AVBunyan said:
Thad - this is all I can come up with for now or later.
...
That would be fine if you were living in Acts but since the kingdom offer to the Jews is not in affect for now then all your tests donât apply in the age of grace â God is no longer dealing with Israel at this time and the signs, prophecies, gifts, tongues, healing, etc. are only in affect when God is dealing with Israel as a nation. The Jews require a sign (I Cor. 1:22) â their nation is a history of needing signs for authentication staring with Moses and going through Acts but they have ceased. And I would not even attempt to talk you out of your experience.
This does not explain, nor give scriptural evidence, that gifts have ceased. I do not base this doctrine off of a "feeling" but off of scripture and the Holy Spirit, himself. There is nothing in scripture that even hints that the gifts are not around today.
Now this issue will not get settle here for I have given up trying to use sound doctrine to âtalkâ someone out of an experience they had. When experience and doctrine conflict Iâve have seen most always choose the experience they had over scripture for anybody can use scripture to âproveâ just about anything â it just depends on what version, translation, manuscript, prophecy, etc. If fact I wrote a post elsewhere called, âThe Characteristics of the Modern Gifter Todayâ but donât care to get into the subject of gifts here.
Your doctrine is not sound because you have yet to cite scripture on which it is based off of and defended it, even from the KJV.
I'll see if I can locate that thread.
You had better make sure you are discerning right that is all I will say on the matter. I judge things by Paulâs epistles first and foremost.
1 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
1 Thess 5:20 Despise not prophesyings.
This subject of gifts, etc. seems to enflame more than any other today. As mentioned above once a person has had an âexperienceâ then it is virtually impossible, except for the intervention of God, to get them to see otherwise. Many of this movement have elevated experience over the word of God and Iâve given up trying to deal with it. Unless I discern someone is truly sincere in getting to the bottom of the issue I donât make an issue of it. The average saint today is not even grounded in the basics of justification so to talk to them about the gifts is unprofitable to them.
Romans 12
6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; 7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; 8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
9 Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.
I'm relying on Scripture, here, not experience. My experiences match up Scripture, and Scripture takes precidence.
Iâm assuming you are referring to Dr. Ruckman. I donât know what you are referring to when you say âadvanced revelationâ regarding the LXX. I donât believe it has anything to do with prophesy â these men base the misunderstanding of the LXX on research not prophesy.
Research that is highschool level compared to the studies that I have seen here at Rutgers. Not a single
Biblical Biblical scholar seems to agree with him.
This, my friend is where you have enflamed me. Iâm assuming you are taking a âshotâ at Dr. Ruckman and if not forgive me for the following - for if you donât need it them somebody else that is reading this might. I donât know what you know about Dr. Ruckman so if I misrepresent you here then I will publicly apologize. I can take any shots you throw at me personally (and thus far you have refrained and I appreciate it) but when you throw them at Dr. Ruckman I get bent out of shape. Dr. Ruckman does not claim to be a âprophetâ in any way. He would be the first to say he is a sinner saved by the grace of God and that he is infallible. First of all he is âDr.â Ruckman to us who respect his life and ministry â he earned several of those doctorâs degrees by more labour and study than most have done in a lifetime. From where I come from we donât refer to Christian men by their last name but rarely and this by mistake or convenience. Usually when people refer to âRuckmanâ it is in a negative light. It doesnât bother him for he has been in the battle for years but it bothers me. God used this man early after I got saved to introduce me to Godâs word and right division. I know the man, I know his personal life and his love and labor for the Lord â Iâve heard his personal testimony, Iâve been to a King James Bible conference when he was at the church I presently attend (for over 21 years), and heard the manâs heart on matters the average âRuckman basherâ hasnât. Regardless of what you have heard or think the man has done and sacrificed more than the average pastor today in seeking to train young men. Is he perfect? Of course not â who is! But a lot of people make his âattitudeâ the issue and ignore his research. Also, he has forgotten more Greek and Hebrew than most Bible students ever learned. The reason bible-rejecters have issue with him because he knows what they know and they know he knows what they know and it makes them nervous as a termite in a yoyo.
I apologize for making my comment seem like a "shot" at Dr. Ruckman (if that is how you would prefer me to call him). Unfortunately, I cannot trust the Biblical knowledge concerning ancient culture from someone who has said something along the lines of this:
âIt is now 1989. Personally, I think the Lord is coming in the late spring. If I were to hazard a guess now (after receiving an orthodox Jewish calendar from a Jew), I would guess somewhere between the 14th of May and the 20th of Juneâ
-- Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, The Bible Believerâs Bulletin, January, 1989
Number 1, he goes against scripture with his claims to even think this:
Matthew 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth
no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Number 2, he is not familliar enough with the Jewish calendar system (an IMPORTANT part of 1st Century Jewish culture) to know that the Orthodox Jewish Calendar is based upon counted days instead of the lunar cycle that Jesus would have used.
I would love to meet him and talk to him, but he is (in this pericope alone) unscriptural and unscholarly. There are many other pericopes that deal with his research (as this one is a research issue) that demonstrate, as this one, that he did not do thurough research. If he is making mistakes of this caliber on things like this, what else is waiting does not leave much up to the imagination. He says to correct the originals with a translation. This is completely unprecidented, and is akin to trusting something "through a mirror dimly" (the translation) over "that which is perfect" (the original).
Moses was a murderer, David an adulterer, you couldnât trust Noah with a bottle and God used them all. You resorting to what others have lowered themselves to do â find fault with the âfounderâ and ignore the evidence. Regarding the KJV being a late movement you are sadly and grossly mistaken. There were other attempts of different versions prior to the 1800âs and people still stick with the KJV. The reason it is an issue today is because of the mass attacks on the KJV and the mass production of so many new perversions. I could care less about when a âmovementâ started â there have always been people before these apostate times that believed that book was Godâs perfect word.
And yes, Jesus was a "friend of tax collectors and sinners." I concede on this point.
But your talk of the "other versions of the Bible before the KJV" falls through when we look at the Aramaic Peshitta. It is a text that has been in use for nearly 2000 years in the Eastern branch of Christianity. It looks like God was preserving his word, but not on Western terms ;-)
They need to get a Bible from the right line of texts in their language or learn to read from a King James Bible or have somebody read or preach an English KJV to them and have an interpreter interpret for them. Or, take an English KJV and use that as a basis for translating Godâs word into their own language â that is what the missionaries did and God blessed it.
So you're saying that a retro-translation of a translation of a translation is better than the original?
Maybe, then it appears to me that this supports the KJV even more because God is not interested in complicating things. People always say the KJV is too hard to read but I thought the Holy Spirit is the teacher anyway so what is the big deal?
But if the Holy Spirit teaches you something, that is prophesy, and you do not believe in prophesy. This looks like a contradiction to me, please clarify.
Iâm certainly no authority on English. I believe the best English is the English of a King James Bible. Todayâs English is vastly dumbed down and watered down with slang and trash. I am not an English expert and donât claim to be. If I had only one book it would be a King James Bible and I could home school my kids using this for the basis of spelling, grammar, science, history, and logic, etc. Are you getting my point now?
But what about the english that was around before the KJV?
Define "dumbed down and watered down with slang and trash."
If you're teaching your kids KJV english, which has vastly different syntax, spelling, and grammar than today's vulgar english, you are starting your children off with a disadvantage, imho. It's an interesting study, but cannot be the sole source for the english language.
Now, letâs wrap this discussion up. I believe we both have said all we have said on the Bible authority issue and it appears both of us remain âstuck in the mudâ.
I am always up to debate, and you still haven't given me answers that use scripture
This is what I believe and this is where I stand:
1. The 611 AV is Godâs final English translation â inspired, perfect, and without error.
You still have not given sufficient evidence other than "it is because it is."
2. The gifts, prophecies, etc. are done away with. ... Historically I find it hard to believe that the men God used from 1600 on missed having the gifts, etc. (John Owens, John Bunyan, Thomas Watson, John Flavel, Jonathan Edwards, Thomas Boston, John Rutherford, CH Spurgeon, Christopher Love, John Robinson, John Knox, John Paton, William Cary, JF Norris, DL Moody, Sam Jones, George Mueller, and many more). The men above preached from a King James Bible and none of them would fool with the gifts meant for Israel for one minute. ... You mean the Holy Spirit passed these men up and gave âthis blessing (gifts)â to this modern, apostate, fleshly, worldly, lazy group of âChristiansâ today (and I include myself in them also)? Those men listed above would look at us and question our salvation! Donât try to convince me we are more spiritual than those men. Donât try to convince God would save all this for us today.
I feel that you are missing the point.
1 Corinthians 12:29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles? 30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.
Just because they did not have one of them does not make them spiritually inept. As of late, however, other (more contraversial) gifts have come up, and many people have an aversion to contraversy. I feel that you are making me out as closed-minded. If these people were that influencial, it would be apparent that their spiritual gift was teaching, no? It's Biblical and KJV to boot.
Finally, I really do appreciate your comments and remarks for it shows that you take truth seriously and are willing to spend time and effort on it. I donât agree with your positions but it appears you are not lazy.
With that I pray Godâs blessing upon you life and the words of Avbunyan are finished on this subject. I can answer no more questions anymore for if I havenât moved you yet then I will not be able to so in any future posts on the subject. Iâve enjoyed the exchange for it has challenged me and caused me to dig deeper. Iâm sure I could have done a better job of explaining myself and have missed a few things here and there but attribute that to inexperience and lack of spiritual life.
And I appreciate your willingness to keep this discussion going for as long as it did. I strive to test everything and adhere to that which is good, and although our opinions differ greatly, I feel that you have treated me with respect and kindess.
Although I cannot fathom what you mean by "lack of spiritual life"... God is real, and as a result his presence and influence is real. You don't need to be all "deep and spiritual" to experience, trust, and love him.
I admit I cannot handle all your questions. Just donât have all the answers. I'm sure I could have said things differently but for now that's it.
These questions and answers are a life's work. Scratch that. Many lives works. They never come easy (or quickly enough)
Again, after all is said and done then some things you just have to take by faith. I, by faith, believe that the book I have in my hands is God's word.
May God bless
I hope that we can both strive to see the truth.
Aloho' `amokh u-poosh ba-shlomeh,
(God be with you, and stay in his peace)
