What must I do to be saved?

[Hoops22 0]

Irrelevant. The apostles declared that all that are Israel are not of Israel. If you don't want to head Jesus words fine by me, but I am not bound by your interpretations.

You bet he did. He is declaring that those who accept Jesus as King/Messiah are "true" israel. It has nothing to do with adding gentiles to israel, rather of detracting non-believing jews from israel.

[DLClark 0]

Salvation is not DOING something; it is KNOWING someone (John 17:3). Salvation is not based on what we might do; it is based on what Christ has ALREADY DONE (John 19:30). Salvation is not TRYING; it is TRUSTING (John 6:47). If salvation could be earned by anything we do, then Christ

[Widow's Son 8]

>>What must I do to be saved?<<

Ctrl+ "S"

[cdowis 2,020]

Again, this is a called out assembly of believing jews. Show me where, anywhere, there is a NT church at this time.

Your wish is my command.

Eph 2 [19] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

[20] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Eph 4 [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

It is clear that there was an organization, referring to "fellowcitizens", built upon a foundation of apostles and prophets, with several callings and officials -- apostles, bishop, deacon, teacher, evangelist, etc. The church leadership met, for example, in Jerusalem to decide whether the Gospel would be taught to the Gentiles. And the church leaders made a decision as church policy.

This organization would continue indefinitely.

[Hoops22 0]

Your wish is my command.

Eph 2 [19] Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

[20] And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Eph 4 [11] And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

[12] For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

[13] Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

[14] That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

It is clear that there was an organization, referring to "fellowcitizens", built upon a foundation of apostles and prophets, with several callings and officials -- apostles, bishop, deacon, teacher, evangelist, etc. The church leadership met, for example, in Jerusalem to decide whether the Gospel would be taught to the Gentiles. And the church leaders made a decision as church policy.

This organization would continue indefinitely.

That's a stretch. I see no mention of church here, but, rather, I see some necessary functions required until the church organization has been established. Let's look at it. Of course there are apostles at the time of this writing. Why? Because there was no church, at least not to the degree we have today. The same is true of prophets. These were needed because the church had not been established. And who are the some? They are those that are trying to establish a viable, sustaining church, and depending on their situation, required different folks to do so.

Additionally, these were necessary because we/they still did not have a written recording of God's word. therefor, to build the church without His written word, these were required.

While it is true that we still have and need teachers, evangelists, and pastors, - it is equally true that the work of apostles and prophets was complete with the resurrection and the establishment of His written word.;

[jimg 0]

Well said!

Mike

Thank you Mike.

[jimg 0]

Well said!

Mike

[jimg 0]

It won't be long that you will be making snotty comments, with all the bells and whistles, just like the rest of us.

Well, I hope not. At least my intention is otherwise, although I do have a couple of questions that you can help me with.

First, are you male or female, you avatar not withstanding.

Second, How "active" are the moderators here? Do they stay pretty well in the background unless there is a specific complaint, or are they constantly looking over one's shoulder waiting to do a ban at the drop of a hat?

Thanks,

Jim in Texas

[cdowis 2,020]

That's a stretch. I see no mention of church here, but, rather, I see some necessary functions required until the church organization has been established. Let's look at it. Of course there are apostles at the time of this writing. Why? Because there was no church, at least not to the degree we have today.

When you have a foundation, you have a building, and the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, and Christ the chief cornerstone.

I showed you the scriptures that you asked for, but I can't force your opinion, but it is clear to me that there was a formal organization. I think it is clear that they had a formal organization from the scriptures I cited. The apostles made decisions for the entire church, teaching the gentiles, the apostles came together to call a replacement apostle, and they ordained these different officers.

You are saying that anyone could call themselves to an office, put a title to their own name, and that is indeed what we have today, where preachers call themselves bishop, apostle, and even prophet without that calling from the Lord.

You asked for the scriptures and I gave them to you.

[CV75 5,543]

I see no mention of church here, but, rather, I see some necessary functions required until the church organization has been established.

Are you saying that the church is not so much a formal organization but rather the "body of Christ", which is comprised of the believers from any of many denominations that take the Bible to be the only source of God's word, and that Jesus' assignment to the ancient apostles (and other officers) was only for the purpose of providing a suitable substitute for allowing them time and means to write or compile the "final word" of the Bible, by the power of the Holy Spirit that was in them, so that those who believe in those words are the one who become the church and the saved, and that these too have the Holy Spirit manifest within them?

[Hoops22 0]

Are you saying that the church is not so much a formal organization but rather the "body of Christ", which is comprised of the believers from any of many denominations that take the Bible to be the only source of God's word, and that Jesus' assignment to the ancient apostles (and other officers) was only for the purpose of providing a suitable substitute for allowing them time and means to write or compile the "final word" of the Bible, by the power of the Holy Spirit that was in them, so that those who believe in those words are the one who become the church and the saved, and that these too have the Holy Spirit manifest within them?

This is pretty close. The only correction I would make is that the church at that time was not a formal organization. And that it grew to be exactly that.

Other than that, if Im understanding you correctly, you have a fair summary of my position.

[Hoops22 0]

When you have a foundation, you have a building, and the apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church, and Christ the chief cornerstone.

I showed you the scriptures that you asked for, but I can't force your opinion, but it is clear to me that there was a formal organization. I think it is clear that they had a formal organization from the scriptures I cited. The apostles made decisions for the entire church, teaching the gentiles, the apostles came together to call a replacement apostle, and they ordained these different officers.

You are saying that anyone could call themselves to an office, put a title to their own name, and that is indeed what we have today, where preachers call themselves bishop, apostle, and even prophet without that calling from the Lord.

You asked for the scriptures and I gave them to you.

The scriptures you cited do not mention the church (catholic). They do support, however, that these offices were necessary for the development of the church and to allow for written scripture to be organized. It was necessary to have these men - who were guided by The Holy Spirit - to direct the development of the church, but that in no way indicates that the church was fully developed. In fact, it points to the opposite.

I asked for scripture that showed church was already a viable, standing, supported institution. You fell short.

[CV75 5,543]

This is pretty close. The only correction I would make is that the church at that time was not a formal organization. And that it grew to be exactly that.

Other than that, if Im understanding you correctly, you have a fair summary of my position.

I understand the position that the church at the time of the apostles, the Pentecost, etc. (and even prior to the Lord's crucifixion), was not a formal organization (And do you believe it was it never was a formal organization?). What do you mean when you say "it grew to be exactly that?"

[Hoops22 0]

Well, I hope not. At least my intention is otherwise, although I do have a couple of questions that you can help me with.

I was teasing you. The discussions get heated sometimes, but most folks are pretty reasonable. When you do see some untoward comments, you should probably assume the poster was teasing.

First, are you male or female, you avatar not withstanding.

I'm neither. Or both. But the avatar does have some significance to me.

Second, How "active" are the moderators here? Do they stay pretty well in the background unless there is a specific complaint, or are they constantly looking over one's shoulder waiting to do a ban at the drop of a hat?

I think we had a moderator change a few months ago- though I can't be sure. But the mods lately have been pretty much on top of things, without being overbearing or controlling. I'm finding the moderators to be pretty fair, and, if you consider that this is an lds board, they have been very fair.

There are moderators out there who could take a lesson or two from our current mods.

Having said that, the mods are, of course, overbearing snobs who are simple lap dogs for the more respected folks on this board.

[Hoops22 0]

I understand the position that the church at the time of the apostles, the Pentecost, etc. (and even prior to the Lord's crucifixion), was not a formal organization

That's correct. With one correction, there wasn't even the idea of a NT church - as we know it to be - pre atonement. When the word church is used in acts, it is more of a "calling out from", that is, believing jews that were called out from the nation. Church, with all it's accompanying offices had not been constructed yet.

(And do you believe it was it never was a formal organization?). What do you mean when you say "it grew to be exactly that?"

By formal I mean that Christianity grew to have set and specific doctrine that were non-negotiable. There are other doctrine that other members of the body embrace, but those can be disagreed upon without disrupting the body.

[jimg 0]

......... I just think that our different perspective, shouldn't disqualify us from being Christians. And I have heard some say that we don't believe in Jesus at all, and only after we tell them that we do believe in Jesus, they qualify their statement by saying that we believe in a "different Jesus" rather then we believe different things about Him!

Mike

Mike,

You will not be able to get through to those who choose to believe the constant rehash of old anti arguments. They do not seek to understand, but to oppose anything you say. But......I, like you, always seem to make an effort to give information in the hope that a sincere lurker with no preconceived notions will be able to consider for himself or herself what is true.

Jim in Texas

[jimg 0]

I was teasing you. The discussions get heated sometimes, but most folks are pretty reasonable. When you do see some untoward comments, you should probably assume the poster was teasing.

I'm neither. Or both. But the avatar does have some significance to me.

I have found that sometimes when a person says that they are "teasing", it is an effort to try to defuse a reaction to a statement that they very well meant.

Thanks for your answer to my question about your gender. You seem to also have the attribute of being purposely coy and evasive. I am male.

Jim in Texas

[Hoops22 0]

I have found that sometimes when a person says that they are "teasing", it is an effort to try to defuse a reaction to a statement that they very well meant.

You are quite the serious fellow, then. But you might consider another possibility. When people say they are teasing, they are actually teasing.

Thanks for your answer to my question about your gender. You seem to also have the attribute of being purposely coy and evasive. I am male.

How about because it's none of your business.

[jimg 0]

How about because it's none of your business.

Fair enough.................Ahhhh, are you teasing now?

jim

[DLClark 0]

The church began at Pentecost with the baptism of the spirit whereby He/Holy Spirit places all believers into the one obdy of Christ, 1 cor. 12:13. The key passage on Spirit baptism is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13

[DLClark 0]

Mormonism teaches that a person saved by grace after doing all they can do.

Q. Can you honestly say that you have done all that you can do in order to merit being saved by grace?

Please do not throw this question back to me until I get a direct heart felt sanwer from you.

DLC

[Hoops22 0]

Fair enough.................Ahhhh, are you teasing now?

jim

Actually, no, not this time. But I have a good reason why I am a smidge secretive - which would be a thread derailment. Which is a bad habit of mine, from a list of many bad habits.

[DLClark 0]

I'm sorry, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about here! You come up with more mumbo jumbo then anybody I've seen on this board!

I could try to come up with something meaningful to say, but what would be the point? You're just throwing your line out there and hopeing someone will get hooked! I guess it works too, because we keep getting reeled in trying to reason with you!

Mike

What I am saying is that faith in Christ is all that is needed for salvation. The unsaved person is asked to believe on Jesus Christ as his personal Savior. Repentance is not a separate act in addition to faith.

Repentance is included in believing. Faith and repentance are like two sides of a coin. Genuine faith includes repentance, and genuine repentance includes faith. The Greek word for repentance (metanoia) means to change one

[CV75 5,543]

By formal I mean that Christianity grew to have set and specific doctrine that were non-negotiable. There are other doctrine that other members of the body embrace, but those can be disagreed upon without disrupting the body.

So you are saying that 1 ) the "formal" part is the Holy Bible; 2 ) Other doctrines can creep in as long as one member of the body does not say "I have no need of thee" to another member of the body; and 3 ) The body is comprised those believers that have united together around the Bible's specific, non-negotiable doctrine.

[Vance 1,059]

evidence please.

Matt 3:2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Was the church not "at hand"? Yes it was!

17