Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[Desert Reign]

I can see their point. This "pastor" would be preaching from a Bible he did not really believe is the authoritative and inerrant words of God. He would be a chameleon bible believer. And if you approved of his teaching, and he then goes on to promote the corrupted versions at other churches, it reflects back on the Bible believing church.

Why would you have a man like Bob Enyart teach the Bible at your church, when he doesn't believe it is the inerrant words of God? Maybe he should stick to that Hungarian Karoli bible thingy he told us is his infallible Standard. Even though he can't read it, maybe he could try to phonetically sound it out in front of the congregation. He would be making as much sense doing it that way as he is now with his evasive double-speak nonsense he has been giving us.

I'm really disappointed you didn't answer my question, Mr. Brandplucked! And what with those spoilsports Bob Enyart and Will Duffy coming up with actual historical research, my world is almost torn apart. You were my hero and I was so looking forward to going out and getting one of those 100% inerrant Bibles you keep talking about but you never answered any of my points I was so worried about. If I didn't hold you in such high regard, I'd say that you were just making a mistake and your Bible wasn't the 100% inerrant one. I so much wanted to be sure I had that 100% inerrant Bible. A veritable (if not quite verifiable) miracle in front of me! Oh well, I guess you just have to have faith. You have faith that your Bible is 100% inerrant and I shall have faith that mine is, even though they are different. Outwardly we know they are different but inwardly we know that faith overcomes these outward difficulties and so we can assert with confidence that they are both (I mean 'all' really) 100% inerrant. Would you agree?

PS: I love my 1885 Bible I mentioned earlier. It not only looks old but when you open it up it has words in it like 'dost' and 'thou' and it talks about the 'three mighties' and 'fetching a compass', all of which makes me feel very special and holy and sort of church-of-Englandy. So I think I will eventually get over the disappointment of you not confirming to me if it is the 100% inerrant one, or at least telling me where I could get one like yours, which would have been the icing on the cake. Just to own one eh? Even if you don't read it a lot.

Actually, go on, admit it! You get a commission from 100% inerrant Cambridge Bibles, don't you? Like the 961,223rd piece of the true cross or a drop of holy water blessed by Pius IX, with guaranteed healing or luck-bringing properties - the Christian version of homeopathy - the placebo effect: it's the thought that counts?

 

[Bob Enyart]

this is true
but
the debate does bring out the differences
and
some of them are serious differences
and
we should all be aware of them

Yes, thank you chrysostom!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'd like to see you debate vs. any opponent of sola Scriptura, covering determination of canon, the place (if any) of tradition and church authority vis a vis Scripture, the perspicuity of Scripture, and its proper interpretation.

The most obvious opponent of Sola Scriptura would be a Romanist. Secondarily would be Mormons, SDAs, and others who claim to have received extra-Biblical revelations.

AMR

 

[Brother Vinny]

The most obvious opponent of Sola Scriptura would be a Romanist.

Or EOC.

[/quote]Secondarily would be Mormons, SDAs, and others who claim to have received extra-Biblical revelations.

AMR[/QUOTE]

Whom Traditionalism and Protestantism have together declared to be outside the scope of genuine Christianity. I have no interest with what the cults have to say on this.

 

[Tico]

Oh yeah, and Tico, did you notice the offer that Will Duffy and I presented in Round Five, to expand the debate if any of the other KJO leaders, like Waite, Moorman, Schnoebelen, Riplinger, etc., want in? Think any of them will take us up on the offer?

- Bob E.

I doubt if they'll take you up on your offer. In order to throw their hat in the ring they'll have to be willing to directly answer the 27 (or so) questions you posed to Will Kinney. Probably not going to happen.

While running the risk of venturing into the Sola Scriptura issue mentioned in this thread, my observation of Kinney's KJO position is that it's a lot of the Catholic position regarding Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church.

Who has the authority to determine what Sacred Tradition is? The Church
How does the Church know it has this authority? Sacred Tradition

Both are circular. Kinney assumes the inerrancy of the KJV which makes it unique from all other versions. Because it is unique from all other versions, it is inerrant.

You and Will Duffy did an excellent job of researching for this debate!

 

[Yorzhik]

I can see their point. This "pastor" would be preaching from a Bible he did not really believe is the authoritative and inerrant words of God. He would be a chameleon bible believer. And if you approved of his teaching, and he then goes on to promote the corrupted versions at other churches, it reflects back on the Bible believing church.

Why would you have a man like Bob Enyart teach the Bible at your church, when he doesn't believe it is the inerrant words of God? Maybe he should stick to that Hungarian Karoli bible thingy he told us is his infallible Standard. Even though he can't read it, maybe he could try to phonetically sound it out in front of the congregation. He would be making as much sense doing it that way as he is now with his evasive double-speak nonsense he has been giving us.

STP should take note that the division is on your side, not ours.

And I guess what we need to know from Mr. Kinney is: what constitutes an error? Is it something that is a matter of degree? Couldn't a pastor use passages that are close enough to perfect to be used in a message?

 

[chrysostom]

The most obvious opponent of Sola Scriptura would be a Romanist. Secondarily would be Mormons, SDAs, and others who claim to have received extra-Biblical revelations.

AMR

the obvious opponent would be common sense

the bible is man made

only the church has the authority regarding anything about the bible

 

[Bob Enyart]

I doubt if they'll take you up on your offer. In order to throw their hat in the ring they'll have to be willing to directly answer the 27 (or so) questions you posed to Will Kinney. Probably not going to happen.

While running the risk of venturing into the Sola Scriptura issue mentioned in this thread, my observation of Kinney's KJO position is that it's a lot of the Catholic position regarding Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church.

Who has the authority to determine what Sacred Tradition is? The Church
How does the Church know it has this authority? Sacred Tradition

Both are circular. Kinney assumes the inerrancy of the KJV which makes it unique from all other versions. Because it is unique from all other versions, it is inerrant.

You and Will Duffy did an excellent job of researching for this debate!

Thanks Tico. Very interesting comparison. And thanks for the compliment. Will Duffy is a hard task master!

 

[User Name]

The most obvious opponent of Sola Scriptura would be a Romanist.

John Calvin added the word "alone" to James 2:24

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

John Calvin added the word "alone" to James 2:24

My kingdom for an informed Romanist.

Sigh.

AMR

 

[brandplucked]

Bible agnostic posturing their "sola scriptura"

Bible agnostic posturing their "sola scriptura"

This pious sounding posturing about most Christians faith in "Sola Scriptura" is just that, empty pious posturing that means nothing.

Why? Because there is no "only Scripture" Bible that any of them really believe are the final authority and the authoritative, 100% true words of God.

It's just a religious game the bible agnostics and Vatican Version users play to make it appear that they are more "spiritual" and "discerning" than those they criticize as not believing the Book.

Yet not one of these "sola scriptura" guys (unless he is a King James Bible believer) really believes in the absolute truth of "only the scriptures".

It is just a philosophical hypothesis and pious posturing with no real substance and no real Bible.

 

[ccfromsc]

Question

Question

Question for brandplucked.... do you go by the name steve avery on another board?

 

[brandplucked]

No, I am not Steven Avery. I know who he is. He is a strong King James Bible believer, but I am not the same guy. He lives in New York, while I live in Colorado.

 

[Brother Vinny]

This pious sounding posturing about most Christians faith in "Sola Scriptura" is just that, empty pious posturing that means nothing.

Why? Because there is no "only Scripture" Bible that any of them really believe are the final authority and the authoritative, 100% true words of God.

It's just a religious game the bible agnostics and Vatican Version users play to make it appear that they are more "spiritual" and "discerning" than those they criticize as not believing the Book.

Yet not one of these "sola scriptura" guys (unless he is a King James Bible believer) really believes in the absolute truth of "only the scriptures".

It is just a philosophical hypothesis and pious posturing with no real substance and no real Bible.

Heh, sola Scriptura predates the KJB by nearly a couple centuries.

 

[User Name]

This pious sounding posturing about most Christians faith in "Sola Scriptura" is just that, empty pious posturing that means nothing.

Why? Because there is no "only Scripture" Bible that any of them really believe are the final authority and the authoritative, 100% true words of God.

It seems to me to be a moot point to suggest that there is an absolutely perfect Bible unless one also believes that his understanding of what that Bible says is also absolutely perfect.

Why are there conflicting groups of KJV-only believers who hold to different and conflicting doctrines? For example, some KJVOs are MAD and believe in OSAS (e.g., SaultoPaul and John W on this forum), while others are anti-MAD and anti-OSAS, believing that a Christian can fall back into sin and loose his salvation (e.g., Jason0047). The level of hostility that is expressed between these conflicting KJVOs can be quite shocking.

 

[User Name]

It seems to me to be a moot point to suggest that there is an absolutely perfect Bible unless one also believes that his understanding of what that Bible says is also absolutely perfect. What good is a perfect Bible unless one's understanding of what it says and means is also perfect?

Why are there conflicting groups of KJV-only believers who hold to different and conflicting doctrines? For example, some KJVOs are MAD and believe in OSAS (e.g., SaultoPaul and John W on this forum), while others are anti-MAD and anti-OSAS, believing that a Christian can fall back into sin and loose his salvation (e.g., Jason0047). The level of hostility that is expressed between these conflicting KJVOs can be quite shocking.

 

[User Name]

mistaken post

 

[Psalmist]

It seems...The level of hostility that is expressed between these conflicting KJVOs can be quite shocking.

I have a family member that is over the top with the KJVO thing.

He stopped a nephew before he started his sermon to be sure he was using the KJV, and discovered he was using NIV, so this uncle took the NIV and handed his nephew a KJV and said now you can go to preaching. Needless to say it didn't end well, the nephew was really frustrated and didn't do his usual good message, the uncle told the nephew after service that he needn't come back if he was going to bring that NIV trash to preach from in his church.​

 

[Shasta]

Why do you open so many responses with an insult?

That is part of his tactics. He tries to smear people but I think it is a part of a bitter contentious spirit as well. He has put himself in an extreme position which probably most people who like and use the KJV. Would not agree. He thinks the KJV is and must be infallible in every word, verse and passage and he knows it by revelation. This view makes it necessary to defend every page (of the Cambridge edition) even when the related doctrinal issues are not particularly crucial. He fights with the desperation of someone who has a lot to lose...and it is true. If it were ever to be shown that he is wrong on a single point his case for infallibility would collapse. I have found debating him an unpleasant experience. From the first time he started posting he was disrespectful to others and needlessly rude and provocative. He does not know how to make his points graciously without making enemies.

 

[Shasta]

The most obvious opponent of Sola Scriptura would be a Romanist. Secondarily would be Mormons, SDAs, and others who claim to have received extra-Biblical revelations.

AMR

I don't know AMA. Just like WK the Mormon's believe that infallible post apostolic books can be discovered through personal revelation and published for the faithful to read and believe without question.