FRIEND, SERVANT, SLAVE
Why do modern Bibles change "servant" to "slave?" How does that change important doctrines? Why the 1611 AKJB (first printing in 1611) is correct. Mystery Babylon and the significance of its slaves (Revelation 18:13).
Comments (5)
Regarding D. A. Waite, I met him in 2010 (love him, his wife, and son Daniel and his family) and, to John's point, Brother Waite and the Dean Burgon Society was/is Textus Receptus driven.
Unfortunately, they don't understand that the 1769 KJV is not the Authorized King James Bible of 1611. I think John tried to show Dr. Waite, to no avail.
this one was concerning to me. though perhaps I've understood it incompletely. if we believe and are yet in our sinnes (or could be), then what hope and assurance really is there?
Our focus is on Christ, not on self. He is our assurance.
Always an important teaching. Thank You. After the first time I heard you talk about this issue, I researched MacArthur's background extensively. The source of his Calvinist "slave" teachings likely comes from his freemasonic heritage which he does not disavow. His grandfather, Thomas Fullerton, also a Presbyterian Minister, led a Masonic Lodge on Prince Edward Island in Canada as "Grand Master" from 1913-1914. From my research I have found that the dual-minded freemason who also believes he is "saved Christian" gravitates towards pre-determinism as a way to reconcile his hoped for Christian salvation with his masonic activities and worship. They want a theology that eliminates their free will decision to sin from the calculus of their salvation. Same as "once saved always saved." They believe themselves to be among the pre-determined "elect of God" . . so their worldly actions are irrelevant. MacArthur's "slave" teachings are entirely consistent with this Masonic dual-mindedness and the hierarchical church of Rome that controls free-masonry through the Jesuits. The Bible is very clear about God's punishment/judgment for teaching false doctrine and going after other gods, but the freemasons and others like them don't seem to care much for those verses. (In other posts here, I have defended Calvin on the basis that he likely would not agree with the modern progeny of his theology. My own hopeful opinion of Calvin the man is irrelevant to the great theological deception that has been carried out in his name. I now believe that Calvin was, at best, a very confused Protestant . . and, at worst, an unreformed Catholic who tried to shoe horn Protestant core belief back into the Catholic theological framework. There is also the possibility he was a lay Jesuit.)