-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I've been to three on a consistent basis and I got the same old stuff... saved by grace but do this and do that to make God happy and they used a different bible version every week it seemed, except for the Baptist Church they used the bible they wrote. Anyway, I've read most of the local churches statements of faith and listened to their sermons online.
No I'm not convinced that everything I believe is 100% right, my views change as I learn more.
No I'm not convinced that everything I believe is 100% right, my views change as I learn more.
pdf. Herbert W. Armstrong Did NOT Commit Incest!
http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Miscellaneous/Herbert W. Armstrong Did NOT Commit Incest.pdf
http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Miscellaneous/Herbert W. Armstrong Did NOT Commit Incest.pdf
KJV1611-
How many christians DID assemble in real New Testament, bible believing churches in the New Testament?
As for this forum.. we aren't assembled. I am in New Zealand.. you in America (probably.. if you haven't travelled
)
Assembly in biblical terms was real, in the flesh, face to face assembly.
Even the 'congregation in the wilderness' .. Israel.. journeying... were assembled. A massive assembly.. yeah.. but still visible.. in the flesh.
And as for churches that preach from the Word and let it speak for itself.. I don't know about other titles they are given but independent missionary baptist.. independent fundamental baptist.. bible baptist.. I know from experience endeavour to preach straight from the Word and let it speak for itself.
My old pastor read the bible for himself after being disillusioned in the church he was at.. and came to conclusions on what it was really teaching...
Independent baptist churches were what he found to be teaching what he concluded straight from scripture.
Now before others go on to 'its not just baptists.. or independent baptists!' .. well there are whole heap of churches without denominational names or titles that also teach straight from the bible and let it speak for itself. Maybe not baptist in name.. but would teach the same, because they came to their conclusion from just studying the bible themselves.
These churches that teach straight from, and believe the bible are there. If they weren't, God would be lying when He spoke about His churches being in every generation until the end of the church age.
How many christians DID assemble in real New Testament, bible believing churches in the New Testament?
As for this forum.. we aren't assembled. I am in New Zealand.. you in America (probably.. if you haven't travelled
)Assembly in biblical terms was real, in the flesh, face to face assembly.
Even the 'congregation in the wilderness' .. Israel.. journeying... were assembled. A massive assembly.. yeah.. but still visible.. in the flesh.
And as for churches that preach from the Word and let it speak for itself.. I don't know about other titles they are given but independent missionary baptist.. independent fundamental baptist.. bible baptist.. I know from experience endeavour to preach straight from the Word and let it speak for itself.
My old pastor read the bible for himself after being disillusioned in the church he was at.. and came to conclusions on what it was really teaching...
Independent baptist churches were what he found to be teaching what he concluded straight from scripture.
Now before others go on to 'its not just baptists.. or independent baptists!' .. well there are whole heap of churches without denominational names or titles that also teach straight from the bible and let it speak for itself. Maybe not baptist in name.. but would teach the same, because they came to their conclusion from just studying the bible themselves.
These churches that teach straight from, and believe the bible are there. If they weren't, God would be lying when He spoke about His churches being in every generation until the end of the church age.
I used to be Southern Baptist and loved my church and my pastor. But we got a new pastor who started teaching that all translations have errors and we must rely on scholars or learn Greek and Hebrew to understand the bible. I still stuck with that that church anyway, the only reason I quit going was because I was relocated to another state.
But now that I've studied my bible on my own, I realize how pathetic my pastor that I liked so much was. It was the same message most churches teach saved by grace but do this and that to please God. Through my own study I realized this was BS and the pastor knew nothing (as most pastors) about the Christian walk. I never truly knew Jesus until God began to reveal him to me through the pages of the bible.
I don't think you understand my reason for not being able to find a church. Almost ALL churches believe that the bible I read is full of errors. I'm not going to be patient with an organization that doesn't believe the bible... what I don't understand is why you would think I should be patient with them, you yourself said you base your beliefs on the bible which they say has errors.
And I don't think you understand what you're saying either. You think "almost ALL churches" believe your Bible has errors in it, yet you've only been to .3% of the churches in your area.
Seems you'd rather choose your view of perfection rather than regular fellowship with God's Body. If you're talking about a KJV only perspective, you've elevated a man-made Bible translation over God's people.
Seems you'd rather choose your view of perfection rather than regular fellowship with God's Body. If you're talking about a KJV only perspective, you've elevated a man-made Bible translation over God's people.
I wonder that you can say Charles does not believe the Bible. The statement of faith you so kindly provided says they believe the Bible is without error, and he has been teaching for decades since being born again at the age of twelve and beginning in ministry at the age of fourteen. I realize numbers mean nothing in light of the fact that he could have been teaching error all that time, nor do number of years speak to the issue of his belief in the Bible's infallibility. Where exactly do you get the ideas that he rejects the Bible as being reliable, or that he does not believe it?
Take a poll on this site... there might be 2 or 3 people who believe the bible is inerrant, the same is true with churches. When do you call the KJV a man-made translation. Do you really think God was not able to move the translators to write exactly what God wanted written? If it's not the KJV then which bible is inerrant?
This is a quote from Charlse Stanley. Does his statement indicate he believes in an inerrant bible?
"I believe the NASB is the most accurate translation thus far. It's my Bible of choice, and I highly recommend it for all pastors and seminary Bible students."
"I believe the NASB is the most accurate translation thus far. It's my Bible of choice, and I highly recommend it for all pastors and seminary Bible students."
Dr. Charles Stanley
Pastor, First Baptist Church, Atlanta
President, In Touch Ministries
Pastor, First Baptist Church, Atlanta
President, In Touch Ministries
In the copies, which can be verified through comparing to each other to see what the originals actually said. That is how it is done.
Stanley claims to believe in Biblical inerrancy, and at one time clearly recognized the apostasy of the SBC. Stanley instructed his church that the way to fight the apostasy was to starve it out by refusing to give to the SBC's Cooperative Program. But then in 1984, Stanley was elected to the presidency of the SBC. His statement at his first press conference was: "I think we have to learn to live together and love each other, whether we agree or not." Stanley announced to the Baptist Press Association on 9/17/84, that he had now challenged his church to more than double its Cooperative Program giving for the coming year and to "rethink" its entire missions program. Dr. Stanley chose to settle for parity instead of purity (New Neutralism II, pp. 70-71).
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/stanley/general.htm
Stanley claims to believe in Biblical inerrancy, and at one time clearly recognized the apostasy of the SBC. Stanley instructed his church that the way to fight the apostasy was to starve it out by refusing to give to the SBC's Cooperative Program. But then in 1984, Stanley was elected to the presidency of the SBC. His statement at his first press conference was: "I think we have to learn to live together and love each other, whether we agree or not." Stanley announced to the Baptist Press Association on 9/17/84, that he had now challenged his church to more than double its Cooperative Program giving for the coming year and to "rethink" its entire missions program. Dr. Stanley chose to settle for parity instead of purity (New Neutralism II, pp. 70-71).
http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/stanley/general.htm
You still do not answer the question. To say that Charles Stanley does not believe the Bible is quite a serious accusation. I have provided information that refutes your claim. Do you have anything besides your opinion to support yours?
Inerrancy simply means that the Bible is without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Inter-Varsity, 2004, 90). Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12).
(1) Inerrancy is attached to the character of God; (2) it is taught in the Scriptures; (3) it is the historic position of the Christian Church, and (4) it is foundational to other essential doctrines.
http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-inerrancy-important/
I think you would be pretty hard pressed to prove your claim, but you can give it a go.
Inerrancy simply means that the Bible is without error. It’s a belief in the “total truthfulness and reliability of God’s words” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Inter-Varsity, 2004, 90). Jesus said, “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). This inerrancy isn’t just in passages that speak about salvation, but also applies to all historical and scientific statements as well. It is not only accurate in matters related to faith and practice, but it is accurate and without error regarding any statement, period (John 3:12).
(1) Inerrancy is attached to the character of God; (2) it is taught in the Scriptures; (3) it is the historic position of the Christian Church, and (4) it is foundational to other essential doctrines.
http://defendinginerrancy.com/why-is-inerrancy-important/
I think you would be pretty hard pressed to prove your claim, but you can give it a go.
The fact that he has dedicated his whole life to the ministry, teaching from the very book you claim he does not believe, kind of proves you wrong straight out of the gate. I would call Charles Stanley a faithful servant. There are few enough of those as it is. Please do not besmirch his name with your baseless accusations.
You need to define what you think inerrant means. Then make the poll you think is so telling of the Body of Christ and see what people say. Don't just assume.
Yes, I believe the KJV is a man-made translation, just the same as every other translation. Are they inspired by God? Sure. But English translations are just copies and interpretations from the Hebrew and Greek. Ultimately, it's not about the translation found on paper and in leather that determines what is pleasing to God. It's about someone learning from the Holy Spirit's inspiration, regardless of translation. I was saved in reading the NIV. I use the NASB today. And I can guarantee my relationship with God is just as strong as yours. I believe people in poverty-stricken countries can be saved and taught from 1 page of the Bible. (I even believe people can be saved through The Message!)
So if you're going to put your hope for accuracy and revelation on a man-made translation, whether KJV or NIV, at the expense of fellowship with the Body of Christ, go for it. I would rather be with the Saints of God learning together and sharing our lives together.
Yes, I believe the KJV is a man-made translation, just the same as every other translation. Are they inspired by God? Sure. But English translations are just copies and interpretations from the Hebrew and Greek. Ultimately, it's not about the translation found on paper and in leather that determines what is pleasing to God. It's about someone learning from the Holy Spirit's inspiration, regardless of translation. I was saved in reading the NIV. I use the NASB today. And I can guarantee my relationship with God is just as strong as yours. I believe people in poverty-stricken countries can be saved and taught from 1 page of the Bible. (I even believe people can be saved through The Message!)
So if you're going to put your hope for accuracy and revelation on a man-made translation, whether KJV or NIV, at the expense of fellowship with the Body of Christ, go for it. I would rather be with the Saints of God learning together and sharing our lives together.
KJV1611-
There are a whole lot of KJV only churches around. You could find one of those.
But if you are going to say the KJV is the inerrant, infallible Word of God.. as it is...
Wouldn't you then be saying that God re-inspired the Word of God?
There are churches like mine that do believe the KJV is the re-inspired Word of God.. but my issue with that.. is the original manuscripts were the inspired Word..
Why would God re-inspire His Word?
It is as Magenta has said-- the bible IS inerrant, infallibe.. preserved through reputable translations. And there are sooo many copies of the original manuscripts.. thousands of them! The content of the original manuscripts is over 99 percent known.. as it was, through these copies..
Some scholars say along the lines that the remaining 1 percent can just be put down to putting a letter in the wrong place or a missing letter.. and so are hardly 'errors'
So that would mean we would have the original as it is. Sooo many copies of it.. that it is fully preserved by comparing them.
So from this..
Why would God re-inspire His Word?
It's preserved!
My church uses the KJV only.. that is because we realise it just has so much precision, majesty and clarity.
But we don't go to the point that it is the re-inspired Word of God. We want a literal translation, not a paraphrase.. and the KJV is one of the most accurate of the literal ones.
But do you know what King James said about the KJV?
along the lines of 'we have avoided the scrupulous of the Puritans (in having the Greek word Ecclessia translated as assembly or congregation) and kept the word viz.' (Kept it as 'church')
Whats the difference between assembly, congregation and church?
The word 'church' has been twisted to have several meanings.. where the original meaning is purely.. assembly, congregation.
Its meant to mean something local and visible.. whether on earth.. as each of God's New Testament assemblies, or when it will be one assembly in heaven of all redeemed.
In both cases.. it is not a universal, invisible entity.
It's local and visible in both.
So.. the KJV.. was written by Church of England, Anglican influenced writers.. who would have mostly no doubt believed in a universal, invisible church.
But this conception of 'church' is foreign to the original meaning of a New Testament visible assembly of saved, baptised believers.
How can this then.. be the re-inspired Word of God... when it has Church of England influence? Episcopalian writers?
Why have the word assembly or congregation... and also the word 'church' in the KJV?
Maybe there are bibles before the KJV that are even more precise?
Maybe the Puritans had a translation even more accurate than the KJV?
There are a whole lot of KJV only churches around. You could find one of those.
But if you are going to say the KJV is the inerrant, infallible Word of God.. as it is...
Wouldn't you then be saying that God re-inspired the Word of God?
There are churches like mine that do believe the KJV is the re-inspired Word of God.. but my issue with that.. is the original manuscripts were the inspired Word..
Why would God re-inspire His Word?
It is as Magenta has said-- the bible IS inerrant, infallibe.. preserved through reputable translations. And there are sooo many copies of the original manuscripts.. thousands of them! The content of the original manuscripts is over 99 percent known.. as it was, through these copies..
Some scholars say along the lines that the remaining 1 percent can just be put down to putting a letter in the wrong place or a missing letter.. and so are hardly 'errors'
So that would mean we would have the original as it is. Sooo many copies of it.. that it is fully preserved by comparing them.
So from this..
Why would God re-inspire His Word?
It's preserved!
My church uses the KJV only.. that is because we realise it just has so much precision, majesty and clarity.
But we don't go to the point that it is the re-inspired Word of God. We want a literal translation, not a paraphrase.. and the KJV is one of the most accurate of the literal ones.
But do you know what King James said about the KJV?
along the lines of 'we have avoided the scrupulous of the Puritans (in having the Greek word Ecclessia translated as assembly or congregation) and kept the word viz.' (Kept it as 'church')
Whats the difference between assembly, congregation and church?
The word 'church' has been twisted to have several meanings.. where the original meaning is purely.. assembly, congregation.
Its meant to mean something local and visible.. whether on earth.. as each of God's New Testament assemblies, or when it will be one assembly in heaven of all redeemed.
In both cases.. it is not a universal, invisible entity.
It's local and visible in both.
So.. the KJV.. was written by Church of England, Anglican influenced writers.. who would have mostly no doubt believed in a universal, invisible church.
But this conception of 'church' is foreign to the original meaning of a New Testament visible assembly of saved, baptised believers.
How can this then.. be the re-inspired Word of God... when it has Church of England influence? Episcopalian writers?
Why have the word assembly or congregation... and also the word 'church' in the KJV?
Maybe there are bibles before the KJV that are even more precise?
Maybe the Puritans had a translation even more accurate than the KJV?