The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (1 Viewer)

[saintfool]

How's Bible Study with Larry goin?

Whoops, I thought you typed Bible study with Larry's groin.

Sinner!

hate the sin but love the sinner?

 

[larry_boy_44]

I really didn't want to get into this but, here are a few verses.  None of which says salvation is secured through faith and works. The problem with works is you never have the peace of knowing for sure you are saved.  You never know if you've done enough to get your ticket punched.

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28

"For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:26

"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16

"He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." John 3:18

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life…" John 6:40

what I've been trying to say... you can't just go "I believe" and be fine... it takes more than that... although belief is definately required...

Thanks, but you missunderstand. These verses all point to faith as being the key to salvation not the need for works. If it were works you would never have the assurance of salvation. At what point have you done enough to have your ticket punched?

sort of...See, faith is, technically, a work as it is definatley something you do, so to say that you must not do anything at all is simply not true, for believing in and of itself is an act...

Works are a sign of your faith, and without works, your faith is dead... Both faith and works are needed...

 

[Jayrok]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible. What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that! You're Wrong!

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these.

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

 

[CrossEyed]

What is God's name?

Harold.Our father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name.

Howard. You're using the wrong translation.

 

[rolyaTy]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible. What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that! You're Wrong!

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these.

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

Wouldn't it be nice if some almighty powerful being who had a vested interest in such things had the ability to come down and set us straight on issues like this? :sigh:...This could possibly be another one of the attractions of mormonism. Prophets can set people straight when factions disagree, as can I guess the catholic church...but protestants, bent on interpreting the bible to each persons own fancy, must be constantly bickering amongst themselves because they are the highest authority on earth who can interpret Gods message.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I started reading this book at B&N a couple weeks ago. Didn't get very far in but seemed very interesting. Guy definitely comes across as trying to gain (and share) insight into the scriptures, not trying to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything.

 

[Jayrok]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible.  What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that!  You're Wrong! 

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these. 

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

Wouldn't it be nice if some almighty powerful being who had a vested interest in such things had the ability to come down and set us straight on issues like this? :sigh:...This could possibly be another one of the attractions of mormonism. Prophets can set people straight when factions disagree, as can I guess the catholic church...but protestants, bent on interpreting the bible to each persons own fancy, must be constantly bickering amongst themselves because they are the highest authority on earth who can interpret Gods message.

John 14:26 -- But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. According to John, Jesus left his disciples with the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of his teachings. Acts goes on to teach that the Holy Spirit will come to those believers of Christ. Yet the apostles were confused and bickered amongst different factions, and of course today we have little agreement outside separate organized denominations.

Did the Holy Spirit not show.. did it give up on these men.. or does it not exist?

 

[dwashington]

Sounds like an interesting book.

 

[Jayrok]

I started reading this book at B&N a couple weeks ago. Didn't get very far in but seemed very interesting. Guy definitely comes across as trying to gain (and share) insight into the scriptures, not trying to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything.

Good point. He is a religious scholar and probably does what he does because he finds it both interesting and rewarding. He teaches and writes his articles/books to help others gain an understanding of how things appear to have unfolded. Not many TV shows would have someone plug a book like this. And there are many eye-opening books out there that largely go unpromoted in our society.

There is really no need to "prove or disprove" anything as most are steadfast to their personal beliefs, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. But if books like this could just enlighten those that read them, maybe it will help us all get a little closer to discovering truth.

 

[ElGatoLoco]

I was speaking in reply to the post before mine, not in reply to every definition of the word "judging" there is... when speaking of the Bible and its command not to judge others, it is one specific definition (and one that, really, isn't even in the Dictionary, unfortunately) not any/every definition...

the reason you didn't undersatnd what I was saying is because you didn't read anything except for that one instance of the word and had no real idea of what was being discussed or talked about at the time... you completely took waht was said out of context rather than thinking about what was said in relation to what was said beofre and after it...

Now you are claiming you know what I read and didn't read. You're coming really close to having a god complex here if you can do that.So, were you referring to the Hebrew definition?

(Hebrew) judgment: shephet sheh'-fet: a sentence, i.e. infliction:--judgment.

Or, the Greek?

(Greek) judgment: krisis kree'-sis: decision (subjectively or objectively, for or

against); by extension, a tribunal; by implication, justice (especially, divine law):

--accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.

Please enlighten me on the specific definition of judgment that you are using.

since its NT, probably the Greek... meaning: accusation, condemnation, damnation... which, contrary to I'm sure what you are saying, I am not doing...for, I am not saying you will go to hell, I am saying, from what this book tells us, that is what will happen... could there be loopholes, etc.? I will never say there won't be, but according to what God has told us, we can say whether many/most people are going to go to heaven or hell, even though if we say we know we are 100% right we would be wrong in that...

Then you don't believe that Cross, Spock, and all the rest of us are going to hell, because we don't concur with your reading of God's word?

 

[ElGatoLoco]

What is God's name?

Harold.Our father, who art in heaven, Harold be thy name.

Howard. You're using the wrong translation.

Nicely done, IB and Cross.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I was speaking in reply to the post before mine, not in reply to every definition of the word "judging" there is... when speaking of the Bible and its command not to judge others, it is one specific definition (and one that, really, isn't even in the Dictionary, unfortunately) not any/every definition...

the reason you didn't undersatnd what I was saying is because you didn't read anything except for that one instance of the word and had no real idea of what was being discussed or talked about at the time... you completely took waht was said out of context rather than thinking about what was said in relation to what was said beofre and after it...

Now you are claiming you know what I read and didn't read. You're coming really close to having a god complex here if you can do that.So, were you referring to the Hebrew definition?

(Hebrew) judgment: shephet sheh'-fet: a sentence, i.e. infliction:--judgment.

Or, the Greek?

(Greek) judgment: krisis kree'-sis: decision (subjectively or objectively, for or

against); by extension, a tribunal; by implication, justice (especially, divine law):

--accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment.

Please enlighten me on the specific definition of judgment that you are using.

since its NT, probably the Greek... meaning: accusation, condemnation, damnation... which, contrary to I'm sure what you are saying, I am not doing...for, I am not saying you will go to hell, I am saying, from what this book tells us, that is what will happen... could there be loopholes, etc.? I will never say there won't be, but according to what God has told us, we can say whether many/most people are going to go to heaven or hell, even though if we say we know we are 100% right we would be wrong in that...

Then you don't believe that Cross, Spock, and all the rest of us are going to hell, because we don't concur with your reading of God's word?

honestly, it isn't a reading of His word as much as His word plainly says it...

 

[Psychopav]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible.  What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that!  You're Wrong! 

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these. 

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

Wouldn't it be nice if some almighty powerful being who had a vested interest in such things had the ability to come down and set us straight on issues like this? :sigh:...This could possibly be another one of the attractions of mormonism. Prophets can set people straight when factions disagree, as can I guess the catholic church...but protestants, bent on interpreting the bible to each persons own fancy, must be constantly bickering amongst themselves because they are the highest authority on earth who can interpret Gods message.

John 14:26 -- But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. According to John, Jesus left his disciples with the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of his teachings. Acts goes on to teach that the Holy Spirit will come to those believers of Christ. Yet the apostles were confused and bickered amongst different factions, and of course today we have little agreement outside separate organized denominations.

Did the Holy Spirit not show.. did it give up on these men.. or does it not exist?

Did someone mention the deposit of faith? Sacred tradition? Teaching authority of the Church established by Christ?

No?

Maybe I was just hearing things...

 

[Jayrok]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible.  What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that!  You're Wrong! 

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these. 

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

Wouldn't it be nice if some almighty powerful being who had a vested interest in such things had the ability to come down and set us straight on issues like this? :sigh:...This could possibly be another one of the attractions of mormonism. Prophets can set people straight when factions disagree, as can I guess the catholic church...but protestants, bent on interpreting the bible to each persons own fancy, must be constantly bickering amongst themselves because they are the highest authority on earth who can interpret Gods message.

John 14:26 -- But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. According to John, Jesus left his disciples with the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of his teachings. Acts goes on to teach that the Holy Spirit will come to those believers of Christ. Yet the apostles were confused and bickered amongst different factions, and of course today we have little agreement outside separate organized denominations.

Did the Holy Spirit not show.. did it give up on these men.. or does it not exist?

Did someone mention the deposit of faith? Sacred tradition? Teaching authority of the Church established by Christ?

No?

Maybe I was just hearing things...

Yes, the deposit of faith.. Jesus commissioned the apostles to spread his word to all creation and gave them authority to do so. From what I understand, Sacred Tradition is what the church bases its teachings on.. and it, along with sacred scripture is believed to be infallible in all that is taught on matters of faith and morals.Yep, the catholic church is a sterling example of all things moral.

The church was around before the NT was written (Peter was the rock on which it was built). And as such, they had this divine authority from Christ, this deposit of faith..

Why, then, didn't the apostles all teach the same message?

St. Paul's message was different than the one coming from the Jerusalem church. And he claims his gospel is the only true gospel and if any of his customers.. I mean, if any of his congregation hears some other gospel they should condemn the speaker.

The author of Acts has the church "come around" to support Paul eventually, but we have to wonder was it really like this.

 

[Koya]

Another thread is LarryBoyed

 

[Politician Spock]

I have used the Bible NUMEROUS times in the past to show you this, and every single solitary time you say that only ACTS shows us how to be saved and that the rest of the books of the NT are written for people who are already Christians. It's not even close to being true, but you won't budge from that position, so why even go there again?

are you now telling me that Romans wasn't really written to the church in Rome?? I & II Corinthians not to the church in Corinth?? Galations not to the church of Galatia??? Ephesians not to the church of Ephesus???If not written to those places, who exactly were those letters written to? Especially since the letters all refer to the intended recipient of the letter as the churches in those places...

Where did I ever claim that Romans wasn't written to the church in Rome, or that Corintians was not written to the church in Corinth, or that Galations was not written to the church in Galatia, or that Ephesians was not written to the church in Ephesus?

when you claim that romans, I & II Corinthians, etc. are not written to Christians and only Christians you claim they weren't actually written to those churches...

Again, your lack of logic is amazing. I never said they were not written TO Christians and only Christians. You are the one who claims they are only intended FOR Christians. I'm claiming that is wrong, because while they were written TO those churches they are intended FOR anyone.

either they were written to the churches or they weren't, and the documents themselves tell us that they were in fact written to those churches...

No kidding. I don't see how based on the fact they were written to those churches that they have absolutely no applicability to anyone who is not a Christian. How can you logically conclude that?

 

[Jayrok]

Another thread is LarryBoyed

I'd like to sit in on one of the study classes or sermons in Larry's church. I bet there are a lot of "amens" and "right ons". It would be entertaining.

 

[Politician Spock]

first of the two "I don't knows" are referring to two different things...

No Larry, they are referring to the exact same thing. You don't know if the Catholic is going to hell because the wrong words were uttered during their baptism, but you claim to know that I'm going to hell because the wrong words were uttered during my baptism.

I don't know if God is going to send people to hell for being disobedient to His command, you do know that His command is not actually what you are doing, you just don't care what His command actually was because you rationalized your tradition into God's command...

So in telling people that they are going to hell because the wrong words were uttered at their baptism despite the fact that they profess belief, continually serve Christ and show good fruit, you are telling them something you don't know for sure. On the other hand, I'm telling people something I know: Believe that Christ is your savior and you will have eternal life. Salvation is that simple. That's the good news. All of the commandments Jesus gave to his believers (and there are tons of them) are not prerequisits to receive Gods grace. Obedience of his commandments is evidence of one's belief. If you were to say that a person who never shows any evidence of obedience has failed to profess belief in Christ and is therefor not saved, then I would agree with that. But that is far from what you claim that even the wrong words being uttered at one's baptism is a disobeidience that will send someone to hell.

second, no matter how you put it, saying "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" is not following what Jesus actually said in Matthew 28:19 (As He explictly said "In my name")... nor is it following the commands that Peter and Paul gave...

THEN HAVE THE PERSON WHO BAPTISES YOU SAY IT IN THE GREEK IF DOING IF EXPLICITLY IS SO IMPORTANT!

third, God put requirements on us, He did.. By the grace that you speak we don't have to do anything, we don't even have to believe, to be saved... but that makes it useless for Christ to have died, if God were going to deal with the sin in our lives, He didn't need to come and die, but He did, why? To cover our sins, not so we can go "Eh, His grace is sufficient I'll do whatever I want", which is what you are saying...

Never, never, NEVER have I said "I'll do whatever I want". You have to establish that as part of my argument to even retort it. Try actually responding to what I'm saying to see if you can retort my argument.

so if you believe and never act on it, did you really believe? IF you believe, adn there are commands of what you need to do, and you don't do them, did you really believe?

Like I said before Larry, if you were to claim that a person who never obeys(0% obedience) is not saved, I would agree with you. If they are 0% obedient, do they really believe. I can honestly say no they don't. But you are saying that even a person who got everything right except one thing (99.9999% obedience) is going to hell because uttering the right words during one's baptism is that important.

You have said you will do whatever youwant when you stick with yoru completely extra-Biblical tradition rather than doing what the Bible says we should do, you do not even have Matthew 28:19 to stand on about baptism, you simply don't care what the Bible says and it is about time you just admit it, becasue that is the jist of what you are saying... Not one place in the Bible does it ever give any indication of baptism in any other way but "In JEsus name" in some way shape or form, stop changing things to meet with the pagan traditions that your ancestors added to Chrsitanity...

Larry all of this above is a complete assumption on your part. Just because I believe God will give Grace even to disobedient believers (99% obedience is still disobedience) does not mean that I believe Christians can do what ever they want to do.

I would say that willful disobedience is not at all accepted by God, though, Spock... if you know that He wants us to be baptized in Jesus' name specifically, and you don't do it because you think something else is good enough, Id on't see why He'd accept that...

Again, look at how you phrase your argument. Without the word "specifically" you can't claim someone is in willful disobedience. The whole crux of your argument is based on it be needed specifically. It's a translation Larry. It was written in Greek. If it's specific, the if you have been baptized using the Greek word, then you are in willful disobedience as well. But don't worry about it Larry, because there is no requirement that words be specific during baptism, because it's the authority of Jesus that we are baptized under, not the word used to call Him.

 

[larry_boy_44]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible.  What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that!  You're Wrong! 

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these. 

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

Wouldn't it be nice if some almighty powerful being who had a vested interest in such things had the ability to come down and set us straight on issues like this? :sigh:...This could possibly be another one of the attractions of mormonism. Prophets can set people straight when factions disagree, as can I guess the catholic church...but protestants, bent on interpreting the bible to each persons own fancy, must be constantly bickering amongst themselves because they are the highest authority on earth who can interpret Gods message.

John 14:26 -- But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. According to John, Jesus left his disciples with the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of his teachings. Acts goes on to teach that the Holy Spirit will come to those believers of Christ. Yet the apostles were confused and bickered amongst different factions, and of course today we have little agreement outside separate organized denominations.

Did the Holy Spirit not show.. did it give up on these men.. or does it not exist?

Did someone mention the deposit of faith? Sacred tradition? Teaching authority of the Church established by Christ?

No?

Maybe I was just hearing things...

doesn't the Bible say not to follow the traditions of men??? And let's not kid ourselves, the traditions that the various church groups hold (even mine) are not from God...

 

[larry_boy_44]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible.  What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that!  You're Wrong! 

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these. 

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

Wouldn't it be nice if some almighty powerful being who had a vested interest in such things had the ability to come down and set us straight on issues like this? :sigh:...This could possibly be another one of the attractions of mormonism. Prophets can set people straight when factions disagree, as can I guess the catholic church...but protestants, bent on interpreting the bible to each persons own fancy, must be constantly bickering amongst themselves because they are the highest authority on earth who can interpret Gods message.

John 14:26 -- But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. According to John, Jesus left his disciples with the Holy Spirit to guide them and remind them of his teachings. Acts goes on to teach that the Holy Spirit will come to those believers of Christ. Yet the apostles were confused and bickered amongst different factions, and of course today we have little agreement outside separate organized denominations.

Did the Holy Spirit not show.. did it give up on these men.. or does it not exist?

Did someone mention the deposit of faith? Sacred tradition? Teaching authority of the Church established by Christ?

No?

Maybe I was just hearing things...

Yes, the deposit of faith.. Jesus commissioned the apostles to spread his word to all creation and gave them authority to do so. From what I understand, Sacred Tradition is what the church bases its teachings on.. and it, along with sacred scripture is believed to be infallible in all that is taught on matters of faith and morals.Yep, the catholic church is a sterling example of all things moral.

The church was around before the NT was written (Peter was the rock on which it was built). And as such, they had this divine authority from Christ, this deposit of faith..

Why, then, didn't the apostles all teach the same message?

St. Paul's message was different than the one coming from the Jerusalem church. And he claims his gospel is the only true gospel and if any of his customers.. I mean, if any of his congregation hears some other gospel they should condemn the speaker.

The author of Acts has the church "come around" to support Paul eventually, but we have to wonder was it really like this.

outside of one or two minore things the apostles did preach the same message...The Catholic Church doesn't preach the message that the Apostles preached, but, that isn't the point here...

 

[Mr. Chumley]

And so you can see how different factions of christians argue with one another over scripture in the bible. What did he mean? what does this imply? This means this, that doesn't mean that! You're Wrong!

It's no wonder casual observers of christianity stay clear from pious ramblings like those showcased from various christians in threads like these.

How is one on the fence supposed to understand the message of the bible if various christians can't even agree on foundational doctrines and ideas such as salvation, baptism or the Trinity?

I would imagine it is things like this that make non Christians just shake their heads at us. Instead of Christians arguing over doctrinal issues we should agree on the overall big picture which is the death and resurrection of Jesus and his sacrifice to make a way for salvation. Whether works are required or not is secondary is obviously up for debate. Jesus comes first. With out Him, works won't get you any where. So instead of arguing and driving a wedge between Christians based on doctrine we should be building each other up.

That’s hard to do though when you come out and say all Catholics are headed to hell. You don’t know that, I don’t know that, and it isn’t for any of us to decide. They have the bible, they have heard the message and they believe in Christ. Let’s let God decide if they meet the criteria.

 

[CrossEyed]

But don't worry about it Larry, because there is no requirement that words be specific during baptism, because it's the authority of Jesus that we are baptized under, not the word used to call Him.

AMEN, brother.

 

[Koya]

Another thread is LarryBoyed

I'd like to sit in on one of the study classes or sermons in Larry's church. I bet there are a lot of "amens" and "right ons". It would be entertaining.

I wonder if Larry realized how much he pushes many people away from the very thing(s) he holds sacred.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I have used the Bible NUMEROUS times in the past to show you this, and every single solitary time you say that only ACTS shows us how to be saved and that the rest of the books of the NT are written for people who are already Christians. It's not even close to being true, but you won't budge from that position, so why even go there again?

are you now telling me that Romans wasn't really written to the church in Rome?? I & II Corinthians not to the church in Corinth?? Galations not to the church of Galatia??? Ephesians not to the church of Ephesus???

If not written to those places, who exactly were those letters written to? Especially since the letters all refer to the intended recipient of the letter as the churches in those places...

Where did I ever claim that Romans wasn't written to the church in Rome, or that Corintians was not written to the church in Corinth, or that Galations was not written to the church in Galatia, or that Ephesians was not written to the church in Ephesus?

when you claim that romans, I & II Corinthians, etc. are not written to Christians and only Christians you claim they weren't actually written to those churches...

Again, your lack of logic is amazing. I never said they were not written TO Christians and only Christians. You are the one who claims they are only intended FOR Christians. I'm claiming that is wrong, because while they were written TO those churches they are intended FOR anyone.

either they were written to the churches or they weren't, and the documents themselves tell us that they were in fact written to those churches...

No kidding. I don't see how based on the fact they were written to those churches that they have absolutely no applicability to anyone who is not a Christian. How can you logically conclude that?

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message the later "church" taught/teaches...

you need to look at the intended audience for what is said. Kind of like if you were talking about fantasy football to people, if you were talking to people who never played it you'd explain it a lot differently than to someone who has already played it before...

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

 

[larry_boy_44]

first of the two "I don't knows" are referring to two different things...

No Larry, they are referring to the exact same thing. You don't know if the Catholic is going to hell because the wrong words were uttered during their baptism, but you claim to know that I'm going to hell because the wrong words were uttered during my baptism.

I don't know if God is going to send people to hell for being disobedient to His command, you do know that His command is not actually what you are doing, you just don't care what His command actually was because you rationalized your tradition into God's command...

So in telling people that they are going to hell because the wrong words were uttered at their baptism despite the fact that they profess belief, continually serve Christ and show good fruit, you are telling them something you don't know for sure. On the other hand, I'm telling people something I know: Believe that Christ is your savior and you will have eternal life. Salvation is that simple. That's the good news. All of the commandments Jesus gave to his believers (and there are tons of them) are not prerequisits to receive Gods grace. Obedience of his commandments is evidence of one's belief. If you were to say that a person who never shows any evidence of obedience has failed to profess belief in Christ and is therefor not saved, then I would agree with that. But that is far from what you claim that even the wrong words being uttered at one's baptism is a disobeidience that will send someone to hell.

second, no matter how you put it, saying "In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost" is not following what Jesus actually said in Matthew 28:19 (As He explictly said "In my name")... nor is it following the commands that Peter and Paul gave...

THEN HAVE THE PERSON WHO BAPTISES YOU SAY IT IN THE GREEK IF DOING IF EXPLICITLY IS SO IMPORTANT!

third, God put requirements on us, He did.. By the grace that you speak we don't have to do anything, we don't even have to believe, to be saved... but that makes it useless for Christ to have died, if God were going to deal with the sin in our lives, He didn't need to come and die, but He did, why? To cover our sins, not so we can go "Eh, His grace is sufficient I'll do whatever I want", which is what you are saying...

Never, never, NEVER have I said "I'll do whatever I want". You have to establish that as part of my argument to even retort it. Try actually responding to what I'm saying to see if you can retort my argument.

so if you believe and never act on it, did you really believe? IF you believe, adn there are commands of what you need to do, and you don't do them, did you really believe?

Like I said before Larry, if you were to claim that a person who never obeys(0% obedience) is not saved, I would agree with you. If they are 0% obedient, do they really believe. I can honestly say no they don't. But you are saying that even a person who got everything right except one thing (99.9999% obedience) is going to hell because uttering the right words during one's baptism is that important.

You have said you will do whatever youwant when you stick with yoru completely extra-Biblical tradition rather than doing what the Bible says we should do, you do not even have Matthew 28:19 to stand on about baptism, you simply don't care what the Bible says and it is about time you just admit it, becasue that is the jist of what you are saying... Not one place in the Bible does it ever give any indication of baptism in any other way but "In JEsus name" in some way shape or form, stop changing things to meet with the pagan traditions that your ancestors added to Chrsitanity...

Larry all of this above is a complete assumption on your part. Just because I believe God will give Grace even to disobedient believers (99% obedience is still disobedience) does not mean that I believe Christians can do what ever they want to do.

I would say that willful disobedience is not at all accepted by God, though, Spock... if you know that He wants us to be baptized in Jesus' name specifically, and you don't do it because you think something else is good enough, Id on't see why He'd accept that...

Again, look at how you phrase your argument. Without the word "specifically" you can't claim someone is in willful disobedience. The whole crux of your argument is based on it be needed specifically. It's a translation Larry. It was written in Greek. If it's specific, the if you have been baptized using the Greek word, then you are in willful disobedience as well. But don't worry about it Larry, because there is no requirement that words be specific during baptism, because it's the authority of Jesus that we are baptized under, not the word used to call Him.

Why are you so certain that the way you do it is right when its been admitted that the way you do it was added to the Bible in order to support a false, pagan doctrine that was accepted by the "church" 300 years after Christ?I mean, really... do you realize that you are not only not doing what history and the Bible tells us the Apostles did, you are directly disobeying Jesus' real command in Matthew 28:19?? (He said to baptize them in His name, not in anything else or any titles, it was changed at a later date to what we hav ein modern Bibles)

 

[larry_boy_44]

But don't worry about it Larry, because there is no requirement that words be specific during baptism, because it's the authority of Jesus that we are baptized under, not the word used to call Him.

AMEN, brother.

you aren't calling on the authority of Jesus when you use the Titles, you are calling on the authority of a group of three pagan gods that the "church" that remained 300 years after Christ adopted and changed thier beliefs towards...

 

[Politician Spock]

I have used the Bible NUMEROUS times in the past to show you this, and every single solitary time you say that only ACTS shows us how to be saved and that the rest of the books of the NT are written for people who are already Christians. It's not even close to being true, but you won't budge from that position, so why even go there again?

are you now telling me that Romans wasn't really written to the church in Rome?? I & II Corinthians not to the church in Corinth?? Galations not to the church of Galatia??? Ephesians not to the church of Ephesus???

If not written to those places, who exactly were those letters written to? Especially since the letters all refer to the intended recipient of the letter as the churches in those places...

Where did I ever claim that Romans wasn't written to the church in Rome, or that Corintians was not written to the church in Corinth, or that Galations was not written to the church in Galatia, or that Ephesians was not written to the church in Ephesus?

when you claim that romans, I & II Corinthians, etc. are not written to Christians and only Christians you claim they weren't actually written to those churches...

Again, your lack of logic is amazing. I never said they were not written TO Christians and only Christians. You are the one who claims they are only intended FOR Christians. I'm claiming that is wrong, because while they were written TO those churches they are intended FOR anyone.

either they were written to the churches or they weren't, and the documents themselves tell us that they were in fact written to those churches...

No kidding. I don't see how based on the fact they were written to those churches that they have absolutely no applicability to anyone who is not a Christian. How can you logically conclude that?

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

you need to look at the intended audience for what is said. Kind of like if you were talking about fantasy football to people, if you were talking to people who never played it you'd explain it a lot differently than to someone who has already played it before...

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Larry, in many places Paul was teaching his intended audience how churches should minister to non-Christians and bring them into the Christian faith. While his intended audience was not non-Christians, his words are certainly applicable to non-Christians.

 

[CrossEyed]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

 

[Mr. Chumley]

So what denomination are you guys?

LB?

Spock?

Just curious.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I have used the Bible NUMEROUS times in the past to show you this, and every single solitary time you say that only ACTS shows us how to be saved and that the rest of the books of the NT are written for people who are already Christians. It's not even close to being true, but you won't budge from that position, so why even go there again?

are you now telling me that Romans wasn't really written to the church in Rome?? I & II Corinthians not to the church in Corinth?? Galations not to the church of Galatia??? Ephesians not to the church of Ephesus???

If not written to those places, who exactly were those letters written to? Especially since the letters all refer to the intended recipient of the letter as the churches in those places...

Where did I ever claim that Romans wasn't written to the church in Rome, or that Corintians was not written to the church in Corinth, or that Galations was not written to the church in Galatia, or that Ephesians was not written to the church in Ephesus?

when you claim that romans, I & II Corinthians, etc. are not written to Christians and only Christians you claim they weren't actually written to those churches...

Again, your lack of logic is amazing. I never said they were not written TO Christians and only Christians. You are the one who claims they are only intended FOR Christians. I'm claiming that is wrong, because while they were written TO those churches they are intended FOR anyone.

either they were written to the churches or they weren't, and the documents themselves tell us that they were in fact written to those churches...

No kidding. I don't see how based on the fact they were written to those churches that they have absolutely no applicability to anyone who is not a Christian. How can you logically conclude that?

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

you need to look at the intended audience for what is said. Kind of like if you were talking about fantasy football to people, if you were talking to people who never played it you'd explain it a lot differently than to someone who has already played it before...

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Larry, in many places Paul was teaching his intended audience how churches should minister to non-Christians and bring them into the Christian faith. While his intended audience was not non-Christians, his words are certainly applicable to non-Christians.

so, in other words, you are saying that he was saying what you believe even though he never actually said he was saying what you believe???

Don't you see how that is dangerous? You are reading things into what he said that 100% are NOT THERE... you can't be proven wrong, because Paul never actually states what you are saying he was talking about, you just assume he was saying it...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

 

[Jayrok]

outside of one or two minore things the apostles did preach the same message...

Then you said this:

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

The Jerusalem apostles continued to follow Mosaic law. They didn't want gentiles included in christianity. They didn't even eat with gentiles. Even when they did begin to accept that Gentiles can be christians too (after peter's vision and visit to Corneleous), they wanted to require them to be circumcized, abstain from unclean things, etc.. It was as If Jesus never taught them anything about those issues central to Paul's gospel. Maybe he didn't.

Would you call circumcision, dietary laws of Jews, et al "minor" differences? Those were huge issues and central in Paul's theology. Jews for the most part, rejected Paul's message. He even says as much in the bible.

They may have gotten on the same page during the Jerusalem Council, but that was many years after Paul's vision on the road to Damascus.

 

[CrossEyed]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

 

[larry_boy_44]

outside of one or two minore things the apostles did preach the same message...

Then you said this:

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

The Jerusalem apostles continued to follow Mosaic law. They didn't want gentiles included in christianity. They didn't even eat with gentiles. Even when they did begin to accept that Gentiles can be christians too (after peter's vision and visit to Corneleous), they wanted to require them to be circumcized, abstain from unclean things, etc.. It was as If Jesus never taught them anything about those issues central to Paul's gospel. Maybe he didn't.

Would you call circumcision, dietary laws of Jews, et al "minor" differences? Those were huge issues and central in Paul's theology. Jews for the most part, rejected Paul's message. He even says as much in the bible.

They may have gotten on the same page during the Jerusalem Council, but that was many years after Paul's vision on the road to Damascus.

yeah, I was thinking of three or four different things at once and my writing wasn't keeping up with my thinking...I fixed it (read it now)

Jews, to a large degree, rejected the Gospel period... Yes, the church started with Jews, but more Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the gospel messgae than those who accepted it... the problem with the early church as far as dietary laws and Jewish customs go is the same as in modern churches, people like to stay with what is comfortable and normal, so they didn't move on past those things even though they should have...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

maybe, but then the question is why didn't he preach that when he came across non-believers... He even preached a different message when he came to "Believers"...Look at when he comes to followers of John in Acts 19, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, they knew he died and rose again, but yet Paul asked them if they'd recieved the Holy Ghost, they said they dind't know it had come yet, and he then baptized them in Jesus' name and they were filled with the Holy Ghost...

that isn't even close to being similar to what was said in Romans...

 

[BowieMercs]

to be completely honest... if they followed Catholic doctrine, yes...

but I'm not the one who decides that, so who knows

Blue!No... Yellow!

 

[Jayrok]

outside of one or two minore things the apostles did preach the same message...

Then you said this:

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

The Jerusalem apostles continued to follow Mosaic law. They didn't want gentiles included in christianity. They didn't even eat with gentiles. Even when they did begin to accept that Gentiles can be christians too (after peter's vision and visit to Corneleous), they wanted to require them to be circumcized, abstain from unclean things, etc.. It was as If Jesus never taught them anything about those issues central to Paul's gospel. Maybe he didn't.

Would you call circumcision, dietary laws of Jews, et al "minor" differences? Those were huge issues and central in Paul's theology. Jews for the most part, rejected Paul's message. He even says as much in the bible.

They may have gotten on the same page during the Jerusalem Council, but that was many years after Paul's vision on the road to Damascus.

yeah, I was thinking of three or four different things at once and my writing wasn't keeping up with my thinking...I fixed it (read it now)

Jews, to a large degree, rejected the Gospel period... Yes, the church started with Jews, but more Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the gospel messgae than those who accepted it... the problem with the early church as far as dietary laws and Jewish customs go is the same as in modern churches, people like to stay with what is comfortable and normal, so they didn't move on past those things even though they should have...

Where is the evidence that the early church Jews rejected jesus as the messiah? The Jewish and Temple leadership, yes.. but not the Jews who followed the apostles through the church. And those apostles didn't stray far from Judaism in their practices.

Do you think it is remotely possible that Jesus never taught nor wanted them to stray from Judaism and its restrictions?

Perhaps he just wanted to reform his religion a bit, not replace it completely with Paul's gospel..

Luke wrote Acts.. he was also a companion of Paul. Maybe there is a correlation there..

 

[CrossEyed]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

maybe, but then the question is why didn't he preach that when he came across non-believers... He even preached a different message when he came to "Believers"...Look at when he comes to followers of John in Acts 19, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, they knew he died and rose again, but yet Paul asked them if they'd recieved the Holy Ghost, they said they dind't know it had come yet, and he then baptized them in Jesus' name and they were filled with the Holy Ghost...

that isn't even close to being similar to what was said in Romans...

Where do you see this? Disciple means learner or follower. There's no way we can know what these men believed. Not all disciples were saved. John 6:66 says that many of Jesus' disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. Disciple <> Christian.

 

[Franknbeans]

Christians will never realize that it isn't their decision on whom goes to hell and who doesn't. It is His decision, not yours. You couldn't possibly understand his decisions. And you couldn't possibly know who is going to hell or heaven. I wish they would start acting in accordance to their ignorance.

I agree. Humanity would be a whole lot better off if man admitted only what he knew. Humility, catch it!

 

[BowieMercs]

Christians will never realize that it isn't their decision on whom goes to hell and who doesn't. It is His decision, not yours. You couldn't possibly understand his decisions. And you couldn't possibly know who is going to hell or heaven. I wish they would start acting in accordance to their ignorance.

I agree. Humanity would be a whole lot better off if man admitted only what he knew. Humility, catch it!

 

[larry_boy_44]

outside of one or two minore things the apostles did preach the same message...

Then you said this:

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

The Jerusalem apostles continued to follow Mosaic law. They didn't want gentiles included in christianity. They didn't even eat with gentiles. Even when they did begin to accept that Gentiles can be christians too (after peter's vision and visit to Corneleous), they wanted to require them to be circumcized, abstain from unclean things, etc.. It was as If Jesus never taught them anything about those issues central to Paul's gospel. Maybe he didn't.

Would you call circumcision, dietary laws of Jews, et al "minor" differences? Those were huge issues and central in Paul's theology. Jews for the most part, rejected Paul's message. He even says as much in the bible.

They may have gotten on the same page during the Jerusalem Council, but that was many years after Paul's vision on the road to Damascus.

yeah, I was thinking of three or four different things at once and my writing wasn't keeping up with my thinking...I fixed it (read it now)

Jews, to a large degree, rejected the Gospel period... Yes, the church started with Jews, but more Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah and the gospel messgae than those who accepted it... the problem with the early church as far as dietary laws and Jewish customs go is the same as in modern churches, people like to stay with what is comfortable and normal, so they didn't move on past those things even though they should have...

Where is the evidence that the early church Jews rejected jesus as the messiah? The Jewish and Temple leadership, yes.. but not the Jews who followed the apostles through the church. And those apostles didn't stray far from Judaism in their practices.

Do you think it is remotely possible that Jesus never taught nor wanted them to stray from Judaism and its restrictions?

Perhaps he just wanted to reform his religion a bit, not replace it completely with Paul's gospel..

Luke wrote Acts.. he was also a companion of Paul. Maybe there is a correlation there..

ok, a few things...1. I wasn't talking about the Jews who converted, I'm saying that a majority of the Jewish world did not convert to Christianity... obviously the Jews who converted converted...

2. Luke likely did not write Luke as whoever travelled with Paul would likely have been dead when Luke was written...

3. Paul's gospel wasn't the only thing that was completely different from Judaism... Peter's was, too... They cahnged it and made something new, its just that the only one who gave up the old way they did things (initially) was Paul, everyone else held on to the past...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

maybe, but then the question is why didn't he preach that when he came across non-believers... He even preached a different message when he came to "Believers"...Look at when he comes to followers of John in Acts 19, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, they knew he died and rose again, but yet Paul asked them if they'd recieved the Holy Ghost, they said they dind't know it had come yet, and he then baptized them in Jesus' name and they were filled with the Holy Ghost...

that isn't even close to being similar to what was said in Romans...

Where do you see this? Disciple means learner or follower. There's no way we can know what these men believed. Not all disciples were saved. John 6:66 says that many of Jesus' disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. Disciple <> Christian.

you can tell by how Paul talked to them... He didn't ask if they didn't believe, he asked if they'd recieved the Comforter, those who dont' believe don't get filled with the Spirit...

 

[Koya]

Another thread is LarryBoyed

I'd like to sit in on one of the study classes or sermons in Larry's church. I bet there are a lot of "amens" and "right ons". It would be entertaining.

I wonder if Larry realized how much he pushes many people away from the very thing(s) he holds sacred.

I guess he doesnt care. Must be more important to him to hear himself speak (type) than foster either understanding, or spread his gospel in a way to embrace others and not push them away.

 

[CrossEyed]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

maybe, but then the question is why didn't he preach that when he came across non-believers... He even preached a different message when he came to "Believers"...Look at when he comes to followers of John in Acts 19, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, they knew he died and rose again, but yet Paul asked them if they'd recieved the Holy Ghost, they said they dind't know it had come yet, and he then baptized them in Jesus' name and they were filled with the Holy Ghost...

that isn't even close to being similar to what was said in Romans...

Where do you see this? Disciple means learner or follower. There's no way we can know what these men believed. Not all disciples were saved. John 6:66 says that many of Jesus' disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. Disciple <> Christian.

you can tell by how Paul talked to them... He didn't ask if they didn't believe, he asked if they'd recieved the Comforter, those who dont' believe don't get filled with the Spirit...

Exactly. And the fact that they didn't have the Holy Spirit shows that they didn't believe because everyone who believes recieves the Spirit. And before you reply, please read Romans 8.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Another thread is LarryBoyed

I'd like to sit in on one of the study classes or sermons in Larry's church. I bet there are a lot of "amens" and "right ons". It would be entertaining.

I wonder if Larry realized how much he pushes many people away from the very thing(s) he holds sacred.

I guess he doesnt care. Must be more important to him to hear himself speak (type) than foster either understanding, or spread his gospel in a way to embrace others and not push them away.

I want to spread the gospel, I am just fully aware of when it is usleess to try and spread it because it won't spread no matter what you do... this is one of those places...

 

[larry_boy_44]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

maybe, but then the question is why didn't he preach that when he came across non-believers... He even preached a different message when he came to "Believers"...Look at when he comes to followers of John in Acts 19, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, they knew he died and rose again, but yet Paul asked them if they'd recieved the Holy Ghost, they said they dind't know it had come yet, and he then baptized them in Jesus' name and they were filled with the Holy Ghost...

that isn't even close to being similar to what was said in Romans...

Where do you see this? Disciple means learner or follower. There's no way we can know what these men believed. Not all disciples were saved. John 6:66 says that many of Jesus' disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. Disciple <> Christian.

you can tell by how Paul talked to them... He didn't ask if they didn't believe, he asked if they'd recieved the Comforter, those who dont' believe don't get filled with the Spirit...

Exactly. And the fact that they didn't have the Holy Spirit shows that they didn't believe because everyone who believes recieves the Spirit. And before you reply, please read Romans 8.

before you reply, please read the entire book of Acts where people didn't recieve the spirit instantly upon belief...If they didn't believe Paul wouldn't have asked them what he did like he did....

Look at Acts 10... The Jews wanted to deny the Gentiles baptism because they didn't believe Gentiles could be converted... What changed thier opinion? The Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit... what does this show? that infilling of the Holy Spirit IS NOT upon belief since the early church usually baptized people before they were filled with the Spirit...

 

[Politician Spock]

I have used the Bible NUMEROUS times in the past to show you this, and every single solitary time you say that only ACTS shows us how to be saved and that the rest of the books of the NT are written for people who are already Christians. It's not even close to being true, but you won't budge from that position, so why even go there again?

are you now telling me that Romans wasn't really written to the church in Rome?? I & II Corinthians not to the church in Corinth?? Galations not to the church of Galatia??? Ephesians not to the church of Ephesus???

If not written to those places, who exactly were those letters written to? Especially since the letters all refer to the intended recipient of the letter as the churches in those places...

Where did I ever claim that Romans wasn't written to the church in Rome, or that Corintians was not written to the church in Corinth, or that Galations was not written to the church in Galatia, or that Ephesians was not written to the church in Ephesus?

when you claim that romans, I & II Corinthians, etc. are not written to Christians and only Christians you claim they weren't actually written to those churches...

Again, your lack of logic is amazing. I never said they were not written TO Christians and only Christians. You are the one who claims they are only intended FOR Christians. I'm claiming that is wrong, because while they were written TO those churches they are intended FOR anyone.

either they were written to the churches or they weren't, and the documents themselves tell us that they were in fact written to those churches...

No kidding. I don't see how based on the fact they were written to those churches that they have absolutely no applicability to anyone who is not a Christian. How can you logically conclude that?

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

you need to look at the intended audience for what is said. Kind of like if you were talking about fantasy football to people, if you were talking to people who never played it you'd explain it a lot differently than to someone who has already played it before...

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Larry, in many places Paul was teaching his intended audience how churches should minister to non-Christians and bring them into the Christian faith. While his intended audience was not non-Christians, his words are certainly applicable to non-Christians.

so, in other words, you are saying that he was saying what you believe even though he never actually said he was saying what you believe???

Don't you see how that is dangerous? You are reading things into what he said that 100% are NOT THERE... you can't be proven wrong, because Paul never actually states what you are saying he was talking about, you just assume he was saying it...

No Larry, not "in other words". IN MY WORDS. Respond to what I'm saying, not some whacked out revision you present of my argument that's easy to knock down. What you consistently do is called straw-man arguing.

I beleive what Paul said. What he said applies to non-Christians even though his target audience was Christians. That's not a foreign concept. Claiming that a letter has no applicabaility to anyone except the intended audience is a foreign concept. The entire Bible is applicable to anyone. In fact a woman at our church became a believer last week just by reading 1st John. I guess she's not really a believer since she wasn't the target audience of 1st John according to your logic.

 

[Politician Spock]

So what denomination are you guys?

LB?

Spock?

Just curious.

Grace Brethren.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I have used the Bible NUMEROUS times in the past to show you this, and every single solitary time you say that only ACTS shows us how to be saved and that the rest of the books of the NT are written for people who are already Christians. It's not even close to being true, but you won't budge from that position, so why even go there again?

are you now telling me that Romans wasn't really written to the church in Rome?? I & II Corinthians not to the church in Corinth?? Galations not to the church of Galatia??? Ephesians not to the church of Ephesus???

If not written to those places, who exactly were those letters written to? Especially since the letters all refer to the intended recipient of the letter as the churches in those places...

Where did I ever claim that Romans wasn't written to the church in Rome, or that Corintians was not written to the church in Corinth, or that Galations was not written to the church in Galatia, or that Ephesians was not written to the church in Ephesus?

when you claim that romans, I & II Corinthians, etc. are not written to Christians and only Christians you claim they weren't actually written to those churches...

Again, your lack of logic is amazing. I never said they were not written TO Christians and only Christians. You are the one who claims they are only intended FOR Christians. I'm claiming that is wrong, because while they were written TO those churches they are intended FOR anyone.

either they were written to the churches or they weren't, and the documents themselves tell us that they were in fact written to those churches...

No kidding. I don't see how based on the fact they were written to those churches that they have absolutely no applicability to anyone who is not a Christian. How can you logically conclude that?

because, the message that was clearly taught to non-believers by the first century both in the Bible and according to history is very different from the message Paul taught them...

you need to look at the intended audience for what is said. Kind of like if you were talking about fantasy football to people, if you were talking to people who never played it you'd explain it a lot differently than to someone who has already played it before...

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Larry, in many places Paul was teaching his intended audience how churches should minister to non-Christians and bring them into the Christian faith. While his intended audience was not non-Christians, his words are certainly applicable to non-Christians.

so, in other words, you are saying that he was saying what you believe even though he never actually said he was saying what you believe???

Don't you see how that is dangerous? You are reading things into what he said that 100% are NOT THERE... you can't be proven wrong, because Paul never actually states what you are saying he was talking about, you just assume he was saying it...

No Larry, not "in other words". IN MY WORDS. Respond to what I'm saying, not some whacked out revision you present of my argument that's easy to knock down. What you consistently do is called straw-man arguing.

I beleive what Paul said. What he said applies to non-Christians even though his target audience was Christians. That's not a foreign concept. Claiming that a letter has no applicabaility to anyone except the intended audience is a foreign concept. The entire Bible is applicable to anyone. In fact a woman at our church became a believer last week just by reading 1st John. I guess she's not really a believer since she wasn't the target audience of 1st John according to your logic.

its not that a non-believer can get absolutely nothing from it, it is just dangerous when you get your doctrine about the plan of salvation from a letter that was written exclusively to people who were already saved... It is unlikely Paul would tell them, again, how to be saved, when he had already done so...

its not that it is completely in-applicable, it is that you need to be careful what level you apply it... saying that the entirety of how one gets saved is in Romans, and not Acts, where there are actually sermons to non-believers is non-sensical... Shouldn't we look to where there is an audience of non-believers and not to where there is an audience of believers for how one gets saved?

 

[CrossEyed]

Paul was not talking to people who hadn't heard the message yet, he was talking to people who heard already and were converted, thus he could skip past all the really basic stuff and get to the deeper things...

Except that Paul covered even the "basic stuff" in his letters. Paul often was writing to people who might be considered "baby Christians", so his instructions were applicable to Christians as well as those who didn't know anything about Christianity.

then why did Paul himself preach differently in Acts (and historically) when he talked to non-believers than he did in those letters?Paul himself baptized in Jesus' name and preached it everywhere he went, so where is the disconnect?

Paul wrote the following in his letter to the Romans:

But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. For the Scripture says, “Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; for “Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

This passage doesn't apply to non-Christians?

maybe, but then the question is why didn't he preach that when he came across non-believers... He even preached a different message when he came to "Believers"...Look at when he comes to followers of John in Acts 19, they believed in Jesus as the Messiah, they knew he died and rose again, but yet Paul asked them if they'd recieved the Holy Ghost, they said they dind't know it had come yet, and he then baptized them in Jesus' name and they were filled with the Holy Ghost...

that isn't even close to being similar to what was said in Romans...

Where do you see this? Disciple means learner or follower. There's no way we can know what these men believed. Not all disciples were saved. John 6:66 says that many of Jesus' disciples withdrew and were not walking with Him anymore. Disciple <> Christian.

you can tell by how Paul talked to them... He didn't ask if they didn't believe, he asked if they'd recieved the Comforter, those who dont' believe don't get filled with the Spirit...

Exactly. And the fact that they didn't have the Holy Spirit shows that they didn't believe because everyone who believes recieves the Spirit. And before you reply, please read Romans 8.

before you reply, please read the entire book of Acts where people didn't recieve the spirit instantly upon belief...If they didn't believe Paul wouldn't have asked them what he did like he did....

Look at Acts 10... The Jews wanted to deny the Gentiles baptism because they didn't believe Gentiles could be converted... What changed thier opinion? The Gentiles were filled with the Holy Spirit... what does this show? that infilling of the Holy Spirit IS NOT upon belief since the early church usually baptized people before they were filled with the Spirit...

Larry, every once in a while you might try to actually read what the poster is referring to before you reply. And you might want to consider doing a little less teaching and a little more reading. Your understanding of Scripture falls far short of your zeal for Scripture.