Where I differ from most Christians is two tenets:
- Paul's Distinctive Ministry: specifically, that God's call to the Gentiles
without the now-negated requirements of
is not found until God astonishingly makes his chief Apostle Peter to witness
this call, after converting his chief Persecutor Paul to preach this call.
- Providential Preservation of the Holy Text: specifically, that the
King James Version
is the Scripture -- the accurate, authoritative and trustworthy Word of God --
in the English language.
As one person puts it, these two tenets mean "having the right Bible,
and having the Bible right." Every Biblical question seems to elict
responses that reveal the expositor's tenets in both areas. For example,
my father (who holds other tenets) and I have very
different interpretations
as to whether certain verses apply to
Christians today or not
(read some examples).
My two tenets make me a 'double minority' in the Christian community, and
this webpageset focuses on apologetics for the Pauline Distinctive
(a distinct minority within the Dispensational mainstream)
and for Providential Preservation.
Of course, many earnestly disagree with me. First, regarding Paul, there are
differences of opinion as to whether:
- Paul had the same message as proclaimed by Jesus on earth and the Twelve, and this
message was of:
- Grace-living, not the practice of
Sabbath-observing legalism.
- For example, my Dad argues that
Paul was sent merely to correct the other Apostles
who received the Great Commission,
but stiff-neckedly did not go to the Gentiles
- Sabbath-observing legalism for believers.
- Some hold that Paul merely attacked the notion that the Law,
rather than Faith,
saves, but demonstrated that Believers should observe the Law
(held by some Messianic believers,
Seventh-Day Adventists, and so on.).
- Paul had a distinct message from that proclaimed by Jesus on earth and the Twelve.
The message was:
- blatantly anti-Law
- and thus Paul was in fact the anti-Christ
(held by some Messianic believers).
- Grace
- different from the Messianic, Law-abiding message
proclaimed by Jesus on earth and the Twelve (my view).
Second, regarding God's preservation of his Bible:
At any rate, both conservatives and liberals essentially agree that
no Bible was ever authoritative Scripture:
what Bible ever had only original manuscripts?
In a nutshell, "conservatives" are (at best) deists,
and liberals at best agnostics.
Hardly the theistic presumption of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, who considered
their copies both authoritatively written and accurately preserved
(e.g. above, II Tim 3:15-16, Gal 3:16, and Matt 5:18).
FOOTNOTE: For more general Christian apologetics, try the link to
the
Miami (Florida) Christian University's
Virtual Library of Apologetics, Evangelism, and Creationism. Some of its
links discuss general apologetic principles. As I get time, I may attempt to
systematize my works with general principles. One interpretational principle
I attempt to follow is the scriptural admonition to
"rightly divide" the scriptures (II Tim 2:15).
My earthly father
offers a fine
Cyber Sunday School {link to his website} with often interesting insights.
However, like his mentor, the late
Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs,
his work is cluttered with (unfortunately in my opinion)
- English re-translations from a dubious Greek text
(he and most scholars are "rummagers," i.e. they rummage through
translations, lexicons, and the sands of time, never finding
a Bible they trust and memorize)
- Apolegetics for applying everything from
Matthew 1:1 onward to Christians today, although, as
Stam put it,
"the Old Testament (Covenant) was not put away by King James at Malachi 4:6,
but by Christ at Calvary, and even this was not historically done until some time
later (See I Tim. 2:6; Heb. 8:13)"
My father offers
several priniciples for Bible study,
most of which is standard theological fare and generalities
with which anyone might agree.
The initial "principles," for example, don't even assert that the Bible is true
(although he and I agree it is).
In the list, we find some axioms of his theology.
For example, a interpretational difference between
my father and me is the terms "church" and "Israel."
Specifically, my father makes the following verse a
general focus of his interpretational method
Go to Duke's homepage.