All LS Discussions and Debates

No.

Now give me the quotes already.

 

Lou,

I have a life. At times I cannot reply.

One needs only go by your own words to see how you mislead.

 

Quote by Ed....

Link here..

 

If I recall Lou, most of the others were not as much defending MacArthur as they were not allowing you to misquote and mislead. If MacArthur is wrong I along with others will say so. To this date you have yet to prove he is wrong.

 

I'd just like to throw in the fact that The Bible never contains the phrase "being saved" anywhere.

You are either saved or lost. There is no "being saved" in an individual progressive sense, but people are being saved, which would be a synonym for the phrase "getting saved". People are getting saved every day, but there is no one "being saved" in the sense of it being a progressive salvation.

Co 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
1Co 15:2 By which also ye ARE SAVED, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

 

First off, welcome to the Baptist Board! :wavey:

Now, I agree with the "saved or lost" analogy, for in this sense, there is no "in-between" position.

However, "May I Say -"

it appears you might be mistaken!

So, ya' wanna' rethink your position?

Personally, I use the NKJV, and have for some time. The phrase, "being saved" certainly is in "The Bible".

Ed

 

Thanks for the welcome brother

Well, I put my avatar as it is to show my opinion of modern Bible versions and my beliefs about the King James. Having said that, I won't say anymore lest the thread turn into a Bible version debate.

 

So you think that because the King James translators made a mistake, that it "became" the Bible?? (The Greek in the Textus Receptus (where the King James version comes from), ALSO says "being saved".

The KJ translators messed up, and failed to correctly apply the Greek tense/voice/mood....

 

Alright. It's on. Let's take it to another thread shall we.

 

FTR, I didn't even notice your "picture" until now, but did notice that I did not recall the name, looked over to see the few posts, and join date, and welcomed you, then. Personally, again FTR, I used one particular KJV, which had all my irreplaceable notes, both good and bad, for 27 1/2 years, to be nearly exact, including most of my time at Bible College, in it, until it was apparently "borrowed" from my cab, one night, without either my knowledge or permission. I would happily give ten times the real value of it, from any bookstore, just to have it back, and so I could continue using it.

The NKJV I acquired, as a replacement is simply a decent "second" choice (size of print and margin space are important, to me), since the 1967 KJV, in the printing and style of the KJV I had, is no longer available, in any place I have searched, for any price. The 'publisher' simply does not print that edition, anymore, either.

I don't ask for all that much. I just want a 1967 KJV, New Scofield Reference Edition, in wide margin, black letter Edition, Leather cover.

Not much at all, really.

Why, just to be easy to get along with, I'd even settle for the "looseleaf" version.

Ed

 

JArthur- Never Read JM's Books

To All:

For days I have been asking Jarthur if he has read any of MacArthur's five major books in their entirety, on Lordship Salvation?

Finally, after days of his posting at BB, but dodging this issue, we get an admission that he has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s LS books.

Here we have a fierce defender of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel, but coming from a man who has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s books. The first was canadyjd, then Reformed Baptist, now Jarthur.

This goes a long way toward explaining why these men have to resort to twisting a doctrinal debate into a personality clash. They have latched onto (hitched their wagons) to a “star” personality, and therefore, take any legitimate doctrinal scrutiny of the man’s theology, personally.

They do not even take the time to learn what the teaching is they are embracing.


LM

PS: Give you the quotes? Why? You do the honest thing first: Get JM's latest LS book, read it, then report back with your request for those page numbers. Until you do the homework you remain ignorant of and irrelevant to any discussion of MacArthur’s LS interpretation of the Gospel.

 

As I have stated multiple times, I HAVE read them, I own one of them, and I have asked for the quotes...and yet, you dodge again.

Get a life.

 

Say Ed,would you say that that Scofield Edition was kind of a median point between the old KJV and the NKJV?I know the translation was KJV;but the notes corrected a number of errors in the found in the text.

 

What I find amusing is that Scofield is listed as EDITOR in the New Scofield Reference Bible, even though he died 45 years before it's notes were edited. And with that, I'll not say another word about the NSRB

 

That is not any particular inaccuracy, as regards this "Study Bible", regardless of your insinuation. (And Dr. Gipp's inaccuracies.) Dr. C. I. Scofield was the (Chief) Editor of "the Scofield® Study system." The overall "system" of the New Scofield Reference Bible©, though a "Revision", is essentially the same, as that employed by Dr. Scofield. Oxford University possessed, and still possesses exclusive rights to the System and the trademarked name of Scofield, which is and was a patented trademark of Oxford University Press, and which name is registered with the U. S. Patent office. In 1967, all the Scofield® notes from the 1909 and 1917 Editions were still under copyright, as well. (That is no longer the case, having passed into the "public domain", which is why you can now procure an "Original Scofield" that is not an Oxford publication.) Dr. E. Schuyler English is correctly listed as the Chairman of the Editorial Revision Committee. The 1967 Edition of The New Scofield Reference Bible© is still under copyright.

Ed

 

Could be, I guess. I never really thought about it, in this way, although several of the "New Scofield" people very likely had at least some influence on some of the NKJV translators.

Ed.

 

Let it be known that Lou has once again been dishonest. He said over and over for days on end that he would give quotes if I answered. I have answered...now he still withholds the quotes. Me thinks its another Lou game.

Lou said...

All of us , canadyjd, then Reformed Baptist and now I, have replied to YOUR words. It must be that you cannot defend your book, blog, and post here on the BB. No twisting was needed other then untwisting of your post. Just say the truth and let others judge.

Give me the quotes that you treasure so dear and let me judge on my own if you are right on John. What is so hard about that?

Now if you give the quotes on not, I will not be able to reply for a few days. I say this because I don't want you to get all worked up again over nothing.

Quotes please...................

 

Intellectual Blindness

JArthur:

This is almost humorous. How could they know if I was misquoting MacArthur when they had never read or owned his books in the first place?

Second, I am amused at the LS sympathizers predictable mantra: “You are misquoting MacArthur,” which they use with anyone who calls into question the works based LS as taught by MacArthur or any major Lordship advocate. Many have quoted MacArthur from his LS books, in context and are able to show, from JM’s own writing that he conditions eternal salvation on a commitment to behavior, more so than believing.

The quotes that prove LS is works based and man centered are available, easily understood, they have been reiterated and reinforced by JM with each of his successive LS book. The many quotes are in print, in context, but LS sympathizers still cry, “misrepresentation.”

These shrill cries of “misrepresentation” coming from a man (Jarthur) who has NEVER read any of MacArthur’s major books on LS. Talk about intellectual blindness and/or dishonesty, this is it.


LM