Featured Another [debate between Dr. Flowers and Dr. White]

Unfortunately, James White is not the best persuader - not that Leighton Flowers is.

The inability of James White is seen through how many KJVO nuts there are in the Calvinist faction.

I'll go through it in more detail later if I have time.

 

Yeah I don't understand Reformed KJVO.

 

Yet another attempt by Iconoclast to drag Dr. Leighton Flowers into Baptist Board and denigrate him.

 

I suggest you seek out Dr. Flowers and debate him. This is no place for a proxy discussion.

 

You couldn't debate your way out of a wet paper sack with a hole already in it. The best you got is it to point to someone else' argument or quote some treatise by someone else. Apparently Dr. Flowers lives in your head rent free. Maybe you should take up a hobby like building model cars or start a lawn mowing business. Anything else. Of all the people I have debated with you are the absolute weakest. When you cannot get anywhere with your attempts at using everyone else to create your arguments you just attack the person. Well good luck with your delusion.

 

I have nothing against Leighton Flowers personally and do not wish to spend my time talking about him. When he, or any other teacher, becomes relevant is when their teaching is promoted in the public square. Even then, any critiques are not about the person but about their teachings and conclusions. As JonC said in post #10, the debate between Leighton Flowers and James White is fair game for discussion. Actually, what the OP was referencing was not a debate between Flowers and White. Leighton Flowers posted a 10-minute video on YouTube about his take on a portion of Romans 8. James White countered Leighton Flowers's interpretation on the October 31, 2019, episode of Radio Free Geneva. The subject matter was nothing new. Leighton Flower's video contained the same things he has stated on other occasions. James White's refutation was direct and dealt directly with Leighton Flower's statements. The discussion on Radio Free Geneva is helpful if you are studying the issue of election. Obviously, we bring our presuppositional baggage with us when confronting this issue.

 

To me, that's OK, David...
I don't really understand the use of the terms "Reformed" or "KJVO", either...but I'm familiar with their usage to describe certain people who hold certain beliefs about the Bible.

That said,
I don't understand how someone can look at God's word, find the discrepancies that exist between the many English translations of the Bible over the past 500 years ( especially the ones completed within the last 150 years or so ), and simply pass the accuracy problems off as being unimportant.
Not that I think that you don't see accuracy as important...

But many I've seen, both here and on other forums ( and outside of them ) don't see any problem with the differences.
Their comments are often phrased like this:

"But no major doctrines are affected by the differences."
"Men translated God's word, not God."
"How do you know which manuscripts are the right ones?"

I hear those things all the time, and from my perspective, it's as if they are saying that doctrines aren't built upon every precious word, and that God has determined to leave His words in the hands of men who can do as they wish....that His children are subject to the whims of scholars who, in most cases, don't even believe His words, much less understand them.

To me, every word of God is important, because God's word itself states that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God ( Matthew 4:4, Luke 4:4 ).
So, I want to be sure that I get them all, and I want to have the most accurate translation of God's word in my own language that I can get...regardless of how much I need to labor to familiarize myself with out-of-date language in order to do it.


That is why I hold the position that I do...because even though I know that the AV was translated by men and that it has a few areas that it could have been done perhaps a little better ( and I do happen to believe that the translators took liberties with inserting italicized words in where I don't believe they should have been ), I also know that God, in His sovereignty and power, has preserved His word for His precious children to study and take comfort in ( Romans 15:4 ).

Whether or not the majority of people here agree with me about my position ( that the AV is the singular best translation in the English that we have available today ), is ultimately unimportant to me.
I know, in my heart, that it is what God would have me to use.

I also know, in my heart, that until an actual attempt is made by God-fearing men to translate a Bible into the English...and have it be even more accurate to the manuscripts that I believe are His preserved words, then I will stick with what I am convinced is the best so far...

Even if it is hundreds of years "out-of-date".

 

@Iconoclast :

My apologies for not responding directly to the op, but having seen how it has degenerated ( and the fact that I don't think there is any profit in this line of discussion ), I think it best to remind everyone here that we should focus on the doctrines in question and what the Scripture says, and not what two men who differ in their beliefs are stating or debating.

After all, brothers ( and sisters who may be reading this ), emulations ( seeking to be superior to one another ) and strife ( in-fighting ) are works of the flesh ( Galatians 5:19-21 ), not the fruit of the Spirit ( Galatians 5:22-23 ).
Let us endeavor to walk in the Spirit, so that we do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh ( Galatians 5:13-17 ).

As believers in Jesus Christ, we are not "of Paul", "of Cephas" and not "of Apollos"...
We are "of Jesus Christ", and the men out there in the public eye are either God's ministers, or they are not.
I encourage all of us to look what they say, compare it to God's word, and satisfy ourselves that they are either being used of Him, or not.


May God, in His grace, remind each and everyone of us of what He has done for us, and that it humble us before His face.

 

This sounds a lot like censorship.... How can you say it is not an echo-chamber when there is a forum here specifically for this very topic?

 

Of course there has to be "censorship." Technically not allowing profanity is censorship. The moderators decide where the line is and have a duty to censor everything past it.

 

I agree with that, but I'm just seeking clarification because it sounded like if the moderator didn't like the theological argument they will just remove it at will. I am not saying that this is what @JonC is saying, just saying how it sounded and seeking clarification of meaning.

It would be nice to know moderation standards so it is a little more clear-cut. Especially since we have open heresy going on in other parts of this board where Catholic false teachings are being defended.