Search results

Think Dr beeke pastors a large Reformed church right here in Michigan, and he is indeed a good writer and scholar, disagree with him on Amil and Infant Baptism, but hey, none of us have perfect theology

Strange that the 1611 translators themselves NEVER saw their 1611 kjv as a perfect and finished work, as they expected in the future others would come along and improve and build upon their translation efforts

Are they the main group behind the KJVO position then?

The Doctrines of grace are indeed found in the bible, but your so called doctrines of free will are not

Except that is a main view of atonement expressed to us by Jesus and the Apostles themselves

God took the wrath due to us as sinners and placed that and our comdemnation upon the Lord Jesus, as that is what it means to be a sin bearer for His own people, as per isaiah 53

The inspiration from and of the Holy Spirit only were upon those originals, as no translation can claim such today

Just was asking if you hold to the heretical or non heretical view

Only the original books were inspired by the Holy Spirit as being inerrant and perfect when penned down

I traveled from classic arminiasm AOG, to strict Dispy premil pretrib, to now reformed Baptist eschatology, of more akin to Historical premil. I let go of staunch pretrib view, but still find premil as the seconding return best escatologial outlook so far

Full blown heretical view or the partial one?

Good points, and also that many radio and tv pastors and preachers that taught on the bible well were fellow Baptist, as grew up even while not yet saved listening to them on TV and radio

Those holding to free will gospel accuse us of misreading texts to fit our theology, yet how can they read this and still see free will in there?

I am still trying to figure out on what basis KJVO keeps denying as valid Kjv version the NKJV, Kjv2021, MVB etc?

refers ONLY to the inspired originals, not towards any translation

Since the reformation time, and indeed way before that time, conservative Christians have held to the Psa atonement view as the primary one, and required reading should be for all the Cross of Christ, By John Stott

Excellent point here, as the PSA view of the atonement is the view endorsed and help by conservative Cals and Non Cals alike, as in that doctrine a spurgeon and a Wesley, a Sproul and a Ryrie, a Tozier and a Hodge can find full agreement

The death of God in human flesh as the payment required to appease the very wrath of Holy God towards lost sinners, who tasted for us physical death and separation from the Father is superficial?

Not its all to do with God, not us, as the father has stored up for all sinners a cup of wrath and judgement, and he can ONLY declare us to be right with him due to either us or someone in our stead take from Him that wrath and condemnation and have it satisfied/paid in full. We can do nothing...

All Baptist churches pretty much have their own statement of beliefs, and also think even the SBC, while not into 1689 Confession, does have a srt of Confession of faith at national level