Well that was a perfect waste of typing time. Interesting, and still no answer to my question. Romans 1:22...
KJVOs and Other versions from the TR
- Thread starter abcaines
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,532
- Reaction score
- 3,125
- Points
- 113
Nope, merely discussing or even disagreement on the matter is NOT a waste of time. There are onlookers who are being educated. Those willing to look at the evidence objectively will realize that the passage in question doesn't demand your interpretation, but rather is to be understood in the right contextual view. That being, salvation involves a finished, present, and future application. Sanctification, an ongoing process in the life of the believer, could very well be the understood meaning of the passage.
And on a personal basis, your antagonism (citing Romans 1:22), calling brothers in Christ "fools" is one of the reasons I trended away from that branch of "militant fundamentalism" (KJVO).
From my point of view, there is no conflict between either wording.
While the Cross is being preached, souls are being added to the Church daily. The Church is saved, and is being saved.
I don't see the difficulty.
While the Cross is being preached, souls are being added to the Church daily. The Church is saved, and is being saved.
I don't see the difficulty.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,460
- Reaction score
- 2,445
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
That's what you get for trying to refute the wrong argument.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,460
- Reaction score
- 2,445
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Yes. You did.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,460
- Reaction score
- 2,445
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
From my very limited understanding of Greek, that would seem to be a valid interpretation. I surveyed the 1 Corinthians commentaries I have access to:
"The participles ἀπολλυμένοις (apollymenois) and σῳζομένοις (sōzomenois) are in the present tense, representing this activity as in process" (David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003]).
"Paul’s thesis affirms that there are only two kinds of people in the world—those in the process of perishing and those in the process of being saved" (Craig L. Blomberg, 1 Corinthians, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994).
"Those being saved have not yet all the wisdom of heaven, but their newness of life enables them to weigh spiritual things" (Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians, 2nd ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985]).
"God’s answer to all the wisdom of the world is to act in power ... thus the gospel’s best defence is men and women who are being saved (18) as they respond to the word of the cross" (David Prior, The Message of 1 Corinthians, The Bible Speaks Today [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1985]).
Three in favour of my interpretation, one in yours, but that just suggests the possibility of either.
The "problem" with yours is, then our KJV-onlyist would have to admit that translations saying "being saved" aren't actually wrong.
I'll take the one vote.
The preaching of the Cross is the point, anyway.Yup. And to refuse would be to deny that the preaching of the Cross is ongoing.
Okay my friend, that statement was made out of aggravation. I am however no fundamentalist. Never have been, and never will be. I'm an old time, historic missionary Baptist who rejects even the slightest mention of dispensationalism and such.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,975
- Reaction score
- 104
- Points
- 63
Yes, this jackass does.
His future in Hell has him irritable.
Cheers!
Do you need a hug?
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2012
- Messages
- 9,532
- Reaction score
- 3,125
- Points
- 113
Do you have evidence that historic missionary Baptists are typically opposed to a dispensational framework? And what is your opposition to fundamentalism? And what variety of Christian fundamentalism are you referring to?
Historic Missionary Baptists generally emphasize a more traditional and holistic interpretation of the Bible, often rejecting dispensationalism because it tends to compartmentalize biblical history into distinct periods or "dispensations." This approach can sometimes oversimplify the continuity and unity of God's redemptive plan. Additionally, we view the dispensationalist idea of two forms of grace as heretical, as it contradicts our understanding of the consistent and unified nature of God's grace throughout all time.
As for my opposition to fundamentalism, it's primarily rooted in its tendency to insist on a strict, literal interpretation of scripture, which can lead to exclusionary and rigid thinking. This can sometimes hinder the ability to engage with and understand the complexities of modern life and diverse perspectives.
When I refer to Christian fundamentalism, I'm usually talking about the more conservative, evangelical strands that emerged in the early 20th century, often associated with a strong emphasis on biblical inerrancy and separation from secular culture. I do not disagree with this concept however. What I do disagree with is the strong pastoral authority that's taught by them making the pastor lord over his congregation. The pastor should not be the lord over the congregation. That's for the Lord Jesus Christ only.
To give you a bit of personal context, my family has a history of standing firm in our beliefs, even when faced with opposition. My grandfather, John Henry Davis Sr., established the Back to the Cross Missionary Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, in the late 1950s. He encountered significant challenges from Pastor Jack Hyles of the nearby First Baptist Church of Hammond, particularly because Hyles was a staunch dispensationalist. Despite the confrontations with Hyles, who seemed to go out of his way to convince my grandfather of HIS views, my grandfather remained committed to his faith and principles, embodying the humility and integrity that he believed were essential to true pastoral leadership. Interestingly, I was in my momma's belly during this time, finally to be born in Illinois in 1958, though conceived in the hills of Tennessee. Dad came to help grandpa in this missionary effort while mom was still pregnant with me. Gee whiz, Hyles even had some of his people infiltrate Back to the Cross just to add opposition to my grandfathers pastorate.
Over time, Back to the Cross Missionary Baptist Church was renamed to Trinity Baptist Church, continuing my grandfather's legacy. (just a historical f.y.i.)
As for my opposition to fundamentalism, it's primarily rooted in its tendency to insist on a strict, literal interpretation of scripture, which can lead to exclusionary and rigid thinking. This can sometimes hinder the ability to engage with and understand the complexities of modern life and diverse perspectives.
When I refer to Christian fundamentalism, I'm usually talking about the more conservative, evangelical strands that emerged in the early 20th century, often associated with a strong emphasis on biblical inerrancy and separation from secular culture. I do not disagree with this concept however. What I do disagree with is the strong pastoral authority that's taught by them making the pastor lord over his congregation. The pastor should not be the lord over the congregation. That's for the Lord Jesus Christ only.
To give you a bit of personal context, my family has a history of standing firm in our beliefs, even when faced with opposition. My grandfather, John Henry Davis Sr., established the Back to the Cross Missionary Baptist Church in Hammond, Indiana, in the late 1950s. He encountered significant challenges from Pastor Jack Hyles of the nearby First Baptist Church of Hammond, particularly because Hyles was a staunch dispensationalist. Despite the confrontations with Hyles, who seemed to go out of his way to convince my grandfather of HIS views, my grandfather remained committed to his faith and principles, embodying the humility and integrity that he believed were essential to true pastoral leadership. Interestingly, I was in my momma's belly during this time, finally to be born in Illinois in 1958, though conceived in the hills of Tennessee. Dad came to help grandpa in this missionary effort while mom was still pregnant with me. Gee whiz, Hyles even had some of his people infiltrate Back to the Cross just to add opposition to my grandfathers pastorate.
Over time, Back to the Cross Missionary Baptist Church was renamed to Trinity Baptist Church, continuing my grandfather's legacy. (just a historical f.y.i.)
Last edited:
I once visited one of these Missionary Baptist churches for a few months. I have to say I really enjoyed the service and atmosphere. The pastor was a really nice guy and I recall him taking me under his wing. We played golf together a couple times and he even took me out for breakfast. Unfortunately, as nice as he was, the pastor seemed a “bit off,” and I decided to look elsewhere before becoming a member. A few months after we decided to leave the church, I got news that he had been arrested for embezzlement from the church and in particular, an elderly man who was some type of deacon or similar position.
I can’t speak much for the theology of the denomination because I just never looked into it much. I grew up in a fundamentalist church with parents who attended Bob Jones University, but at the same time, my schooling consisted of public schools and Catholic schools because we didn’t have a good nearby Baptist school, and my college and law school were both secular, so I suppose that’s why I don’t get too wrapped up in theological matters because I’m scattered all over the place lol.
Edit: my apologies because I looked into my opening statement and noticed this was a Missionary Alliance Church, not Missionary Baptist Church in which the pastor was arrested.
Last edited:
I've heard of the Missionary Alliance Church. They aren't Baptists but protestant church fellowships started in the late 1800's. That's another point by the way, in the fundy churches, the pastor even has access or even control of the churches purse strings. Of the churches I've pastored, I refused to be able to even sign a check. It's all about accountability.
From what I can tell, you seem like a good guy so I hope you stick around. We likely do not agree on many things but where is the fun in interacting only with those you agree with 100% of the time?
I spent the first 20 years of my Christian life in the IFB world being heavily indoctrinated in the KJVO movement and have been to numerous conferences and meetings where Jack Hyles was the keynote speaker. Got a good awakening as to what an absolute jerk he was when I had him sign my (Old) Scofield Bible which I still have somewhere packed away. It took pretty much the next 20 years for me to get over, unlearn all of the bad stuff and relearn everything the right way and by God's grace, I am still learning.
There is a gentleman by the name of Mark Ward who does a great job addressing the shortcomings of the KJVO movement without going to the caustic anti-KJV extreme which I can really appreciate. I am no longer KJVO but I find it difficult wrapping my mind around the idea that God does not speak in King James English!
It would be interesting to hear your objections to "Fundamentalism" as well as "Dispensationalism." I have done some study on the history of the Fundamentalist movement during some college work so there are many things from your perspective I would likely appreciate. I still call myself a "Historic Fundamentalist" though based upon my holding to and contending for the basic fundamentals of the faith but I reject the anti-intellectual and anti-scholastic mindset that so many hold to. I am no longer a dispensationalist although there are many vestiges of this mindset that I cannot fully shake off. I currently call myself a "Historic Premillennialist" with some progressive dispensationalist leanings.
Once again, welcome to the forum!
I've chatted with Mr. Ward a couple of times on his YT channel. He does seem a fair fellow. And my stance isn't the foaming at the mouth type of KJB believer also. My objections are actually about the character of those who have trounced on the RT with their manuscripts. If the character is flawed, most certainly their work is also in question. For instance, like the
preexistence of Souls. Origen believed that souls existed before they were placed in the body and that some of those souls were created by God, while the others were created by angels. That's the well of souls teaching that some heretical Jews taught well before Christ came in the flesh. Or that even Satan and his angels would eventually be saved. He also didn't believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit had an equal standing with God the Father. His beliefs were Gnostic when it came to creation, etc, etc, etc... And yes, he believed in scholarship over spirituality.
The same can be said for Westcott and Hort who had some squirrely beliefs of their own.
Thank you for that...
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,460
- Reaction score
- 2,445
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
If you're not a fundamentalist, why are you stealing their bad arguments?
Gee Ransom, I didn't know Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and John Bunyan were fundamentalists that went to Hyle university. I'll have to adjust my history books.