1src Forums - Bible with Chapters?

PurpleMD

01-22-2003, 09:06 PM

Saved, baptised and waiting for Jesus to return!

Carrying Bible Reader with two translations; OliveTree's BibleReader with two translations; My Bible with two translations and PalmReader with The Message.

I also have DailyReader for devotions from Laridian (couldn't get the last version of Devotions to work with VFS :( but looks like a great program http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=43997 They've updated recently...now should work).
Word for Today (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=30411)
Some freebie devotion programs: Daily Bible (a and b http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=6385 and http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=7537),
Losungen (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=5427),
PalmMod (http://www.handango.com/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=1&jid=62X3D39XC7E71X93ADB59FA234982C9C&productId=3453&optionId=1_1_2&productType=2&catalog=1&txtSearch=palmmod&sectionId=0&platformId=1) with devotions, BibleReadMe from OliveTree (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=9292) . I also bought a program which inserts devotions into the PalmDesktop...so they're synced into my daily calendar.

Lessee...for verse notation and memorization,
Passages (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=29435),
Highlights (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=13736),
VerseLog (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=41630),
Memorize (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=39224),
Scripture Parnter (http://www.handango.com/PlatformProductDetail.jsp?siteId=1&jid=62X3D39XC7E71X93ADB59FA234982C9C&productId=15923&optionId=1_1_2&productType=2&catalog=1&txtSearch=scripture+partner&sectionId=0&platformId=1) and BibleStudy (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=40734).

For prayers, PrayerLog (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=21215),
Prayer A Day (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=40734) or
MyPrayers (http://www.palmgear.com/software/showsoftware.cfm?sid=90509420030122092231&prodID=13614)

I use ISilo and HandStory to convert webpages into portable files and pDocs or WordSmith to convert Word docs into portable files.

freebies at http://www.freewarepalm.com/religion/religion.shtml
Handango's Religion section: http://www.handango.com/PlatformSoftwareSection.jsp?siteId=1&jid=62X3D39XC7E71X93ADB59FA234982C9C&platformId=1&special=&bySection=1&sectionId=212&catalog=1&title=Religion
PalmGear's Religion section:
http://www.palmgear.com/software/answer_category.cfm?categoryIDs=131

Believers' Palm User's Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BelieverPUG

HandHeld Ministry:
http://www.handheldministry.org

Signposts to God (converted texts)
http://signposts.homestead.com/

DailyBread Devotionals for Palm:
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pointe/5375/Dailybread/DailyBread.html

Christian E-texts:
http://www.palm-press.com/

Memoware has a bunch of texts also.

Have a blessed day! :cool:

tanker_bob

01-22-2003, 09:12 PM

PurpleMD,

There's a reason you're the queen! :D

Soli Deo Gloria!

wellsjs

01-22-2003, 11:25 PM

Nice list there "Queen!" Let the redeemed of the Lord rejoice! :)

Experiment 626

01-23-2003, 01:00 AM

I want to say Thankyou for this thread...

Because of the thread I went and downloaded and installed BibleReader and downloaded all the ((FREE)) translations. It took a whole day but I finaly decided on 3 that I want to keep loaded and I got rid of the rest.

This is great, already got to use it at church last night. I was the quickest person in the whole service to find the verse. :D

I can't wait until I buy a Memory Stick though and get these massive apps off my RAM.

Again, thank you.. now I can read the Bible anywhere and look cool doing it. :D

Experiment 626

01-23-2003, 01:32 AM

Once I get my first Memory Stick I plan on putting BibleReader onto the Memory Stick, as well as 2 or more versions of the bible to save RAM.

Does anyone know if BibleReader will work directly off RAM? Do I need to get something like YiShow as well?

YiShow says its a document reader as well... will it work with the Bible versions used with BibleReader or are the versions and bibleReader proprietary with each other?

I'm interested in getting YiShow anyway because I want to be able to put JPG files on the memory stick and save massive amounts of RAM.. the standard picture to RAM conversion is just murder of memory space.

Comments?

tanker_bob

01-23-2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Experiment 626
Once I get my first Memory Stick I plan on putting BibleReader onto the Memory Stick, as well as 2 or more versions of the bible to save RAM.

Does anyone know if BibleReader will work directly off RAM? Do I need to get something like YiShow as well?

YiShow says its a document reader as well... will it work with the Bible versions used with BibleReader or are the versions and bibleReader proprietary with each other?

I'm interested in getting YiShow anyway because I want to be able to put JPG files on the memory stick and save massive amounts of RAM.. the standard picture to RAM conversion is just murder of memory space.

Comments?
BibleReader should work fine out of RAM or off the stick. You don't need a special launcher to make it work.

YiShow, like most doc readers, will only read standard Palm Doc files. BibleReader and every other single-purpose Bible program use a proprietary format which is not readable by doc readers.

You may wish to compare YiShow with ZLauncher, as both will view jpgs as backgrounds if you have a T665C or NR-series. I personally use ZLauncher, but both programs are worthy of your consideration. Check out the Apps forum here for others' thoughts.

wellsjs

01-23-2003, 06:53 AM

Experiment,

When you say BibleReader, I assume you are referring to OliveTree. You should check out (when you get a MS) AsaiSoft's Bible Reader. Though the search feature is lacking, the text and page layout is stunning, and I love the split-view (two versions) and the drag text feature. God bless!

kennyd

01-23-2003, 08:43 AM

With AsiaSofts Bible Reader you can get John Wesley's Commentary. It's pretty nice because you can run the split screen viewing any commentary with a translation or view two translations at once. I personally have three Bible readers on my device. OliveTree, AsiaSoft and the newly added Scripture. If I didn't have two 128meg MS's I wouldn't have three readers for the same book, but each has its strong points.

thicke32

01-23-2003, 09:23 AM

I use the Olive Tree and love it.... It's the only one I have found that has the Douay Riems Translation, which I prefer.

Burdie

01-23-2003, 09:26 AM

PurpleMD:

Thanks for the great list and the Links.

God Bless.

Burdie

JRH

01-23-2003, 09:50 AM

Wow - thanks so much for all the info - didn't expect this much of a response.

I downloaded Asaisoft's version and will try it out today - but I was wondering if there was any reader that supported Hi-Res. I have a NX-70 and LOVE reading books on palmreaderpro with the grafitti box shrunk and the display turned sideways (landscaped)

Do any of these do that?

Thanks again.

wellsjs

01-23-2003, 10:19 AM

I believe (from previous thread) that today the answer is no, but at least a couple are working on it for the near future.

One other note worth mentioning. For those who are "RAM starved," AsaiSoft's Bible Reader uses 72K whereas OliveTree's BibleReader uses 283K!

broth

01-23-2003, 12:09 PM

I have a ton of bible related stuff on my clie. I moved from a IIIc to the T615 and with the memory stick I now have room for a lot of reference/reading material.

Check out this site:

http://www.ccel.org
Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This site has hundreds of documents, books, and other christian reference material. Most of this is in html/xml. I use iSilo to format these and put them on the memory stick. It took a little bit of trying different options to get the best format.

Presently I have:

Calvin's Harmony of the Gospels (3 volumnes)
Calvin's Harmony of the Law (4 Volumes)
Calvin's Commentary on Psalms
Easton's Bible Dictionay
Hitchcock;s Bible Names Dictionary
Mathew Henery's Complete Commentary
Naves Topical Index
Robertson Word Studies
Strongs NT
Strongs OT

Calvins Institutes (4 books)
Historic Creeds

I keep adding others as I find them here and on othere places on the web.

pae

01-23-2003, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by broth
I have a ton of bible related stuff on my clie. I moved from a IIIc to the T615 and with the memory stick I now have room for a lot of reference/reading material.

Check out this site:

http://www.ccel.org
Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This site has hundreds of documents, books, and other christian reference material. Most of this is in html/xml. I use iSilo to format these and put them on the memory stick. It took a little bit of trying different options to get the best format.

Just in case you're interested checkout Plucker (http://www.plkr.org - freeware) in terms of being able to conserve MS space.

I downloaded the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge from a website using iSiloX this evening to check out iSilo and the resultant file was over 9Meg whereas using Plucker the resultant file of the same website is just slightly over 5Meg.

Thought it would be worthwhile mentioning.

:)

Paul

PurpleMD

01-23-2003, 02:24 PM

Or HandStory...converts webpages also.

Ambassador

01-23-2003, 05:01 PM

Remember the old Bob Dylan song, " Saved by the blood of the Lamb"? Third Day did a remake of the song on their worship CD. Well, that's me and I'm proud to serve my king and if I am called a fanatic, well then yes I am. :)

And for what it's worth, I use QliveTree Biblereader with the KJV Strongs and also the NKJV versions. I never leave home with out the Word in my pocket and heart!

Blessings to you all!

wellsjs

01-23-2003, 06:41 PM

Hello Ambassador,

Thanks for your little intro! Glad to have you join our little "Clie Bible toting" club. I love having God's Word with me every step, every day! :)

tanker_bob

01-23-2003, 06:48 PM

Since we're expounding, I've got the NKJV in MyBible and KJV in BibleThumper. The former is much faster and nicer for my daily readings or in common use. The latter has excellent commentaries, notes, and dictionaries that work off the card. My favorites are the 1599 Geneva Bible notes and John Gill's Exposition.

[Jett]-Mallize

01-23-2003, 10:14 PM

i use mybible ... w/ NIV and KJV.... i wish it ran split screen w/ different versions though....

i want to buy NAS for it as well...

PurpleMD.. wow.. that's a huge list.. thnx....

PurpleMD

01-23-2003, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by [Jett]-Mallize
i use mybible ... w/ NIV and KJV.... i wish it ran split screen w/ different versions though....

i want to buy NAS for it as well...

PurpleMD.. wow.. that's a huge list.. thnx....

Bible Reader at www.asiasoft.com has split screen. Somewhere there is a converter to allow you to convert html and Sword modules (a PC Bible program).

Experiment 626

01-24-2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by wellsjs
You'll find Bible Reader by AsaiSoft easier to read.
You'll find BibleReader by OliveTree easier to navigate!

This is precisely true!!

I was using OliveTree for about a week and loving it, but took advice and tried AsaiSoft.

I really like the split screen on AsaiSoft, but being quick on the draw finding that scripture in church I'm faster with a plain old paper bible than using the Clie. Give me OliveTree and Wham.. I'm the first one with the verse at the tip of my tongue for the pastor.

I'm 5 minutes from deleting AsaiSoft to conserve Ram (Don't have a MS yet).

Tek Phreak

01-26-2003, 10:59 PM

i'd rather use either one of the Bible Readers than than MyBible. But until one of the 2 Bible readers release both the NIV and NASB, i will remain using MyBible. After all the main reason i use a palm Bible is so that i can have two translations that i can switch back and forth between real easy, and yes, those two translations are NIV and NASB, i'd rather not use the KJV if possible (don't wanna open the can of worms, but i can if you want cause i'm in Bible College and have read quite a few books about it, hehe)...

Enjoy.
-Tek

byte2be

01-27-2003, 11:55 AM

Many of you mentioned the NIV version here and at the other posts and, although I have not used this version, there seems to be several verses missing in NIV than in other bible versions. I'm using the KJV and NKJV and in my studies have found verses in the KJV/NKJV that are not in the NIV (a friend who studies with me has the NIV and this is how I found out).

As an example, my group was studying the book of Acts and Romans and have found these verses to be not included in the NIV: Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, and Romans 16:24. I'm not too sure of other bible versions, but has anyone come across this as well?

Just curious...

Tek Phreak

01-27-2003, 12:32 PM

in each of the verses you mention above, my NIV footnotes these verses saying: "in some manuscrips 37 "text of verse"" You see the problem with the KJV is that they translated it from manuscripts from the medieval period. The NIV, NASB, RSV, NEB, etc all go back to the earliest manuscripts possible to translate. That's why these are often considered more reliable. The KJV is more literal than the NIV yes, but the NASB is just as literal as the KJV if not more so, and the NASB uses earlier manuscripts. I would suggest you read the book "How to Read the Bible for all its Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. It's a book on Hermenuetics but they dedicate a whole chapter to talking about which translations will best assist you in Bible study. Their final verdict is for you to use an NIV along with an RSV/NRSV/NASB and a GNB/NAB and a NEB/JB. If you wanna know what any of these acronyms stand for feel free to ask. Just thought someone would care out there...

Enjoy.
-Tek

byte2be

01-27-2003, 12:47 PM

Ahhh...I see. I'm considering obtaining other versions as well for my Clie, but have had the KJV and NKJV in print for a few years. In addition, I'm also considering the PC software from e-Sword.net as they have loads of freeby versions. Any experiences with this software? I may use this to supplement the printed bible as it's capable of viewing several versions.

Thanks a bunch...Tek.

Pman

01-27-2003, 01:03 PM

e-Sword is a great tool for bible reading/study. It has a lot of dictionaries and commentaries available too. I have used it for a while and it works great.

pae

01-27-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by byte2be
Ahhh...I see. I'm considering obtaining other versions as well for my Clie, but have had the KJV and NKJV in print for a few years. In addition, I'm also considering the PC software from e-Sword.net as they have loads of freeby versions. Any experiences with this software? I may use this to supplement the printed bible as it's capable of viewing several versions.

Thanks a bunch...Tek.

Hi,

"Which translation" is a massive topic. If you search the Internet you will find equally strong camps on both sides of the opinion about the Received Text (the basis of KJV and NKJV) and the Critical Text (basis of other modern translations) and which is most reliable.

It appears true that the critical text includes earlier manuscripts than the Received Text but I personally still have my own doubts about the full integrity of those Critical Text manuscripts from my limited research especially when looking further into the differences between the Received Text and Critical Text.

Hence I've stuck with the KJV (I also find it easier to memorize). Having said that I've also recently purchased the Comparative Study Bible that has the KJV, Amplified, NASB and NIV together - which is particularly useful as a comparison, particularly because members of our Church primarily use the NIV (as many churches do) and so it helps in Cell Groups.

I can definitely recommend e-Sword. Downloaded it a while back and it's an excellent package.

What I find is the benefit of packages like e-Sword and even more so with the Clie is the quick access to cross-references (Treasury of Scripture Knowledge) and the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) with their associated Lexicons. Although I have a lot of this material in book form it's just mega convenient and quicker being able to use the Clie or e-Sword.

Paul

Pman

01-27-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Tek Phreak
You see the problem with the KJV is that they translated it from manuscripts from the medieval period. The NIV, NASB, RSV, NEB, etc all go back to the earliest manuscripts possible to translate. That's why these are often considered more reliable. The KJV is more literal than the NIV yes, but the NASB is just as literal as the KJV if not more so, and the NASB uses earlier manuscripts.
Enjoy.
-Tek
Hey Tek,

That is interesting because what I had heard was the exact opposite. I was taught that the KJV, NKJV were translated from the texus receptus (sp?) and those were thought to be the most accurate manuscripts. Now I don't have an extensive background in this area, just thought I would share that.

Pman

Serotta

01-27-2003, 01:17 PM

Tek does a good job of explaining one side of the argument. Others would say that the "Textus Recepticus" (which is certainly older than the "medeival period"), on which the KJV is based is the most accurate portrayal of God's Word. While there are older manuscripts, and the KJV translators were aware of some, many do not agree that they are more accurate or more authentic. Besides the original texts, there is also the argument of "gender neutrality" to deal with. If you're interested, search the web for "bible version debate". It can keep you busy for months;) . I personally don't think it's as big a deal as some make it out to be. I mainly use the God's Word and the King James versions in my Bible study.

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 02:45 PM

Here is a pretty thorough and fairly short "brief" on the manuscripts issue:

A text-type is a group of Greek manuscripts, versions, and early quotations that have much in common. The type usually considered to be the most reliable is the Alexandrian, which flourished in Alexandria, Egypt, between about 180 and 700. Its early date is one reason for preferring it; that its readings are often supported by internal evidence is another. Most twentieth-century translations have preferred it, including the Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, Good News Bible, New American Standard Bible, New International Version-the last two avowedly "conservative" versions.
Another type recognized by most but not all scholars is the Western. Its members do not have as much in common with one another as do those of the Alexandrian and Byzantine types, but it goes back to the mid-second century. Only a few have claimed that it approximates the original, and no translation of the entire New Testament is based upon it. Some scholars also recognize a Caesarean type, but no one claims that it is nearest to the original, and no English version reflects it.
The other type is the Byzantine, so called because it flourished in the Byzantine Empire during the Middle Ages. Its earliest representatives are mid to late fourth century. It is only natural that more copies would have been made during the later Christian centuries than during the earlier and that a larger percentage of the later manuscripts would have survived. As a result about 90 percent of the surviving Greek manuscripts are of this type. These late manuscripts have more in common with one another than the representatives of any other text-type. The Byzantine type of text was the only one in widespread use in western Europe in the sixteenth century and therefore was the one captured in print in 1516 when the first Greek New Testament was published by Erasmus. His third edition of 1522 became the basis of the "received text" that dominated until shown to be inferior to the satisfaction of most scholars by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort in 1881. It is the type that lies behind the King James Version of 1611 and the New King James Version of 1979. Some defend it dogmatically with such arguments as the text of the majority of manuscripts must be the original, the text of the Greek church must be the original, the text used by the Reformers must be the original, and the text employed by the King James Version must be the original. Only a few defend it with rational arguments such as mathematical probability indicating that it could never have become the majority text unless it was the original. Nevertheless, most contemporary scholars prefer the Alexandrian readings, especially when they also have some Western support.

So the argument centers around "is more better," or "is older better?" Hope this helps! :)

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 03:43 PM

Another comment: Most of the disagreements on textual criticism involves less than 1% of the entire Bible, and none concern what are considered the "essentials" of the Christian faith. Also, "KJVonlyers" often argue that MTs (modern translations) omit certain texts, when on critical analysis, it can be proved that the KJV often inserts marginal notes from manuscritps as if they were part of the manuscript in these cases.

My take: The KJV is a beautiful rendering of God's infallible Word. But it tends to be a hindrance more often than not to reaching the lost today, because they find it difficult to read and understand and are "turned off" by the archaic language. For serious Bible study, comparisons of several MTs along with the KJV can't help but enrich one's understanding of the passage.

My order of preference: NIV, ESV, NASB, ASV, KJV

Willber-Force

01-27-2003, 03:54 PM

Interesting look at the various translations WJ.

Have you looked into the Dead Sea Scrolls at all WJ?

Apparently the scribes felt so at ease with making changes as they went that in the whole of the Dead Sea Scrolls no two verses are worded exactly alike.

Just curious, do you believe in biblical infallibility.

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 05:13 PM

A. No book in history has been copied as many times with as much care as has been the Word of God. The Talmud lists the following rules for copying the Old Testament:
1. The parchment had to be made from the skin of a clean animal, prepared by a Jew only, and was to be fastened by strings from clean animals.
2. Each column must have no less than forty-eight or more than sixty lines.
3. The ink must be of no other color than black, and had to be prepared according to a special recipe.
4. No word nor letter could be written from memory; the scribe must have an authentic copy before him, and he had to read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it.
5. He had to reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the Word of God, and had to wash his whole body before writing the sacred name Jehovah.
6. One mistake on a sheet condemned the sheet; if three mistakes were found on any page, the entire manuscript was condemned.
7. Every word and every letter was counted, and if a letter were omitted, an extra letter inserted, or if one letter touched another, the manuscript was condemned and destroyed at once.
The old rabbi gave the solemn warning to each young scribe: "Take heed how thou dost do thy work, for thy work is the work of heaven; lest thou drop or add a letter of a manuscript and so become a destroyer of the world!"
The scribe was also told that while he was writing if even a king would enter the room and speak with him, the scribe was to ignore him until he finished the page he was working on, lest he make a mistake. In fact, some texts were actually annotated-that is, each letter was individually counted. Thus in copying the Old Testament they would note that the letter aleph (first letter in the Hebrew alphabet) occurred 42,377 times, and so on.
According to Westcott and Hort, the points in which we cannot be sure of the original words are insignificant in proportion to the bulk of the whole, some 1/1000. Thus only one letter out of 1,580 in the Old Testament is open to question, and none of these uncertainties would change in the slightest any doctrinal teaching.
B. Today there are almost 5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This perhaps does not seem like many, until one considers that:
1. Fifteen hundred years after Herodotus wrote his history there was only one copy in the entire world.
2. Twelve hundred years after Plato wrote his classic, there was only one manuscript.
3. Today there exist but a few manuscripts of Sophocles, Euripedes, Virgil, and Cicero.

New Testament (40-100 AD) - 4,969 copies; first copy found (125 AD).
a. Old Testament Manuscripts

The Masoretes . Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 the earliest Old Testament Manuscript was dated at 895 AD. But the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that the 895 AD. manuscript was virtually perfect. This means that the scribes copied perfectly, year after year, the Old Testament Scriptures. Let me briefly mention an interesting word about scribal customs:

After the Jews returned from Babylon, they formed communities of scribes to preserve and circulate the precious Scriptures. These scribes, later called "Masoretes" were so careful that they wouldn't write a word or even a letter from memory. They would be seated in full Jewish dress after having washed their bodies, and if a king should come in and address him he was not to look up. After the scribe finished copying a particular book, he would then count all the words and letters it contained. Then he checked this number with the count for the manuscript he was copying. If they didn't match, the copy was immediately burned. In fact, the Masoretes destroyed all other manuscripts except their own and that is why we have so few Old Testament manuscripts. This is also why the Dead Sea Scrolls were so important. The main manuscripts that have been discovered are:

The Leningrad Codex or St. Petersburg Codex, written in 916 AD.
The Cairo Codex or Codex Cairensis, written in 895 AD.
The Aleppo Codex, written in 930 AD.
The British Museum Codex, written in 950 AD.

The Dead Sea Scrolls

In 1947, young Bedouin shepherds, searching for a stray goat in the Judean Desert, entered a long-untouched cave and found jars filled with ancient scrolls. That initial discovery by the Bedouins yielded seven scrolls and began a search that lasted nearly a decade and eventually produced thousands of scroll fragments from eleven caves. During those same years, archaeologists searching for a habitation close to the caves that might help identify the people who deposited the scrolls, excavated the Qumran ruin, a complex of structures located on a barren terrace between the cliffs where the caves are found and the Dead Sea.

Within a fairly short time after their discovery, historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, as well as carbon-14 dating, established that the scrolls and the Qumran ruin dated from the third century B.C.E. to 68 C.E. They were indeed ancient! Coming from the late Second Temple Period, a time when Jesus of Nazareth lived, they are older than any other surviving biblical manuscripts by almost one thousand years.

There have been about 350 rolls uncovered and this discovery has been considered one of the greatest archaeological finds of the twentieth century. Since their discovery nearly half a century ago, the scrolls and the identity of the nearby settlement have been the object of great scholarly and public interest, as well as heated debate and controversy. Why were the scrolls hidden in the caves? Who placed them there? Who lived in Qumran? Were its inhabitants responsible for the scrolls and their presence in the caves?

Portions of every book of the Old Testament, with the exception of Esther, have been found. What's really interesting are the scrolls of Isaiah , because one of the two that have been found gives the entire book of this great prophet, and it dates to before Jesus was born. That's incredible! Here is a Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah 1,000 years older than our oldest manuscript (Masoretic) and confirming the accuracy of the Masoretic text of the Old Testament.

b. The New Testament Manuscripts.

There is much more abundant and accurate manuscript evidence for the New Testament than for any other book from the ancient world. Lets examine a few of these manuscripts:

The John Rylands Fragment (125 AD). This is a very small piece of papyrus only two and a half by three and a half inches in size. It contains 5 verses' from the gospel of John and is the oldest manuscript of any part of the New Testament. It was obtained in 1920.
Papyrus Bodmer II (200 AD). These contain most of John and Luke, along with the books of Jude, and 1 & 2 Peter'. These manuscripts contain the earliest complete copies of New Testament books and are in substantial condition.
Codex Sinaiticus (340 AD). It is considered one of the two most important manuscripts in existence. In 1844 Dr. C. Tischendorf, a German Bible professor and scholar, at the monastery of St. Catherine at Mt. Sinai, found monks lighting their fires with this manuscript. When he rescued it, it contained the whole New Testament and half of the Old Testament in Greek. In 1933, the (USSR) sold it to the British Museum for 100,000 pounds ($500,000) where it is today.
Codex Vaticanus (350 AD). This manuscript as well as Sinaiticus were written on vellum. It contains most of the New and Old Testaments in Greek and the Apocrypha . It was discovered in 1475 and was brought to the Vatican Library where it is today. It is considered to be highly accurate and one of the two most important manuscripts in existence.
Codex Alexandrinus (450 AD). It contains much of the Old and New Testaments. Although it is one of the three greatest uncial (large capital letters) manuscripts, it does not measure up to the high standard of the other two, the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts. It is now in the British Museum in London.
The total count of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament is now close to 5,000. The New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger counts: 76 Papyri, 250 uncials, 2,646 miniscule, and 1,997 lectionary (special reading) manuscripts. This would total 4,969. No other book in antiquity even compares, and that's not even counting the different ancient versions such as the Septuagint , Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Latin versions, as well as the Jewish Targums, Talmud and Midrash. The evidence is overwhelming.
In fact, just the quotations of many of the church leaders who wrote during the first and second centuries AD. could compile an entire New Testament. Church leaders gave their testimony to authoritative books in the New Testament Canon:
· · · ·
Clemet of Rome (95)
Ignatius (110)
Polycarp (120)
Irenaeus (150)
Tertullian (190)
Origen (200)

Not every book is quoted by every leader, but every book is quoted as canonical by some leader. Norman Geisler said, "Five fathers alone possess almost 36,000 quotations from the N.T."

In Conclusion

The Bible is trustworthy. If anyone says, "How can we know if what we are reading today was really in the original?" you can know for sure that there is overwhelming evidence for the historicity of both the Old and New Testaments. Besides, God is fully able to preserve for us a pure and accurate account of the Word of God, and He has.

Matt 5:18 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

We believe that "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God." (2 Timothy 3:16) We understand this to mean that the whole Bible is inspired in that holy men of God "were moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21) to write the very words of Scripture. We believe that this divine inspiration extends equally and fully to all parts of Scripture as it appeared in the original manuscripts. We believe that the whole Bible in the originals is therefore without error. Amen!

Serotta

01-27-2003, 05:18 PM

Wow, very nicely put John.

Willber-Force

01-27-2003, 06:09 PM

Why were the scrolls hidden in the caves? Who placed them there? Who lived in Qumran? Were its inhabitants responsible for the scrolls and their presence in the caves? -WJ

From what I have looked into, what we have as the Dead Sea Scrolls were "retired" (So to speak) scrolls that had become damaged or worn. This is why many of the manuscripts are found in pieces despite the level of preservation of the scrolls. However this is speculation on the part of some scholars.

If you are interested I have found a source for the DSS on CD ROM which contains detailed, readable images of many that were found up to a particular date. You sound interested in their study.

The Bible is trustworthy.... -WJ

I think you may have misunderstood the question or the intent of my question. I do believe the Bible to be a reliable source and never intended to argue that point.

The reason why I asked is because I do no encounter many people who believe the Bible to be perfect, without error, unchanged, etc. because of supposed additions to the Bible (the popular Johannine (sp?) comma for example).

PS: Who do you mean by "we"?

DaveTN

01-27-2003, 07:40 PM

John, You da man. Most impressive.

Tek Phreak

01-27-2003, 08:17 PM

Wilber:
I just had a class last semester called Biblical Languages and Tools. In it we spent a few weeks talking about the different translations and among that we spent a day or two talking abou the dead sea scrolls.

The scrolls were written by a jewish sadducee sect called the essenes who inhabited Qumran. They fled Qumran when the Romans began to invade and thus as a natural reactioin hid their literary works as they fled (i say literary works because they were other scrolls besides the Biblical manuscripts). The earliest manuscript was that of Isaiah and dates to 250 B.C.!! For more information about these scrolls i suggest visiting:

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html

WellSJS:

Thank you for supporting my view with even more factual evidence. I studied about the different manuscripts and what not in the afore mentioned class but couldn't recall the detailed facts from memory when i was writing. I pulled out my notes and for the most part they went along with what you said, so thanks for backing me up. My one question for you is what is the ESV, i assume it stands for English Standard Version, I haven't heard of it only the NEB, New English Bible. Well just thought i'd give you some props, it's cool to see someone else have extensive knowledge on the subject as well. I love Hermeneutics!

Enjoy.
-Tek

eyesee

01-27-2003, 08:31 PM

Honestly, I don't think that it is an issue of the validity of the original transcripts from which the current translations arose, but rather an issue of how much liberty the translators themselves took in adding their own thoughts and convictions into the meaning of the passages they were translating.  For instance, the NIV contains several instances of denominational doctrine that other translations fail to display, and more importantly those which other faiths fail to recognize and believe.

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 08:45 PM

WF,

Many of your questions can only be speculated about. It is strongly argued that a sect known as the Essenes, a separatist Jewish sect of the Second Temple Period, a portion of whom had formed an ascetic monastic community, were the inhabitants of Qumran.

The "We" paragraph is taken from Charles Stanley's church's (First Baptist of Atlanta) statement of faith. It happens to say what I believe about the Bible best. About inerrancy, God's Word (revelation to man) is perfect in the original manuscripts. There are many minor inconsistencies in MTs (by the way, KJV is an MT) because they are the work of Hebrew and Greek language scholars in translation to English. I believe some of these efforts (translations) had the hand of God upon their work.

Here's what needs to be considered carefully by you, me, and all who "believe" in God and His revelation to mankind, for many who "claim the name of Jesus" do not believe in the inerrant Word of God. If God went to the trouble to inspire men to write down "the mind of God" on tablets, skins, etc. for the purpose of being preserved for all future believers to have, is God not capable of overseeing its preservation through cannonization and translation processes as well? If we don't have a true revelation from God today then He isn't much of a God! I think God is extremely capable of finishing the work He began in providing His Word for believers to write on their hearts for all generations and for all time!

With the Johannine Comma example are you spoiling for a Mormon/Christian debate on the diety of Jesus? :eek: If so, I don't need that comma and I'll be glad to show you clearly that Jesus claimed to be God. And if He claimed to be God and isn't, then we're all in trouble because He would not qualify as the perfect sacrifice (having sinned by lying). We should probably take such a discussion off line! :)

eyesee

01-27-2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Here's what needs to be considered carefully by you, me, and all who "believe" in God and His revelation to mankind, for many who "claim the name of Jesus" do not believe in the inerrant Word of God. If God went to the trouble to inspire men to write down "the mind of God" on tablets, skins, etc. for the purpose of being preserved for all future believers to have, is God not capable of overseeing its preservation through cannonization and translation processes as well? If we don't have a true revelation from God today then He isn't much of a God! I think God is extremely capable of finishing the work He began in providing His Word for believers to write on their hearts for all generations and for all time! 

We must always be careful of the liberties we take in making or quoting statements such as this.  The thing to remember is that as human beings we are inherently capable of fallacy.  If God were to ensure the "perfectness" of each translation of his original Word, why then would he not preserve the same original message whenever it is spoken as well?  However, you and I both know that quite the opposite is true, because the Bible itself even warns of false prophets.  It is up to us to study and determine which translations preserve the original Word and which might not be so accurate.

Willber-Force

01-27-2003, 09:28 PM

The "We" paragraph is taken from Charles Stanley's church's (First Baptist of Atlanta) statement of faith.-JS

Okay, so "we" refers to the First Baptist Church. Just curious.

If we don't have a true revelation from God today then He isn't much of a God! I think God is extremely capable of finishing the work He began in providing His Word for believers to write on their hearts for all generations and for all time! -JS

I agree! The Bible as we have it today is in very good condition. I however do not view it as perfect and that it has been held in a state of perfection, it's not logical to me based on my knowledge. I fully support the idea that God can continue to speak to man.

With the Johannine Comma example are you spoiling for a Mormon/Christian debate on the diety of Jesus? -JS

As someone familiar with LDS Christian and non-LDS Christian discussion I am familiar with the term so I used it as an example, not as a way of sparking a debate. The A non existent one at that as you are clearly basing it on a strawman so, I have no intention of debating that Jesus was a God, I fully agree! :)

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Willber-Force
I have no intention of debating that Jesus was a God, I fully agree! :)

John 1:1 (NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That little word "a" that you inserted can do a lot of damage to the truth! ;)

John 10:30-33 (NIV)
I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

The Jews had no trouble understanding what Jesus claimed. It's a shame some people today do! :(

Willber-Force

01-27-2003, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs

John 1:1 (NIV)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

That little word "a" that you inserted can do a lot of damage to the truth! ;)

John 10:30-33 (NIV)
I and the Father are one.? Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, ?I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?? ?We are not stoning you for any of these,? replied the Jews, ?but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.?

The Jews had no trouble understanding what Jesus claimed. It's a shame some people today do! :(

Put it in plan and simple terms, one sentence, what are you saying? Or what are you arguing against if anything?

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 09:48 PM

Jesus is God, Jehovah (with skin on)!

Willber-Force

01-27-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Jesus is God, Jehovah (with skin on)!

I agree. :D

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 09:55 PM

Whew! Praise God! :D The mainstream Mormon faith is reported to believe that Jesus was created by God, and not that they are one and the same. Is this not true?

eyesee

01-27-2003, 09:57 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Jesus is God, Jehovah (with skin on)!

You, me and God make five... right?!:D

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 10:02 PM

Tek,

Sorry to overlook your question. Here is a link all about the ESV:

http://www.gnpcb.org/home/esv/

It was published about a year ago amid much anticipation and fanfare!

Willber-Force

01-27-2003, 10:07 PM

The mainstream Mormon faith is reported to believe that Jesus was created by God, and not that they are one and the same. Is this not true? -JS

We believe Jesus is the firstborn son of Heavenly Father. At this time he was a spirit and was known as Jehovah. He came to earth and lived the life you read about in the New Testament. Jesus and Heavenly father are not the same being but each is equally God according to our beliefs.

From my experience you will have something to say about that.

Talk to you tomorrow. :)

wellsjs

01-27-2003, 10:28 PM

"Jesus Christ"
What Mormons mean: A resurrected, exalted man who organized the world with Michael the Archangel under the supervision of Elohim. Elohim is his physical as well as spiritual father, since the Heavenly Father had relations with the "virgin" Mary to give birth to Jesus. His heavenly name is Jehovah and he is the spirit brother of Lucifer. Although Christ is considered the "God of the Old Testament," prayers should actually be directed to a different god, Elohim.

WF, if this is the Jesus you place your trust in for salvation, he is a different Jesus from the Jesus of the Bible. He is a Jesus from Joseph Smith's head! I only bring this out in concern for your soul!

Here's a link: http://www.exmormon.net/

Ask Mark Champneys questions via email. He knows far more about Mormonism than I ever will. If you're interested in the truth, you'll explore it. If not, you'll ignore it!

Tek Phreak

01-28-2003, 12:58 AM

wellsjs thanks for the link, looks interesting, i'll have to check it out. Right now there are so many translations i wanna get that i can't decide which to get first : ). And thanks for that link (exmormon) i pray that that will be able to help some of my mormon friends before they waste two years of their life goin on a mission! Thanks again, that really was a God send. and i was kinda wondering what profession you lead and what your background schooling is cause you seem to have an extensive knowledge... minister, Bible college? if you don't want to discuss it on the board that's fine, my email is chosenbygod910@hotpop.com and my AIM is chosenbygod910 it's always fun to talk to a fellow Bible enthusiast with some knowledge to spare : ) thanks!

Enjoy.
-Tek

Ambassador

01-28-2003, 09:46 AM

Try this translation of the Bible TP; The Holy Bible: From Ancient Eastern Text [Paperback] by Lamsa, George Mamishisho, ISBN - 0060649232. It's named the "Pe****ta". I just purchased a copy at Amazon for $25. This version is centered on the transcription of the Aramaic language. It is believed the Jesus spoke this language as his primary. There are subtle differences comparing it to other texts, but the "jot and tidles" make a HUGE difference.

Awesome discussion guys. Your right on wellsjs! I like your comment, "If you're interested in the truth, you'll explore it. If not, you'll ignore it!" I'll remember that in my next discussion with someone.

I live because Jesus Christ died for ME! Wooohooo

Ambassador

01-28-2003, 09:50 AM

I guess cliesource doesn't like the name of this Bible. huh The Bible is named the *P*E*S*H*I*T*T*A*, without the asterisks of course.

Willber-Force

01-28-2003, 10:49 AM

"Jesus Christ"
What Mormons mean: ... -JS
Allow me to try:

"Jesus, who is called Christ, is the firstborn of the Father in the spirit and the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. He is Jehovah, and was foreordained to his great calling in the Grand Councils before the world was. He was born of Mary at Bethlehem, lived a sinless life, and wrought out a perfect atonement for all mankind by the shedding of his blood and his death on the cross. He rose from the grave and brought to pass the bodily resurrection of every living thing and the salvation and exaltation of the faithful.

He is the greatest Being to be born on this earth - the perfect example - and all religious things should be done in his name. He is Lord of lords, King of kings, the Creator, the Savior, the God of the whole earth, the Captain of our salvation, the Bright and Morning Star. He is in all things, above all things, through all things, and round about all things; he is Alpha and Omega, the first and the last; his name is above every name, and is the only name under heaven by which we can be saved." Source: http://scriptures.lds.org/bdc/christ <<please note the link is from LDS.org, the official site of the church. If you are looking for what we believe, the source is generally your best bet.

Here's a link: http://www.exmormon.net/ -JS

Another Anti-Mormon link. I have seen them all. Reading just the beginning of the first page I clicked on I encounter several half truths, lies and misconceptions. This site is no doubt the work of yet another "Christian" lying for the Lord. Please post a more truthful link if you expect me to take you seriously. I do not appreciate people who spread lies about my faith.

Thanks,

Will

Serotta

01-28-2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Willber-Force
"Jesus Christ"
...This site is no doubt the work of yet another "Christian" lying for the Lord. ...

"I was an active Mormon during my growing-up years. I was Deacon's quorum president, Teacher's quorum president, and the leader in the Priest's quorum. I graduated from four years of high school Mormon seminary. I attended Brigham Young University for two years, attending the requisite LDS religion classes there. "

I excerpted this from the bottom of the opening page, so I don't think it's appropriate to call him "yet another "Christian" lying for the Lord." I'm interested, if Jesus is just the first-born son, who are his "brothers and/or sisters"?

Willber-Force

01-28-2003, 01:16 PM

I excerpted this from the bottom of the opening page, so I don't think it's appropriate to call him "yet another "Christian" lying for the Lord." -Serotta

I am LDS and have a very good understanding of what I believe. This simple fact is that that site represents itself as an authority on what we believe and it presents untruth upon untruth. Even other non-LDS Christians realize that some Christians are relating poorly to those of my faith:

"As an evangelical I must confess that I am ashamed of our record in relating to the Mormon community. To be sure, there are deep differences between our worldviews. But none of those disagreements give me or any other evangelical the license to propagate distorted accounts of what Mormons believe. By bearing false witness against our LDS neighbors, we evangelicals have often sinned not just against Mormons but against the God who calls us to be truth-tellers." -Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary

The site mentioned by JS is one of them.

I'm interested, if Jesus is just the first-born son, who are his "brothers and/or sisters"? -Serotta

Good question. I'll go deeper into it than you asked but I think it will give a clearer understanding of our beliefs. Before the earth was created we all lived as spirit children of our heavenly father (Heb. 12:9; cf. Jer. 1:5; Eph. 1:4). We learned and progressed as much as we could but we could only go so far. Heavenly Father called his children together and presented the plan of salvation which required a savior. First one of his children spoke up and proposed an alternate plan. No man would sin and he would take all glory upon himself. His name was Lucifer. Than Jehovah spoke up and said simply, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever". He was chosen by the Father. Lucifer would not accept this decision and was cast out for his rebellion (Isa. 14:12). After that Heavenly Fathers plan was set in action.

Hope that helps,

Will

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 03:52 PM

Will,

I really appreciate your thoughful and thorough responses. :) Let me ask you, is it true that the LDS teaches and you believe that God had sexual relations with Mary to produce Jesus the Christ? If so, what is the foundation of that belief? Thank you for your patience as we learn about one another's beliefs/faith.

Willber-Force

01-28-2003, 03:55 PM

I really appreciate your thoughful and thorough responses. :) Let me ask you, is it true that the LDS teaches and you believe that God had sexual relations with Mary to produce Jesus the Christ? -JS

Not that I know of. :confused:

:D

If so, what is the foundation of that belief? -JS

About as much as there is for any other Christian denomination.

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 04:29 PM

Will,

In the LDS' "Summary of Beliefs," # 3:

"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

This clearly attaches the basis for salvation to "works." The Bible says:

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

James 2:18 (NIV)
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Now some try to malign James' teaching against Paul's, but if you really study them closely, James is saying that "good deeds" is the evidence or the fruit of salvation, not a requirement to attain it.

Paul says, quoting Psalm 14:1:

Romans 3:12 (NIV)
All have turned away, they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good, not even one.”

While in our mortal sinful-natured bodies, even the best "deeds" we do are tainted with wrong motives and hearts to the point that there is no one who does any good, as far as "good" goes in God's eyes. It is . . . it has to be by faith alone that we are saved. If the LDS has you believing that you can and have to work (earn) your way into heaven, it is as brother Champneys came to learn, a horrible guilt to place on anyone!

Also, upon a quick glance, the LDS website (face to the public) doesn't look all that bad, as opposed to what I've read elsewhere, which Mr. Champneys confirms. So I must ask myself, is the website "Christianized" so as to draw folks in, and then all the stuff Mr. Champneys speaks of goes on "behind closed doors?"

But if you are taught/believe that Jesus is Lucifer's brother, then we do not believe in the same Jesus. Lucifer (who became the devil) is described as an angel in the Bible, a created being! That would make Jesus a created being rather than part of the eternal Godhead. And if you believe that you must earn heaven by "works" (good deeds) then I pray for your deliverance unto salvation by faith in Christ alone!

Unregistered

01-28-2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
This clearly attaches the basis for salvation to "works." The Bible says:

Ephesians 2:8-10 (NIV)
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

James 2:18 (NIV)
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

Now some try to malign James' teaching against Paul's, but if you really study them closely, James is saying that "good deeds" is the evidence or the fruit of salvation, not a requirement to attain it. 

etc. 

This is what I don't understand about denominationalism. So many so-called "faiths" out there try so hard to separate faith and works.  Guess what folks, it's impossible!  The above poster even quoted James 2, and it couldn't possibly be any clearer than that.  If you have true faith, saving faith, it will be apparent in your works.  For instance, if you as a person had a faith in God, then I would undoubtedly be able to know that very fact because I would be seeing you obeying the Lord's commandments.  If obedience (termed "works" by the above poster) was completely fruitless and worthless then why would God, Jesus, or any inspired man in the New Testament have passed along any commandment to the first-century Christians?  If works amounted to nothing, wouldn't they all have just been blowing hot air?

God put within our souls a hunger... you see this hunger manifest itself throughout the world in so many vain religions.  People want to worship something!!!  Even so-called athiests unknowingly are "bowing down" to some idol of worship... be it money, power, nature, etc.  And in much the same way as the God instituted physical hunger as a need to act (namely, to eat), the spiritual hunger must be satisfied with action.  This is a very important, and just as a person who is physically hungry and merely "believes" that the food sitting in front of him will satisfy him no more cures his hunger than the air already in his own belly, neither does an empty "belief" that God can save your soul if that belief is not accompanied by the necessities laid forth as commandments within the pages of the New Testament.  Does this mean that the works are actually saving works?  Absolutely not.  Does this mean that a man can earn his way into Heaven through his own works?  Impossible.  However, if a man says he has faith and is unwilling to obey what the Lord has set in front of him, he is no better off than the hungry man who refuses to eat the food in front of him.  His faith, if you can actually call it that, is dead.  Plain and simple:

Jn 14:15  If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

thicke32

01-28-2003, 06:03 PM

I have to agree with Mr. Unregistered. Especially in light of the next few verses from James 2 (NIV):

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

I think that makes it clear that faith without works is not real faith at all....

eyesee

01-28-2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by thicke32
I have to agree with Mr. Unregistered. Especially in light of the next few verses from James 2 (NIV):

24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

I think that makes it clear that faith without works is not real faith at all....

My apologies, Mr. Unregistered is me:)

I guess I typed for too long???:confused:

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 06:34 PM

So many so-called "faiths" out there try so hard to separate faith and works. Guess what folks, it's impossible! If you have true faith, saving faith, it will be apparent in your works.

For someone who set out to disagree with me, you sure did a terrific job of agreeing with me! You are absolutely right and in alignment with James’ teachings. They are inseparable, on this side of salvation by faith! One doesn’t practice obedience for some determined period of time and then become accepted into the “fold” by God. One is accepted into the fold upon their profession of faith in Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross and confession of their need for the gift of grace He offers. Then slowly they begin to be conformed into the image of Christ through the process of sanctification. “Jn 14:15 If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” This was spoken to a group who were already believers. Jesus’ answer to the lost was different:

John 6:28-29 (NIV)
Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”

if a man says he has faith and is unwilling to obey what the Lord has set in front of him, he is no better off than the hungry man who refuses to eat the food in front of him. His faith, if you can actually call it that, is dead. Plain and simple Matthew 5:48 (NIV) “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” How are you coming with that one! :eek:

Don’t confuse what James taught: “I will show you my faith by what I do,” with where the faith that brought salvation came from in the first place . . . “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

Willber-Force

01-28-2003, 06:35 PM

In the LDS' "Summary of Beliefs," # 3:
"We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."
This clearly attaches the basis for salvation to "works." -JS

Do we ignore it or put grace in a low level?

"How are we saved? That is, how are we saved from death, and how are we saved from the effects of sin? To answer this question, let us consider two other questions: Is it only through the name of Christ that we are saved from both death and sin? If so, are we saved by the grace of Christ? The answer to both these questions is a resounding yes. We are saved only through the name of Christ, and we are saved only by the grace of Christ? - Robert E. Parsons, "I Have a Question," Ensign, July 1989, p59 (the Ensign is a monthly church published magazine)

Absolutely not.

What you are doing is introducing a false dilemma. Are we saved by Grace or works? This is not the case. Although is true that doing something is necessary (such as being baptized, repentance of sins, and enduring to the end), it does not take the precedence over the Grace of Christ. Without Christ nothing is possible. I know, no matter what I try and do I will never get anywhere, it is by Christ and Christ alone that I am able to make it safely home again. That is not a horrible guilt to place on someone.

The trouble is you interpret Ephesians 2:8-10 be mean grace alone in the most absolute sense. But what are you to do than with other verses that are worded in like manner such as Rom 8:24, Rom 5:10, Eph 2:8 and 1 Cor 15:1-3? Are we saved by hope alone? Saved by his life alone? The Gospel alone? And grace alone? This is clearly a case of special pleading on your part.

But is saved a point in one's life and works are merely a byproduct of it? I quote from Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism:

"By far the majority of references to salvation in the New Testament are in future tense?.In fact, there is only one instance in the Bible where a specific individual is said to have been saved at a specific moment in time (Luke 7:36-50, esp. 48-50). In that case, a devoted and abjectly penitent woman was forgiven of her sins by Christ when she anointed His feet with oil. After He forgave her, Christ said, "Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace." The woman's sins having been forgiven by God Himself, she was, at that moment, in a state of perfect holiness before Him and thus "saved." But the Bible does not say she remained in that state.
Besides Ephesians 2:8, there are a few passages in the writings of John that use the present perfect tense to describe the enjoyment of eternal life by those who believe (e.g., John 3:15, 36; 6:47; and 1 John 5:13). These passages require an understanding of what John meant when he used the term "believe," as will be discussed later. NO biblical reference speaks of personal salvation in the past tense alone ( e.g., "I was saved in Jerusalem at the feast of Pentecost").
In fact, the Book of Revelations, written some 30-50 years after the Epistle to the Ephesians, compliments the Ephesians on many points, but calls them to repentance, and threatens to "remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent" (Rev 2:1-6). Even though Paul told the Ephesians "you have been saved" in 60 A.D., their salvation was by no means assured when the Book of Revelations was written several decades later. So there is another sense in which the phrase "you have been saved" was used by Paul.
In Ephesians 2:6, Paul speaks of events that are clearly in the future tense as though they were in the past. This is a writing technique Paul uses to make promised future blessings more immediate and vital. Paul's statement, "you have been saved," is a literary technique referring to the future blessing of ultimate salvation as though it were a present reality. This statement cannot be taken as a generalized assurance of permanent salvation, as Evangelicals imagine it to be. Christ has made His atoning sacrifice, and hence, in one sense all men "have been saved." This does not mean that any single individual is guaranteed of that condition irrespective of his or her state of current repentance."

Also, upon a quick glance, the LDS website (face to the public) doesn't look all that bad, as opposed to what I've read elsewhere, which Mr. Champneys confirms. So I must ask myself, is the website "Christianized" so as to draw folks in, and then all the stuff Mr. Champneys speaks of goes on "behind closed doors?" -JS

Not behind any of the doors I have been behind. Give us some credit John, we are smart enough not to fall for the bait and switch.

Lucifer (who became the devil) is described as an angel in the Bible, a created being!

And your point is? Isn't Lucifer also created according to LDS theology?

That would make Jesus a created being rather than part of the eternal Godhead. -JS

Again, you have a false dilemma. But this is another issue in itself. I need a nap (long day and not enough sleep last night).

In Christ,

Will

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 06:53 PM

Salvation is determined by faith alone and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God’s will alone! ;)

Ephesians 2:10 (NIV) For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Unregistered

01-28-2003, 06:59 PM

wellsjs,

Amusing reference to Matt. 5:48, but please do remember that not all references to perfectness in the Bible literally mean "unerring" as you would suggest (if you are merely joking I apologize), but rather more literally mean "complete."  Yes, God calls us to be complete.

...and you cannot possibly suggest to me that John 14:15 only applies to members of the church!

...and a more fitting representation of the Lord's will for the lost can be found in Mark 16:16.

----Don’t confuse what James taught: “I will show you my faith by what I do,” with where the faith that brought salvation came from in the first place . . . “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)----

Also, please don't misunderstand my earlier post... it is easy to see I was by no means saying that works earned salvation.  What you fail to recognize is the fact that if you are without works, #1 Your faith is dead, and #2 You don't truly love Christ.  Once you realize that works are essential, not as a means to an end but rather evidence of our obedience through faith, you then need to understand what exactly the Lord asks of you in this life.  Yes, Christ calls us to believe... but if that's all you are presently doing your soul is in grave danger of the judgment!

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 07:12 PM

What you fail to recognize is the fact that if you are without works, #1 Your faith is deadI recognize that very well. Back where you jumped in, I was discussing leading up to and including the defining moment of the gift of life (salvation) in a believer. Thank you for derailing the point I was trying to make! :( You and our brother, the Apostle James are talking about after that event, and yes, faith without works is dead (no faith at all)!

eyesee

01-28-2003, 07:15 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Salvation is determined by faith alone and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God’s will alone! ;)

Ephesians 2:10 (NIV) For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Faith alone most certainly does not save!!!  In fact, there is no such thing!

If this were indeed the case Heaven would be occupied not only by yourself and your faith but by legions of demons as well.  Read James 2:19 closely.  You believe that God is one.  You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder.

eyesee

01-28-2003, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
I recognize that very well. Back where you jumped in, I was discussing leading up to and including the defining moment of the gift of life (salvation) in a believer. Thank you for derailing the point I was trying to make! :( You and our brother, the Apostle James are talking about after that event, and yes, faith without works is dead (no faith at all)!

Who is talking about defining moments?  I am talking about what is necessary to inherit eternal life.  I will leave it up to God to determine "ground zero" as to when that happened, but you can be sure that I will strive to meet each of His requirements, and curse the day that I would ever be caught preaching any one of his commandments leading to salvation as being any more important than another!

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 07:30 PM

Will,

I disagree fervently with Richard R. Hopkins! What does "grace" mean? -- Unmerited favor.

“For it is by grace (unmerited favor) you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9 (NIV)

Titus 3:4-7 (NLT)4 But then God our Savior showed us his kindness and love. 5 He saved us, not because of the good things we did, but because of his mercy. He washed away our sins and gave us a new life through the Holy Spirit. 6 He generously poured out the Spirit upon us because of what Jesus Christ our Savior did. 7 He declared us not guilty because of his great kindness. And now we know that we will inherit eternal life.

The past tense of these verses put Hopkins' comments to shame. Paul repeatedly referred to believers as saints.

1 John 2:12 (ESV)12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins are forgiven for his name's sake.
(Rom 8:1) So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus.

Ephesians 1:13-14 (ESV)13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.

John 5:24 (ESV)24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

1 John 5:13 (NIV)
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. :D

eyesee

01-28-2003, 07:31 PM

One last thing to ponder and then the next few hours are yours (I have a prior appointment)...

Will a believer who leads a morally sound life, but who also vehemently refuses to be baptized because it is a "work," spend eternal life with God in Heaven?

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 08:00 PM

Acts 16:30-31 (NIV)
He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

Justification which is by faith alone is never by a faith that is alone. Faith, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit produces the fruit of good deeds (works). But prior to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the justification by faith, we were incapable of producing that fruit!

To answer your question, a person who believes that way most likely misunderstands "baptism." Physical water baptism is an outward sign, a public proclaimation if you will, of what has already taken place on the inside of that person, namely that they were baptized in spirit and in truth on the inside, by the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is commanded by Christ as an act of obedience, but if one fails to obey, like any other commandment that we fail to obey, it does not cost us our salvation. But when a true believer understands that Jesus commanded that we be baptized, why would he not desire obedience?

I meant to say this to Will earlier, but since salvation is given us by unmerited favor (grace) from God, is there anything we can do to earn it? Once God gives it to us (the moment we acknowledge our sins and accept Jesus' atonement for them), are we to believe that God dangles our salvation on a string and threatens to take it back if we are not good enough. That's not grace, that's tease! :eek: And that's not my God! :)

How much fruit of the Holy Spirit I produce will affect my fellowship with God (how close to Him I am) and the blessings I receive, but will have nothing to do with our relationship. According to Eph 1:13 that has been "sealed." He is my Father, and I am His son. That's a done deal! :)

PurpleMD

01-28-2003, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by eyesee
One last thing to ponder and then the next few hours are yours (I have a prior appointment)...

Will a believer who leads a morally sound life, but who also vehemently refuses to be baptized because it is a "work," spend eternal life with God in Heaven?

Yes...baptism is not required for salvation...it is an outward reflection of an inward change. Each day we disobey God...we may try really hard, but we'll mess up daily...if you are saved, you are forgiven.

The thief on the cross was not baptised....those who accept Christ on their death-beds may not be baptised.

Besides...in your scenario, not getting baptised isn't willful disobedience but confusion or misunderstanding!

PurpleMD

01-28-2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by Tek Phreak
And thanks for that link (exmormon) i pray that that will be able to help some of my mormon friends before they waste two years of their life goin on a mission!

Tek,

Here are some more links for ya!

http://aomin.org/LDSGrace.html Christian Grace vs Mormon Grace

http://aomin.org/BEGOTTEN.html Does Mormonism Teach That God the Father Physically Begat the Son?

http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

http://www.mrm.org/ Mormonism Research Ministry

http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/m04.html Apologetics Index

http://www.equip.org/ Christian Research Institute

http://www.evidence.info/cults/index.html Evidence for God

wellsjs

01-28-2003, 10:09 PM

Originally posted by eyesee
You believe that God is one.  You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. For you to use this verse to defend your point here clearly demonstrates your lack of knowledge of what "believe" means. Satan and his demons have an objective belief in God. Satan is well aware who God and Jesus are, and he believes in them! But Satan does not worship them, trust in them, voluntarily submit to them, nor does he desire to conform his will to their will for him. The later is subjective faith and is what distinguishes born again believers from Satan, demons, and casual believers in God.

It is most certainly faith alone that saves. How does the Bible answer "what must I do to be saved?"

Believe in the one He has sent! Whosoever believes in him will have everlasting life. We cannot even claim credit for our belief, because the Holy Spirit is the enabler of that!

John 6:63 (NIV)
The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.

"The flesh counts for nothing" affirms that "works" count for nothing toward obtaining salvation. The fruit of the Holy Spirit after we receive it produces good works that are the evidence of salvation, not the means to obtain it! :)

2 Timothy 1:9a (NIV)
(God) who has saved us and called us to a holy life—not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace.

Unregistered

01-29-2003, 03:59 AM

Originally posted by PurpleMD
The thief on the cross was not baptised.... etc.

For someone so off on this small matter of faith, how can anything else said be taken as anything other than the "milk" of the Word. Some clarification is in order. The thief on the cross was still under the old law. The new covenant did take effect until Jesus' death. Hence, there was no precedent or command for the thief to be baptized.

Unregistered

01-29-2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Acts 16:30-31 (NIV)
He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”

--Please, let's not get into a scripture war about the presence and non-presence of baptism throughout the Bible. It is a direct command from Christ himself!!!

To answer your question, a person who believes that way most likely misunderstands "baptism." Physical water baptism is an outward sign, a public proclaimation if you will, of what has already taken place on the inside of that person, namely that they were baptized in spirit and in truth on the inside, by the Holy Spirit. Water baptism is commanded by Christ as an act of obedience, but if one fails to obey, like any other commandment that we fail to obey, it does not cost us our salvation. But when a true believer understands that Jesus commanded that we be baptized, why would he not desire obedience?

--You and Peter must be preaching drastically differing messages then. It seems to me that Peter was preaching Christ and baptism to the Ethiopian eunich, and if Peter was preaching an "inward" baptism as you state, why didn't Peter correct his obvious misunderstanding... which would be the obvious response to the eunich's lack of understanding. Also, why the need to re-baptize the men under John's baptism? If the physical act was not important as being anything other than a sign, and that sign had already been displayed by the men in question, could the Holy Spirit not have simply "fallen" on those men. They obviously had believing hearts! Also, if the apostles were commanded to baptize all nations, but the baptism important to Christ was an internal one, how then were the apostles able to accomplish such a feat? Your theories just do not hold up under scrutiny from the Scriptures themselves. Lets not be selective studiers.

replies included above

pae

01-29-2003, 05:38 AM

Another interesting Scripture which we can add to the discussion is 1 Peter 3.21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism does now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" Please excuse the KJV :D

As has already been indicated I believe that baptism itself is not the criteria for salvation, Romans 10:9-10 also puts in a nutshell that "if we confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in our hearts that God raised Him from the dead we shall be saved for with the heart man believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto Salvation". Obviously this is justifying faith/belief as already discussed, also reflecting the acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus over our lives.

That baptism is a command of the Lord is undeniable and as such when the full salvation message is preached as Philip preached to the Eunuch, even the Eunuch himself asked about being baptised and consequently was.

However, I believe that the fruit of salvation will always be obedience to the Scriptures as the revelation of the truth of the Word comes to each believer. Hence the answer of our conscience when the truth of a particular principle or command is taught, received, understand will be to live in accordance with that revealed truth.

We are not called to judge one another (Matt 7:3-5) but no doubt we could probably look at each other and point out different truths that we may not see being worked out in each others lives, just by nature of the fact that we are all at different stages of our walk in the Lord. But that does not negate the truth itself and it's validity.

I think the principle can be applied with baptism.

Paul

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 06:57 AM

Since this is not a religious discussions forum, and since some want to steer this debate all over the map, i.e. first it was "who Jesus really is," and then "salvation by faith/works" got drug in, and now "baptism." I bid you all a good day. I hope your Sony Clies are working great. :D May you have a great day in the Lord! May we all search the scriptures and our hearts and find the truths to the answers we seek, while most importantly, focusing our eyes on Jesus Christ! :)

P.S. Anyone want to PM me on any of these, feel free! But if you're hoping to convince me that salvation is by faith + works, or that baptism saves or is an essential part of salvation, you're wasting your time. If you search the scriptures seeking the truth you will find it.

Unregistered

01-29-2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Since this is not a religious discussions forum, and since some want to steer this debate all over the map, i.e. first it was "who Jesus really is," and then "salvation by faith/works" got drug in, and now "baptism." I bid you all a good day. I hope your Sony Clies are working great. :D May you have a great day in the Lord! May we all search the scriptures and our hearts and find the truths to the answers we seek, while most importantly, focusing our eyes on Jesus Christ! :)

P.S. Anyone want to PM me on any of these, feel free! But if you're hoping to convince me that salvation is by faith + works, or that baptism saves or is an essential part of salvation, you're wasting your time. If you search the scriptures seeking the truth you will find it.

First of all, I want you to know that I truly admire the zeal that you are displaying for the Lord.  I understand that there are obvious differences in what we understand the New Testament to teach, and I am concerned because I consider these to be grave matters with regard to a soul's salvation.

What I find hard to believe is how a seemingly intelligent and zealous person such as yourself can show such blatant disregard to a subject matter directly addressed in the Bible.  How anyone can read passages such as Matt. 28:18-20, Rom. 6:1-10, 1 Pet. 3:21, and many others which so obviously address the necessity of the physical act of baptism, and numerous examples (especially in Acts) wherein baptism was an integral part of conversion, and profess that baptism (or any command of the Lord) is non-essential to salvation.  Please do not misunderstand me, I am in no way preaching a "waterworks" plan of salvation.  However, I am also by no means implying that one can obstinately REFUSE to submit to baptism, any more than we would consider as saved one who obstinately refuses to confess Jesus as Lord or to repent of a sinful lifestyle. A saving faith is willing to respond to the Lord in whatever way the Lord directs. A faith unwilling to demonstrate itself, and which indeed refuses to do so, is not genuine. Genuine faith will seek an outlet of response (James 2).

Ambassador

01-29-2003, 09:37 AM

We sure got off on a tangent. This thread was supposed be on Bible software for PalmOS. But it was sure interesting! I do appreciate all the spirit led wisdom and knowledge. He who seeks the truth will find Jesus Christ. And He who hangs with Him will be wise (Prov. 13:20). How good and how pleasent it is for Bretheren to dwell together in unity (Prov. 133:1). Be strong in the Lord and the power of His might!

Unregistered

01-29-2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by wellsjs

I meant to say this to Will earlier, but since salvation is given us by unmerited favor (grace) from God, is there anything we can do to earn it? Once God gives it to us (the moment we acknowledge our sins and accept Jesus' atonement for them), are we to believe that God dangles our salvation on a string and threatens to take it back if we are not good enough. That's not grace, that's tease! :eek: And that's not my God! :)

Oh, and one last thing to address (if I may answer for Will?)...
The only sin that can jeopardize a Christian's salvation is one he deliberately and willfully and rebelliously commits against God and man, and which he stubbornly REFUSES to repent of even though repeatedly admonished by his fellow disciples.

"For if we go on sinning willfully AFTER receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries" (Hebrews 10:26-27).

"How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:29).

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and THEN have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance" (Hebrews 6:4-6).

There is no force in the universe that can "separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Romans 8:38-39). If you are determined to abide in Him, you are forever secure in His arms. However, God does not deprive you of your continued ability to choose whether to remain in His arms or to remove yourself. If you no longer desire to remain in the company of the Father, and choose rather to dwell in the "far country" (as the prodigal son did), He will allow you to leave. No child is forced against their will to remain.

There are ample warnings given in Scripture against removing ourselves from this position of security. Jesus urges His disciples: "Abide in Me, and I in you" (John 15:4). However, He also warns that "every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away" (John 15:2). These were branches IN JESUS who were nevertheless removed and destroyed. Why? They refused to bear fruit. Paul cautions those seeking to return to Law with these words, "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace" (Gal. 5:4). You can't be severed from something you were never attached to, nor can you fall from someplace you never were!

There is great security In Christ Jesus. As long as we are in a relationship with Him, even though we stumble and fall daily, we are safe and secure. We are not automatons, however. We have the freedom to choose. Those who choose to refuse the safety and surety of a relationship with Christ, even though they had once embraced it (as the passages in Hebrews declare), must pay the penalty of their willful rejection.

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 09:44 AM

What does "grace" mean? -- Unmerited favor. -John

But you yourself have stated, grace comes to those with faith. You actually had to have faith before grace takes effect. You actually had to do something! But how can you acknowledge that faith is necessary for grace to take effect but say grace is a free gift to everyone? It just does not make logical sense.

But let's just look at the implications of this belief. If grace is offered with no prerequisites than we must assume that everyone goes to heaven. But than what are we to do with everything in the Bible that contradicts such an idea?

I think you need to iron out the logical inconsistencies in your own belief before you attack mine.

The past tense of these verses put Hopkins' comments to shame. -John

Hopkins was primarily focusing on Jesus' words. He also suggested this as a literary technique of Paul because it appears it is unique to Paul's letters.

Paul repeatedly referred to believers as saints. -John

Correct, but irrelevant. The very act of salvation and being Saints are two different things.

In Christ,
Will

eyesee

01-29-2003, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Ambassador
We sure got off on a tangent. This thread was supposed be on Bible software for PalmOS. But it was sure interesting! I do appreciate all the spirit led wisdom and knowledge. He who seeks the truth will find Jesus Christ. And He who hangs with Him will be wise (Prov. 13:20). How good and how pleasent it is for Bretheren to dwell together in unity (Prov. 133:1). Be strong in the Lord and the power of His might!

 :D

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 09:46 AM

(Some parts of your message have been ignore until the inherent contradiction in you position is corrected)

are we to believe that God dangles our salvation on a string and threatens to take it back if we are not good enough. That's not grace, that's tease! :eek: And that's not my God! :)

You are misunderstanding my belief grosly, one does not have to be perfect for grace to take effect. All one must do is try, Believe, keep his commandments, repent when you stumble. Even you have admitted that.

In Christ,
Will

thicke32

01-29-2003, 09:51 AM

Would anyone be interested in joining an email list somewhere? I think we have brought up a lot of good topics for discussion.

I would be up for this as long as we all remain good Christians, leaving it to discussion and not let it degenerate to "argument", "debate" or "ridicule".

I agree with John that this is not the place for these discussions.

eyesee

01-29-2003, 09:54 AM

Ambassador

01-29-2003, 09:57 AM

In my last post it should've been Psalm 133:1 not Proverbs 133:1, duh!

thicke32

01-29-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by eyesee

Absolutely:)  I'll look forward to the details later...

Oh no. Did I just create work for myself?

pae

01-29-2003, 10:01 AM

Hi Unregistered,

I agree with Wellsjs's comment about this not being a religious discussion forum and wonder whether this discussion ought to continue in the off-topic forum - does someone wish to start it? :)

I agree wholeheartedly with the basis of what you're saying about the need to continually abide in the Lord to remain in and walk in our salvation. I definitely do not adher to the "once saved always saved" doctrine where one is saved no matter what you choose to do after the initial conversion experience. Yet there is overwhelming assurance as you indicate of our being "kept" by God as we continually seek after Him. This topic alone is a huge one.

Concerning your comments on Baptism. I think we need to differentiate between 'essential' meaning if you have not been water baptised you definitely are not going to heaven, or whether it is essential in that every believer should be baptised in obedience to the Lord.

I can't see in Scripture that if someone gets saved, accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and receives forgiveness of sins and then, for example dies before they get a chance to be baptised, that they are not saved. So in that sense I don't believe it is essential. Yet I strongly affirm it's necessity out of obedience to the Lord.

I think the "problem" is that we have drifted from the example in Acts where it was obvious that water baptism was taught/expected as an immediate thing after salvation. I think in many congregations (including mine) the immediacy of water baptism following conversion is not emphasised - although it is seen as a necessary thing.

Paul

pae

01-29-2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by thicke32
Would anyone be interested in joining an email list somewhere? I think we have brought up a lot of good topics for discussion.

I would be up for this as long as we all remain good Christians, leaving it to discussion and not let it degenerate to "argument", "debate" or "ridicule".

I agree with John that this is not the place for these discussions.

Sounds a great idea. Definitely agree it should remain a discussion.

Instead of email though couldn't we use the off-topic discussion forum for this (if it was okay with ClieSource). It's easier to follow threads that way I think rather than email? Just an idea.

Paul

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 10:45 AM

http://aomin.org/BEGOTTEN.html Does Mormonism Teach That God the Father Physically Begat the Son? -PMD

I will directly address this. Here is a link: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/GodMary.pdf

http://www.mrm.org/ Mormonism Research Ministry -PMD

You really shouldn't post a link to Bill Mckeever's web site. He?s known on a first name basis by LDSs like me and not taken seriously at all. Here is a link: http://www.linkline.com/personal/dcpyle/reading/Mckeever.htm you need only to read the first paragraph to get the idea.

Here are some links of my own: http://www.fairlds.org/ http://www.farmsresearch.com/ http://www.shields-research.org/ http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html http://www.linkline.com/personal/dcpyle/ http://www.lightplanet.com/response/index.shtml http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Anti.htm

All of which correct the deception in the list of links PurpleMD provided.

"That we henceforth be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men and cunning craftiness whereby they lie in wait to deceive." -Ephesians 4:14

In Christ,
Will

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 10:49 AM

So, anyone want to start a thread in the off-topic area?

LanMan

01-29-2003, 11:05 AM

You all should also consider joining BeliverPUG@yahoogroups.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/believerpug/

"We exist to facilitate discussion between believers in Christ who are using PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants) in their lives and ministry.

Posts that deal with that topic directly are preferred, but new user questions and technical issues are also welcome.

We hope you will join us and contribute your knowledge, questions, and reactions to issues posted in this group."

eyesee

01-29-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by pae
Concerning your comments on Baptism. I think we need to differentiate between 'essential' meaning if you have not been water baptised you definitely are not going to heaven, or whether it is essential in that every believer should be baptised in obedience to the Lord.

I can't see in Scripture that if someone gets saved, accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour and receives forgiveness of sins and then, for example dies before they get a chance to be baptised, that they are not saved. So in that sense I don't believe it is essential. Yet I strongly affirm it's necessity out of obedience to the Lord.

I think the "problem" is that we have drifted from the example in Acts where it was obvious that water baptism was taught/expected as an immediate thing after salvation. I think in many congregations (including mine) the immediacy of water baptism following conversion is not emphasised - although it is seen as a necessary thing.

Paul

Paul,

I believe baptism is a response of faith required of us by our Lord. Therefore, I don't believe we have the option of refusing to be immersed. However, I also don't believe that God starts "watching the clock" so to speak from the time whenever you decide you need His forgiveness to the moment you are immersed.  It is not the water that saves us.  I have no doubt that God judges intent to the same degree that He judges action.  Abraham's obedience in offering Isaac (his intent) is a prime example of that fact!

This also brings up another interesting point, that being the scriptural correlation between water baptism and the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16).  But I'll await either a new off topic thread or some other avenue of discussion before I get too deeply into that topic.

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 01:07 PM

Will,

Actually I am less concerned about your salvation than I am the one who believes water baptism is essential to salvation and the one who believes that faith + works preceeds salvation! :)

To others,

I cringe at the disagreements that have been struck here. I was discussing with Will about the vital point of who Jesus is and someone blurted in challenging me on faith/works salvation, and then before you know it I'm defending salvation sans baptism. Did it ever occur to you gentlemen that many other eyes may be on this discussion, eyes that don't know Christ at all? Private PMs would have been welcomed on such challenges. The lack of unity in the body of Christ is one of the primary reasons the lost stay lost! :eek: Some non-believers following this thread are probably thinking, "is any of that Christian stuff believable when they can't seem to agree on anything?" Not only was I witnessing to Will, but most likely to a number of "eyes" as well. I do not recommend arguing theology anywhere on this site, as it will be viewed by too many looking for an excuse not to believe. Shame on a couple of you! :(

And to those "eyes" I say, yes this is a disgrace to Christianity, but in no way does it take away from the fact that if you haven't asked Jesus to be your Lord and to ask that God count your sins covered by by the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross, then you face having to pay for those sins yourself, eternally separated from the one who created and loves you. There are two certainties in the future for all of us: we will all die, and we will all face judgment. When you look Jesus in the eyes, will he be your Judge or your savior?

eyesee

01-29-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Will,

Actually I am less concerned about your salvation than I am the one who believes water baptism is essential to salvation and the one who believes that faith + works preceeds salvation! :)

To others,

I cringe at the disagreements that have been struck here. I was discussing with Will about the vital point of who Jesus is and someone blurted in challenging me on faith/works salvation, and then before you know it I'm defending salvation sans baptism. Did it ever occur to you gentlemen that many other eyes may be on this discussion, eyes that don't know Christ at all? Private PMs would have been welcomed on such challenges. The lack of unity in the body of Christ is one of the primary reasons the lost stay lost! :eek: Some non-believers following this thread are probably thinking, "is any of that Christian stuff believable when they can't seem to agree on anything?" Not only was I witnessing to Will, but most likely to a number of "eyes" as well. I do not recommend arguing theology anywhere on this site, as it will be viewed by too many looking for an excuse not to believe. Shame on a couple of you! :(

And to those "eyes" I say, yes this is a disgrace to Christianity, but in no way does it take away from the fact that if you haven't asked Jesus to be your Lord and to ask that God count your sins covered by by the blood of Jesus, shed on the cross, then you face having to pay for those sins yourself, eternally separated from the one who created and loves you. There are two certainties in the future for all of us: we will all die, and we will all face judgment. When you look Jesus in the eyes, will he be your Judge or your savior?

How dare you criticize me for revealing what I believe to be "false prophesy" to the "eyes" on this board.  How is this in any way different than what you were attempting to accomplish with Will?  I have a duty to proclaim Christ and the true plan of salvation to the world and if you are too myopic or short-sighted to see your own shortcomings then "shame on you!"  I will not stand idly by and watch as your misrepresentations put any soul in jeopardy.  I am not one to be aggressive or on the offensive, but the above post was uncalled for.  I was looking to start no argument, anyone reading my posts (both as unregistered and eyesee) can hopefully see that.  If not I will gladly repent.  Rather, in love I was looking to discuss, and hopefully enlighten and correct, some misconceptions that were readily apparent to me on this board.  If anyone has in any way been "turned off" to Christianity by my discussions, I am deeply saddened.  But I will take no blame or make any apologies for teaching the truth in love, no matter whom I offend.

2 Tim. 3:16-17: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Ambassador

01-29-2003, 01:28 PM

Lord Help us all!! We ALL need His help! Let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. —1 Corinthians 10:12

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 01:41 PM

eyesee,

Yes, you are interested in enlightening and correcting, but not in listening. I've debated this same subject with the likes of you until we were both blue in the face. You just can't reason with someone who's already made up their mind. The vast majority of evangelical Christians do not agree with you that scripture teaches that water baptism saves. It is a demonstration of obedience after salvation has already taken place. Name calling (Myopic, false prophet) does nothing to further your cause! :eek:

pae

01-29-2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by eyesee

Paul,

I believe baptism is a response of faith required of us by our Lord. Therefore, I don't believe we have the option of refusing to be immersed. However, I also don't believe that God starts "watching the clock" so to speak from the time whenever you decide you need His forgiveness to the moment you are immersed.  It is not the water that saves us.  I have no doubt that God judges intent to the same degree that He judges action.  Abraham's obedience in offering Isaac (his intent) is a prime example of that fact!

This also brings up another interesting point, that being the scriptural correlation between water baptism and the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38, 22:16).  But I'll await either a new off topic thread or some other avenue of discussion before I get too deeply into that topic.

I'm not sure whether you're agreeing or disagreeing with what I wrote :confused: . Maybe my wording was misleading when I said it's "necessary out of obedience to the Lord" - it was a general statement in that obedience to the Scriptures is a necessary thing in the Christian's life. I wasn't referring to water baptism itself being "necessary to one's actual salvation"....

I think it just highlights the difficulty of having these types of discussions on line, with the potential for misunderstanding arising over choice words. :(

I tend to agree with Wellsjs though, that a well meaning discussion can inadvertantly create the wrong impression to onlookers, and that maybe this forum is not the ideal place to share these types of discussions.

The main thing is that as believers we demonstrate that Christ's love is permeating how we discuss differences. Again, a difficult thing to do when only words are being read on a "page"!

I'll probably wait for any discussions to continue in a more appropriate location.

:)

Best wishes to y'all

Paul

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
The vast majority of evangelical Christians do not agree with you that scripture teaches that water baptism saves.

I think you are correct on this account according to this poll (see question 5) http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Questions1.htm

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by eyesee
2 Tim. 3:16-17: All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. Then let scripture, not eyesee teach!

Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. -- Luke 8:12 (NKJ)
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name. -- John 1:12 (NKJ)
15). . .that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. 16)For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17)For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. 18)"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. -- John 3:15-18 (NKJ)
He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." -- John 3:36 (NKJ)
"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life." -- John 5:24 (NKJ)
And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst.¡¨ -- John 6:35 (NKJ)
. . . ¡§And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." -- John 6:40 (NKJ)
¡¨Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.¡¨ -- John 6:47 (NKJ)
¡¨Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." -- John 8:24 (NKJ)
Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" -- John 11:25,26 (NKJ)
Jesus said to her, "Did I not say to you that if you would believe you would see the glory of God?" -- John 11:40 (NKJ)
. . . but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. -- John 20:31 (NKJ)
¡¨To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins."
Acts 10:43 (NKJ)
„h This is Peter speaking. After he spoke these words, many people believed and they were baptized with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in tongues. After that, they were then baptized. This shows that the belief saved the people (would unsaved people have the Holy Spirit and be speaking in tongues?) and then afterward, they were baptized.
. . .and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. -- Acts 13:39 (NKJ)
Now when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad and glorified the word of the Lord. And as many as had been appointed to eternal life believed. -- Acts 13:48 (NKJ)
¡¨But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they."
Acts 15:11 (NKJ)
So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." -- Acts 16:31 (NKJ)
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. -- Romans 1:16 (NKJ)
9) . . .that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10)For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11)For the Scripture says, "Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame." 12)For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him. 13)For "whoever calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." -- Romans 10:9-13 (NKJ)
For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. -- I Corinthians 1:21 (NKJ)
. . . knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. -- Galatians 2:16 (NKJ)
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God. -- Ephesians 2:8 (NKJ)
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.
I Thessalonians 4:14 (NKJ)
. . . that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. -- II Thessalonians 2:12 (NKJ)
However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. -- I Timothy 1:16 (NKJ)
For we who have believed do enter that rest, as He has said: "So I swore in My wrath, "They shall not enter My rest,"' although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. -- Hebrews 4:3 (NKJ)
But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. -- Hebrews 10:39 (NKJ)
Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion A chief cornerstone, elect, precious, And he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." -- I Peter 2:6 (NKJ)
Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. -- I John 5:1 (NKJ)
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. -- I John 5:13 (NKJ)

Where oh where would you like to insert "baptism" my friend?

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 03:37 PM

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 03:52 PM

Yea, yea, I hear that all the time! :D

Hey, you know, I like you! You are "always prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have," in accordance with the Word. Nothing wrong with that! Now as to the Book of Mormon, well . . . let's stay friends! :D

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Yea, yea, I hear that all the time! :D

Hey, you know, I like you! You are "always prepared to give a reason for the hope that you have," in accordance with the Word. Nothing wrong with that! Now as to the Book of Mormon, well . . . let's stay friends! :D

Hey, got stuff for that too. :D

Even Christ spoke of visiting other sheep he had.

John 10:14-16: "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."

FYI: The key event in the Book of Mormon is Christ visiting his followers on the American continent and teaching the gospel there as well.

These two links are great. Jeff Lindsay has done a lot of work on this.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/myturn.shtml Ask yourself these questions.
http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml Lots of miscellaneous answered questions and evidences.

But don't take his or my word for it, you're welcome to pray about it. :D

In Christ,
Will

Unregistered

01-29-2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs

Acts 10:43 (NKJ)
„h This is Peter speaking. After he spoke these words, many people believed and they were baptized with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in tongues. After that, they were then baptized. This shows that the belief saved the people (would unsaved people have the Holy Spirit and be speaking in tongues?) and then afterward, they were baptized.
. . .and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. -- Acts

Before I start, has a new venue been decided upon yet? I will await confirmation of the forum before presuming to start a new one myself.

I would love to sit and enumerate the Scriptural basis for baptism, but let me counter the above point before the venue change.
And the Scripture exchanging begins...

I believe part of the explanation for what occurred in Acts 10 can be found in a comparison with the events of Pentecost in Acts 2, both of which are a fulfillment of a prophecy recorded in Joel 2:28-29. God had declared that "in those days" He would "pour out My Spirit on all flesh." The Jewish perception of "all flesh" was really rather simplistic. "All flesh" consisted of those who were Jews, and those who weren't. The latter were the pagans, the barbarians, the Nations, the Gentiles. They were known by many pejoratives, but essentially they were the NON-Jews.

God had promised that "in those days" He would "pour out" His Spirit on ALL flesh (i.e., Jews and Gentiles alike). In Acts 2 we see the pouring out of the Spirit upon the people of Israel. And it is only natural it should go to them first, for they were a people of promise. Indeed, even Jesus instructed His disciples to take the Gospel to Jerusalem first and then begin spreading it outward from there. The Gentiles would be incorporated later (as evidenced in the book of Acts).

With regard to the pouring out of the Spirit on Pentecost, Peter declared, "this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16). This is not the "gift of the Holy Spirit" which disciples receive when they turn to Christ Jesus and accept Him (Acts 2:38), rather this was a miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit with confirming signs attending for the purpose of evidencing God's embracing of "ALL flesh" into His spiritual kingdom. In Acts 2 the Jews were embraced.

In Acts 10 the time had come to embrace the Gentiles, and this was done with the same visible miraculous demonstration (the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon them, just as it had been upon the Jews at Pentecost in Jerusalem). "And all the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed" (Acts 10:45). Why? Because God had "poured out upon the Gentiles also" the Holy Spirit, and these Gentiles were also speaking in tongues just as the Jews did on Pentecost. Later, Peter tells those in Jerusalem, "The Holy Spirit fell upon them, just as He did upon us at the beginning" (Acts 11:15). He later says that "God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us" (Acts 11:17). Thus, Peter links the outpouring in Acts 10 to the outpouring in Acts 2. In this way, therefore, "ALL flesh" has now been embraced by God through these two representative actions. This was an important message for the Jewish believers to comprehend.

Once God had demonstrated His acceptance of the Gentiles, however, notice what action then followed immediately. Peter, at the home of Cornelius, declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (Acts 10:47). Well, of course not!! Therefore, "he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48). Why ORDER them to be baptized, if they were already saved?!! What was the point? The point was, and still is, that our Lord has commanded baptism (and this is water baptism) as a demonstration of our faith in Him. To refuse to respond is to refuse the gift. No one in their right mind would do such a thing. But, if they did, they would fail to acquire that precious gift of life! Again, immersion does not earn or merit the gift, it merely receives it.

Unregistered

01-29-2003, 05:53 PM

Futhermore, this issue in question brings me full-circle to an earlier mentioned Scripture. wellsjs, look closely at the events surrounding Acts 19:1-7. We find 12 disciples who clearly believed in Jesus Christ, but who had NOT received the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey, it leaves one wondering what part of obedience was lacking in these twelve men. Paul questioned these men about their baptism, and he soon discovered they were not yet immersed into Christ. Notice the conclusion of the matter: "And when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). The next verse tells us they then received the Holy Spirit. I wonder if those 12 men, if they could speak to us today, would tell us baptism was purely optional and had nothing to do with our salvation, our cleansing from sin, and the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit? Not likely.

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 07:54 PM

Once God had demonstrated His acceptance of the Gentiles, however, notice what action then followed immediately. Peter, at the home of Cornelius, declared, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" (Acts 10:47). Well, of course not!! Therefore, "he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48). Why ORDER them to be baptized, if they were already saved?!!Look at what you are implying! Can men who have received the Holy Spirit not be saved? In your opinion has the Holy Spirit, or does the Holy Spirit ever indwell an unsaved person? They were already saved for heaven’s sake (literally). Now Peter was in essence saying, now that you are saved, be obedient and be baptized!
Futhermore, this issue in question brings me full-circle to an earlier mentioned Scripture. wellsjs, look closely at the events surrounding Acts 19:1-7. We find 12 disciples who clearly believed in Jesus Christ, but who had NOT received the Holy Spirit. Since the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey (stop)You have started out with wrong assumptions. They were of John the Baptist (v. 3 ); hence OT seekers. That they did not yet fully understand the Christian faith is evident from their reply to Paul’s question. 19:2 “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The question reflects Paul’s uncertainty about their spiritual status. Since all Christians receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (Rom. 8:9 ; 1 Cor. 12:13 ), their answer revealed they were not yet fully Christians. They had not yet received Christian baptism (having been baptized only “into John’s baptism”) which further evidenced that they were not Christians. 19:4 baptism of repentance … believe on … Christ Jesus. These disciples did not realize Jesus of Nazareth was the One to whom John’s baptism pointed. Paul gave them instruction not on how to receive the Spirit, but about Jesus Christ.
(Acts 19:5). The next verse tells us they then received the Holy Spirit. I wonder if those 12 men, if they could speak to us today, would tell us baptism was purely optional and had nothing to do with our salvation, our cleansing from sin, and the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit? Not likely.They believed Paul’s presentation of the gospel (for the first time) and came to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Acts 2:38 (NIV)
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Repent. This refers to a change of mind and purpose that turns an individual from sin to God ( 1 Thess. 1:9 ). Such change involves more than fearing the consequences of God’s judgment. Genuine repentance knows that the evil of sin must be forsaken and the person and work of Christ totally and singularly embraced. Peter exhorted his hearers to repent, otherwise they would not experience true conversion. be baptized. Peter was obeying Christ’s command from Matt. 28:19 and urging the people who repented and turned to the Lord Christ for salvation to identify, through the waters of baptism, with His death, burial, and resurrection. Baptism does not produce forgiveness and cleansing from sin. The reality of forgiveness precedes the rite of baptism. Genuine repentance brings from God the forgiveness (remission) of sins (Eph. 1:7), and because of that the new believer was to be baptized. Baptism, however, was to be the ever-present act of obedience, so that it became synonymous with salvation. Thus to say one was baptized for forgiveness was the same as saying one was saved. Every believer enjoys the complete remission of sins ( Matt. 26:28 ; Luke 24:47 ; Eph. 1:7 ; Col. 2:13 ; 1 John 2:12 ).

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 08:04 PM

Originally posted by Willber-Force
John 10:14-16: "I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd."This refers to Gentiles who will respond to His voice and become a part of the church, as in:

Romans 1:16 (NIV)
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.

Sorry, hardly evidence for a "red skin makeover" of a transplanted Jewish colony to America. :D

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
This refers to Gentiles who will respond to His voice and become a part of the church, as in:

That is simply incorrect. The term "sheep" is always used to refer to those who are descendants of Jacob (Matt 10:6). There is simply no way that this can refer to the Gentiles.

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 09:01 PM

Following your logic then, unless you were born Jewish, you're bound for hell:

Matthew 25:32-33 (NIV)
All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

Jesus' use of "sheep" refers to "those whom the Father has given Him," i.e. believers. There is a way it can refer to Gentiles. It must refer to Jew and Gentile, rich and poor, slave and free!

eyesee

01-29-2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs

You have started out with wrong assumptions. They were of John the Baptist (v. 3 ); hence OT seekers. That they did not yet fully understand the Christian faith is evident from their reply to Paul’s question. 19:2 “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” The question reflects Paul’s uncertainty about their spiritual status. Since all Christians receive the Holy Spirit at the moment of salvation (Rom. 8:9 ; 1 Cor. 12:13 ), their answer revealed they were not yet fully Christians. They had not yet received Christian baptism (having been baptized only “into John’s baptism”) which further evidenced that they were not Christians. 19:4 baptism of repentance … believe on … Christ Jesus. These disciples did not realize Jesus of Nazareth was the One to whom John’s baptism pointed. Paul gave them instruction not on how to receive the Spirit, but about Jesus Christ.
They believed Paul’s presentation of the gospel (for the first time) and came to saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Repent. This refers to a change of mind and purpose that turns an individual from sin to God ( 1 Thess. 1:9 ). Such change involves more than fearing the consequences of God’s judgment. Genuine repentance knows that the evil of sin must be forsaken and the person and work of Christ totally and singularly embraced. Peter exhorted his hearers to repent, otherwise they would not experience true conversion. be baptized. Peter was obeying Christ’s command from Matt. 28:19 and urging the people who repented and turned to the Lord Christ for salvation to identify, through the waters of baptism, with His death, burial, and resurrection.  Baptism does not produce forgiveness and cleansing from sin. The reality of forgiveness precedes the rite of baptism. Genuine repentance brings from God the forgiveness (remission) of sins (Eph. 1:7), and because of that the new believer was to be baptized. Baptism, however, was to be the ever-present act of obedience, so that it became synonymous with salvation. Thus to say one was baptized for forgiveness was the same as saying one was saved. Every believer enjoys the complete remission of sins ( Matt. 26:28 ; Luke 24:47 ; Eph. 1:7 ; Col. 2:13 ; 1 John 2:12 ).

#1  I believe you are misunderstanding John's baptism.  John baptized people with the baptism of penance, saying: "That they should believe in Him who was to come after him--that is to say, in Jesus."  They most certainly realized Jesus of Nazareth was the One to whom John's baptism pointed, and these men (hence the term "disciples") most certainly believed in Jesus... their lack of understanding involved the presence and role of the Holy Ghost.

#2  As for the Scriptural connection between water baptism and the forgiveness of sins, consider the following:

Acts 22:16 --- "And now why do you delay? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." Notice carefully the Greek grammatical construction here. The phrase is literally:

anastas baptisai kai apolousai tas hamartias sou

This would literally be translated "Rise up, be baptized and wash away your sins." The word "apoluo" conveys the concept of procuring cleansing through an act of washing. That washing would be a reference to the act of baptism. Both "baptize" and "wash away" appear as 1st Aorist Imperatives (2nd person singular), and they are connected by "kai." Thus, the two are inseparably linked together in this grammatical construction. Paul is commanded to rise up and cleanse himself of his sins via the washing of baptism.

And if I am understanding you correctly, you are under the false assumption that in Acts 2:38, the people were baptized because their sins were forgiven.  I realize that this is what you would like for Peter to have said, but the reality is he did not. The people were told, "Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins." The word translated "for" is the Greek preposition "eis" which signifies "into, unto, with a view to." It denotes entrance into a state or condition. It is not a look backward, but a look forward. One is not baptized because one's sins are already forgiven, one is baptized unto the forgiveness of sins.

Jesus clearly declared, "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). Our Lord has clearly specified immersion as a required demonstration of one's active, obedient faith in Him, and He has commissioned us to be about the business of immersing disciples who would come to Him for cleansing (Matthew 28:19). Thus, it behooves us to comply with this directive, rather than seek to contradict it.

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Following your logic then, unless you were born Jewish, you're bound for hell:

That is absurd. The Gentiles can obtain salvation through Christ but they are never referred to as "sheep".

Conclusion: Jesus, with out a doubt, spoke about visiting his other sheep and teaching them so that there might be one fold. The BoM talks about Christ visiting other sheep. Coincidence? I think not.

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 09:22 PM

Grammatically this phrase, “calling on the name of the Lord,” precedes “arise and be baptized.” Salvation comes from calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 10:9-13 (NIV)
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” f 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Where in this most beautiful of scriptures is baptism mentioned? Did Paul forget an important ingredient of what it takes to be “saved?” I think not. I think you and many others want to add a requirement.

Mark 16:9–20 The external evidence strongly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark’s gospel. While the majority of Gr. manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not. A shorter ending also existed, but it is not included in the text. Further, some that include the passage note that it was missing from older Gr. manuscripts, while others have scribal marks indicating the passage was considered spurious. The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Gr. manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20.

Mark 16:16 (NIV)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Even if v. 16 is a genuine part of Mark’s gospel, it does not teach that baptism saves, since the lost are condemned for unbelief, not for not being baptized.

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
I think you and many others want to add a requirement.

What's one more on top of your faith requirement?

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 09:35 PM

Oh BTW John. You are arguing from silence. Just because Baptism is not mentioned as much as you like and is not within a verse where you think it should be (eg Mark 16:16) doesn't mean it's not required.

Just thought I'd point that out.

BTW, did you just drop the idea that the Bible is perfect just now? I thought you didn't believe anything was added?

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 09:36 PM

Will,

Matthew 25:32-33, all nations, separate sheep/goats! I don't think you're thinking through what scripture is trying to reveal to you.

John 10:26 (NIV)
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Jesus was talking to unbelieving Jews. Therefore the "sheep" that Jesus is referring to are those who believe in Him. Back to your verse: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold" could read "And other believers I have, which are not of this fold." "this fold" does refer to believing Jews.

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by Willber-Force
What's one more on top of your faith requirement? My faith requirement? :confused: What are you accusing me of . . . quoting the Bible? Uh . . . I think I'll just let Romans 10:9-13 speak for itself! ;)

Unregistered

01-29-2003, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Grammatically this phrase, “calling on the name of the Lord,” precedes “arise and be baptized.” Salvation comes from calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 10:9-13 (NIV)
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11 As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” f 12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

Where in this most beautiful of scriptures is baptism mentioned? Did Paul forget an important ingredient of what it takes to be “saved?” I think not. I think you and many others want to add a requirement.

Mark 16:9–20 The external evidence strongly suggests these verses were not originally part of Mark’s gospel. While the majority of Gr. manuscripts contain these verses, the earliest and most reliable do not. A shorter ending also existed, but it is not included in the text. Further, some that include the passage note that it was missing from older Gr. manuscripts, while others have scribal marks indicating the passage was considered spurious. The fourth-century church fathers Eusebius and Jerome noted that almost all Gr. manuscripts available to them lacked vv. 9–20.

Mark 16:16 (NIV)
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Even if v. 16 is a genuine part of Mark’s gospel, it does not teach that baptism saves, since the lost are condemned for unbelief, not for not being baptized.

Why are you so selective in your study and replies?  I agree wholeheartedly with you that faith is absolutely essential in obtaining salvation.  It IS faith that saves!, and you have done more than an adequate job of presenting and proving that fact:)  But it is absurd to think that every passage in the New Testament referring to salvation would include every necessary step involved in obtaining His gracious gift.  Paul's eloquent quote above addressed belief and confession, but happened to leave out repentence, which if I'm not mistaken you yourself indicated was necessary in order to turn to Christ.  Did Paul forget an important element here as well?  Your approach in arguing against baptism as a necessity is grasping (at the very least) and is very illogical.  How one can overlook such blatant and obvious references to the necessity of baptism by many inspired writers and men in the Bible, including Christ Himself!!!, simply because 5 verses in the book of Romans failed to mention it (while many other passages within the pages of the New Testament directly address it), is beyond me!

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Willber-Force
[B]Oh BTW John. You are arguing from silence.Scroll back in this thread and find the long list (about 1/3 of the New Testament :) ) that doesn't mention baptism being required for salvation.
BTW, did you just drop the idea that the Bible is perfect just now? I thought you didn't believe anything was added?Wrong again! Way back I mentioned that some translations (KJV as an example) sometimes included scribe's marginal notes on the ancient manuscripts as if they were part of the manuscript text. That is precisely the case here. Looks like you're starting to pick at straws! ;)

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 09:51 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Will,

Matthew 25:32-33, all nations, separate sheep/goats! I don't think you're thinking through what scripture is trying to reveal to you.

John 10:26 (NIV)
but you do not believe because you are not my sheep.

Jesus was talking to unbelieving Jews. Therefore the "sheep" that Jesus is referring to are those who believe in Him. Back to your verse: "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold" could read "And other believers I have, which are not of this fold." "this fold" does refer to believing Jews.

And even than, your explanation still fails. The people he is about to teach aren't his sheep, they don't believe because he hasn't taught him yet.

The people in the BoM Believed and were waiting.

So your interpretation "And other believers I have, which are not of this fold." still supports my conclusion.

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 09:56 PM

eyesee,

I do wish you could login so as to eliminate whether I'm talking to the real you or not. :D Should I repost my earlier one with 1/3 of the New Testament (so it seems) speaking of salvation without a hint at baptism? No I'm more interested in making my point exercising brevity than in seeing how many verses I can throw at you (except that one time . . . couldn't help myself :D ).

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Scroll back in this thread and find the long list (about 1/3 of the New Testament :) ) that doesn't mention baptism being required for salvation.

Exactly. Arguing from scilence. Just because something isn't there as much as you want it doesn't mean that it's not correct.

Originally posted by wellsjs
Wrong again! Way back I mentioned that some translations (KJV as an example) sometimes included scribe's marginal notes on the ancient manuscripts as if they were part of the manuscript text. That is precisely the case here. Looks like you're starting to pick at straws! ;)

Not exactly, I was asking a question. Hardly a strawman argument.

eyesee

01-29-2003, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Grammatically this phrase, “calling on the name of the Lord,” precedes “arise and be baptized.” Salvation comes from calling on the name of the Lord.

Is that right, now???:eek:

Matthew 7:21  "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 
Matthew 7:22  "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 
Matthew 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

...Sure sounds like someone's mistaken, and I don't believe it is Jesus Christ!:eek:

eyesee

01-29-2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
eyesee,

I do wish you could login so as to eliminate whether I'm talking to the real you or not. :D Should I repost my earlier one with 1/3 of the New Testament (so it seems) speaking of salvation without a hint at baptism? No I'm more interested in making my point exercising brevity than in seeing how many verses I can throw at you (except that one time . . . couldn't help myself :D ).

LOL:D

But would you argue that once is not enough?  ...not that I'm suggesting that baptism is addressed only one time in the New Testament:)

I do apologize... the computer lab in the eye clinic where I am studying is quite funny sometimes about whether or not it allows cookies on any one terminal:rolleyes:

eyesee

01-29-2003, 10:08 PM

I apologize for my early departure tonight... I had a very late evening yesterday and would very much like to get home and participate in some much needed rest!:)

I just want to say that I respect each and every one of you who have posted in this thread and I admire the zeal you are all displaying in your search for the truth.  May God be with you in your pursuits of the truth and may His mercy ever be upon you!

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 10:13 PM

Will,

Tell me about the archaeological evidence to support the BoM.

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/archaeology/matheny.htm

Exerpt: Brigham Young University anthropologists and archaeologists are challenging the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For example, BYU Professor of Anthropology Ray T. Matheny calls the constant reference in the Book of Mormon to iron implements "a king-size problem":

wellsjs

01-29-2003, 10:19 PM

And from the National Geographic Society:

"I was informed that neither the Society nor any other institution of equal prestige has ever used the Book of Mormon in locating archaeological sites. Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archaeological findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically."

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Will,

Tell me about the archaeological evidence to support the BoM.

http://www.mazeministry.com/mormonism/archaeology/matheny.htm

Exerpt: Brigham Young University anthropologists and archaeologists are challenging the historicity of the Book of Mormon. For example, BYU Professor of Anthropology Ray T. Matheny calls the constant reference in the Book of Mormon to iron implements "a king-size problem":

Quotes from 1984 John? You should try to pull off something more current.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_metals.shtml#iron

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
And from the National Geographic Society:

"I was informed that neither the Society nor any other institution of equal prestige has ever used the Book of Mormon in locating archaeological sites. Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book of Mormon has been substantiated by archaeological findings, this claim has not been verified scientifically."

Try FARMS farms.byu.edu

Nice red herring BTW.

Willber-Force

01-29-2003, 10:34 PM

Oh and try to provide links for your quotes. Saves me from having to find them myself: http://www.yrulds.com/home/archaeology/smithsonian/geographic.htm

About the Smithsonian paper mentioned.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/smithsonian.shtml

Jewboy

01-29-2003, 11:19 PM

I've witnessed several debates between a Christian and a Jew. Some I read, like the Pablo Christiani VS. Rabbi Moshe Nachmanides. It's always the same story. The person who was not there, who doesn't speak the language, or know the lifestyle, and the traditional (from Mt. Sinai) understanding of the revelation of Sinai loses. Mistranslation here, misunderstanding there, personal bias all over. If I was not a Jew, I hope I would be wise enough to consult them.

Jewboy

01-29-2003, 11:22 PM

In the end we are our own judges, so just try to be true to yourself.

Jewboy

01-29-2003, 11:25 PM

Repent to yourself.

Unregistered

01-30-2003, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by eyesee
Matthew 7:21  "Not everyone who says to Me, `Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 
Matthew 7:22  "Many will say to Me on that day, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 
Matthew 7:23 "And then I will declare to them, `I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'

I just wanted to say a few quick words before I spend the better part of the rest of the day in the pediatric eye clinic. I believe that the above few verses speak quite strongly against one line of reasoning that has been presented to us here. Namely, that it is belief (faith) only that leads to receiving the Holy Spirit and ultimately unto salvation. Following that particular line of reasoning it is clear that the above men in question believed upon the one true Lord and had obtained the Holy Spirit (how else were the prophesies and miracles and the casting out of demons performed). Christ did not refute the fact that they were doing all of these things. Note carefully what He did say: "Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness." Again, these men obviously believed in Jesus, and were doing *some* things right! What then did they lack? Belief??? Absolutely not! Baptism? It is not specified, and it is by no means my point to argue that this was what was keeping these men out of Heaven. But I will declare this, *THEY WERE LACKING SOMETHING!!!* In a faith-only system, they would have lacked NOTHING :)

wellsjs

01-30-2003, 08:45 AM

Trembling with fear, the jailer called for lights and ran to the dungeon and fell down before Paul and Silas. He brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They replied, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved (period!), along with your entire household." Then they shared the word of the Lord with him and all who lived in his household. That same hour the jailer washed their wounds, and he and everyone in his household were immediately baptized. -- Acts 16:29-33

This event not only clearly identifies what we must do to be saved (believe in Jesus), but also distinguishes that event from the event of the first act of obedience, to be baptized. My understanding (Collectively) of the various scriptures, Acts 2:38 included, is that water baptism is the first act of obedience after being saved. The Holy Spirit indwells us the moment we ask Jesus to be our Lord and Savior, not during the following Sunday evening baptismal.

For your information, my church requires all seeking church membership to be baptized, not to save them, but to demonstrate obedience. In summary of this debate (and I think it's time to move on), we have the many scriptures (I provided an extensive list previously) that make no mention of baptism as a requirement for saving faith. On the other hand I believe I have provided viable explanations for the few verses you claim point the other direction (toward baptismal requirement), which have been debated by theologians for centuries. So I think we must lay this down, agreeing to disagree.

Let me close with this scenario for you to ponder on: You and I wind up seated next to one another on a 3-hour plane flight. I'm not saved. In conversing, you share the gospel with me. I am convicted in the heart, repent of my sins and ask Jesus to come into my life and be my Lord and Savior, acknowledging that God raised Him from the dead, aloud to you. A few minutes later our airplane experiences mechanical problems and we crash and die. Do I join you in heaven? Or do I go to the "other place" because I didn't have the opportunity to get baptized? As you ponder this question, ponder also the following:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." -- Rom 10:9-10

Was I lacking any of these when the plane crash took my life? Was I not justified the moment I believed? Do justified believers go to hell? :confused:

Willber-Force

01-30-2003, 12:00 PM

This event not only clearly identifies what we must do to be saved (believe in Jesus), but also distinguishes that event from the event of the first act of obedience, to be baptized. My understanding (Collectively) of the various scriptures, Acts 2:38 included, is that water baptism is the first act of obedience after being saved. The Holy Spirit indwells us the moment we ask Jesus to be our Lord and Savior, not during the following Sunday evening baptismal. -John

And mustn't one be obedient to God to be saved? Satan believes there is a Christ and is well aware of his plan. Is he saved?
Unlikely.

Let me close with this scenario for you to ponder on: You and I wind up seated next to one another on a 3-hour plane flight. I'm not saved. In conversing, you share the gospel with me. I am convicted in the heart, repent of my sins and ask Jesus to come into my life and be my Lord and Savior, acknowledging that God raised Him from the dead, aloud to you. A few minutes later our airplane experiences mechanical problems and we crash and die. Do I join you in heaven? Or do I go to the "other place" because I didn't have the opportunity to get baptized? As you ponder this question, ponder also the following: -John

And this is exactly why the faith only doctrine was developed, spread and continued. After the last apostle died and no more were called revelation for the entire church ceased to exist. People just didn't understand things so they tried to fill in the holes as much as possible based on the Bible. But that wasn't enough. People still disagreed and broke off into different churches again and again. What do we have now? Thousands of churches all teaching different teachings. All claiming to base their doctrines on the Bible and all claiming to be "The" church. And under these circumstances was the "faith alone" doctrine Introduced. They saw a problem and they fixed it themselves. As you can see early Christianity taught what was in line with LDS teachings on faith, grace and works:

"For what reason was our father Abraham blessed? was it not because he wrought righteousness and truth through faith?" -1 Clement 31, in ANF 1:13

"But in what way shall we confess Him? By doing what He says, and not transgressing His commandments, and by honouring Him not with our lips only, but with all our heart and all our mind. For He says in Isaiah, "This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me." Let us, then, not only call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He saith, "Not every one that saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall be saved, but he that worketh righteousness." Wherefore, brethren, let us confess Him by our works." -2 Clement 3-4, in ANF 7:518

"But if any man believe on me and do not my commandments, although he have confessed my name, he hath no profit therefrom but runneth a vain race: for such will find themselves in perdition and destruction, because they have despised my commandments." -Epistle of the Apostles, in ANT p495

I could go on with these quotes but I wish to move to baptism now. The necessity of baptism was also taught in early Christianity:

"And dipped himself," says [the Scripture], "seven times in Jordan." It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." -A fragment attributed to Irenaeus, in ANF 1:574

"Nay, he that, out of contempt, will not be baptized, shall be condemned as an unbeliever, and shall be reproached as ungrateful and foolish. For the Lord says: "Except a man be baptized of water and of the Spirit, he shall by no means enter into the kingdom of heaven." And again: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -Apostolic Constitutions 6:15, in ANF 7:456-457

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." - Justin Martyr, First Apology 61, in ANF 1:183

Mr. Bickmore has done a lot of work in this area. I wish his site was still up so I could direct you to it.

Back to your original question: What is done with those who believe and are not baptized? Are they damned? Of course not! The Lord will not give you a commandment least he make a way for you to accomplish it! That is one of the many things that goes on in the many temples around the world: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/temples/Salvation_Dead_EOM.htm

In Christ,
Will

wellsjs

01-30-2003, 02:41 PM

Will,

Let me bring closure (for my part) with you as I did for "eyesee." We will have to agree to disagree. So much that you just said above that may sound nice, but simply isn't true. But having started another major Bible study last night (I now have three going at the same time) I have so much reading and studying to do, and having "sown" enough seeds in the areas we've discussed, I'm just going to have to trust the Lord of the harvest to grow and nurture them. May we all find truth in our search to know our Lord more and more everyday! :) Blessings! :)

Jewboy

01-30-2003, 05:22 PM

Doesn't the new 'testament' teach that the 'old' laws are in effect, till 'further notice'? And exactly where does the consept of Baptism come from? 'Older laws', or is it something invented at that time? How come Paul had to go to the Jewish Sanhedrin and offer them money to allow converts without circumsision? or the laws regarding food? Where exactly does it clearly say that the Law of Sinai is abolished.

Actually, it doesn't say that anywhere, only biased interpretations. In a way, christianity has nothing to do with the events mentioned in the records called the new 'testament'. The fact that different followers (apostles) have different accounts of the events proofs that the documents themselves are not divine. The teachings that keep this faith aflow are all from the original and only Testament, which is divine in origin.
Sometimes I listen to the radio and the people are all talking about G-d, the Infinite One. Then the minister gives Him B"H, a human name... This anthromorphism, or humanisation of G-d is a based on the ancient Greek or Egyptian worship of a man. Now it just has a Jewish twist to it. The original Sinaic Revalation, the ultimate truth has been contained in what a mere man would like it to be. Especially the idea of have faith and be saved. Being saved comes from hard work in fullfilling the Law. Faith is only revealed in action. What is faith without knowledge???
So when did the word of G-d become old, exactly???

Willber-Force

01-30-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
So much that you just said above that may sound nice, but simply isn't true.

Why? I have the spiritual testimony that it is true and the logical evidence to back it up.

Anyway, good luck with your new Bible classes and Godspeed.

In Christ,
Will

wellsjs

01-30-2003, 09:01 PM

Dear "banned,"

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/

If you're interested in the truth you'll explore it. If not, you'll ignore it!

Shalom!

Un_registered

01-31-2003, 04:07 AM

Jews for Jesus is a creation of this century alone. Just another attempt to 'save' the Jews...
Thye truth is the church should be worrying about saving itself, considering it's bloody history.

The people involved with these JFJ are usually as ignorant of Judaism as most of you. Can't blame them, it hasn't exactly been an easy road... Though in my community all these activists could gather is the old immigrants ready to eat anything for free. Most Jews remember that G-d is ONE, not 3 that's 1. By that logic, this table is also...

Anyway, like I said, the truth can only be provided by at least two eye witnesses. Now, the Sinaic Revelation was witnessed by 600,000 man alone, that tradition is passed on word for word for over 3,000 years, about 50 generations. Now, what proof does anyone have of the divinity of a man, ch"vsh.

Elokim lama azavtani????

G-d why have you forsaken me?????

-words from the cross...

How about the beautiful story where Yeshu the son of Yosef and Miriam curses a tree for not providing him with fruit... Moreover, elsewhere it's explained it simply was not the season. And what chosen curses....

Once again, the only part of new 'testament' worth reading is the fundamental lessons of Judaism mentioned there. The rest is baba maisas (foolish stories).

Now the Kabbalistic concepts concerning the level of the son, servant, minister, one who serves not... are not for the uninitiated. As it says the teachings could either be a poison or a potion of life, all depending on having the key. That key is passed on from generation to generation, and it's a lot deeper then words, as the Kabbalistic texts often start a subject by saying, "See."

Just because you have good intentions doesn't make you right. Crusaders had good intentions too, even though they were soaked in blood in the name of your beloved...

My point is, scholarly approach is a great thing, never stop being a sceptic, someone that claims to know the truth is a lier, someone who claims to know G-d is dellirious. One should however know G-d in all your ways, when you rize up and when you go to sleep, when you walk in the street and when you sit in the house, because the Glory of G-d fills the whole world, our job is to reveal this by following the commandments, 10 Commandments for Jews, 7 for the Gentiles. As it says, and Israel shall be a light onto the Nations.

Now for those who say Messiah has already come... The term and concept of messiah originates from the Jews & Judaism. The Laws concerning Messiah are also clearly stated. Just a few of the requirements would be bringing Jews closer to Torah and observance, culminating in worldwide return of the Jews to the Holy Land (not some secular State of...), rebuilding of the Temple... Now, to be considered a potential Messiah one hase to bring people closer to serving G-d. Unfortunately, the teachings of Christianity abolished the Torah and it's Law contrary to the teachings of Yeshu, who was an observant Jew.

I have to say though, that even if you rely on the second coming, it has nothing to do with Yeshu being G-d. Which makes a good case for idolatry. I am pleading with all of you, don't be so sure that you've captured the truth, and just because it's an accepted major opinion should only make one more cautious to the blindness of the masses. How many guys/gals in your class actually understood calculus well? The search for the truth is so much more complicated that if you realized how complicated it actually is you would humbly listen to the elders who have heard it from the elders who have heard it .... all the way to Mt.Sinai.

There is one major difference between the revelations of other religions and Mt.Sinai. At Mt.Sinai G-d revealed Himself to over two million Jews who all saw and heard G-d, other revelations either revolved around one person and were not accepted by everyone and others could be reprodused even today with a few tricks fo suggestion by a 'fake prophet.'

The Jews are awaiting the arrival of Messiah whose influence will be clear, as it says, and ther will be no war, or hunger, and the whole world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d.

May this time be very soon!

Unregistered

01-31-2003, 04:37 AM

Y'shua received an audience among non-Jews for his basically Jewish message.
quote from the site mentioned above.

The site mainly talks about Yeshu as Messiah. My main point is addressing the issue of his 'divinity'. The reason JFJ people avoid the real discussion is because they are afraid of losing their Jewish audience, who are as stated before mostly ignorant of direct traditions of Judaism which could only be aquired from the Sages through hard work in learning. The proofs from the Talmud are meaningless, as it says in the Talmud itself that someone knowledgeable in the Talmud could make a lizard kosher. The reason the Talmud was forbidden from writing down is to prevent it from falling into the hands of the Nations who would eventually use it against the Jews. The reason it was written down is in accordance with another Law as taught by Rav Yehudah Ha'Nassi, the leader of that generation. Mainly it was due to extreme circumstances where because of constant wars the Talmud, or the Oral Tradition may have been lost. However, even though it was written down, only those who learn it from the elders have a chance of acquiring the true understanding of it. And such Jews are very very few. In every generation, there is a continuation of Moishe (Moses). Even in this generation there is one who relates the word of G-d to the Jews.

Be blessed!

davidrgeorge

01-31-2003, 05:37 AM

It's always interesting (and mindboggling) to me that so many people succumb to the will of Satan by way of arguing and scripture-bashing contests. In the end, everyone involved always loses, and Satan wins. He and his minions have once again succeeded in tempting everyone involved by inticing them with feelings of contention, doubt, and discord.

None of these feelings are of God, and you will never find the path to God as a result of it. Look at the psychology of it...our 'natural' instincts will always be to defend ourselves and our beliefs. Very, very rarely does one involved in these bashes come with an open heart and mind. Because of this very reason, many wise men (Christian and non-Christian alike) have stated that the natural man is an enemy to God.
If you have a problem with your car, do you go to the grocery store? Do you and your neighbors strike up a conversation about it? Sometimes. If it's small, you can probably manage. If you're smart, and humble, most of us will recognize that you'd be just better of in the long run taking the car to a mechanic rather than screwing it beyond any point of return.
If you need your teeth cleaned, do you seek advise from a retail clerk? Sure you can probably save a buck or two trying to clean them yourselves. Most of us realize that is best left to the professional dentists.

If you have a question about God, why do people try to find him at work, on the internet, or in one of the thousands of churches? In fact why anyone would listen and follow any one person or group, without first asking the source, God, is like the blind leading the blind. Build your foundation on a rock, not on sand that can be washed away. Doubt man, not God. Man is imperfect, will lead you astray. God is our Creator, our Father, who only wants to help his children, us, who want to help ourselves find happiness in this life and in the life to come. He is a Father, and like any good father, He only wants to see His children succeed in their goals and find truth and happiness.

James 1:5, 6 - If any of you lack wisdom, let him ASK of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.

How do you do this? First, relax. Calm your nerves. Stop bashing other beliefs (They just might be true!). Listen to some peaceful music. Think of (or go to) a relaxing place. Set your mind at ease. Whatever works for you. Have an open mind. Open enough to be able to accept whatever answer you receive. Have faith. God WILL answer you, but only if you ask in faith, and you are really searching for the truth, and with a true deep desire within yourself to do God's will, not man's. You need to build your foundation on a rock.

Pray. Spill your guts to God. Ask Him your question. (Not some one on the internet.) Tell Him your confusion. (Not some one that will take advantage of you.) Tell Him you want to know the truth and that you hope you are humble enough to accept his answer. Humble yourself before your maker, and 'He will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost, ye may know the truth of all things.'

Ambassador

01-31-2003, 09:25 AM

That's perfectly said David. "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Jn 8:32

wellsjs

01-31-2003, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by Un_registered
Jews for Jesus is a creation of this century alone.Not true! There have been "Jews for Jesus" ever since New Testament times. As promised by God in the OT, there will always be a remnant (subset) of the Jewish population who are the "true Israel." Before the Advent of Christ, there were a remnant of Jews who's hearts were right with God, and since Jesus' crucifixion/resurrection the "remnant" has been maintained in the way of Messianic Jews! Jews identifying with JFJ's organization is only a portion of today's Messianic Jews.

Unregistered

01-31-2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Let me close with this scenario for you to ponder on: You and I wind up seated next to one another on a 3-hour plane flight. I'm not saved. In conversing, you share the gospel with me. I am convicted in the heart, repent of my sins and ask Jesus to come into my life and be my Lord and Savior, acknowledging that God raised Him from the dead, aloud to you. A few minutes later our airplane experiences mechanical problems and we crash and die. Do I join you in heaven? Or do I go to the "other place" because I didn't have the opportunity to get baptized? As you ponder this question, ponder also the following:

"That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." -- Rom 10:9-10

Was I lacking any of these when the plane crash took my life? Was I not justified the moment I believed? Do justified believers go to hell? :confused:

Let me just close by stating that my scriptural references no less clearly defined the need for obedience through baptism than yours as to the necessity of faith.

As for your scenario, I believe I have already indirectly displayed my beliefs on this matter in one of my replies to another poster.  But to specify here as well, I am not a promoter of a "waterworks" plan of salvation.  If indeed salvation is solely determined by a "dunking," then yes you might be in spiritual jeopardy if the plane crashed.  Since our salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, however, the plane crash alone would not keep you from living at home with God.  Like I've said before, I believe baptism is a response of faith required of us by our Lord.  I don't believe that is it our perogative to refuse to be immersed.  But I also don't believe that God Himself is looking from above with stopwatch in hand!  Again, if one has genuinely believed the gospel message and has sincerely chosen in their heart and mind to commit themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and they are intent upon submitting to baptism in obedience to His will, but die prior to that immersion due to circumstances beyond their control, then I have no doubt in my mind that God will judge the intent of their heart as sufficient unto salvation. Hence, the reference to Abraham in my aforementioned post.  I hope that this clears up my beliefs on this matter for you.

And since we're using such a method to end our discussion on this matter, please consider this scenario which will hopefully bring some clarity, beyond that which is readily available from the pages of the New Testament, to your understanding of my stance on the need for baptism:

Suppose I place a million dollars in a bank in your name and then inform you of this fact and tell you it is a gift from me to you, and that you don't need to work for me to earn it. It's free! I then inform you as to the conditions for accessing this GIFT. You must go down to the bank next Wednesday at 4 p.m. and see the Vice-President who will have a simple release form for you to sign which transfers the money over to you. Will you comply with these conditions? If you don't will you be able to draw from those funds? And most importantly: is complying with these conditions a work which merits or earns the million dollars?

eyesee

01-31-2003, 12:12 PM

Thank each of you so much for this opportunity to defend my beliefs on spiritual matters in such a way as to not be attacked, edited, nor persecuted in any way. We are so blessed to be able to engage in such wonderful discussions. Thank you ClieSource for the venue to speak of things which are far more important than in innerworkings of our PDA's, and I wish the best for this website in the future. I look forward to other opportunities to hear from each of you and to speak further about anything, already mentioned or not, in our pursuit of heaven.

God bless and have a wonderful weekend!

wellsjs

01-31-2003, 12:41 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered
Suppose I place a million dollars in a bank in your nameI like that idea! :D But suppose I died on the way to the bank . . . could my son come in my place? Oh, never mind! :D It's been a great discussion and I think we may be closer than it seems or was articulated on this matter. I like your "plane crash" response better than the last time I posed that question and was told I would miss out on heaven because I had not been dunked! :( God bless!

P.S. And thanks to the moderator for not shutting down our seminary! :D

duxxyuk

02-04-2003, 09:05 AM

I found one of the many HTML bibles on the internet.

I then pulled out my copy of Plucker, directed it at the site then asked plucker to convert it for my palm er Clié.

It takes just over 2 mbytes but hey, it is a full linked up version of the bible with all the chapters and subsections hyperlinked.

pae

02-04-2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by duxxyuk
I found one of the many HTML bibles on the internet.

I then pulled out my copy of Plucker, directed it at the site then asked plucker to convert it for my palm er Clié.

It takes just over 2 mbytes but hey, it is a full linked up version of the bible with all the chapters and subsections hyperlinked.

Sounds cool. I've done the same for many public domain Bible study works (Hebrew Greek Dictionaries etc.).

Out of interest which url did you use. I'd be interested in checking it out (I realise there's many out there).

Thanks
Paul

duxxyuk

02-04-2003, 09:11 AM

Sorry guys, Had no idea the thread had gone _way_ off topic.

All this debate!?.... another demonstration of how interesting the bible is.

I don't want to spark a firestorm but I thank god for giving us such a powerful tool for debate and reasoning.

duxxyuk

02-04-2003, 09:14 AM

Hi Pae,

I think I found it over at http://www.htmlbible.com/#free

Regards,

D

Unregistered

08-04-2003, 06:58 PM

I bought the NIV version from Palm Digital Media because it was only $11 and the reader is free- as I guess Olive tree and others are.

The only thing that I am finding is that it won't search on text for you like the other Bible readers do. Am I missing something?

Is it possible to run this NIV versin off of a different reader and if so HOW?

Thanks!! Anne

LanMan

08-05-2003, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered
I bought the NIV version from Palm Digital Media because it was only $11 and the reader is free- as I guess Olive tree and others are.

The only thing that I am finding is that it won't search on text for you like the other Bible readers do. Am I missing something?

Is it possible to run this NIV versin off of a different reader and if so HOW?

Thanks!! Anne

I don't think so, Anne. Palm Digital Media has their own proprietary format that doesn't work with other readers. It's a security feature.

eyesee

08-05-2003, 09:06 AM

Wow! :)

It's been a while since I've seen this thread on the homepage!!  I really enjoy having discussions like this one.

If you're reading, how have you been wellsjs?  You were a tremendous aide to my study habits those last few months of my externship.  Now I'm practicing and life seems so busy! :rolleyes:

Anyway, just to keep this relatively on topic... what new ways are you all using your Clies for Bible study these days?  Any new study aides or products?  My NX70 is currently decked out with Bible With You products, which I absolutely love, but I'm always looking for exciting new things :)

Have a great day, everyone!

wellsjs

08-05-2003, 11:04 AM

eyesee,

Greetings! I also am "decked out with Bible With You products!" Super app and great support from our UK friends. Joan is awesome!

Well, I do my daily Bible reading (Gideon plan) in BWY using the NASB. I have references, Strongs, and Concordance With You to assist my inquiries. When I want to refer to someone's commentary, I hop over to BibleThumper where I can see what Gill, JFB, Wesley, etc. have to say about a verse/passage.

During my church adult Bible study ("Sunday School" to us Southern Baptists) I use the concordance to search stuff based on questions. My study class thinks I'm wiser than I really am! :eek:

I also use my hard bound MacArthur Study Bible in church now (it's NKJV) because his commentary is great. But our pastor preaches from the NIV, so with my MSB open on my lap and PDA in hand using Asaisoft's NIV, I can follow the pastoral references, see what MacArthur has to say about it, and best of all, be led by the Holy Spirit:

"By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." (1 John 4:6b)

In Christ,

eyesee

08-05-2003, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
I also use my hard bound MacArthur Study Bible in church now (it's NKJV) because his commentary is great. But our pastor preaches from the NIV, so with my MSB open on my lap and PDA in hand using Asaisoft's NIV, I can follow the pastoral references, see what MacArthur has to say about it, and best of all, be led by the Holy Spirit:

Ha ha!  Sounds like what you need is another hand :D

Ipastor

08-05-2003, 04:07 PM

I, too, want to thank all of participants of this discussion for the insightful commentaries. It truly is good to be able to discuss our views openly and to learn about each other. While I tend to agree with wellsjs on his views I do appreciate hearing from all.
God bless!

LanMan

08-06-2003, 09:48 AM

I thought that I would let you know that Olivetree has released a new "ebook" beta, called The Gospel. You can find it on the BibleR+ beta page:

http://www.olivetree12.com/beta

Scroll about half-way down to the The Gospel link, or simply click below:

http://www.olivetree12.com/beta/TheGospel.pdb

This works with the OT Bible reader, and has hyperlinks to various verses. This is only a sample ebook, and is very short and limited. It's only intended to test the hyperlink function. I believe that you must use BibleR+ v3.50d217 in order to test this. I keep TheGospel.pdb in RAM because it's only 2k, but I have my Bible's on MS. I believe that the best way to test the hyperlink function is to open TheGospel, and the do a /W to split the screen with a Bible in the bottom screen. Then tap on link in TheGospel to see it in the split screen below.

There is also an ebook .Zip called Andrew Murray on the beta page, but I haven't been able to get it to work yet. I get a Fatal Exception when I try to launch one of it's .pdb's.

FYI, I love Olivetree, and the faithful work that they do.

BibleR+ future releases:

Stage 2 - Future

*eBook format for large commentaries like Wuest and JFB, Matthew Henry
*Search notes - future

[Jett]-Mallize

08-06-2003, 09:54 AM

eyesee, are you from KY? i'm from louisville originally...

wellsjs

08-06-2003, 12:41 PM

eyesee's "UK" stands for United Kingdom!

MikeD

10-13-2003, 11:54 PM

I just downloaded olive Tree's reader and think it's great.. But, I was wondering if there was a free version of the NAB version of the bible available somewhere that was compatible with the olive tree reader...

Mike

Ambassador

10-14-2003, 10:25 AM

The new version of the OliveTree reader has split screen and color setup for identifying your different Bible or commentary versions. Very cool! I would also like to see them do a "Red letter" edition as well. Also, the search tool is great. One has to admit that you can't beat carring around the most ancient book in history in this little electronic device!! Blessings to you all!

eyesee

10-14-2003, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by [Jett]-Mallize
eyesee, are you from KY? i'm from louisville originally...

Actually I am from KY... I've been in Memphis for the past few years, but I'm finally back in the Bluegrass :D

MikeD

10-14-2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Ambassador
..."Red letter" edition as well.

What would a Red Letter edition have? Also, does anyone know where I can find an Olive Tree compat NAB edition of the Bible?

Mike

Unregistered

10-14-2003, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by MikeD

What would a Red Letter edition have? Also, does anyone know where I can find an Olive Tree compat NAB edition of the Bible?

Mike

I think he's speaking of a "words of Christ in red" feature.

I'm unsure as to your second question, though.

eyesee

10-14-2003, 11:31 AM

Sorry, the above was me...

I never can escape the automatic logging-out bug around here.  I haven't had this happen yet over at PalmOneCity, so maybe the future server upgrade will solve it here as well :rolleyes:

riversen

10-14-2003, 11:37 AM

I have used BibleReader+ and liked it; however, Bible With Me has the words of Christ in Read and the chapter breaks if you haven't had a chance to check that one out. It is a very nice and quick program.

Ambassador

10-14-2003, 11:42 AM

So where can one obtain "Bible with Me", and how much does it cost?

wellsjs

10-14-2003, 12:06 PM

Actually it's Bible With You @

www.gmpsoft.com

Pricing based on your needs/what you buy!

Ambassador

10-14-2003, 12:09 PM

That's what I thought. Tanks man!

riversen

10-14-2003, 12:39 PM

Oops... sorry about that. If I had actually looked at my PDA, I would have avoided that. I hope you like it, even if I cannot recall its correct name. :) You try it for free, which is nice and allows you to test it and see if you will like it. Enjoy and blessings!

wellsjs

10-14-2003, 04:28 PM

If one really wants to experience the power of Bible With You, I recommend installing the following and taking it for a spin:

NASB w/Strongs
NAS Exhaustive Concordance Dictionary
Bible References NASB
Bible Concordance With You NASB

The downloads will all work together in "trial mode" but with nag screens to register at every "jump." Just imagine what you are able to do and how great the linking of references are in their own window, without the nag screens. BWY is awesome! ;)

MikeD

10-14-2003, 07:18 PM

Is the NASB the same thing as the NAB?

Rick 098

10-14-2003, 07:32 PM

I use olivetree with the KJV.

Look up isah 6.

I am saved by the blood of the lamb.

riversen

10-14-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Rick 098
I use olivetree with the KJV.

Look up isah 6.

I am saved by the blood of the lamb.

If you read Is. 6, then tie it in with John 12:41... an awesome Scripture. To Him be all glory and honor forever.

wellsjs

10-14-2003, 09:35 PM

Originally posted by MikeD
Is the NASB the same thing as the NAB? About as far apart as you can get :eek:

NAB = New American Bible - contains the apocryphal books and is a Catholic Bible.

NASB = New American Standard Bible - Does not contain the apocryphal books and primarily used by Protestants. It is considered by many (i.e. John MacArthur) to be the most accurate word-for-word translation available, although it is less easy to understand than the NIV or NLT.

Hope this helps! ;)

MikeD

10-14-2003, 10:29 PM

Thanks for clearing that up for me... I was lost with all the different translations.. Does anyone know where I can find the NAB online for the Olive Tree reader. On Olive Tree's site, it was about $30!

Mike

eyesee

10-14-2003, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Rick 098
Look up isah 6.

I am saved by the blood of the lamb.

Good reading, indeed.  How we should long to have a living faith in Him!  How we should long to be buried in the likeness of His death and raised in the likeness of His resurrection!  How exciting that that very blood can reach me if I only allow it!

It's a shame that the Bible is full of stuff that often goes unnoticed, overlooked, and forgotten... even by those who by all appearances seem to be very religious individuals :(

How refreshing that Jesus died for all of us! :D

wellsjs

10-14-2003, 11:33 PM

I'm forgiven because you were forsaken
I'm accepted, you were condemned
I'm alive and well your spirit is within me
because, you died and rose again

Amazing love, how can it be
That you, my king, would die for me
Amazing love, I know it's true
And it's my joy to honor you
In all I do, I honor you

You are my king
You are my king
Jesus, you are my king
you are my king

:) :) :)

LanMan

10-16-2003, 11:52 AM

Man, it is great to have those vested in the Word here!

Thanks for all the wonderful input that I have seen over the years! The Bible was one of my primary reasons for using a PDA.

MikeD

10-16-2003, 01:19 PM

I guess there is no NAB version for the palm pilot :(

riversen

10-16-2003, 01:31 PM

Check with Bible With You and OliveTree...

www.olivetree.com ... They have it:

http://www.olivetree.com/handheld/products/NAB/index.html

www.gmpsoft.com ... They do not... sorry.

They may have something that you can use.

wellsjs

10-16-2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by MikeD
Thanks for clearing that up for me... I was lost with all the different translations.. Does anyone know where I can find the NAB online for the Olive Tree reader. On Olive Tree's site, it was about $30!

Mike All Bible readers are proprietary. You will not find the NAB for OliveTree legally anywhere else.

wellsjs

10-16-2003, 03:35 PM

Mike,

As an alternative, there is a free:

Douay-Rheims Version (DRV) (Catholic - 73 Books)

@ www.asaisoft.com

Blessings,
John

MikeD

10-16-2003, 08:31 PM

Ohh.. I thought that the different bible files could be used with the different readers so it was a matter of which reader you liked the best and then use that for your bible file...

wellsjs

10-16-2003, 10:53 PM

Would be nice, but doesn't work that way! ;) Bible+ is a spinoff of Asaisoft's BibleReader, but those are the only "cross-pollenating" Bible apps.

MikeD

10-16-2003, 11:16 PM

Do you guys think that $30 for the NAB version is reasonable or a bit overpriced?

riversen

10-17-2003, 01:42 AM

Looking back on it, I don't. I say this because they have to pay the royalties to the publishers, while covering their costs for making it available in a software form (application and the database) needs to be covered. Now I wish they would offer a discount for multiple purchases.

wellsjs

10-17-2003, 07:11 AM

If you really plan to be in it daily (as I am with my several Bible apps) for devotions and God communicating with you through His Holy Word, how do you put any price on that? ;)

MikeD

10-17-2003, 07:49 AM

It's just that you would think that it would be cheaper than the print edition that's all. Sorta like the whole CD and tape thing... Cd's were supposed to be cheaper this whole time (part of initial marketing - Digital, cheaper to produce than tapes etc...) But was that ever the case? I think I'll need the print version though to save money (a little bit tight right now).

LanMan

10-17-2003, 08:34 AM

Craig Rairdin of Laridian (MyBible) has offered many reasons why eBibles cost as much as they do over at BelieverPUG. You might try searching some of his past messages for cost justification:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BelieverPUG

LanMan

10-17-2003, 03:01 PM

BTW: Olivetree has a new release out:

http://www.olivetree.com/beta

Palm OS d281

- Fix for Treo 90 support
- Sony Silk Screen fixes and an option to enable/disable on the Options>Preferences>Display screen.
- Search screen list is in color and bolds the hits.
- Fix in verse chooser options and tap scrolling.

Augusta F4 SPR

03-23-2004, 05:43 PM

wellsjs

03-23-2004, 10:11 PM

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9

and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved . . .” -- Acts 16:30-31

Augusta F4 SPR

03-24-2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by wellsjs
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9

and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved . . .” -- Acts 16:30-31

I gues I am still unclear on this. Are you saying, by your quotes above, that grace, faith, and belief are the same thing. I still don't see where it says faith alone. I do read that we are saved by grace alone, so from beginning to end it is a gift of God, and as with any gift, there is nothing we need to do to get it. But once we get the gift of grace, we have to do something with it, that is where works come in.

So in a earlier post where you quoted Jn. 6:63 " It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." My Lord says that the words he has spoken are spirit and life, and what words were those

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever. - Jn. 6:53-58

Question: If we believe that His words are spirit and life but we don't DO what those words say, then are we really believing His words?

In the Blood of the Lamb,

Augusta F4 SPR

Ambassador

03-24-2004, 10:47 AM

Let me ask you Augusta, what don't you believe? Because true faith produces works! That's what James wrote in his epistle. I'm confused at what your trying to get at!

Eric

wellsjs

03-24-2004, 11:14 AM

That is exactly why Paulinean theology and James' theology do not clash (as some would argue) but are, as with all of the Bible, in perfect harmony. They just come from a different focus.

You do see where it says, "not as a result of works" I hope? Grace, by definitionl, is unmerited favor. Unmerited means you cannot earn it. Revelation 21:6 and 22:17 tells us that Jesus will give "to the one who thirsts . . . water of life without cost." Therefore, salvation is unmerited and costs us nothing (we do nothing for it). However, and as you point out, real belief (saving faith) produces "good deeds/works" and is the evidence of one having received the "water of life" (salvation), not the means to attain it! That's why James rightly proclaims that "faith without works is dead." Works is merely the evidence of saving faith. In John 14:15,23 we find that true faith produces genuine love which produces the keeping of commandments/word, which involves "works." But which came first? Saving faith must take place before genuine love of God/Jesus happens, and then "good works" will be the product.

Without grace producing saving faith first, Psalm 14:1,3, 53:1,3 says "there is no one who does good, not even one." Isaiah 64:6 says "all our righteous acts are like filthy rags," so it is only when the intent of our heart is changed to desire to glorify God by our actions that He counts them as righteous, and THAT ONLY COMES AFTER SALVATION! So it appears to me that you and I agree in principal, if not exactly to the letter on this matter! :)

Augusta F4 SPR

03-24-2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Ambassador
Let me ask you Augusta, what don't you believe? Because true faith produces works! That's what James wrote in his epistle. I'm confused at what your trying to get at!

Eric

Sorry for the confusion Eric. I understand. Here is what I don't believe: we are saved by faith alone. I don't believe that because for 1.5 millenia it wasn't taught, it's not a Biblical doctrine. It was only after the reformation that this doctrine came to light. It has always been faith + the obedience of faith (or works) that one is saved by. And here is what I believe: we are saved by grace alone.

That is what I was trying to get at with the quote from wellsjs from Jn. 6. The context that the quotation was offered seemed to suggest that only faith was needed and not works. I only tried to show that that is not the case based on the context of Jn. 6.

Hope this helps.

Ambassador

03-24-2004, 12:46 PM

Well Augusta, I'm in the same camp as Wellsjs. If that differs from your stance, I presume one day we will ALL know without any doubts! :) But just for clarity sake, what denomination of the faith do you practice?

Let me ask you to go and read Romans 10:9,10,13. And then, ask, how does that speak to you? Does that mean we must work our way into heaven? I don't believe so. Faith is given by the good graces of God, by believing in Christs atoning work on the cross alone, period. By that, I mean, Jesus Christs life, death, and ressurection. It's Not by ANYTHING I/we can perform.

Now let me submit to you the thief on the cross, do you think he had any chance to produce good works to be in paradise after he made his confession? I don't believe so again.

Augusta F4 SPR

03-24-2004, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Ambassador
Well Augusta, I'm in the same camp as Wellsjs. If that differs from your stance, I presume one day we will ALL know without any doubts! :) But just for clarity sake, what denomination of the faith do you practice?

Let me ask you to go and read Romans 10:9,10,13. And then, ask, how does that speak to you? Does that mean we must work our way into heaven? I don't believe so. Faith is given by the good graces of God, by believing in Christs atoning work on the cross alone, period. By that, I mean, Jesus Christs life, death, and ressurection. It's Not by ANYTHING I/we can perform.

Now let me submit to you the thief on the cross, do you think he had any chance to produce good works to be in paradise after he made his confession? I don't believe so again.

I don't belong to any denomination, I am Catholic.

As far as working ourselves to heaven, it can't be done. Like I said in my previous post, from begining to end it's God's grace. Our conciliar documents are very clear and plain, especially the Council of Trent, there is nothing that we can do APART from grace that will merit eternal life. But there is plenty we can merit by what we do THROUGH the grace of God. Pheneas in the OT ran a spear through the genitals of a man and a woman that were in the act of adultery and kill them (I think, I don't remember the exact details), and the scripture is very clear in saying, "and that was credited to him as righteousness". (I apologize for the lack of reference, I couldn't find it...hey I am Catholic ;)) So this action (work) this man did merited him righteousness, but only because he was being obedient to his faith. That is what we mean by faith + works increase merit.

The other problem with the faith alone doctrine is that it condemns a lot of people without them ever having a chance. Per wellsjs comment ...
However, and as you point out, real belief (saving faith) produces "good deeds/works" and is the evidence of one having received the "water of life" (salvation), not the means to attain it! That's why James rightly proclaims that "faith without works is dead." Works is merely the evidence of saving faith.

The aborigenee in Australia that will never hear about Jesus and whom he can't believe in, is condemed because any good work he does, since he hasn't received salvation through faith alone, won't merit him anything. So basically, our God who is love has created people in the world without ever giving them a chance to get to heaven. Or what about all the people with Down syndrome that can't have faith in Christ, do their good works go unseen by our heavenly Father, and do they not merit favor with our heavenly Father for ACTING on the law that is written in their hearts.

In the Blood of the Lamb,

Augusta

Augusta F4 SPR

03-24-2004, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Ambassador
Now let me submit to you the thief on the cross, do you think he had any chance to produce good works to be in paradise after he made his confession? I don't believe so again. [/B]

Oh, and by the way, you suggestion of the thief on the cross is flawed. It makes the assumption that because the thief can't perform a good work that good works are then unnecessary. That is eisegesis, puting an idea into the text that simply isn't there.

In the Blood of the Lamb,

Augusta

wellsjs

03-24-2004, 08:17 PM

Augusta,

You did not respond to the scriptures I gave you, in particular "living water without cost."

Here's a couple more that give your position an extremely difficult stance:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. -- John 5:24

Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” -- John 6:28-29

And please refrain from referring to the "doctrines of man" (Council of Trent, etc.). The only ones that matter are the doctrines of God!

On the "thief on the cross," you stopped in the middle of your analogy! You said, "It makes the assumption that because the thief can't perform a good work that good works are then unnecessary." OK then, since the thief never performed any good works, but the penitent thief’s prayer reflected his belief that the soul lives on after death; that Christ had a right to rule over a kingdom of the souls of men; and that He would soon enter that kingdom despite His impending death. His request to be remembered was a plea for mercy, which also reveals that the thief understood he had no hope but divine grace, and that the dispensing of that grace lay in Jesus’ power. All of this demonstrates true faith on the part of the dying thief, and Christ graciously affirmed the man’s salvation based on that and that alone!

Augusta F4 SPR

03-24-2004, 10:56 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Augusta,

You did not respond to the scriptures I gave you, in particular "living water without cost."

Actually wellsjs I did, I just refrased it to this: "From beginning to end is the grace of God." So I agree with you on this, Grace is given by God for free (i.e. no cost)

Originally posted by wellsjs Here's a couple more that give your position an extremely difficult stance:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. -- John 5:24

Really. Already singing victory. Let's see if I can make an accurate comparison

You - Faith Alone = I truly believe his word therefore I am saved
Me - Faith + obedience of faith = I believe his word therefore I must DO what I believe to be saved.

Example: I love my wife and I believe I love her very much. Following your doctrine, the only thing I need is belief that I love her, I need not DO anything to SHOW her that I do. Believing is enough.

Originally posted by wellsjs Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” -- John 6:28-29

Ok, then proove that you believe this without doing anything, because with this statement he was preparing the Jews for what he wanted them to believe, namely that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. The ball is in your court, not that I or anyone else other than Christ put it there. Do you believe that the work of God is believing in whom he sent? If you do, then how it is that you believe that your eat his flesh and drink his blood without doing it?

Originally posted by wellsjs And please refrain from referring to the "doctrines of man" (Council of Trent, etc.). The only ones that matter are the doctrines of God!

Have you actually read Trent or any of the other official Catholic documents we have? If yes, then great, what part in them you find questionable. If not, then why reject them if you don't even know what they contain. I mean you don't reject Charles Stanley's Baptist Church of Atlanta statement of faith. Is that a doctrine of God? Prove it. Do you automatically reject your pastor when he teaches something he learned from a scholar? After all he is a fallible man. And if you reject things he teaches, then what is your authority for claiming that only your interpretation is right?

For your own information and edification, here is what Trend said about justification. You will notice that the Catholic Church doesn't teach that we merit unto justification or salvation.

SESSION 6 CHAPTER VIII

HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

Originally posted by wellsjs On the "thief on the cross," you stopped in the middle of your analogy! You said, "It makes the assumption that because the thief can't perform a good work that good works are then unnecessary." OK then, since the thief never performed any good works, but the penitent thief’s prayer reflected his belief that the soul lives on after death; that Christ had a right to rule over a kingdom of the souls of men; and that He would soon enter that kingdom despite His impending death. His request to be remembered was a plea for mercy, which also reveals that the thief understood he had no hope but divine grace, and that the dispensing of that grace lay in Jesus’ power. All of this demonstrates true faith on the part of the dying thief, and Christ graciously affirmed the man’s salvation based on that and that alone!

You are correct, but the fact that Christ can dispense His grace in whichever way and manner he wants to a repentent sinner, being God, doesn't automatically negate the possibility that other ways of obtaining grace are available, like good works done through grace. Consider the example I mentioned earlier about Pheneas where the act of him killing a man and a woman earned him an everlasting priesthood (Nu. 25:7-13) and Ps. 106:30 calls his act an intercesion.

I need to rest. Have yourself a good night.

In the Blood of the Lamb,

Augusta

Augusta F4 SPR

03-24-2004, 11:31 PM

BTW, if I don't respond in the next few days it's because I'll be in a weekend long retreat. Tomorrow I have to final preparations for that because we start on Fri. evening. So I won't have time to look at this thread until Mon.

Have a blessed weekend everyone.

Augusta

wellsjs

03-25-2004, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Augusta F4 SPR
Let's see if I can make an accurate comparison

You - Faith Alone = I truly believe his word therefore I am saved
Me - Faith + obedience of faith = I believe his word therefore I must DO what I believe to be saved.

Example: I love my wife and I believe I love her very much. Following your doctrine, the only thing I need is belief that I love her, I need not DO anything to SHOW her that I do. Believing is enough.

Ok, then proove that you believe this without doing anything, because with this statement he was preparing the Jews for what he wanted them to believe, namely that they needed to eat his flesh and drink his blood to have eternal life. The ball is in your court, not that I or anyone else other than Christ put it there. Do you believe that the work of God is believing in whom he sent? If you do, then how it is that you believe that your eat his flesh and drink his blood without doing it?

Have you actually read Trent or any of the other official Catholic documents we have? If yes, then great, what part in them you find questionable.

You are correct, but the fact that Christ can dispense His grace in whichever way and manner he wants to a repentent sinner, being God, doesn't automatically negate the possibility that other ways of obtaining grace are available, like good works done through grace.Actually, no you do not make an accurate comparison. How about:

Me - Faith Alone (given to me by grace) = salvation = Good deeds, which are done because I am saved and as evidence that I am saved. (see Jesus' teachings on "bearing fruit/good tree-bad tree")
You - Faith + obedience of faith = I believe his word therefore I must DO what I believe to be saved.

It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh (which includes works) is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6:63 (RSV)

You never commented on the very important scripture I gave that says “all our deeds are filthy rags” when we do them in the flesh. When do we stop doing deeds in the flesh and start doing them in the spirit? When the “spirit gives life (salvation)!” If you aren’t saved, your deeds are filthy rags in God’s eyes, completely debunking the notion that you must work to earn your salvation through good deeds.

Again, using your example, the reason you show your wife that you love her is that you actually do. It’s evidence that you love her. I doubt that you would do the “acts of love” for very long if you didn’t love her. Again, your deeds are evidence. Did you start showing her that you love her before you started loving her? :eek: The action (deeds/works) came after the event (love) took place in your heart. The action (deeds/works) come after the event (salvation) takes place in our hearts also! ;)

"To the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" -- Romans 4:5

Not that the believer does not work at all, but that he does not work in order to obtain life and salvation (water of life without cost), and he does not seek justification by doing. And once again:

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9

I see here you using human reasoning and emotionalism to appeal your case, whereas I am using scripture. I have given you very clear and easy to understand scripture. Please pick some of them apart word by word and explain that they mean what you claim, which is completely contrary to the plain understanding that they convey.

Finally, yes I have read a good deal of Catholic documents. What do I find questionable? #21 in the following list, your Council of Trent declared "tradition has equal authority with God's written Word." Completely unbiblical! That's the only way they could justify all the other heresies on this list:

1. Prayers for the dead .....300 A.D.
2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 A.D.
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D
4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431 AD.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 A.D.
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 A.D.
10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 A.D.
11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary .....1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences .....1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation-Innocent III .....1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 A.D.
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma .....1439 A.D.
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 A.D.
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent.....1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary .....1854 A.D.
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 A.D.
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church .....1965 A.D.

Now this could easily be construed as "Catholic bashing" on my part, which is not in my heart at all. My heart's desire is for the Catholic faith to become Christ-focused/centered and not church-focused/centered, and follow sound, biblical teaching rather than man-made dogma.

Augusta F4 SPR

03-25-2004, 11:38 AM

I decided to take some time and address some of these.

Originally posted by wellsjs
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh (which includes works) is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6:63 (RSV)

Great, what words are those? And do you do what those words say?

Originally posted by wellsjs You never commented on the very important scripture I gave that says “all our deeds are filthy rags” when we do them in the flesh.

You know, I'd recommed that you go back and read my posts before these ones. I did address it. It seems to me that after your learned that I am Catholic you skim through my messages looking for things to attack and overlook the explanations I have given since, you keep asking that I repeat myself. If you won't read what I have written before, then I won't repeat myself again. Here is what I wrote in a prior post, please read it and tell me if it doesn't say the same thing you wrote ...As far as working ourselves to heaven, it can't be done. Like I said in my previous post, from begining to end it's God's grace. Our conciliar documents are very clear and plain, especially the Council of Trent, there is nothing that we can do APART from grace that will merit eternal life. But there is plenty we can merit by what we do THROUGH the grace of God.

Originally posted by wellsjs When do we stop doing deeds in the flesh and start doing them in the spirit? When the “spirit gives life (salvation)!” If you aren’t saved, your deeds are filthy rags in God’s eyes, completely debunking the notion that you must work to earn your salvation through good deeds.

Then I say that your notion condems those that have never or will never hear about Christ to accept him through faith in Him. Thus, implying that God's Mercy is not infite, since he created people in the world that have no chance of getting saved and then condeming them for not accepting Christ.

Originally posted by wellsjs For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. -- Ephesians 2:8-9

How convinient, why didn't you include v.10 which says "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
The good works Paul mentions here are the result in us of the grace given by the Holy Spirit indwelling in us. That is why the Catholic Church teaches that good works are meritorius because it is God who WORKS IN US through GRACE. So what we could do through our own power CANNOT merit anything, it is only those works God does in us, but with which we cooperate, that can merit.

Originally posted by wellsjs I see here you using human reasoning and emotionalism to appeal your case, whereas I am using scripture. I have given you very clear and easy to understand scripture. Please pick some of them apart word by word and explain that they mean what you claim, which is completely contrary to the plain understanding that they convey.

Well, unless you poses the oracles of God and are what you are writing, aren't you doing the same? You offer your scriptures to support your point and then you explain in your own words what the scripture means to you. Do you not use human reasoning? or do you poses Devine Reasoning? I have also given you scriptures and you have also overlooked them. I believe I have addressed some of your "clear and easy" scriptures in my posts. Same applies to you. Address for us here the scriptures I asked before in Jn. 6.

Originally posted by wellsjs Finally, yes I have read a good deal of Catholic documents. What do I find questionable? #21 in the following list, your Council of Trent declared "tradition has equal authority with God's written Word." Completely unbiblical! That's the only way they could justify all the other heresies on this list:

22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 A.D.

First of all, what authority do you poses to call anything heresy? Is heresy anythying that doesn't conform to your personal interpretation of scripture? If that is the case I can come up with a similar list of Protestant doctrines. I think you are displaying a double standard as well. Because you belive that the Holy Spirit guides you to the interpretation of the Bible. So basically, it is you, the Bible, and the Holy Spirit. Under that system I am as entitled to my interpretation as you are to yours. And by the nature of that system, the most you can do is to say you disagree with something, but you have no more authority that another to judge anything to be heresy. So don't just call our doctrines heresy just because you don't accept them. In other words, don't lable me a heretic just because I am Catholic.

Second, I'd like to challenge you to proove #22 above. I selected this one because I know that you are very knowlegable of the Scritures and manuscripts. Bring up the documents of Trent to proove to all here the claim you have made. For me as a Catholic, the only thing I have to show is that there were catholic bibles before Trent with what you call the apocrypha included, which we call the deuterocanonical books. But I'd be willing to go further and show that it was Luther the one that took the books out, in addition to others from the NT. If you accept the challenge, then produce the proof, if you can't accept the challenge, then recant of your claim.

Originally posted by wellsjs Now this could easily be construed as "Catholic bashing" on my part, which is not in my heart at all. My heart's desire is for the Catholic faith to become Christ-focused/centered and not church-focused/centered, and follow sound, biblical teaching rather than man-made dogma.

Again, the only bashing is in your calling our doctrines heresy when you have not the authority to make such claims. As for the list, I don't see it as bashing. You have legitimate problems with those doctrines and it is only fair that you state your position. But from stating your position to calling us heretics, just because we are Catholic, especially coming from a system of belief that is very accepting of other interpretations (no protestant seems to have a problem with the constant splitting of their churches into more denominations). That strikes me of prejudice. That may not be what is in your heart, but that is how your statemenst have come across.

God Bless you.

In the Blood of the Lamb,

Augusta

Ambassador

03-25-2004, 02:24 PM

Augusta,

So with all this being said, are you saying that Jesus Christ is our example in how to live this life of faith?

And the most important question, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior?

Eric

Unregistered

03-25-2004, 04:14 PM

Don't mean to intrude on this conversation but...

I am not an appologist, (in fact, I make a lousy one) but I have a few comments to make...

First of all, Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour to all - believers or not, professed or not, baptized or not, Catholic or not, Mormon or not, Jew, Pagan, Buddhist, Muslim...

And, Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Now, "Whoever want's to be my disciple must take up his cross and follow me". Being His disciple is not easy. I would assume that
if someone wanted to be His disciple, he would already have faith, correct? Then why would he need to "take up his cross"? (An act)

I believe the problem most Catholics have with the faith-only belief is that it suggests, as long as we believe in (have faith in) Jesus, we can do whatever we want (acts: good or bad). Or that, now being Christian, we will automatically (with grace, of course) produce good acts.

I was brought up Catholic and fell into the occult in my early 20s. Then I came back to Christ - meaning, I accepted that He is the One true God, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

However, even after coming back to Christ, I was drawn to a disorderly life (because of my human nature). Sure, I'd perform acts of love (through the grace of God), but would continue to be drawn to "the things of the flesh" (drinking, etc.). At times my faith in God was very shaken, and at times, I'd completely fall away again.

Please tell me, was I still saved? I tell you, that during the days I was drawn, and fell into, disorderly living, I felt very far from the grace of God (a personal conception? - argumentive, I suppose). And had I continued in this manner, I believe, I would not have been saved (had I died at that moment).

What is the need to "run the great race", to try to "win a crown that doesn't wither" if we are already saved by faith? Running is an action is it not?

I am not trying to convict anyone here, I have a genuine interest in a non-Catholic opinion as I've had very few conversations with any.

Thank you.

PS - These topics should definately be moved

God's Peace Be Upon You All!
- God's humble servant

Augusta F4 SPR

03-25-2004, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Ambassador
Augusta,

So with all this being said, are you saying that Jesus Christ is our example in how to live this life of faith?

He would be the perfect example of how to live this life of faith. And there have been men and women that have lived that kind of life in the past.

Originally posted by Ambassador And the most important question, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and savior?

Eric

Yes, last Sunday, and the one before that, and the one before that, etc., as I will this coming Sun. Then again I accept Him everyday.

Have you??

God Blessy you.

Augusta

Augusta F4 SPR

03-25-2004, 04:59 PM

I am signing off for the weekend. I will check this thread again on Mon.

Have a Blessed weekend everyone.

Augusta

wellsjs

03-25-2004, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh (which includes works) is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6:63 (RSV)

Augusta: “Great, what words are those? And do you do what those words say?”

Those are the words of Jesus. I can’t see that those words direct me to do anything? :confused:

Originally posted by wellsjs You never commented on the very important scripture I gave that says “all our deeds are filthy rags” when we do them in the flesh.

Augusta: “You know, I'd recommed that you go back and read my posts before these ones. I did address it. It seems to me that after your learned that I am Catholic you skim through my messages looking for things to attack and overlook the explanations I have given since, you keep asking that I repeat myself. If you won't read what I have written before, then I won't repeat myself again. Here is what I wrote in a prior post, please read it and tell me if it doesn't say the same thing you wrote ... (snip) there is nothing that we can do APART from grace that will merit eternal life. But there is plenty we can merit by what we do THROUGH the grace of God.”

And what we do THROUGH the grace of God is for His glory and has nothing to do with still trying to earn what has already been given to us. If your take is that we are daily earning our salvation then you deny the sufficiency of Jesus’ finished work on the cross. He even said, “It is finished.” -- John 19:30

Originally posted by wellsjs When do we stop doing deeds in the flesh and start doing them in the spirit? When the “spirit gives life (salvation)!” If you aren’t saved, your deeds are filthy rags in God’s eyes, completely debunking the notion that you must work to earn your salvation through good deeds.

Augusta: “Then I say that your notion condems those that have never or will never hear about Christ to accept him through faith in Him. Thus, implying that God's Mercy is not infite, since he created people in the world that have no chance of getting saved and then condeming them for not accepting Christ.”

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be required” – Luke 12:48 Each individual is judged based on the knowledge given him. Obviously, the OT saints knew nothing of Jesus Christ, but they did place their hope in the prophesied Messiah.

“All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.” – John 6:37 You do believe Jesus’ promise, don’t you Augusta?

Augusta: “How convinient, why didn't you include v.10 which says 'For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.' The good works Paul mentions here are the result in us of the grace given by the Holy Spirit indwelling in us.”

Good! Then we agree that “good works” “are the result in us” “by the Holy Spirit indwelling . . . us.” So as long as we agree that the “indwelling” occurs at the moment of salvation, then we are in agreement.

Augusta: “Address for us here the scriptures I asked before in Jn. 6.”

Jn. 6:53-58 is not to be understood as a corporeal eating of them, but rather as a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh and to drink the blood of Christ is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh and that His flesh was given for the life of His people, and His blood shed for their sins. Though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold of and feeds upon; yet it is by faith the right is claimed; and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection.

Originally posted by wellsjs Finally, yes I have read a good deal of Catholic documents. What do I find questionable? #21 in the following list, your Council of Trent declared "tradition has equal authority with God's written Word." Completely unbiblical! That's the only way they could justify all the other heresies on this list:

22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 A.D.

Augusta: “Second, I'd like to challenge you to proove #22 above. I selected this one because I know that you are very knowlegable of the Scritures and manuscripts. Bring up the documents of Trent to proove to all here the claim you have made. For me as a Catholic, the only thing I have to show is that there were catholic bibles before Trent with what you call the apocrypha included, which we call the deuterocanonical books. But I'd be willing to go further and show that it was Luther the one that took the books out, in addition to others from the NT. If you accept the challenge, then produce the proof, if you can't accept the challenge, then recant of your claim.”

Luther merely took out what should have never been added in the first place. In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches. The Protestant movement has not accepted the apocrypha. It is evident that the elders of each congregation had approved certain writings and rejected others as they became available, and it turned out, by the grace of God, that most of the churches were by the year 170 in agreement, having approved the same books independently. Prominent teachers were also influential in this process. About that time bishops began to prevail in the Church, as governors of groups of churches, and they simply ratified with these lists the results thus arrived at. The approved books were then called the "canon" of Scripture, "canon" being a Greek word meaning "rod" or "ruler." These books constituted the standard rule of faith for all the churches. We must not imagine that the canon was imposed by ecclesiastical authorities. The canon grew up by many independent decisions of elders who were responsible for their congregations alone. So the apocryphal books were excluded long before Luther came along. Here are a few ancient canon lists:

1. The Muratorian Fragment (c. 170).
2. Melito (c. 170).
3. Origen (c. 240).
4. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 324).
5. Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350).
6. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 360).
7. The Cheltenham List (c. 360).
8. Council of Laodicea (c. 363).
9. Letter of Athanasius (367).
10. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 380).
11. Amphilocius of Iconium (c. 380).
12. The "Apostolic Canons" (c. 380).
13. Rufinus of Aquileia (c. 380).
14. Epiphanius (c. 385).
15. Jerome (c. 390).
16. Augustine (c. 397).
17. Third Council of Carthage (397).
18. Letter of Innocent I (405).
19. Codex Claromontanus (c. 400).
20. Decree of Gelasius (c. 550).
21. John of Damascus (c. 730).

Here’s a link to the text of “Trent” for "proof" on #22:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/trent1.html

Now, as I see your demeanor getting harsher with each volley here, and since this is a forum for Palm applications, I trust you will consider all evidence given in sincere faith by myself and be led by the Holy Spirit as to how you handle it.

Unregistered

03-26-2004, 10:36 AM

Hi again,

If you would like this conversation to be personal, please email each other. If you are open to discussing this with other people (as I am interested), may I please suggest registering on apologetics.com?

Try http://www.apologetics.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi

This might be more appropriate there, perhaps in the general forum (since it is the most frequented).

I'd like to pursue this area of discussion with you, but it seems that this may be a personal conversation at this point?

If not, I'm wondering if anyone would like to respond to my posting (up 4 from here) from "unregistered" and signed, "his humble servant".

Thanks!

donna2347

03-26-2004, 10:37 AM

Sorry, I am registered, just keep forgetting to log in!

His Humble Servant

03-26-2004, 10:41 AM

And can't figure out how to either!

wellsjs

03-26-2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered
Please tell me, was I still saved? I tell you, that during the days I was drawn, and fell into, disorderly living, I felt very far from the grace of God (a personal conception? - argumentive, I suppose). And had I continued in this manner, I believe, I would not have been saved (had I died at that moment).

What is the need to "run the great race", to try to "win a crown that doesn't wither" if we are already saved by faith? Running is an action is it not?I don't presume to know that. Only God knows the heart of man(kind).

Our race involves both doing and suffering for Christ. It is possible/probable that the trials and backslidings (disorderly living) you encountered are troubles appointed for you by God. We all have certain appointed troubles which we must overcome. The great allegory "Pilgrim's Progress" by John Bunyan gives wonderful illustration to this.

One strong clue from what you said that you were already saved is the sensation that your sin caused you to feel "distanced" from God. My own sin causes me to immediately feel this distancing from God or coldness. That, IMHO, is an experience that sin only causes in believers.

The "need to run the great race" is the refining process God appoints those whom He has justified. We become justified at the moment we place our faith in Jesus' finished work on the cross (our sins, past, present, and future are forgiven) and is received by faith alone.

Sanctification, on the other hand, involves the work of the person. But it is still God working in the believer to produce more of a godly character and life in the person who has already been justified (Phil. 2:13). Sanctification is not instantaneous because it is not the work of God alone. The justified person is actively involved in submitting to God's will, resisting sin, seeking holiness, and working to be more godly (Gal. 5:22-23). Significantly, sanctification has no bearing on justification. That is, even if we don't live a perfect life, we are still justified.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. - Romans 8:1

Where justification is a legal declaration that is instantaneous, sanctification is a process. Where justification comes from outside of us, from God, sanctification comes from God within us by the work of the Holy Spirit in accordance with the Bible. In other words, we contribute to sanctification through our efforts. In contrast, we do not contribute to our justification through our efforts.

Hope this helps, and yes I would like to bring this discussion (in the wrong forum/place) to closure! :)

Unregistered

03-26-2004, 01:27 PM

You said: It is possible/probable that the trials and backslidings (disorderly living) you encountered are troubles appointed for you by God.

I don't believe that God appoints disorderly living, but rather, it is the act of the person turning away from God. It isn't so much an appointing as it is his permitting Will through which He allows us to turn away.

I have to quote an earlier posting by Augusta, that God doesn't make us stay with Him. We have free will and are in no way bound to remain saved.

I feel very ill-equipped to discuss the justification/salvation issue, but I'd love to hear your take on it. Please explain to me, your understanding of justification and salvation. Please define justification and salvation.

Wellsjs, I'm going to start a new thread on the cite I gave you in my last posting. The thread will be listed under the General Forum, and I will entitle it "Justification/Salvation".

Thank you for your reply, I have other questions pertaining your response, but I have to go right now.

Peace!

wellsjs

03-26-2004, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered
I have to quote an earlier posting by Augusta, that God doesn't make us stay with Him. We have free will and are in no way bound to remain saved.To say that one can become "unsaved" is saying they can become unjustified! The Bible knows nothing of becoming unjustified!

So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus. (Rom 8:1)

"Condemnation" is used exclusively in judicial settings as the opposite of justification. It refers to a verdict of guilty and the penalty that verdict demands. No sin a believer can commit-past, present, or future-can be held against him, since the penalty was paid by Christ and righteousness was imputed to the believer. And no sin will ever reverse this divine legal decision . . . one of the reasons we sing "Amazing Grace!"

John 15:16 (ESV)16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

John 6:37 (ESV)37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

1 John 2:12 (ESV)12 I am writing to you, little children, because your sins ARE forgiven for his name's sake.

Unregistered

03-26-2004, 02:39 PM

Okay, I've got a minute to review some of your other points, but if we could move to the other forum afterwards, that would be great. I would have copied your last post to it so that I could respond there, but I didn't have your permission to.

If you'd like to respond to my last post, please feel free to copy anything I've used to the new forum.

Now, I agree that sanctification has nothing to do w/justification. I believe that is the work of the person, cooperating w/God's grace.

However, re:There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. - Romans 8:1

...for those who are in Christ Jesus" is important to me here. I believe that there are occasions where an individual may have deliberately taken themselves away from "in Christ Jesus" (of course, believing we are all God's children, believers or not - I'm not referring to that); to have fallen from God's saving grace by our willful disobedience. Note that I am speaking of WILLFUL disobedience, say-stealing or murder, etc., not the unintended bout of impatience, or swearing.

But I agree that, if one is "in Christ Jesus", through obeying His commandments (to the best of our flawed human-nature, and with the grace of God), there is no condemnation. In other words, Jesus' saving act on the cross gave us the possibility of attaining everlasting life in Heaven, for those who believe in Him and who follow Him.

quote: In contrast, we do not contribute to our justification
through our efforts.

Hmm, I think I agree with this to, but not in the context you are putting it. Since one is justified through faith in Jesus, and since faith is a gift from God, I would agree that justification is not attained through our efforts.

I think I might have an analogy to my understanding of justification and falling from the grace of God (losing salvation due to one's willful turning away from Him):

I believe that when Jesus completed the sacrifice (and indeed it was complete and we are given the awesome ability to participate in it:"I complete what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ". - another topic?)...anyway, when He completed the sacrifice, the doors of Heaven were opened. Now, for those who believe in His saving act, and repent of their past sinfulness, they can rest in the assurance of Heaven, so long as they CHOOSE to go there.
I believe there is a choice in this matter. Objectively speaking, everyone wants to go to heaven, no one wants to suffer enternal damnation, but actions speak louder than words.

Just because the doors of Heaven are now open, does not mean that everyone is going to enter. Just because someone believes in Jesus, doesn't ensure that he is going to choose to follow Him. He might be like the person in the parable of the seeds, who listens to the Word of God, but it never enters his hardened heart. He may continue to live his life of sin and never make an effort to follow the Lord. Now, I ask, and he may do this with the assurance of salvation?

"You know a tree by it's fruit". It isn't just those who say "Lord, Lord", but "he who does the Will of My Father".

Quote: "and yes I would like to bring this discussion (in the wrong forum/place) to closure!

Oops, maybe I misunderstood that. I thought you meant that you wanted to move the discussion. Well, if you meant that you wish not to discuss this any longer, that is fine too. I've posted the question on the apologetics.com forum. Please feel free to enter into conversation w/me there. And feel free to copy any of my posts to it (Wellsjs, and anyone else interested as well).

May God Bless You Abundantly In Your Walk Of Faith!

Unregistered

03-26-2004, 03:10 PM

Oh, my post went up shortly after yours, I hadn't read your last one yet.

Re: Quote: "To say that one can become "unsaved" is saying they can become unjustified! The Bible knows nothing of becoming unjustified!

I'm saying that yes, we can choose not to be saved.

and, Quote"And no sin will ever reverse this divine legal decision . . . one of the reasons we sing "Amazing Grace!"

When one is in the state of grace there is much reason to rejoice! I rejoice wholeheartedly every day that God has chosen to bring me back to Himself so many times! I try not to deliberately offend Him. And when I do, I turn back to Him (again, w/the help of His grace). Albeit, sometimes I am stubborn and try to justify my sin, but eventually, and thankfully, I do come to my senses and begin to feel sorry for my decision to offend Him, and then run back to Him like the prodigal son who had squandered his inheritance.

Unregistered

03-26-2004, 03:11 PM

BTW, all of these "unregistered" posts are from me, His Humble Servant (HHS), I STILL can't log in!

His Humble Servant

03-26-2004, 03:22 PM

Also, (sorry for all these posts!) I just found you on the other forum...I'll be there shortly.

Thanks wellsjs!

Unregistered

03-28-2004, 12:22 AM

Originally posted by eyesee
One last thing to ponder and then the next few hours are yours (I have a prior appointment)...

Will a believer who leads a morally sound life, but who also vehemently refuses to be baptized because it is a "work," spend eternal life with God in Heaven?

Bottom line is we are in an ocean of sin. Ship captain, God sent his son Christ who dove in and swm out a lifeline so far out that he died in the attempt. A true act of love.
But WE have to take the lifeline to get back.

Without Christ we have no salvation, but its up to us to take the lifeline, that has been offered us.
That is works my friend.

Without Christ one cannot be saved thus we cannot "earn salvation. Without the ransom we are "dead in the water"

However the mere profession that "I'm saved" aint gonna get you on the boat.

wellsjs

03-28-2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Unregistered

Bottom line is we are in an ocean of sin. Ship captain, God sent his son Christ who dove in and swm out a lifeline so far out that he died in the attempt. A true act of love.
But WE have to take the lifeline to get back.

Without Christ we have no salvation, but its up to us to take the lifeline, that has been offered us.
That is works my friend.

Without Christ one cannot be saved thus we cannot "earn salvation. Without the ransom we are "dead in the water"

However the mere profession that "I'm saved" aint gonna get you on the boat. “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. -- John 5:24

Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” -- John 6:28-29

So which should I go with . . . your opinion, or the Word of God? :eek:

Augusta F4 SPR

03-29-2004, 12:49 PM

Hello wellsjs,

I am back from my weekend retreat and can provide an answer to this post. I also agree that we need to move this to another place more appropriate, however, I did go to the apologetics.com general discussion and I didn't see the topic Unregistered mentioned in the later posts. I also didn't want to loose the history of this post so I decide to reply here, but at the same time I'd like to ask your consent to copy the history of this post (not the 13 pages of them, only our exchanges). Let me know and I will copy this to the other forum at apologetics.com

Originally posted by wellsjs
Originally posted by wellsjs
It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh (which includes works) is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. John 6:63 (RSV)

[b]Augusta: “Great, what words are those? And do you do what those words say?”

Those are the words of Jesus. I can’t see that those words direct me to do anything? :confused:

Those would be the words that he had been speaking to them since Jn. 6:26. One cannot just take v.63 and take it alone, there is context to it. The words that Jesus was saying are spirit and life are those where he told them several times they needed to eat his flesh and blood. That is why I asked how you do that? 'Cuz as far as I know, the vast majority of Protestantism takes those words not in the literal sense. Case in point, your comment below.

Originally posted by wellsjs And what we do THROUGH the grace of God is for His glory and has nothing to do with still trying to earn what has already been given to us. If your take is that we are daily earning our salvation then you deny the sufficiency of Jesus’ finished work on the cross. He even said, “It is finished.” -- John 19:30

What finished work on the Cross would that be? The work of salvation? The work of Redemption? Let's see what St. Paul thinks about this... For if the dead are not raised, neither has Christ been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is vain; you are still in your sins. Then those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 1Cor. 15:16-18 - NAB
According to St. Paul, the cross without the resurrection is worthless and it earns nothing for us. And since in Jn. 19:30 our Lord was not even dead yet how can he already be raised to finish the work of salvation. Another deail as well is that the word that more accurately translates the actual words used in the greek is "accomplished" not finished. So if you think (and teach) that when Christ said at the Cross before expiring "it is accomplished" (finished) he finished the work of salvation, you are in error. So the question remains, What was it that our Lord and Savior accomplisehd or finished at the Cross? (Hint: look at the last supper, what is missing?)

Originally posted by wellsjs Originally posted by wellsjs When do we stop doing deeds in the flesh and start doing them in the spirit? When the “spirit gives life (salvation)!” If you aren’t saved, your deeds are filthy rags in God’s eyes, completely debunking the notion that you must work to earn your salvation through good deeds.

Oh really, then what about these...Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father
with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his
works.

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

2Cr 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ;
that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to
that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad.

Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the
churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I
will give unto every one of you according to your works.

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and
the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is [the book]
of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were
written in the books, according to their works.

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death
and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged
every man according to their works.
I don't know how you would interpret these but in His Sacred Word My Lord tells that we'll be judged NOT by faith alone. It seems to me that these scriptures actually debunk your doctrine of sola fide.

Originally posted by wellsjs Jn. 6:53-58 is not to be understood as a corporeal eating of them, but rather as a spiritual eating of Christ by faith. To eat the flesh and to drink the blood of Christ is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh and that His flesh was given for the life of His people, and His blood shed for their sins. Though the acts of eating and drinking do not give the right to eternal life, but the flesh, blood and righteousness of Christ, which faith lays hold of and feeds upon; yet it is by faith the right is claimed; and between these acts of faith, and eternal life, there is an inseparable connection.

Why not? The jews that heard these words took Jesus literally, that is why they complained. And if Jesus was speaking symbolically and his disciples were confused, as a good teacher he should have cleared up their confusion, but he didn't. He took the scandal to a higher level everytime he told them they must eat his flesh and blood. Now you say "To eat the flesh and to drink the blood of Christ is to believe that Christ is come in the flesh and that His flesh was given for the life of His people" and i ask you, where does this interpretation come from? Has anybody in the last 100 years interpreted that passage like you do? in the last 500? in the last 1000? in the last 1500? Why do I ask? Well because the Holy Spirit has been guiding those that came in the faith before us in the understanding of this passage as well, we ar not the first ones. And why is this important? Because if the Bible shows me something different than what it has consistently shown those that have believed before me, then 1 of 2 things is happening and we must make our choice, either the Bible lies (impossible) or we are in error (very possible). So who is being truly biblical here? I take Jesus at His Word, if he literally says that I should eat his flesh and blood to have eternal life, then I do as he says. I take Him at His Word.

Originally posted by wellsjs Luther merely took out what should have never been added in the first place. In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch. I need to add here that Roman Catholicism maintains that the apocrypha was always inspired along with the Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Armenian churches. The Protestant movement has not accepted the apocrypha. ...(snip)...So the apocryphal books were excluded long before Luther came along. Here are a few ancient canon lists:...(snip)...

Sure Luther took them out, along with other NT books as well, like Hebrews, James, which he called the "epistle of straw" and with little wonder since James 2:24 flies in the face of his sola fide doctrine, and Revelation. Luckly some of his later followers put them back in, but if Luther had gotten his way, the Protestant and Catholic NT would be different now. Now I want to be very honest and very clear here, so here is your statement in italics: "In Roman Catholicism, additional books were added in 1546. These books are known as the apocryphal books: Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, The Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), and Baruch." Now you gave a list of 21 references of canons, but you didn't paste the content of the canons of at least one for us to see that indeed the deuteros weren't there. I will provide for you the text of the Council of Hippo in 393, and then that of Trent, and you will have to make a choice, it was Protestants who removed sacred writings from the already recognized and accepted canon because the books didn't conform to the doctrines they wanted to promote, or in reality the Catholic Church added books in 1546, as is your statment. I will bold the deuteros in both Councils for clarity. Council of Hippo according to Archbishop Hefele’s History of the Councils of the Church (vol. II, page 400)
Canon 36.
ITEM, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:
Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Four books of Kings.
The Two books of Parlipomena. [Chronicles]
Job.
The Psalms of David.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezekiel.
Daniel.
Tobias.
Judith.
Esther.
The Two Books of Esdras.
The Two books of Maccabees.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

The Four Gospels.
The Acts of the Apostles.
The Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul
The One Epistle of St. Paul to the Hebrews.
The Two Epistles of St. Peter, the Apostle.
The Three Epistles of St. John the Apostle.
The Epistles of St. James the Apostle.
The Epistle of St. Jude the Apostle.
The Revelation of St. John.
Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of Martyrs, their acts shall also be read.

Baruch and Lamentations were considered part of Jeremiah, and the 5 books of Solomon include: Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom, and Sirach. And one can clearly see that the 2 books of Maccabees are there, explicitly.

Also note that the council was to consult the transmarine church. If Hippo is in North Africa, what church "across the sea" of any importance would that be? Rome of course.

And here are some additional coments by Philip Schaff (Protestant) on his History of the Church Vol. II
138. The Holy Scriptures and the Canon
The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin, who exerted a commanding influence on all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council…

And here is the relevant exerpt from Trent, 4th Session, 4/8/1546And it has thought it meet that a list of the sacred books be inserted in this decree, lest a doubt may arise in any one's mind, which are the books that are received by this Synod. They are as set down here below: of the Old Testament: the five books of Moses, to wit, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Paralipomenon, the first book of Esdras, and the second which is entitled Nehemias; Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, the Davidical Psalter, consisting of a hundred and fifty psalms; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticle of Canticles, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaias, Jeremias, with Baruch; Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, to wit, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Micheas, Nahum, Habacuc, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias; two books of the Machabees, the first and the second. Of the New Testament: the four Gospels, according [Page 19] to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John; the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen epistles of Paul the apostle, (one) to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, (one) to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, two to Timothy, (one) to Titus, to Philemon, to the Hebrews; two of Peter the apostle, three of John the apostle, one of the apostle James, one of Jude the apostle, and the Apocalypse of John the apostle.

However, the following statement is what made Trent different than every other council before it that discussed the canon:
But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.

The anathema statement elevates an accepted dotrine to the level of dogma. That is the only thing Trent did, but it didn't ADD any books as you claimed.

By the above I have shown that the Catholic Church has been faithful and for over more than 1.5 millenia it has not changed, removed, or added anything to the sacred writings. It has been the Protestant deformeers of the 16th century that REMOVED books from the canon to be able to promote AND JUSTIFY their errors. You have been shows to incorrectly represent what the Catholic Church has taught. I call your attention to Ex. 20:16 "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." You need to repent.

Originally posted by wellsjs Now, as I see your demeanor getting harsher with each volley here, and since this is a forum for Palm applications, I trust you will consider all evidence given in sincere faith by myself and be led by the Holy Spirit as to how you handle it.

Dear friend, I have shown nothing but respect for your beliefs and your doctrines, however wrong I think they may be. You on the other hand, have called our beliefs heresy, for which I asked you a very legitimate question: What is your authority to make such a determination? Remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And what you have provided here for evidence as "proof" of our heresy has been found wanting. I have also written at the end of several of my posts "God Bless you", you who supposedly has so much faith in Christ, can't see Christ in "your neighbor" who disagrees with you, but then again, it doesn't surprise me, we catholic heretics have no prayer for a blessing.

God Bless you,

In the Blood of the Lamb,

Augusta

wellsjs

03-29-2004, 04:34 PM

Augusta,

You obviously have far more time to devote to debate than I do at the present. Given the volumes of documented Protestant/Catholic debates down thru the centuries, the divide hasn't been resolved, and it is unlikely you and I will resolve it either. Because I choose not to keep on responding to your claims does not in any way hint of lacking answers. I just do not see that any change or good will come of it.

As to all of your verses about "works," I agree that "works" are to be evident in a believer's life (no evidence, no rebirth), and that they result in "crowns" in heaven for us, but they all come AFTER salvation. You have not proven that salvation doesn't preceed works, while I've given numerous scriptures clearly stating that it does.

The key point is, and I failed to keep our discourse properly focused, on what basis do you look for your salvation? If it's Jesus Christ's atonement for your sins and not the RCC, then praise God. If you are not absolutely sure of your guaranteed place in heaven at this very moment, then I pity you, because I am absolutely sure about me. I don't have to hope the scales tip in my favor (good deeds/bad deeds) at the end of my life. My God doesn't dangle His grace on a string and say, "better be good or I'll take it back!" HE"S GIVEN IT TO ME PERMANENTLY! The Apostle John wrote, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." -- 1 John 5:13

I'll close with a link I hope you'll read and pray about:

http://www.carm.org/catholic/gospel.htm

and a . . .

God bless you too!

Augusta F4 SPR

03-29-2004, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by wellsjs
Augusta,

You obviously have far more time to devote to debate than I do at the present. Given the volumes of documented Protestant/Catholic debates down thru the centuries, the divide hasn't been resolved, and it is unlikely you and I will resolve it either. Because I choose not to keep on responding to your claims does not in any way hint of lacking answers. I just do not see that any change or good will come of it.

Apologetics has become for me a labor of love mainly due to my conversion, so I make time as I am able. I was raised Catholic, went non-denominational via Baptist and a little pentecostal mixed in, then came back to the Catholic Church after almost 2 years of no faith at all. My faith broke down to nothing. I rejected the Bible as the word of God and saw it only as a history book; I even questioned whether or not Jesus was a real person that actually lived, and suffered much in the process. I agree, much prayer, dialogue, and reparation is needed before we are truly one, as Christ is one with the Father. I thank you for taking the time to answer question, share your faith and beliefs, and for a great display of christian values and character.

Originally posted by wellsjs As to all of your verses about "works," I agree that "works" are to be evident in a believer's life (no evidence, no rebirth), and that they result in "crowns" in heaven for us, but they all come AFTER salvation. You have not proven that salvation doesn't preceed works, while I've given numerous scriptures clearly stating that it does.

Maybe I was't all that clear. I was no trying to prove that works precede salvation, I was only trying to show that salvation is not by fiath alone. Works are part of salvation as much as faith is. But it is only those works that God works in us throught the indwelling of the Holy Spirit that can merit onto salvation. Again, no work out of our own power can earn salvation for us.

Originally posted by wellsjs The key point is, and I failed to keep our discourse properly focused, on what basis do you look for your salvation? If it's Jesus Christ's atonement for your sins and not the RCC, then praise God. If you are not absolutely sure of your guaranteed place in heaven at this very moment, then I pity you, because I am absolutely sure about me.

Plainly stated, I believe that I am saved because of Christ and his grace alone. There is nothing that the RCC, in and of itself, can do to save me, however, the RCC as the instrument of God for the dispensation of His grace, can bring about salvation. God being the Almighty can obviously wish us to be saved by His Omnipotence and it will be done, however, as has been the case in all of Salvation History, He has chosen to work through man to dispense his grace: Abraham to bless all nations, Moses to deliver the Hebres from slavery, Mary to Incarnate His Word, Peter to found his Church on, etc. etc. So I don't see the RCC as the savior, Christ is the savior and redeemer of man, but he chose to establish a church to which he gave his authority and sent out to "make disciples of all nations...and teach them all I have commanded." Mt. 28 And also Jn. 20 "As the Father has sent me so now do I send you" He sent a church with His authority, and not just anyone could belong to this group (Act. 5:12-13)

Originally posted by wellsjs I don't have to hope the scales tip in my favor (good deeds/bad deeds) at the end of my life. My God doesn't dangle His grace on a string and say, "better be good or I'll take it back!" HE"S GIVEN IT TO ME PERMANENTLY! The Apostle John wrote, "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life." -- 1 John 5:13

I am sorry but I disagree with this. We still have free will, and we still have the option of rejecting him. So I may feel as sure as can be of salvation right now, but because I have a sinful nature and free will, I have absolutely no idea as to where I will stand with God tomorrow. I have been there before, as I mentioned. That is why I see salvation as an ongoing process: I have been saved, I am being saved, I will be saved. Take for example the case of a man that accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior, became a fervent preacher of the Gospel, but who later in life fell into drugs, pornography, alcoholism, divorced his wife and committed suicide. Was he still saved? After all at one point he knew that all those things had been written so that he can know that he has eternal life? I think you missed the context again. Go back and read the prior few chapters of 1 Jn. and you will notice the word "if" is used about 21 times, "if you love your brother", "if you do this", "if you do that", etc. etc. then he says I have written all this so you may know that you have eternal life, but only after your have taken care of all the if's.

Originally posted by wellsjs I'll close with a link I hope you'll read and pray about:

http://www.carm.org/catholic/gospel.htm

and a . . .

God bless you too! [/B]

I will certainly read the link and pray over it. Again, thanx for taking the time. May the Lord be with you.

In Christ,

Augsta

wellsjs

03-29-2004, 09:46 PM

Augusta: "Take for example the case of a man that accepted Christ as his Lord and Savior, became a fervent preacher of the Gospel, but who later in life fell into drugs, pornography, alcoholism, divorced his wife and committed suicide. Was he still saved?"

OK, let's look at that in light of these verses:

"(just as) He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. -- Ephesians 1:4-12

“Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world." -- John 17:24

“This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” -- John 6:39-40

Based on your example and these scriptures (sure there are many more, but for now . . . ), I see three possibilities:

1) The man never achieved saving faith in God's eyes, regardless of how the man himself felt or the "works" he did. Satan's greatest joy is deceiving people into thinking they are saved when they haven't really had a true spiritual heart transplant!
2) The man, however badly backslidden, did possess saving faith and does enjoy the rewards of heaven. Remember, God will forgive any and every sin EXCEPT rejection of faith (believing) in the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ (and yes to touch on a former point of yours, the resurrection is important. Jesus defeated sin on the cross, and death by His resurrection. The two go hand in hand).
3) The man became saved and then unsaved, making a liar out of Jesus (John 6:39), a fool out of God (who dispenses grace and takes it back), and a shambles out of God's Word, which is full of statements that this just doesn't happen! :eek:

In my opinion, either 1) or 2) could be true . . . only God knows, but 3) is simply unacceptable! ;)

God bless!