth, it seems the assumption of fallible people that the KJB must be imperfect regardless of any investigation, i.e. that the case is so assumed to be so certain that it could not possibly be perfect, that with that wave of that hand (just like with the Historicist interpretation) it is consigned arbitrarily to the never-never. Seventh, perhaps you will counter with some or other thing from the commentaries to claim that they are on your side, but all the while avoiding the actual issue at hand, which is that there is clearly a latter day significance of Zephaniah 3.

[bibleprotector]

No, the reformation churches were a far cry from the Apostolic Church. The Catholic Church was at least a gradual development away from the Apostolic Church, whereas the "reformers" were revolutionists.

Then you admit you are not of the class or calibre that would fit in broadly to even being on the grounds to begin to engage on this issue (see Psalm 11:3, Heb. 6:1a).

[mattrose]

Fourth, if one is open that they are wrong when they express something, they would be mad or double minded, for one cannot genuinely argue for something in which one holds the (Jesuitical) mental reservation that one is against it.

That is quite a statement.

I commented earlier in this thread and this quote speaks directly toward what I said there.

Our knowledge is partial. We must remain open to our own wrongness about things in this life. We are told to walk by faith, not stand in certainty. Walking in faith, even faith that is sometimes doubted, is exactly what Christ has called us to. It is not insane. In fact, insanity would be the oppossite (convincing yourself that you, as a human being, can be certain about such things). It is not double-minded (you're not actually believing two different things, you're just not arrogant about your own mental abilities).

I suggest that it is very simple (and normal) to argue for something that you are not certain of. I also suggest that those who insist they are certain are often-times the ones with the most internal, though un-expressed, doubt.

[Paidion]

Then you admit you are not of the class or calibre that would fit in broadly to even being on the grounds to begin to engage on this issue (see Psalm 11:3, Heb. 6:1a)

I admit no such thing. (And I see no relevance in the scriptural references you provided).

But if this is your attitude, I can see this thread as ending with a final word from you about the "obvious", again with no justification, having concluded that you are the only one in the thread who is qualified to engage in a discussion of the King-James-Only dream. I won't call it an issue. There's no issue here. It's obvious that the King James Translation is NOT any more "perfect" than any other version of the Bible.

Plenty of justification for that statement has been given, and facts cited, but you seem not to be open to consider any other possibility. As the saying goes, "My mind is made up; don't confuse me with the facts!"

[bibleprotector]

We are told to walk by faith, not stand in certainty. Walking in faith, even faith that is sometimes doubted, is exactly what Christ has called us to. It is not insane. In fact, insanity would be the oppossite (convincing yourself that you, as a human being, can be certain about such things).

I take the opposite view. Believing something is being certain. That is,

Mr 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

I do not mean that a person say something random and then say "by my will I make it so" or any such foolishness.

But the whole point of Christianity is to that it is based on believing: if one does not actually believe that the blood of Jesus Christ purchased their salvation, etc., then really, how can one be saved.

Now, there is a difference between a firm belief and just theories about things. For example, it is my view that "Aramaic" was not used in the NT, as based on no statement concerning that language, and so on, and that the Syriack copies of Scripture in the DSS came from near the exile period. It is not something that one can have the same certainty about, as something like, "the NT does not contain the word 'Aramaic'", which can be absolutely certain.

[bibleprotector]

I admit no such thing.

So, then, you do accept the Reformation? From your statement (and in line with other expressed views) it appears that you place yourself outside of that tradition.

It's obvious that the King James Translation is NOT any more "perfect" than any other version of the Bible.

That is your point, but there is no Scripture to back up the idea that God's word is imperfectly supplied to us today/in history/for the future.

Plenty of justification for that statement has been given, and facts cited, but you seem not to be open to consider any other possibility.

Really? You are counting your statements of opinions as "justification" and "facts".

But, more basically, it seems that the disagreement really is more basic and deep, that is, what is Christianity and how do we obtain the truth of it.

I expect, based on your attacks on the Reformation and upholding of the critical method, that you are already steps removed from the position of normal Protestants (e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals, etc.) with which the Bible version discussion can take place on common grounds.

[backwoodsman]

It would go a long way in communicating your ideas if, instead of simply stating something is obvious, you'd explain why you believe it's so.

It is obvious to any Protestant that the same Church of Peter is the same Church of the Reformers.

Finally we see some crystal clear communication from you; unfortunately, the thing that's crystal clear is that you're not interested in communication. Too bad; most of us here try really hard to correctly understand others' views so we can give them a fair evaluation, and (speaking of obvious) if you won't explain yours to us, we can't do that.

A few minutes with Google finds that you've been up to this for a number of years on a number of other forums. One who interacted with you on one forum describes you as polite but "incredibly slippery and evasive, and apparently doesn't realize that he cannot use himself as a reference to support his claims." Based on your behavior here, I'd say that fits you to a T, except maybe you've grown a bit weak on the polite part at times, but I imagine doing what you do with a belief system like yours would wear one down after a while.

Your belief system -- what we've seen of it here, anyway -- is very superficial spiritually and poorly thought out intellectually. Regarding the latter, you start with incorrect assumptions, then apply circular and otherwise faulty reasoning, so it's no wonder that you've ended up with a set of beliefs that can't be supported by anything but your opinion. I hope that at some point you can see your way clear to think of spiritual things in a less superficial and legalistic way, and come to better understand the freedom that's supposed to come with being a disciple Jesus.

With that, I think I'm done with this thread. I wish you all the best.

[bibleprotector]

With that, I think I'm done with this thread. I wish you all the best.

I can see that you run to false accusers and accept their allegations about my character. This is the internet, where people can say virtually anything about people they do not agree with. Also, I think that some people are falsely associating "having conviction and being convinced" with "arrogance and narrow-mindedness".