Why this confusion over doctrine?

[AVBunyan]

After looking over the topics I believe it may be time to re-post a “summer rerunâ€Â.

Look around you and see the great confusion over doctrinal issues – just look at this forum and others. There are many reasons why we get confused. Some of us are lazy in our Bible studies; little Bible reading, poor church attendance, hearts of unbelief, bad hearts, sin, etc. These are some of the reasons why we just don’t get what God has for us but I’ve narrowed it down to three basics – without these three there will be areas of doctrinal truths lacking.

1. The person may be lost (talked about this before) so he cannot understand spiritual things. No further explanation needed.
1 Cor 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2. The person may have conflicting authorities such as multiple versions of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, his church, pastor, or priest, or his commentaries, etc. All of the above will disagree so what is he or she to do? I just happen to believe that the final authority is God’s word and that is found in a King James Bible.

3. The person doesn’t know what portions of the scriptures first and foremost apply doctrinally to him. He tries to go to the OT, Gospels, Acts, Paul, Tribulation truths, etc. When the passages contradict he doesn’t know how to straighten them out. He thinks the whole Bible is just lumped together and he is to apply it all to him doctrinally forgetting that all the scriptures were written for him but not all to him. He won’t sacrifice a lamb for he knows some of the law is gone but other than that he just tries to reconcile the whole Bible doctrinally to himself today and gets in a mess. The Lord gave the apostle Paul the latest instructions for us today and when one starts there first then the rest starts to make sense:
2 Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

I believe a lot of saved people today are wrestling with #2 and #3 and this is why so many saints today are confused over the major doctrines.

God bless

 

[cyberjosh]

I think I have an idea of what spurred you to write this thread. However what you say does not excuse ignorance of things in the Bible. If I don't understand how something applies to what the Bible is trying to say (me revering the Bible as the infallible word of God) it is my perogative to go and search the Scriptures. There is a difference between wavering over topics already addressed and openning up new avenues of study and comparison which are ill-oft talked about and digging in to get to the bottom of the issue. What I am confused about is not my salvation for I know the basic necessities of following Christ (which includes perseverance) however I am confused about how some transitions are explained in the Bible, such as the transition from the Gospels to the Epistles. It is impossible that the Gospels have no bearing on the interpretation of the epistles thus it must be evaluated. There is nothing wrong with doing so.

P.S. I replied to you in the other thread.

 

[ChristineES]

What would happen if one were to deny Church doctrine and just accept the Word of God?
I see a vast difference at times between what the Church says and what the Bible says. There are times when one reads one verse from a Bible and fails to read the ones that come before it and after it and without those the verse has a totally different meaning. Church denominations were started by men, Christianity was started by Jesus. Are you following men or Jesus; that is the question to ask.

 

[Silverchild79]

What would happen if one were to deny Church doctrine and just accept the Word of God?
I see a vast difference at times between what the Church says and what the Bible says. There are times when one reads one verse from a Bible and fails to read the ones that come before it and after it and without those the verse has a totally different meaning. Church denominations were started by men, Christianity was started by Jesus. Are you following men or Jesus; that is the question to ask.

I'm going to go Cliche on you for a second but so be it

Amen Brother

Not only that but labeling those who ask questions, have minors doubts, or don't see things the way you do as "Lost" and incapable of hearing the WOG is judgement so far as I can tell

 

[AVBunyan]

Not only that but labeling those who ask questions, have minors doubts, or don't see things the way you do as "Lost" and incapable of hearing the WOG is judgement so far as I can tell

You misread me - I said #1 was just a reason for confusion. I never said there is anything wrong with discussion - I'm talking about full-blown chaos and confusion over what should be the basic doctrines.

Being lost was just one of the possibilities - this has to be considered in light of confusion over the basics.

Look, folks, somethings are just hard to be understood:
2 Pet 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

I understand some issues will not be understood this side of glory - but...but...the mass confusion over the doctrine of Christ, salvation, the scriptures, etc. is just too much - :o - something is missing -

I stand by my OP.

God bless

 

[mutzrein]

AV - Is it possible that you categorise others as you have because you believe your doctrinal views to be absolutely correct . . . or could it be that you fit into one of them yourself :-?

 

[AVBunyan]

AV - Is it possible that you categorise others as you have because you believe your doctrinal views to be absolutely correct . . . or could it be that you fit into one of them yourself :-?

Mutz - I know I come across a bit strong and I can be a pain but regarding your above statement:

1. I know this is settled and the doctrine of justification is settled.

2. I know I have God's pure words and they are found in a King James Bible.

3. Now this one here, right division, is an ongoing and evolving study and I do not claim to have it down - just barely scratching the surface and have had to line up my faulty reasoning in this area as God has given me grace and light from his word by the power of the Spirit.

BTW - any man who says he has right division (dispensational truth) down then I suggest you stay clear of him for he is dangerous!!! :o

God bless

 

[xicali]

The Lord gave the apostle Paul the latest instructions for us today and when one starts there first then the rest starts to make sense:

2 Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

I believe a lot of saved people today are wrestling with #2 and #3 and this is why so many saints today are confused over the major doctrines.

God bless

Yesssss! :smt035

 

[stranger]

. . .

2. I know I have God's pure words and they are found in a King James Bible.

. . .

God bless

Hi AVBunyan,

We have had this discussion before - the KJV or AV are translations - manuscript evidence has not been exhausted and certainly was not exhaustive between 1500's and 1700's. I notice the plug for the KJ !?

 

[Imagican]

Av has offered valid observation. It is NOT an 'answer' to conflict but certainly IS stated in a 'form' of 'truth'.

Not only are MOST 'Christians' STUMBLING over doctrine, MOST seem oblivious to 'THE BEGINNING OF DOCTRINE'. Caught up in the 'do this' or 'do that' syndrom. MISSING the ENTIRE purpose of the RELATIONSHIP of God WITH man.

Our FIRST doctrine NEED BE, in order to UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ELSE; LOVE. The love that God has offered to US and that which He desires IN RETURN. For once one comes to an 'understanding' of this ONE doctrine, then ALL the rest begins to FIT together to for a PERFECT PICTURE.

So, it's NOT about WHO is right and WHO is wrong, it's about the love that we can share WITH EACH OTHER. It's about the LOVE that we CAN share with God above ALL ELSE. And, IF, IF, IF one CAN come to an 'understanding' of THIS LOVE, one could then throw out The Bible and simply follow The Spirit. Until that 'time', there will be NOTHING but strife among mankind. And THIS we KNOW for God WILL send His Son to destroy ALL that is contrary to THIS LOVE, then SETTING UP HIS KINGDOM, there will be NO MORE NEED of 'written words' for those that that be members of this kingdom WILL KNOW love WITHOUT instruction and simply follow through a PERFECT EXAMPLE.

Thus, struggle we will until such time that the STRUGGLE is destroyed and in it's place; LOVE will reign for ONE THOUSAND YEARS. Folks, strive to understand the 'words' contained WITHIN The Word, but, strive MOST to understand LOVE for it IS THIS that God has attempted to communicate to us since His forming Adam from the 'dust of this Earth' and breathing into his nostrils THE BREATH OF LIFE. And what IS this BREATH of LIFE? LOVE. Let that BE your doctrine and you TOO will be a 'man after God's own heart'.

MEC

 

[Free]

I know I have God's pure words and they are found in a King James Bible.

That's because it was written in 17th century English.

 

[ChristineES]

I personally prefer the NIV or ASV. In fact, they are better translations to me. :roll:

 

[AVBunyan]

That's because it was written in 17th century English.

Well Free – here we go again with the “hard to read AV.†I’m assuming you were hinting that the 17th century English is a hard read for folks today? I believe because of our modern educational system, TV, Super Bowl, Hollywood, etc. that anything is a hard read for folks today.

Are you going to tell me the NIV below is easier to read? Now you just go ahead and tell me you or anybody else here can go though below without a dictionary.

abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire,dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hotdogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

“There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Versionâ€Â, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total. It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry†and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished." bro. Will Kinney

 

[Guest]

AV - I believe it is about phrasology - not so much the words used.

For example, Wherefore does not mean "where" - but "why"

Yet, in todays English - how many times do you hear people say Wherefore?

 

[William Putnam]

AV - I believe it is about phrasology - not so much the words used.

For example, Wherefore does not mean "where" - but "why"

Yet, in todays English - how many times do you hear people say Wherefore?

I can't help but note a famous line from Shakesphere's Romeo and Juliet -

"Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?"

In modern English, it woud be "Romeo, Romeo where are you, Romeo?

Just being a smarty pants! :smt109

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological ground of our being,
the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood."
And Jesus replied, "What?"

:angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[AVBunyan]

Yet, in todays English - how many times do you hear people say Wherefore?

God chose the time to bring out his completed word when the English language was at the height of perfection (1611). English has gone down hill since. Because we don't speak it doesn't change the fact that the English of a King James Bible is a more precise and accurate English than we speak today.

It is to our shame that we do not speak the language of a King James Bible - folks used to in the early history of America.

God bless

 

[Imagican]

Don't know if I would go 'so far' as to state it's a 'shame' that we don't STILL speak the English of the PAST, but I WILL say, it's a SHAME that so many seem to have SUCH A HARD time 'understanding it'.

And NOT ONLY do we suffer in our inability to understand the language with which the Bible is written, but even less understand that it was written in a DIFFERENT TIME. That 'things' WERE different at the time of Christ and even for hundreds and hundreds of years after. So, an understanding of the WORDS of the Bible are NO MORE reliant upon language as context concerning the TIME of it's original writing. The problems of today and the 'system' of today is MUCH DIFFERENT than it was two thousand years ago and MUCH that is contained within the Word is LOST to those that have NO understanding of this.

Good one Av. You are certainly 'right' to point out the 'difference' between MANY of the 'new' translations and the KJV. I 'personally' don't believe that it gets ANY BETTER than the ole' King James Version. Sacrificing The Word for the sake of a more 'simple' understanding or for the sake of 'personal doctrine' is a 'flimsy excuse' for the acceptance of something 'watered down' beyond recognition.

MEC

 

[Free]

Well Free – here we go again with the “hard to read AV.†I’m assuming you were hinting that the 17th century English is a hard read for folks today? I believe because of our modern educational system, TV, Super Bowl, Hollywood, etc. that anything is a hard read for folks today.

Are you going to tell me the NIV below is easier to read? Now you just go ahead and tell me you or anybody else here can go though below without a dictionary.

Actually, that is not what I had in mind. Some KJV onlyists, not you, believe that it was written in English. My point is that the Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, so to disregard those manuscripts in favor of any one English translation is just foolhardy.

 

[cyberjosh]

Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?"
They replied, "You are the eschatological ground of our being,
the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood."
And Jesus replied, "What?"

LOL!

 

[William Putnam]

LOL!

Hah hah! Go ahead and "steal it" if you want, as it does make a good "tagline."

That is how I got it - from another poster and I "lifted-it" for my own use!

Here is another good one you might get a chuckle over:

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblence to the first.
- Ronald Reagan

:o

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.
George S. Patton