Yes, you did. Your entire exchange is based on the premise the word 'servant' implied non-slave:
Post 21 - "...The word 'servant' has the implication of free will desiring to serve..."
Further, you asserted that the Greek word 'doulos', also implied non-slave:
Post 34 - "...The Gr. word 'doulos' means exactly what it is translated into English in the KJB, servant, with the broad connotation of willing service, it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be..."
Except for a comment regarding "all knees shall bow", the only time you've used to word 'Believers' until your last response (in which you used it six times and claim that that has been your focus all along) is when I noted your refusal to acknowledge that 'doulos' is in fact the Greek word for 'slave'. Your reply was "When used in relationship to a believer it doesn't", which you simply asserted without any support other than the two false premises mentioned above.
"I have never yet spoken with a Calvinist who actually ends a discussion when they say are going to...You have shown yourself to be no different."
You're implying I said I would end this discussion and didn't follow through. That implication is FALSE.
You are also, and have throughout this exchange, implied that I am a Calvinist. I've had discussions with people who describe themselves as Calvinists who would strongly disagree with you.
If you wish to end the discussion, please have the last word, and consider the following the summation of my position:
The Greek word 'doulos' correlates directly with the English word 'slave', and in no way whatsoever implies "free will desiring to serve"
Respectfully,
OHelix
2Ti2:15
Yes, you did. Your entire exchange is based on the premise the word 'servant' implied non-slave: Post 21 - "...The word 'servant' has the implication of free will desiring to serve..."
Yes, I was discussing why the word 'servant' was used, and not 'slave'.
The broader connotation allows context to determine the meaning, which the word 'slave' doesn't.
I never stated that servant meant ONLY it's broad connotation.
Again, it was in reference to believers that the word 'slavey was an issue.
The fact that word 'servant' was used and not 'slave' allowed the CONTEXT to determine the meaning.
And the issue was regarding BELIEVERS,which allowed the wider meaning to be used.
So, clearly you have reading comprehension problems.
Further, you asserted that the Greek word 'doulos', also implied non-slave: Post 34 - "...The Gr. word 'doulos' means exactly what it is translated into English in the KJB, servant, with the broad connotation of willing service, it is never translated as 'slave' in the KJB, nor should it be..."
Yes, and that is why it is translated as 'servant'(someone who willingly serves) or someone who is in bondage, it can refer to either, so the word 'servant' is used not 'slave'(with it's limited meaning in English) for the believer.
Except for a comment regarding "all knees shall bow", the only time you've used to word 'Believers' until your last response (in which you used it six times and claim that that has been your focus all along) is when I noted your refusal to acknowledge that 'doulos' is in fact the Greek word for 'slave'. Your reply was "When used in relationship to a believer it doesn't", which you simply asserted without any support other than the two false premises mentioned above.
First, the topic was on believers, that was who MacArthur was addressing.
Second, I gave you plenty of support, from Lexicons and from the fact that just about every modern translation has 'servant' for 'doulas' in many verses.
See the NIV and NKJ in Jn.15:15.
Which proves that the word 'doulos' can be translated as 'servant' and not 'slave'.
So, 'doulos' doesn't JUST mean 'slave'.
[ "I have never yet spoken with a Calvinist who actually ends a discussion when they say are going to...You have shown yourself to be no different."]
You're implying I said I would end this discussion and didn't follow through. That implication is FALSE.
Well, that was the implications of your last post, when you sign of with 'respectfully etc'
You are also, and have throughout this exchange, implied that I am a Calvinist. I've had discussions with people who describe themselves as Calvinists who would strongly disagree with you.
Well, that is my experince with them, and I have a great deal of it and your constant posts, repeating a falsehood, that 'doulos' only means 'slave' when it is translated as 'servant' an most translations, is additional proof.
If you wish to end the discussion, please have the last word, and consider the following the summation of my position: The Greek word 'doulos' correlates directly with the English word 'slave', and in no way whatsoever implies "free will desiring to serve" Respectfully, OHelix
Well, you are totally incorrect, because the word 'doulos' has been translated as 'servant' in most translations, since it does have the broader connotation of having someone having 'free will' based on the context.
The Greek's had a different connotation of what slavery was, which the English would view as two different aspects, a 'slave' could be seen either as 'property' or as a 'person'
According to the Greek laws the slave was a property, hence a legal object. He could be sold or mortgaged or his services leased. He was also, however, regarded as a legal subject -- a man as well as a thing. At Athens capable slaves might under given authority carry on business in behalf of their owners or engage in commerce independently, with the right to make binding contracts In commercial trials slaves customarily testified without use of the bastinado. In general slave status was not regarded in the Greek city-states as degrading, nor was the social and legal treatment of the slave particularly harsh, The road out of slavery into freedom, through manumission as a reward granted for faithful service, or through self-purchase, was as easy as the many hazards of life which led into it. http://www.ditext.com/moral/slavery.html
Hence, in the KJB. (and in most translations as well) the word 'servant' is correctly used for 'doulos' not 'slave' since servant can be seen, based on context, in a narrow sense (legal property) or broader sense ( legal subject) which refers to the individual having the ability to make free decisions.
Now, what is the English definition of 'slavery'? 'one who has no will of his own' (Web.1828), and yet every Christian does still have a will of his own since he can still choose to sin or not (Rom.6:16), that is not automatic, that is volitional.
Ofcourse, MacArthur rejects that with his heresy of 'Lordship Salvation' so I guess he has stopped sinning and and is no longer using his own will to reject God's will.
Or, maybe when MacArthur and the other Calvinists sin, it is really their 'master' telling them to sin and they are only being good 'slaves'!
That was the CONTEXT of the discussion, believers, and no believer is a 'slave' to Christ, he is a servant, since he still has volition and held responsible for his choices.