|
|
USER COMMENTS BY B. MCCAUSLAND |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 24 · Found: 500 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
4/27/2020 3:05 AM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Lurker, thanks for your polite, civil and refrained answer, yet your interpretation about my position taken regarding your speculations is totally out.Sorry to say that, besides the useless creations of strawmen you present, your theories, queries and speculations strand outside the realm of Biblical correctness and revelation. What you are tending to is not thinking outside the box of tradition, but thinking outside the box of revelation, which thing is dangareous. No desire to enter there. Some going about vain questions, says Scripture, stranded out from the faith. Take care |
|
|
4/26/2020 10:17 PM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Lurker, the harrasing tone of your remarks does not merit trust for further dialogue.The Scriptures you mentioned did not contradict themselves, only they explained two different aspects of the same matter. You wanted to make them contradict to create an argument or better a strawman. There is no point wasting time here answering or elaborating on everyone of the fancies you chose to bring about in a 'moving the post' game. You have sustained in the past heretical views with your reasonings and there is no intend here to feed conversation with the same. The blood of Christ was real by which, the Scriptures say, Christ himself entered the heavens having obtained for us eternal redemption by it. You take it or leave it, but splitting hairs about it would hardly proceed from faith. What it does not proceed of faith is sin, says Scripture, so see by yourself if your argumentation proceeds from other intent than faith. With this stated, there is hardly justification for debate to proceed on. You may continue on if you wish reinventing the wheel regarding the work of redemption. As Christ refused to engage, Luke 23:9 & 32, so it be. |
|
|
4/26/2020 7:32 PM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: John 20:22. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, receive ye the Holy Ghost. Life from breath. Blood is price paid, but is not life. Without resurrection, still dead in sin. Are we not confusing in one different operations? Say, the indwelling of the Holy Ghost is not the work of regeneration, and so forth. People here are grabbing at any Scripture for the lack a of a wholesome comprehension of the work consummated by Christ on our behalf. Yes, redemption is the payment, without which no life is available or given, but without blood shed there is no remission of sins, for which still we would be dead in our traspasses and sins.*** Lurker, which blood is this mentioned in this text? "... And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: For thou wast slain, and hast **redeemed us to God by thy blood** Out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation" The blood proceeded from a lamb that had been *slain*. The type and the actual article are as vital. It is not the blood perse that makes the magical trick, but the *shedding* of this blood which makes it that by its meaning the shedding needed to be literal. |
|
|
4/26/2020 5:50 PM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Better check again wrote: When you said "Scripture tells us that life is in the blood, not in the breath"...It simply is not true. Ezek 37:4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD.Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: Instead of speculation of intentions being your focus, maybe, just maybe consider the intention as being only one of "checking again" The accuracy of your statement instead of getting your feathers ruffled. Good day! As suspected you would do. you are super imposing a spiritualized text to prove your other passages ignoring the sense. About intentions it is safe to read between the lines. Luke 23:9 helps Bye Lurker, look for the verse yourself. There are many. Bye |
|
|
4/26/2020 4:01 PM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: I'm not sure if there is sufficient evidence either way to be certain about this, whereas great Reformation doctrines such as justification through faith alone are absolutely certain. Well, it is a matter of terms rendered one way or the other. Of this there is quite certainty. Crucifixion is never implied for what it is in the law, say the OT; hanging is. The body of Christ was given as a victim offering, as his blood was shed and lifted up as the serpent in the desert.*** Lurker, your insight is ingenious, however Scripture tells us that life is in the blood, not in the breath, and in the case of Christ his blood shed avails for sins, not his breath. There was a need for the shedding of his blood, which comes typified by the slaying of the sacrificed victims, whose blood was poured before the animal was offered. Hebrews 9 and 10 detail this. "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." *** Mike, perhaps the implaling of a victim comes more closely related to the hanging of the OT than to the steriotyped crucifixion. |
|
|
4/26/2020 2:27 PM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
John UK wrote: It might do and it might also cause an implosion, such is the power of tradition, fixed in the mind. It were probably better to leave things as they are ... Thanks for you thoughts, John. Your blemish concerns might seem 'cosmetic' compare to the other, however.Personally, nevertheless, to me there seems to be more meaning or blessing derived from the concept of a biblical cursed execution by 'hanging' or impaling, than from a sentimental/tradition-based, steriotyped 'crucifixion'. In adopting the new understanding, true Christians would then be known by their adherence to strict truth rather than to tradition, as it just happened in the times of the Reformation. In short, a new identity would emerge, with some clashes with the evangelical tradition of course. About implosion, sometimes it might take an internal tremor for the remnant to triumph by truth, rather than to linger on stupor. Just some thoughts. Regards *** Jim Lincoln If 'there are a lot of errors in the KJV' why is that we have so many variants inside NKJV editions? Sorry but this is a fallacy you chose to perpetuate |
|
|
4/25/2020 11:42 PM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
The Old reliable best. wrote: https://youngtextlessreformed.com/ Young Textless and Reformed is the way to defend the Received Text and the excellence of the authorized version. Once you grasp the main points you soon see the importance of providential preservation and how poor and faulty some attacks are, including Dr James White. Check it out and especially 'the resources' and Dr Jeff Riddle. The website is that of Taylor De Soto who was a convinced ESV man until he was challenged especially by the writings and sermons of Dr Riddle who is a broadcaster here on sermonsudio with critiques of Dr White and many scholarly defences of the true text. Taylor's pastor was also convinced and the church began using the KJV as the most reliable translation of what is called the Confessional Text. Unlike the years of debate on here and an often mistaken Riplinger KJV onlyism, be prepared to find a writer who is consistently challenging whilst always charitable. Try and understand why he became convicted to change his position as he is a young man schooled in modern versions and the Critical Text, with that same aversion to all that is KJV that so many aquire through poor and faulty modern scholarship, so called. Thanks |
|
|
4/25/2020 2:19 PM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
MS wrote: Thanks for your thoughts B. Appreciate the pleasant exchange on this topic that can stir up peoples ire. Surely, an honest and frank approach should not by norm arise ill feeling leading to contention, especially when having the best interest of the gospel in view. Take care |
|
|
4/25/2020 10:27 AM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Mike wrote: The cows and pigs are still out there. They haven't just disappeared. It doesn't work that way in farming. There is no shortage. There are people willing to work. Let them work. The sick can stay home, just like in real life. How much more manufacturered crisis will be blamed on a virus? True, but often gaps in the logistics of production or manufacturing due to the self isolation of individuals can weaken, delay or break the chain of normal supply. |
|
|
4/25/2020 5:44 AM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
MS wrote: I listen to two teachers of God’s Word who teach from the ESV and NKJV, I have been blessed and have learned more from them than others who strictly use the AV.🤷â€â™€ï¸ This might be the case of particular exhortations, addresses or even sermons where speakers ride on a Biblical heritage of several centuries using the jargon derived from it.However, when judging a ministry as a whole, this 'premise' might prove faulty. As a norm, integrity is defined by wholesomeness, this meaning inclusion of accurate detail for every phrase, intent, and biblical term. This is what the AV, though not 'perfect', represents in its renderings. However, even for preachers adhering to the AV, there is no escaping of such studious practice, which sadly is badly regularly missed by many King James Only preachers. The content of their sermons, full of clichés, and useless rhetoric pointing unequivocally to the same. |
|
|
4/23/2020 6:42 AM |
B. McCausland | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Unprofitable, no need to resort to covert insult, or personal harassment, but sadly, and as it has been *always* typical with you in the past, it appears you cannot end a discussion without it, if you cannot have it your way. How sad and shameful, however it seems it makes you feel better.Sad also that you seem to miss out to identify poor patterns of logic. Trust you have heard this phrase, 'Wouldn't touch with a barge-pole': boy, your practice is so distasteful that it would help to follow Christ's wise example of Luke 23:9 *** Kind regards, John. Thanks for endearing to be a gentleman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|