Is it not interesting that those who believe in "Limited Atonement" seem always to consider themselves one of the "elect"?

This post was last modified: Sat May 24, 2008 12:23 PM by Brother Tim.

Sad to say I have met one individual who wanted to be saved but did not believe he was one of the elect. After a couple of years of Gospel preaching away from the church that gave him the idea he has eventually gotten saved.

That is the brand of calvinism I would fight, the kind that leaves people who to be saved thinking they cannot be saved.

This is long awaited. I will warn you that this is a long post, but there is a lot that needs to be said. Please read it all and don’t just discard it. Before I begin this post, which I am not sure if I should just sweep it under the rug, let me say that the delay was for me to make sure I would not respond in the flesh. I am also watching my favorite hockey team, the Detroit Red Wings, begin in the Stanley Cup finals. So while I write this, my spirits should stay positive (assuming the Wings are winning ).

I also need to point out the quandary I was put in. I was prompted to respond, then at the same time I am accused of “whinnin’ like a little school girl." So, honestly, what am I supposed to do? If I don’t respond, it is as if I conceded. If I do respond, I am just whining. After reading through my chapter of Proverbs for the day, I came across some relevant passages: 17:28 – “Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding.” & 17:14 – “The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore leave off contention, before it be meddled with.” It seemed like God was telling me to sit this one out for a bit.

I thought it was an extremely rash statement for George to say, “Greektim, once again I see that you are trying to impress us with your superior intellect and knowledge. You are full of the knowledge of man which is flawed at best.” I read through then entire thread multiple times, and the first post that I made which started to leave the realm of the discussion was my point about ESCHATOLOGY. Brother Tim and I were discussing the Tribulation. He didn’t think there was a passage the specifically says there will be a time called “the tribulation.” I pointed him to Matt. 24, but he disagreed b/c it was not capitalized in the KJV. I responded by explaining that the Greek didn’t use punctuation the way we use it. I did not for one moment post anything to try to display whatever intellect I have. I don’t think nor claim to be an intelligent person. I let other people decide that for me. If anything, I think this thread was hijacked by the KJVO’s so I could be accused for a position which you disagree. But George only accused me of intellectualism. He wasn’t the one who thought I hijacked the thread into another KJV debate. That was someone else.

With that said, George, I have gained quite a bit of respect for you. Thus far in writing this, I see that you are the only one to apologize. To be quite honest, I think you least of all were as harsh, demeaning, and downright rude as 2 others.

Now to Bro. Chuck. I am being as honest as I can possible be when I say that I was not trying to be divisive when pointing out the differences in higher, lower, & textual criticism. Higher criticism usually does lead to liberalism (denying the Bible as God’s Word). Again I want to point out that you are wrongly accusing me of liberalism. I guess I should ask you what your definition is of liberalism. Is it anything to do with denying the KJVO position? To me, liberalism is a form of apostasy and heretical teachings. I don’t think I fall in that category at all. Also, you equate all modern versions with W-H heresies. Again I am trying to point out the truth for your benefit that most do not use the W-H text as a textual basis. You would be stronger for arguing the truth instead of a straw man.

Then, Bro. Chuck, instead of attacking me and my views you move on to my college, my education, and my professors. I am glad you went on PBC&GS’s website. But that does not make you an expert. I believe you referred to PBC as “liberal and non-KJB.” Question, is PBC liberal BECAUSE they are not KJVO or is there something else you found ALONGSIDE the KJV issue? I can say without any reservation that Piedmont Baptist College & Graduate School is the farthest thing from liberal (although they allow the females to wear dress pants to class ).

Then, Bro. Chuck, you justify your remarks by saying that you are told to “earnestly contend for the faith.” That doesn’t allow you to be contentious. That verse just speaks to your fervor, zeal, and passion for the faith. I am all for you earnestly contending for the faith. I just ask that you do so in a way that you are “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) & “with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15). I think that was lacking in your contending of the faith.

That brings me to Mongol Servant. You, off-gate, misrepresent modern versions of using W-H. I have previously said before that the UBS & NA prefer Alexandrian readings, but not exclusively. There are times where they don’t use that reading. There are many times that they are different than W-H as well. I am merely trying to clear up any misconceptions, misrepresentations, and misinformation. I still think you would be stronger if you built your case on the truth not a straw man.

Mongol Servant, I don’t know how to respond to the comments you made to me without coming off as whining. You will just have to take my word for it that I am not whining but simply trying to right whatever wrongs that were thrown at me. The straw that broke my back was the jab you made that I was “whinnin’ like a little school girl.” I think that was extremely uncalled for. I remember the days when on the playground as kids if comments like that were made shortly to follow would be a scrum. Needless to say, that feeling arose in me anew. That is partly the reason for such a delay in a response. I needed to calm down. I do believe you lacked Christian character with statements like that. Certainly, you wouldn’t say such a thing to a brother in Christ in Mongolia while witnessing in Mongolia (cf. John 13:34-35). I expected better from a missionary.

Then, MS, you attack my educators with some low blows. You referred to them as “deluded ‘brains’” and so called “‘bible [sic] scholars’” appearing “so pious and reverent, but are really wolves in sheep's clothing” (you also spoke of Bible college profs being educated beyond their intelligence but I am not certain if that was directed to one of my profs). Let me clearly say that no professor from Piedmont deluded me into my view of the KJV. I came to that on my own. Granted, the KJVO position was not taught, but neither was any anti-KJV teaching. I ask that you keep your attacks at me and my view (preferably at my view). You don’t know my profs and cannot speak intelligently on such things when you have not met them or know what they teach or believe.

Now, MS, you also accused me of some things which I think were quite wrong. You say that I hijacked this thread. I disagree. I remind you that I was discussing something with Brother Tim about eschatology. I didn’t bring the translation issue in it at all. I mentioned the Greek, big deal. I also mentioned something about being right about translations post #98, but that was in jest (notice the smiley face). Certainly that could NOT be taken as hijacking the thread. I don’t know where that accusation can be substantiated. You also see me as “running down this ‘scholarly’ road, with a view towards ‘helping correct these illiterate KJBO's.’” How many times do I have to say that I know you guys aren’t going to change your minds? You accused me of “His attitude is ‘My mind is made up - don't confuse me with the facts.’” I could throw this accusation right back at you, but I am not too sure how you would take it. I am just trying to make sure your facts are factual and not built on straw men. You also didn’t like my statement about how I oppose the KJVO VIEW on my blog. You say that is not taught by the Spirit. You mean the Spirit doesn’t teach believers to oppose doctrinal positions? I didn’t say I oppose the KJV/KJB/AV. I said I oppose the KJV only position. I would say the same thing about hyper-calvinism, Amillennialism, covenant theology, or Progressive Dispensationalism for that matter.

Then there is Brother Tim. This is twice now I have seen him stand up and say something when things get out of hand. I never once asked Brother Tim to fight my battle. In fact, I only thanked him for disagreeing with passion yet keeping his composure in the midst of disagreement. I think he is a prime example of what it means to earnestly contend for the faith. Keep it up, brOTHER Tim!

How about my dad, Chuckietrout? He will never know how much I respect him and love him. He is a man of God and set a Biblical precedence in my upbringing. I am extremely thankful to God that He bestowed upon me such unmerited grace to allow me to be a son of Chuckietrout (wish I could use his real name ‘cause using his handle doesn’t seem as meaningful). I am also thankful that he referred me to Fundamental Preaching.com. As I said before, I love this forum. I have found it extremely challenging and beneficial. It goes to show how far this thread got out of hand in its accusations that he had to speak up.

In conclusion, Jim, you asked, “Can someone please show me where GT's doctrine was wrong? I may have missed some heretical view of his, but can someone please find it?” I respond with a statement made by Christ, “Where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?... Neither do I condemn thee” (I copied and pasted from e-sword so I hope this is an accurate portrayal of the KJV rendering). If I am wrong, heretical, liberal (in an apostate way), or just plain out of line; please correct me. If I am wrong, I would rather be corrected than win an argument holding a wrong view. I just want God glorified in discussion without ridicule and sin.

I think that covers all the bases that needed to be covered. Sorry for the length, but there was so much to say. I am in the process of moving right now so I may not be able to respond to any replies immediately. My prayer is that this will be a learning experience for all, and we can move on in iron sharpening iron for the glory of God.

A quick addendum to my previous post on "Limited Atonement". I should have been more clear in part of my statement. A better sentence is:

Is it not interesting that those who teach "Limited Atonement" seem always to consider themselves one of the "elect"?

Sadly there are those who have heard that only certain people are destined to be saved, and looking at themselves, they lose hope that they are "good enough" to qualify.

Imagine for a moment the fury that must be in the mind of God when someone places a limit on His Grace! (again, always including themselves in the elect.)

Pastor Greek Tim,
1st, let me begin by saying that I hope, with all my heart, that you have a successful pastorate, and your charges turn your community upside down for The Lord. I have no personal animosity toward you whatsoever. 2nd, let me say unequivocally, that I do not feel any apology whatsoever is necessary in even the slightest degree, regarding remarks made in reference to the text issue. You'll understand why, in a moment. It would behoove you to learn that, "if you're gonna run with the big dogs, you better learn to eat with 'em." I am not a smooth-talking, sharing/caring, sit-at-the-tea house and chew the fat, diplomatic politician - I'm a combat soldier. I made the comments ("whinin' school girl, deluded brains, etc) exactly as I intended them to be taken, and you got the point. I was born and raised in the Carolinas, and know whereof I speak! Like you indicated, I was tempted to just "sweep this under the rug," and move on, but I have been in The Lord's army long enough to have earned my "hash marks" and know when to pick my battles - this is one of those times. I'm going to address two(2) areas, that you brought up, in an attempt to enlighten you, and others, on why the "text" issue is not only near and dear to my heart, but also very critical and necessary. After that, I will "let this go." Also, you indicated that you were moving, and may not be able to respond quickly. Take your time - we are enroute to the States for our furlough, so I'm not sure when, or if, I'll respond.

Area #1, is that of indirectly "crippling" God. You've stated that only the "originals" are inspired. You are admitting, that the God who saved me, and promised to preserve His pure word to all generations, somehow "lost" His pure, preserved word, and we must now depend on the opinions of "scholars", about "originals" they have NEVER seen.
Area #2, is that of your "opinion" that the King James Bible is "flawed," and as a result, has "led Christians to a place that God did not want them to go."

Now, get over your fixation with this "straw man" scenario - the above areas indicate exactly what you said. As a result, you want me, and others, to sit aside while you use "scholarly research" to slam my God and my Bible! Now, if you want to "arrive at your own conclusions" about the text, and defend your "position," without saying the KJB is flawed, go right ahead. But when you ridicule the Book that got me saved, "Katy bar the door!" Imagine the reaction from old Grandma Perkins up in those Appalachian hills, when I tell her that she really doesn't know what God says, 'cause she can't research & collate 5,000 mss!' I expected better from a "Pastor" that went to a Baptist, Bible College to learn the word of God!
In conclusion, my "opinion" is that both of your "opinions" are flawed. I'll keep trusting God by faith, that He has kept His promise in the KJB, and match the fruit from it against ANYTHING else in the past or in the future, regardless of what "discoveries" are made. I also want to thank you for your testimony that some of us are "extremists" - I REALLY appreciate that, as it tends to indicate that the person labeling as such, has the dreaded Baptist disease of "Ruckmanitis"! It's terminal, worse than aids. Thanks again.
Lord Bless!

P.S. Bro Jim - as requested, from this point forward, I'll "drop it."

Since I have been ill lately I have not had the time to read all of Greektim's long post or the ones following.

I was wondering if any of you have taken the time to research his alma mater? I have. The only thing that sort of "bothers" me is that I cannot find a link to a book store. Some time back there were statements made about Bob Jones University going liberal, embracing the modern versions and such as that. I was able to go to the BJU web site and take a look at their book store. Through that and other things on the site I was able to verify the accusations.

One thing I will say is that his school has posted a rather extensive Statement of Faith. I have read it over and I find nothing wrong or contradictory about it. I will post a link to the statement so that anyone who cares to can read it.

http://www.pbc.edu/ps/ps_a_doctrinal.aspx

I must say that I absolutely do not agree with the scholarly things being taught in a lot of Bible colleges these days. There are many that teach the Bible is only accurate in the original manuscripts which is saying that no one has God's true Word because the originals do not exist. It also causes people to question things that are written in the Bible.

I sincerely believe this modern method of teaching in our Bible colleges comes from the absolute desire man has to understand God. We are built with a desire or possibly even a need to understand everything. However the more we try to understand God by constantly changing the Bible and teaching in a form of Greek or even Hebrew that is not used these days I believe causes men to be distanced from God.

It is so comforting to me to be able to pick up any one of my Bibles and know that they are all true, correct and inerrant. That is because they are all the King James Bible. It does not change.

Anyway I thought that perhaps before we engage in any more character assassination we ought to look over his school to learn more about what he was taught.

In Christ,
George

For those who believe that name calling and harshness is justified because you are a soldier just remember we are a different type of warrior. Our weapons are not carnal and to me name calling is carnal and trying to correct someone without love is not truly correction, it is simply argument. Even in Ephesians 5 where separation is spoking of so clearly and radically it speaks of first of all walking in love.

Anyway, there's my $0.02 worth. Have a good day.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

I have learned that the KJB is the Word of God.
I tell people the truth because I do love them. If a person does not tell folks the truth, then do they love the one to whom they are speaking? This is speaking the truth in love. It doesn't involve a bunch of philosophical debate and one-upmanship. It is about being faithful to God and fulfilling the great commission. In the aformentioned verse, nothing is said of finding out about their history but only to mark them and avoid them if they cause division and offences. This has happened. There is division between certain brethren who feel that I have spoken inapropriately, I sincerely apologize. I do not want to offend the brethren. I cannot apologize for attempting to point out that a man that denies the very Word of God has fellowship with the brethren here. This is a major problem in Churches today, the fact that these men creep in and slowly try to change the doctrines of God. I am not saying that I can point out all the flaws in his doctrine, but I can say that I know one. He doesn't believe that we have an inerrant. infallible, Word of God in the KJB.
I am sorry if I have misspoken or hurt anyone, that was not my intent.
In Christ eternally,
Bro. Chuck

Greektim, please allow me to address a couple of things you said in your long response. By the way I think it was well done and without contention. I am going to quote two things together and then address them. I want you to know that I am not trying to pick on you or to show you wrong but to try to help you to understand the beliefs of us KJBO fundamentalists.

As to the first statement that does most definitely point toward compromise and liberalism. A lot of us do not believe women should wear trousers at all and I believe all of us believe they ought not to be worn to a Bible school or Church. The Bible says that women are to dress modestly. Wearing something that shows off every line of their lower anatomy is not modesty. It is cultural, it is modern, and it is getting with the times. This dear brother is compromise and a liberal position. What is next I ask? Is it allowing the students, including the women, to begin wearing shorts and sandals to school and then to Church? You may be saying that may never happen but believe me it not only can it has in a number of cases.

Then if you look at the second statement it is an indictment of itself. If the KJBO position was not taught that in and of itself is an anti-KJB stance. If you exclude something it is because you do not agree with it and will not teach it. That is “anti” by any stretch of the imagination. To exclude means to prevent from using or participating. If anyone prevents me from using or participating in something that is being “anti,” is it not?

Please understand this is not meant as a personal indictment. I am attempting to explain to you only two of the differences in the true fundamentalists who hold to the King James Bible Only position and the Churches and schools who have stepped off into liberalism no matter how minor it may seem. In Reformers Unanimous one of our Ten Principles states: Small Compromises Lead to Great Disasters. All I can say to that is Amen! It has to start somewhere. A good example is what has happened to the Southern Baptist Convention.

Hopefully this many help you to understand somewhat why we say some of the things we do.

In Christ,
George