Apologetics for the Masses #475 - The Right Division of Scripture, Part 3

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

How one single misinterpreted word, in one particular translation of the Bible - the King James Version (KJV) - has led to a massive perversion of the Word of God.

General Comments

Originally planned to send this out this past Friday, but a number of things kept coming up that prevented me from getting it done. So, here it is...

Introduction

Continuing my conversation with Mr. Tim Duma in regard to the "Right Division of Scripture" theology that is held by him and a growing number of folks in Baptist/EvangeIical/Non-Denominational denominations around the country. The last newsletter ended with 9 questions that I had asked him. In this newsletter, each of those questions will be repeated, followed by his response, and then my follow up response back to him. All of which will be topped off by "Strategy" sections where I explain why I asked what I asked and said what I said. This is a little bit longer of a newsletter, since it contains, essentially, 3 rounds of dialogue, but it's not as long as it looks - there are a number of very short answers.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

John Martignoni
1) Are you infallible in your interpretation of Scripture...yes or no? The other Right Division folks that I've talked with state that "no man is infallible", so I am going to answer, "No", on your behalf to this question - No, Tim Duma is not infallible in his interpretation of Scripture. Again, correct me if I've gotten that answer wrong.

Tim Duma
1) ALL men can be fallible at the interpretation of scripture, BECAUSE ALL men are flawed and bias (including me OR any “MAN”) But God gave us two items to check so WE can come to an absolute trust! The one item (for a brief recap) 2 Tim 2:15 divided into Absolute Trust (Psalm 12:6-7, Mark 13:31) God WORD shall be magnified above his name. Psalm 138:2 (KJV) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. #1 The Perfect BOOK A King James Bible! #2) God gave us the Holy Spirit (comforter) which will LEAD us to all truth John 15:26-27 (KJV) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

John Martignoni
1) So your answer is, "no", you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, because you are flawed and biased, correct?

My Strategy
All of you know that the "infallible" question is one of the first questions, if not THE first question, I ask in almost every dialogue I have with a Protestant. Why? Because, my intent is to plant the fact firmly in the head of every Protestant that, according to their theology - where no person or institution is said to be infallible - the best they can do in any discussion of differences in doctrine/dogma, whether Protestant/Catholic or even just Protestant/Protestant, is one person's fallible, non-authoritative, private interpretation of Scripture vs. another person's fallible, non-authoritative, private interpretation of Scripture. In other words, Protestants have no way to authoritatively decide who is right in any disagreement on doctrine and dogma. Is that how Jesus left us to decide matters of such great importance as doctrine and salvation - one person's opinion as to what the Bible says vs. another person's opinion of what the Bible says? I don't think so!

And notice what he does here. It's a perfect example of what I call the "Fallible in Theory, Infallible in Practice Doctrine". He admits that "ALL men can be fallible" when interpreting Scripture, which would include him, but then he goes on to essentially imply that he, and others, can actually be infallible in their interpretation of Scripture because the Holy Spirit is guiding him. Which is why I had to ask the question again.

John Martignoni
2) If you are not infallible in your interpretation of Scripture, then do you agree that you could, at least theoretically, misinterpret one or more Scripture verses...yes or no?

Tim Duma
2) John, this question is a bit of a straw man, of course I OR anyone could be misled on an item from scripture, BUT God has made it plain that MOST doctrines can be absolute in an ansewr. If someone wants to argue who is one of the toe’s on Daniels image in Daniel Chapter 2, there would be one man on one island and he would not agree with himself! When it comes to absolute clear teaching about ANY of your 8 questions YOU asked, I can say that I can be absolute sure about my answers to your questions!

John Martignoni
2) Which means your answer is, "yes", you could misinterpret one or more Scripture verses, right? But, you then go on to say that you are indeed infallible in interpreting the Scriptures that you rely on for your answers to my eight original questions. So, no, this is not a "straw man" argument. If you are a flawed and biased, thus fallible, man, interpreting Scripture, then the fact that you are flawed, biased, and fallible means, by definition, that you could indeed interpret one or more Scripture verses incorrectly. You could, in fact, interpret any or all Scriptures incorrectly. Now, you stated, "BUT God has made it plain that MOST doctrines can be absolute in an answer." Where exactly, in the Bible, does God say, "I have made MOST doctrines plain enough that you can infallibly interpret them?" Can you give me book, chapter, and verse? And, please, I don't want your interpretations of this or that Scripture verses for this, I want the Bible verse, or verses, that say EXACTLY what you have said in this answer. I would offer, contrary to your statement, this, from the Word of God: "There are some things in them [Paul's letters] that the ignorant and unstable twist, as they do the other scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Ptr 3:16). Seems like God hasn't made it plain about MOST doctrines.

Furthermore, why has God made "MOST" doctrines plain, but not all doctrines? That makes no sense. I mean, if you can't understand lesser matters about the Bible correctly - such as, to use your example, "who is one of the toes in Daniel's image in Daniel 2", then how can I trust you to understand the greater matters of Scripture correctly? Did the master tell each of the good servants in the Parable of the Talents (Matt 25), "Well done, good and faithful servant, I can't trust you in the little things, so I'm going to trust you with the more important things instead?" No! Jesus said that since the master could trust them in the little things, he could then trust them with greater things. Which means, if he couldn't trust them with the little things, then how could he trust them with the greater matters? So, if you admit that you could get it wrong in the lesser matters, which you have indeed admitted, how can your interpretations in the greater matters be trusted? How do you know when the Holy Spirit is guiding you and when He isn't? How do I, or anyone else you claim to be wrong, know when the Holy Spirit is guiding you and when He isn't?

My Strategy
Again, the Fallible in Theory, Infallible in Practice Doctrine. Essentially, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth here. "Well, of course, I, or anyone, could be misled on an item of Scripture. But, I'm not being misled on any of the things we're discussing here! Oh, No! God has made these items of Scripture ABSOLUTELY plain!!!" Yeah, right. He's basically saying, as do many Protestants, that some of the "non-essential" doctrines are not always clear, but the "essential" doctrines - the doctrines directly related to salvation - are absolutely perfectly clear. So I ask him where the Bible says what he is saying. And I always ask for "book, chapter, and verse". He won't be able to give it to me because nowhere does the Bible say what he's saying.

In fact, the Bible pretty much states the opposite. Just look at the Parable of the Talents. I use the Parable of the Talents a lot - both for the supposed essential vs. non-essential doctrine garbage and for an anti-Sola Fide argument. You need to use it whenever possible. It's pretty hard to argue with. I mean, how ridiculous of an argument is it that you can absolutely trust someone's interpretation on the most important matters of Scripture, even if they're a little shaky on interpreting the lesser matters of Scripture?

John Martignoni
3) In the Right Division of Scripture theology, do you believe Jesus and Paul preach a different gospel...yes or no?  If so, what is the gospel called that Jesus preaches and what is the gospel called that Paul preaches?

Tim Duma
3) Of course they preached different gospels, this is so obvious that you would have to be blind to miss it. Jesus preached a Kingdom Gospel (Matt 4:23, 9:35, 24:14, Mark 1:14). Paul preached the Gospel of Grace (Acts 20:24, Acts 16:3, 1 Cor 15:14)? I think in my answer I told you there was a bunch of Gospels that is WHY most people are confused, YOU need to rightly divide so you have the right one for our age! Galatians 1:6 (KJV) "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel."

John Martignoni
3) So, Jesus and Paul preached different gospels? Well, let me ask you this: Who did Paul learn the gospel from? Also, is there a difference between the gospel of grace and the gospel of Christ and the gospel of God? And, one last question here: Did Peter and Paul preach different gospels?

My Strategy
This is where a lot of the "right division" folks start to get in trouble...with all the supposedly "different" gospels. If you go to www.biblegateway.com - a website I use all the time - and do a Bible search on the word "gospel", you will get all sorts of qualifiers accompanying the word "gospel". There's the Gospel of God. The Gospel of Christ. The Gospel of Grace. The Gospel of the Kingdom. The Eternal Gospel. The Gospel of Peace. Paul's Gospel. And a few others. About 60 of the times the word "gospel" is mentioned it's just "the gospel" or "this gospel"...no qualifier attached.

What the right division folks will say, is that there is a different gospel for different peoples in different times - that's why he says, "there was [sic] a bunch of gospels". The Gospel of the Kingdom (faith and works) is what Jesus preached because, so they say, the plan was, essentially, for the Jews to recognize Him as the Messiah, and when that happened, it would usher in the earthly reign - the Kingdom - of God on earth. When the Jews didn't recognize Jesus, it was time for God to go to Plan B, which was for the earthly Kingdom of God to be put off for a while and for the Gentiles to have the salvation baton handed off to them and for the Gospel of Grace (Sola Fide) to become the way of salvation.

The problem for them, though, is that there is one - and only one - gospel...the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Oh, it's called by different names, as mentioned above, but it's still the same gospel. For example, in Rom 15:16-19, we see that the gospel Paul preaches is referred to as both the Gospel of God and the Gospel of Christ. Other places refer to the gospel Paul preaches as "my [Paul's]" gospel (Rom 2:16), the Gospel of the Son (Rom 1:9), the Gospel of Grace (Acts 20:24), the Gospel of Peace (Eph 6:15), simply "the" gospel (Rom 10:16; 1 Cor 1:17), and so on. So, unless Paul was teaching a bunch of different gospels all over the place, then all of those gospels are, in fact, the same gospel.

Mr. Tim Duma will, undoubtedly, agree that regardless of the different ways it is described, Paul taught one, and only one, gospel - the Gospel of Grace {aka the Gospel of God; Christ; Peace; the Son; etc.}. However, he will protest that Jesus taught the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt 4:23, 9:35, 24:14, and Mark 1:15) which was a different gospel than the Gospel of Grace that Paul taught. But, there are a couple of problems with that. First, Paul tells us in Gal 1:6-7, that there is no other gospel than the gospel he preaches - the Gospel of Christ. So, there is one, and only one gospel, according to the Word of God.

Second, in Mark 1:1, it refers to the gospel that Jesus teaches as the "Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God". So, here in Mark, the gospel Jesus teaches could be called the Gospel of Christ or the Gospel of the Son, as well as the Gospel of the Kingdom. But, as mentioned above, the gospel Paul taught was also known as the Gospel of Christ (Gal 1:7) and the Gospel of the Son (Rom 1:9) and, specifically, in 2 Thess 1:8, it is referred to as the "Gospel of Jesus Christ"...just like in Mark 1:1.

In other words, the Word of God itself tells us that the gospel taught by Jesus - the Gospel of Jesus Christ - is the same gospel as taught by Paul - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Word of God is telling us that there is one, and only one, gospel taught throughout the New Testament - whether it be in the gospels or in the letters of Paul or elsewhere - the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, should I believe the Word of God, or the Word of Duma?

The entire "Right Division of Scripture" theology comes down to this: Someone, within the last 100 - 150 years or so (hard to say exactly when) was looking for a way to get around all of the "works" passages taught by Jesus. In order to do that, they stumbled upon the "rightly divide" verse of 2 Tim 2:15 in the KJV and used that verse as a justification to "rightly divide" all of the references to the necessity of works in the gospels, and elsewhere, right out of the Bible. Oh, they're still "in" the Bible, but of course they don't refer to Christians in the Church dispensation. Those works passages were only meant for Jews in the Kingdom dispensation. The problem is, though, there are plenty of passages in Paul that refer to the necessity of works in the process of one's salvation that they can't "rightly divide" out of the Bible.

John Martignoni
4) Do you believe that the entire Old Testament, as well as most of the New Testament, except for Paul's letters, is meant for the Jews; while Paul's letters are meant for the Gentiles...yes or no?

Tim Duma
4) This is NOT a yes and NO answer (there is a group called Hyper-Dispersalist that do this BUT I am NOT one of them) WE can get a lot of good universal teaching that can be applied to all three, the jew, gentile and church of God! There is also a lot of scripture that deals with the millennium, God has written it all, and we should study it, BUT NOT apply it to everyone, obviously we are NOT stoning folks for their sins as laid out in Leviticus 20 for one example!

John Martignoni
4) Okay, so if you can't "rightly divide" the Bible by books, then where are the instructions, in the Bible, for which Bible verses and passages apply to whom and to when? All of your "rightly dividing" is nothing more than the fallible interpretations of men. Men trying to back into justifications for their beliefs by saying, "Oh, wait...that verse...or that half of a verse...is meant for another time and for other people, it's not meant for me today," which allows them to believe whatever the heck they want to believe by getting rid of Bible verses that very clearly contradict what they want to believe.

My Strategy
Apparently, you have to go line-by-line through the Scriptures, Old and New Testament, to find out which Scriptures apply to whom and in which period of time (dispensation). Some Scriptures apply, according to the Word of Duma, to Jew, Gentile, and the Church of God; while other Scriptures apparently only apply to the Jews; while others apply to the Gentiles; and still others apply to the Church of God! So, where are the instructions, from Scripture, telling us which verses apply to which group, or groups, of people, and in which dispensation, or dispensations? Or, is all of this just a bunch of crap made up by men who are deceived by Satan into believing the very words of Jesus Christ do not, in many instances, apply to them? They go by what Paul says and not by what Jesus says.

John Martignoni
5) You mentioned, in your description of yourself, that you are waiting on the "Rapture". Could you give me any verses from Scripture that refer to a rapture?

Tim Duma
5) The two NT ones as clear as can be: 1 Cor 15:51-58, 1 Thes 4:16-18,

John Martignoni
5) The verses you cite from 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thess 4 in reference to the "Rapture" are referring to the end of the world when Jesus returns for the 2nd and final time, not to a pre-tribulation rapture. We know this because there is a resurrection of the dead in both passages and the resurrection of the dead doesn't occur until the end of time with Jesus' 2nd coming. So, are there any other passages that refer to your "Rapture"? Do you believe Matt 24:37-41 and Luke 17:26-35 refer to your Rapture?

My Strategy
Just trying to get a little more clarification on his scriptural justification for the Rapture. He noticeably did not refer to the "left behind" passages from the gospels that I bring up. Why? Because if Jesus is talking about the same thing that Paul is, then Jesus and Paul are teaching the same "gospel", and he can't have that.

John Martignoni
6) If the AV1611 (the King James Authorized Version of 1611) is the only "perfect" Bible, then are you saying God allowed all of Christianity to be deceived with an imperfect Bible for almost 1600 years...yes or no?

Tim Duma
6) Another straw man question, God has preserved his word throughout time and purified it 7 times (read the Psalm 12:6-7) and we have it NOW in our age in English, the universal language of these last days! God KNOWS what He is doing!

John Martignoni
6) No, not a straw man question. The fact is, you are misinterpreting Psalm 12:6-7. You know how I know? Because your interpretation means God's Word wasn't perfect the 1st 6 times around. That it is only after the 7th purification that God's Word was made perfect. How blasphemous is that? When has God ever spoken a word that wasn't perfect? Why would God's Word ever need to be purified? If His word needed to be purified, that would mean, by definition, that His Word wasn't perfect. Again, blasphemy! But, for the sake of argument, let's say your argument is correct, then my initial question is still valid because God's Word was not perfected, according to your interpretation, until the 7th time it was purified. So, first of all, please name for me the 6 other times God's Word went through purification? And, what were the perfect Bibles before the AV1611 that guided Christians for the first 1600 years of Christianity? And how did they know to "rightly divide" the Scriptures when that particular translation of 2 Tim 2:15 - using the word "divide" - didn't appear until almost 1600 years after the death of Christ?!

My Strategy
If God's Word has been "purified" 7 times, then that means God's Word was not perfect until after the 7th purification, which is blasphemy. Also, the word "divide" does not appear in 2 Tim 2:15 in any translation of the Bible until, as far as I know, the KJV was translated in 1611. So, before that, how did Christians know to "rightly divide" their Bible if their Bible didn't tell them it needed to be "rightly divided"?

John Martignoni
7) Who was it exactly, that "authorized" the "AV1611?

Tim Duma
7) A King John, Ecclesiastes 8:4 (KJV) Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?

John Martignoni
7) First of all, the King James Bible was not authorized by King John. It was King James. Secondly, are you trying to tell me that King James was infallible in his authorization of the Bible? What church did King James belong to, or does that not matter to you? And, according to your interpretation of Eccles 8:4, are you saying that the word of every king is infallible? King Herod was infallible? The kings of Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc. were all infallible in their pronouncements?

My Strategy
He's trying to use a passage of Scripture from a different dispensation, according to his theology, that is meant for the Jews, to justify King James, in the "Church dispensation", having the authority to authorize a Bible translation. Here's the more important point, though - it matters which church King James belonged to because, since his fellow churchmen translated this Bible, then one would think that his church would interpret the phrase "rightly dividing," as found in 2 Tim 2:15, in the same manner that the Word of Duma does. I.e., literally dividing the Bible up into pieces in such a way that the very words of Jesus do not, for the most part, apply to Christians. Well, is that how the Church of England interprets 2 Tim 2:15? Nope. Is that how King James interpreted 2 Tim 2:15? Nope? So, if the folks who actually did the interpreting for this "perfect" Bible, did not and do not interpret 2 Tim 2:15 in the same way as Mr. Tim Duma does, then by what authority does he say that his interpretation of that verse is better than the interpretation of the guys who actually did the King James translation? He will have no response here.

John Martignoni
8) You stated that the AV1611 is "the ONLY one [Bible] without a copyright". That is absolutely false. Once again, your knowledge of things to do with the Bible proves unreliable. The first two Bibles I thought of after I read your statement- the Latin Vulgate Bible and the Douay-Rheims Bible - don't have copyrights. So, will you renounce your false statement on that...yes or no? (By the way, you apparently are unaware that the first copyright law didn't come into existence until 100 years after the KJV was published, so of course it doesn't have a copyright - copyrights didn't exist!)

Tim Duma
8) John, if those two do not, I stand corrected, BUT the 250+ counterfeits that came from those corrupted document do!!!!

John Martignoni
8) Glad to see that you are at least capable of admitting when you're wrong.

My Strategy
Copyright law didn't exist until about 100 years after the KJV came into existence, so of course it doesn't have a copyright. What an absolutely absurb claim to make. And the fact that the Holy Spirit didn't guide him into knowing this, leads me to believe that the Holy Spirit isn't guiding him at all. Rather, it is an unholy spirit behind the Word of Duma.

But, he at least has the capacity to admit it when he is wrong. Although, that will never - ever! - be applied to his fallible, non-authoritative, private interpretations of the Bible.

John Martignoni
9) By what authority do you dare to tell me I'm right or wrong on anything to do with the Christian religion or the interpretation of God's Word?

Tim Duma
9) Gods word and the holy Spirit I judge all things, 1 Corinthians 2:15 (KJV) But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

John Martignoni
9) Well, I contend that I am a spiritual man, therefore, you have no right to judge me. Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is telling me that the right division of Scripture is of lie of Satan, and that anyone who believes it and teaches it is putting their souls at risk of eternal damnation. So, you say your authority is God's Word. Where in God's Word do I find the name Tim Duma so that I may believe what you are saying is true? Where in God's Word do I see it said that the Holy Spirit will be guiding Tim Duma into all truth? So, again, I ask: By what authority do you declare my interpretations of Scripture wrong and yours right?

My Strategy
He says he judges "all things" with the help of the Holy Spirit. Well, as I just showed him (Question #8), it obviously wasn't the Holy Spirit guiding him when he claimed the KJV is the only translation without a copyright. Which tends to cast doubt on any claim he makes to be a "spiritual man" who is guided by the Holy Spirit. But, if he makes a claim to be a "spiritual" man, then I will make the same claim.

The fact is, we are looking at maybe one more round here because what is going to happen, as has happened here, is he will quote more Scripture that doesn't say what he says it is saying. The most crucial question, though, being this last one - by what authority? He has no answer. Never will. The only use in dialoguing with someone like this is if you have an audience that can learn from it, because this man has deluded himself into believing that he is the church - he is pope, pastor, and theologian of the Church of Duma whose sacred writings - the Word of Duma - are beyond dispute. He is THE authority. Not the Bible, not the Holy Spirit...Tim Duma is THE authority and if you don't interpret the Bible in the same way he does, well, then...you are obviously headed to Hell.

Closing Comments

I hope all of you have a great week!

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter