[Harley]

George, this is absolutely wonderful! I am going to copy and paste this into a document for reference, as you've captured what I was taught as a child (from the King James) and have taught my son - what I've told him are the basics.

Thank you. This took time on your part and I want you to know I appreciate you for being willing to share your wisdom.

Harley

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

The Trinity,
1John 5v 7: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Not sure how one would think otherwise.

Well, some would say that 1 John 5:7 doesn't appear in the 'earliest' manuscripts or some such, but it's not the only reference to the trinity. The Bible is full of them. Here's a few:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" (Matthew 28:19)

"The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen." (2 Corinthians 13:14)

"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Matthew 3:16,17)

And there are references to man being a triune being as well:

"And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Thessalonians 5:23)

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Genesis 2:7)

There's more, of course, but that should do for now.

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by BrianT

I agree Diligent. However, we're still stuck with the problem of two people, both reading the same translation and both believing and claiming they are being led/taught by the Holy Spirit, coming to opposing viewpoints. Both check the other's viewpoint in scripture (being Berean) and "discern" the other is in error.

So? Is there a problem here?

Brother George beat me to part of my reply, but I'll just add some anyway...

...if you and a brother disagree on doctrine, and you each pray for guidance, yet still disagree, then it is very possible that one of you is wrong!

And that maybe it's something that you should not discuss with each other, or maybe you should spend more time with people who believe as you do.

You can't convert the world to your way of thinking...if it's of the Lord, He'll do the work of convincing, you just sow the seeds. Let the Lord handle it:

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." (Romans 14:4, 10-12)

[Here Am I]

Originally Posted by BrianT

I believe the same thing, I just do not believe it was preserved in the same way you believe it was preserved, and I do not claim my belief as authoritative. I've explained this many times, I don't know why you continue to misunderstand me.

I have a question for you, Brian:

Do you know if you have been 'born again'?

Are you 'saved'?

Can you give a testimony about your 'conversion'?

Now, if you know that you are a child of God, that you've been born again, 'saved', then please tell me this:

How do you know?

On what do you base your salvation?

I see it this way: if you doubt that God is capable of preserving His word perfectly, then how do you know that what you believe is true?

And if you can't know that what you read and believe is true, then how do you know that the part of the Bible about salvation is true, and not an error?

On what authority do you believe what you believe?

Just wondering.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha all, The following information is supplied for those brethren on the Forum who are sincerely interested in the Truth (Sophists not included!).

Sophists not included!

Good post Brother George. Okay. I'll admit. I had to look it up.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

SOPH'IST, n. L. sophista.

1. A professor of philosophy; as the sophists of Greece.

2. A captious or fallacious reasoner.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[George]

Originally Posted by Forrest

Good post Brother George. Okay. I'll admit. I had to look it up.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

SOPH'IST, n. L. sophista.

1. A professor of philosophy; as the sophists of Greece.

2. A captious or fallacious reasoner.

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Aloha brother Forrest,

If you get a chance - check out my Thread and subsequent Posts on HUMANISM:

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...99&postcount=1
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...27&postcount=5
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...48&postcount=7
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=11
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...4&postcount=13
http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...3&postcount=14

This is from the last Link (Post) listed from above. [04/14/2008}

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

soph·ist – noun

1. (often initial capital letter) Greek History.

a. any of a class of professional teachers in ancient Greece who gave instruction in various fields, as in general culture, rhetoric, politics, or disputation.

b. a person belonging to this class at a later period who, while professing to teach skill in reasoning, concerned himself with ingenuity and specious effectiveness rather than soundness of argument.

2. a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.

3. a philosopher.

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by George

Aloha brother Forrest,

If you get a chance - check out my Thread and subsequent Posts on HUMANISM:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source

soph·ist...

Thanks. And don't forget to change your profile location. You OKEE.

Originally Posted by George

1. A person who - Does not believe in God (The God of the Bible) = an APOSTATE, Atheist or Agnostic.

Brother George, your posts are always a delight, a challenge, and a blessing, but I disagree with some of your terminology in this one. I believe, however, that terminology (taxonomy, if you will) is our only point of difference.

My understanding of an apostate is that he or she has "fallen away from a standing position:" that's the Greek etymology I learned in Bible school, and it's backed up by this brief definition from the Oxford English Dictionary:

apostate: 1340, "one who forsakes his religion or faith," from L.L. apostata, from Gk. apostasia "defection, desertion, rebellion," from apostenai "to defect," lit. "to stand off," from apo- "away from" (see apo-) + stenai "to stand."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=apostate

In my understanding, an atheist or a Muslim or a Buddhist would not be an apostate (to their religion) unless they had turned away from their original "orthodox" belief. In Christian terms, the apostates are those who, having professed the Biblical truths, turn away from them, and embrace some unscriptural concept - - - or deny the faith altogether. (E.g., Osama bin Laden is probably not an "apostate" Muslim, whereas Billy Graham, if his sad senility has really led him to universalism, is an apostate.) In order to apostasize, one must have an orthodox belief to begin with.

An atheist, or a disbeliever in Jesus' Deity, is not in that position, if he/she has never been saved. Before I came to Christ, I was an atheist or an agnostic, but not an apostate; I hadn't "fallen away from" my original "standing position."

A heretic, on the other hand, is anyone who believes or espouses a heresy. It is, quite obviously, possible to be an apostate and a heretic: I think of a former Southern Baptist evangelist who embraced charismania. Or, one can be a heretic from the very beginning, like those poor unfortunates raised in the Mormon church, or some other cult. They're heretics, but not apostates.

I don't mean to quibble over inessentials, but I think this is a helpful distinction.

Can a Bible believer be a heretic? To the degree that he/she embraces a heretical doctrine, yes. But, in my heart of hearts, I think that a sincere believer in the authority of the KJB (with the emphasis on "sincere" and "authority") will eventually get the doctrine straightened out. I do not believe that anyone who maintains belief in the KJB can apostsize: the moment he embraces an apostate belief, he has, by definition, ceased to believe the KJB.

Historically, until about 15 or 20 years ago, Pentecostals clung to the KJB, and most black churches still do. But I would not define their preference for the KJB as putting them in our camp. Their allegiance, I think, was as cultural as spiritual.

As for inessentials, like Christmas trees and smoking cigarettes, I don't think that such constitutes heresy or apostasy, although it may indicate imperfect obedience!

Originally Posted by BrianT

However, we're still stuck with the problem of two people, both reading the same translation and both believing and claiming they are being led/taught by the Holy Spirit, coming to opposing viewpoints. Both check the other's viewpoint in scripture (being Berean) and "discern" the other is in error.

Your inability to understand the inevitability of simple disagreements makes you a very tedious conversationalist, and your unsubstantiated claim that at least one KJB believer disbelieves in the Trinity is mischievous. The New Testament records sharp disagreements between Spirit-filled men in which neither was clearly wrong; and there are many passages about "doubtful things," like eating meats sacrificed to idols. Such matters do not always constitute apostasy or heresy. There is such a thing as Christian liberty, as you know very well: your apparent freedom of conscience to engage brothers in trifling, pedantic argumentation is a good example, although one which I would not embrace.

Hi Forrest, Harley, George, Here Am I, Vendetta Ride, and others,

Numerous questions have been forth to me about what I believe, etc. These questions are off topic in my opinion, thus I do not want to respond to them in this thread but again I openly invite anyone to email me at "brian AT tegarttech DOT com" where I will answer any questions. Some may think Im trying to avoid such questions, but I am not - I just know answering them in this thread will take things severely off topic.

George said

I do not believe that every single difference between Christians constitutes “Heresy”. I can only conclude then, that a heretick is someone who professes to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Bible, but who rejects, twists, or changes a major Bible doctrine that is openly declared and clearly defined by Scripture, and recognized, understood, and accepted by the vast majority of genuine Bible believers.

I agree, and thank you for clarifying your comments from your original post. However, the issue of "major" Bible doctrine implies that there are minor Bible doctrines, and that there is some distinction between the two. Often, people disagree over whether a doctrine is "major" or not.

Also, and I realize your list of 40 is only a partial list, but there are genuine heresies that could affirm things as you worded them. For example, items 20 & 21 (the closest your list comes to Trinitarian doctrines) could be affirmed by those who hold the heresies of Sabellianism (Jesus is not just the Son, but also the Father and the Holy Spirit), Docetism (Jesus's body only appeared to be human), Adoptionism (the Godhead entered Jesus at his baptism), etc. I'm not saying that this is how you meant it of course, but simply pointing out that interpretation of words, and not just the words themselves, is a crucial factor in heresy.

Vendetta Ride, I agree with most of what you wrote, but want to reply to a couple specific comments. You said:

I do not believe that anyone who maintains belief in the KJB can apostsize: the moment he embraces an apostate belief, he has, by definition, ceased to believe the KJB.

Maybe it's just semantics, but I disagree. People "believe the KJV" all the time even when believing heresy. This does not mean the KJV teaches heresy, but rather that the more accurate way of saying what I think you meant is "the moment he embraces an apostate belief, he has, by definition, ceased to believe the correct interpretation of the KJB". Of course, this brings us full circle to my original question, of how to authoritatively know who has the correct interpretation.

your unsubstantiated claim that at least one KJB believer disbelieves in the Trinity is mischievous

It is not mischievous, it was completely relevant (as an example) to the topic at hand and the points I am making. As for substantiating the claim, the purpose of me mentioning it is not to start a witch hunt or deflect the opposition I am receiving on this forum, but rather to demonstrate how the ideas of having the correct orthodox doctrine (or eventually arriving at it) just because one is KJV-only sounds great in theory but simply doesn't happen in practice. I have encountered KJV-only supporters that vocally and agressively teach baptism is a requirement of salvation, speaking in tongues is a requirement of salvation, soul sleep, posttribulationism, Sabellianism, an unborn baby is not "a human soul" until it breaths, and numerous other doctrines that the typical KJV-only supporter would consider "heresy", and I have no reason to believe they will not continue in these doctrines for the rest of their lives. If the non-Trinitarian on this board wants to expose himself, he will. He knows who he is, and he knows that I know who he is, but I will not rise up as his accuser for the purposes of causing yet even more antagonism and schism on this board. In fact, I'm thinking I may even bid you all farewell just to allow this board to be more peaceful. I have endeavored to not be antagonistic to anyone in all of my postings here, and yet my postings seem to cause some people to get quite upset. I guess I understand why, but I wish we all could simply discuss things without all the negativity and personal attacks.

God bless,
Brian

[MC1171611]

Brian, the problem is that you disagree completely with our foundational belief in the King James Bible; without that, we have no basis for anything, doctrinal or otherwise. You need to understand that your lack of FAITH in God's word simply makes yourself an authority over it; I seriously doubt you'll admit to it, but that's exactly what you've done. I (and the others on the board) want nothing to do with someone who puts their own opinions about God's words above those words themselves: that's why you've had a cold reception ever since you got here, and more specifically since you evidenced that you're without reason when it comes to the Scriptures.

You're welcome to stay, in my opinion: it's good to have someone of your persuasion for young Christians to see how confused modern perversion proponents are. But as far as unity and peace goes, your presence is one of the biggest things being an hindrance.