The war has been won against KJVO?

There are 2 sides: their belief and their denials. How would they walk together if they agree each other? How would W/H be Christians if their 2 sides disagree each other?

 

Yes, I have them, but you doubt them because you reject one verse that Jesus warned.

 

The false teaching of KJVO is alive and well. Satan is still seeking those whom he may devour. God's Word is still under attack from KJVO. So no, the battle is not over. We must defend God's Word against the liberals.

 

I researched on them and learned they were unbelievers and are in hell right now. I did not question them concerning their salvation, but their testimony showed that they are unbelievers. </font>[/QUOTE]Did you research Erasmus and the KJV translators as well? In spite of the one quote Skan gives, Erasmus disputed salvation by grace alone with Luther. There was apparently a great deal of contention between them.

What specifically did W & H say that proves they weren't saved?

Frankly, I would be suspicious for no other reason than they were Anglicans adhering basically to core CoE doctrines very similar to those of the KJV translators. That doesn't impugn their scholarship any more than doubts about Erasmus or the KJV translators undermines the quality of their work. It does however prove that none of them were inspired directly by God. There is no evidence that any of the writers of scripture were unsaved.

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Even someone like Mel Gibson would agree with most of this. The part about those "who rest in peace" seems to indicate that he may have believed in salvation outside of Christ similar to a position recently established by the current Pope. One thing it does not say is that the RCC has no responsibility nor effect in the salvation of these individuals.

I am trying to be intentionally difficult and specific here because I know that Catholics use the same language as us with very different meanings. I have had Catholics agree with me on things that are in direct contradiction to the RCC simply because the definitions they associate with terms provide an escape.

BTW, do you have the full quote? I am interested in what follows the first set of ellipsis.

 

On Erasmus...

Here is a link to an outline of the debate between Erasmus and Luther. Having failed to reconcile Luther's salvation by grace alone with the Pope and RCC tradition, Erasmus wrote against Luther.

http://web.centre.edu/halld/classes/hct/spr2004/4-5.htm

Source: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/gailriplinger.htm#back21

This site also deals with Erasmus' very RCC views on Mary.

From: http://www.tlogical.net/bioerasmus.htm

Why did he go to Basel late in life? Was it to die amongst his "friends"? No.

 

The false teaching of Every-Version-Only-ism is alive and well. Satan is still seeking those whom he may devour. God's Word is still under attack from Every-Version-Only-ism . So no, the battle is not over. We must defend God's Word against the liberals

Lacy

 

Have you researched both sides of the issue? I think not. You just fall for the MVer propaganda?

Love Lacy

 

Their testimony rejected the word of God: the WRITTEN word and the INCARNATE word.

 

Their testimony rejected the word of God: the WRITTEN word and the INCARNATE word. </font>[/QUOTE]What did they specifically say? Where did they reject the word of God?

You have never proven yourself to be a reliable or even truthful source of information so your accusations are without any merit. If they actually said anything like your accusation you should be able to quote their own words... or are you bearing false witness?

 

The false teaching of Every-Version-Only-ism is alive and well. Satan is still seeking those whom he may devour. God's Word is still under attack from Every-Version-Only-ism . So no, the battle is not over. We must defend God's Word against the liberals

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Bro Lacy, you know this isn't true "Every-Version-Only-ism", those of us who don't hold to the KJVOnly view, have the same belief as the translators of the AV, as so far as the philosphy of translations; i.e. as they quoted Augustine, "a variety of translations is profitable for gaining the sense of the Scriptures" (not sure if I got the quote exactly right, but you get the picture).

 

"Brother" Lacy, I used to be KJVO. Thanks. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]And I used to refer to an Amplified Bible, an NIV, a NAS, a NKJV, and the back of a Strong's Concordance for "deeper truth". What is your point?

You seem to imply that all one has to do is "research both sides" and he would be immediately swayed, like magic, to your position. I have both sides on my shelf. I assure you I have researched both sides. That is how I became KJVO, Thanks.


Love Lacy

PS. What's with the "brother" thing? I already mentioned that it was hurtful. To continue to be hateful in such a public setting really calls your holiness into question. If you have some other explanation then by all means explain. Even Brother Craigbythesea questioned it and he shares YOUR position on the KJVO issue. It helps your "argument" very little.

 

Amen, Tom! And it is good to see you around these parts!

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Excuse me!!!

Just what does argueing over the salvation of W/H and Erasmus have to with debate about the end of 'King James Onlyism'?

Let's try to keep it on topic!!!

First, it was a red herring about this being the Lacodician age, that Dr Bob derailed by starting another thread.

Then came the ranting and railing about 'Modern Versions' vs. the purity of the Byzantine texts. And this has what to do with the war with KJVO?

And, unfortunately, that is pretty much where it has stayed.

Why does every thread have to degenerate into a KJKV vs. MV yelling match? This thread was doing fine until a couple of people started with the 'same old, same old' KJVO arguements. Hey, get some new material!

I, for one, get tired of the bull being slung in the Bible Versions/Translations forum. Can anyone not stay on topic around here?

In Christ,
Trotter

 

KJVO -- Which men?????

No, it was MVO because you IGNORE one verse that Jesus WARNED.

Which word of God?????

 

They did not believe in the Bible.

Westcott said: "I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scripture overwhelming."

Hort said: "If you make a decided conviction of the absolute infallibility of the N.T., I fear I could not join you, even if you were willing to forget your fears about the origin of the Gospels."

They did not believe in the creation.

Hort said: "Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! in spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case, it is a treat to read such a book." "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin."

They were communists.

Westcott said: "I suppose I am a communist by nature."

Hort said: "my deep hatred for democracy.."

They did not believe in a literal heaven; the literal second coming of Christ; Christ's literal 1,000-year reign on earth; the reality of angels; the Trinity's oneness; a literal Devil.

If they were Christians, how can they not believe so many fundamental doctrines?

 

Amen!