I should qualify that. While it's true that nobody has a basis for claiming they will never change, there certainly are people that actually won't ever change!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Of course, the ramifications are obvious, though. Nobody can possibly know when anything they believe is finally, and forever, correct. Nothing is out of bounds. Your experience shows that neither you nor anyone else on AFF has any basis to claim that they will never change belief X, for any X. X could be dispensationalism, preterism, universal reconciliation, 3-step, 1-step, TV is evil, or you-name-it.
And yet people do claim this, at least for several beliefs. Most AFFers will, I think, claim that they will never stop believing that the Bible is the inspired infallible Word of God. I probably would have said that 20 years ago, or so.
What about me? Will I forever remain agnostic? How should I know?!
Focusing attention exclusively upon the bolded portion of your statement, please allow me to say this, for in the way that I see things from all that I have read of the what you've written, it might serve to help you to better understand my perspective:
Unless one first establishes a "standard" (that is to say, something which serves as an Arbitrator, of sorts), before they endeavor to ascertain the truth about a particular matter, then how might the "real" truth ever be ascertained? Surely you would agree that we must have something which will serve as the "final deciding factor" in our efforts to ascertain the difference between what is truth or what is error, right?
I am irrevocably persuaded that the Scriptures must be that which serves this role, and this exclusively! So you see, my friend, by your failure (whether it be done unwittingly or deliberate) to have the Bible serve as the "standard" by which you might ascertain what the "real" truth about a matter is, then the outcome is generally based upon the rhetorical skills of one person above that of the other. Do you understand what I am saying here? In other words, absence an established "standard" to which an appeal might be made to ascertain what the truth about a matter is, then it simply comes down to "who says it best." What a pathetic way to establish what is truth, wouldn't you say?
Focusing attention exclusively upon the bolded portion of your statement, please allow me to say this, for in the way that I see things from all that I have read of the what you've written, it might serve to help you to better understand my perspective:
Unless one first establishes a "standard" (that is to say, something which serves as an Arbitrator, of sorts), before they endeavor to ascertain the truth about a particular matter, then how might the "real" truth ever be ascertained? Surely you would agree that we must have something which will serve as the "final deciding factor" in our efforts to ascertain the difference between what is truth or what is error, right?
I am irrevocably persuaded that the Scriptures must be that which serves this role, and this exclusively! So you see, my friend, by your failure (whether it be done unwittingly or deliberate) to have the Bible serve as the "standard" by which you might ascertain what the "real" truth about a matter is, then the outcome is generally based upon the rhetorical skills of one person above that of the other. Do you understand what I am saying here? In other words, absence an established "standard" to which an appeal might be made to ascertain what the truth about a matter is, then it simply comes down to "who says it best." What a pathetic way to establish what is truth, wouldn't you say?
Sure! If the standard you have chosen for truth actually is true!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Regarding the manner of having the Scriptures serve as the "standard" by which all truths are established, I would be among the first to acknowledge that this presents one with a significant problem, seeing that there are so many different translations. Which version of the Scriptures should one choose as the one which will serve this function?
An important question, right? Also one which demands a significant amount of time and effort to conclude (at least such was the case for me). Following many hours of prayer and study I have concluded that the KJV shall serve as my "standard," therefore when others quote from other translations in an effort to establish the merits of their expressed beliefs, I always try to compare such quotes with the same passage from the KJV, in an effort to assure that they both are stating the same thing. If not, then I choose the KJV over the other.
Regarding the manner of having the Scriptures serve as the "standard" by which all truths are established, I would be among the first to acknowledge that this presents one with a significant problem, seeing that there are so many different translations. Which version of the Scriptures should one choose as the one which will serve this function?
An important question, right? Also one which demands a significant amount of time and effort to conclude (at least such was the case for me). Following many hours of prayer and study I have concluded that the KJV shall serve as my "standard," therefore when others quote from other translations in an effort to establish the merits of their expressed beliefs, I always try to compare such quotes with the same passage from the KJV, in an effort to assure that they both are stating the same thing. If not, then I choose the KJV over the other.
Have any examples where the KJV differs from other translations?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Allow me to provide just one example of how many of the translations differ in the manner in which they express some things.
In Acts 2:1, the KJV discloses the fact that 120 disciples of Jesus were gathered in the upper room while awaiting the arrival of the "promise of the Father," and that these were "all with one accord." Almost without exception, every other translation omits this important element, with most asserting that "they were assembled together," or something along that line of thought, but never that they were of "one accord." Now it is possible for many to be assembled together, as I am sure you would agree, with each person embracing or entertaining a "different" opinion about a particular matter, but that is sheer confusion.... not "agreement."
Not to mention the fact (that is if the KJV is the "true" translation) that the absence of the "accord" factor represents a violation of what we find written in Revelation 22:18-19 - the prohibition against "adding to" or "taking away from" the things which God inspired holy men of olden times to write for our benefit.
Allow me to provide just one example of how many of the translations differ in the manner in which they express some things.
In Acts 2:1, the KJV discloses the fact that 120 disciples of Jesus were gathered in the upper room while awaiting the arrival of the "promise of the Father," and that these were "all with one accord." Almost without exception, every other translation omits this important element, with most asserting that "they were assembled together," or something along that line of thought, but never that they were of "one accord." Now it is possible for many to be assembled together, as I am sure you would agree, with each person embracing or entertaining a "different" opinion about a particular matter, but that is sheer confusion.... not "agreement."
Not to mention the fact (that is if the KJV is the "true" translation) that the absence of the "accord" factor represents a violation of what we find written in Revelation 22:18-19 - the prohibition against "adding to" or "taking away from" the things which God inspired holy men of olden times to write for our benefit.
I thought "this book" referred to the Revelation. The entire Bible wasn't even gathered into one "book" yet, when Revelation was written. But, your point is probably valid: adding to or taking away from what God has written is probably a bad thing, if in doing so one claims that the result is (still) God's word. Speaking for God, if you aren't authorized by Him to do so, can't be good.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Thanks, Lafon. Very good thoughts in both posts. I agree with most of them.
But:
Are you sure that's what Jesus had in mind when He prayed for unity? It doesn't seem like it, from what He said. The target was His current followers and "those who will believe in me through their message". All of the latter and most of the latter have lived and believed and died, already. And the purpose of the request was made clear: "so that the world may believe that you have sent me." If the answer comes only when Jesus brings the "real" Christians into Heaven, it will be too late!
If that prayer for unity is like many of today's prayers by ordinary Christians, most of the usual explanations for a "No" answer (or "Wait") don't apply. "Not enough faith" Uh, we're talking about Jesus, here! "God knows better than you what you really need"? Jesus is God! "Not asked in accordance to God's will"? Ditto. How about "hidden sin"? Definitely not that one! "He has something better for you"? Better than unity? Better than the world believing in Jesus?
I think we are stuck with just two possibilities:
1. Jesus' request was granted. This means that the true church consists only of people who agree on everything. And what they all agree on is actually correct. This, however, can apply only to the first part of the request: unity. The second part, the world believing, has not been granted. No way around that one!
2. Jesus' request was not granted. Either God rejected it (for who-knows what reason!), or it wasn't recorded accurately in the Bible.
A problem with #1 is that, as you pointed out, the Bible itself records several examples of division among the church, even in its infancy. I don't think we can claim that is wasn't really the true church. Another problem is that this elusive, theoretical, fully united "true church" of today almost certainly doesn't really exist. If it did, we'd all know about it, and it wouldn't have stayed tiny all through the centuries. It would actually work, in its commission to spread the gospel. Part 2 of Jesus' prayer would have been granted (most likely). Signs and wonders would follow it. Its people would do greater works than those of Jesus. It would get it right. No church has ever done that.
Timmy, I really would like to respond to the things you've expressed here, however, because it must, of necessity entail some extensive writings to cover adequately, please allow me some time to compose it, OK? You do raise some important issues which deserve a response, and I assure you that I want to address each of them.
Timmy, I really would like to respond to the things you've expressed here, however, because it must, of necessity entail some extensive writings to cover adequately, please allow me some time to compose it, OK? You do raise some important issues which deserve a response, and I assure you that I want to address each of them.
Warmest regards!
Absolutely! I look forward to your thoughts.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Better than the world believing in Jesus? 
Linear Mode
