FOR THE MASTER

Responding to Boykin's article titled, "When Faith Hijacks Politics: Are We Losing the Republic We Were Meant to Be?".

<p>1 John 2:2 (LSB): and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world. An Arminian brother and friend made the statement on X back before Christmas that 1 John 2:2 is the single verse that destroys Limited Atonement single-handedly. I argue that [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Note: I am fully aware that I used different pronunciations for σῳζομένοις a few times. I&#8217;m a Southerner. I barely speak English well. You should hear me speaking French 🙂 As with last week, I am going to spend the next couple of weeks addressing some attacks by King James Version Onlyists who have decided [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Two Sundays ago, I preached on the Importance of a Pro-Life Ethic as part of my Why Theology Matters series that I have been doing at Sophia since the start of 2025. No sooner did I preach this message that someone sent me Andrew Sluder’s message on Predestination from March 6 of this year. I’ll [&hellip;]</p>

<p>A friend on X asked me to help explain the Greek of John 1:1. The Greek for John 1:1 is “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος.” I will do my best to address this with the assumption that the majority of readers will not [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Anti-Calvinists typically argue that &#8220;in him&#8221; in Ephesians 1:4 means that election is conditionally based on foreseen faith in Christ. This is what the poster in the image below was asserting. However, this is not the Calvinism killer that some would want to believe. Quite the contrary. The &#8220;in him&#8221; in no way invalidates the [&hellip;]</p>

<p>There are roughly 3,036 textual differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the Gospels:Matthew: 656Mark: 597Luke: 791John: 1022 70-80% of these differences are due to the presence or absence of the movable nu. The movable nu is a grammatical feature in Greek where the letter ν is added to the end of certain words (e.g., verbs [&hellip;]</p>

<p>A KJVO pastor emailed me and asked me the following: Is Matthew 5:18 in the ESV true? &#8216;…not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law…&#8217; &#8211; I ask this because it&#8217;s my understanding that punctuation (dots) where not around at the time of this statement. (Be consitent bro with your ideal about [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Thank you for your question. I am happy to address it. First, let’s look at the passages you asked about. Luke 12:47-48 (LSB) says, 47 “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many beatings,48 but the one who did not [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In my last video, I began by saying that hyper dispensationalism is a false teaching that simply will not die. For a group who focuses heavily on 2 Timothy 2:15 and rightly dividing the word of truth, they just cannot do it. Rather, they have botched the text in such a way so as to [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Donatists are only mentioned four times in Carroll’s “Trail of Blood” and never with any specificity. Donatists do play a significant role in Carroll’s trail because they bridge the gap between the early Montanists and the Paulicians. To have nothing detailed said about them in his book is striking given that the Donatists span from [&hellip;]</p>

<p>In my message on the Carmen Christi, Philippians 2:6-11, I made the statement that Christ is found in every book of the Bible. This list is based on my own studies and summary. Others may find a different theme. Nevertheless, some asked that I share this. I am happy to do so.</p>

<p>A dear brother and friend asked me about the responses I have been getting to my video on the Septuagint. The crux of his question is this: Here&#8217;s the issue: Many KJV Onlyists and non-KJV Onlyists who may classify themselves as TR Onlyists or TR Defenders will bring up men like David Daniels and his [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Easter brings about some odd arguments among Christians. Some Christians claim that Easter is pagan and should not be celebrated. Easter is used to describe the Biblical events regarding the death and resurrection of Christ as early as the 7th Century. Much may be said about the etymology, but history is clear that as that [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Jack McElroy has made yet another disingenuous accusation about a modern English version. This time involving Matthew 27:16. Let’s look at that verse in the NIV and also in the KJV: Matthew 27:16 (NIV)16&nbsp;At that time they had a well-known prisoner whose name was Jesus Barabbas. Matthew 27:16 (KJV 1900)16&nbsp;And they had then a notable [&hellip;]</p>

<p>According to Jack McElroy and his book, “Which Bible Would Jesus Use?”, the NIV scrubs Jesus’ omnipresence. His supposed evidence is John 3:13. Let’s look at this verse in the KJV and also in the NIV. John 3:13 (NIV)13&nbsp;No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man.&nbsp; [&hellip;]</p>

<p>2 Peter 3:9 (KJV)9&nbsp;The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. If we look at this verse outside of its context, then it may easily be used to teach either Universalism, Provisionism, [&hellip;]</p>

<p>Do modern versions corrupt the scripture by not using &#8220;study&#8221; in 2 TImothy 2:15? Here are the cold hard facts without commentary. Let the reader decide. Version Comparisons 2 Timothy 2:15 KJV Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. LSB Be [&hellip;]</p>

<p>1 Timothy 3:16 is a common verse that KJVO like to use to attack modern English versions. The argument is not new, but this week, the KJVO rallied behind this graphic that says, &#8220;SEE THE BIG DIFFERENCE&#8221;. The KJVO say that by using the word &#8220;He&#8221; instead of &#8220;God&#8221;, modern versions are attacking the deity [&hellip;]</p>

<p>I am part of a Facebook Group that discusses Textual Criticism, particularly that of the New Testament. There was a little bit of a dust-up yesterday when&#8230; I had better not say King James Onlyist, but I really think he is. But just to be on the safe side, I will say he is a [&hellip;]</p>