Welcome Guest!
 Herb Evans
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
Where Is Your Incorruptible Seed ... Doctor?  John Henry
 Sep 22, 2003 08:39 PDT 


By Herb Evans

Being BORN AGAIN, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, BY the
word of God . . . the word of the Lord endureth forever. And this the word
which by the gospel preached unto you. -- Peter 1:23-25

A popular T.V. preacher delivered a "muddy water" type apologetic that he
designed to leave him on the side of inspiration and even the King James
Bible. He went as far as to declare his "preference" for the King James
Bible (imagine Billy Sunday declaring that he preferred not to drink
booze). However, he was careful to caution his viewers not to get caught up
that King James cult. Such language, from a man who always talking about
fundamentalists standing together (while he and they compromise together),
was quite a surprise. Frankly, we are disgusted at certain leaders, who
have, recently engaged in the practice of pleading for love and tolerance
on the one hand, while calling others what they want on the other hand,
cults, fundamental nuts, religious headhunters, Ruckmanites, and so forth.

Certain fundamentalists, after having their dirty laundry aired, are now
scrambling to find ways to convince an awakened laity that they are really
for the inspiration of the Bible

and that they really do "prefer" the Authorized Bible of 1611. How to
hide their unbelief and secret mental reservations and still be
conservative, is becoming an increasingly serious dilemma for them; for
rather than blowing over, this storm is gathering momentum. There is a
distinct possibility that before it is all over, certain fundamental
leaders and missionaries will lose financial support and be considered
neo, liberal, or worse. Desperately, they are looking for someone to
champion their cause. The best of their company has fallen on his face,
using slander tactics, name calling, quoting certain Christian"Hall of
Famers," accusing Bible believers of being followers of men and insisting
that the King James translators were not inspired although no one said that
they were. It has never occurred to him that following dead men
(Torrey, Machen, Westcott, and Hort) is as bad as following living men.
As for the scribes, copyists, and translators not being inspired; the
apostles were not inspired either. Only the Scriptures are said to be
inspired! So much for that straw man argument.

The apostles did not always pen the "inspired Scripture." They
sometimes used uninspired scribes! (pause . . . ) Romans 16:22 tells us,
"Tertius, who wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord." (pause . . .)
Why worry about the uninspired scribes, copyists, and translators letting
their pens slip and not worry about uninspired Tertius' pen slipping? He
wrote down the Book of Romans as dictated by Paul and added words that Paul
did not dictate (pause . . . ). And what about Jeremiah's uninspired
scribe Baruch, who wrote the Word of the Lord as dictated by Jeremiah, who
rewrote, after the Original Autographs were destroyed, the word of the Lord
with some extra words added (Jer. 36:2, 4, 18, 32)?

Perhaps it has never occurred to our psuedo-scholarly detractors that the
traditional definition of inspiration lS not an inspired view. The
traditional definition of inspiration would not even allow "photo copies"
of the Original Autographs to be inspired (if photo copies existed), for
they would not be considered "God breathed." Of course, you can make
someone look like an extremist, if you make them play by your rules and
accept your definitions. Why not let the Scriptures themselves define
inspiration? Then, let us see where our detractors stand and how tall.

Second timothy 3:16 informs us that "ALL" scripture is given by Inspiration
of God. Is it scholarly to 'believe that the Scriptures that Timothy knew
from a child were the Original Autographs? Is it scholarly to believe that
the scriptures that are profitable to the man of God for doctrine,
reproof, and so forth are the Original Autographs? Is it scholarly to
believe that the only Word of God that can divide asunder the soul, spirit,
and joints and marrow and discern the thoughts and intents of the heart are
the Original Autographs? Is it scholarly to believe that the word, which we
are commanded to preach must be the Original Autographs? Is there such a
thing as uninspired scripture or an uninspired word of God?

We Bible believers have no trouble with the answers to these questions. We
have been born of "incorruptible seed"—the Word of God (1 Peter 1:23,
James 1:18). We can place our hands on the incorruptible seed (AV 1611) and
have the conviction (not preference) that it indeed qualifies as inspired
scripture and the infallible Word of God. Have you been born of
"incorruptible seed" . . . Doctor? Can you place your hands on your
Incorruptible seed? Prove all things! Where is your incorruptible seed . .
. Doctor?

Bible Believers’ Bulletin - October 1978, p. 3

Flaming Torch - March 1979, p. 6
 Previous Message All Messages Next Message 
  Check It Out!

  Topica Channels
 Best of Topica
 Art & Design
 Books, Movies & TV
 Food & Drink
 Health & Fitness
 News & Information
 Personal Finance
 Personal Technology
 Small Business
 Travel & Leisure
 Women & Family

  Start Your Own List!
Email lists are great for debating issues or publishing your views.
Start a List Today!

© 2001 Topica Inc. TFMB
Concerned about privacy? Topica is TrustE certified.
See our Privacy Policy.