tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post6093123717134716036..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Commentary on the Steven Anderson--James White Interview, part oneKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91349910303174197302018-06-28T22:55:54.128-07:002018-06-28T22:55:54.128-07:00Daniel,
I noticed this comment by reviewing what ...Daniel,<br /><br />I noticed this comment by reviewing what I had written about Anderson in the past.<br /><br />Anderson does not believe repentance is necessary for salvation. There is no teaching of repent from unbelief in scripture, so that is a strawman on repentance. I've listened to Anderson and that is not what he believes. Many in the revivalist/Hyles churches do, but not Anderson, according to his own explanation.<br /><br />Repent doesn't mean just a change of mind and that's easy to see where the word is used. Change of mind is not what the Greek word or the English word means. Repentance is more than turning from sin, but it includes that, must be that at least.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-6095748200002209572014-10-29T04:56:35.760-07:002014-10-29T04:56:35.760-07:00Hi all,
It is not true Anderson believes in a rep...Hi all,<br /><br />It is not true Anderson believes in a repentance-less salvation. He proper distinguishes however between "repentance" (to turn from unbelief) unto salvation, and "repenting from your sins". Many for some reason believe that the word "repent" means "repenting from sin" automatically. Not true, God Himself repented amny times in the Bible. Repent simply means to change one's mind from something, to something different.Danielnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-13920998688601714482014-09-04T18:36:30.346-07:002014-09-04T18:36:30.346-07:00Hello again Kent,
Thanks much for getting back to...Hello again Kent,<br /><br />Thanks much for getting back to me; and no worries that it took a couple of days to so (I have a blog myself and certainly understand that there a lot more important things transpiring in one's life than the combox of a blog).<br /><br />I thought that was Anderson's take, but I wanted to be sure. It seems a bit misleading that he terms the original language preservation position as "TR only", for one must also include the Masoretic text along with the Textus Receptus, if I understand the original language preservation position correctly.<br /><br />I see that you have part two up; looking forward to reading it as soon as I finish this comment...<br /><br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-63416416102419747672014-09-04T11:42:41.349-07:002014-09-04T11:42:41.349-07:00David,
Sorry it took so long to get back to you--...David,<br /><br />Sorry it took so long to get back to you---we're starting the school year, a new orchestra season, we've had guests, and I'm working on a couple of remodeling things in addition to regular scheduled stuff.<br /><br />Tyler got it right about the gospel of Anderson with his link above, so I won't cover that.<br /><br />Regarding Anderson's view of the KJV, he doesn't take an original language preservation view, what he would call TR Only. He takes an English preservationist view (my term), believing that God preserved His Word through the English language. You can tell that Anderson believes this by how he deals with the issue. You can hear it in how he deals with translation issues with the KJV. More could be said here and maybe I will later.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-54213249827479681032014-09-04T08:15:49.305-07:002014-09-04T08:15:49.305-07:00David:
This is why Anderson is not a Christian - ...David:<br /><br />This is why Anderson is not a Christian - he believes in a repentance-less Gospel: <br /><br />http://www.repentanceblacklist.com/Tyler Robbinshttp://eccentricfundamentalist.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-64458188112052518702014-09-03T09:55:29.211-07:002014-09-03T09:55:29.211-07:00Hi Kent,
Would like to thank you for this post. T...Hi Kent,<br /><br />Would like to thank you for this post. The video you linked to was quite informative—it gives one the rare opportunity of looking into the mindset of Mr. White in a setting wherein he is not in complete control of the format—very revealing. I also appreciated your commentary, and I'm looking forward to part two. With that said, I would like to ask of you some further clarification on the following you wrote:<br /><br />"More than believing an indefensible position on the preservation of scripture, Steven Anderson doesn't believe a true gospel."<br /><br />Could you elucidate a bit further on why you think Anderson's position is indefensible, and how your position differs from his.<br /><br /><br />Thanks much,<br /><br />David<br />David Waltzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17966083488813749052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-28016710175643676132014-09-02T11:42:29.012-07:002014-09-02T11:42:29.012-07:00One more thing, evidence seems to be that lower st...One more thing, evidence seems to be that lower story, lower realm, science, and theology is that upper story, upper realm, that is bifurcated from the lower.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-17038811501134938712014-09-02T11:41:43.357-07:002014-09-02T11:41:43.357-07:00Hi D4,
Did you notice that Anderson was saying th...Hi D4,<br /><br />Did you notice that Anderson was saying that the NKJV and the NIV were both powerful and inspired when they said the same thing as the KJV? They don't have the same words, so I don't think he's referring to the very wording of the KJV, but to the equal translation (albeit more modern English) of the same original text. The most sympathetic listening to Anderson has him saying that. I don't have a reason to support Anderson, because he doesn't take even a same view on preservation as I do, but I'm trying to be equally sympathetic to both, even though White's style is more off-putting to me.<br /><br />Paul's teaching was obviously attached to words, or else why would he use "Word of God"? Plus, when an apostle spoke, it was as it were the words of God, which is different than when we teach. I think that many conservative evangelicals believe that teaching must be directly attached to words to be powerful, not just ideas or a message. I do believe the particular place in scripture that teaches that teaching must be used, and it must be what it says, but they are the words that say it.<br /><br />Regarding being suspicious of the bibliology of unsaved people, that is presuppositional; in other words, allowing theology to guide you to the truth, versus looking at the evidence and just letting the evidence take you to the truth. That's what Dan Wallace says we must do. According to them, no theological presuppositions should come in. Are you applying that differently to Anderson? I happen to agree with you that theological presuppositions should guide us, but is that your position?<br /><br />By the way, if you listen to Michael Krueger on the canon, he too says let theological presuppositions guide us on the books. I've listened to his lectures while jogging, and he says very good things that actually jive with what I believe on the Bible, not consistent with just allowing the evidence to lead you to the truth.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55710846379481537432014-09-02T05:07:10.213-07:002014-09-02T05:07:10.213-07:00I've only listened to about 2/3 of the video, ...I've only listened to about 2/3 of the video, but it seems to me that the circular reasoning of White (which he qualifiedly admits to) is different from that of Anderson. Anderson essentially says that the Spirit confirms to him the identity of the words in addition to the truth of the message. White says the Spirit confirms to him the truth of what the words teach. This becomes clear when Anderson says someone has to hear at least one Bible verse in a salvation presentation, whereas White seems to be saying that one can hear the distillation of the message without necessarily hearing the actual words and be brought to faith by the Spirit. <br /><br />Whites view seems to me to find Biblical support in the way the NT writers use the phrase "the word" (as in 1 Thess. 2:13) where "the word of God" is used to refer to the teaching and preaching of Paul and not simply the Scriptures).<br /><br />Also, if Anderson believes a false gospel as you say (and I'd agree), we do well, do we not, to be suspicious of his bibliology?d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.com