John UK wrote:
-----However, we went into this business in great depth some time ago concerning the value of the atonement, and I came down on the same side as Ingleesi, who said that the atoning value of the cross was infinite because of the eternal nature of the Person who was both Priest and Sacrifice. Maybe that is Amyraldy, I don't know. What I do know for sure is that God was doing something very specific in the atonement - saving his people from their sins.

Anyways thanks for the civil interaction.

John UK wrote:
Observe:
Romans 5:6 KJV
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
Let me think now. What are the alternatives? The Saviour died to save all ungodly men and therefore died for all ungodly men? Or the Saviour died to save some ungodly men and therefore died for some ungodly men? -----

The verse starts "For when WE were...." what follows is therefore restricted in application to the "WE". Look at the following verses they all confirm the "WE" application. IOW what God has done for those he saves. Certainly before we are saved we are ungodly (v6), sinners (v8), and enemies (v10). We could therefore equally say he died for sinners, and for his enemies! But to extend this to all sinners, all his enemies would entail a penal sacrifice for them.

John UK wrote:
Okay, well you try convincing the insensible ungodly sinners that Christ died for the ungodly, namely them, and you will get some short shrift from such. Such as, "Who are you calling ungodly?" and "Well I'm not a sinner."
But maybe you have not done any evangelism yet? I recommend it, it really hones your theology, when you meet real sinners in the flesh, and hear what they have to say.

Am I missing something in your reasoning?

John UK wrote:
Aye Mike, it's too tricky for us to attempt to answer, lest we slip down the Rockies and are never seen again.
One thing is certain, which is that there is hope for the ungodly when they come to realise they are ungodly. Until then, nothing.

wherefore wrote:
If the article is untrue

Annette McGough wrote:
I don't believe that for an instant - its the Gay lobby again

Waricks wrote:
Amazin news? Would certainly explain some of his politics though.
Also amazin is what you find representing the Democrat party these days.

Nice wrote:
Your priest and Calvin both teach this every Lord's Day about the Father and Mother of God.

Another false teaching of the RCC is the clerical class called "priests".

According to the Bible all true believers are priests.

St. Paul wrote:
"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."
-1 Corinthians 11:2

The word is used by Paul when referring to his personal Christian teachings to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica (1 Corinthians 11:2 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6). In this sense the word in the singular is better translated "instruction," signifying the body of teaching delivered by the apostle to the church at Thessalonica (2 Thessalonians 3:6). But Paul in the other two passages uses it in the plural, meaning the separate instructions which he delivered to the churches at Corinth and Thessalonica.

It was after all the apostles who were led into all the truth and the ongoing Christian church was to remain faithful to apostolic doctrine.

Solastic wrote:
All true. However, when a deacon in your assembly believes this passage but teaches a form of Nestorianism in a popular adult Sunday School class, is he a brother in the Lord?

TS wrote:
Jim;
The original 1611 AV translators, along with GOD Himself, did not use the corrupt Greek Text which modern versions use to support their books today. ....

Are you not supposed to prove this?

interjection wrote:
Ahem
Does that mean when Satan perverts the truth in the mind of a sinner - the sinner may write his own version of the Bible?

Bob wrote:
What versions did satan use during the 20th and 21 century to promote;
The denial of divine inspiration?
Women as pastors?
Homosexual clergy?
The purpouse diven church?
The Emergent movement?
Socialism?
Anti KJV?
Whatever prferences you may have Jim; you are a terrible logician.

Not once do we read in the NT that they had the wrong bible!!

miJ wrote:
So what? He has wasted his life if he keeps on supporting the nasb over the kjv!

Cepacol wrote:
Where do you get that I fit into that catagory? All I said is that I read the King James. You said that all of us that read the King James were warned.

Cepacol wrote:
You are new to thse forums yet you come in acting like you know better than people who have been here for over 10 yrs. You should look at yourself before calling other people judgmental.

Lockerman wrote:
I for one am in agreement with you about this poster. At least when Jim posts he at times posts a comment directed to to news article. This guy, like a few others only refutes what others have said. Many times the people were not even addressing him. Iv'e decided to use Prov. 14:7 KJV for him and a few others. Jim included

Cough It UP Already wrote:
Ahem,
I know you will probably ignore this or make light of it or ridicule it,like you've done to others.However,I will attempt to ascertain from you why you always find it necessary to act so much above everyone else on these threads?
You seem to have a serious problem with getting along well with others.Why do you always take the low road,is it because the higher road is too difficult for you to travel?
You can well blow this off as nothing but some nobody,well beneath you,asking impertinent questions.Perhaps though,it may do you good to consider this seriously.

Just open your eyes and see what people have written to Jim Lincoln. Where were you then? Or were their actions justified because you are in their camp?

Better look at the log in your own eyes first!

knockknock wrote:
1) Already posted below.
2) Yes it does! For the elect.
Are you Roman Catholic, Liberal or just plain old Arminian?

truthbetold wrote:
The KJV was not "invented" in 1611, you are aware of that arn't you?
So that discounts that attack!!
blah blah blah..

Pray tell, when was the King James Version first published?

truthbetold wrote:
No!
The Church started before the foundation of the world.

Fair Ya See wrote:
Wow! you really are becoming a hateful person. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Pharisee. And then Laughing Out Loud about it.
Guess you must be real proud of yourself. In just a few months you have figured out that the majority of S/A listeners are AV people. Now you and Jim can forget all other christian teaching, and spend all your time straightening us all out.
Maybee after you finish with all of us ignorant Pharisees you can go to AmTrac's web site and preach against trains. After all, if your in the minority, and you oppose everyone, youv'e got to be right.
Well; I got to get back to my Pharisee business of leading people to the Lord, helping the brokenhearted, and the addictided, and comforting the young widow.
But by all means; keep up your name calling. I'm sure Jeuse is pleased.