Why don't the MV's keep their principle, the Oldest the Best?

[Pastor Larry]

The site you quoted doesn't cover very much issues of what Dave Hunt pointed out. It is about 530 pages book with heavily quoted Bible verses, requiring lots of thoughts on Systematic Theology.

Actually, it covers all of the major types of errors that Hunt made. Hunt's book was a travesty. No one who knows what they are talking about would recommend that book. Hunt was unethical and dishonest in it.

JN 14:25 mentions the timing, the presence of the disciples.

I can read. I know what it says. Does it apply to you?

Then do you believe Mt 28:19 applies to you? Because Jesus asked the Disciples to teach the people and make them disciples. Then the next disciples did the same, made another generation His disciples, and they did the same continuously down to our generation, and we became His disciples. The teachings given to the Disciples by Jesus still applies to our generation, don't you agree ?

Yes. Of course. The study of the Scripture shows that to be clear. As you can tell from reading, the context of Matt 28 and John 14 are entirely different contexts.

 

[Pastor Larry]

How do you compromise the Limited Atonement with this verse?

1 Jn 2
2And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

I want to hear your own word.

I don't compromise limited atonement with that verse. That verse can be explained either way, depending on how one defines propitiation. Many Calvinists believe this verse speaks of Christ dying for the sins of all men without exception, and many believe it speaks of Christ dying for all men without distinction. Limited atonement is not necessarily affected by either.

 

[gb93433]

In above sentence you are still refusing to follow the Apostles because they are imperfect. But the truth is that what they wrote was by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Paul asked us to follow him in pursuing Jesus Christ.

There is a big difference in writing scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the life they lived. Their lives were not always lived consistently under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit.

Now you reject Jesus claiming that what Jesus said is a historical truth, not applicable to your life.

Not all of scripture applies to me personally. Have you ever went out and hung yourself like Judas did?

BY your logic, you reject the teachings by Jesus Christ as if they had applied only to the disciples.

Could you quote me wherever I implied or ever made such a statement?

You reject the teachings by the apostles because they are imperfect, insinuating that they disagreed with Jesus Christ.

Do you not agree with what Paul wrote in Phillipians 3:12, "Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus."?

You may want to read the book of Acts to find out why the early followers of Jesus were called Christians. I certainly would not call myself a Paulian. You may want read 1 Cor and see how the issue of following particular people is dealt with.

At the end you have many reasons to reject and refuse the Words of God, which is typical to the stubborn people.

Actually that is not true but I do find that true of oyu because oyu fail to understand the most basic hermeneutic of interpreting scripture in light of its historical context. In effect going from exegesis to theology then to application and homiletics. What you do is to mix exegesis, theology, application, and homiletics together.

Passages addressed to Israel are not addressed to America. We can learn particular principles from them but they do not formulate a theology about America.

 

[Eliyahu]

Actually, it covers all of the major types of errors that Hunt made. Hunt's book was a travesty. No one who knows what they are talking about would recommend that book. Hunt was unethical and dishonest in it.
I can read. I know what it says. Does it apply to you?

This is like the argument asking " Do we have to be baptized in the River Jordan as the disciples were?" We are in His presence every day.
However, I can clearly believe the following applies to my life, which you disagree:

26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Jn 15

26But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Actually HS testifies Jesus Christ to me, and therefore I can believe in Him

Yes. Of course. The study of the Scripture shows that to be clear. As you can tell from reading, the context of Matt 28 and John 14 are entirely different contexts.

Then you are a disciple and you should be guided by HS for all the discernment of the Bible. It is very much absurd that you claim following HS in your life, but not in discerning the texts though you know the Author of the Bible texts are HS and He can teach about the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

This is like the argument asking " Do we have to be baptized in the River Jordan as the disciples were?" We are in His presence every day.

No, it's nothing like that. John 14:25 was referring to the physical presence of Jesus, and v. 26 is built off of that. If you don't qualify for v. 25 (and you don't), then you don't qualify for v. 26 (and you don't).

However, I can clearly believe the following applies to my life, which you disagree:

I know you clearly believe that. It's wrong, and that is clear from v. 25.

 

[Rippon]

I don't compromise limited atonement with that verse. That verse can be explained either way, depending on how one defines propitiation. Many Calvinists believe this verse speaks of Christ dying for the sins of all men without exception, and many believe it speaks of Christ dying for all men without distinction. Limited atonement is not necessarily affected by either.

Who are these "many Calvinists"? Packer, Sproul, MacArthur, Boice, Pink, Lloyd-Jones,Spurgeon and company certainly have not held to that.

 

[Eliyahu]

There is a big difference in writing scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the life they lived. Their lives were not always lived consistently under the guidance and direction of the Holy Spirit.

So, do you reject the teachings in the Epistles?

Not all of scripture applies to me personally. Have you ever went out and hung yourself like Judas did?

Did I mention that we have to follow Judas Iscariot? Don't you distinuish between Paul and Judas Iscariot?

Could you quote me wherever I implied or ever made such a statement?

Do you not agree with what Paul wrote in Phillipians 3:12, "Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus."?

You may want to read the book of Acts to find out why the early followers of Jesus were called Christians. I certainly would not call myself a Paulian. You may want read 1 Cor and see how the issue of following particular people is dealt with.

Actually that is not true but I do find that true of oyu because oyu fail to understand the most basic hermeneutic of interpreting scripture in light of its historical context. In effect going from exegesis to theology then to application and homiletics. What you do is to mix exegesis, theology, application, and homiletics together.

Passages addressed to Israel are not addressed to America. We can learn particular principles from them but they do not formulate a theology about America.

This is a quagmire in the debate. We have to return to the basic issues.
In discerning the Bible issues, we have to follow the Holy Spirit, which is my stance.
Do you disagree to this belief?
Do you believe that you have to follow TC?

When I mentioned the Believers following the Apostles, did you think that we should depart from Jesus and follow the Apostles?
I doubt about your capacity to understand the writings !

Do you reject 1, 2 Peter because he denied Jesus three times?
Do you reject Pauline Epistles because he didn't get along with Mark?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Who are these "many Calvinists"? Packer, Sproul, MacArthur, Boice, Pink, Lloyd-Jones,Spurgeon and company certainly have not held to that.

Those are not all the Calvinists. Four point Calvinists would usually hold to the position I described, and there are a good number of those. I am not saying they are right (or wrong). I am saying that that verse is not a lynch pin in either direction.

 

[Eliyahu]

No, it's nothing like that. John 14:25 was referring to the physical presence of Jesus, and v. 26 is built off of that. If you don't qualify for v. 25 (and you don't), then you don't qualify for v. 26 (and you don't).

I know you clearly believe that. It's wrong, and that is clear from v. 25.

So, do you reject the application of this verse to yourself because you were not present there?

John 14
6Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

14If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

20At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

 

[gb93433]

So, do you reject the teachings in the Epistles?

Do all of the women in your church wear a head covering as respect?

Did I mention that we have to follow Judas Iscariot? Don't you distinuish between Paul and Judas Iscariot?

Did you not mention that all of scripture is applicable by you?

Do you believe that you have to follow TC?

Not even the textual critics would remotely suggest that. If you were to follow that issue you would also realize that they have changed their opiniuons at times.

When I mentioned the Believers following the Apostles, did you think that we should depart from Jesus and follow the Apostles?

No it was my assumption that you were suggesting that we do both.

I doubt about your capacity to understand the writings !

One who makes that kind of a statement is usually found out to be wanting of what they find wrong in others. The log in their eye is bigger than they think. I have never found a true scholar ever say such a thing to anyone.

Do you reject 1, 2 Peter because he denied Jesus three times?
Do you reject Pauline Epistles because he didn't get along with Mark?

Rejecting scripture and following Jesus disciples is very different. Jesus wrote none of scripture yet I choose to follow Him.

 

[Eliyahu]

Do all of the women in your church wear a head covering as respect?

YES, this is one of many faithful aspects in our assemblies. Go to any of the Gospel Hall or Gospel Chapel in your area. PLymouth Brethren have the women believers wearing the Head Covering in the service. This is why we say we follow the instructions shown by the Apostles.

Did you not mention that all of scripture is applicable by you?

Yes, the teachings of the Bible applies to me. It doesn't mean that I have to betray Jesus as Judas did. If you try to reject the application of the Bible in such a logic, it is a childish attitude, which will be punished by God severely! Be careful in that trap!

Not even the textual critics would remotely suggest that. If you were to follow that issue you would also realize that they have changed their opiniuons at times.

None of them would say you should depart from the HS openly, but if they haven't suggested you that you should follow the guidance by the Holy Spirit, which I am proclaiming now, then they are inducing you to get away from HS.

No it was my assumption that you were suggesting that we do both.

One who makes that kind of a statement is usually found out to be wanting of what they find wrong in others. The log in their eye is bigger than they think. I have never found a true scholar ever say such a thing to anyone.

If you have the capacity, then it is OK. But you must demonstrate that you can distinguish what in the Bible can be applicable to you, because not all the statements in the Bible are the teachings as there are differences between Facts and Truth.

Rejecting scripture and following Jesus disciples is very different. Jesus wrote none of scripture yet I choose to follow Him.

Great ! Then follow HS whom Jesus has sent to you, who can testify about the Word of God, Words of Jesus Christ, not following TC god.

 

[gb93433]

YES, this is one of many faithful aspects in our assemblies. Go to any of the Gospel Hall or Gospel Chapel in your area. PLymouth Brethren have the women believers wearing the Head Covering in the service. This is why we say we follow the instructions shown by the Apostles.

That is not true of all Plymouth Brethren churches. Nor is that teaching found in all Plymouth Brethren Churches.

Yes, the teachings of the Bible applies to me. It doesn't mean that I have to betray Jesus as Judas did.

Then you have you chosen what scripture is teaching and what is not. You cannot apply everything that is taught in the Bible. It is an impossibility. Not even Plymouth Brethren teach what you suggest. One of my friends is a former Plymouth Brethren pastor and some of my other friends are heavily involved in a Plymouth Brethren Church. Not one of them even remotely teach what you suggest. Some Plymouth Brethren Churches do have full time pastors who have graduated from seminary.

[quoteIf you try to reject the application of the Bible in such a logic, it is a childish attitude, which will be punished by God severely! Be careful in that trap![/quote] You are guilty of the very same thing you warn me about. You cannot apply scripture apart from the message but it must be tied to the message. A good example of that error is found in Rev. 3:20 and using it with non-believers. Just because the "right words" sound good does not mean the application is from Rev. 3:20.

None of them would say you should depart from the HS openly, but if they haven't suggested you that you should follow the guidance by the Holy Spirit, which I am proclaiming now, then they are inducing you to get away from HS.

In some Plymouth Brethren Churches I have found the German Rationalism of Larkin and the allegorical approach of C.H. McIntosh. Yor theology is filled with much the same spiritualization and allegorical approach as C.H. McIntosh. Spurgeon called that Darbyism.

Great ! Then follow HS whom Jesus has sent to you, who can testify about the Word of God, Words of Jesus Christ, not following TC god.

When I talk with people TC is never an issue. It is not an issue until later, usually much later. It seems to be more of an issue among the KJVOs.

 

[Eliyahu]

That is not true of all Plymouth Brethren churches. Nor is that teaching found in all Plymouth Brethren Churches.

If they don't practice the teachings of the Bible like Weekly Lord Supper, Baptism by Immersion, Believers Baptism, Head Covering for the Women Believers, NO Pastor System, they are not Plymouth Brethren.

Then you have you chosen what scripture is teaching and what is not. You cannot apply everything that is taught in the Bible. It is an impossibility. Not even Plymouth Brethren teach what you suggest. One of my friends is a former Plymouth Brethren pastor and some of my other friends are heavily involved in a Plymouth Brethren Church. Not one of them even remotely teach what you suggest. Some Plymouth Brethren Churches do have full time pastors who have graduated from seminary. [/quote}

What a contradiction is there ! If they have the Pastoral system, they are denying the Bible Truth practiced by the True Believers.
True Plymouth Brethren have no Pastors in their assemblies ( we don't call Eklesia churches but Assemblies, Chapels, or Gospel Halls). There are many pseudo-Plymouth Brethren, and many are mistaken there.

In some Plymouth Brethren Churches I have found the German Rationalism of Larkin and the allegorical approach of C.H. McIntosh. Yor theology is filled with much the same spiritualization and allegorical approach as C.H. McIntosh. Spurgeon called that Darbyism.

McINtosh is a great man of God, Spurgeon was a great preacher but showed the contradiction in his Calvinism. I hope you stopped smoking earlier than he did. Spurgeon was wrong when he challenged Darby many times. It may be because he smoked cigarette too much that he died earlier. If he lived as Darby lived, he could have lived longer.

When I talk with people TC is never an issue. It is not an issue until later, usually much later. It seems to be more of an issue among the KJVOs.

The sequence might have been in this way.
In the early days of 16-17 c, the ancestors of the MV were quiet about the translation or against Tyndale or against KJV. As time goes on, they couldn't stop KJV and noticed that the Bible translation can be done without persecution. Then they started to argue against KJV.
If there were any persecution against translations, few MV translators would have dared to challenge for the translation.
Then they started the Revision Committee, and modified the Bible based mainly on Vatican Text preserved and modified by the RCC, the Center of Idolatry and Goddess Worship. Then KJV supporters pointed out the problems with the MV's. Then MV's brought the TC, which is an excuse for the WH-NA and Vatican texts, which drives the people into Chaos or into " nobody knows".

 

[Eliyahu]

gb,

Don't misunderstand about PB. The followings are the basic principles of PB. PB are basically the Fundamental, Independent Baptists. They are absolutely Baptists !

Plymouth Brethren


They are not different from the majority of the Protestant Churches on the basic doctrines but differ in actual practices.

PB Believes:
1. Deity of Jesus Christ, and believe that the Trinity is the best human expression about the Godheads relationship.
2. Redemption by the Blood and Death of Jesus Christ.
3. Salvation by Grace, not by works or not by Grace+ Works.
4. Sola Scriptura
5. Once Saved Always Saved ( I personally tolerate the objection to this)
6. Second coming of Jesus
7. Rapture before Great Tribulation ( I personally disagree to this)

PB Rejects:
1. Infant Baptism
2. Baptismal Regeneration
3. Baptism by sprinkling
4. Clergy System
5. Theotokos
6. Women Pastors

PB Practices

1. Baptism by Immersion
2. Testimony Hearing before Baptism
3. Weekly Lord Supper ( Remembrance)
4. Plural Overseers (=Elders)
5. Women Head Covering
6. Every Believers are the Priests
7. Discipline on the sins and misconducts
8. Letter of Commendation
9. Calling Brothers and Sisters
10. Mostly KJV ( sometimes NKJV) used.
11. No Head quarters, NO general assembly.
12. No Pastor

 

[EdSutton]

Spurgeon was a great preacher but showed the contradiction in his Calvinism. I hope you stopped smoking earlier than he did. Spurgeon was wrong when he challenged Darby many times. It may be because he smoked cigarette too much that he died earlier.

Amazing that someone would degrade C. H. Spurgeon's cigars by calling them cigarettes.

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan smoked cigars, on the other hand, as well as cigarettes, at times. :saint: :laugh:

Ed

 

[Eliyahu]

Amazing that someone would degrade C. H. Spurgeon's cigars by calling them cigarettes.

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan smoked cigars, on the other hand, as well as cigarettes, at times. :saint: :laugh:

Ed

You are right there !
The Cigarette companies advertized their Cigarettes referring to Spurgeon's Cigars !:laugh:

 

[gb93433]

If they don't practice the teachings of the Bible like Weekly Lord Supper, Baptism by Immersion, Believers Baptism, Head Covering for the Women Believers, NO Pastor System, they are not Plymouth Brethren.

While that is often the norm it is not always true of every Plymouth Brethren Church. The one my friend was at I think was about 1000 in attendance each week.

 

[gb93433]

McINtosh is a great man of God, Spurgeon was a great preacher but showed the contradiction in his Calvinism. I hope you stopped smoking earlier than he did. Spurgeon was wrong when he challenged Darby many times.

Have you read C.H.M.s commentary on the Pentateuch? I have no doubt he was a great man of God but I doubt that I would find anyone today who would agree with all of his allegorical apporaoch to the first 5 books of the OT.

 

[gb93433]

Dr. G. Campbell Morgan smoked cigars, on the other hand, as well as cigarettes, at times.

Look at how long George Burns lived.

Many pastors during those days packed a pistol too. I bet that reduced the number of arguments.

Years ago there was a man in the church I pastored who told me that he had packed a pistol to church and on one occasion it solved some harassment he was receiving from another control freak in the church. When I pastored the church the son of the contro freak gave me a lot of trouble.

 

[Eliyahu]

While that is often the norm it is not always true of every Plymouth Brethren Church. The one my friend was at I think was about 1000 in attendance each week.

It is not PB, I am sure. We normally seek the new development of another church when we start to have more than 100 of the baptized members, and then when we reach 200 members, we work very hard to find the place for the second assembly.

The reason for that is this.

We practice Lord Supper every week and most of the male members stand up and pray, praise the Lord. If we have too many members, each one cannot grow spiritually very much, and each one can have little chance to pray. Moreover, if the number of the members are too many, we do not know each other and cannot have the friendly and close relationship each other. In the process of developing a new assembly, each one has to do a lot for the Lord, has to study the Bible very much, and each one has to prepare for preaching and each one can have a chance to preach from the pulpit, and thereby every member of the PB can preach the Gospel as much as any of the pastors do. PB are very much fundamental Baptists.

Arthur Farstad, the main translator for NKJV and HCSB, was PB as well as Zane Hodge is. I think they gathered together in Dallas Assembly.