Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm not watching your videos
I disagree. The KJB actually refutes Calvinism and or Reformed thinking in many places. The NASB and ASV come from Westcott and Hort's corrupted Greek text like all Modern Translations. Their work was a departure from the Textus Receptus.
I don't see how this is in favor of Calvinism. They both say the same thing except the KJB includes the writer or other body of believers. Actually, Calvinists originally favored the Geneva Bible when coming over here to the States. In creation of the KJB: I believe God used two different groups of imperfect believers (despite their own wrong beliefs) to create a perfect work (i.e. the KJB). The king checked their work and they had to peer review each other's work in smaller teams or groups. The result in time of the KJB eventually led to the fruit of John Wesley (who rekindled the fires of revival for the teaching on Sanctification).
Suggesting that Paul and Timothy might consider doing the things they were talking about in those passages was just too ridiculous of an assertion to comment on. Anything I would have to say about that would only insult you. I avoided commenting on that angle of your questions because I have nothing but contempt for it. Very useless question IMO.
Paul’s statement to Timothy validates the possibility of it happening otherwise it is a useless statement. Not only that Paul also said “IF we endure with Him we will also reign with Him.” Which is another indication that they are capable of failing to endure otherwise there would be no “IF” in that statement.
Suppose I am teaching a Sunday school class and I say, if I murder someone then I will go to prison.
The class might learn something from hearing it. It`s a big stretch to say it means I might commit a murder. That`s the kind of logic you are using. It just doesn`t work.
Agreed it was written for another time/era for those of Elizabethan decent. We do not speak like this today which is why there are many better word for word translations such as the ESV, NASB and even the NKJV which is much improved over the original KJV.I saw an original King James once, it was very old and belonged to a friend of mine. I could barely read it, the language was so different.
Agreed it was written for another time/era for those of Elizabethan decent. We do not speak like this today which is why there are many better word for word translations such as the ESV, NASB and even the NKJV which is much improved over the original KJV.
That’s not the situation here. The situation is, is it possible for someone to lose their salvation. The question isn’t will you commit murder the question is are you capable of it. It’s the same situation with Paul and Timothy, it’s not a question of whether or not they will deny Christ it’s a question of we’re they capable of denying Christ. Paul is using a hypothetical situation as a warning to Timothy. If a believer is incapable of denying Christ and losing his salvation what’s the point of the message? There’s absolutely no point in that message if they are incapable of denying Christ. That statement would not be teaching anyone anything and would be completely pointless.
I'm not watching your videos
Ok, back to the topic.
People keep trying to sell me Progressive Sanctification as a performance-based doctrine. Sanctified by works and if I object, then well, I just want to sin I am told.
Someone said Progressively Sanctified by getting better at being a Christian.
Another said perfect holiness, then lists a bunch of works verses to justify that
It`s back door works for salvation and I flatly reject it.
Perfect Holiness comes from within. Holiness is based on the condition of your heart.
Progressive Sanctification isn`t a doctrine of the Bible but if it was, it would look like this:
1 Corinthians 2:16
"For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? but we have the mind of Christ."
The purpose of our salvation is to conform us into the image of Christ. It`s largely a matter of the heart.The condition of our heart determines our holiness.
That holiness based on works thing, what works do you believe will make you holy? It`s ridiculous.
In Christianity, it`s all about the condition of our heart towards God, anything else is just religeon.
Look I've been around the block a few times as a believer for over the past 5 decades. I'm aware of all the pros and cons with translations.I can understand. I don't watch things that I normally do not strongly agree with. However, they are like little mini movie clips (that have a good production quality) that are very short. So they are not painstaking to watch by any means (even if you may not agree with the content). If you watch them, at least you will be informed about why KJB folk believe the way the do. You know, see things from your opponents perspective so you may better respond to them.
I saw an original King James once, it was very old and belonged to a friend of mine. I could barely read it, the language was so different.
There are two views of Progressive Sanctification.
#1. The Eternal Security and or sin and still be saved view (that says one will always commit mortal sin in this life).
#2. It not just about meeting the bare minimum level requirement of holy living alone (i.e. putting away mortal sin), but it is also about perfecting or maturing our walk with the Lord.
Look I've been around the block a few times as a believer for over the past 5 decades. I'm aware of all the pros and cons with translations.
I have no interest in your works for salvation theology.
You said:You are one of the worst theologians I ever met.
I have no interest in your works for salvation theology. You are one of the worst theologians I ever met.
you are entitled to your "opinion" and so am I.I would say you really don't know if you are unaware that the majority of your Modern Translations come from Westcott and Hort (who were into the occult) and Rome. I would also say that if you actually did the study and compared the differences, they are for the worse, and not for the better. I was aware of these changes early on in my faith. So for me, this is kindergarten stuff. But this is a spiritual issue, and many just want to doubt that there is a perfect Word of God in existence today. Why? Because who wants to be under a perfect and final Word of authority? Most do not want to be under God's Word entirely.
you are entitled to your "opinion" and so am I.
you are far from an authority on the biblical text and manuscript evidence for the TR or the Majority.But beliefs or opinions should be supported by evidence. I see the table top as a belief, and the legs of that table as the reasons why we believe that particular belief. I see a ton of reasons that keeps growing to defend the KJB as the pure Word of God, and I see zero reasons to believe in Modern Translations or the OAO (Original Autograph Only) viewpoint. In fact, there are tons of reasons against placing one's authority in Lexicons and or Modern Translations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?