#read more at steve-finnell.blogspot.com
Text
WHY IS REPENTANCE A DIRTY WORD? steve finnell
Most churches treat repentance like it is foreign to the gospel. The goal of most congregations seems to be church growth, rather than converting men to Christ. Sin is either not mentioned or it is excused. Repentance is treated like a dirty word.
2 Timothy 4:2-3 preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,
The problem is far too many Christians have the desire to continue in a sinful lifestyle. And most churches are more than willing to ignore or excuse sin.
1 Corinthians 6:8-11....9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?......
Who are the unrighteous?
1. Fornicators. Do they need to repent? Yes.
2. Idolaters. Do they need to repent? Yes.
3. Adulterers. Do they need to repent? Yes.
4. Effeminate. Do they need to repent? Yes.
5. Homosexuals. Do they need to repent? Yes.
6. Thieves. Do they need to repent? Yes.
7. The covetous. Do they need to repent? Yes.
8. Drunkards. Do they need to repent? Yes.
9. Revilers. Do they need to repent? Yes.
10. Swindlers. Do they need to repent? Yes.
When is the last time you heard a preacher say unless you repent you will not enter into the kingdom of God. When is the last time your preacher named sin by name.
For the record the apostle Paul was preaching to Christians, however, it applies to sinners as well.
If you are not hearing repentance preached, you may be attending a seeker friendly church.
YES, all Christians sin, but all Christians do not make sin a lifestyle.
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
CALLED AND CHOSEN
Matthew 22:14 For many are called , but few are chosen."
Definition of called: Invited or summoned.
Definition of chosen: Those who are eligible or suited for election. Elected and chosen are synonymous.
WHO ARE THE CALLED?
Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
Every person who has heard the gospel has been called. The call is not limited to a select few who have been predestined for salvation.
WHO ARE THE CHOSEN (THE ELECTED)?
The chosen are the ones who are obedient to the call of the gospel.
The chosen are those who have
1. Faith: John 3:16
The chosen are those who 2. Repent: Acts 3:19 (Repent means to make the commitment to turn from sin and turn toward God).
The chosen are those who 3. Confess: Roman 10:9-10
The chosen are those who are 4. Baptized in water: Acts 2:38
The chosen are not those who were supposedly, unconditionally selected for salvation. The chosen have to be suited for election.
THE CALLED WHO ARE NOT CHOSEN.
Matthew 22:2-3 "the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son. 3 And he sent out his slaves to call those who had been invited to the wedding feast, and they were unwilling to come.
Many have had the gospel preached to them, but of their own free-will have rejected the call. If men reject the gift of eternal life by rejecting Jesus as Lord and Savior; then they have been called, but not chosen.
Matthew 22:11-14 "But when the king came to look over the dinner quests, he saw a man there who was not dressed in wedding clothes, 12 and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?" 13 Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, and throw him into the outer darkness; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.' 14 For many are called but few are chosen."
This wedding quest was disinvited. He was called but not chosen ; because he was not suitable to be chosen. Improper clothing was a big deal.
Galatalians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
DO YOU HAVE THE PROPER WEDDING CLOTHES TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
When you stand before the KING OF KINGS are you going to be speechless when He asks; where are your wedding clothes? WHAT WILL YOU SAY WHEN HE ASKS YOU WHY YOU REJECTED IMMERSION IN WATER FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF YOUR SINS. WHAT WILL YOUR ANSWER BE, WHEN JESUS ASKS YOU WHY YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD WITH BEING CLOTHED IN CHRIST?
MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW ARE CHOSEN!
15 notes
·
View notes
Text
RICH PREACHERS??? BY STEVE FINNELL
Estimated net worth of some well known preachers.
1. Pat Robertson 100 million.
2. Benny Hinn 42 million.
3. Joel Osteen 40 million.
4. Billy Graham 25 million.
5. Rick Warren 25 million.
6. T.D. Jakes 18 million.
7. Max Lucado 10 million.
8. Franklin Graham 10 million.
9. Joyce Meyer 8 million.
10. Creflo Dollar 27 million.
The list of millionaire apostles that walked with Jesus.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
That is correct there were no millionaire apostles.
Mark 4:19 but the worries of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. (NASB)
Matthew 19:23 And Jesus said to His disciples, "Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. (NASB)
Matthew 6:19 "Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and thieves break in and steal. (NASB)
1 Timothy 6:9 But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. (NASB)
1 Timothy 6:10 For the love of money is the root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs. (NASB)
Titus 1:10-11 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, 11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain. (NASB)
Are there contemporary rebellious preachers denying the word of God in order to gain wealth? Are some preachers knowingly teaching the false doctrines of their denominations in order to keep the money flowing.
Most denominational preachers would be fired if they preached the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Preaching from the Bible and the Bible alone can hazardous to your employment.
19 notes
·
View notes
Text
THE APOSTLES' TEACHING BY STEVE FINNELL
The early Christians believed the apostles' teaching. (Acts 2:42 They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching....)
What was not the apostles' teaching? What was the apostles' teaching, what was their source?
The apostles' teaching did not originate from the Pharisees creed books. They did not teach from the Sadducees statement of faith. The apostles did not use the catechisms of the Judaizers as the final authority or as a substitute for the Scriptures.
The Scriptures were the source of the apostles' teaching and the words and writings of the apostles were also the Scriptures.
Acts 17:2 And according to Paul's customs, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures......
Paul taught from the Scriptures, not from man-made creed books and catechisms.
2 Peter 2:15-16 just as also our beloved brother Paul, according the the wisdom given him , wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of theses things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
Peter included the apostles Paul's writing as being Scriptures.
The apostles' teaching was from the Old Testament Scriptures and from their own words and letters which were in fact the New Testament Scriptures.
The apostles did not teach from the creed books of the Pharisees. The did not use the catechisms of the Judaizers to instruct their brethren in faith and practice. They did not consult the Sadducees statement of faith, in order to teach others.
The apostle John wrote the last Scripture in A.D. 95, it was the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
A.D. 95 was the last recorded teaching by an apostle.
If the contemporary creed books, catechisms, statements of faith, Bible commentaries, so-called new revelation of modern-day apostles, and other extra-Biblical sources are not the exact same teachings of the apostles of the Bible, then, THEY ARE IN FACT, WRITTEN WORDS OF FALSE DOCTRINE.
12 notes
·
View notes
Text
MANY ARE CALLED BUT FEW SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES FOR THE TRUTH--BY STEVE FINNELL
Many are called, however, most do not read the Bible to find God's truth. Most believers in Christ depend on finding the truth by searching church traditions. Is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth found in denominational catechisms, Bible commentaries, preachers sermons, the opinions of friends and family? Many are called but few put their trust in the Bible as the one and only source for absolute truth.
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God...(NKJV)
Is all denominational doctrine given by the inspiration of God? If that is true, then why are there twenty thousand Christ believing denominations teaching different doctrines?
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure; He is a shield to those who put their trust in Him. (NKJV)
Not every word of church denominations is pure. God told us to put our trust in Him, He did not say to trust the denomination of our choice.
Acts 17:10-11 Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. 11 These were more fair- minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to to find out whether these things were so. (NKJV)
The Bereans searched the Scriptures for the truth. They did not search for the truth in the writings of the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Jehovah's Witness Church, the Mormon Church nor any other denomination.
Many are called, but few search the Scriptures to see if they have been properly called.
7 notes
·
View notes
Text
QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ABOUT SABBATH KEEPING BY STEVE FINNELL
Why do believers in Christ who claim to be sabbath keepers fail to keep the laws of the sabbath? Christians were never instructed to remember the sabbath and keep it holy.
The command to remember the sabbath and keep it holy was given to Israel and Israel alone. It was not restated under the New Covenant.
Deuteronomy 5:1-15 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully.......12 'Observe the sabbath day to keep it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you......
New Testament instructions concerning Old Covenant sabbath keeping.
Romans 14:5-6 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in h
is own mind. 6 He who observes the day , observes it for the Lord.....
Colossians 2:14-16....Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day---
Christians are free to worship any day they wish, be it Saturday, Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday etc. Christians are free to work any day they wish. There is no New testament command to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
SO-CALLED MODERN DAY SABBATH KEEPERS DO NOT KEEP THE SABBATH NOR DO THEY PUNISH THEIR MEMBERS WHO BREAK IT.
Exodus 31:15 For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day there is a sabbath of complete rest, holy to the Lord, whoever does work on the sabbath day shall surely be put to death.
Numbers 15:32-36 Now while the sons of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering wood on the sabbath day........35 Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." .......
THERE ARE ONLY FALSE SABBATH KEEPERS TODAY.
REMEMBER THE SABBATH AND KEEP IT HOLY IS NOT A CHRISTIAN LAW.
0 notes
Text
NO VOTE WILL BE TAKEN ON JUDGMENT DAY BY STEVE FINNELL
There are many who believe that when judgment day arrives; that, majority opinion will determine entry into heaven. Many people believe that God will not send people to hell just because they reject Jesus as the Christ.
Acts 4:10-12 ....by the name of Jesus Christ....12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.
On judgment day, some would have you believe there will be a listed ballot from which you can cast your vote for the Savior of your choice.
CHECK THE REDEEMER OF YOUR CHOICE
1. Jesus
2. Kiou-tse
3. Kriskna
4. Dhouvanai
5. Horus
6. Balder
7. Hiram Abiff
8. Sosiosch
9. None of the above.
There is just one choice "JESUS." That selection has to be made prior to judgment day.
THERE WILL NOT BE A SAVIOR VOTE TAKEN ON JUDGMENT DAY!
Many also believe God gives believer in Christ "multiple choice" plans of salvation from which to cast a vote.
1. The grace only plan.
2. The faith only plan.
3. The sinner's prayer plan.
4. The good works plan.
5. The water baptism only plan.
6. The confessing Jesus as the Christ only plan.
7. The repentance only plan.
8. The deathbed conversion plan.
9. The universal plan of salvation.
THERE WILL BE NO VOTE TAKEN, ON JUDGMENT DAY. THERE IS JUST ONE PLAN OF SALVATION..
There is one way to be saved.
FAITH: John 3:16
REPENTANCE: Acts 3:19, Acts 2:38
CONFESSION: Romans 10:9-10, Acts 8:37
WATER IMMERSION: Acts 2:38, Mark 16:16, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Acts 22:16, Galatians 3:27, Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12-13, Ephesians 5:25-27, 1 Peter 3:20-21.
ALL OF THESE ARE ESSENTIAL IN ORDER TO BE SAVED. Then remain faithful: Revelation 2:10
THERE WILL BE NO VOTE TAKEN ON JUDGMENT DAY!
Matthew 7:13-14 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
There are 2.2 billion people who claim they are Christians. Do you believe that they will all enter through that narrow gate? If not, why not?
ON JUDGMENT DAY THERE WILL BE NO MAJORITY VOTE TAKEN TO DETERMINE WHO WILL BE SAVED!
JESUS HAS THE ONLY VOTE THAT WILL BE COUN
0 notes
Text
ATHEISTS HAVE FAITH?-BY STEVE FINNELL
Faith Defined: Belief that is not based on proof.
Atheists have faith that there is no God.
Atheists have faith that the theory of evolution is true. There is no scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution.
Atheists have faith that there is no heaven and no hell.
Atheists have faith that men evolved from green pond scum. There is no proof that that occurred.
Atheist have faith in the Big Bang Theory and that it produced life. In order for atheist to believe in the Big Bang Theory they have to first have faith that someone created something to crash together. Atheist do have faith. There is no proof in The Big Bang Theory.
Atheist have faith that when they die, they will cease to exist. There is no proof of that.
Atheist have faith that if they reject God and His Son Jesus Christ that there will be no consequences for their unbelief. They have no proof of that.
Atheist have faith that there is no book of life.
Revelation 20:14-15 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not fund written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
DO YOU REALLY WANT TO BASE WHERE YOU WILL SPEND ETERNITY BY PROFESSING THE FAITH OF AN ATHEIST?
Matthew 25:31-46 ....These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
(Scripture from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)
0 notes
Quote
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 2017
JUST BELIEVE AND YOU WILL BE SAVED, REALLY? BY STEVE FINNELL
THERE IS A POPULAR DOCTRINE THAT STATES, "JUST BELIEVE IN JESUS AND YOU WILL BE SAVED AND CAN NEVER BE LOST." IS IT TRUE?
DEMONS BELIEVED, THEY KNEW WHO JESUS WAS AND EVEN CONFESSED HIM. WHERE THEY SAVED? NO.
MARK1:23-24 NOW THERE WAS A MAN IN THEIR SYNAGOGUE WITH AN UNCLEAN SPIRIT. AND CRIED OUT, 24 SAYING , "LET US ALONE! WHAT HAVE WE TO DO WITH YOU, JESUS OF NAZARETH? DID YOU COME TO DESTROY US? I KNOW WHO YOU ARE---THE HOLY ONE OF GOD!'' (NKJV)
SIMPLY BELIEVING DOES NOT GUARANTEE SALVATION.
JOHN 12:42-43 NEVERTHELESS EVEN AMONG THE RULERS MANY BELIEVED IN HIM, BUT BECAUSE OF THE PHARISEES THEY DID NOT CONFESS HIM, LEST THEY SHOULD BE PUT OUT OF THE SYNAGOGUE; 43 FOR THEY LOVED THE PRAISE OF MEN MORE THAN THE PRAISE OF GOD. (NKJV)
Simply believing does not guarantee salvation.
Luke 8:13 "But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. (NKJV)
Simply believing cannot save anyone if they fall away. Yes, some people stop believing.
John 8:31 The Jesus said to those Jews who believe Him, "If you abide in My word you are My disciples indeed.(NKJV) John 15:6 "If anyone does not abide in Me, he is cast out as a branch and is withered; and they gather them and throw them into the fire, and they are burned. (NKJV)
Jesus said those who abide in His word are His disciples.
Are those who reject water immersion as being essential for salvation abiding in the word of Jesus. (Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...(NKJV)
Are those who say infants are guilty of Adam's sin; abiding in the word of Jesus?
Are those who baptize unbelieving infants; abiding in the word of Jesus?
Are those who worship the Virgin Mary by praying to her; abiding in the word of Jesus?
Are those who say God has selected them for salvation, but selected their friends to burn in hell; abiding in the word of Jesus?
Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to Me,'Lord, Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven...............23.....depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!. (NKJV)
Simply believing in Jesus cannot save anyone.
YOU ARE INVITED TO READ MY BLOG>> steve-finnell.blogspot.com
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
JOHN CALVIN'S DOCTRINE BY STEVE FINNELL
How much of John Calvin's doctrine do you embrace? All of it, some of it? Why believe any of John Calvin's doctrine if it is contrary to Scripture?
The cornerstone of Calvinism is the T.U.L.I.P.
1. Total Depravity, which states men are sinners from conception and cannot believe the gospel, therefore God must individually predestine them for salvation.
2. Unconditional Election, which says some men are individually selected for salvation and others are selected to spend eternity in hell.
3. Limited Atonement, which means Jesus did not die for all men, but only died for those who were unconditional selected for salvation.
4. Irresistible Grace, which states that God's elect cannot resist the call of the gospel.
5. Perseverance of the Saints, (AKA once in grace always in grace) which mean Christians cannot lose their salvation.
THE T.U.L.I.P IS CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE
Total Depravity: Acts 10:1-2 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always.(NKJV)
Cornelius was not totally depraved from birth.
Job 1.1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil. (NKJV)
Job was not totally depraved at conception.
Unconditional Election: Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. (NKJV)
Salvation is not unconditional.
Limited Atonement: 1 John 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world.(NKJV)
Jesus died for all men, not just a select few.
Irresistible Grace: Acts 7:51 "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do you.(NKJV)
Yes, men can and do resist the Holy Spirit.
PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: Galatians 5:4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. (NKJV)
Yes, Christians can fall from grace.
The results of believing the T.U.L.I.P doctrine are.
1. You do not have to believe that Jesus is the Christ; because God will force you to believe; because of irresistible grace.
2. You do not have to be immersed in water; because baptism is a work.
3. God selected you to go to heaven, but selected your neighbor to burn in hell.
4. Even though you live an unrepentant sinful lifestyle or have rejected Jesus as the Christ you will still be saved, because you are, once in grace always in grace.
5. You do not have to believe that God raised Jesus from the grace; because you have been saved by grace alone.
6. You do not have to make the commitment to turn from sin and turn toward God, because God gave you the faith to become saved, so you are saved by God's gift of faith and you have been saved by faith alone.
7. You do not have to be obedient to any of God's terms for pardon; because you have been saved by grace alone.
It is not possible to believe only parts of the T.U.L.I.P---- Remove any part of Calvin's T.U.L.I.P the flower wilts.
INCLUSIVE SALVATION BY STEVE FINNELL
Who are those who are included in salvation? All men who believe and obey what the apostle Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost are saved. It does not make any difference what denominational name is written on the church building where you worship, if you obey the gospel preached by Peter, then, you are saved, you are a member of the Lord's church, you are part of the church of Christ, you a member of the body of Christ, you are a Christian.
What did Peter preach?
1. Peter preached that Jesus was a miracle worker. (Acts 2:22)
2. Peter preached that Jesus was resurrected from the dead by God the Father.(Acts 2:24-35)
3. Peter preached that Jesus was both Lord and Christ.(Acts 2:36)
When the three thousand believe Peter, they asked "What shall we do?"(Acts 2:37)
4. Peter told them to repent and be baptized in order to have their sins forgiven.(Acts 2:38)
This is the same message Jesus preached. (Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved....)
THE TERMS FOR PARDON ARE: Faith-John 3:16, Repentance-Acts 2:38, Confession-Romans 10:9-10, Baptism (immersion in water) 1 Peter 3:21
All who meet the terms for pardon are saved regardless of the denominational name on the church building.
P
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE CHURCH? BY STEVE FINNELL
The question has been asked "Of what church are you a member?" I am a member of the church that Jesus owns.
WHAT CHURCH?
Acts 20:28 Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
I am a member of the church of God which Jesus purchased with His own blood.
Romans 16:16 .....all the churches of Christ greet you.
I am a member of the church of Christ.
Galatians 1:22 I was still unknown by sight to the churches of Judea which are in Christ.
I am a member of the church that is in Christ.
1 Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea......
I am a member of the church of God in Christ.
I am a member of the church of the Messiah.
I am a member of the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
I am a member of the church of the King of Kings.
I am a member of the church of the Lord of Lord's.
I am a member of the church of the Lamb of God.
I am a member of the church of the Prince of Peace.
I am a member of the church of the Son of Man.
I am am member of the church of God's only begotten Son.
I am a member of the church of the Living God.
I am a member of the church of Jesus Christ the Son of God.
My church membership is written in the Lamb's book of life. (Rev. 20:15, Rev. 21:17)
The Lord adds the saved to His church. (Acts 2:47 ... and the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.)
Jesus gave the instruction on how to be saved and added them to His church. (Mark 16:16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved....)
THE CHURCHES I AM NOT A MEMBER OF
The church of King Henry the VIII.
The church of Alexander Campbell.
The church of the Pope.
The church of John Calvin.
The church Eudorus N. Bell.
The church of Alexander Mack.
The church of Mary Baker Eddy.
The church of Joseph March.
The church of John Knox.
The church of Freemasons.
The church of Charles Taze Russell.
The church Martin Luther.
The church of Menno Simons.
The church of Joseph Smith.
The church of George Fox.
The church of William Booth.
The church of Ellen G. White.
The church of Herbert W. Armstrong.
The church of John Smythe.
The churches of Catholics.
The churches of Lutherans.
The churches of Baptists.
The churches of Methodists.
The churches of Episcopalians.
The churches of Pentecostals.
The churches of Mormons.
The churches of the Salvation Army.
The Christian church.
Christians do not own the church. All Christians are part of the body of Christ, however, they did not purchase the church. Christians are part of the Lord's church, but it is not their church. I do not belong to the "Christian" Church.
You can join a denomination, but the Lord adds the saved to His church.
YOU CANNOT JOIN THE LORD'S CHURCH!
YES, I AM A MEMBER OF THE church of CHRIST. Why, because the Lord adds the saved to His church.
THE LORD ADDS ALL THOSE, TO HIS CHURCH, WHO HAVE OBEYED HIS TERMS FOR PARDON.
FAITH: John 3:16
REPENTANCE: Acts 2:38
CONFESSION: Romans 10:9-10
BAPTISM: (IMMERSION IN WATER) 1 Peter 3:21
THEN, THE LORD ADDS YOU TO HIS CHURCH!
3 notes
·
View notes
Text
CAN MEN TODAY BE SAVED BY USING PRE-COVENANT TERMS FOR PARDON BY STEVE FINNELL
Jesus gave us the terms for pardon after His death and resurrection. The new covenant was not in force until the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Hebrews 9:11-22 But Christ came as High Priest........15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death........16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives..........(NKJV)
Jesus gave mankind the terms for pardon under the new covenant after His death and resurrection. Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved...(NKJV)
Many in the denominational world teach that Jesus gave multiple terms for pardon before the new covenant terms were proclaimed. They believe these terms are applicable after the new covenant was in force.
Millions in denominational churches teach the water baptism is not essential for salvation because the thief on the cross was not baptized. The thief was saved before the new covenant was in force. (Luke 23:39-43)
1. The thief believed Jesus was the Christ.
2. The thief was not baptized in water.
3. The thief did not believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.
Was the thief saved? Yes. Can men be saved like the thief, today? No, they cannot.
Luke 10:25-28 And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 26 He said to him, "What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?" 27 So he answered and said, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,' 28 And He said to him, "You have answered rightly; do this and you will live."(NKJV)
If the lawyer followed the instruction of Jesus, he would have inherited eternal life. Yes. Can men today be saved like the lawyer? Of course not. The lawyer was saved before the new covenant was in force.
1. There was not any indication that the lawyer even believed, that Jesus was the Christ.
2. The lawyer was not immersed in water.
3. The lawyer did not believe that God raised Jesus from the grave.
Luke 18:18-23 Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" ........20 "You know the commandments: Do not commit adultery,' Do not murder,' Do not steal,' 'Do not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother.' " 21 And he said, "All these I have kept from my youth." 22 So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, "You still lack one thing. "Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; come, follow Me.".........
Would the ruler have inherited eternal life had he obeyed Jesus? Yes. Can men today be saved like the ruler? No, they cannot. The ruler would have been saved before the new covenant was in force.
1. The ruler was not baptized in water.
2. The ruler did not believe that God raised Jesus from the dead.
3. The ruler believed Jesus was a "Good Teacher." There is no indication that he believed that Jesus was the Son of God.
Mark 2:1-5.....3 Then they came to Him, bringing a paralytic who was carried by four men.......... 5 When Jesus saw their faith, He said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."(NKJV)
Were the paralytics sins forgiven? Yes. Can men today have their sin forgiven like the paralytic? No, they cannot. This was before the new covenant was in force.
1. The paralytics sin were forgiven because of the faith of friends.
2. The paralytic was not baptized in water.
3. The paralytic did not believe that God raised Jesus from the grave.
There is only one way to be saved today. Terms of pardon under the new covenant. FAITH John 3:16---REPENTANCE Acts 3:19---CONFESSION Romans 10:9 and IMMERSION IN WATER---Mark 16:16.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
THE SCRIPTURES AND JESUS BY STEVE FINNELL
Did Jesus have a different view of the Scriptures than do contemporary believers in Christ?
WHAT JESUS SAID. Matthew 21:42 Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures....?"
WHAT JESUS DID NOT SAY. "Did you never read in the Scripture commentaries....?"
WHAT JESUS SAID. Matthew 22:29 But Jesus answered and said to them , "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God."
WHAT JESUS DID NOT SAY. "You are mistaken not understanding the man-made traditions of the elders nor the power of God."
WHAT JESUS SAID. Mark 14:49 Every day I was with you in the temple teaching , and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures."
WHAT JESUS DID NOT SAY. "Every day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize Me; but this has taken place to fulfill the opinions of men that have been written in creed books.
WHAT JESUS SAID. John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
WHAT JESUS DID NOT SAY. "You search the Scripture commentaries, religious catechisms, and other denominational creed books, as well as all other extra-Scriptural writings; because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.
WHY DO MEN TODAY NOT TRUST THE SCRIPTURES AND THE SCRIPTURES ALONE?
2 notes
·
View notes
Quote
YOU ARE EITHER FOR JESUS OR ANTI-JESUS
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.
1 John 2:18
Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
THE EXACT TRUTH BY STEVE FINNELL
If you were looking for the exact truth where would you look? Would you look in books written from oral man-made tradition? Would you look in the books of opinions aka, as Bible commentaries? Would you look in man-made creed books that voice their opinions as to the meaning of Scripture? Would look in books written about the Bible? Would you consult extra-Biblical books to learn God's truth?
The exact truth is found in Scripture and Scripture alone.
Luke 1:1-4......3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.
Luke did not write down man-made traditions.
Mark 12:10 Have you not read this Scripture: 'THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDER REJECTED BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER STONE;
Jesus taught from Scripture. He did not teach from made-made tradition, oral nor written.
Matthew 12:5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?
Jesus did not asked the Pharisees if they had read in the man-made traditions of the elders.
Mark 12:24 Jesus said to them, "Is this not the reason you are mistaken, that you do not understand the Scriptures or the power of God?
Jesus did not tell the Sadducees that they were mistaken because they did not understand the writings of the early church fathers.
John 5:39 You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, it is these that testify about Me,
Jesus did not say you search the man-made church catechism.
Matthew 26:54 How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?"
Jesus did not asked Peter how will the words of the Bible commentaries be fulfilled?
John 7:38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, 'From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water!"
Jesus did not say as the books written about the Scripture said.
John 19:24 So they said to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be"; this was to fulfill the Scripture: "They divided My outer garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots."
This did not happen in order to fulfill what was written in creed books.
Acts 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from the Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
Philip did not open some extra-Biblical book and preach Jesus to the eunuch.
Romans 10:11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
It is not the church catechism, the Bible commentary, or any other extra-Biblical book that should be doing the talking. It is the Scripture that says.
Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
There is no promise given because of man-made writings. It is the Scripture and the Scripture alone.
Acts 17:2 And according to Paul's custom, he went to them, and for three Sabbaths reasoned with them from the Scriptures,
Paul did not use the man-made church catechisms of the elders as a teaching tool.
1 Timothy 4:13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching.
The apostle Paul did not tell Timothy to publicly read from a man-made creed book, Bible commentaries, church statements of faith, writings of the early church fathers, nor the denominational book of the month. Paul said read from the Scripture. Did Paul, simply not understand that the Scriptures were not sufficient to teach the truth about God' plan for mankind?
Acts 18:28 for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, demonstrating by the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.
Apollos did not need nor did he use extra-Scriptural references to refute the Jews. He used the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone.
Acts 20:20-27 how I did not shrink from declaring to you anything that was profitable,......27 For I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole purpose of God.
The apostle Paul declared the whole purpose of God. The so-called modern day prophets. The ones who contend they are still receiving new revelations from God, and all other extra-Biblical creed book writers are in fact denying that Paul declared the whole purpose of God. Who are you going to believe?
Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
The Scriptures give hope. Extra-Biblical writings give the opinions of men.
2 Peter 3:15-16 .... brother Paul , according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.
The words and letters of Paul and the rest of the apostles were Scriptures. The words of man-made creed books, man-made church catechisms, Bible commentaries, books written by the gospel preacher of the month, writings of the early church fathers, Greek dictionaries and all other extra-Biblical writings are not Scriptures.
There has been no new Scripture since A.D 100 nor is there any need for more instruction from God. WE HAVE THE BIBLE.
THE BIBLE AND THE BIBLE ALONE IS WHERE YOU CAN FINED THE EXACT TRUTH!
(Scripture from: NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE)
What's Going On In The World?
GEORGE L. FAULL
Antony Flew, world’s most respected atheist has changed his mind. He is now an admitted deist (one who believes God created the world and went off and left it to run on its own with no revelation of His will to His creatures.). The thing that convinced him was the design of DNA. He reminded journalists that even Darwin required a creator to start it all. He also says that the resurrection of Jesus has more evidential support than any other miracle. His stumblingblock is the problem of evil in the world. He regards Islam with horror and fear due to their desire to conquer the world.
Robert Schuller, of the Glass Cathedral.
Two of Schuller’s students are Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. Schuller says we do wrong in making people aware that they are sinners. He stresses mans value instead of mans unworthiness. The boys have learned well. Hybel, Warren, and Schuller have had more input in our Churches in the last 10 years than Paul or Peter. Incidentally, Schuller said it would not disturb him to come back in 200 years and find his descendants Muslims. That will never happen simply because he isn’t coming back.
Fuller Theological Seminary President speaks to Mormons.
In speaking to them in Salt Lake, Richard Moun apologized that evangelicals “have often misrepresented the faith and beliefs of the Latter Day Saints. We evangelicals have sinned against you.” Better think twice before you send your Preacher to a Fuller Church growth meeting. Our preachers are attending in droves to Rick Warren, Jack Hayford and other such gurus who espouse the Fuller attitude. They invite in every hue of sectarianism to these Church growth meetings including Mormons.
TBN’s Paul CrouchThe charismatic Paul Crouch of TBN attempted to conceal the fact that he was gay by paying $425,000.00 to Laverne Ford who eventually exposed him. Crouch also said, “I have come to the conviction that Martin Luther made a mistake, he should have never left the Catholic Church. I am eradicating the word Protestant from my vocabulary. I am not protesting anything. It’s time for Catholics and Non-Catholics to come together as one in the spirit and one in the Lord.” TBN is an apostate network that some of our men appear on for interviews.
Max Lucado
Max Lucado, the new darling of the North American Christian Convention, used to be a Church of Christ preacher. In October, he changed the name of Oak Hills Church of Christ. He dropped the “Church of Christ” name in an effort to reach people hesitant to attend a Church of Christ. His Church jumped from 3,300 to 4,500 in 6 months. At a Charismatic Promise Keepers rally he said, “It does not matter about your denomination, it’s all about God.” Oak Hills has a booklet called, “
The Purpose of a Teaching Position
”. It says,
“A teaching position serves to articulate the convictions of the Oak Hills leadership on a particular doctrine or practice. This paper on the topic of baptism is useful for:
1.
Those who have never been baptized.
If you want to become a member of Oak Hills and have not been baptized, we ask you to do so.
2.
Those who have been baptized
, but not by immersion. We have many potential members who were baptized by sprinkling, usually as infants. This paper will help you see why we baptize by immersion. It also explains why we don’t baptize infants. We urge you to read the paper and consider adult baptism. If you choose not to be immersed at this time, we still welcome you as a member. We ask only that you respect this position and not be divisive. Members serving in instructional capacities (such as Bible class teachers, small group leaders, and ministry leaders, elders and staff ministers) need to be in agreement and compliance with the teaching position.
3.
Those who have been baptized by immersion.
It is our prayer that this study will give you new insights into the beauty, simplicity, and significance of this demonstration of devotion.
Open membership was the hottest debated issue in the Restoration Movement in the last century. Today, the Brethren heading up our Colleges and conventions and camps have no conscience at all of bringing in apostates like Max Lucado, David Reagan and others of that persuasion.
Tony Compolo
They even bring in Tony Compolo, who even many denominational Churches will not use because of his stating that homosexuals were born that way. He has socialist agendas. He was brought to a heresy trial in 1985 for saying that Christ is in every human being. His wife promotes homosexual marriages. He often uses vulgarisms in the pulpit to shock and shame his listeners. His defense, “what’s worse, is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said [vulgarism] than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night!” This was repeated at one of our schools.
John Hagee
John Hagee of TV fame believes that the spiritual gifts still continues today is getting a larger following. He has raised thousands of dollars to move Jews to the Holy Land, uprooting Palestinian Christians in the process. He believes Christians should have no duty to evangelize Jews since eventually. “All Israel will be saved.” He is a Christian Zionist. He pals around with Benny Hinn and other Charismatic charlatans. He is best known for his pushing of the Jewish agenda, thinking they have a spiritual relationship with God that will bring about their redemption without Christ but by living only in the light of the Torah. He says,
“I’m not out to convert the Jewish people to the Christian faith.” He adds, “In fact, trying to convert Jews is a waste of time. The Jewish person who has his roots in Judaism is not going to convert to Christianity. There is no form of Christian evangelism that has failed so miserably as evangelizing the Jewish people. They (already) have a faith structure. Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha’i, needs to believe in Jesus. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity”.
Hagee is renown for taking on anti-Semetics but he is in reality, the true anti-Semetic for he will not evangelize the Jew and give them what they need for eternal salvation.
Rick Warren
Rich Warren, of “The Purpose Driven Church”, and “The Purpose Driven Life” fame has changed the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ more than any fad for the past century due to gullibility of our preachers. He has been fellowshipping with John Templeton of the John Templeton Foundation. Templeton awards a million dollars to different persons who further the cause of harmonizing world religions. These have been awarded Agnostics, Pantheists, Hindu’s, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews as well as Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, and Mother Teresa.
Is Rick after such?
Who knows? Having sold millions of books, he certainly does not need the money. He is now one of the judges for a written essay contest that Templeton is holding. He will serve as judge in the contest with renowned left-wing radicals.
TV Attention Deficit DisorderPortland (Oregon) Life found that for every hour per day preschoolers watch TV, then chance of developing attention deficit disorders later in life has boosted 10%. This is an alarming fact. You need more than control. Abstinence may be easier than temperance.
Billy GrahamRobert Schuller asked Billy Graham this question, “Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?”
Graham’s reply was:
“Well, Christianity and being a true believer you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world. Outside the Christian groups, I think everybody who knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole word to Christ at any time. I think James answered that. The Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purposes for this age is to call out a people for His name whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and I think they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they are going to be in heaven with us” (Billy Graham, televised interview with Robert Schuller, May 13, 1997).
In response to Graham’s totally unscriptural statement, Schuller explained, “What, what I hear you saying is that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life even if they’ve been born in darkness and never had an exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?”Graham answered, “Yes, it is because I believe that. I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.” This was 1997. But even as far back as 1961 Graham said of infant baptism,
“ I have some difficulty in accepting the indiscriminate baptism of infants without a careful regard as to whether the parents have any intention of fulfilling the promise they make. But I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the miracles of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christians, through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me.”
(Lutheran Standard October 10
th
, 1961)
Graham has for years turned over the names of those who came forward at his rallies to the Churches from which they came. In 1957 Graham said, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to local clergymen, Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.” (San Francisco news)
Yet many of our top leaders in our own Churches appear with Graham and support his crusades...SHAME!
“KINSEY” Movie,
You need to know that Alfred Kinsey, the hero of the movie, was a pervert, pedophile, wife swapper, bi-sexual and the one who deceived America with his false
Kinsey Report
. He is the one who made up the lie that 10% of Americans are homosexual. He used for his own survey prison inmates and prostitutes. He made his staff perform lewd sex acts on film. He employed no trained statistician. He himself should have been imprisoned as a pedophile. The American Legislative Exchange Council (2400 State Legislators) recently concluded the
Kinsey Report
was “illegal and criminal acts masquerading as science.” See proof of all this in a book by Judith Rusmar and another by Susan Brinkmann or contact the eagleforum.org website.
The above news information has been gleaned from
The Calvary Contender
,
The Sword of the Lord
,
O Timothy
,
Christian News
,
The Eagle Forum
, and
The Way of Life
magazines. These groups do a great service in marking those who teach contrary to what the Christian has learned from the Holy Apostles.Posted by
S
INHERITED SIN, SIN NATURE, AND TOTALLY DEPRAVITY? BY STEVE FINNELL
According to those who believe in the doctrine of original sin, because Adam sinned, all men are born guilty of sin, with a sin nature, and totally depraved, and void of free-will to do good or resist evil.
If all men are born guilty of sin, then the 57,000,000 million babies who have been killed by abortion are on their way to hell. Babies are babies before they are born. Unborn babies have no chance to believe and be baptized in order to be saved. The truth is babies are not guilty of Adam's sin. People who sin are guilty of sin. Adam was guilty of his sin. Men are not guilty of sin until they reach an age of accountability. Babies born nor babies unborn do not know right from wrong. They are not sinners.
Are all people born with a sinful nature and totally depraved? Do men have the ability to choose right from wrong?
Can men choose good and resist evil? Do men have free-will?
Luke 1:5-6 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.(NKJV)
If all people are born with a sin nature and are totally depraved, then how could Zacharias and Elizabeth be righteous and blameless before the Lord?
Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil.(NKJV)
How was it possible for Job to be blameless, upright, and resist evil, if he was born with a sin nature, totally depraved, and without free-will?
1 Kings 18:21 And Elijah came to all the people, and said, "How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow him." But the people answered him not a word.(NKJV)
Why did Elijah offer the people a choice to follow God or Baal if the all the people were born with a sin nature, totally depraved, and unable to choose between good and evil?
The truth is men do not inherit the guilt Adam's sin. Men are not born with a sin nature and totally depraved. Men have free-will.
MAN-MADE CLIMATE? BY STEVE FINNELL
Man-made climate control? Really?
Matthew 5:45 "that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; He makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.(NKJV)
Following the logic of man-made climate change and global warming advocates, man-made CO2 emissions sends and prevents the rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
Satan is the great deceiver!
PRO-CHOICE CHRISTIAN---REALLY? BY STEVE FINNELL
What is a pro-choice Christian? Their message is, "I am personally opposed to abortion, however, a women should have the right to kill her unborn baby." That is a self-contradiction. You can be against abortion or for abortion, but cannot have it both ways.
Can you imagine a person stating, "I am personally opposed to slavery, however, slave owners should have the right to choose." Who would be pro-choice concerning slavery?
What about being pro-choice on theft? Can you be personally against theft, but support a person's right to steal?
There are absolutes. There is right and wrong. There is no middle ground when it comes to sin.
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
HERMENEUTICS-BY STEVE FINNELL
Hermeneutics is the science of interpretation of the Scriptures. Isolating verses of Scripture to prove a point of doctrine is common practice, but is it a valid scientific approach to understanding God's word?
Let us examine this approach when dealing with the question, "WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED?"
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
Is that verse true? Yes, but does it include all the requirements for salvation? No, it does not.
Mark 16:16 He who has believed and been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.
Is that verse true? Yes, but does it include all the requirements for salvation?
Romans 10:9 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.
Yes, that verse is true; but does include all the requirements for salvation?
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of of God.
Is that verse true? Yes, but it does not explain the process to be born of water and the Spirit.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Is that verse true? Yes, we have the opportunity for salvation because of God's grace, however, that verse does not say that we are saved by grace alone nor does it say we are saved by faith only.
Romans 6:4-5 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. 5 For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection,
Is that verse true? Yes, but baptism alone is not the only requirement in order to walk in newness of life.
1 Peter 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you---not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience---through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Is it true that water baptism saves us? Yes, but that verse does not say baptism alone saves us.
Acts 22:16 Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name!
Is that verse true? Yes, but does it list all the requirements for salvation?
Galatians 3:27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.
Is that verse true? Yes, but only if faith precedes baptism.
Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Is that verse true? Yes, but it does not mean that you can have your sins forgiven without having faith and confessing Jesus as Lord and Savior.
Acts 16:30-31..."Sirs what must I do to be saved?" 31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household."
Is that verse true? Yes, however, it does not state that men are saved by "faith only."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible says we saved by grace. It does not state we are saved by grace alone.
The Bible says we we are saved by believing in Jesus. It does not say we are saved by faith only.
The Bible says we are saved by confessing Jesus as Lord and believing that God raised Him from the dead. It does not say that by confessing Him and believing in His resurrection alone that we will be saved.
The Bible does says we must repent in order to have our sins forgiven. The Bible does not say repentance alone saves us.
The Bible teaches us that water baptism is for the forgiveness of sins and that it saves us. It does not say baptism alone saves us.
WE ARE SAVED BY?
We are saved by grace.
We are saved by faith.
We are saved by repentance.
We are saved by confession.
We are saved by water baptism.
WHICH REQUIREMENT OF GOD'S PLAN FOR OUR SALVATION CAN WE ELIMINATE AND STILL BE SAVED?
The jailer and his household believed and were baptized that very hour. (Acts 16:30-33) There was no law keeping nor good deeds required for them to be saved.
SAVED BY WORKS? - BY STEVE FINNELL
Are we saved from the penalty of sin by works. No, we are not saved by works. When the apostle Paul tells us we not saved by works, what does he mean? Does he mean that we do not have to believe in Jesus? No, he does not. Is Paul saying that being immersed in water is a work of the law of Moses? No, he is not. Is Paul saying that confessing Jesus as Lord and Christ is a work of the law of Moses? No, he is not. Is Paul teaching that men do not need to acknowledge that God raised Jesus from the grave because that would be a work of the law of Moses? No, he is not.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. (NKJV)
The apostle Paul is saying men are not saved by works of the law of Moses.
Galatians 2:16 "know 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. (NKJV)
You cannot be justified by works of the law of Moses.
Acts 13:39 "and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses. (NKJV)
The works of the law of Moses do not save anyone.
Mark 16:16 "He who believe and is baptized will be saved...(NKJV)
Believing and being immersed in water are not works of the law of Moses.
Acts 22:16 'And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.'(NKJV)
Saul did not have his sins wash by keeping the law of Moses. Baptism and calling on the name of the Lord are not part of the law of Moses.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said to them, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.(NKJV)
Making the commitment to turn from sin and turn toward God and being baptized in water is not part of the law of Moses. Repentance and baptism are not works of the law of Moses.
John 6:29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent." (NKJV)
Believing in Jesus is a work, however, it is not a work of the law of Moses.
Colossians 2:12-13 buried with Him in baptism, in which you were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead. 13 And you being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses,(NKJV)
Being buried with Christ in baptism is not a law of Moses. Men are not forgiven of trespasses because they keep the law of Moses.
When Jesus said believe and be baptized and you will be saved, He was not quoting the works of law of Moses.
Is Mark 16:9-20 Inspired?by
Dave Miller, Ph.D.
The science of textual criticism is a field of inquiry that has been invaluable to ascertaining the original state of the New Testament text. Textual criticism involves “the ascertainment of the true form of a literary work, as originally composed and written down by its author” (Kenyon, 1951, p. 1). The fact that the original autographs of the New Testament do not exist (Comfort, 1990, p. 4), and that only copies of copies of copies of the original documents have survived, has led some falsely to conclude that the original reading of the New Testament documents cannot be determined. For example, Mormons frequently attempt to establish the superiority of the Book of Mormon over the Bible by insisting that the Bible has been corrupted through the centuries in the process of translation (a contention shared with Islam in its attempt to explain the Bible’s frequent contradiction of the Quran). However, a venture into the fascinating world of textual criticism dispels this premature and uninformed conclusion.The task of textual critics, those who study the extant manuscript evidence that attests to the text of the New Testament, is to examine textual variants (i.e., divergencies among the manuscripts) in an effort to reconstruct the original reading of the text. They work with a large body of manuscript evidence, the amount of which is far greater than that available for any ancient classical author (Ewert, 1983, p. 139; Kenyon, 1951, p. 5; Westcott and Hort, 1964, p. 565). [NOTE: The present number of Greek manuscripts—whole and partial—that attest to the New Testament stands at an unprecedented 5,748 (Welte, 2005)].In one sense, their work has been unnecessary, since the vast majority of textual variants involve minor matters that do not affect doctrine as it relates to one’s salvation. Even those variants that might be deemed doctrinally significant pertain to matters that are treated elsewhere in the Bible where the question of genuineness is unobscured. No feature of Christian doctrine is at stake. Variant readings in existing manuscripts do not alter any basic teaching of the New Testament. Nevertheless, textual critics have been successful in demonstrating that currently circulating New Testaments do not differ substantially from the original. When all of the textual evidence is considered, the vast majority of discordant readings have been resolved (e.g., Metzger, 1978, p. 185). One is brought to the firm conviction that we have in our possession the New Testament as God intended.The world’s foremost textual critics have confirmed this conclusion. Sir Frederic Kenyon, longtime director and principal librarian at the British Museum, whose scholarship and expertise to make pronouncements on textual criticism was second to none, stated: “Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established” (Kenyon, 1940, p. 288). The late F.F. Bruce, longtime Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester, England, remarked: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (1960, pp. 19-20). J.W. McGarvey, declared by the London Times to be “the ripest Bible scholar on earth” (Phillips, 1975, p. 184; Brigance, 1870, p. 4), conjoined: “All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still” (1956, p. 17). And the eminent textual critics Westcott and Hort put the entire matter into perspective when they said:
Since textual criticism has various readings for its subject, and the discrimination of genuine readings from corruptions for its aim, discussions on textual criticism almost inevitably obscure the simple fact that variations are but secondary incidents of a fundamentally single and identical text. In the New Testament in particular it is difficult to escape an exaggerated impression as to the proportion which the words subject to variation bear to the whole text, and also, in most cases, as to their intrinsic importance. It is not superfluous therefore to state explicitly that the great bulk of the words of the New Testament stand out above all discriminative processes of criticism, because they are free fromvariation, and need only to be transcribed (1964, p. 564, emp. added).
Writing in the late nineteenth century, and noting that the experience of two centuries of investigation and discussion had been achieved, these scholars concluded: “[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole of the New Testament” (p. 565, emp. added).
THE AUTHENTICITY OF MARK 16:9-20
One textual variant that has received considerable attention from the textual critic concerns the last twelve verses of Mark. Much has been written on the subject in the last two centuries or so. Most, if not all, scholars who have examined the subject concede that the truths presented in the verses are historically authentic—even if they reject the genuineness of the verses as being originally part of Mark’s account. The verses contain no teaching of significance that is not taught elsewhere. Christ’s post-resurrection appearance to Mary is verified elsewhere (Luke 8:2; John 20:1-18), as is His appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:35), and His appearance to the eleven apostles (Luke 24:36-43; John 20:19-23). The “Great Commission” is presented by two of the other three gospel writers (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-48), and Luke verifies the ascension twice (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9). The promise of the signs that were to accompany the apostles’ activities is hinted at by Matthew (28:20), noted by the Hebrews writer (2:3-4), explained in greater detail by John (chapters 14-16; cf. 14:12), and demonstrated by the events of the book of Acts (see McGarvey, 1875, pp. 377-378).Those who reject the originality of the passage in Mark, while acknowledging the authenticity of the events reported, generally assign a very early date for the origin of the verses. For example, writing in 1844, Alford, who forthrightly rejected the genuineness of the passage, nevertheless conceded: “The inference therefore seems to me to be, that it is an authentic fragment, placed as a completion of the Gospel in very early times: by whom written, must of course remain wholly uncertain; but coming to us with very weighty sanction, and having strong claims on our reception and reverence” (1:438, italics in orig., emp. added). Attributing the verses to a disciple of Jesus named Aristion, Sir Frederic Kenyon nevertheless believed that “we can accept the passage as true and authentic narrative, though not an original portion of St. Mark’s Gospel” (1951, p. 174, emp. added). More recently, textual scholars of no less stature than Kurt and Barbara Aland, though also rejecting the originality of the block of twelve verses in question, nevertheless admit that the longer ending “was recognized as canonical” and that it “may well be from the beginning of the second century” (Aland and Aland, 1987, pp. 69,227). This admission is remarkable since it lends further weight to the recognized antiquity of the verses—what New Testament textual critic Bruce Metzger, professor Emeritus of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton Theological Seminary, referred to as “the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel” (1994, p. 105)—placing them in such close proximity to the original writing of Mark so as to make the gap between them virtually indistinguishable.
THE GENUINENESS OF MARK 16:9-20: THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE
In light of these preliminary observations regarding authenticity, what may be said regarding the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the book of Mark? In arriving at their conclusions, textual critics evaluate the evidence for and against a reading in terms of two broad categories: external evidence and internal evidence (see Metzger, 1978, pp. 209ff.). External evidence consists of the date, geographical distribution, and genealogical interrelationship of manuscript copies that contain or omit the passage in question. Internal evidence involves both transcriptional and intrinsic probabilities. Transcriptional probabilities include such principles as (1) generally the shorter reading is more likely to be the original, (2) the more difficult (to the scribe) reading is to be preferred, and (3) the reading that stands in verbal dissidence with the other is preferable. Intrinsic probabilities pertain to what the original author was more likely to have written, based on his writing style, vocabulary, immediate context, and his usage elsewhere.Four Textual PossibilitiesAccording to Metzger (1994, pp. 102ff.), the extant manuscript evidence contains essentially four different endings for the book of Mark: (1) the omission of 16:9-20; (2) the inclusion of 16:9-20; (3) the inclusion of 16:9-20 with the insertion of an additional statement between verse 8 and verse 9 that reads: “But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation”; and (4) the inclusion of 16:9-20 with the insertion of an additional statement between verses 14 and 15 which reads:
And they excused themselves, saying, “This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now”—thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, “The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.”
The fourth reading of the text may be eliminated as spurious. Meager external evidence exists to support it, i.e., only one Greek manuscript—Codex Washingtonianus. As Jack Lewis noted: “The support for the shorter ending is so inferior that no scholar would champion that Mark wrote this ending” (1988, p. 598). It bears what Metzger called “an unmistakable apocryphal flavor” (1994, p. 104). The statement does not match the style and grandeur of the rest of the section, leaving the general impression of having been fabricated. This latter point applies equally to the third ending since it, too, possesses a rhetorical tone that contrasts—even clashes—with Mark’s simple style.The third ending represents a classic case of conflation—incorporating both verses 9-20 as well as the shorter ending—and may also be eliminated from consideration. In addition to internal evidence, the external evidence is insufficient to establish its genuineness. It is supported by four uncials (019, 044, 099, 0112) that date from the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries, one Old Latin manuscript (which omits verses 9-20), a marginal notation in the Harclean Syriac, several Coptic (Sahidic and Bohairic) manuscripts (see Kahle, 1951, pp. 49-57), and several late Ethiopic manuscripts (see Sanday, 1889, p. 195, and Metzger’s response, 1972). Besides being discredited for conflation, the third ending lacks sufficient internal and external evidence to establish its genuineness as having been originally written by Mark.OmissionUltimately, therefore, the question is reduced simply to whether verses 9-20 are to beincluded or excluded as genuine. Over the last century and a half, scholars have come down on both sides of the issue. Those who have questioned the genuineness of the verses have included F.J.A. Hort (Westcott and Hort, 1882, pp. 29-51), B.H. Streeter (1924, pp. 333-360), J.K. Elliott (1971, pp. 255-262), and Bruce Metzger (1994, pp. 102-106). On the other hand, those who have insisted that Mark wrote the verses have included John W. Burgon (1871), F.H.A. Scrivener (1883, pp. 583-590), George Salmon (1889, pp. 156-164), James Morison (1892, pp. 446-449), Samuel Zwemer (1975, pp. 159-174), and R.C.H. Lenski (1945, pp. 748-775).The reading of the text that omits verses 9-20 altogether does, indeed, possess some respectable support (see the UBS Greek text’s critical apparatus—Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189). The weightiest external evidence is the omission of the verses by the formidable Greek uncials, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which date from the fourth century. These two manuscripts carry great persuasive weight with most textual scholars, resulting in marginal notations in many English translations. For example, the American Standard Version footnote to the verse reads: “The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse 9 to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel.” The New International Version gives the following footnote: “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.” Such marginal notations, however, fail to convey to the reader the larger picture that the external evidence provides, including additional Greek manuscript evidence, to say nothing of the ancient versions and patristic citations.Additional evidence for omission includes the absence of the verses from various versions: (1) the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, (2) about one hundred Armenian manuscripts (see Colwell, 1937, pp. 369-386), and (3) the two oldest Georgian manuscripts that are dated A.D. 897 and 913. [NOTE: Many scholars list the Old Latin codex Bobiensis from the fourth/fifth century as evidence for the omission of the verses. However, as indicated by the critical apparatus of the UBS Greek text (see Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), Bobiensis (k) contains the “short ending”—deemed by everyone to be spurious. Its scribe could have been manifesting his concern that something (i.e., verses 9-20) was missing and so settled for the “short ending”.]Among the patristic writers (i.e., the so-called “Church Fathers”), neither Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 215) nor Origen (A.D. 254) shows any knowledge of the existence of the verses. [Of course, simply showing no knowledge is no proof for omission. If we were to discount as genuine every New Testament verse that a particular patristic writer failed to reference, we would eventually dismiss the entire New Testament as spurious. Though virtually the entire New Testament is quoted or alluded to by the corpus of patristic writers (Metzger, 1978, p. 86)—no one writer refers to every verse.]Eusebius of Caesarea (A.D. 339), as well as Jerome (A.D. 420), are said to have indicated the absence of the verses from almost all Greek manuscripts known to them. However, it should be noted that the statement made by Eusebius occurs in a context in which he was offering two possible solutions to an alleged contradiction (between Matthew 28:1 and Mark 16:9) posed by a Marinus. One of the solutions would be to dismiss Mark’s words on the grounds that it is not contained in all texts. But Eusebius does not claim to share this solution. The second solution he offers entails retaining Mark 16:9 as genuine. The fact that he couches the first solution in the third person (i.e., “This, then, is what a person will say...”), and then proceeds to offer a second solution, when he could have simply dismissed the alleged contradiction on the grounds that manuscript evidence was decisively against the genuineness of the verses, argues for Eusebius’ own approval. The mere fact that the alleged contradiction was raised in the first place demonstrates recognition of the existence of the verses.Jerome’s alleged opposition to the verses is even more tenuous. He merely translated the same interchange between Eusebius and Marinus from Greek into Latin, recasting it as a response to the same question that he placed in the mouth of a Hedibia from Gaul (see the discussion by Burgon, 1871, p. 134). He most certainly was not giving his own opinion regarding the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, since that opinion is made apparent by the fact that Jerome included the verses in his landmark revision of the Old Latin translations, the Vulgate, while excluding others that lacked sufficient manuscript verification. Jerome’s own opinion is further evident from the fact that he quoted approvingly from the section (e.g., vs. 14 in Against the Pelagians, II.15 [Schaff and Wace, 1954, 6:468]).Further evidence for omission of the verses is claimed from the Eusebian Canons, produced by Ammonius, which allegedly originally made no provision for numbering sections of the text after verse 8. Yet, again, on closer examination, of 151 Greek Evangelia codices, 114 sectionalize (and thus make allowance for) the last twelve verses (see Burgon, p. 391; cf. Scrivener, 1883).In addition to these items of evidence that support omission of verses 9-20, several manuscripts that actually do contain them, nevertheless have scribal notations questioning their originality. Some of the manuscripts have markings—asterisks or obeli—that ordinarily signal the scribe’s suspicion of the presence of a spurious addition. However, even here, such markings (e.g., tl, tel, or telos) can be misconstrued to mean the end of the book, whereas the copyist merely intended to indicate the end of a liturgical section of the lectionary. Metzger agrees that such ecclesiastical lection signs constitute “a clear implication that the manuscript originally continued with additional material from Mark” (1994, p. 102, note 1).The internal evidence that calls verses 9-20 into question resolves itself into essentially two central contentions: (1) the vocabulary and style of the verses are deemed non-Markan, and (2) the connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 seems awkward and gives the surface appearance of having been added by someone other than Mark. These two contentions will be treated momentarily.InclusionStanding in contrast with the evidence for omission is the external and internal evidence for the inclusion of verses 9-20. The verses are, in fact, present in the vast number of witnesses (see the UBS Greek text’s critical apparatus—Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189). This point alone is insufficient to demonstrate the genuineness of a passage, since manuscripts may perpetuate an erroneous reading that crept into the text and then happened to survive in greater numbers than those manuscripts that preserved the original reading. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of the witnesses that support verses 9-20 cannot be summarily dismissed out of hand. Though rejecting the genuineness of the verses, the Alands offer the following concession that ought to give one pause: “It is true that the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is found in 99 percent of the Greek manuscripts as well as the rest of the tradition, enjoying over a period of centuries practically an official ecclesiastical sanction as a genuine part of the gospel of Mark” (1987, p. 287, emp. added). Such longstanding and widespread acceptance cannot be treated lightly nor dismissed easily. It is, at least, possiblethat the prevalence of manuscript support for the verses is due to their genuineness.The Greek manuscript evidence that verifies the verses is distinguished, not just in quantity, but also in complexion and diversity. It includes a host of uncials and minuscules. The uncials include Codex Alexandrinus (02) and Ephraemi Rescriptus (04) from the fifth century. [NOTE: Technically, the Washington manuscript may be combined with these two manuscripts as additional fifth-century evidence for inclusion of the verses, since it simply inserts an additional statement in between verses 14 and 15.] Additional support for the verses comes from Bezae Cantabrigiensis (05) from the sixth century (or, according to the Alands, the fifth century—1987, p. 107), as well as 017, 033, 037, 038, and 041 from the ninth and tenth centuries. The minuscule manuscript evidence consists of the “Family 13” collection, entailing no fewer than ten manuscripts, as well as numerous other minuscules. The passage is likewise found in several lectionaries.The patristic writings that indicate acceptance of the verses as genuine are remarkably extensive. From the second century, Irenaeus, who died c. A.D. 202, alludes to the verses in both Greek and Latin. His precise words in his Against Heresies were: “Also, towards the conclusion of his Gospel, Mark says: ‘So then, after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God” (3.10.5; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 1:426). It is very likely that Justin Martyr was aware of the verses in the middle of the second century. At any rate, his disciple, Tatian, included the verses in his Greek Diatessaron (having come down to us in Arabic, Italian, and Old Dutch editions) c. A.D.170.Third century witnesses include Tertullian, who died after A.D. 220, in his On the Resurrection of the Flesh (ch. 51; Roberts and Donaldson, 1973, 3:584), Against Praxeas (ch. 30; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:627), and A Treatise on the Soul (ch. 25; Roberts and Donaldson, 3:206). Cyprian, who died A.D. 258, alluded to verses 17-18 in his The Seventh Council of Carthage(Roberts and Donaldson, 1971, 5:569). Additional third century verification is seen in the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus. Verses 15-18 in Greek and verses 15-19 in Latin are quoted in Part I: The Acts of Pilate (ch. 14), and verse 16 in its Greek form is quoted in Part II: The Descent of Christ into Hell (ch. 2) (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 8:422,436,444-445). De Rebaptismate (A.D. 258) is also a witness to the verses. All seven of these second and third century witnesses precede the earliest existing Greek manuscripts that verify the genuineness of the verses. More to the point, they predate both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.Fourth century witnesses to the existence of the verses include Aphraates (writing in A.D.337—see Schaff and Wace, 1969, 13:153), with his citation of Mark 16:16-18 in “Of Faith” in his Demonstrations (1.17; Schaff and Wace, 13:351), in addition to the Apostolic Constitutions(5.3.14; 6.3.15; 8.1.1)—written no later than A.D. 380 (Roberts and Donaldson, 1970, 7:445,457,479). Ambrose, who died A.D. 397, quoted from the section in his On the Holy Spirit (2.13.145,151), On the Christian Faith (1.14.86 and 3.4.31), and Concerning Repentance(1.8.35; Schaff and Wace, 10:133,134,216,247,335). Didymus, who died A.D. 398, is also a witness to the genuineness of the verses (Aland, et al., 1983, p. 189), as is perhaps Asterius after 341.Patristic writers from the fifth century that authenticate the verses include Jerome, noted above, who died A.D. 420, Leo (who died A.D. 461) in his Letters (9.2 and 120.2; Schaff and Wace, 1969, 12:8,88), and Chrysostom (who died A.D. 407) in his Homilies on First Corinthians(38.5; Schaff, 1969, 12:229). Additional witnesses include Severian (after 408), Marcus-Eremita (after 430), Nestorius (after 451), and Augustine (after 455). These witnesses to the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 from patristic writers is exceptional.The evidence for inclusion that comes from the ancient versions is also diverse and weighty—entailing a wide spectrum of versions and geographical locations. Several Old Latin/Itala manuscripts contain it. Though Jerome repeated the view that the verses were absent in some Greek manuscripts—a circumstance used by those who support exclusion—he actually included them in his fourth century Latin Vulgate (and, as noted above, quoted verse 14 in his own writings). The verses are found in the Old Syriac (Curetonian) as well as the Peshitta and later Syriac (Palestinian and Harclean). The Coptic versions that have it are the Sahidic, Bohairic, and Fayyumic, ranging from the third to the sixth centuries. The Gothic version (fourth century) has verses 9-11. The verses are also found in the Armenian, Georgian, and Old Church Slavonic versions.What must the unbiased observer conclude from these details? All told, the cumulativeexternal evidence that documents the genuineness of verses 9-20, from Greek manuscripts, patristic citations, and ancient versions, is expansive, ancient, diversified, and unsurpassed.Reconciling the EvidenceHow may the conflicting evidence for and against inclusion of the verses be reconciled? In the final analysis, according to those who favor omission of the verses, the two strongest, most persuasive pieces of evidence for their position are (1) the external evidence of the exclusion of the verses from the prestigious Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and (2) the internal evidence of the presence of multiple non-Markan words. The fact is that the presumed strength of these two factors has led many scholars to minimize the array of evidence that otherwise would be seen to support the verses—evidence that, as shown above, is vast and diversified in geographical distribution and age. If these two factors are demonstrated by definitive rebuttal to be inadequate, the evidence for inclusion will then be recognized as manifestly superior to that which is believed to support exclusion. What, then, may be said concerning the two strongest pieces of evidence that have led many scholars to exclude Mark 16:9-20 as genuine?Vaticanus and SinaiticusRegarding the first factor, it is surely significant that though Vaticanus and Sinaiticus omit the passage, Alexandrinus includes it. Alexandrinus rivals Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in both accuracy and age—removed probably by no more than fifty years. Why should the reading of two of the “Big Three” uncial manuscripts take precedence over the reading of the third? Are proponents staking their case in this regard on mere numerical superiority, i.e., two against one? Surely not, given the fact that the same scholars would insist that original readings are not to be decided by counting numbers of manuscripts. If sheer numbers of manuscripts decide genuineness, then Mark 16:9-20 must be accepted as genuine. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus should carry no more weight over Alexandrinus than that assigned by critics to the manuscripts that support inclusion on account of their superior numbers.Vaticanus is technically, at best, a half-hearted witness to the omission of the verses. Though he considered the verses as spurious, Alford nevertheless offered an observation that ought to give one pause: “After the subscription in B [Vaticanus—DM] the remaining greater portion of the column and the whole of the next to the end of the page are left vacant. There is no other instance of this in the whole N.T. portion of the MS[manuscript—DM], the next book in every other instance beginning on the next column” (p. 484, emp. added). This unusual divergence from the scribe’s usual practice suggests that he knew that additional verses were missing. The blank space he left provides ample room for the additional twelve verses.Interestingly, some have questioned the judgment of the scribe of Sinaiticus in his omission of Mark 16:9-20 on the grounds that he included the apocryphal books of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas (Aland and Aland, 1987, p. 107). Likewise, the scribe of Vaticanus included several of the Apocrypha in the Old Testament, as Sir Frederic Kenyon observed, “being inserted among the canonical books in B [Vaticanus—DM] without distinction” (1951, p. 81, emp. added).Those who support exclusion of Mark 16:9-20 have not been forthright in divulging that, as a matter of fact, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus frequently diverge from each other, with one or the other siding with Alexandrinus against the other. For example, the allusions by Luke to an angel strengthening Jesus in the Garden and the “great drops of blood” (Luke 22:43-44) areomitted by Vaticanus and Alexandrinus, but Sinaiticus (the original hand) contains these verses (Metzger, 1975, p. 177). Luke’s report of Jesus’ statement on the cross (“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do”—Luke 23:34), is included by Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus (the original hand), but omitted by Vaticanus (p. 180). On the other hand, Vaticanus sides with Alexandrinus against Sinaiticus in their inclusion of the blind man’s confession and worship of Jesus (“‘Lord, I believe!’ And he worshipped Him”) in John 9:38 (Metzger, p. 195). It is also the case that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are sometimes separately defective in their handling of a reading. For example, in John 2:3, instead of reading “they ran out of wine,” the original hand of Sinaiticus reads, “They had no wine, because the wine of the wedding feast had been used up”—a reading that occurs only in Sinaiticus and in no other Greek manuscript. Many other instances of dissimilarities and dissonance between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus could be cited that weaken the premature assessment of the strength of their combined witness against Mark 16:9-20. [Cf. Luke 10:41-42; 11:14; Acts 2:43,44; Romans 4:1; 5:2,17; 1 Corinthians 12:9; 1 John 4:19.] Further, in some cases the UBS committee rejected as spurious the readings of bothVaticanus and Sinaiticus, and instead accepted the reading of Alexandrinus (e.g., Romans 8:2—“me” vs. “you”; Romans 8:35—“the love of Christ” vs. “the love of God” [Sinaiticus] or “the love of God in Christ Jesus” [Vaticanus]).
SUMMARY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE
The following chart provides a visual summary of the external evidence for and against inclusion of Mark 16:9-20 for the first six centuries—since thereafter the manuscript evidence in favor of the verses increases even further (adapted and enhanced from Warren, 1953, p. 104). Observe that when one examines all three sources from which the text of the New Testament may be ascertained, the external evidence for the genuineness of the verses is considerable and convincing.
Non-markan styleThe second most persuasive piece of evidence that prompts some to discount Mark 16:9-20 as genuine is the internal evidence. Though the Alands conceded that the “longer Marcan ending” actually “reads an absolutely convincing text” (1987, p. 287), in fact, the internal evidence weighs more heavily than the external evidence in the minds of many of those who support omission of the verses. Observe carefully the following definitive pronouncement of this viewpoint—a pronouncement that simultaneously concedes the strength of the external evidence in favor of the verses:
On the other hand, the section is no casual or unauthorised [sic] addition to the Gospel. From the second century onwards, in nearly all manuscripts, versions, and other authorities, it forms an integral part of the Gospel, and it can be shown to have existed, if not in the apostolic, at least in the sub-apostolic age. A certain amount of evidence against it there is (though very little can be shown to be independent of Eusebius the Church historian, 265-340A.D.), but certainly not enough to justify its rejection, were it not that internal evidence clearly demonstrates that it cannot have proceeded from the hand of St. Mark (Dummelow, 1927, p. 73, emp. added).
Listen also to an otherwise conservative scholar express the same sentiment: “If these deductions are correct the mass of MSS [manuscripts—DM] containing the longer ending must have been due to the acceptance of this ending as the most preferable. But internal evidence combines with textual evidence to raise suspicions regarding this ending” (Guthrie, 1970, p. 77, emp. added). Alford took the same position: “The internalevidence...will be found to preponderate vastly against the authorship of Mark” (1844, 1:434, emp. added). Even Bruce Metzger admitted: “The long ending, though present in a varietyof witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary” (1978, p. 227, emp. added). In fact, to Metzger, while the external evidence against the verses is merely “good,” the internal evidence against them is “strong” (1994, p. 105).So, in the minds of not a few scholars, if it were not for the internal evidence, the external evidence would be sufficient to establish the genuineness of the verses. What precisely, pray tell, is this internal evidence that is so powerful and weighs so heavily on the issue as to prod scholars to “jump through hoops” in an effort to discredit the verses? What formidable data exists that could possibly prompt so many to discount all evidence to the contrary? Let us see.Textual scholar Bruce Metzger summarized the internal evidence against the verses in terms of two factors: (1) the vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are deemed non-Markan, and (2) the connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20 is awkward, appearing to have been “added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with verse 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion” (1994, p. 105).
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN
VERSE 8 AND VERSES 9-20
Concerning the latter point, one must admit that the evaluation is highly subjective and actually nothing more than a matter of opinion. How is one to decide that a piece of writing is “awkward” or “likely” to have been added by someone other than Mark? Tangibleobjective criteria must be brought forward to support such a contention if its credibility is to be substantiated. As support for the contention, Metzger notes (1) that the subject of verse 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the subject in verse 9, (2) that Mary Magdalene is identified in verse 9 even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before in 15:47 and 16:1, (3) the other women mentioned in verses 1-8 are now forgotten, and (4) the use of anastas de and the position of proton in verse 9 are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8 (1994, p. 105). Let us examine briefly each of these four contentions.Regarding the first point, a simple reading of the verses does not demonstrate a shift in subject from the women to Jesus. In actuality, the subject has been Jesus all along, but more specifically, His resurrection appearances. After pausing to relate specific details of the tomb incident involving three women (vss. 2-8), the writer returns in verse 9 to the subject introduced in verse 1—an enumeration of additional resurrection appearances, reiterating Mary Magdalene’s name for the reason that He appeared to her “first.”Second, much is made of Mary Magdalene being identified in verse 9 though she had been identified already in 15:47 and 16:1. But if her name could be reiterated in 16:1—one verse after 15:47—why could it not be given again eight verses later? Has it escaped the critics’ notice that her name is also mentioned in full in 15:40—a mere seven verses before being mentioned again in 15:47? Yet, not one critic questions the genuineness of 15:47 or 16:1 though they redundantly identify Mary Magdalene again! The fact that there is more than one Mary in the text is sufficient to account for the repetition.Third, it is also true that beginning in verse 9, the other women are not mentioned again. But, again, the reason for this omission is contextually obvious. Mary Magdalene is the one who spread the word about the resurrection to the others—“those who had been with Him” (vs. 10). It makes perfect sense that the focus would be narrowed from the three women to the one who performed this role.Finally, the claim that the positioning of anastas de (“now when He arose”) and proton (“first”) are appropriate at the beginning of a lengthy narrative, but inappropriate in Mark 16 with only eleven verses remaining, is a claim unsubstantiated by Greek usage. It is not as if there is some observable rule of Greek grammar or syntax that verifies such a claim. It is simply the subjective opinion of one observer—albeit an observer who possesses a fair level of scholarly expertise. The term “first” (proton) has already been explained as appropriate since Mary Magdalene was the initiator of getting the word of the resurrection out to the others. Verses 9-14 are, in fact, intimately tied together in their common function of identifying resurrection appearances.The precise construction “now when she arose” (anastasa de) is used by Luke (1:39) to introduce the narrative concerning Mary’s visit to Elizabeth—a section that extends for only eighteen verses (1:39-56). He used the same construction to introduce the narrative reporting Jesus’ visit to Simon (4:38)—lasting four verses (4:38-41)—the broader context actually extending previous to its introduction. Additional uses of the same construction (e.g., Acts 5:17,34; 9:39; 11:28) further verify that its occurrence in the concluding section of Mark is neither unusual nor “ill-suited.” How may one rightly claim that anastas de is inappropriate in Mark 16:9-20 if it is the only time Mark used it? Surely, what Mark would or would not have done cannot be judged on the basis of a single occurrence, nor should Mark’s stylistic usage be judged on the basis of what Luke or other users of the Greek language did or did not do. Is it possible or permissible that Mark could have legitimately used the construction intentionally only one time—without subjecting himself to the charge of not being the author? To ask is to answer.Before leaving this matter of the connection between verse 8 and verses 9-20, one other observation is apropos. It is true that if Mark’s original book ended at verse 8, the book ended abruptly, leaving a general impression of incompleteness. However, the same may be said regarding the endings of both Matthew and Luke. Matthew reports the Jews’ conspiracy to account for the resurrection by bribing the guards to say the disciples stole away the body (28:11-15), and then shifts abruptly to the eleven disciples receiving the commission to preach (28:16-20). Likewise, Luke has two abrupt shifts in his final chapter. He reports the visits to the tomb by the women and Peter (24:1-12) and then suddenly changes to the two disciples traveling on the road to Emmaus (24:13ff.). Another takes place at the end of the Emmaus narrative (24:13-35) when Jesus suddenly appears in the midst of the whole group of disciples (24:36ff.). Yet no one questions the genuineness of the endings of Matthew and Luke. The final chapter of John (21) follows on the heels of John’s grand climax to his carefully reasoned thesis (20:30-31), and gives the general impression of being anti-climactic and unnecessary. Likewise, many of Paul’s epistles end abruptly, followed by detached and unrelated greetings and salutations. No one questions the genuineness of the endings of these New Testament books.While Metzger does not accept verses 9-20 as the original ending of Mark, neither does he believe that the book originally ended at verse 8: “It appears, therefore, that ephobounto gar[“for they were afraid”—DM] of Mark xvi.8 does not represent what Mark intended to stand at the end of his Gospel” (1978, p. 228). But this admission that something is missing after verse 8 could just as easily imply that verses 9-20 constitute that “something.” Metzger concedes this very point when, after noting that “the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8,” he offers only three possibilities to account for the abrupt ending: “(a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, as seems most probable, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription” (1994, p. 105, note 7, emp. added). If verses 9-20 are, in fact, attributable to Mark, its absence in some manuscript copies is explicable on the very grounds offered by Metzger against their inclusion, i.e., the last leaf of a manuscript was lost—a manuscript from which copies were made that are now being used to discredit the genuineness of the verses in question. If, on the other hand, verses 9-20 are notgenuine, then the original verses that followed verse 8 have been missing for 2,000 years, and we are forced to conclude that the book of Mark lacks information that the Holy Spirit intended the world to have, but which they have been denied—an objectionable conclusion to say the least (yet see McMillan, 1973, p. 190).
THE VOCABULARY AND STYLE OF VERSES 9-20
But what about the style and vocabulary of verses 9-20? Are they “non-Markan”? Textual scholar Bruce Metzger insists that they are. Indeed, for those scholars who deem the verses spurious, the most influential factor—the most decisive piece of evidence—is the alleged “non-Markan vocabulary.” He defends his conclusion by referring to “the presence of seventeen non-Marcan words or words used in a non-Marcan sense” (1978, p. 227). Alford made the same allegation over a century earlier: “No less than seventeen words and phrases occur in it (and some of them several times) which are never elsewhere used by Mark—whose adherence to his own peculiar phrases is remarkable” (1844, p. 438). The reader is urged to observe carefully the implicit assumption of those who reject verses 9-20 on such a basis: If the last twelve verses of a document employ words and expressions (whether one or seventeen?) that are not employed by the writer previously in the same document, then the last twelve verses of the document are not the product of the original writer. Is this line of thinking valid?Over a century ago, in 1869, John A. Broadus provided a masterful evaluation (and decisive defeat) of this very contention (pp. 355-362). Using the Greek text that was available at the time produced by Tregelles, Broadus examined the twelve verses that precede Mark 16:9-20 (i.e., 15:44-16:8)—verses whose genuineness are above reproach—and applied precisely the same test to them. Incredibly, he found in the twelve verses preceding 16:9-20 exactlythe same number of words and phrases (seventeen) that are not used previously byMark! The words and their citation are as follows: tethneiken (15:44), gnous apo, edoreisato,ptoma (15:45), eneileisen, lelatomeimenon, petpas, prosekulisen (15:46), diagenomenou, aromata(16:1), tei mia ton sabbaton (16:2), apokulisei (16:3), anakekulistai, sphodra (16:4), en tois dexiois(16:5), eichen (in a peculiar sense), and tromos (16:8). The reader is surely stunned and appalled that textual critics would wave aside verses of Scripture as counterfeit and fraudulent on such fragile, flimsy grounds.Writing a few years later, J.W. McGarvey applied a similar test to the last twelve verses of Luke, again, verses whose genuineness, like those preceding Mark 16:9-20, are above suspicion (1875, pp. 377-382). He found nine words that are not used by Luke elsewherein his book—four of which are not found anywhere else in the New Testament! Yet, once again, no textual critic or New Testament Greek manuscript scholar has questioned the genuineness of the last twelve verses of Luke. Indeed, the methodology that seeks to determine the genuineness of a text on the basis of new or unusual word use is a concocted, artificial, unscholarly, nonsensical, pretentious—and clearly discredited—criterion.
CONCLUSION
For the unbiased observer, this matter is settled: the strongest piece of internal evidence mustered against the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20 is no evidence at all. The two strongest arguments offered to discredit the inspiration of these verses as the production of Mark are seen to be lacking in substance and legitimacy. The reader of the New Testament may be confidently assured that these verses are original—written by the Holy Spirit through the hand of Mark as part of his original gospel account.
REFERENCES
Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland (1987), The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).Aland, Kurt, Matthew Black, Carlo Martini, Bruce Metzger, and Allen Wikgren (1983), The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, fourth revised edition).Alford, Henry (1844), Alford’s Greek Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), 1980 reprint.Brigance, L.L. (1870), “J.W. McGarvey,” in A Treatise on the Eldership by J.W. McGarvey (Murfreesboro, TN: DeHoff Publications), 1962 reprint.Broadus, John A. (1869), “Exegetical Studies,” The Baptist Quarterly, [3]:355-362, July.Bruce, F.F. (1960), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, revised edition).Burgon, John (1871), The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark (London: James Parker), 1959 reprint.Colwell, Ernest C. (1937), “Mark 16:9-20 in the Armenian Version,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 55:369-386.Comfort, Philip (1990), Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House).Dummelow, J.R., ed. (1927), A Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York, NY: MacMillan).Elliott, J.K. (1971), “The Text and Language of the Endings to Mark’s Gospel,” TheologischeZeitschrift 27, July-August.Ewert, David (1983), From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).Guthrie, Donald (1970), New Testament Introduction (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, third edition).Kahle, P.E. (1951), “The End of St. Mark’s Gospel: The Witness of the Coptic Versions,” Journal of Theological Studies, [11]:49-57.Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper).Kenyon, Sir Frederic (1951 reprint), Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, second edition).Lenski, R.C.H. (1945), The Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel (Columbus, OH: Wartburg Press).Lewis, Jack (1988), “The Ending of Mark,” in The Lifestyle of Jesus (Searcy, AR: Harding University).McGarvey, J.W. (1875), The New Testament Commentary: Matthew and Mark (Delight, AR: Gospel Light).McGarvey, J.W. (1956 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).McMillan, Earle (1973), The Gospel According to Mark (Austin, TX: Sweet).Metzger, Bruce M. (1972), “The Ending of the Gospel according to Mark in Ethiopic Manuscripts,” Understanding the Sacred Text, ed. John Reumann, et al. (Valley Forge, PA).Metzger, Bruce M. (1978 reprint), The Text of the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, second edition).Metzger, Bruce M. (1994), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York, NY: United Bible Society, second edition).Morison, James (1892), A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Hodder & Stoughton, seventh edition).Phillips, Dabney (1975), Restoration Principles and Personalities (University, AL: Youth In Action).Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (1970 reprint), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volumes 7 and 8: Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries.Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (1971 reprint), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 5: Fathers of the Third Century.Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. (1973 reprint), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 1: The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus; Volume 3: Latin Christianity: It’s Founder, Tertullian.Salmon, George (1889), A Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament(London: John Murray, fourth edition).Sanday, William (1889), Appendices ad Novum Testamentum Stephanicum (Oxford).Schaff, Philip, ed. (1969 reprint), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 12: Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians.Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. (1969 reprint), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans); Volume 10: St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters; Volume 12: Leo the Great, Gregory the Great; Volume 13: Gregory the Great, Ephraim Syrus, Aphrahat.Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace, eds. (1954), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 1968 reprint; Volume 6: Saint Jerome: Letters and Select Works.Scrivener, F.H.A. (1883), A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, and Co., third edition).Streeter, B.H. (1924), The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan), 1953 reprint.Warren, Thomas B. (1953), The Warren-Ballard Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).Welte, Michael (2005), personal e-mail, Institute for New Testament Textual Research (Munster, Germany), [On-line], URL: http://www.uni-muenster.de/NTTextforschung/.Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1882), The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge: MacMillan).Westcott, B.A. and F.J.A. Hort (1964 reprint), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: MacMillan).Zwemer, Samuel (1975), “The Last Twelve Verses of Mark,” in Counterfeit or Genuine, Mark 16? John 8?, ed. David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications).
Tweet
Copyright © 2005 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Inspiration of the Bible" section to be reproduced in part or in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) textual alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden; (5) Some illustrations (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, etc.) are not the intellectual property of Apologetics Press and as such cannot be reproduced from our site without consent from the person or organization that maintains those intellectual rights; (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, excepting brief quotations, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.
For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:
Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334) 272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org
2 notes
·
View notes
Text
What's Going On In The World?
GEORGE L. FAULL
Antony Flew, world’s most respected atheist has changed his mind. He is now an admitted deist (one who believes God created the world and went off and left it to run on its own with no revelation of His will to His creatures.). The thing that convinced him was the design of DNA. He reminded journalists that even Darwin required a creator to start it all. He also says that the resurrection of Jesus has more evidential support than any other miracle. His stumblingblock is the problem of evil in the world. He regards Islam with horror and fear due to their desire to conquer the world.
Robert Schuller, of the Glass Cathedral.
Two of Schuller’s students are Bill Hybels and Rick Warren. Schuller says we do wrong in making people aware that they are sinners. He stresses mans value instead of mans unworthiness. The boys have learned well. Hybel, Warren, and Schuller have had more input in our Churches in the last 10 years than Paul or Peter. Incidentally, Schuller said it would not disturb him to come back in 200 years and find his descendants Muslims. That will never happen simply because he isn’t coming back.
Fuller Theological Seminary President speaks to Mormons.
In speaking to them in Salt Lake, Richard Moun apologized that evangelicals “have often misrepresented the faith and beliefs of the Latter Day Saints. We evangelicals have sinned against you.” Better think twice before you send your Preacher to a Fuller Church growth meeting. Our preachers are attending in droves to Rick Warren, Jack Hayford and other such gurus who espouse the Fuller attitude. They invite in every hue of sectarianism to these Church growth meetings including Mormons.
TBN’s Paul CrouchThe charismatic Paul Crouch of TBN attempted to conceal the fact that he was gay by paying $425,000.00 to Laverne Ford who eventually exposed him. Crouch also said, “I have come to the conviction that Martin Luther made a mistake, he should have never left the Catholic Church. I am eradicating the word Protestant from my vocabulary. I am not protesting anything. It’s time for Catholics and Non-Catholics to come together as one in the spirit and one in the Lord.” TBN is an apostate network that some of our men appear on for interviews.
Max Lucado
Max Lucado, the new darling of the North American Christian Convention, used to be a Church of Christ preacher. In October, he changed the name of Oak Hills Church of Christ. He dropped the “Church of Christ” name in an effort to reach people hesitant to attend a Church of Christ. His Church jumped from 3,300 to 4,500 in 6 months. At a Charismatic Promise Keepers rally he said, “It does not matter about your denomination, it’s all about God.” Oak Hills has a booklet called, “
The Purpose of a Teaching Position
”. It says,
“A teaching position serves to articulate the convictions of the Oak Hills leadership on a particular doctrine or practice. This paper on the topic of baptism is useful for:
1.
Those who have never been baptized.
If you want to become a member of Oak Hills and have not been baptized, we ask you to do so.
2.
Those who have been baptized
, but not by immersion. We have many potential members who were baptized by sprinkling, usually as infants. This paper will help you see why we baptize by immersion. It also explains why we don’t baptize infants. We urge you to read the paper and consider adult baptism. If you choose not to be immersed at this time, we still welcome you as a member. We ask only that you respect this position and not be divisive. Members serving in instructional capacities (such as Bible class teachers, small group leaders, and ministry leaders, elders and staff ministers) need to be in agreement and compliance with the teaching position.
3.
Those who have been baptized by immersion.
It is our prayer that this study will give you new insights into the beauty, simplicity, and significance of this demonstration of devotion.
Open membership was the hottest debated issue in the Restoration Movement in the last century. Today, the Brethren heading up our Colleges and conventions and camps have no conscience at all of bringing in apostates like Max Lucado, David Reagan and others of that persuasion.
Tony Compolo
They even bring in Tony Compolo, who even many denominational Churches will not use because of his stating that homosexuals were born that way. He has socialist agendas. He was brought to a heresy trial in 1985 for saying that Christ is in every human being. His wife promotes homosexual marriages. He often uses vulgarisms in the pulpit to shock and shame his listeners. His defense, “what’s worse, is that you’re more upset with the fact that I said [vulgarism] than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night!” This was repeated at one of our schools.
John Hagee
John Hagee of TV fame believes that the spiritual gifts still continues today is getting a larger following. He has raised thousands of dollars to move Jews to the Holy Land, uprooting Palestinian Christians in the process. He believes Christians should have no duty to evangelize Jews since eventually. “All Israel will be saved.” He is a Christian Zionist. He pals around with Benny Hinn and other Charismatic charlatans. He is best known for his pushing of the Jewish agenda, thinking they have a spiritual relationship with God that will bring about their redemption without Christ but by living only in the light of the Torah. He says,
“I’m not out to convert the Jewish people to the Christian faith.” He adds, “In fact, trying to convert Jews is a waste of time. The Jewish person who has his roots in Judaism is not going to convert to Christianity. There is no form of Christian evangelism that has failed so miserably as evangelizing the Jewish people. They (already) have a faith structure. Everyone else, whether Buddhist or Baha’i, needs to believe in Jesus. But not Jews. Jews already have a covenant with God that has never been replaced by Christianity”.
Hagee is renown for taking on anti-Semetics but he is in reality, the true anti-Semetic for he will not evangelize the Jew and give them what they need for eternal salvation.
Rick Warren
Rich Warren, of “The Purpose Driven Church”, and “The Purpose Driven Life” fame has changed the Christian Churches and Churches of Christ more than any fad for the past century due to gullibility of our preachers. He has been fellowshipping with John Templeton of the John Templeton Foundation. Templeton awards a million dollars to different persons who further the cause of harmonizing world religions. These have been awarded Agnostics, Pantheists, Hindu’s, Muslims, Buddhists, Jews as well as Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Bill Bright, and Mother Teresa.
Is Rick after such?
Who knows? Having sold millions of books, he certainly does not need the money. He is now one of the judges for a written essay contest that Templeton is holding. He will serve as judge in the contest with renowned left-wing radicals.
TV Attention Deficit DisorderPortland (Oregon) Life found that for every hour per day preschoolers watch TV, then chance of developing attention deficit disorders later in life has boosted 10%. This is an alarming fact. You need more than control. Abstinence may be easier than temperance.
Billy GrahamRobert Schuller asked Billy Graham this question, “Tell me, what do you think is the future of Christianity?”
Graham’s reply was:
“Well, Christianity and being a true believer you know, I think there’s the Body of Christ. This comes from all the Christian groups around the world. Outside the Christian groups, I think everybody who knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they’re members of the Body of Christ. I don’t think that we’re going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole word to Christ at any time. I think James answered that. The Apostle James in the first council in Jerusalem, when he said that God’s purposes for this age is to call out a people for His name whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ, because they’ve been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts that they need something that they don’t have, and I think they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved, and that they are going to be in heaven with us” (Billy Graham, televised interview with Robert Schuller, May 13, 1997).
In response to Graham’s totally unscriptural statement, Schuller explained, “What, what I hear you saying is that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life even if they’ve been born in darkness and never had an exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?”Graham answered, “Yes, it is because I believe that. I’ve met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations, that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, and never heard of Jesus, but they’ve believed in their hearts that there was a God, and they’ve tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived.” This was 1997. But even as far back as 1961 Graham said of infant baptism,
“ I have some difficulty in accepting the indiscriminate baptism of infants without a careful regard as to whether the parents have any intention of fulfilling the promise they make. But I do believe that something happens at the baptism of an infant, particularly if the parents are Christians and teach their children Christian truths from childhood. We cannot fully understand the miracles of God, but I believe that a miracle can happen in these children so that they are regenerated, that is, made Christians, through infant baptism. If you want to call that baptismal regeneration, that’s all right with me.”
(Lutheran Standard October 10
th
, 1961)
Graham has for years turned over the names of those who came forward at his rallies to the Churches from which they came. In 1957 Graham said, “Anyone who makes a decision at our meetings is seen later and referred to local clergymen, Protestant, Catholic or Jewish.” (San Francisco news)
Yet many of our top leaders in our own Churches appear with Graham and support his crusades...SHAME!
“KINSEY” Movie,
You need to know that Alfred Kinsey, the hero of the movie, was a pervert, pedophile, wife swapper, bi-sexual and the one who deceived America with his false
Kinsey Report
. He is the one who made up the lie that 10% of Americans are homosexual. He used for his own survey prison inmates and prostitutes. He made his staff perform lewd sex acts on film. He employed no trained statistician. He himself should have been imprisoned as a pedophile. The American Legislative Exchange Council (2400 State Legislators) recently concluded the
Kinsey Report
was “illegal and criminal acts masquerading as science.” See proof of all this in a book by Judith Rusmar and another by Susan Brinkmann or contact the eagleforum.org website.
The above news information has been gleaned from
The Calvary Contender
,
The Sword of the Lord
,
O Timothy
,
Christian News
,
The Eagle Forum
, and
The Way of Life
magazines. These groups do a great service in marking those who teach contrary to what the Christian has learned from the Holy Apostles.
2 notes
·
View notes
Last Seen Blogs
chuttinila29
Untitled
regulusrules
LJ
sundukk
9flag
zorro22a
Sin título
bmwandbenzusedcar
Benz & BMW used car