-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Conditional salvation?
- Thread starter Bluefalcon
- Start date
carlaimpinge
New Member
===
No pontification on Philippians? I'm crushed
Manifest that variance, brother. (Gal.5)
Start a thread Doc, and state something theological that YOU BELIEVE. I'll be glad to join in.
Right now, I have to go to the church house.
Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
GOOD GRIEF, you made the statement of simpletonism that THEIR SPEECH WAS NOT OFFENSIVE. (It was, by prooftext of those chapters.)
===
Good grief, what a devious lie. Where did I say that their speech was not offensive. Liar , liar pants on fire
===
Shucks, did you just figure out that I wasn’t Titus? Brother, I HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY AS TITUS.
===
Aw shucks, if you do then you can correct error just like Paul expected Titus to do. So, is Burk wrong or right when he says that the articular infinitive in Phil 2:6 is not anaphoric and that therefore the Son does not have equality with God only the deity of God? So, let's see your dazzling display of authority replete with evidence please.
===
I haven’t called any professors at any Nazarene University heretics, directly or indirectly in this thread, nor have I called any profs at your other school anything either. More bologna.
No sir ree bob, Dr.
===
If you call a belief system a heresy, that makes those who accept it heretics. Read your dictionary . Oh, but you are probably just as authoritative as Webster too, yesiree bob!
===
.
PAUL’S WORDS IN HIS WRITINGS ARE THE WORDS OF GOD, when spoken by him or ME.
===
You old rascally rascal, you, Unless you are quoting from a correct Greek text you are interpreting Paul NOT speaking "his words."
===
No pontification on Philippians? I'm crushed
Manifest that variance, brother. (Gal.5)
Start a thread Doc, and state something theological that YOU BELIEVE. I'll be glad to join in.
Right now, I have to go to the church house.
ooooooooohhhh...fiber, fibber, you said you'd not post again. But I'm glad you did. Enjoy church. I now am off for my diabetic walk.
carlaimpinge
New Member
Originally posted by UZThD:
All right. You do want me to DEMONSTRATE how incompetent you are.Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
GOOD GRIEF, you made the statement of simpletonism that THEIR SPEECH WAS NOT OFFENSIVE. (It was, by prooftext of those chapters.)
===
Good grief, what a devious lie. Where did I say that their speech was not offensive. Liar , liar pants on fire
===
Shucks, did you just figure out that I wasn’t Titus? Brother, I HAVE THE SAME AUTHORITY AS TITUS.
===
Aw shucks, if you do then you can correct error just like Paul expected Titus to do. So, is Burk wrong or right when he says that the articular infinitive in Phil 2:6 is not anaphoric and that therefore the Son does not have equality with God only the deity of God? So, let's see your dazzling display of authority replete with evidence please.
===
I haven’t called any professors at any Nazarene University heretics, directly or indirectly in this thread, nor have I called any profs at your other school anything either. More bologna.
No sir ree bob, Dr.
===
If you call a belief system a heresy, that makes those who accept it heretics. Read your dictionary . Oh, but you are probably just as authoritative as Webster too, yesiree bob!
===
.
PAUL’S WORDS IN HIS WRITINGS ARE THE WORDS OF GOD, when spoken by him or ME.
===
You old rascally rascal, you, Unless you are quoting from a correct Greek text you are interpreting Paul NOT speaking "his words."
It was NO DEVIOUS LIE, but me just "simply" QUOTING YOU. Doc, go to the physician and have him check you for OldTimers disease. Go back to your original post, you poor overeducated man.
No liar or pants on fire, but
just pointing out the bible bungling stupidity of an educated egghead.
YOU SAID IT WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED THIS TRAVESTY of irreverence.
Why you poor deluded man. What makes you think that Titus OR I would waste fifteen seconds speaking about the articular infinitive? HE'S GOT OTHER THINGS TO DO! (Titus 1:9-13) That's your FOOLISHNESS, which you think is WISDOM IN THE SCRIPTURES. It's MENTAL DEMENTIA for “scholars”.
See, the POINT OF CONTENTION was whether or not that I had the AUTHORITY, which I proved that I DID, sucker. YOU WERE CORRECTED from your false “thesis” which you STATED originally. Go back and read that also. I’m sure you have forgot it too. Good thing you didn’t try to get your doctorate in that.
Docky, you really should just ask what I believe INSTEAD of trying to fabricate a LIE and pawn it off as me saying it. I believe that faith and works is biblical AND so is GRACE through faith ALONE.
Now if ANYONE believes that he can be saved by FAITH AND WORKS “under this dispensation” (Eph.3), HE IS A HERETIC, who perverts the gospel of Christ. (See Galatians) That’s not my OPINION, but Paul’s statement of facts. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "aorists", as I corrected CRAIG concerning with the SCRIPTURES, not a Greek Grammar book or lexicon.
I’m very AUTHORITATIVE when it comes to teaching that BIBLICAL FACT.
So I got to have a Greek text to have Paul’s words?
What a ridiculous “belief” from an indescribable LINGUSITIC-BASED, UNSCRIPTURAL and UNSTABLE man. A correct Greek text? Now, that’s a laugh.
The revelation of God as manifested within and by the Holy Scriptures includes Inspiration, Publication, Preservation, Purification, Translation, Identification, and Illumination.
I have the HOLY SCRIPTURES sitting in my room without being in ANY ONE GREEK TEXT. They are in an English Bible, which I read every day. Brother, your fantasy AND stupidity has come out AGAIN. No wonder you can’t correct anyone, and are too scared to do so. All you can do is DISCUSS what you “think” about a passage IF it is translated such and such. The only thing that you are fervent about is HOW YOU WILL CORRECT someone’s speech that you don’t like. You then will engage in harassing, cajoling, slandering, etc. There’s that temperament of carnality due to DESPISING the words of God after you get caught.
I’m just among the simple peons brother, the UNLEARNED and IGNORANT, who believe the Book, while you are among those who believe they have the WISDOM to “interpret” the Book due to their OWN ABILITY to read the “rules of greek grammar”. There’s OUR distinction and difference.
The Book got you again, Doctor.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Charles Meadows wrote,
That may be the case for those whose theology and understanding of the New Testament is at variance with that of the New Testament writers. From my perspective, the New Testament is full of action sequences which necessarily involve temporal considerations. However, even if I and very many others see more temporal significance in the grammar of the Greek New Testament than is truly warranted, continued faith is undeniably a condition for salvation.
Yes, the precedent is undeniable—but does that suggest that the temporal element in the English language is a figment of our imagination. And as I have already posted, we do NOT find a precedent for the doctrine of OSAS for 1500 years. So, is precedent important, or is it not? Was the New Testament so poorly worded that the doctrine of salvation could not be understood for 1500 years? Or did the 16th century reformers over react to Roman Catholic dogma and introduce a heresy even more serious than the heresies that they exposed?
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
Your graciousness if very much appreciated. Perhaps I should have gone to medical school.
Charles Meadows
New Member
Craig,
However, even if I and very many others see more temporal significance in the grammar of the Greek New Testament than is truly warranted, continued faith is undeniably a condition for salvation.
I'll not argue that that is certainly implied.
In terms of theology I am not "married" to OSAS. I grew up catholic, assuming that salvation could be lost. My own opinion is that salvation is eternal - but that not everyone who says he/she is saved truly has salvation. My reading of scripture is that true indwelling of the Spirit changes a person permanently.
I certainly will concede that many places in scripture suggest that "church status" can be lost (I guess the question is were these people ever REALLY believers to begin with). And I would not deny that there is significant temporal information encoded in the text. I would argue (as would Porter) that temporal information comes from context, lexis, and adverbial usage and not from tense specifically.
In terms of bias...
My bias is a linguistic one I think. I tend to be a minimalist and have always had a bit of intuitive problem with the idea that a present participal in place of an aorist (or something like that) could PREDICTABLY have such force in determining contextual meaning, and thereby influencing whole doctrines! Thus my gravitation to Porter's theory. So yes I do have a bit of a bias.
However, even if I and very many others see more temporal significance in the grammar of the Greek New Testament than is truly warranted, continued faith is undeniably a condition for salvation.
I'll not argue that that is certainly implied.
In terms of theology I am not "married" to OSAS. I grew up catholic, assuming that salvation could be lost. My own opinion is that salvation is eternal - but that not everyone who says he/she is saved truly has salvation. My reading of scripture is that true indwelling of the Spirit changes a person permanently.
I certainly will concede that many places in scripture suggest that "church status" can be lost (I guess the question is were these people ever REALLY believers to begin with). And I would not deny that there is significant temporal information encoded in the text. I would argue (as would Porter) that temporal information comes from context, lexis, and adverbial usage and not from tense specifically.
In terms of bias...
My bias is a linguistic one I think. I tend to be a minimalist and have always had a bit of intuitive problem with the idea that a present participal in place of an aorist (or something like that) could PREDICTABLY have such force in determining contextual meaning, and thereby influencing whole doctrines! Thus my gravitation to Porter's theory. So yes I do have a bit of a bias.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
I believe that that Biblical expression is falling from grace,” which presupposes that the one who has fallen had been in grace. And I believe it is more than safe to say that Paul was REALLY a believer when he wrote of the possibility of losing his own salvation,
1 Cor. 9:25. Everyone who competes in the games exercises self- control in all things. They then do it} to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26. Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27. but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.
I realize that some individuals today claim that Paul is merely speaking of losing some sort of a reward, but I believe that such a notion does substantial violence to the text which is clearly speaking of THE prize, and not some miscellaneous prize.
Craigbythesea
Well-Known Member
It is not a matter of a present participle "in place of an aorist (or something like that)." It is a matter of a present participle being used to describe the action envisioned by the author, and the context in which the participle is found must not be allowed to change the description of that action. In the case of John 6:47 and the other verses mentioned above in which we find the use of the present participle, it is not the “contextual meaning” that has caused many to ignore the temporal significance of the participle, but their misunderstanding of the sovereignty of God and the nature of salvation that is in conflict with the temporal significance of the participle used by the author.
carlaimpinge
New Member
===
As I've said, you have a propensity to make your opinions the precise equivalent of "the book." But they are not.
Now, please evidence your understanding of the Book by answering the questions I've posed.
Thanks. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Pitiful serpentry to evade THE ISSUES originally brought to light.
Doc, are you that dumb, that you think that CHRISTIANS are not guilty of heresies, when the Bible PLAINLY STATES they are. Only one, MAKES you a heretic IN THE POINT OF CONTENTION.
Hymanaeus and Philetus were HERETICS, because they didn't TEACH the same thing about the RESSURRECTION as Paul did.
Hey bud, If I'm the heretic, PROVE IT by the VERSES; not your opinion of how the verses SHOULD HAVE READ by "endings" you think might be right.
Brother, I'm not going to banter Greek with you, when I have a Bible in English that I can read and believe. I don't teach a GREEK BIBLE to my congregation. I teach the HOLY SCRIPTURES.
There goes that LYING SLANDER AGAIN about me "understanding" everything. Get a new line, Doc.
Questions from a "confused scholar"? The GREATER INTELLIGENCE is found in "simple belief" of God's words. (1 Cor.1) I'm just an ole BASE THING here to "confound" the other folks like you Doc.
The evidence and ANSWERS to your questions are found in the Book. DO YOU HAVE THE WORDS OF GOD? If you don't, you can't get the answers. Do you believe them? Not the Greek lexicons, dictionaries, or "a correct Greek text". Did the Holy Spirit give a Book, which only can be UNDERSTOOD in it's original tongues? If you think so, you didn't pay attention to what he STATED in the Book! (Acts 2, 1 Cor.14) Can you understand them without the Holy Spirit? That should be a simple one for you.
Again, you have demonstrated your IGNORANCE of the Bible and what it TESTIFIES concerning ITS OWN SELF, in the Holy Scriptures.
My, my what a "spiritual" judgment of your ole brother here! Slothfully avoids!
He REVEALED himself TO ME in an ENGLISH BIBLE, not a "correct Greek text". I faithfully READ, STUDY, COMPARE, SEARCH, and CONTINUE in those things everyday. (To the tune of 20-40 pages.)
You're a bible disputer, who thinks WISDOM comes from your noggin, after you read a few lexicons and make comparisons.
God REVEALS his words. I have them TODAY in a Book. They were ALREADY TRANSLATED for me. The Lord is looking out for me. (I mean he DID TRANSLATE the words for the Jews at Jerusalem into THEIR LANGUAGE. (Acts 2) Paul spoke in MANY LANGUAGES to the Gentiles. (1 Cor.14)
You poor man. You think an ole granny is CARNAL because she doesn't study GREEK.
No, no, no Docky. The FACTS of statement WERE NOT MY OPINIONS. They were SCRIPTURE, which contradicted what YOU SAID. I'm not going to let you get away from your ORIGINAL POST. Go back and read what you said.
And such it is with "vain" men, who worship EDUCATION, SCHOLARSHIP, and BOOKS, while CRITICIZING the words of the Book.
You don't want to discuss the Holy Scriptures. You want to ARGUE about what they could, should, might,and SEEM to say in GREEK, "if" you have a correct Greek text.
I don't have time for that NONSENSE.
Proverbs 26:5, then Proverbs 26:4, sum up this "enlightening" conversation.
Sayonara, Doc.
===
um..yes. I am "deluded," "unstable," "demented,"
"foolish," and "scared." And why is that? Because I think Greek is helpful in understanding the Bible. So, anyone who thinks that way also is deluded, unstable, demented,foolish, and scared too!
So,
If JV McGee , that beloved radio teacher, in his explanation of Colossians speaks of Greek conditional clauses or uses Greek words as "pleroma,"then all of those invectives you heap on me fall also on him.
If AT Robertson , that well known SBC prof, in his exposition of 1 Thess writes "Pros Thessalonikeis and speaks of Greek MSS, then all the invectives you heap on me fall also on him.
If BH Carroll , that former pres of a SB Seminary, in his exposition of the NT uses Greek as "elthe" or "parousia," then, all those invectives you heap on me fall also on him.
Thousands and thousands of God's servants and hundreds of Christian schools and great leaders of the Reformation all are deluded and unstable and demented, foolish, and scared because they see a need for the Greek.
And what of granny who uses only English? Does she , like you, pile invectives on those with whom she disagrees? If so, then, like you, she needs lessons in manners too.
Now, me being scared. IF YOU ARE NOT A BIG FRAIDYCAT, then meet me on the thread where I pose the question re Jo 1:18 and the KJV of it: What does "only begotten Son" mean?
Now don't run away saying , "I don't have time for that nonsense," for, if you have time to heap invectives on everyone who dares (as in NOT scared to) question you, THEN, certainly you have time to talk about John 1:18!
So, see ya there big Carl.
PS, say, readers, DID Carl supply that statement he said I made re the words of Jesus and Paul? NOPE! HEY CARL, not too late! Where's that statement you said I made?
Liar, liar, pants on fire
[ May 13, 2005, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
carlaimpinge
New Member
===
um..yes. I am "deluded," "unstable," "demented,"
"foolish," and "scared." And why is that? Because I think Greek is helpful in understanding the Bible. So, anyone who thinks that way also is deluded, unstable, demented,foolish, and scared too!
So,
If JV McGee , that beloved radio teacher, in his explanation of Colossians speaks of Greek conditional clauses or uses Greek words as "pleroma,"then all of those invectives you heap on me fall also on him.
If AT Robertson , that well known SBC prof, in his exposition of 1 Thess writes "Pros Thessalonikeis and speaks of Greek MSS, then all the invectives you heap on me fall also on him.
If BH Carroll , that former pres of a SB Seminary, in his exposition of the NT uses Greek as "elthe" or "parousia," then, all those invectives you heap on me fall also on him.
Thousands and thousands of God's servants and hundreds of Christian schools and great leaders of the Reformation all are deluded and unstable and demented, foolish, and scared because they see a need for the Greek.
And what of granny who uses only English? Does she , like you, pile invectives on those with whom she disagrees? If so, then, like you, she needs lessons in manners too.
Now, me being scared. IF YOU ARE NOT A BIG FRAIDYCAT, then meet me on the thread where I pose the question re Jo 1:18 and the KJV of it: What does "only begotten Son" mean?
Now don't run away saying , "I don't have time for that nonsense," for, if you have time to heap invectives on everyone who dares (as in NOT scared to) question you, THEN, certainly you have time to talk about John 1:18!
So, see ya there big Carl.
PS, say, readers, DID Carl supply that statement he said I made re the words of Jesus and Paul? NOPE! HEY CARL, not too late! Where's that statement you said I made?
Liar, liar, pants on fire
The trail of the serpent is slithery, through EVASION, CONTRADICTION, and MISREPRESENTATION.
The great "inclusionist" JUSTIFIES the sins of the saints. Docky, A.T. Robertson could read and write Greek, but he WAS NO BIBLE TEACHER. He was amillennial, and didn't believe in the restoration of Israel, and several other heresies. So much for your men.
Yes, they were DELUDED and UNSTABLE in their POINTS OF HERESY.
Yes, that's what the WHOLE THREAD has been about. YOU trying to "teach" someone MANNERS, due to your REJECTION of the Holy Scriptures where my SPEECH was prooftexted.
See, I'm not going to play your game. We're not going to speak of Greek Grammar. I'm going to state the HOLY SCRIPTURES, which you either believe or you don't, DUE TO YOUR EDUCATIONAL HANDICAP. (Men die by degrees, and so do lobsters and crabs.)
Oh, I can meet you on any thread, but I won't be talking rules of grammar. I'll be TEACHING the Holy Bible, comparing scripture with scripture in MY OWN LANGUAGE.
That's what will "cull" you, buddy.
You poor man. You can't FIND OR READ what you SAID.
Sorry, chump. I'm not going to do YOUR LEG WORK. Go back and read your posts. It's there, FIND IT. Don't you remember what you said? It's IN PRINT on the thread.Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
PS, say, readers, DID Carl supply that statement he said I made re the words of Jesus and Paul? NOPE! HEY CARL, not too late! Where's that statement you said I made?
Liar, liar, pants on fire[/QB]
The trail of the serpent is slithery, through... MISREPRESENTATION.
===
If the slithery serpent misrepresents, then, what are you, for you misrepresent me your popeship.
You have claimed that I made a "statement" re the words of Jesus and Paul. I did not.
If you have time to again and again come here and try to browbeat me with your invectives, then you surely have time to QUOTE the STATEMENT you falsely claim I made.
So, let's have that statement or else let's have your confession that YOU misresent and that YOU are the snake.
WATCH AND SEE READER if His popeship produces that OR if he is the snake.
===
Docky, A.T. Robertson could read and write Greek, but he WAS NO BIBLE TEACHER. He was amillennial.. So much for your men.
===
Oh. You disagree with Robertson , so , therefore, add Robertson to your lengthy list of heretics.
What about Mc Gee who uses Greek. He is a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about LS Chafer who uses the Greek , he is a deluded , stupid heretic too?
What about Heibert of SBTS who uses Greek to exegete Titus BECAUSE it IS in Greek, he a deluded , stupid heretic too?
What about DA Carson of TEDS who uses Greek is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Bruce Ware of SBTS who uses Greek, is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about John Frame who uses Greek. Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Wayne Grudem who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Dwight Pentecost who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Chas Ryrie who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Chas Welch who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Millard Erickson who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too>
What about the Scofield Reference Bible which uses Greek? Are the editors deluded, stupid heretics too?
Admit it your popeship. Everyone is a heretic but you even if their ONLY fault is using Greek. Guess all that correcting you do is, therefore, is VERY impotent since only you is a not a heretic.
===
:
Oh, I can meet you on any thread, but I won't be talking rules of grammar. I'll be TEACHING the Holy Bible, comparing scripture with scripture in MY OWN LANGUAGE.
That's what will "cull" you, buddy.
==
OK, let's have at it. See you there, and bring your ex cathredra too..
NOW. READERS DID His popeship p[rovide the statement he says I made? NOPE!
Liar, liar , pants on fire!
[ May 13, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: UZThD ]
carlaimpinge
New Member
Originally posted by UZThD:
If the slithery serpent misrepresents, then, what are you, for you misrepresent me.
You have claimed that I made a "statement" re the words of Jesus and Paul. I did not.
If you have time to again and again come here and try to browbeat me with your invectives, then you surely have time to QUOTE the STATEMENT you falsely claim I made.
So, let's have that statement or else let's have your confession that misresent and that TOU are the snake.
WATCH AND SEE READER if big Carl produces that OR if he is the snake.
===
Well, well, well. YOU FINALLY DENIED IT. It took you long enough. You're slothful in not going back and REREADING YOUR POSTS, which I requested that you.
You certainly did make a statement about the words of Jesus and Paul NOT BEING OFFENSIVE.
That's the ISSUE Doc. Don't you remember. I'm WILL NOT let you get away from the ISSUE, which you continue to EVADE, slandering me in the meantime. My "invections" SUIT you.
Here's the PROOF Doc FROM YOUR POST.
UZThD
Member
Member # 10382
posted 05-11-2005 09:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by carlaimpinge:
I care more about biblical and scriptural speech which apparently offends your "good self".... the speech h of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended you also it appears.
===
No, Jesus and Paul are Scripture and so are not offensive. They are inspired and authoritative.
But ,while I hesitate to point this out to you , you are neither Jesus nor Paul . Further, your words are neither inspired, nor authoritative, nor Scripture! But they are very pontifical.
Now, lets have an APOLOGY brother, from you.
Talking about speech. Your's is treacherous. You know perfectly well that I have said nothing concerning anyone being a heretic BECAUSE they used Greek. (Ole slithering serpentry at work again.)
I quoted you bud. Now "apply" a little more serpentry to get out of it.
It's ALL because you don't LIKE the way I talk. They DIDN'T LIKE the way Jesus or Paul talked. They were OFFENSIVE to the false teachers and religious MINDS of their day and time.
Let me give you the prooftexts AGAIN. (Matt.15, 2 Cor.10-11)
===
Docky, A.T. Robertson could read and write Greek, but he WAS NO BIBLE TEACHER. He was amillennial.. So much for your men.
===
Oh. You disagree with Robertson , so , therefore, add Robertson to your lengthy list of heretics.
What about Mc Gee who uses Greek. He is a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about LS Chafer who uses the Greek , he is a deluded , stupid heretic too?
What about Heibert of SBTS who uses Greek to exegete Titus BECAUSE it IS in Greek, he a deluded , stupid heretic too?
What about DA Carson of TEDS who uses Greek is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Bruce Ware of SBTS who uses Greek, is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about John Frame who uses Greek. Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Wayne Grudem who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Dwight Pentecost who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Chas Ryrie who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Chas Welch who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Millard Erickson who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too>
What about the Scofield Reference Bible which uses Greek? Are the editors deluded, stupid heretics too?
===
Now, your popeship, ALL of the above use Greek. So, are they stupid and deluded like me because I referred you to the articular infinitive?
And ALL of them, your popeship, agree that the KJV must supplemented by the Greek texts. So, are they are heretics too IY popeship's opinion?
My, my, your popeship has a great deal of authoritative correcting to do
Docky, A.T. Robertson could read and write Greek, but he WAS NO BIBLE TEACHER. He was amillennial.. So much for your men.
===
Oh. You disagree with Robertson , so , therefore, add Robertson to your lengthy list of heretics.
What about Mc Gee who uses Greek. He is a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about LS Chafer who uses the Greek , he is a deluded , stupid heretic too?
What about Heibert of SBTS who uses Greek to exegete Titus BECAUSE it IS in Greek, he a deluded , stupid heretic too?
What about DA Carson of TEDS who uses Greek is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Bruce Ware of SBTS who uses Greek, is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about John Frame who uses Greek. Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Wayne Grudem who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Dwight Pentecost who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Chas Ryrie who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Chas Welch who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too?
What about Millard Erickson who uses Greek? Is he a deluded, stupid heretic too>
What about the Scofield Reference Bible which uses Greek? Are the editors deluded, stupid heretics too?
===
Now, your popeship, ALL of the above use Greek. So, are they stupid and deluded like me because I referred you to the articular infinitive?
And ALL of them, your popeship, agree that the KJV must supplemented by the Greek texts. So, are they are heretics too IY popeship's opinion?
My, my, your popeship has a great deal of authoritative correcting to do
carlaimpinge
New Member
Quote from UZThd:
Your popeship:
Let me point out to you that you said: "The speech of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended YOU" ( "YOU" as in me...Me...ME).
To that, offending ME, I replied, "No, Jesus and Paul are inspired Scripture and so are not offensive ."
SO, you have removed my words completely out of their context and by that dastardly deed have misrepresented me.
Now, your popeship, if you cannot even understand me, how can you possibly understand Paul whose statements, I'll be happy to show your popeship, MUST be read in context.
Paul and I demand an apology your popeship!
UNQUOTE.
No, no, no Mr.
, o follower of religious dung and serpentry.
Your REPLY was to MY STATEMENT, which concerned BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL SPEECH WHICH IS OFFENSIVE as manifested by the Lord Jesus Christ AND Paul. You "slyly" left that OUT!
That's WHAT the "whole diatribe" concerned. MY SPEECH. There is no misrepresentation, but there is plenty of sly, slick, smooth, and SARCASTIC condenscension FROM YOURSELF which STANDS IN CONTRAST to "my" sharp and rude MANNER OF SPEECH, which is BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL.
Paul wants an apology?
Highly doubtful.
He would have identified you quickly and made short work of you. (LET THEM ALONE is the doctrine he would have followed from the Lord Jesus Christ. Matt.15, 2 Tim.3
If any man be ignorant....Well, you "should" know the rest. (1 Cor.14)
As far as your list and LIE that you are trying to put over. (There's goes that serprentry again.) READ THE PREVIOUS POST AGAIN. It appears that you are the one, who has a PROBLEM in following what a person SAYS.
Did you make the kids "practice" writing on the chalkboard?
Your popeship:
Let me point out to you that you said: "The speech of the Lord Jesus and Paul would have offended YOU" ( "YOU" as in me...Me...ME).
To that, offending ME, I replied, "No, Jesus and Paul are inspired Scripture and so are not offensive ."
SO, you have removed my words completely out of their context and by that dastardly deed have misrepresented me.
Now, your popeship, if you cannot even understand me, how can you possibly understand Paul whose statements, I'll be happy to show your popeship, MUST be read in context.
Paul and I demand an apology your popeship!
UNQUOTE.
No, no, no Mr.
, o follower of religious dung and serpentry.Your REPLY was to MY STATEMENT, which concerned BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL SPEECH WHICH IS OFFENSIVE as manifested by the Lord Jesus Christ AND Paul. You "slyly" left that OUT!
That's WHAT the "whole diatribe" concerned. MY SPEECH. There is no misrepresentation, but there is plenty of sly, slick, smooth, and SARCASTIC condenscension FROM YOURSELF which STANDS IN CONTRAST to "my" sharp and rude MANNER OF SPEECH, which is BIBLICAL AND SCRIPTURAL.
Paul wants an apology?
Highly doubtful.
He would have identified you quickly and made short work of you. (LET THEM ALONE is the doctrine he would have followed from the Lord Jesus Christ. Matt.15, 2 Tim.3
If any man be ignorant....Well, you "should" know the rest. (1 Cor.14)
As far as your list and LIE that you are trying to put over. (There's goes that serprentry again.) READ THE PREVIOUS POST AGAIN. It appears that you are the one, who has a PROBLEM in following what a person SAYS.
Did you make the kids "practice" writing on the chalkboard?