Balancing The Christian Life

159 posts in this topic

Posted

One example: I've heard at least half-a-dozen people on this forum say that they wouldn't fellowship or stay in a church with people who had 'reformed' beliefs, What do you say about just that issue?

Sadly, Christians are known for splits and strife.  First of all, fellowship is important.  We need each other for encouragement, edification and to provoke each other unto good works.  This should go beyond our church building.  If possible, we are to seek to live at peace with everyone.  We are not to judge and argue over opinions but walk in love.  We are first and foremost accountable to God and need to walk out or own faith.

 

However, in order to preserve our own spiritual lives, fellowship may be broken with an unrepentant brother/sister and it should be done in order to restore them back into fellowship.  We have instructions on how to deal with those who sin against us.  First, we are to go that person alone.  Second, If that doesn't work, we are to take two or three witnesses.  If that doesn't work, the last step would be to take him/her before the church. 

 

Why would we break fellowship?  As I stated above, it shouldn't be over minor disagreements or matters of opinions.  There are more specifics such as a professing Christian's immoral involved in sexual sin, drunkeness, idolatry, abuse, foul tongue, theivery, etc.  Anything we do to limit our contact with them is an unfortunate result of their actions.     

Lynnie86 and Jeffrey like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

While there's plenty of sound advice in there, GS, at the same time you haven't really taken my point on-board or answered the question I asked. My point is, you were saying that telling the fundamentals (ok to divide over) apart from the "minor disagreements or matters of opinions" (not ok to divide over) was a no-brainer and I'm saying I'm not convinced it's that easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And that is true of most people, Al.  Folks who have been saved for a lot of years and studied and read (and been taught) the AV can understand it by just reading it.  Folks who get saved as adults don't always have that ability. Yes, the Holy Spirit teaches us as we read it - but nowhere in scripture does it tell us we are sinning if we get help outside scripture to understand the historical aspect of the verse(s), the meanings of the words in Hebrew or Greek, etc. (and someone who lambastes another for doing so has a real problem) 

 

It used to be said that the KJV was written in such a way that a 6th grader could understand it. And that was true (actually, younger than that, too).  But with the dumbing down of teaching (not saying you were dumbed down!!!), kids have a struggle understanding what was understood two generations ago by their same-age counterparts.

 

All of us think and write in a different style than that KJV.  It is a learning process to convert our thought processes to the KJ English.  Hang in there - you've certainly come a long way in your growth process. I really enjoy your posts (and your humor cracks me up!  :icon_smile: ).

 

Such a helpful response. Thanks HC!

HappyChristian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No it isn't, it's pragmatism. Asking everyone to use the same version so that discussions don't get sidetracked by arguments about translation is just good sense.

I believe in the preserved word but not in the KJVO.  However, if I post scriptures, I will use KJ out of respect for the forum rules.  I usually paraphrase.

Alimantado and John81 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

While there's plenty of sound advice in there, GS, at the same time you haven't really taken my point on-board or answered the question I asked. My point is, you were saying that telling the fundamentals (ok to divide over) apart from the "minor disagreements or matters of opinions" (not ok to divide over) was a no-brainer and I'm saying I'm not convinced it's that easy.

Sorry.  I'm not clear on your question.  I thought you were adressing breaking fellowship with those that have reformed beliefs. What "reformed" beliefs are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I believe in the preserved word but not in the KJVO.  However, if I post scriptures, I will use KJ out of respect for the forum rules.  I usually paraphrase.

That's fine, when I paraphrase or allude to a verse without directly quoting (which I sometimes do) I don't use quotation marks lest someone think it is non-KJ. Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Colossians refers to the OT law.  What is legalism today?  Excessive conformity to a religious code that restricts free choice.  Dress, type of music, church activity, spiritual disciplines.  This is just a band-aid and do nothing to attack the real problem of a sinful heart tempted to trust ourselves through laws and rules. We are not subject to fundamental principles.  Christianity is not a list of do's and don'ts.  It is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

 

Mentioning Law doesn't make the context legalism.

 

Look again at the Context in the AV.

 

Are you saying you can't read and understand what the AV text says in Colossians Chapter two?

 

"Dead" is connect to "from the Rudiments" by "with Christ"   Do you not see that Rudiments is mentioned earlier and it is not connect to the OT law but to False religions and beliefs of the world.  It is about not being led astray and while legalism could be used to lead people astray the it was the admixture of their religious culture they were adding to their life in Christ that was the problem that Paul feared.

 

count how many changes there are in this small set of verse from the AV and these changes alter the meaning and understanding.

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Mentioning Law doesn't make the context legalism.

 

Look again at the Context in the AV.

 

Are you saying you can't read and understand what the AV text says in Colossians Chapter two?

 

"Dead" is connect to "from the Rudiments" by "with Christ"

 

count how many changes there are in this small set of verse from the AV and these changes alter the meaning and understanding.

Perhaps you could look up the word legalism (laws) and rudiments (fundamental principles).  We are dead to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

"Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die:  it shall be, a statue for ever throughout your generations:  And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between unclean and clean." ~ Leviticus 10:9-10  

A deep study of the KJV will reveal the other 104 texts that talk about abstaining from wine and strong drink

Actually the verse you stated is a command for the priest not to drink on duty and a deep study in the KJV will reveal that alcohol is a sign of blessing from the Lord; but we have discussed that to death here

 

The question I would like to ask is, If you are using the KJ or another translation, how is that effecting your walk with Christ?, which will effect your community. I think we miss this sometimes when we get into these debates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It used to be said that the KJV was written in such a way that a 6th grader could understand it. And that was true (actually, younger than that, too).  But with the dumbing down of teaching (not saying you were dumbed down!!!), kids have a struggle understanding what was understood two generations ago by their same-age counterparts.

 

All of us think and write in a different style than that KJV.  It is a learning process to convert our thought processes to the KJ English.  Hang in there - you've certainly come a long way in your growth process. I really enjoy your posts (and your humor cracks me up!  :icon_smile: ).

I believe what I have read and understood that the Gospel was written so that a plowboy could understand it. 

As some have said, the KJ uses archaic language in that, even in America, we never spoke in an Elizabethan language, look at the Declaration of Independence.If you choose to use the KJ, fine. I think people cross the line to say that it is the only Bible that should be used, it is Bibliolatry in my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I believe what I have read and understood that the Gospel was written so that a plowboy could understand it.
As some have said, the KJ uses archaic language in that, even in America, we never spoke in an Elizabethan language, look at the Declaration of Independence.If you choose to use the KJ, fine. I think people cross the line to say that it is the only Bible that should be used, it is Bibliolatry in my opinion

And you are welcome to that opinion. I don't agree with you because I know I don't worship the Bible. I don't know anyone who does, actually. Believing that God preserved His Word for us and that the penultimate preserved work is the KJB isn't bibliolatry. Mayhap I believe that those who are so quick to accept any version that's modern or "the best scholarship" is versionolatry. Lol - I know that's not a word (but neither was bibliolatry at one time). My point is that anyone can accuse anyone of idolatry...it doesn't make them right. ;-)

When Tyndale had the desire to translate, he wanted even plowboys to be able to read it. But that to which I refer is accurate as well. The KJB may be written in Elizabethan english, but it can be understood. And it used to be understood better and earlier in age than now. But that was back in the days when education was just that:education. Kids have a hard time understanding it now because so many can't even read anything, or at least not much. When children are raised reading the KJV, their thought processes are sharper precisely because of the way it is written. And they understand it earlier than those who weren't raised reading it. The same is true (sharper mental acuity) for those who learn foreign languages or instruments (especially piano) at a young age. It exercises the mind in ways that just normal reading - while great - doesn't. But with the KJV, it isn't just the mind that's exercised. Its the heart and the spirit, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Legalism is adding rules to the gospel in an attempt to stay in God's saving grace or perfect your salvation. This is what the Judaizers were doing to the Galatians.  It has nothing to do with standards, rules, church by-laws, statement of faiths, etc. That's a modern manipulation of the term  by Christians who don't want anyone telling them what to do at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Legalism is adding rules to the gospel in an attempt to stay in God's saving grace or perfect your salvation. This is what the Judaizers were doing to the Galatians. It has nothing to do with standards, rules, church by-laws, statement of faiths, etc. That's a modern manipulation of the term by Christians who don't want anyone telling them what to do at all.


Now that I do agree with!!!!

By the way, some of the words used by the KJV translators were archaic WHEN THEY USED THEM!
But they were masters of language and knew they were the best words to use.......
HappyChristian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

And you are welcome to that opinion. I don't agree with you because I know I don't worship the Bible. I don't know anyone who does, actually. Believing that God preserved His Word for us and that the penultimate preserved work is the KJB isn't bibliolatry. Mayhap I believe that those who are so quick to accept any version that's modern or "the best scholarship" is versionolatry. Lol - I know that's not a word (but neither was bibliolatry at one time). My point is that anyone can accuse anyone of idolatry...it doesn't make them right. ;-)

I dont know, do you look around here? Some people are more concerned with Bible translations more than justice, mercy and more important seeing people come to Christ which is our mission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Legalism is adding rules to the gospel in an attempt to stay in God's saving grace or perfect your salvation. This is what the Judaizers were doing to the Galatians.  It has nothing to do with standards, rules, church by-laws, statement of faiths, etc. That's a modern manipulation of the term  by Christians who don't want anyone telling them what to do at all.

You mean Jesus was wrong for attacking the Pharisees?

Matthew 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2 Saying , The scribes and thePharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe , that observe anddo ; but do not ye after their works: for they say , and do not. 4 For they bind heavy burdens andgrievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move themwith one of their fingers.#rl 5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men : they make broadtheir phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6 And love the uppermost rooms atfeasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called ofmen, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all yeare brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is inheaven. 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11 But he that isgreatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased ;and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted . 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves,neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in . 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees,hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer : therefore ye shallreceive the greater damnation.#rl 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for yecompass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made , ye make him twofold morethe child of hell than yourselves.

GraceSaved likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Actually the verse you stated is a command for the priest not to drink on duty and a deep study in the KJV will reveal that alcohol is a sign of blessing from the Lord; but we have discussed that to death here

 

The question I would like to ask is, If you are using the KJ or another translation, how is that effecting your walk with Christ?, which will effect your community. I think we miss this sometimes when we get into these debates. 

 

Can you be more specific, Jeffrey?  

John81 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hi AVBibleBeliever. Since you worded that question in such a leading way, I think I'll be the first (perhaps only) on this thread to say that yes, I cannot read and understand the AV text as it stands. I admit that I have always struggled with the AV's sentence constructions and words, and I often have to use a dictionary. Perhaps part of this is owing to unfamiliarity, because I think and write in a different style of English to the AV.

 

Are you seriously saying you cannot understand Collosians chapter two as written? 

 

There is no odd sentence structure or words in it.

 

your reading comprehension must be very low then when you read the NASB it is college level reading while the AV is sixth grade level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I believe what I have read and understood that the Gospel was written so that a plowboy could understand it. 

As some have said, the KJ uses archaic language in that, even in America, we never spoke in an Elizabethan language, look at the Declaration of Independence.If you choose to use the KJ, fine. I think people cross the line to say that it is the only Bible that should be used, it is Bibliolatry in my opinion

I have never said it is the only Bible to use or should be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Let me ask this.

 

Are Christian's to abstain from certain things?

 

I remember a letter that was sent around that said, Acts 15:28, 29 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;  That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.

 

Now is it legalism to abstain from fornication? 

 

This one of those taste not, touch not, handle not type of instructions and if so the OP would feel that it is and he can go around fornicating with whomever and if he was rebuked he would be quick to call a person a legalist or being legalistic.

 

Maybe they felt that the person who had his fathers wife was unjustly put out of fellowship because of doing that that was not named even amongst the Gentiles.

 

I agree above that legalism is adding something to the work of Christ for your salvation and that is what Paul taught.

 

The context of Collosians has to do with the admixture of the Religious culture of the day to their Christian walk.  Such things were eating meats sacrificed to Idols which included strangled animals, Fornication was part of the religious culture of that day among the heathen, as well as drinking blood.

 

I always say if your culture agrees with the Bible keep your culture but if it doesn't then you have to get rid of your culture.  Sad thing many throw away the Bible and get a new version that allows them wrongly join the word of truth with their culture

Edited by AVBibleBeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Are you seriously saying you cannot understand Collosians chapter two as written? 

 

There is no odd sentence structure or words in it.

 

your reading comprehension must be very low then when you read the NASB it is college level reading while the AV is sixth grade level.

 

That's a rather unkind thing to say, not to mention wholly inaccurate. KJV is written at a 12th-grade level, NASB at a 10th-grade level, and NIV at a 7th-grade level according to current academic standards.

John81 and candlelight like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

That's a rather unkind thing to say, not to mention wholly inaccurate. KJV is written at a 12th-grade level, NASB at a 10th-grade level, and NIV at a 7th-grade level according to current academic standards.

 

I think you have your stats wrong about the AV being 12th grade.  Gale Riplinger already did a study on it and proved it is 6th grade.  most of the words are no more that two syllables and they are very simple wording.  NASB was proven to be second year college most the words are two and three syllables and the use of more complicated English words were used.  The NIV well you would have to tell us which one seeing there are now 5 different translations. the NIV is not a word for word but a dynamic equivalent using a uper high school level wording.

 

Most of this study can be found by Riplinger and others, and Brandplucked did some studies on it as well that can be found on his site.

 

And My statement was not unkiind he either didn't read the text or was being disingenuous in his statements. It is one of the easest chapters to read and understand.  some of the hardest words would have been beholding, steadfastness, and rudiments and if anyone reading this post would say these are hard to understand or read is a not being truthful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Legalism should not be confused with standards.  Christians are to have standards to live by.  Legalism and standards mean two different things.

"But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people (God's own); that ye should shew (show) forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:  10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God:  which had not obtained mercy, but have obtained mercy.  11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts (desires), which war against the soul." ~ I Peter 2:9-11

Miss Daisy likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think you have your stats wrong about the AV being 12th grade.  Gale Riplinger already did a study on it and proved it is 6th grade.  most of the words are no more that two syllables and they are very simple wording.  NASB was proven to be second year college most the words are two and three syllables and the use of more complicated English words were used.  The NIV well you would have to tell us which one seeing there are now 5 different translations. the NIV is not a word for word but a dynamic equivalent using a uper high school level wording.

 

Most of this study can be found by Riplinger and others, and Brandplucked did some studies on it as well that can be found on his site.

 

And My statement was not unkiind he either didn't read the text or was being disingenuous in his statements. It is one of the easest chapters to read and understand.  some of the hardest words would have been beholding, steadfastness, and rudiments and if anyone reading this post would say these are hard to understand or read is a not being truthful.

 

Well...I suppose the other 99% of people who have done similar studies on reading level must be wrong then. There's much more to reading levels than the number of syllables like word choice, sentence structure, syntax. I'm familiar with Riplinger's work and find it to be academically lacking and could list several people of equal or greater scholastic standing who disagree with her conclusions. I flatly disagree with you on this particular issue.

 

Additionally, ease of understanding is entirely subjective. What's clear to you may not be clear to someone else. Who are you to tell someone what is and is not easy for them to understand? That kind of arrogance is what shuts people off to KJVO advocates. It's one thing to help people grasp the language use in the KJV so that it becomes easier for them but it's entirely different and presumptuous to declare someone stupid or a liar because they struggle with reading something rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. That's why I say it was unkind.

Miss Daisy and ThePilgrim like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

 

 

And My statement was not unkiind he either didn't read the text or was being disingenuous in his statements. It is one of the easest chapters to read and understand.  some of the hardest words would have been beholding, steadfastness, and rudiments and if anyone reading this post would say these are hard to understand or read is a not being truthful.

Not necessarily so (the phrase I highlighted in red), let me give you the case of 3 high school graduates I've known personally who would fit this category.

 

1) From Nevada: female, electrician's helper, around 2002. She thought the 'E' in Queen Anne furniture or in Wilde Lake Rd. was to be pronounced. She did not know what "asine", "protracted" or "definitive" meant.

 

2) From Texas: male, active duty Navy, around 1993. He spelled "the" thu, He didn't know what "delegate" or "archaic" meant.

 

3) From Massachusetts: male, during the 1980's. He and the girl he was with (now his wife) got saved and in the next week's sermon heard the word "fornication" for the first time in his life. As the message progress he realized what it was (he had wondered if it was some kind of skin disease) and turns to her and says, "What, that's us!" (yes, in the middle of the message -- gotta love new Christians). 

 

Yes, all high school grads -- all possessing a vocabulary (at that time) which barely exceeded profanity, "dude", "like rad", "hater", and other primarily monosyllabic words of 1-5 (on rare occasion 6) letters

ThePilgrim and Miss Daisy like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Legalism is adding rules to the gospel in an attempt to stay in God's saving grace or perfect your salvation. This is what the Judaizers were doing to the Galatians.  It has nothing to do with standards, rules, church by-laws, statement of faiths, etc. That's a modern manipulation of the term  by Christians who don't want anyone telling them what to do at all.

I believe that is stated in the first sentence of original post.  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now