| 3. Fundamental Integration -> New Testament Greek -> Legalistic Brethren |
Legalistic Brethren
SECOND, many New Age Fundamentalists (defined in the article, Fundamentalism) in our day support some teachings such as "the KJV English translation is without fault or error" and also an ambiguous simplistic statement of "once saved always saved" that causes confusion and error.
A belief in these teachings does not deny a person's intent of Holiness, but may severely compromise someone's actual vitality of faithful living and scriptural understanding.1 However, some "New Age" Fundamentalists take a disbelief in these ideas as reason for separating from others. Here are two illustrations of their thinking:
1. English KJV translation is without error or fault. It is the preserved Word of God. Many of the New Age Fundamentalists in our time (and they are numerous), aside from mostly adhering to false Dispensational doctrines, ALSO believe that the King James English translation is the only valid translation from the Textus Receptus Greek text. If you believe that there are meanings that could be plainer and improved in the KJV translation, you are treated like an evil by them, worthy of their scorn and actual hate. Unfortunately, these believers in the complete accuracy of the KJV translation call themselves Fundamentalists, to the great embarrassment of the very few true remaining Fundamentalists.
Most all that use the KJV, not because the English or any other modern language contains an inerrant translation of God's Word from Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, but because it primarily derives from the best manuscript evidence in Greek of being the original inerrant Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew Word given to all mankind, AND is therefore, still more accurate than any modern translations taken for the false inventions of the very few Alexandrian Greek texts.
There is overwhelming evidence of the KJV's Textus Receptus Greek text was used by the so-called Early Church Elders in the first and second century, and it is the only common English translation today derived from this Textus Receptus text constituting 98% of all extant Greek manuscripts. These claims in themselves are acceptable and true according to all the evidence of early Greek writings. But unfortunately most of the New Age Fundamentalists go much farther today and say that the English translation itself is inerrant or without fault.
We never cease to be amazed at preferred assertions (meaning no definite evidence of scripture to make such assertions, just a wishful interpretation) accepted by people as the dogma of Truth. Even among the few professing New Age Fundamentalists today, few search for the truth in all things. They think they know "it" even when they admit that they have never looked at the Greek, for which they take some scholars' word. Obviously, their thinking is quite deductive. They insist, "God preserves His Word, therefore, it must be in English." For further explanation, see footnote.9 They then support all their doctrinal assertions upon the translation itself without ever looking at the Greek itself of the Textus Receptus text to get a clearer more consistent understanding. Since they assert that the translation is without err, they seem to find no reference to the Greek necessary and even prohibited. They leave this to the educated. This is irresponsible at the least and Nicolatianism at the worst.
Read what one such prolific writer whom I greatly respect says in this regard. "To be an 'honest Bible believer' to those with the mindset of ...., a man must believe there are errors in the Authorized English Bible. Amazing! By this perverted standard, a 'Bible believer' must believe there are errors in every Bible. What a strange kind of 'Bible believer'. I am deeply afraid of any position on biblical preservation that leaves a man with no preserved Bible today, that, in fact, makes him the enemy of those who do believe there is a preserved Bible." This man is a Baptist and, of course, very proud of it.
Notice, he is saying that if you make any retreat to the Greek Textus Receptus text to inferentially discern any meaning that you are a dangerous person, their enemy. There is a preserved Bible in Greek, but this gentleman insists it is in English, the Authorized English Bible, admittedly without any study himself in the Greek.2 He just has a preferred assertion of wishful thinking and he considers this a sound mind of 2 Tim 1:7.
We are not aware of any Greek scholars as William Burgeon or D. L Dabney or others supporting the Textus Receptus saying that the KJV was "in fact" verbally inerrant and without fault. This is certainly not the position of the Dean Burgeon Society despite their adroit wording of their articles of beliefs to apparently appease these people.
We really can't believe this man thinks about what he in essence writes: "The preserved inerrant Word must be in English. And whoever does not believe this is my enemy" (a paraphrase). This would make Paul and the Apostles his enemy. They never knew English. The Bible is preserved in their language, Greek. This also means that every nationality of Christian brothers that doesn't know English is his enemy also. Or is he insisting that every translation of the Majority text in all different languages including, all future as yet not translated languages, will also be inerrant and thus inspired by God? I think, credulity and common sense is served better, to just say God preserved his Word in the language it was originally inspired in Greek for NT, and Hebrew and Aramaic for OT.
We are told that Christ and the Apostles apparently quoted the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew around 270 B.C. when the Greek language became the common language of the most people. [[ At least, this is a story given to us, but actually of rather nonexistent substantiating historical documentation. Many believe it was produced by Origen to match the New Testament Greek as his 6th translation in his Hexpala. ]] Manuscript evidence is scantly, if at all existing, that this story about the origin of a before-Christ origin of the Septuagint is true. But if this is true there is no question that a translation into the language of the people's language has been a precedence approved (said to be quoted by Christ and His disciples, if this is true).
But to say that ONLY the ONE English translation (the KJV) of the Textus Receptus Text is the inerrant preserved Word of God, as they must argue to be coherent at all, is stretching child simple common sense, with all the Greek evidence to the contrary.
What about the old English Geneva Bible from the Textus Receptus Text which our Puritan and, about 75 years later, our Calvinist forefathers brought to this country? Was our country began on a false Greek Bible? We don't think so. It was another human translation of the God inspired Textus Receptus Greek text. Neither the present Dean Burgon Society 5 nor D. A. Waite,6 its president, believes that the KJV translation is inerrant, but only a fallible translation of the inerrant autographs handed down to us as the Textus Receptus today. [[ But strangely, they insist that they can find no errors in it. ]] [[ Beware, the so-called The New Geneva Study Bible with NKJV text published in 1995 by R.C. Sproul and later given a different Greek text (ESV) as the renamed, The Reformation Study Bible (RSB) in 2005. It is not from the Textus Receptus but the Gnostic corrupt Alexandrian text of all other modern translations, and but a rouse to promote modern Calvinistic footnote teachings under the guise of better understanding being given, and also, of course, of a copyright. ]]
2. "Once saved always saved" or "eternal security." These are now very ambiguous terms given the two very different teachings on the subject today.
Believers, like the Donatists, Novatianists, Waldenses, Albigenses, Valdenses, Moravians, Mennonites, Anabaptists, and many others through the centuries, from the time of Christ, maintained the same salvation understandings. All of these suffered the persecutions and inquisitions of the Roman Catholics-Lutherns-Calvinists for centuries. All of these insisted upon perseverance of the individual at the end of their life since assurance in scripture is only given to continuously committing ones. This is plainly and clearly taught by the Greek language of the original scriptures. Our historically Calvinist derived English translations, of course, hid this. Calvinists don't want to believe this.
But this further corrupted modern belief of "once saved always saved" or "eternal security" of Dispensationalism to mean "saved regardless of whatever one believes or does" seems to be a contaminant from the modern "grace" regardless teachers since 1904 in the USA into our Bible Schools, particularly from Dallas Theological Seminary since 1924. This Dispensationalism was formulated and popularized by John Nelson Darby in 1830 and brought to this country by C.I. Schofield in his Bible notes published in 1908.
This Dispensational teaching in its understanding of salvation is derived from a Roman Catholic teaching started by Anselm, a monk about 1089 AD, and later adopted by Luthern-Calvinism and most all Protestantism, except by Anabaptists (not Baptists) since Christ and post-Wesleyan Arminians. This is the invented theory of Penal Substitutionary Atonement by Christ on the cross. This was never before known in the entire Christian history since Christ until Anselm invented it. This very false theory has been propagated by Lutherns, Calvinists, and now Dispensationalists, and Charismatics.
And like the man invented "Carnal christian" doctrine (1918) we now have the man invented Penal Substitution doctrine of Atonement (1098) for these latter days. No where in the Greek scriptures is there any indication in the slightest for either of these satanic teachings. And no where in English scriptures is this found except supported in the worst extremely false Calvinist translation in the KJV (1611) of 2 Cor 5:21.
The Dispensationalists have taken it further from a blasphemous evil teaching to an even more total absurdity of understanding. They say this means that all our sins past, present, and future are forever forgiven, and also includes any believing or lack of believing in the future as well. In other words, all one must do is "believe," make a simple mental notation about Christ dying for you, only once, and you are guaranteed Heaven regardless of whatever you do or believe after that one instance. This is what we call "grace" regardless, in this website.
See this website's Sections, Atonement and also, Justification & Sanctification for scriptural understanding about the Atonement of Christ and the obvious false teaching of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which is devoutly held by all who think themselves "orthodox" in this "totally apostate" day.
See Covenants footnote8 for better understanding also.
These New Age Fundamentalists (Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherns, and Dispensationalists) insist on "once saved always saved" to mean you can never lose your salvation no matter what you do or come to believe. It is unconditional eternal security "regardless." This is total unbiblical heresy. This, in fact, denies that apostasy is even possible. This is not Arminianism or Anabaptist from the time of Christ through the centuries by any means, who all believed only "eternal conditional security of the continuously committing ones."
The scriptures never teach this modern heresy of security " regardless," nor did Arminius, Anabaptists, or anyone outside of the doctrinally and morally disabled Augustinian Catholic-Luthern-Calvinisms, until these modern totally blinded Dispensational "grace" regardless teachers, who have redefined all doctrines and doctrinal words, came upon the scene in the USA after 1904. 3
These Dispensationalists call this the unconditional love of God, or what they call "grace," which is nothing more than a license to sin from satan. This is exactly what satan said in the Garden, "Surely, you will not die," if you disobey God. This grace to do or believe as you please is totally unscriptural nonsense. This entire website is written to clearly disprove this modern heresy. God's security is clearly and plainly said to be conditional. This is why there is a Hell. This is why some or saved and some are lost. Nearly every scripture about salvation clearly gives the conditions of salvation.
This "grace" regardless, as the Baptists and Dispensationalists believe, denying the need of Lordship of Christ in a person's living, reduce salvation to a momentary mental notation only. No wonder our society is now totally evil and now going to Contemplative Spirituality of the Emergent Church with the new "Christian world-view" of Rick Warren and other demons to bring all the world to a global "s"pirituality (small s) in preparation for the soon coming antichrist.
This teaching has been accepted among certain New Age Fundamentalists to the place of having grounds for separation from brothers who do not believe it. These Fundamentalists quote numerous scriptures without any reference to verb tense to support their assertions. Referring to the Greek verb tenses in their many scriptures would easily demonstrate the lie to their unfounded assertions they blindly memorized in their deductive teaching Bible schools. They may falsely think their belief is Calvinism. It is actually antinomialism, lawlessness.
Interestingly, these deny any interest in looking at the Greek or even any rational discussion of their memorized mantra of "eternal security." Additionally, they somehow think that their understanding of unconditional eternal security "regardless" has been held by the church for centuries since Christ. This is clearly untrue. This belief has nothing to do with Calvinism or Arminianism or what Anabaptists since Christ believed.. Also, sin is not the question; belief or unbelief is the issue. A believer may revert to unbelief through the deceitfulness of sinning as the scriptures clearly teach and warn against.
Deceived Dispensationalists who deny need for Greek. And
they call themselves Fundamentalists
We respect a particular man (the same man who made the statement about the KJV quoted above) because of his voluminous writings about separation and worldliness in the so-called churches. But he ALSO insists upon what he calls "once saved always saved" and a denial of Lordship salvation as another condition of fellowship. He is a devoted Independant Baptist. Apparently he would not dirty himself with someone so ignorant, for instance, as not to understand "once saved always saved" as he does.4 Read these two sentences this same New Age Fundamentalist (apostate) Baptist writer wrote on the subject: ---"This is very telling since a proper understanding of salvation leads to eternal security for the believer. Those who believe a born again child of God can lose his salvation simply do not understand the gospel."
I hope he must be meaning, "proper understanding of salvation leads to an understanding of eternal security." But I doubt it. This is like some of the magical thinking with their belief in pretrib rapture (he also teaches this). Some pretribers believe that if you don't believe their particular false doctrines you will be left behind. Notice the italicized sentence, "proper understanding of salvation leads to eternal security." This implies, that without this understanding you will not obtain an assurance of eternal life. Is he implying that one may be saved but not obtain assurance of unconditional security unless he learns something more? Or is he saying that only a belief in unconditiional eternal security gives eternal life? We have always thought salvation was present and the assurance of such was in a person's indwelling Life in reality (Truth) or not. See this footnote for explanation of why their thinking is so warped.7 See footnote 7.
Deductive thinking energized into excess leads to such magical thinking since it is all delusional from the start. Also, to this gentleman, understanding the gospel is to believe "once saved always saved." Really?
It is interesting that he fails to define whether he is referring to Calvinist or Arminian perseverance of all saved or whether he is talking about the "grace" regardless salvation teaching of a continuous sinner and unbeliever after a simple affirmation of mental notation.
There seems to be a complete silence about the antinomian teachings of the "grace" regardless cult teachings within Fundamentalism which also say they believe in "once saved always saved." How this Bible Schooled man can develop these simplistic understandings and ideas is easy to understand. He was taught simplistic deductive thinking in Bible School. Unfortunately, for him, Bible doctrines are not big concrete blocks to be picked up and stacked one upon another.
Now I greatly admire this man in his labor for my Lord (I hope, in my Lord), and I would prefer him to be as my brother, despite his statements about those he considers his enemy. I just wish that in a calm Love of Him Who is Truth, we would both look at the idea of holding "to a concrete idea" with great suspicion. When we go beyond the Mind of Christ to devotion of defending "a concrete simplistic idea" we are all in trouble, all of us included, for sure. But with too much controversy about " concrete ideas" concerning truth, we are in danger of losing sight of Truth Himself. Dear Father forgive us. See article on Hermeneutics describing how this in causing unnecessary schisms and denominations, apart from the indwelling Love (mind) of Christ.
I wonder how the Great Awakening that changed all of England under John Wesley's Arminianism would reflect upon this gentleman's concrete ideas. Does he believe that none of them were born again or that none of them obtained the security of their indwelling faith of Christ, the only scriptural security a believer can have? Perhaps, he too has fallen into the trap of accepting that a mental affirmation or even a commitment to a doctrine is our "objective" assurance, as the "grace" regardless cult teaches in our Bible schools. Indeed, he has. Does he personally have assurance from the indwelling Holy Spirit or not? I doubt it. I have never read his voluminous writings saying so. He only states their common statements, that reading the promises in the Bible gives them their "believing, trusting" assurance.
Their teachings have subtlety invaded all Fundamental Bible school thinking and writings today. It is all very subtle and most so-called Fundamentalists have accepted their false definitions unknowingly.
We think a person is saved or not, with all that it may imply, regardless of the person's detailed theological understanding of doctrines concerning the subtleties of Calvinism and Arminianism or some knowledge of Greek to exegete it. I believe millions will be in Heaven, who never heard of such stuff as "once saved always saved." Praise God who saves the childlike repentter and committer to Christ's Lordship in their lives, and indwells them for their obedience to His faith (Mind of Christ indwelling them).
I hope that upon reflection, this gentleman doesn't mean what he, in fact, wrote in the above quoted statements. They are completely without scriptural foundation and totally apart from historic Fundamentals of Christianity, defined here in article, Fundamentalism Defined. Until then he can only be regarded as a complete apostate. He denies the Lordship of Christ in salvation, and teaches most all the other Dispensationalist apostasy teachings. See Apostasy Today. Some so-called Fundamentalists quote the KJV translation endlessly supporting their original unfounded assertion of "inerrant" English translation (which is often ambiguous, inconsistent, inaccurate, and self contradictory, with even inserted lies of Calvinism, as 2 Cor 5:21 and Hebr 13:7, 17, and 24, as illustrations) to establish doctrines upon their deductive assertions.
Circular thinking is easy to do. What is so sad is that they refuse to spend a little bit of time to go deeper into the original inerrant Word which is in Greek (and very specific in meaning), comparing scripture to scripture, so there can be no misunderstanding as their can be with extremely errant words and phrasiologies used in the English Translation.
Actually, these very scriptures in Greek say just the opposite of what they understand the English translation to say. And what is worse they refuse to consider any reference to the basic Greek which would help in understanding the meaning, if that meaning correctly derived as described in the article, Hermeneutics, would change the English translation as found in the KJV. I ask, why not? Of what are they afraid?
This has nothing to do with separation from apostasy or believing in Bible preservation. Why can't it be preserved in the Greek for all languages. This has to do with the employment of common sense, and not worshiping the idol of an asserted simplistic compartmentalized "concrete idea" intellectualizings that God must give us an inerrant translation in English. Some of these same people are so bold as to say that the hundreds of other language translations are inerrant also. They mystically assert that all nations have at least one inerrant translation in their own language. Why must their "English" translation be better? This kind of thinking is thoroughly explained as to why and how a person does this in the article Hermeneutics, under "Four Rational Laws of the Mind," specifically, the Law of Exclusive Truth.
This is so common a work of the devil (a deductive thinker from the beginning) in the minds of zealous men. It is a simple whisper of the devil in the mind of any man to turn devotion from the Creator to the creature, by substituting an asserted (really, whisper inserted) "idea" for the Holy Spirit teaching. But this is a very subtle move and goes easily undetected by zealots for God in the flesh. This has occurred among the modern Charismatic and also the NEW AGE Fundamentalists. None of us are immune to our flesh effects, unless we are scrupulously careful.
How do born again people who are given a sound mind end up demanding that others fellowship in agreement with them on such excessive ill-defined and illogical and unscriptural issues? And the scary thing is that these proudly represent so-called Fundamentalism to the world in these latter days. It is one thing to cry out against apostasy from the gospel, it is another to show no logic with real arrogance when it comes to fellowshipping with "weaker" brethren who do not understand some issues as they may. Perhaps, we may find we are both wrong in many things "that we may all come into the unity of the knowledge of the Truth in the bond of peace." This is real love in church fellowship. It has nothing to do with doctrinal purity; it has to do with rational common sense of any child.
When the issues do not involve the doctrinal truths of Fundamentalism as defined in the article, Fundamentalism Defined, detailing the details of the three tenants of Fundamentalism, to smugly seat together saying, " we know it all, too bad everyone else is so ignorant and misled that we must be separate from them," is the work of the devil in the flesh.
It is valid for us to judge which is the preserved Word of God for us in the Greek, but to go farther is beyond scripture is excessive. It is valid to judge what the scriptures say about believer's security, "our security as continuously believing ones," but to go farther is beyond scripture and excessive. All excesses are of the flesh.
The secret is: What do preserved, from the time of Apostles, Greek scriptures clearly say?
Those who have become personally affected with such legalist thinking requiring agreement in every jot and titel "of their (excessive ASSERTED) beliefs" have been so revolted that they have publicly cried out against it. This, however, is no excuse for them to have turned in their bitterness to apostasy or returning to the world, saying as long as you profess Christ it doesn't matter what you believe; or as many have said, you need only believe in "a" God. We could all name numerous ministers, not to mention many laymen, who have done this. This is truly sad. But this is exactly what such teachings of the flesh in so-called Fundamentalism has caused. And the devil can laugh uproariously in God's presence because the most vocal of doctrinaires defending against apostasy are actually contributing to it.
Again, we must understand very clearly that deductive thinking is the work of the devil within whoever or wherever it occurs. If you want to know where the devil is working, look for his tall tail sign, deductive reasoning. Learn what deductive thinking is. If the devil can't get us away from some truth, he will cause exaggerations, utilizing a man's devotion to a concrete compartmentalized "idea" of truth which is actually a lie. See the Section, Hermeneutics, Exclusive Truth, for a complete explanation of this and how it is accomplished.
The man will think he is following Him, the Truth, in faith. But he is serving the asserted (really, whispered inserted) "idea" in his mind, and deductive thinking then continues because the man uses this asserted idea to sort and interpret all things thereafter. This results in all exaggerations and excesses of doctrine and practice as in the Charismatic movement or this Pharisaical hair splitting legalism within Fundamentalism.
And what is so devastating is that the snared individual doing the deductive thinking has no way of changing his mind or doing sound thinking, unless he repents ("opposes himself") from his deductive thinking to inductive thinking. Deductive thinking has no way of changing since it starts and circularly feeds from the original lie. So whenever we see excesses of anything in behavior, doctrine, or legalism (application) you know that the flesh of man is being energized by the devil utilizing deductive thinking. These sad people are totally blinded and they have no way of changing. They are in the snare of the devil.
Continue to Next Article -»
|
