What do you think of Independent Fundamental Baptist Churches?

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
(Continued from above)
It also contains many other words and phrases that are not found in the best manuscripts and are either known to be glosses written by the scribes copying the manuscripts or are of very questionable origin. These include 16 whole verses: Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mark 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; Luke 17:36; 23:17, John 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; and Romans 16:24. Also included are the following words and phrases:

‘For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.” (Matt. 6:13)
“I trow not” (Luke 17:9)
“not” (Rom. 4:19: Col. 2:18)
“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:1)
“thou shalt not bear false witness” (Rom. 13:9)
“if” (2 Cor. 5:14)
“of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Eph. 3:14)
“through his blood” (Colossians 1:14)
“and were persuaded of them” (Heb. 11:13)
“him” (1 John 4:19)
Many other examples could be cited here.

In addition, the text of the King James Version omitted a number of words and phrases that are included in the best manuscripts:

“nor the son” (Matt. 24:36)
“and came to him” (John 19:3)
"by the Holy Spirit" (Acts 4:25)
“of Jesus” (Acts 16:7)
“God” (Rom. 8:28)
“just as you actually do walk” (1 Thes. 4:1)
“unto (or “in respect to”) salvation” (1 Pet. 2:2)
“according to the will of God” (1 Pet. 5:2)
“and such we are” (1 John 3:1)

No translations of the Bible are any better than the text upon which they are based. The King James Version is no more reliable than the text from which it was translated. In addition to the corruptions listed above, nearly six thousand others have been found in this 1550 text. They have been corrected in the current texts used for the recent translations.
The King James Bible is built on the foundation of faith by men who had a high regard for the Bible, Massive manuscript evidence to support their work. They meticulously translated the Greek and Hebrew words, renders them as closely as possible into English.
The Modern versions are built on a foundation of doubt by men who have a low regard for the Bible. A few corrupt manuscripts were used to support their work. For the most part, they loosely translated the concepts of the Greek and Hebrew and some versions are even sloppier, not translating at all but paraphrasing.
I have to wonder. If you are not using the King James Bible, why not?
Theses statements prove that David Brown either has virtually no knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and their transmission to us—or he is lying through his teeth and maliciously maligning men of God who have sacrificially devoted their lives to the study the Holy Scriptures. Indeed, KJOism is founded upon sinfully severe ignorance of the facts and a willingness to maliciously lie to defend the false teaching. This most horrible teaching is not found in our denominational Baptist churches because they have in them men and women who will not tolerate such ignorance and dishonesty. The independent Baptist churches all too often do not have such men and women in them and this most horrible teaching abounds in them. Are these churches a pseudo-Christian cult? That is up to you to decide—but they are an extremely dangerous place for our children!
 
Upvote 0

classicalhero

Junior Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,631
399
Perth,Western Australia
✟11,338.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
It is the modern translations that based on the faulty manuscripts, not the KJV.
Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts?
HE TESTIMONY OF J.H. MERLE D’AUBIGNE DISPELS THIS MYTH

The following quotation from historian J. H. Merle D’Aubigne demonstrates that Erasmus had access to more textual evidence than his modern detractors admit:

“Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. ‘If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.’ HE HAD COLLATED MANY GREEK MSS. of the New Testament, and WAS SURROUNDED BY ALL THE COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS, by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. ... HE HAD INVESTIGATED THE TEXTS ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLES OF SACRED CRITICISM. When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Ecolampadius. Nothing without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb” (J.H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, New York: Hurst & Company, 1835, Vol. 5, p. 157).

The popular notion that Erasmus and other 16th-century editors of the Greek New Testament worked with paltry resources is simply nonsense. The notes that Erasmus placed in his editions of the Greek New Testament prove that he was informed of the variant readings that have found their way into the modern translations since 1881. Even though Erasmus did not have access to all of the manuscripts translators can use today, there can be no doubt that he did have access to the variant readings in other ways.

“Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16)” (Dr. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 1956, 1979, pp. 198-199).

Not only did Erasmus consult many Greek and Latin manuscripts and ancient Bible translations to determine the proper text, he examined quotations from ancient Christian writings.

“Erasmus uses the Fathers of the Church as independent witnesses for the early text of the Vulgate. In his dedicatory letter to the pope he mentions that the special care due to the sacred writings caused him not only to compare ‘the oldest and most correct manuscripts’ but also to ‘run through all the writings of the old theologians and to trace from their quotations and expositions what each one of them had read and changed’” (W. Schwarz, Principles and Problems of Biblical Translation, p. 145).

We do not assign any degree of perfection to Erasmus. He had serious faults, to be sure (though more often than not modern version defenders caricature him falsely). It is a fact that Erasmus was diligent in researching the history of the transmission of the Scriptures and that he had sufficient resources for the task. The publication of the first printed Greek New Testament was in no wise the hasty, haphazard, careless thing that today’s textual critics would have us believe. (We say much more about Erasmus and his role in the publication of the first printed Greek New Testament in the book Myths about the King James Bible.)

THE TESTIMONY OF BISHOP ELLICOTT DISPELS THIS MYTH

As for the Received Text being based on “seven late manuscripts,” consider further the testimony of Bishop Ellicott, the chairman of the committee that produced the English Revised Version of 1881 (the committee also included Westcott and Hort), the predecessor of all modern versions:

“THE MANUSCRIPTS WHICH ERASMUS USED DIFFER, FOR THE MOST PART, ONLY IN SMALL AND INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS, FROM THE GREAT BULK OF THE CURSIVE MSS. The general character of their text is the same. By this observation the pedigree of the Received Text is carried up beyond the individual manuscripts used by Erasmus ... That pedigree stretches back to remote antiquity. THE FIRST ANCESTOR OF THE RECEIVED TEXT WAS AT LEAST CONTEMPORARY WITH THE OLDEST OF OUR EXTANT MSS, IF NOT OLDER THAN ANY ONE OF THEM” (Ellicott, The Revisers and the Greek Text of the N.T. by two members of the N.T. Company, pp. 11-12).

Dr. Ellicott was familiar with all of the textual scholarship of his day, and he had no hesitation whatsoever to say that the Received Text is based upon textual authority which is at least as old as that upon which the Westcott-Hort text rested. Dr. Ellicott was saying that the textual authority underlying the Received Text is at least as old as the famed Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.

THE TESTIMONY OF THE TRINITARIAN BIBLE SOCIETY DISPELS THIS MYTH

The Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) of London, England, puts the matter into a perspective that many modern version defenders seem to try their best to ignore. The TBS was formed from a conflict within the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) over the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus Christ. The BFBS, which was organized in 1804, refused to take a stand against Unitarianism, and those men who were concerned for doctrinal purity left in 1831 to form the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS). In the early years of the TBS, the matter of different Bible texts and versions was not a serious issue in the sense it was to become at the end of the nineteenth century. Though there were textual critics in the first half of the 1800s, they did not exercise wide influence in ordinary Christian circles. The battles faced by Trinitarian in its earlier years were in other directions. With the publication of the English Revised Version (ERV) and the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, the TBS began to take a more active position on texts and versions. A number of articles were published in the TBS Quarterly Record at the turn of the century critiquing the ERV and supporting the Received Text. Some of these drew heavily upon John Burgon’s Revision Revised, as well as the research of F.C. Cook and F.H.A. Scrivener. From that time to this, Trinitarian has stood solidly behind the Received Text and the King James Bible. Of particular note in the defense of the Authorized Bible within the TBS is Terence Harvey Brown, TBS Secretary from 1958 to 1990. Brown authored many of the scholarly, Bible-believing publications produced by TBS during these years, publications that influenced great numbers of people around the world. This is described in the official history of the TBS as follows: “From 1958 onwards the TBS waged war on all these fronts with considerable vigour. Successive modern English translations were reviewed by the secretary in the Quarterly Record, and their defects analysed” (Andrew J. Brown, The Word of God Among All Nations: A Brief History of the Trinitarian Bible Society 1831-1981, p. 118).

The following testimony by the Trinitarian Bible Society explodes the myth that the Received Greek Text is a “late text” whereas the eclectic Greek text is a “old text.”

“It must be emphasised that THE ARGUMENT IS NOT BETWEEN AN ANCIENT TEXT AND A RECENT ONE, BUT BETWEEN TWO ANCIENT FORMS OF THE TEXT, one of which was rejected and the other adopted and preserved by the Church as a whole and remaining in common use for more than fifteen centuries. The assumptions of modern textual criticism are based upon the discordant testimony of a few specimens of the rejected text recently disinterred from the oblivion to which they had been deliberately and wisely consigned in the 4th century” (The Divine Original, TBS article No. 13, nd, p. 7).
Dean John Burgon wrote this about the Scriptures.
Concerning the preservation of the Scriptures, our faith is not in man, but in God. Even if the Reformation editors had fewer resources than those of more recent times, we know that the God who controls the times and the seasons was in control of His Holy Word. The infallible Scriptures were not hidden away in some monastic dungeon at the foot of Mt. Sinai or in a dusty corner of the Pope’s library. The infallible Scriptures were being published, read, and taught by God’s people.
That quote is important because if you believe that the older manscripts were better then why were they kept out of view for so long and the texts that the Eramsus used were widely used in between?
Dean Burgon wasn't some haphazard fellow, this is some of the research he did into the issue. That is a lot of work to make his point. If you aren't willing to accept his research, then there is little point continuing this discussion.
BURGON’S RESEARCH INTO THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE THROUGH CHURCH HISTORY HAS, IN SOME WAYS, NEVER BEEN EQUALED. THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE OF HIS RESEARCH INTO THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE SCRIPTURES OF CHURCH LEADERS OF ANTIQUITY. To discover what Scripture text the ancient church leaders were using, Burgon laboriously dug out 86,489 quotations from ancient Christian writings and compiled these into sixteen thick manuscript volumes, which are located today in the British Museum. More than 4,000 of the quotations are from writers who lived before 400 A.D. By this peerless research, Burgon was convinced that the Received Text underlying the Reformation Bibles is the very text which has been used by God’s people through the centuries and is thus the preserved Word of God. He concluded: “Call this text Erasmian or Complutensian, the text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs, call it the Received or the Traditional, or by whatever name you please--the fact remains that a text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, and ancient Versions” (Burgon, The Revision Revised, 1881).

Our exaltation of the KJV is saying that it is the best translation we have in English, not that it is perfect or that it is the only translation you can use, but the best one to use.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
It is the modern translations that based on the faulty manuscripts, not the KJV.
Is the Received Text Based on a Few Late Manuscripts?

Christians today have the option of using a horribly outdated Bible with the New Testament translated largely from a Greek text edited by a Roman Catholic businessman seeking to make a financial gain, or a Bible in contemporary English with the New Testament translated largely from a Greek text edited over a period of hundreds of years by scores of scholars in our finest universities who devoted their lives to giving us the most accurate possible New Testament. Much of the same could be said of the Old Testament in our Bibles. For most Christians, however, the choice will not likely make a substantial difference in their lives. But, when Christians become obsessed with defending a version of the Bible that cannot be defended without resorting to extreme dishonesty and maliciousness toward our Christian brethren, a very substantial difference is made in their lives—and I fear, for eternity!
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Can I presume that when you say, 'legal' that you really mean legalistic?

When I lived my 7 years in Canada & the USA, I tried to obey the law and do all things with my family legally. I don't think that this is what you refer to.

To know that Christ paid for our sins with his death on the cross and to confess Christ as Lord are found in all standard English translations that I have read. I am not referring to the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation.

This we know: The Textus Receptus Greek text used for the KJV NT is not based on the earliest and best MSS. See my article, 'The Greek text, the KJV, and English translations'.

In Christ, Oz

Yes legalism is aligned with K.J. only Churches.

I realize the u tube was seventh day,nevertheless it is a good example of changes made.

The N.K.J. has 1200 changes that are aimed at Christ not being in the God head.

The term son is replaced with servant,and many more phrases and accounts are removed.

I will check out your article,I believe the the new testament was written in the most common for of language of that day.

It would make no sense to translate in another Greek dialect.

It is not so much the translation but the changes and deletions,that concern me.

Any way what is wrong with the K.J.?

We must trust God for a foundation of truth on which to live by,and we cannot have unity with every one quoting a Bible that suites them.

Thanks bro God bless.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

classicalhero

Junior Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,631
399
Perth,Western Australia
✟11,338.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Christians today have the option of using a horribly outdated Bible with the New Testament translated largely from a Greek text edited by a Roman Catholic businessman seeking to make a financial gain, or a Bible in contemporary English with the New Testament translated largely from a Greek text edited over a period of hundreds of years by scores of scholars in our finest universities who devoted their lives to giving us the most accurate possible New Testament. Much of the same could be said of the Old Testament in our Bibles. For most Christians, however, the choice will not likely make a substantial difference in their lives. But, when Christians become obsessed with defending a version of the Bible that cannot be defended without resorting to extreme dishonesty and maliciousness toward our Christian brethren, a very substantial difference is made in their lives—and I fear, for eternity!
The fact that you ignore scholars of high remark is troubling. Ther is no point in continuing this discussion,since you are ignoring people who spent their whole lives on this issue and they are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. Even those on the committee that gave us the Westcott and Hort Greek Bible agree that Eramsus used scripture that was from antiquity.
 
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
You know the S.D.A and Jehovah's,,Mormons,and many other groups are in one accord on their Bible.

Baptist are God fearing honorable people.

Why is their such debate over what text is used?

Some one is wrong,not all text would be in agreement.

Look to what ever Bible gives our Lord the most glory thats about all I can say.
 
Upvote 0

FundamentalistJohn

Regular Member
Feb 23, 2008
644
56
✟8,589.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You know the S.D.A and Jehovah's,,Mormons,and many other groups are in one accord on their Bible.

Baptist are God fearing honorable people.

Why is their such debate over what text is used?

Some one is wrong,not all text would be in agreement.

Look to what ever Bible gives our Lord the most glory thats about all I can say.


I think the debate amongst many Christians stems from a true love for the written word of God. I believe that can be said of both sides of the KJVO issue. I'm not a KJVOnliest but those that I have known, are so, because they truly believe it is the best revelation of God in written form.
 
Upvote 0

motherprayer

Elisha
Jul 12, 2012
8,466
586
Visit site
✟19,375.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You know the S.D.A and Jehovah's,,Mormons,and many other groups are in one accord on their Bible.

Baptist are God fearing honorable people.

Why is their such debate over what text is used?

Some one is wrong,not all text would be in agreement.

Look to what ever Bible gives our Lord the most glory thats about all I can say.

Id say whatever PEOPLE give God the most Glory, not what Bible they use.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Their pastors very seldom, if ever, have a good university and seminary education, and seldom have even a bachelor’s degree from an accredited Bible college. Indeed, they may have as little as a second grade education! [/quote]

I would like to know where in the scriptures it says a preacher/pastor/undershepherd must have college/seminary/or even a degree in order to led the church.

Seems to me, Jesus called ordinary men and then prepared them for His work.

There is an old saying which ids very true:

God does not called the equipted, He equipts the called.

"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." -1 Tim. 3:1-7 (KJV)

Strange, I don't see anywhere where the qualifications say that one has to have a degree, or be college educated, or even have attended a seminary.

Would you be so gracious as to show me one verse that says preachers/pastors must be educated/seminary/college degree holding men.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Jun 22, 2013
99
3
✟7,738.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Their pastors very seldom, if ever, have a good university and seminary education, and seldom have even a bachelor’s degree from an accredited Bible college. Indeed, they may have as little as a second grade education! [/quote]

I would like to know where in the scriptures it says a preacher/pastor/undershepherd must have college/seminary/or even a degree in order to led the church.

Seems to me, Jesus called ordinary men and then prepared them for His work.

There is an old saying which ids very true:

God does not called the equipted, He equipts the called.

Show me one verse that says preachers/pastors must be educated/seminary/college degree holding men.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Universities and seminaries did not exist for another thousand years and did not come into regular use until around 1500. Prior to that time, men were apprentices. They studied scripture, liturgy, and all the other details of their work under the instruction of another.

Wisely, it was figured out that some mentors were better than others in some subjects. One man might be great at teaching preaching, another at Old Testament, etc etc... and eventually, the seminary system is born.

Early Christians still had to go through an educational/training period. The apostles and the 70 first missionaries learned under Jesus, went out to the field, then came back together to share and learn from each other. This is how a modern chaplaincy program runs. Throughout the history of Christianity, pastors learned, trained, and were accountable to each other.

Today, mostly in rural or southern America, a man believes that God has called him to be a preacher, he reads the bible and begins some home or storefront church, without any education, training, or apprenticeship. He no supervision from experts in the field. He has no education and considers whatever he believes to be 'what the bible says'.

I find it a bit offensive to suggest that as opposed to those that go to seminary, Jesus called 'ordinary men'. People with undergraduate and graduate degrees are normal men.

No one should be a pastor, a healer of souls, without at least four years of graduate school and years of close training and supervision. Doctors require four years of medical school and internships - and what they do is less important. Pastors, who are the doctors of souls, without any educational and training are worse than people practicing medicine without an education and training.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I find it a bit offensive to suggest that as opposed to those that go to seminary, Jesus called 'ordinary men'. People with undergraduate and graduate degrees are normal men.

I never wsaid it wasn't a good thing, and I'm not downplaying the benefits of a college or seminary education, however, can you show me the college degree, seminary degree or anything else for the disciples?

John Bunyun, writer of the great novel "Pilghrams Progress" never had a "formal" education.

John L. Dagg, writter of what is considered the very first Baptist systematic theology, and eventually rose to become President of Mercer University in Alabama, never had any more than a sixth grade education.

Dagg overcame extraordinary problems – a limited education, near-blindness, and physical disability – to become a great pastor in Philadelphia and elsewhere and then an educator both in Alabama and as president at Mercer University in Georgia. He was a convinced Calvinist of an evangelical kind who wrote a winsome English prose. His magnum opus, Manual of Theology (1857), was the first comprehensive systematic theology written by a Baptist in America and it became foundationally influential for Baptists in the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_L._Dagg

That is the problem now, as a friend once said:

The problem in the pulpits today is their Momma called them, their father paid for their education, and God had nothing to do with it.

There are far to many men and women in the pulpits today that have the qualifications, yet God has nothing to do with them.

There are far too many men and women who have degrees and preach in a pulpit yet don't know God.

So would you care to show me one verse where a college education, or a seminary education, or a college degree is required to be a pastor?

If not, then that is only your opinion.

I have sscriptures to back my position up.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 22, 2013
99
3
✟7,738.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
I never wsaid it wasn't a good thing, and I'm not downplaying the benefits of a college or seminary education, however, can you show me the college degree, seminary degree or anything else for the disciples?

I already pointed out that those things didn't exist. Seminaries and universities REPLACED the existing system of apprenticeship, supervision, and group accountability. The disciples were picked by another person and were trained and educated by them.

John Bunyun, writer of the great novel "Pilghrams Progress" never had a "formal" education.

John L. Dagg, writter of what is considered the very first Baptist systematic theology, and eventually rose to become President of Mercer University in Alabama, never had any more than a sixth grade education.



John L. Dagg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is the problem now, as a friend once said:

The problem in the pulpits today is their Momma called them, their father paid for their education, and God had nothing to do with it.

There are far to many men and women in the pulpits today that have the qualifications, yet God has nothing to do with them.

There are far too many men and women who have degrees and preach in a pulpit yet don't know God.

Let's be honest here- You are comparing a few exceptions with the general practice. Are there men that could study on their own and learn to be great doctors? Absolutely. Great engineers? Absolutely. Should the fact that a few CAN do something extraordinary mean that it should be ordinary? Not unless you want to drive over bridges or get surgery from those without a formal education.

As a Christian, making bridges, safety inspects, surgery, and all those other things that I expect a person to be educated and well trained in are FAR FAR LESS important than spiritual matters.

So would you care to show me one verse where a college education, or a seminary education, or a college degree is required to be a pastor?

If not, then that is only your opinion.

I have sscriptures to back my position up.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I have already gone over this. Does the bible say you can start your own church without education, training or supervision? No- it says the opposite. The disciples were STUDENTS of Christ, who learned and trained under Jesus, who were supervised by Jesus.

This system has become the modern seminary system. I not only have scripture to back me up, but this is basic NT stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PrincetonGuy
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I already pointed out that those things didn't exist. Seminaries and universities REPLACED the existing system of apprenticeship, supervision, and group accountability. The disciples were picked by another person and were trained and educated by them.



Let's be honest here- You are comparing a few exceptions with the general practice. Are there men that could study on their own and learn to be great doctors? Absolutely. Great engineers? Absolutely. Should the fact that a few CAN do something extraordinary mean that it should be ordinary? Not unless you want to drive over bridges or get surgery from those without a formal education.

As a Christian, making bridges, safety inspects, surgery, and all those other things that I expect a person to be educated and well trained in are FAR FAR LESS important than spiritual matters.



I have already gone over this. Does the bible say you can start your own church without education, training or supervision? No- it says the opposite. The disciples were STUDENTS of Christ, who learned and trained under Jesus, who were supervised by Jesus.

This system has become the modern seminary system. I not only have scripture to back me up, but this is basic NT stuff.

I know the discplies were taught by Jesus. And was a special circumstance.

Yet 1 Tim 3:1-7 give the qualificationis for bishops/pastors.

Please show me where it says they must be seminary trained or have a college degree.

Until then, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Show me.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
Their pastors very seldom, if ever, have a good university and seminary education, and seldom have even a bachelor’s degree from an accredited Bible college. Indeed, they may have as little as a second grade education!

I would like to know where in the scriptures it says a preacher/pastor/undershepherd must have college/seminary/or even a degree in order to led the church.

Seems to me, Jesus called ordinary men and then prepared them for His work.

There is an old saying which ids very true:

God does not called the equipted, He equipts the called.

"This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." -1 Tim. 3:1-7 (KJV)

Strange, I don't see anywhere where the qualifications say that one has to have a degree, or be college educated, or even have attended a seminary.

Would you be so gracious as to show me one verse that says preachers/pastors must be educated/seminary/college degree holding men.

God Bless

Till all are one.

The contemporary literature on the Greek word ἀρσενοκοίτης is abundant and extremely technical, and pastors of independent Baptist churches (and especially pastors of KJV ONLY independent Baptist churches) virtually never (if ever) have enough education to read this literature. Consequently, when members of independent Baptist churches come across (on the internet or elsewhere) this literature and it seems to them to expressly teach that homosexual acts are not sinful, the pastor is unable to refute the arguments used in the literature. This widely opens the door for doubt on the part of any church member that has access to the internet, PBS, or other sources where non-Biblical views are presented and adroitly defended.

To these words of mine already presented in this thread, I would like to add that a substantial part of my personal ministry today is to fundamentalist Christians who have become atheists or agnostics as a consequence of being members of churches that were pastored by men who had ridiculously poor educations. These former Christians were taught, as young people, a simplistic view of the scriptures, but in college they learned objectively verifiable facts from very learned men and women that not only disproved what their pastors taught them, but caused them to realize how horribly ignorant their pastors were. The consequence was that these young people not only rejected what they had learned from their pastors, but they rejected the Bible from which their pastors taught!

These young people are a part of a fellowship of atheists and agnostics in my community, and none of them had been members of a church that was pastored by a pastor with an excellent university and seminary education—or even a good Bible college education! Never once had they heard the Bible presented to them in an academically defensible manner—and they sit and talk with me for two or three hours at time!

The Apostle Paul was an exceptionally well-educated man and Luke was a physician with an excellent education. Between the two of them, they wrote over half (53%) of the verses in the New Testament. John was not an uneducated man—he owned a fleet of fishing boats and was a personal friend of the high priest and thus likely a well-educated man. He wrote 18% of the verses in the New Testament. Mark, the son of a very wealthy woman and likely a very well educated man, wrote 9% of the verses in the New Testament. Peter, the least educated, wrote only 2% of the verses in the New Testament. All of them were polylingual and had an intimate knowledge of Greek and Aramaic, and at least some knowledge of Hebrew and Latin—knowledge that today requires many years of academic study to acquire. The twelve disciples of Jesus, the first teachers in the apostolic church (with the obvious exception of Judas), were eyewitness to the events that we read of in the gospels and they heard what Jesus actually said—giving them knowledge that it takes today’s scholars decades to imperfectly piece together! All of these men were also intimately familiar with the cultures in which they lived and had no need to spend several years in a seminary learning about them. We, today, are not so fortunate as to acquire this knowledge without investing many years in the study of the Scriptures with the assistance of those who have studied and learned before us.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
The N.K.J. has 1200 changes that are aimed at Christ not being in the God head.

All of the translators of the NKJV were believers in the Trinity. As for the “changes” to the KJV, please read the preface to that translation. Please also read the preface to the KJV. Although it has been deleted from nearly all modern copies of the KJV, it can be read on the internet. Please also read the prefaces to all the major translations of the Bible (they also can be read on the internet).
 
Upvote 0

PrincetonGuy

Veteran
Feb 19, 2005
4,873
2,265
U.S.A.
✟106,060.00
Faith
Baptist
The fact that you ignore scholars of high remark is troubling. Ther is no point in continuing this discussion,since you are ignoring people who spent their whole lives on this issue and they are saying the exact opposite of what you are saying. Even those on the committee that gave us the Westcott and Hort Greek Bible agree that Eramsus used scripture that was from antiquity.

I do not ignore scholars who are internationally known for their academic excellence and who teach in universities and seminaries that are internationally known for their academic excellence. The difficulty with your point of view is that there are no such men who hold to it!
 
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
To these words of mine already presented in this thread, I would like to add that a substantial part of my personal ministry today is to fundamentalist Christians who have become atheists or agnostics as a consequence of being members of churches that were pastored by men who had ridiculously poor educations. These former Christians were taught, as young people, a simplistic view of the scriptures, but in college they learned objectively verifiable facts from very learned men and women that not only disproved what their pastors taught them, but caused them to realize how horribly ignorant their pastors were. The consequence was that these young people not only rejected what they had learned from their pastors, but they rejected the Bible from which their pastors taught!

These young people are a part of a fellowship of atheists and agnostics in my community, and none of them had been members of a church that was pastored by a pastor with an excellent university and seminary education—or even a good Bible college education! Never once had they heard the Bible presented to them in an academically defensible manner—and they sit and talk with me for two or three hours at time!

The Apostle Paul was an exceptionally well-educated man and Luke was a physician with an excellent education. Between the two of them, they wrote over half (53%) of the verses in the New Testament. John was not an uneducated man—he owned a fleet of fishing boats and was a personal friend of the high priest and thus likely a well-educated man. He wrote 18% of the verses in the New Testament. Mark, the son of a very wealthy woman and likely a very well educated man, wrote 9% of the verses in the New Testament. Peter, the least educated, wrote only 2% of the verses in the New Testament. All of them were polylingual and had an intimate knowledge of Greek and Aramaic, and at least some knowledge of Hebrew and Latin—knowledge that today requires many years of academic study to acquire. The twelve disciples of Jesus, the first teachers in the apostolic church (with the obvious exception of Judas), were eyewitness to the events that we read of in the gospels and they heard what Jesus actually said—giving them knowledge that it takes today’s scholars decades to imperfectly piece together! All of these men were also intimately familiar with the cultures in which they lived and had no need to spend several years in a seminary learning about them. We, today, are not so fortunate as to acquire this knowledge without investing many years in the study of the Scriptures with the assistance of those who have studied and learned before us.
Well said, Princeton, and long overdue in this thread.

I have a similar situation here in Australia, particularly among the Pentecostals, charismatics and rock 'n roll contemporary evangelical churches that do not equip the saints for the work of ministry (when they are in the latter years of high school and university).

Many do not know how to defend the faith. I was in that exact situation back in the early 1980s. I felt theologically naked in university classes and set about equipping myself with the help of evangelical apologists.

We owe it to the contemporary generation to help them articulate a thinking kind of faith and not a faith of lemmings.

Oz
 
Upvote 0

SoulBap6

Newbie
Sep 12, 2011
511
15
✟8,358.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
They believe that the KJV is perfect and without error and they do old timey preaching about Hell and stuff. Do you think they are a cult or they are just like any other Baptist Church?

I have read the comments About IFB Preachers Most of us have either a Bachelors, Masters or a Doctoral Degree from an credited College, or University. I find that most Baptist Churches are Independent and make the decisions about the Church its self. Because we do not agree with some points with other Baptist Churches. It makes us no less or no more then any other Baptist Church.

By and large our Doctrine is the Same, but some people have a problem about Hell fire and brim stone preaching. The Bible we choose and the rules we try to live by, no we our not a cult unless you call the SBC a Cult also. I went to Bob Jones University and I have Bachelors Degree. WE do believe in equipping our Bishops, so please understand all Churches are not the same. I realize that their our people that have not gone to church and studied to be a Pastor or a Deacon. I find that some of these people our very gifted, But the Bible tells us to study to show thy self approved, I will leave you with that thought.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
Most of Gods chosen Old and New testaments,would not be the popular choice.

A Shepard boy,became King David,a harlot in the bloodline of Christ.

A fisherman as Chief Apostle.

Paul was highly educated in false doctrine, a cruel man transformed to write much of the New Testament.

God never picked the self righteous sheltered people.

He picked men and women that would give him glory.

He did not pick people to educated to see beyond themselves.

Reminds me of a lot of people today.
 
Upvote 0