Thursday, August 27, 2015

Erik DiVietro, closet Roman Catholic?

Erik Divietro of the "KJV Only Debate Blog" (http://kjvonlydebate.com/) has left some interesting comments in his post called "Dr. Gipp Is At It Again" in response to someone named 'amigodana'. I don't know Erik DiVietro or 'amigodana', but I do know that Erik is against the purity of the King James Bible.....and it looks like he could be a closet Roman Catholic.

"You seem unwilling or incapable of examining the context of Scripture, relying on your own "God's simplicity" rather than engaging with the Scriptures with the necessary intelligence and skill."
--Erik DiVietro of the "KJV Only Debate Blog"

Genesis 40:8 And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you. "It is a specific statement about the interpretation of dreams, not about interpreting the written Scriptures" --Erik DiVietro of the "KJV Only Debate Blog"


2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. "Individual Christians are not free to interpret the Bible on their own. The interpretation must be in keeping with the counsel of the Scriptures and the consent of the Church."
--Erik DiVietro of the "KJV Only Debate Blog"

Apparently Erik believes that the interpretation of the Bible does NOT belong to God.

He states that it is "necessary" to have "intelligence" and "skill" to "engage" the Scriptures....But Erik does not believe that he has the 'Scriptures" which are defined as being "holy" and "given by inspiration" (2 Tim. 3:15-16). He says that neither the King James Bible, neither the Textus Receptus (any edition), and neither the Nestle/Aland (any edition) are the PURE word of God. He actually believes that the "critical/texutal apparatus" of the Greek texts are the authority on what words are "pure" and which ones aren't.

Now about this 'skill' and 'intelligence' stuff that is "necessary' to 'engage' the Scriptures.

King David, perhaps one of the greatest Old Testament saints and greatly used of God as a prophet, was a Shepherd. Not any kind of scholar or 'intellect'.

The prophet Amos was a 'herdman'. He said "I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit:" (Amos 7:14)

The 12 apostles were hardly scholarly material either...Acts 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. They were fishermen! Probably not very educated.

Does the Bible teach that you must first be intelligent and have skill to interpret the Bible?

1 Corinthians 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

The intelligent 'scribes' and 'pharisees' could not 'engage' the Bible if their soul depended on it because they did not have faith. Faith in God and His word is what gives someone the qualifications to 'engage' the Bible (1 Pet. 2:2, 1 Cor. 2:9-16). Erik thinks we need 'intelligence' and 'skill', how about the mind of Christ and the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 2:
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
[10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
[13] Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
[14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
[15] But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
[16] For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ
.

Any saved person who studies the word of God can understand it....2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Nobody has to 'interpret' anything in the Bible, you just have to know how to read. The Bible says what it means and means what it says. The Scripture is not of any private interpretation (2 Pet. 1:20).

Then Erik says that individual Christians cannot interpret the Bible without the counsel of other scripures "AND THE CONSENT OF THE CHURCH". Erik sounds like a full-blown closet Pope's-toe-kissing Roman Catholic. No Christian needs the "consent of the Church" for anything. What is "THE Church"? Why did Erik use a capital C? Is he a closet Roman Catholic?

With the "consent of the Church" I could....

commit fornication (1 Cor. 5:1-2)
go to the law against fellow Christians (1 Cor. 6:1-2)
go back to the Mosaic Law (Gal. 4:9-11)
quit believing in the resurrection of Christ (1 Cor. 15:12)
make circumcision a requirement for salvation (Acts 15:5)
and on and on and on......

The 'consent of the Church' means about as much as marital advice from Bill Clinton.

Anyone who studies "the Church" of early Christians (Corinth, Galatia, Jerusalem, etc.) and more modern 'church history' will find out one thing: "the Church" has not and never been united on doctrine and practice. Not in Paul's day, and not in 2015.

We need to get back to the Bible, not looking to any particular "Church" or assembly of believers. People talk about the "early church" and the "church fathers", heck with them. The 'early church' was proud of fornication and abandoned the resurrection of Christ. We were never told to follow the early church, we were told to

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read

Jesus said....

Matthew 12:
3) But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did....
5) Or have ye not read in the law....

Matthew 19:4 ....Have ye not read....

Matthew 21:
16) ...Yea; have ye never read,...
42) Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures...

Matthew 22:31 ....have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God..

Mark 2:25 Have ye never read what David did

Mark 12:10  And have ye not read this scripture;

Mark 12:26 have ye not read in the book of Moses

Luke 6:3 Have ye not read so much as this, what David did

Matthew 22:29  Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Mark 12:24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

SEVEN RULES OF BIBLE STUDY:

There are many passages in the Bible that are often abused, misused, privately interpreted, and twisted to teach some ungodly or incorrect doctrine. This arises from disobeying the rules that God has set forth in "interpreting" the Bible. God has given mankind certain rules for how to "interpret" His word in such a way that the Holy Spirit will give us understanding in it. If we do not abide by these rules, the Holy Spirit will not lead us into understanding His word.

Rules of interpretation:

Rule #1: Do not "interpret" anything (Gen. 40:8, 2 Pet. 1:20).

Rule #2: Believe what you are reading, have faith in it and do not doubt its authority. Receive it as the word of God, not the word of man (Heb. 4:2, 1 Thes. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, Tit. 2:15).  

Rule #3: Take heed to the Bible "as it is written", do not spiritualize or philosophize the words of scripture. Christ and His ministers preached the Bible plainly as it is written (Matt. 26:24, Mark 1:2, 7:6, 9:13, 14:21, Luke 2:23, 3:4, John 6:31, 12:14, Acts 7:42, 15:15, Rom. 1:17, 2:24, 3:4, 3:10, 4:17, 8:36, 9:13, 9:33, 10:15, 11:8, 11:26, 15:3, 15:9, 15:21, etc.)

Rule #4: Do not alter the words of God by subtracting or adding to them nor be ashamed of them (Deut. 4:2,  Prov. 13:13, 30:5-6, Jer. 23:30, 23:36, Mark 9:38, Luke 9:26, Rev. 22:18-19).

Rule #5: Rightly divide the Bible, acknowledge the proper divisions that exist throughout God's differing dispensations/revelations to man. Put God's dealings in there proper order (2 Tim. 2:15-18).

Rule #6: The Holy Ghost teaches the person that compares scripture with scripture in order to understand it (1 Cor. 2:13, John 6:63).

Rule #7: Handle the word of God in sincerity and honesty. Do not handle it deceitfully, which is "proof texting" and reading what you already believe into the Bible (2 Cor. 2:17, 4:2).

Every heresy in the world of "Christian" religion originates with a failure to obey these 7 rules of Bible study. Those are the rules that the Holy Spirit has set forth in His Book and those are His requirements for you to obey before He will guide you into all truth (John 16:13). Here are some examples...The Baptist Briders will show you John 3:3 to teach that people were born of the Spirit before Calvary and Acts chapter 2. The Brider will ignore scripture rather than compare scripture. If you compare John 1:12-13 with John 3:1-8 with John 7:38-39 the Baptist Brider theology falls apart. The Holy Spirit was not given until Jesus Christ was glorified at the right hand of the Father, those believers in the Gospels were only given the power to become the sons of God, it was not instantaneous like it is under the Grace dispensation (Eph. 1:13). Another example....the "Church of Christ" Campbellites will read their baptismal regeneration beliefs into Romans 6:3-4, Galatians 3:27-28, and Colossians 2:12 to teach that water baptism puts you into Jesus Christ. However, they do this by ignoring the context of the passages and not comparing them with other scriptures. The baptism that puts you into Jesus Christ is done through the faith of the operation of God, performed by God the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12-18, Col. 2:12). They also ignore the rule of taking the word of God "as it is written", the Campbellite spiritualizes the words "baptized in Jesus Christ" and says that it is really a figurative way of saying that we are baptized into water.
 
--Eli Caldwell

25 comments:

  1. Please remove this slanderous headline. It is an unfounded and unnecessary to accuse me of being associated with the Roman Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Greetings, I don't think I slandered you, all I did was quote you (what you said is exactly what the Roman Catholic church teaches). However I have just edited the post to make it more of a question rather than a direct accusation. People can read what you wrote and see if it sounds Roman Catholic or not.

      Have a good weekend. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

      Delete
    2. Your edit is a token gesture. Why don't you just change your ridiculous statement - or better yet, delete it all together since it is a lie.

      Delete
    3. You keep saying "slander", "lie", and "misrepresent", but you have not explained how. I quoted you and then said that it sounded Catholic. Is that such a big deal? I have been called Catholic, false prophet, unsaved, heretic, hyper-dispensationalist, moron of morons, fool, idiot with a capital I, and lots of other things by the Church of Christ and also some Baptists. Perhaps I don't understand your offense because I am use to it. --Eli

      Delete
    4. He sez there r errors in a KJV bible, but he can't prove it. Erik is not a teaching pastor. He refuses to street preach. Gutless is the word.

      Delete
  2. There is nothing in what you quoted from Erik DeVietro that supports the charge that he is in the least Roman Catholic in his convictions. He disagrees with you about English Bible versions but that does not make him a "full-blown closet Pope's-toe-kissing Roman Catholic." That's just ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then don't worry about it. Since there is 'nothing' that I quoted from Mr. DiVietro that sounds Catholic, people will read it and determine that I am out of my mind and will completely dismiss it.

      God bless. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

      Delete
    2. It matters because your biased headline and anti-intellectual rhetoric is an attack on me for no reason other than spite and self-affirmation of your ridiculous beliefs.

      Delete
    3. Spite? I do not hate you nor do you extremely irritate me, so it couldn't have been by "spite".

      You take yourself too seriously man, lighten up. People have accused me of being Roman Catholic before, it doesn't bother me. (because I am clearly not)

      Delete
  3. Would it be possible to reach out and discuss with Erik? I would think a Christian should do everything in his power to not misrepresent a brother. Also which KJV is the one we should hold as authority? 1611? 1769? I wouldn't want to trust the wrong one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes.

      I have read a facsimile 1611 KJB through twice, but my everyday study Bible is what would be classified as a 1769 (Caimbridge type text). There were a lot of differences in additions of the KJB between 1611 and 1769, though they were not actual updates in readings based on new translation or MSS discoveries. As you probably know, they were changes in hundreds and hundreds of typos and also updates in the English language. This article is helpful in finding out more:

      http://www.learnthebible.org/non-existent-revisions-in-the-king-james-bible.html

      I believe the "1769 editions" are the pure word of God, but any edition that does not have all the bad typos is pure (whether it says "murder" or "murther", "son" or "sonne").

      But you won't have a problem "trusting the wrong one", the 1611 facsimiles are not widely published, read, or sold.

      Thank you. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

      Delete
  4. The translation argument is a high school debate used to cause divisiveness among the brethren.The original text are inerrant, the translations are just that translations. To think that God only preserved the King James version is ridiculous and immature in it's thinking. Can the Holy Spirit use any translation to convict the lost soul of their need for salvation? Can the Holy Spirit use any version to show someone their need to repent and be saved? Our modern culture cannot even begin to understand how people heard the Word back in Biblical times (most people could not even read the scriptures they had to go hear the preaching and teaching). Today one can read and reading the Bible can convict and bring anyone to the awareness of their lost condition, and can bring them to the point of salvation..in ANY version...or ANY translation...He is God after all!!!..stop causing hate and divisive arguments and work on reaching the lost and see what happens! Could you imagine if you took 3/4 of the time you spend researching and trying to prove your point and evangelized instead?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/is-kjb.html

      Thanks, --Eli Caldwell

      Delete
  5. I didn't read "Catholic" into those quotes at all. Seemed more Muslim in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In that case my next post will be titled "Erik DiVietro: Closet Muslim?"
      :)

      Delete
  6. Please remove this post. It is falsehood and lies, manipulating my words out of context - it is slander, pure and simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of context? Slander? Lies? I quoted you verbatim. You were commenting on Scripture verses and I posted the verses. I gave the link where people could find where you said those thing.

      Please share with us the context of your statements if I did not provide it.

      --Eli Caldwell

      Delete
    2. "We need to get back to the Bible."
      Here "Hoss" Caldwell clearly teaches that the Bible has been lost, and we must recover it.

      See how easy it is to take something out of context? You should, since you did it in every accusation you made against me.

      Anyway, no more time to waste hitting my head against the wall that is your foolishness.

      Delete
    3. LOL. Thanks for teaching me a lesson, I needed a good taste of my own medicine!

      However, the statement "we need to get back to the Bible" means that WE were departed from it, not that it departed from us. You know, like "we need to get back to the car" does not mean that my car left me. It means I left my car and need to get back to it.

      You probably could have found a better statement to use, but "we need to get back to the Bible" will suffice for now.

      Thanks again. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

      Delete
    4. No, it means whatever I take it to mean. That is how you interpreted my words. They mean whatever YOU decided they mean.

      Delete
    5. I came on this site to defend my reputation from "Hoss" attacking me for no other reason than he decided what I wrote about the Church sounded "Catholic" to him. He has insulted me by referring to me as a "a full-blown closet Pope's-toe-kissing Roman Catholic" which he apparently thinks is a Christ-like way to refer to a Christian brother.

      I have asked several times to remove this misplaced appellation, and asked that he reconsider the folly of his words. Instead, Hoss has demonstrated ignorance, folly and the biblical acumen of a remedial student in lower elementary school.

      It is a shame that Hoss has embraced ignorance in the name of spirituality and rejected sound hermeneutics in favor of an individualized, uncontrolled and imbalanced. He demands that we do nothing but "read" the Bible and yet pretends to be knowledgeable enough to question anyone who disagrees with his pseudo-interpretation. He is so blind to the semantics and transmission of language that he cannot even begin to speak to how language works, and yet he is expert enough in theology to label me salaciously.

      This will be my last post on this page, unless Hoss chooses to insult me again. I want nothing to do with his self-appointed, self-righteous nonsense. I came here only to ask that he remove this foolishness. Instead, he has persisted in his juvenile, puerile attempts at not-a-theology, not-intellectual to discredit me. I have no idea why he targeted me except he was trolling the site I used to write for, looking for a reason to accuse me - someone he does not even know - of something I am not guilty of.

      Truly, a man of God is ever I saw one. And that is sarcasm, in case he is unable to decipher that particular literary device.

      Delete
    6. Dude, I didn't "interpret" your words. All I did was quote you (with no interpretation given), declared it to sound Roman Catholic, then gave some Scriptures on why we do not need to line up with "the Church" we just need to study the Bible. I gave no "interpretation" of your words.

      By the way, I never said you were Catholic, I said that your statements SOUNDED Catholic and I raised the QUESTION if you were.

      "Erik DiVietro, closet Roman Catholic? "

      " it looks like he could be a closet Roman Catholic."

      "Erik sounds like a full-blown closet Pope's-toe-kissing Roman Catholic. No Christian needs the "consent of the Church" for anything. What is "THE Church"? Why did Erik use a capital C? Is he a closet Roman Catholic?"

      I never put an interpretation on your words.

      Delete
    7. Erik, so far I haven't 'accused' you of anything other than saying some things that sounded Roman Catholic. Meanwhile you have accused me of the following

      "embraced ignorance in the name of spirituality"
      (not sure what that is referring to. I never claimed ignorance was spirituality, especially since Paul was always telling people not to be ignorant. I DID say that reading, studying, and comparing the Scriptures was spirituality if done in faith.)

      "rejected sound hermeneutics"
      ("sound" is in the eye of the beholder)

      "He demands that we do nothing but "read" the Bible"
      (Did you actually read the post? I said to read, study, and compare the Scriptures.)

      "pretends to be knowledgeable enough to question anyone who disagrees with his pseudo-interpretation"
      (I haven't questioned anyone for disagreeing with me, I have questioned people for disagreeing with the Bible. Proverbs 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.)

      "He is so blind to the semantics and transmission of language that he cannot even begin to speak to how language works"
      (When did I try and talk about how language works? I don't recall it.)

      I think I know why you got so offended over my questions,

      Psalms 119:65 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.

      Have a good day, --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell

      Delete
  7. Ya, but really, does anyone get a reward in heaven because you were correct??? And how many people just died and went to hell over proving your point??? Why don't you worry about lost souls and have compassion like Jude says and let God take care of proving points...If it is true, He knows how to expose it, and if it is false, He knows how to let it go. This is similar to arguing with an occult while soulwinning, really. How many people could've heard the gospel that really need it and want it while I won that argument?? If you have the correct translation and know your facts, then, let God be true and every man a liar. He has an awesome way of exposing stuff, but to spend the time that was spent here, I believe did not honor the Lord...my opinion.

    ReplyDelete

Your questions or comments welcome.