Separation

I voted that I would not separate on issues pertaining to versions of the Bible but actually I would draw the line at use of the New World Translation.

 

In general, I do not believe in "ecclesiastical separation" against those who are Christians.

Romans 16:17 "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (ESV). Unless given Scriptural reason to do otherwise, I avoid dividing from fellow Christians.

These are the exceptions that I know of:

1Corinthians 5:11 but as it is, I wrote unto you not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no, not to eat. (ASV).

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which they received of us.
3:7 For yourselves know how ye ought to imitate us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
...
3:11 For we hear of some that walk among you disorderly, that work not at all, but are busybodies. (ASV)​

Unless these criteria are met, I do not believe I am authorized to separate myself from other Christians.

I also noted "Deity of Christ" because Scripture seems to teach that unless one believes that, s/he is not a Christian. Also, Matthew 7:21-3 teaches that we can recognize Christians by whether or not what they do in their lives is consistent with being Christ's followers. There are groups whose leaders and influencers remorselessly and stubbornly persist in ways contrary to Christ's teachings, and wantonly and staunchly insist that Christ's ways be disregarded as convenient; Christians do worship in such groups, but such groups cannot be treated as churches of Christians. Separation from the world is fitting here.

 

Deity of Christ
Eternal Security
Doctrine of the Trinity
Tongues (gifts of the Spirit)

 

My list:

Deity of Christ
Eternal Security
Doctrine of the Trinity
Spiritual gifts
Other - Women's ordination, sacraments, Original Sin, etc.

 

I take a very strong positive position on all the items "EXCEPT" the "bible version" debate thing -- which I have almost no interest at all in.

I would argue in favor of Deity of Christ and one missing issue - the Bible as the basis for all faith and doctrine as issues that need to be held in common for me to have long term meaningful worship fellowship with another group.

But that would not stop me from "attending" a JW kingdom hall or an RC church service and worshipping with them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

When you speak of "ecclesiastical separation" do you mean "regard them as non-Christian"??

If so - then the "other" category for me would be the line drawn where some says either that the Bible is not the Word of God (which includes anyone who rejects the NT) or that Christ is not our Savior.

Those are the two conditions that "to me" define what is a Christian and what is not.

in Christ,

Bob

 

It certainly would me!

if the LORD [be] God, follow him: but if Baal, [then] follow him.

2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

1Th 5:5 Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness.

 

I have visited an RCC MASS a few times, a Mormon church, a Kingdom hall and even a Church of the Nazarine.

No Budhist temples no Islamic Mosques

 

If I were to attend, I certainly wouldn't be worshipping WITH them...
I would be worshipping in Spite of them...

 

I think that the following is important

1. Trinity

2. Deity of Christ

3. The Bible should be held high

4. If charisimatic do it with moderation

In my town this means that we sometimes cooperate with the moderate pentecostal church in a small scale (example: praying together a few times a year). It also means that we do not often cooperarate with the liberal lutheran church in town.

 

Suppose someone said that they would let go of their insistence that Jesus is NOT God -- but in doing so they would also start believing in darwinist-evolutionism.

Would you find that trade more acceptable and not break fellowship -- if they take the new act of denying Christ as Creator AND denying the bible as accurate when it tells us that God CREATED the heavens and the earth "FOR IN SIX DAYS the LORD CREATED" ??

Would that be more satisfactory for you?

Suppose we read Isaiah 42-44 and find that there as WELL as in Rev 14:6-7 God continually appeals to His LITERAL role as CREATOR as the basis for both Worship AND for trust in Him as SAVIOR!

How many times in scripture do we see that SAME linkage between Christ as GOD and God as SAVIOR? None!

Those who reject the Bible truth that Christ is God will be corrected in heaven. But those who reject Christ as CREATOR and the Bible as a trustworthy document - are in danger "now". Yet because the latter error is "more popular" than the former - it is accepted more readily.

Popularity alone can not continually determine your doctrinal positions friends.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Bob,

Just want to know your stance on this. If you would, please read the following two passages of Scripture and give me your take on them...

Luke 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
Luke 23:40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
Luke 23:41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Matthew 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
Matthew 27:39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
Matthew 27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
Matthew 27:41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
Matthew 27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
Matthew 27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
Matthew 27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.

As you can see these two records contradict one another. Luke has one criminal casting insults on Jesus and the other rebuking him, but Matthew has both crominals casting insults on Jesus. Since the Scripture is the inspired Word of God, which of these two are truely the inspired Word of God?

What about translations? Check this out...

KJV
2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

NIV
2Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
2Timothy 3:17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Why did the NIV leave out "that the man of God may be perfect"? So which Bible version is the correct one?

My point is that yes Scripture is the infallible Word of God, but the Bible although is supposed to be the Scriptures re-written for us; it does have problem areas that does raise question to its authenticity.

Me personally, I believe that the Bible for the most part can be trusted, but for questionable additions such as the ending of Mark, I disregard. I don't use them as sound doctrine to correct or instruct. For other problem passages such as the above; I write it off as human error, and regardless of which one is right or wrong doesn't matter as neither has anything to do with my relationship to God. I just wanted your take on it. :type: (my favorite smiley)

In the name of Jesus Christ,

Ken

 

Oh now you have me in a weak point when you get to the issue of someone that I would ask to teach the youth at my church vs someone I would NOT ask.

In that case he/she has to be Trinitarian, Bible is the Word of God, Baptism by immersion only (if teaching on baptism), Can't be a Calvinist, ABSOLUTELY can not preach atheist-darwinism (which is the only kind of Darwinism there is),,, MUST accept BOTH the OT and the NT as the inspired word of God to be used for doctrine, no "gay agenda" etc etc...

THAT list is VERY long.

sooo - that means the person COULD be a certain kind of Baptist, COULD be a Messianic Jewish pastor, COULD be a member of my own denomination if he/she were conservative enough etc etc.

But I would bend the rules a bit for D.James Kennedy if he were speaking on Creation vs Evolutionism or the Christian movement in America vs the ACLU, or America's Christian heritage.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Both.

In scripture the details "add" instead of conflicting.

Luke tells us that at least one insults Christ and that there is a point in which only one insults Christ.

Matthew tells us that at one point (initially) BOTH were insulting Christ.

Clearly - "Time elapsed" and time "starts" with both insulting Christ then goes to a point where only one is still insulting Christ while the other one is re-thinking the whole thing. The Holy Spirit is moving on his heart as he sees the reaction of Christ to mistreatment.

The same is true in Gen 1 and 2 - we ADD the details and information given instead of opposing one chapter with another.


in Christ,

Bob

 

Old English vs modern english.

Perfect as in "complete" or "mature" in Old English but today we would say "fully prepared". (Peter has an interesting progression showing how the Word of God perfects the saints over time)

Though I will admit that "bias" enteres into the translations at times -

Not so much question about the Bible's authority as about the translator's bias.

Very often I find that what is "inserted" in old manuscripts in one text is "FULLY ACCEPTED" as part of the manuscript in another book of the Bible which leads me to conclude that the "later insert" is not damaging he text.

But I agree that in general I do not use those sections in brackets indicating that they are later insertions by translators and copyists.

in Christ,

Bob