End Times and Current Events
March 29, 2024, 11:01:05 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:39 (KJB)
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Roman Godess found in John Wesleys church

Shoutbox
March 27, 2024, 12:55:24 pm Mark says: Shocked Shocked Shocked Shocked  When Hamas spokesman Abu Ubaida began a speech marking the 100th day of the war in Gaza, one confounding yet eye-opening proclamation escaped the headlines. Listing the motives for the Palestinian militant group's Oct. 7 massacre in Israel, he accused Jews of "bringing red cows" to the Holy Land.
December 31, 2022, 10:08:58 am NilsFor1611 says: blessings
August 08, 2018, 02:38:10 am suzytr says: Hello, any good churches in the Sacto, CA area, also looking in Reno NV, thanks in advance and God Bless you Smiley
January 29, 2018, 01:21:57 am Christian40 says: It will be interesting to see what happens this year Israel being 70 years as a modern nation may 14 2018
October 17, 2017, 01:25:20 am Christian40 says: It is good to type Mark is here again!  Smiley
October 16, 2017, 03:28:18 am Christian40 says: anyone else thinking that time is accelerating now? it seems im doing days in shorter time now is time being affected in some way?
September 24, 2017, 10:45:16 pm Psalm 51:17 says: The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league rulebook. It states: “The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. “During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
September 20, 2017, 04:32:32 am Christian40 says: "The most popular Hepatitis B vaccine is nothing short of a witch’s brew including aluminum, formaldehyde, yeast, amino acids, and soy. Aluminum is a known neurotoxin that destroys cellular metabolism and function. Hundreds of studies link to the ravaging effects of aluminum. The other proteins and formaldehyde serve to activate the immune system and open up the blood-brain barrier. This is NOT a good thing."
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-08-11-new-fda-approved-hepatitis-b-vaccine-found-to-increase-heart-attack-risk-by-700.html
September 19, 2017, 03:59:21 am Christian40 says: bbc international did a video about there street preaching they are good witnesses
September 14, 2017, 08:06:04 am Psalm 51:17 says: bro Mark Hunter on YT has some good, edifying stuff too.
View Shout History
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Roman Godess found in John Wesleys church  (Read 850 times)
Lisa
Guest
« on: September 20, 2011, 11:44:25 am »

Wesley church restoration reveals statue of **** woman whose modesty the Methodists had covered for centuries
By Oliver Pickup

Last updated at 5:04 PM on 20th September 2011

Comments (2) Add to My Stories Share
 All her glory: The **** statue, covered up for centuries, has been restored
After having her modesty covered for years, a church restoration has revealed a statue of a **** woman.

The small statue has uncovered in the church house next to the Priory Church of St James in Bristol, where Methodist founder John Wesley, who died in 1791, aged 87, worshipped.

There is speculation that the unclothed figure was too much of a distraction for Wesley and his early 18th Century Methodists who ordered her to be covered up.

The prudish parishioners had a lead breast plate placed over her chest which remained in position for the next three centuries.

Workers discovered the statue during a restoration project of the ancient building and removed the lead covering.

The figure has now been exposed again and returned to her former glory with help from the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings.

The buxom brunette, who is holding a cornucopia of fruit, stands with her green frock pulled down beneath her breasts and a red shawl wrapped around her shoulders.

She is thought to have arrived from abroad and placed in the house shortly after it was built in the 17th Century.

The church the house stands next to is the Grade I listed, 12th Century Priory Church of St James and is the oldest building in the city of Bristol.
 The statue, right, used to be covered up - and that was thought to be because John Wesley's Methodists thought it too distracting


 The west front of St James with Church house, where the statue was uncovered, on the far left
 John Wesley founder of the Methodism

In the 18th Century Wesley used the church house to hold prayer meetings before he had his purpose-built New Room place of worship erected a couple of hundred yards away.

The 2ft high statue shows a figure who could be a depiction of Abundantia, the Roman Goddess of abundance and prosperity.


The discovery was made during a lottery-funded restoration and conservation project of the church and house.

Andrew Ziminski, from Minerva Conservation, who has written an article in Cornerstone, the magazine of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), said: 'She is pretty super.
'The figure had a lead breast plate that covered the bosom and the breasts had also been painted over.

'It was covered in a brown sludge and we found her tucked away above the fireplace.

'The house dates from he 17th Century and was used to hold prayer meetings and was more for the management of the church.

WHO WAS JOHN WESLEY?
John Wesley (1703 - 1791) was a Church of England cleric and Christian theologian who along with brother Charles is credited with founding Methodism.

It began after a visit to the American colonies and he took to open air preaching and his Methodism was a hugely successful evangelical movement.

It encouraged people to directly experience Jesus Christ and remains a force in the UK's Christianity.
'John Wesley held prayer meetings there and his children were baptised at the church and five of his children are buried there.

'Although he wasn't much of a prude, it was perhaps him or his followers who wanted the figure covered up - bosoms are bosoms and flesh is flesh.

'She does not feel English to me and could have been taken to Bristol by someone visiting the city on a ship.

'She was placed in the room that is beautiful and panelled and has a wonderful ceiling.'

The church and associated house have now been restored and are home to a clinic for those with addictions and there is also a cafe.

 Explore more:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039615/Church-restoration-reveals-statue-****-woman-modesty-covered-centuries.html#ixzz1YVnGYLdv
Report Spam   Logged

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter

Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21786



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2011, 12:01:21 pm »

i just love the way the article makes it seem bad to have covered it up, and that having naked woman is much better.  Roll Eyes

Isa 5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Lisa
Guest
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2011, 12:36:34 pm »

REV 9

15And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men.

 16And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.

 17And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone.

 18By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths.

 19For their power is in their mouth, and in their tails: for their tails were like unto serpents, and had heads, and with them they do hurt.

 20And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk:   21Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

Report Spam   Logged
Lisa
Guest
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2011, 12:38:44 pm »

Actually what i found interesting was that it was covered up rather than destroyed-See i would have burnt the thing-why did they cover up an idol?
Interested in your thoughts
L
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21786



View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2011, 01:20:02 pm »

Actually what i found interesting was that it was covered up rather than destroyed-See i would have burnt the thing-why did they cover up an idol?
Interested in your thoughts
L

i wouldnt even call it a roman goddess. the ancient statues were way better made, this thing was hideous and gaudy. If anything it was sent by the Pope to Wesley, and he kept it as a joke. Having it covered up as the Pope probably liked it uncovered, and male.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 07:59:25 am by Mark » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Lisa
Guest
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2011, 01:34:45 pm »

My only thoughts were-O dear, did those folk KNOW God. The God of Israel sees all hears all and knows all. 4 of his children were buried in the garden....

God doesnt have a sense of humor about idolatry (im so serious about this).
Psalm 106


36And they served their idols: which were a snare unto them.

 37Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

 38And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

 39Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions.

 40Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.



Report Spam   Logged
NextStopHeaven
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2011, 10:41:18 pm »

Many, many, many years ago as a young Christian who loved art and antiques it never bothered me to see naked statues in gardens or at art galleries or in Museums.  I can't say that now.  God has turned up my Holy meter and I can't bear it these days.  I'm not a prude I'm just a lot more sensitive to the Holy Spirit and the teaching of God's Word.  Be Holy for I the Lord your God am Holy. 

Naked is naked and trying to excuse it through saying it is art is ridiculous.  Recently an Australian photographer got into hot water over naked photos in an exhibition of two young girls (under aged & yes you could see their private parts in the photos but the newspaper blanked those out).  There are many in the Art community who have stood by this man claiming it wasn't inappropriate.  The law here prohibits the public display of naked children, Thank God for that.  Just because the mothers of the children OKed the photos doesn't make it inappropriate. This man is obsessed with naked children yet he hasn't been able to be prosecuted as a Peadophile but if anyone downloads hisso called ART images from the internet it would be considered Child pornography.  You can apparently still buy his so called ART and display it in a private dwelling. 

Today I see any naked figures, paintings, live art (naked people painted) and photos as totally against the Lord's commandments.

  1CO 12:21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.




Report Spam   Logged

Jesus came in Flesh.
Lisa
Guest
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2011, 04:30:30 pm »

Interested in which bible translation your quoting from?  Are you KJV?
Report Spam   Logged
NextStopHeaven
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2011, 09:00:38 pm »

Lisa

I think that was an NIV.  If that is a problem I can use a KJV next time if you prefer (I do have one amongst my various English copies of the Bible).

If I paraphase anything from memory it won't come out KJV have read many English versions over my lifetime as a Christian.  I speak several languages and read the Bible originally in my own language.

Living so long amongst English speakers I have over the past years found myself reading in English these days.  Can't cope with Old English though it really is beyond my brain to read in it for long, I have to refer to and easier and more modern English version. 

They say you revert back to your first language when you get older.  I'm not very old but I have to agree I have found myself accidently speaking my own language to my English friends more and more these days.  Not sure why, I don't have dementia yet but it could be the start of it I'm old enough.  I've seen it happen with older family who have suffered strokes or do have dementia, they end up losing their English or other language skills.

I never got into reading a KJV and I don't think at my age now I am going to bother.  My English Christian friends gave me a Good News (I have many versions today).  They used a KJV and I really found that too hard to read.  I was given an English Bible so I could do Bible Studies in English with my English speaking Christian friends.

 
Report Spam   Logged

Jesus came in Flesh.
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21786



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2011, 06:27:44 am »

actually the KJV is a lot easier to read than the NIV or any other modern corrupt version. You should really research the "version" you are using, so as to not use a Catholic version, which just about everything is today.

THE WESTCOTT AND HORT ONLY CONTROVERSY
http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,31.0.html

King James Bible History and Resources
http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,38.0.html

The KJV Defended as God's Preserved Word
http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,58.msg394.html#msg394

Beware of Altered King James Bibles
http://endtimesandcurrentevents.freesmfhosting.com/index.php/topic,58.msg395.html#msg395

You have to remeber that
Gen 3:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said,

and he will slowly corrupt anything, and corrupting the Word of God is his first task...

Another good resource is,



 Smiley something to look into to for 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.


and you do not have that with all these versions.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 06:29:17 am by Dok » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Lisa
Guest
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2011, 02:08:21 pm »

Yeah i used to use the message bible and over the years stumbled across the bible version debate-I think nit gos along the lines that only the KJV and the Geneva bible were translated from the text accepted by the early church Fathers (textus recepticus) and the other bibles are either pure Alexandrian translations or hybrids. Im not like totally fixated on which bible someone uses but i have seen the use of corrupt manuscript bibles cause lots of problems (almost to the point that when there is some sort of doctrinal schism afoot my first thought is -check the text). Some bibles like the NIV leave out some really critical verses (i can send you some links if you like).
When i started to realise the importance of this issue i made a decision that i would read only KJV and for the first 2 or three weeks it was a nightmare-and then it was like having a binoculars focussed and it all came into view and now its just awesome-But yep i agree with you it can be a bit daunting-I used to keep a commentry next to me to check i was getting the right end of the stick, but now I just let the Holy spirit speak through the word...
« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 02:10:37 pm by Lisa » Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21786



View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2011, 02:17:33 pm »

Both manuscripts used to create ALL modern versions come from the catholics.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2011, 02:45:03 pm »

I think it's the most poetic-sounding spoken word out there. Reading it is one thing, but speaking it aloud puts it into focus. Yes, we grow into it, but once you speak it some it starts to just roll right off the tongue and reading it becomes much easier I think. Ultimately, we look to the Holy Ghost to teach us and help us, so to say you can't read the KJB is to discredit what God can do for you, God willing.

After 400 years and countless millions of readers later, the KJB is THE bible, the Word of God as best we have today (remember that scripture says the world can't contain the books that should be written, so that means even if we had 10,000 more books in the bible, we still wouldn't have it all written). What we have is what God intended us to have. The key is in trusting the Spirit to guide you into all truth. Have faith you will find His true Word.

Like the birds of the air, God gives us what we need, not what we want. Anything else is God having mercy on us and adding it on. But it doesn't matter though does it, since we are exhorted to be content with what we have, but are you content that what you read is the correct Word of God? That's is between each of us to God to workout. Interaction, the fellowship between the brethren is where we compare spiritual with spiritual, so when a contention arises, or a difference of understanding, we are exhorted to at least listen to it, to those around us in trying the spirits, and ask what we might learn from it. You may find those around you are wrong, and your right, but it's about watching and learning and discerning in the process of God teaching us from what we see and hear and experience in this carnal world.

As Scripture says, man looks on the outward appearence, God looks on the heart. So we, looking on the outward, see the bible, the written text of the Word of God, but there are variations of the text within these many bibles, so it stands to reason God knowing we look on the outward, are subjected to discerning what we see, and God willing and with His help, learn what is truth and His true Word will stand out among the others.

"The just shall live by faith"
Report Spam   Logged
NextStopHeaven
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2011, 11:01:19 pm »

Typical answers by peolpe who were born with English as their first language. 

You have to be a person who had to learn English to appreciate my problem with the Old Style of English.  Fortunately for me I learned the language when my parents put me into school.  Like many other migrant kids we didn't have any English when we started school in our new country and had to learn as we went but unlike my older cousins who were teenagers it was easier for me as I was very young and it was even harder from my parents to learn and my grandmother other than a few social phrases (Hello, how are you, etc) never learned English at all. 

At school as a migrant kid who didn't speak English at home at all we did Chaucer.  Well you can guess I didn't do well and then there was Shakspere.  If it wasn't for my neighbours mum who took me to a bookshop and introduced me to educational tutoring books on these old English Works I wouldn't have had a clue what was being read in class or what this or that phrase meant.  I've always had a problem with your language in the Old form so please don't give me the line it is easier to read.  My mother who reads modern English well has the same problem Old English is like another lanugage to her.  Dad barely reads modern English. 

If you don't mind you can stick to your King James I prefer modern English versions.  Your problemw is with NIV or Amplied or other English versions is obvious.  You have been convinced it is full errors.

I purchased an electronic Bible about 15 years ago now and it has NIV & KJV on it.  I use that to cut and paste into my forum posts so I don't have to type anything out from a Bible. 

So as I have offered if you really are offended by other versions for you I can paste in verses in the KJV.

Persnally I'm not convinced that the King James is the only correct version of God's Word on the entire planet.  If it was how in the world did my family come to Christ reading a Bible in their own language that is fully translated from the Ancient Greek Septuagint?  (why the spetuigant because we don't have a language that came from Latin but from Greek and your KJV from the latin was not available back then in my parents language, not sure about today but it wasn't back then).  I am able to credit God with being able to cover His Word so that many people of different languages across the planet have been able to get a decent Bible in their own language with God's Truth intact enough to not only bring them to salvation but to enable them to understand all that was written for mankind.  Not to mention we have the Holy Spirit that can divinely lead us into His truth and give us spiritual discernment.  My first English Translation given to me was a Good News I didn't like that too simple for me I at least went through most of my schooling in english so I then choose an NIV and came across other versions like the Amplified (very helpful in having things fully spelt out).

Now if you have a problem with my not accepting King James only I can leave.  I have no problem with your limitations on what you see as acceptable scripture here.

Having come from a migrant family and having been a Teacher I understand what is helpful and what is not.  Giving people of a non-English speaking background a form of English they do not hear everyday makes it harder for them to understand.  You need to give them English that is more at the level of common everyday language because many are not educated and cannot deal with academic or formal language.  I have studied other languages and have done my certificate for being a translator.  So please do not tell me King James is easier.  It isn't for those of us who are not fully experienced in English and especially for those who are not educated in English schools. 




Report Spam   Logged

Jesus came in Flesh.
Lisa
Guest
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2011, 05:34:14 am »

Hi NSH-I had this sent yesterday and i think it answers all your thoughts about this issue that you have raised-Please read it to the end (its not that long but its bang on to your last posting and i believe there are no coincidences).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From Way of Life ministries

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." It has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about a dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define the term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are labeled with a nebulously-defined term.

 

The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.

 

I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

 

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” I have spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior one. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense.

 

Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

 

ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the God-blessed Received Text.

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.” (I do believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

 

If “King James Only” defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”

Report Spam   Logged
NextStopHeaven
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2011, 07:27:40 pm »

So Lisa and DOK

Lisa I didn't ask for a debate on KJV and BTW it was DOK I made most of my responses to because of his comment "it was easier to read in KJV". 


So DOK didn't answer my question?

Do you want me to only use the KJV only when quoting or do you want me to leave?

BTW for the record.  I have not judged anybody here for their choice of KJV only.  I can only hope you can accept I'm not a KJV only person.  If it bothers you as I said tell me to go or tell me I'm banned, whatever this is your board and not mine.

Lisa I'm sorry if you got upset over my recent post. 



Report Spam   Logged

Jesus came in Flesh.
William
Guest
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2011, 08:30:42 pm »

So Lisa and DOK

Lisa I didn't ask for a debate on KJV and BTW it was DOK I made most of my responses to because of his comment "it was easier to read in KJV". 


So DOK didn't answer my question?

Do you want me to only use the KJV only when quoting or do you want me to leave?

BTW for the record.  I have not judged anybody here for their choice of KJV only.  I can only hope you can accept I'm not a KJV only person.  If it bothers you as I said tell me to go or tell me I'm banned, whatever this is your board and not mine.

Lisa I'm sorry if you got upset over my recent post. 





@NextstopHeaven

I know I'm not Dok, but I just want to say First off I am King James Only, however I realize their are true Born Again Christians saved by the blood of Christ, and that know the Gospel of Christ, and his Word through other Bibles.

Even Scott Johnson has said he was saved out of an NIV so its possible, but I really really strongly suggest using the King James. If you feel its too hard ask God to help you understand it, pray about it, and just read it more, and than you will understand it.

The Bibles are getting so watered down now that its getting harder and harder to get saved. There is this version called the "Inclusive Version" that Scott mentioned I believe in his Salvation teaching. They refer to Jesus Christ as "The One," how can you get saved from a Bible like that? You don't even know his name, or who saved you!

I don't really fellowship with other people who don't use the King James, for many different reasons. In your case it seems your struggling with maybe accepting that the King James is the True, and preserved Word of God in the English language. I know it must have been hard to learn English since you said its not your first language, but have you tried finding a Bible based upon your original language that is based upon the King James Bible, or the same texts it used within your own country?

You seem to use, and accept the King James which is good...but your having struggles you say. I myself have made many excuses for not doing things, and need to submit to God more, but I'm only a baby Christian too. Not sure how long you have been saved, but its good you came here, and would be a shame you left...The Lord brought you here for a reason obviously. Its not like your attacking the King James, because you have agreed to post those verses from the King James version, but still a lot of the unsaved, or critics of the King James use that excuse "Its too hard to read," without trying harder.

also I understand your situation with it...I was blessed to be given the King James Bible, and start out with it first. So not trying to come down on you, and trying to come to you in meekness as best I can.

You said you were a teacher...well maybe this verse will help you...

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5 AKJV 1611/1769)

We are to show grace to those sisters, and brothers in Christ who are weak in the faith as well.

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, [but] not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. (Romans 14:1-3 AKJV 1611/1769)

 Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
NextStopHeaven
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2011, 10:49:07 pm »

Forget it your biased as KJV Only.  I'm gone!

Where do you think Russians and Slavs and Greeks got the Word of God from?  If we had to wait for the KJV it would have taken until the 1800's because that is when the Bible Society first translated the English Bible into Welsh.  It took until the next century for the Bible Society to get around to my parents country well after WW2.

God gave us the Ancient Greek Bible within centuries of the establishment of the Early Church and I praise God we didn't spend all these centuries without the word of God in our language.  That is my perspective that some kind of decent Bible is better than no Bible at all.




« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 10:56:36 pm by NextStopHeaven » Report Spam   Logged

Jesus came in Flesh.
Kilika
Guest
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2011, 04:35:26 am »

Forget it your biased as KJV Only.  I'm gone!

Where do you think Russians and Slavs and Greeks got the Word of God from?  If we had to wait for the KJV it would have taken until the 1800's because that is when the Bible Society first translated the English Bible into Welsh.  It took until the next century for the Bible Society to get around to my parents country well after WW2.

God gave us the Ancient Greek Bible within centuries of the establishment of the Early Church and I praise God we didn't spend all these centuries without the word of God in our language.  That is my perspective that some kind of decent Bible is better than no Bible at all.






I think from what I have read in this thread, there has been patience and meekness in trying to show the KJB as the best bible out there. Many have been translated from the KJB into other languages. In your natural language? I don't know as I haven't seen where you said what your language is. Is it Welsh? German? It helps to know so we can know when your language was translated and from what bible.

Personally, I did a study on the KJB, though not very exhaustive it's pretty thorough. It's a sticky so check it out if you are still here.

I cannot say which addition other than to say the 1769 Oxford Standard Text (some say the Cambridge Standard, but not much difference) I believe is the best and final KJB. At that point, english was basically modernized and previous KJB was corrected by the 1769 edition.

Oxford or Cambridge, either of those I believe will suffice. And translations or versions after that were not needed, yet man had his own opinions and thus we have a multitude of versions now. Once it was settled in the english language, there was no more need for another english bible, but man kept putting out disinfo books claiming they were bibles, and for what? They are copyrighted and it's all about the love of money.

If your in the UK area, then I suspect you know about the "Crown Copyright" laws? Notice that every version after the KJB has most likely been copyrighted in their repsective countries where they were printed. Also consider how much MUST be changed to the text, by law, when copyrighting a text based on previous text. That alone makes the New King James and all subsequent "versions" null and void and just books with no life in them because they had to change so much of the text to copyright it.

Ultimately, there is no need to get offended and leave. For a mature adult, that's a rather immature reaction to a common discussion. If God be for you, who can be against you? Stand fast in your convictions, but scripture says we must show patience, particularly with brethren. I'm seeing little patience.

The biggest problem with people using other books is that they end up confused and eceived about what the bible really says. It's one thing for a book to say "Jesus saves", but the details is where people get off track, the doctrine of Christ. The subtle changes of words changes meanings. Baisc stuff like where salvation is is hard to change and is easily translated into many languages just fine. People easily understand Jesus can save you. Ultimately people start by believeing that, but the rest of the Word that the believer uses to grow along with the Spirit guiding them into all truth is where they mature, or are suppose to and where they learn the rest of the gospel, but other publishers change stuff, omit, verses, etc, like trying to hide any verses that rebuke homosexuality, or try to hide the fact the Jesus IS the Son of God, and God manifest in the flesh.

Just because you feel old in the flesh, that doesn't mean you stop learning. For us Christians, "setting your ways" is not acceptable behavior. That's what the "old man" of the world does. So spare the brethren your protestations of elderness and a language issue. Remember the elder is to serve the younger, all of us subject to God. You have something to offer those here, so why would you want to withhold it? "Freely ye have received, freely give".

Can I ask you one question if I may...

How do you learn what the bible means?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 04:48:05 am by Kilika » Report Spam   Logged
NextStopHeaven
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2011, 04:33:40 am »

Did not leave because what was said to me in the open but what was said to me through Private Messages.

I left because a friend of mine wisely said.

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

I leave because William clearly pointed out in his post. 
Quote
I don't really fellowship with other people who don't use the King James, for many different reasons.

There is no room for me to have any freedom here to share.  That is why I have left. 




Report Spam   Logged

Jesus came in Flesh.
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21786



View Profile
« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2011, 05:21:58 am »

That is over the top. There is always room for another believer here. I think we were all just a little to eager to show why we believe the KJV over the NIV. Its an interesting topic to discuss.
Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Lisa
Guest
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2011, 08:21:31 am »

Can i put a few thoughts down regarding this...

1. A true Christian has no interest in what a friend says-they have 1 and only 1 guide-they follow the Holy spirit.
2.I do not believe that you have really researched what we are saying-What are you afraid of-If we are incorrect so be it-But if we are speaking the truth-then surely you will want to stand in the truth if you are truly a child of the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. If you are not interested in the leading of the Holy spirit then can i point you in the direction of Romans 8 (which will probably be offensive in any version-
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8&version=KJV
(A man walking in the Spirit will be manifesting peace which is a fruit of the spirit-it should be obvious to all around-if it is not obvious-i would stop and meditate upon this scripture and stay at that point until Father shows you how to walk in the spirit).
4.I doubt whether you will last for long on this website anyway. Psalm 34:14...Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. We are men of peace and not looking to pacify men who are not.

With respect and true concern
Lisax
(Ps i have posted my testimony in fellowship for William)
5. Regarding what other brothers have said-Some brothers are in different places with the Lord-William is my brother in Christ and i would be grateful if you would be respectful of him as he is having a very difficult time at present. As a 'mature' Christian i know that i can count on your forgiveness of the weakness in the body here-none of us are perfect-me especially.
Report Spam   Logged
Mark
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 21786



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: November 02, 2013, 08:02:52 am »

John Wesley -- heretic or hero?

Historic Baptists and fundamentalists who obtain their history mainly from sanitized and hagiographical Protestant sources often have a very inaccurate view of the theology of John Wesley. The following post should serve as a corrective, and will bring up some of the facts often left out of the sanitized and hagiographical accounts.
 
1.) Wesley was an Arminian – he believed saints could lose their salvation.

For example, he said:  “"I believe a saint may fall away; that one who is holy or righteous in the judgment of God himself may nevertheless so fall from God as to perish everlastingly.” (pg. 81,Works, vol. 6).
 
This heresy of his is so well known that I will not provide further documentation of it.
 
2.) Wesley believed in the continuation of the sign gifts, preparing the way for Pentecostalism.
 
The Wesley brothers abandoned the dominant Protestant cessationism to adopt a continuationist doctrine, a view in which they were followed by the Methodist movement, and which explains much of the fanaticism that came to characterize  much of Methodism. Wesley said:  “[I ]f the Quakers [who were strong continuationists] hold the same perceptible inspiration with me, I am glad” (“Letter to ‘John Smith,’ March 25, 1747;  elec. acc. Wesley Center Online:  Wesley’s Letters, 1747, http://wesley.nnu.edu/john-wesley/the-letters-of-john-wesley/wesleys-letters-1747/. Compare pg. 43, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton).  Thus, nineteenth-century Methodists, writing to defend continuationism, noted:  “[W]e dare to maintain that many of the phenomena of the Pentecostal times have been continued, are common, and ought to be expected in every age. . . . [Cessationist] censors are exceedingly severe, [unjustly so, upon] the habitual reference made by the . . . teachers to the direct influence of the Holy Spirit . . . [as] a revealer as well as an interpreter of truth . . . speak[ing] to us not only by the written Word, but also by visions, or feelings, or aspirations, or impressions, independent of the Word;  and extending even to what is sometimes claimed as a physical consciousness . . . [as by continuationist antecedent] Dr. Upham” (pg. 106, “The Brighton Convention Its Opponents.” London Quarterly Review, October 1875).  Indeed, “much in Pentecostal teaching is a legacy from Anglicanism . . . through the mediation of Wesley” (pg. 185, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger).

3.) Wesley loved medieval Roman Catholic mysticism, and developed his doctrine of perfectionism in connection with it.
 
Roman Catholic mysticism was key to the development of the perfectionism and continuationism of John Wesley.  “John Wesley . . . says that he began his teaching on Perfection in 1725 . . . [although he] was not converted [on his own testimony] until 1738 . . . [h]ow did he come to teach it?  His father and mother . . . had both been interested in . . . Roman Catholic mystical teaching . . . and had read a great deal of it. . . . John Wesley had read [in addition to other Romanist mystics such as] . . . Tauler . . . Thomas à Kempis . . .[and the] ‘Protestant mystic . . . [who] wrote a book on Perfection . . . William Law,’ but he was influenced “in particular [by]. . . Madame Guyon . . . [and] the Roman Catholic Archbishop Fénelon,” although the Romanist mystic “Marquis or Baron de Renty” was probably Wesley’s single “favorite author,” eclipsing even Guyon and Fénelon (pgs. 307-308, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors, Lloyd-Jones).  Thus, Wesley could speak of “that excellent man, the Marquis de Renty” although he knew the Catholic was infected with “many touches of superstition, and some of idolatry, in worshipping saints, the Virgin Mary in particular” (cf. Sermon 72, series 2, Sermon 133, series 4, Sermons, on Several Occasions, and to which reference is made in the trust-deeds of the Methodist Chapels, as constituting, with Mr. Wesley’s notes on the New Testament, the standard doctrines of the Methodist connexion, John Wesley.  Orig. pub. 4 vol, 1771. Elec. acc. Logos Bible Software).  Wesley was also profoundly influenced by the ascetic, Romanist, and Eastern Orthodox “monastic piety of the fourth-century ‘desert fathers’” during his time in the “Holy Club” at Oxford University.  “[T]he consideration of Macarius the Egyptian and Ephraem Syrus and their descriptions of “ perfection” (teleiosis) as the goal (skopos) of the Christian in this life” were influential in “shaping . . . Wesley’s . . . doctrine of Christian perfection . . . John Wesley . . . was . . . in touch with Gregory of Nyssa, the greatest of all the Eastern [Catholic] teachers of the quest for perfection. Thus, in his early days, [Wesley] drank deep of this Byzantine tradition of spirituality at its source and assimilated its concept of devotion as the way and perfection as the goal of the Christian life. . . . The devotional works . . . of two Latin [Roman Catholic] traditions of mystical spirituality . . . [and] the traditions of Eastern Orthodoxy-Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius of Egypt, and others . . . introduced [important] factors of . . . [Wesley’s] understanding of perfection. . . . Wesley . . . was inclined to go beyond logical subsequence [in justification and sanctification] to experiential subsequence because of the deep influence of the Eastern Fathers on him in terms of the relation of perfection to process and goal.”  (pgs. 93-97, “‘Dialogue’ Within a Tradition:  John Welsey and Gregory of Nyssa Discuss Christian Perfection,” John G. Merritt.  Wesleyan Theological Journal 22:2 (Fall, 1987) 92-117).  Thus, Wesley received his idea of Christians entering into perfection or a second-blessing from Catholic mysticism, and transferred his two-stage notions transferred into the Higher Life movement and into Pentecostalism.  “John Wesley . . . under the influence of Catholic works of edification, distinguished between the ordinary believer and those who were ‘sanctified’ or ‘baptized with the Spirit.’ . . . This view was adopted . . . by the evangelists and theologians of the American Holiness movement . . . such as Asa Mahan and C. G. Finney . . . [and] the early Pentecostal movement” (pgs. 21, 322, The Pentecostals, Hollenweger).  Along with perfectionism, Wesley (as already mentioned above) also adopted the ancient and medieval Catholic continuationism (cf. pgs. 44-45, Theological Roots of Pentecostalism, Dayton) that provided such key support in the apologetic for image worship in the iconoclastic controversy and at other times, as well as Catholic worship of the saints themselves, transubstantiation, and other idolatries, since the marvels which were so often performed by the graven images of and relics culled from the saints, transubstantiated bread, and so on, validated such Catholic beliefs in a way that Scripture certainly could not (cf. pgs. 135ff., Counterfeit Miracles, Warfield).
 
It is noteworthy that John Wesley, while preaching Methodist perfectionism, “never claimed the experience for himself.  He was a very honest man.  He taught this perfectionism but he would never say that it was true of himself.”  Indeed, for “many years he had great difficulty of producing any examples of it,” although at one point “he felt he could produce 30 such people;  but only one of the 30 seemed to persist—the others fell away” (pg. 311, The Puritans:  Their Origins and Successors, D. M. Lloyd-Jones). 
 
4.) Wesley held erroneous views on the assurance of salvation.
 
 “Wesley and Fletcher” held to a doctrinal error of an improper “immediate enjoyment of personal assurance” (pg. 180, The Doctrine of Justification, James Buchanan).  Early in his ministry, “John Wesley summed up his thoughts on this subject in a letter written in January, 1740:  ‘I never yet knew one soul thus saved without what you call the faith of assurance; I mean a sure confidence that by the merits of Christ he was reconciled to the favour of God’ [pg. 200, Wesley’s Standard Sermons].  Thus the cognition that saving grace had worked in a life was seen as the final means to ascertain if saving grace had indeed been present. The implications of this teaching, taken by itself, seem to lead to a condition in which superficial self-analysis (‘yes, I’ve got the witness’) results in spirituality while the kind of doubt which assailed such people as Luther and even at times John Wesley himself results in a loss of the hope of salvation” (pg. 171, “John Wesley and the Doctrine of Assurance,” Mark A. Noll.  Bibliotheca Sacra 132:526 (April 1975).  However, by 1755 Wesley had moderated his position slightly, so that one could be shaken in his assurance without losing his salvation, although a total lack of assurance was still only compatible with a lost estate:  “I know that I am accepted: And yet that knowledge is sometimes shaken, though not destroyed, by doubt or fear. If that knowledge were destroyed, or wholly withdrawn, I could not then say I had Christian faith. To me it appears the same thing, to say, ‘I know God has accepted me’; or, ‘I have a sure trust that God has accepted me.’ . . . [Nonetheless,] justifying faith cannot be a conviction that I am justified. . . . But still I believe the proper Christian faith, which purifies the heart, implies such a conviction” (pgs. 452-453, Letter DXXXII, July 25, 1755, in The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol 12, 3rd. ed, with the last corrections of the author.  London:  John Mason, 1830).  Furthermore, Wesley affirmed that objective marks cannot be elaborated to distinguish between the witness of the Spirit to one’s regenerated state and self-delusion;  “this kind of defense based on intuition . . . raised the specter of enthusiasm for some of Wesley’s critics” (pg. 174, ibid.).  In this doctrine of assurance Wesley’s view was similar to that of Jacob Arminius:  “Arminius thought that no one would be a true Christian who did not have a present assurance of present salvation. He wrote:  ‘Since God promises eternal life to all who believe in Christ, it is impossible for him who believes, and who knows that he believes, to doubt of his own salvation, unless he doubts of this willingness of God.’” (pgs. 164-165, “John Wesley and the Doctrine of Assurance,” Noll, citing pg. 348, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, Carl Bangs.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1971.  Compare The Doctrine of Assurance, with Special Reference to John Wesley, Arthur S. Yates.  London:  Epworth, 1952).
 
Wesleyan confusion about conversion and assurance appeared in various preachers influenced by his theology;  thus, for example, Welsh holiness evangelist Seth Joshua wrote:  “[People] are entering into full assurance of faith coupled with a baptism of the Holy Ghost. . . . I also think that those seeking assurance may be fairly counted as converts” (pg. 122, The Welsh Religious Revival, Morgan, citing Mr. Joshua’s diary.  Of course, some people who think that they are in need of assurance truly are unconverted, but such clarity appears to be lacking in Mr. Joshua’s comments.  Spirit baptism has nothing to do with obtaining assurance in the Bible.).  Methodist confusion on assurance passed over into the Pentecostal movement, which taught that assurance was of the essence of saving faith:  “If God for Christ’s sake has forgiven you your sins, you know it.  And if you do not know it better than you know anything in this world, you are still in your sins.  When you go down in the atonement, in the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ, you are accepted.  And if you are accepted, and He has given you a clean heart and sanctified your soul, you know it.  And if you do not know it, the work is not done” (pg. 2, The Apostolic Faith I:2 (Los Angeles, October 1906), reprinted on pg. 6, Like As of Fire:  Newspapers from the Azusa Street World Wide Revival:  A Reprint of “The Apostolic Faith” (1906-1908), coll. Fred T. Corum & Rachel A. Sizelove).
 
Scripture teaches that all believers can have assurance of salvation, but that assurance that one has personally passed from death to life is not of the essence of saving faith (cf. 1 John & London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, 18:1-4).
 
5.) Wesley rejected the imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification.
 
John Wesley also rejected the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in justification, writing:  “Does ‘the righteousness of God’ ever mean . . . ‘the merits of Christ?’ . . . I believe not once in all the Scripture.  . . . It often means, and particularly in the Epistle to the Romans, ‘God’s method of justifying sinners.’ . . . ‘The righteousness of God’ signifies, the righteousness which the God-man wrought out[?]  No. . . .  It signifies ‘God’s method of justifying sinners.’” (pg. 217, Aspasio Vindicated, and the Scripture Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness Defended, in Eleven Letters from Mr. Hervey to Mr. Wesley, in Answer to that Gentleman’s Remarks on Theron and Aspasio, W. Hervey.  Glasgo:  J. & M. Robertson, 1762;  & pg. 137, Eleven Letters from the Late Rev. Mr. Hervey , to the Rev. Mr. John Wesley, Containing an Answer to that Gentleman’s Remarks on Thereon and Aspasio, W. Hervey.  2nd ed.  London:  J. & F. & C. Rivinot, 1789. cf. pg. 497, The Doctrine of Justification, James Buchanan.  Carlisle, PA:  Banner of Truth, 1997 (orig. pub. 1867)).  “Many Wesleyan Methodists, following the example of their founder, have . . . keenly opposed . . . the doctrine . . . of [Christ’s] imputed righteousness” (pg. 500, The Doctrine of Justification, Buchanan).  Thus, “Wesley could not resist assimilating justification into sanctification—the latter being his preeminent and enduring interest. The . . . notion that the believer is simul justus et peccator (at once both righteous and a sinner) Wesley firmly rejected. Many Arminians [including Wesley] further assert that faith is not merely the instrument of justification but the ground on which justification rests. Thus Wesley wrote that ‘any righteousness created by the act of justification is real because of the ethical or moral dimension of faith’” (pg. 353, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of Salvation, Bruce Demarest).  Thus, Wesley wrote:  “Least of all does justification imply that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply that God . . . esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. . . . Neither can it ever consist with his unerring wisdom to think that I am innocent, to judge that I am righteous or holy, because another is so. He can no more, in this manner, confound me with Christ, than with David or Abraham. . . . [S ]uch a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture” (pg. 47, The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, vol. 1.  New York:  Emory & Waugh, 1831—note that “reason” is mentioned before “Scripture” as a reason to oppose the Biblical doctrine of justification.)
 
6.) Wesley believed in the damnable heresy of baptismal regeneration.
 
The Wesley brothers and the Methodist denomination retained the Anglican belief in baptismal regeneration when they left the English state-church to start their own religion.  Commenting on John 3:5, Wesley affirmed, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit—Except he experience that great inward change by the Spirit, and be baptized (wherever baptism can be had) as the outward sign and means of it [he cannot enter into the kingdom of God].”  Commenting on Acts 22:16, he wrote:  “Baptism administered to real penitents, is both a means and seal of pardon.  Nor did God ordinarily in the primitive Church bestow this on any, unless through this means.”  On both texts John Wesley clearly affirmed that baptism is the means of the new birth.  He also declared, “It is certain our Church supposes that all who are baptized in their infancy are at the same time born again;  and it is allowed that the whole office for the baptism of infants proceeds upon this supposition” (Wesley, sermon, The New Birth).  In his Doctrinal Tracts (pg. 246, 251) he wrote, “What are the benefits . . . we receive by baptism, is the next point to be considered. And the first of these is the washing away of original sin, by the application of Christ’s death. . . . the merits of Christ’s life and death, are applied to us in baptism. . . . infants are . . . proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved unless [sin] be washed away in baptism. Infants need to be washed from original sin. Therefore they are proper subjects for baptism.” (cited in chapter 9, The Evils of Infant Baptism, Robert Boyt C. Howell, accessed in the Fundamental Baptist CD-Rom Library, Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 2003).  John’s brother, the Methodist hymn-writer Charles Wesley, wrote against the Baptists, “Partisans of a narrow sect/ Your cruelty confess/ Nor still inhumanly reject/ Whom Jesus would embrace./ Your little ones preclude them not/ From the baptismal flood brought/ But let them now to Christ be saved/ And join the Church of God.” (Charles Wesley’s Journal, 18 October 1756, 2:128).  The Wesleys only called adults already baptized as infants to conversion because of their heretical Arminian theology.  Since they rejected the Biblical truth that once one is saved, he is always saved (Romans 8:28-39), they held that one who was regenerated in infant baptism could fall away and become a child of the devil again, at which time he would need a second new birth.
 
See “John Wesley’s View of Baptism,” John Chongnahm Cho, Wesleyan Theological Journal 7 (Spring 1972) 60-73) for  more on Wesley's doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
 
Before making Wesley into a hero of the faith, historic Baptists and fundamentalists should make sure that their churches know that Wesley believed in Arminianism, in the continuation of the sign gifts (helping to prepare the way for Pentecostalism), in Catholic mysticism, in perfectionism, in a false view of the assurance of salvation, in a false doctrine of justification by becoming inwardly holy, and in baptismal regeneration.

http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/11/john-wesley-heretic-or-hero.html
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 11:17:17 am by Mark » Report Spam   Logged

What can you do for Jesus?  Learn what 1 person can accomplish.

The Man from George Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkjMvPhLrn8
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: November 02, 2013, 11:12:50 am »

Thank you for posting this - for the most part, it seems like a lot of these so-called "popular influential evangelicals" have really brought a lot of leaven to the table. Not just him, but other "influential" like Matthew Henry, Dwight L. Moody, Charles Spurgeon, Billy Graham, etc. Also a couple of more things about Wesley...

1) He didn't have the proper futurist view of end times prophecy - instead, it was the Roman Catholic Historicism/A-Mill view where the Roman Papacy is the Rev 13 Antichrist(meaning taking the mark of the beast is "spiritual", and still have a chance for salvation).

2) He helped push this Sunday School movement, which had secular/Catholic ties.

3) He teachings were cross-denominational.

4) Ultimately, look at the rotten seeds these people planted - they evangelized a lot of false converts, which only lead to future generations of more false converts, and ultimately more unbelievers. Now look at our present day where we see more and more young people flock to either megachurches or these liberal social justice institutions.
Report Spam   Logged
Psalm 51:17
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 28357


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: November 02, 2013, 12:36:29 pm »

Quote
4.) Wesley held erroneous views on the assurance of salvation.
 
“Wesley and Fletcher” held to a doctrinal error of an improper “immediate enjoyment of personal assurance” (pg. 180, The Doctrine of Justification, James Buchanan).  Early in his ministry, “John Wesley summed up his thoughts on this subject in a letter written in January, 1740:  ‘I never yet knew one soul thus saved without what you call the faith of assurance; I mean a sure confidence that by the merits of Christ he was reconciled to the favour of God’ [pg. 200, Wesley’s Standard Sermons].  Thus the cognition that saving grace had worked in a life was seen as the final means to ascertain if saving grace had indeed been present. The implications of this teaching, taken by itself, seem to lead to a condition in which superficial self-analysis (‘yes, I’ve got the witness’) results in spirituality while the kind of doubt which assailed such people as Luther and even at times John Wesley himself results in a loss of the hope of salvation” (pg. 171, “John Wesley and the Doctrine of Assurance,” Mark A. Noll.  Bibliotheca Sacra 132:526 (April 1975).  However, by 1755 Wesley had moderated his position slightly, so that one could be shaken in his assurance without losing his salvation, although a total lack of assurance was still only compatible with a lost estate:  “I know that I am accepted: And yet that knowledge is sometimes shaken, though not destroyed, by doubt or fear. If that knowledge were destroyed, or wholly withdrawn, I could not then say I had Christian faith. To me it appears the same thing, to say, ‘I know God has accepted me’; or, ‘I have a sure trust that God has accepted me.’ . . . [Nonetheless,] justifying faith cannot be a conviction that I am justified. . . . But still I believe the proper Christian faith, which purifies the heart, implies such a conviction” (pgs. 452-453, Letter DXXXII, July 25, 1755, in The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol 12, 3rd. ed, with the last corrections of the author.  London:  John Mason, 1830).  Furthermore, Wesley affirmed that objective marks cannot be elaborated to distinguish between the witness of the Spirit to one’s regenerated state and self-delusion;  “this kind of defense based on intuition . . . raised the specter of enthusiasm for some of Wesley’s critics” (pg. 174, ibid.).  In this doctrine of assurance Wesley’s view was similar to that of Jacob Arminius:  “Arminius thought that no one would be a true Christian who did not have a present assurance of present salvation. He wrote:  ‘Since God promises eternal life to all who believe in Christ, it is impossible for him who believes, and who knows that he believes, to doubt of his own salvation, unless he doubts of this willingness of God.’” (pgs. 164-165, “John Wesley and the Doctrine of Assurance,” Noll, citing pg. 348, Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation, Carl Bangs.  Nashville:  Abingdon Press, 1971.  Compare The Doctrine of Assurance, with Special Reference to John Wesley, Arthur S. Yates.  London:  Epworth, 1952).

Sounds like the Prosperity "feel good" gospel the likes of Joel Osteen, Rick Warren, and even Franklin Graham preaches - that Christians have to "feel good" and "happy" all the time(ie-discouragement is a sin).

Personally - been there, done that for years - pretty much we're told that Christians can't have anxiety or even feel despaired. This belief bears some really, really rotten fruit over the long haul.

Romans 8:35  Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
Rom 8:36  As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
Rom 8:37  Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
Rom 8:38  For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39  Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Report Spam   Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
Free SMF Hosting - Create your own Forum

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
Privacy Policy