Do you worry if you are saved or not?

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

It wasn't that I had forgotten what you had written but that I couldn't understand what you had written. The sentence from you that I quoted just didn't make much sense.



Is any of this biblical? Do you have any teaching in Scripture anywhere that says, "Use a trigger word to determine if your tongues are a demonic fake"? I don't know of any...You might want to consider the following passage:

Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'

Jesus says here that many will use his name in association with wonders they perform but he will deny knowing them as his own and will cast them out from his presence at the Final Judgment. It seems pretty clear here that just using Jesus's name does not guarantee that what you are doing is of him. Even if you do wonders in his name, you can be totally separate from him and on your way to hell. So, your "trigger word" idea doesn't seem very biblical to me...



But as I just showed, using Jesus's name doesn't guarantee you are acting in his will or are even one of his.



Actually, the verse you're thinking of from Philippians 2 doesn't say every knee must bow but rather every knee should or will bow. When? Well, at the Final Judgment, for sure. Prior to that time, however, only some bow their knee to Christ.

Acts 19:13-16
13 Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches."
14 Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so.
15 And the evil spirit answered and said, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"
16 Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.

Here's an example of the very opposite of what you claim to be true. Even though the Jews were attempting an exorcism in the name of Jesus they failed and were attacked and injured by the demon they were trying to cast out. Jesus's name is not some magic spell, then, that just anyone can use to exert authority over the demonic.



The Bible scholar I quoted isn't one of them. Dr. Metzger is, however, among the majority of Bible scholars who look at the evidence and see that the last twelve verses of Mark 16 are later and illegitimate additions to the text. Metzger isn't just following some bias he has against the Bible in this matter but is reacting to the evidence that clearly shows the verses you quoted as spurious. So lumping Dr. Metzger in with every skeptic who dismisses the Bible shows you don't know who Dr. Metzger is and that you aren't really thinking carefully about how you arrive at your conclusions about Scripture.



Well, unless you've got good reason to doubt those historians, you ought to consider what they are saying about history. Simply dismissing the evidence because "some historians may not be completely trustworthy" is intellectually lazy. If you want to be "rightly dividing the word of Truth," you must look at the textual evidence for and against Mark 16:9-20 and accept it only if you can prove it isn't in error. Can you? Do you have proof that what Dr. Metzger has said about the textual evidence for the last twelve verses in Mark 16 is false? Have you looked at the manuscripts? Have you studied out what the reasons for rejecting these verses actually are? If not, you aren't in any position to deny the claims of someone like Dr. Metzger who has.



Instead of betting, why don't you do some research on Dr. Metzger and find out where he's coming from as a Bible scholar? Unfounded speculation is a fast road to being deceived.



Maybe Jefferson did. But this doesn't prove anything about Dr. Metzger and his motives for rejecting Mark 16:9-20. Metzger isn't Thomas Jefferson.



This isn't what Metzger has done. He doesn't suggest the entire Bible is under suspicion. The way you're trying to dismiss his research here is pretty careless and lazy.



The devil has nothing to do with it. The textual evidence is what it is. And the passage in Mark 16 doesn't give us power over anything. It is God through Christ who has given us the victory over the World, the Flesh and the devil.



You've talked yourself into a point of view here for which you have no evidence. Ignoring the textual evidence Dr. Metzger cites, you simply assume the devil is at work creating a false "scholar problem." Again, this is very lazy thinking that will lead you straight into being deceived. I would urge you to be like the "noble Bereans" who studied out everything they were told by the apostles to "see if these things were so." (Acts 17:10, 11)

Selah.

Is any of this biblical? Do you have any teaching in Scripture anywhere that says, "Use a trigger word to determine if your tongues are a demonic fake"? I don't know of any...You might want to consider the following passage:


My Response: No that's not what I said. What I said was whenever we say JESUS or hallelujah the holy ghost tends to really manifest itself in tounques. I never said that's how you determine someone is saved, that's simply a sign... which I presented in a section of the bible that you rushed to remove for some reason. I mean another guy is trying to remove paul (70% of the new testament) from the bible as well. I can appreciate him a bit more becuase he attempts to do so using a bible though but still.

Is Paul the one James calls "the spouter of lies" in the dead sea scrolls?


And you can even just do a quick search online, there are tons of arguments such as yours by people like yourself who want to only believe in portions of the bible.





Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'


My response: First of all your missing verse 21 that's a good part as well. But anyway what you fail to understand with this verse is that Prophecy for example is something that only happens if God reveals something to the individual. These people claimed to prophesy and cast out demons but they really didn't essentially is my point. God will not prophecy through a demon possessed individual.



The devil has nothing to do with it. The textual evidence is what it is. And the passage in Mark 16 doesn't give us power over anything. It is God through Christ who has given us the victory over the World, the Flesh and the devil.


My Response: His death was only done to justify us, we had to be justified in order for us to be adopted (through the holy ghost). The power comes through the resurrection and the holy ghost not just the death. IF he didn't rise then nothing would happen for us. His death and birth were fine... don't get me wrong... but the resurrection sealed the deal. BEing justified and free from sin does nothing if we have nothing to replace where that sin once dwelled. The holy ghost does that.


This isn't what Metzger has done. He doesn't suggest the entire Bible is under suspicion. The way you're trying to dismiss his research here is pretty careless and lazy.

My response: dismissing a portion of the bible so you don't have to follow it is as lazy as it gets. At least make an argument as to why the verse itself is not applicable rather then depend on the great Metzger.



But as I just showed, using Jesus's name doesn't guarantee you are acting in his will or are even one of his.

My Response: I'm not saying if you utilize JESUS name your a christian, but what i'm saying is that JESUS name doesn't empower demons.




Actually, the verse you're thinking of from Philippians 2 doesn't say every knee must bow but rather every knee should or will bow.

My Response: Well when you quote a scripture from memory you're not going to get every word right. I should point out though that the JESUS says, "Satan get thee behind me for it is written that thou shalt worship the lord thy God and only him shalt they serve." This verse simply shows the power that JESUS has. IT also hints towards judgment as you pointed out, the devil will be cast in a pit for 1,000 years everything serves him. Additionally this is one of the most difficult passages in the bible based according to scholars and such so I understand if you have a different interpretation of it.


Maybe Jefferson did. But this doesn't prove anything about Dr. Metzger and his motives for rejecting Mark 16:9-20. Metzger isn't Thomas Jefferson.

My Response: Of course he's not Thomas JEfferson lol. Thomas is one of the biggest names of all time.



Simply dismissing the evidence because "some historians may not be completely trustworthy" is intellectually lazy. If you want to be "rightly dividing the word of Truth," you must look at the textual evidence for and against Mark 16:9-20 and accept it only if you can prove it isn't in error.


My response: No if you want to study to show yourself approvable unto God and divideth the word of truth you simply have to learn the word of truth lol. Why do you keep taking scriptures out of context? It clealry says here to study the mind of God. The bible says take nothing away from the word. Jesus said live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Is any of this biblical? Do you have any teaching in Scripture anywhere that says, "Use a trigger word to determine if your tongues are a demonic fake"? I don't know of any...You might want to consider the following passage:


My Response: No that's not what I said. What I said was whenever we say JESUS or hallelujah the holy ghost tends to really manifest itself in tounques. I never said that's how you determine someone is saved, that's simply a sign... which I presented in a section of the bible that you rushed to remove for some reason. I mean another guy is trying to remove paul (70% of the new testament) from the bible as well. I can appreciate him a bit more becuase he attempts to do so using a bible though but still.

Is Paul the one James calls "the spouter of lies" in the dead sea scrolls?


And you can even just do a quick search online, there are tons of arguments such as yours by people like yourself who want to only believe in portions of the bible.





Matthew 7:22-23
22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'


My response: First of all your missing verse 21 that's a good part as well. But anyway what you fail to understand with this verse is that Prophecy for example is something that only happens if God reveals something to the individual. These people claimed to prophesy and cast out demons but they really didn't essentially is my point. God will not prophecy through a demon possessed individual.



The devil has nothing to do with it. The textual evidence is what it is. And the passage in Mark 16 doesn't give us power over anything. It is God through Christ who has given us the victory over the World, the Flesh and the devil.


My Response: His death was only done to justify us, we had to be justified in order for us to be adopted (through the holy ghost). The power comes through the resurrection and the holy ghost not just the death. IF he didn't rise then nothing would happen for us. His death and birth were fine... don't get me wrong... but the resurrection sealed the deal. BEing justified and free from sin does nothing if we have nothing to replace where that sin once dwelled. The holy ghost does that.


This isn't what Metzger has done. He doesn't suggest the entire Bible is under suspicion. The way you're trying to dismiss his research here is pretty careless and lazy.

My response: dismissing a portion of the bible so you don't have to follow it is as lazy as it gets. At least make an argument as to why the verse itself is not applicable rather then depend on the great Metzger.



But as I just showed, using Jesus's name doesn't guarantee you are acting in his will or are even one of his.

My Response: I'm not saying if you utilize JESUS name your a christian, but what i'm saying is that JESUS name doesn't empower demons.




Actually, the verse you're thinking of from Philippians 2 doesn't say every knee must bow but rather every knee should or will bow.

My Response: Well when you quote a scripture from memory you're not going to get every word right. I should point out though that the JESUS says, "Satan get thee behind me for it is written that thou shalt worship the lord thy God and only him shalt they serve." This verse simply shows the power that JESUS has. IT also hints towards judgment as you pointed out, the devil will be cast in a pit for 1,000 years everything serves him. Additionally this is one of the most difficult passages in the bible based according to scholars and such so I understand if you have a different interpretation of it.


Maybe Jefferson did. But this doesn't prove anything about Dr. Metzger and his motives for rejecting Mark 16:9-20. Metzger isn't Thomas Jefferson.

My Response: Of course he's not Thomas JEfferson lol. Thomas is one of the biggest names of all time.



Simply dismissing the evidence because "some historians may not be completely trustworthy" is intellectually lazy. If you want to be "rightly dividing the word of Truth," you must look at the textual evidence for and against Mark 16:9-20 and accept it only if you can prove it isn't in error.


My response: No if you want to study to show yourself approvable unto God and divideth the word of truth you simply have to learn the word of truth lol. Why do you keep taking scriptures out of context? It clealry says here to study the mind of God. The bible says take nothing away from the word. Jesus said live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Can I ask why you chose that avatar to your profile?

Also, what does Jesus = G.O.A.T mean?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Can I ask why you chose that avatar to your profile?

Good question, I'm just a big basketball fan and from Houston so I just decided to go with it. Most likely i'll change to something more christian related though. Haha glad you asked though but yeah.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Good question, I'm just a big basketball fan and from Houston so I just decided to go with it. Most likely i'll change to something more christian related though. Haha glad you asked though but yeah.

You could not find an image where he was not making an occultic gesture? Or maybe you are not aware that is a signal?

What does Jesus = GOAT mean?

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

You could not find an image where he was not making an occultic gesture? Or maybe you are not aware that is a signal?

What does Jesus = GOAT mean?

Personally I don't believe he is making that gesture for the illuminati sign but ima change just so people don't believe that's what I support or anything. I believe he was making that sign to signal a 3 pointer. IT's popular for players to sort of make the sign just not on the eye though all the time though usually up in the air kinda.

and GOAT is another basketball thing, greatest of all time.


But yeah thanks for pointing out even if he isn't making the sign for the illuminati it still is a sign that tends to be utilized by those that serve the devil. It's kind of like the middle finger, sure people don't always stick it up to curse God but that's' what they are really doing they just don't know it.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Personally I don't believe he is making that gesture for the illuminati sign but ima change just so people don't believe that's what I support or anything. I believe he was making that sign to signal a 3 pointer. IT's popular for players to sort of make the sign just not on the eye though all the time though usually up in the air kinda.

and GOAT is another basketball thing, greatest of all time.


But yeah thanks for pointing out even if he isn't making the sign for the illuminati it still is a sign that tends to be utilized by those that serve the devil. It's kind of like the middle finger, sure people don't always stick it up to curse God but that's' what they are really doing they just don't know it.

Amen

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Do I worry if I am saved or not? No.

Why? Because worrying is the opposite of faith, we're saved by faith, it's a counterproductive activity.

 

[DoubtfulSalvation]

I don't find this to be the case at all. The vague or unclear passages on salvation are qualified and clarified by those that are more specific, detailed and clear. The matter of salvation in the Bible is as plain as I could want it to be.

Selah.

That's really great.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is a...strange response to all that I wrote. Strange because it focuses rather narrowly on a relatively insignificant point. The passage from Matthew 25 does not teach a saved-and-lost doctrine. Jesus explains nothing more than what the apostle James observed: genuine salvation results in corresponding behavior. If I am really saved, my conduct will reveal that I am. Jesus is not, however, indicating that good works obtain one's salvation. All he's saying essentially is "the proof is in the pudding."

To sum up, the verse is not important here. It means something other than we go to Hell if we don't do the works Jesus clearly said we must do, and we don't if we do them. And my bringing up something that makes a dead on significant, and crystal clear point, is strange.

Ok, can we try again?

As to "works are not required for salvation in the first place" do you think the scripture below is saying we are or are not required to do those works in order to get to Heaven?

Also, you say is does not teach a saved/lost doctrine, but as to subject, do you think the goats, or those that did not do the works mentioned by Christ, should have "worried" about doing those works before Christ returned then alleviated the worry by doing the works, hence giving Christ no reason to send them to hell? Or do you think they just should not have worried about the works at all?

Then in 44 do you Agree or disagree the Goats were perplexed because they thought their faith, or saying they were of Christ had saved them, but had no works and that's what got them in trouble? If not why do you think they were questioning Christ?

3 important questions there, and thanks for working with me here.

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Now sure these aren't specifically referring to salvation but in order for you to ask for something or speak something without doubt logically you can't question if you're saved or not.

You only read the bible verses.... read my explanation too


Very familiar verses the top one more so for myself I guess, one of the first I memorized after receiving the holy ghost. Now sure these aren't specifically referring to salvation but in order for you to ask for something or speak something without doubt logically you can't question if you're saved or not.

I can't cast out a demon if I am not even sure i'm not a sinner myself and the bible says thou that committeth sin is of teh devil after all. Which is why we can't doubt salvation... In order for you to do anything in the kingdom of God you have to be sure you are saved because only saved individuals can save others. Demons will only flee from sure/saved/confident individuals. Not people who doubt having the holy ghost and simply don't have it.

We're still on a different page here. IOW, you say we can't do those things unless were are confident were are saved, and I'm saying make sure we are saved so we can be confident (one step before where you are), and if we aren't doing as we should in order to be confident, we should worry, that is the subject here. Once that is taken care of, we can do the things you are talking about with the confidence you say we should have, and need to have.

Some are saying we need do nothing but have faith in God to be right with God, and my point is there are stipulations to show our faith. Faith without works is dead, one proves we have the other, and some are saying the works aren't necessary. My only point is, the works are absolutely necessary, and that's why I post the scripture of the sheep and goats, as it makes the works being necessary very very clear, as well as why I keep repeating Faith without works is dead. Those things are biblical, we can deny them if we want, and I'm not saying you do, just that some here absolutely are denying that, so I continue to go on about it.

There are preachers out there that drill, "oh you only need to say you have faith and you are good to go" into the heads of people that want to hear that because it makes things easy, and if "easy" is more important to some, then they have made their bed, they get what they wanted, and what that deserves. But if following Gods word is most important, even if it takes some doing, and we show it, we also get what we deserve.

 

[aiki]

No that's not what I said. What I said was whenever we say JESUS or hallelujah the holy ghost tends to really manifest itself in tounques.

I have said - and sung - both words many times and never burst into a round of tongues. In any case, what you describe here sounds a lot like pagan invocation. You know, say the devil's name and you draw his attention and perhaps even his presence. That sort of thing, except you're invoking the Holy Spirit. I don't know of any biblical basis for what you've described and it concerns me that it so closely parallels pagan practice.

I never said that's how you determine someone is saved, that's simply a sign...

I didn't say it was how you were assessing if someone was saved. I did point out, though, that even non-believers were doing wonders in Jesus's name. Makes me seriously question tongues as a legitimate sign of the Holy Spirit since it is so easy to fake and to distinguish as such. Now, if someone spoke in a foreign tongue, an established human language that they didn't know, or if they spoke in their own language but were heard in a different one, then it would be very easy to tell a fake. But that doesn't happen. All that tongues amounts to these days is senseless babbling. Makes me thing of Paul's words:

1 Corinthians 14:19
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

which I presented in a section of the bible that you rushed to remove for some reason.

I gave you the reason. Did you not read the quotation that I offered? It explains in detail why the section in Mark you cited is spurious. The reason has nothing to do with hating the Bible, or doubting its veracity, or wanting to redact it to suit my preferences but because the textual evidence for the section you cited indicates it is an illegitimate later addition. So, it isn't "for some reason" that I challenged your citing of the section but because the section doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. Read the quotation I gave you. It's all in there.

I mean another guy is trying to remove paul (70% of the new testament) from the bible as well. I can appreciate him a bit more becuase he attempts to do so using a bible though but still.

If you had read the quotation I offered, you'd have seen that the reasons for regarding Mark 16:9-20 as spurious are entirely scriptural. Many of the earliest ancient written manuscripts of Mark don't have the verses you cited. The language of the section is also distinctly out of character with the rest of the Gospel of Mark. It isn't, then, mere opinion or speculation upon which Dr. Metzger and other prominent Bible scholars have challenged the validity of the Mark 16 passage. The ancient texts of Scripture are the very reason they exclude the passage as legitimate!

And you can even just do a quick search online, there are tons of arguments such as yours by people like yourself who want to only believe in portions of the bible.

But I don't want to believe only select portions of the Bible. You chose the one passage of Scripture that I know of that has the textual problems that it does. I'm not aware of any passage in Scripture of a similar length that has the same issue. So, I'm not someone who is trying to redact the Bible to a select few passages that I happen to like. I would have accepted the Mark 16 section if research into the ancient manuscripts hadn't shown it to be spurious.

Prophecy for example is something that only happens if God reveals something to the individual. These people claimed to prophesy and cast out demons but they really didn't essentially is my point. God will not prophecy through a demon possessed individual.

I know very well what prophecy involves. But what you've written here totally misses (or deflects) my point. It makes no difference to the fact that those before God in Matthew 7:22, 23 had been acting in Jesus's name that they did so falsely. My point was that merely invoking Jesus's name does not establish or prove the source of the supernatural events (wonders) done in his name. Clearly, the wonders and exorcisms done in Jesus's name were not of God since He declares that He never knew those who were doing the wonders and exorcisms.

His death was only done to justify us, we had to be justified in order for us to be adopted (through the holy ghost).

"Only"? That's not what the Bible says. Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. His death was about atonement for sin and victory over sin and death, and the demonstration of God's grace, mercy and love, not only our justification.

The power comes through the resurrection and the holy ghost not just the death. IF he didn't rise then nothing would happen for us. His death and birth were fine... don't get me wrong... but the resurrection sealed the deal.

Yes. And? What does this have to do with the ancient manuscript evidence for dismissing Mark 16:9-20 as spurious?

BEing justified and free from sin does nothing if we have nothing to replace where that sin once dwelled. The holy ghost does that.

Oh? Where is this written in Scripture? I know of no verse which says, "The Holy Spirit replaces the sin that dwells in people." Do you?

dismissing a portion of the bible so you don't have to follow it is as lazy as it gets. At least make an argument as to why the verse itself is not applicable rather then depend on the great Metzger.

Read the quotation I gave. It lists the evidence from the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament itself for why Mark 16:9-20 is an illegitimate section of verses. And I have not been dismissive at all of Scripture. Being dismissive is when you ignore the hard facts given to you without good cause. Like you have been doing. When it comes to Scripture I take it all very seriously which is why I know about the problems with Mark 16.

I'm not saying if you utilize JESUS name your a christian, but what i'm saying is that JESUS name doesn't empower demons.

But it can be a mask behind which the demonic hides. I have seen dozens and dozens of t.v. evangelists who have used the name of Jesus to teach absolutely wicked and demonic things. All they had to do was throw around Jesus's name a bit and their foolish audiences were eager to believe everything they said. This is why I asked you how you go about discerning what is of God from what is demonic and fleshly. Your "Jesus name" test doesn't hold up to scrutiny, I'm afraid.

Well when you quote a scripture from memory you're not going to get every word right.

I do. It's God's word so I take pains to get it right.

Of course he's not Thomas JEfferson lol. Thomas is one of the biggest names of all time.

This misses (or ignores) my point which was that you can't reasonably infer from one man the motives of another. What motivated Jefferson is not necessarily what motivates Dr. Metzger (who is a very big name among Bible scholars). This should be obvious, but you argued as though it wasn't.

No if you want to study to show yourself approvable unto God and divideth the word of truth you simply have to learn the word of truth lol.

And how do you know what the "word of truth" is? How did it come into being? How was the content of your Bible decided? Do you know? Your Bible wasn't written in English. It wasn't originally written in the form in which you currently have it. How did it come to be that the books of your Bible are ordered as they are and include some books and exclude others? Do you know? Well, let me inform you that it involves Bible scholars - like Metzger - examining the ancient manuscripts of the text of the Bible, searching for uniformity of text among them and in so doing identifying mistakes in copying, and spelling, and punctuation and illegitimate additions to the text and correcting them. The Bible you study has been through the hands of the very Bible scholars you dismiss as untrustworthy. It is they who have worked to keep it error free, unadulterated by spurious additions, and properly translated. But have you ever studied their work? It doesn't sound like it. How, then, are you so confident in the Bible you study? How do you know it isn't chock full of mistakes? Rightly dividing the word of truth begins with having at least a general understanding of how your copy of the Bible came into being.

In any event, we are straying far from the OPs question so I'm not going to say any more on this matter. It was interesting talking to you.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

To sum up, the verse is not important here. It means something other than we go to Hell if we don't do the works Jesus clearly said we must do, and we don't if we do them. And my bringing up something that makes a dead on significant, and crystal clear point, is strange.

Ok, can we try again?

Sure. If you redo your summary to properly reflect what I wrote. Your summary above is what is known in philosophy as a Strawman.

As to "works are not required for salvation in the first place" do you think the scripture below is saying we are or are not required to do those works in order to get to Heaven?

Absolutely not. And there is Scripture that explicitly and clearly denies such an interpretation:

Titus 3:5-7
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

And:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

And:

Romans 3:27-28
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

do you think the goats, or those that did not do the works mentioned by Christ, should have "worried" about doing those works before Christ returned then alleviated the worry by doing the works, hence giving Christ no reason to send them to hell? Or do you think they just should not have worried about the works at all?

The "first work" is to love God with all of your being (Matt 22:36-38). Out of that love all other obedience is to flow. It's no good giving a drink to someone, or clothing them, or sheltering them, when you have no love for God in doing so. (see 1 Cor. 13:1-3) Any obedience to God commands, any good work, that emanates from any motive other than love for God (like worry, or fear, or guilt) are, as Paul explains in the passage I just cited, totally unprofitable spiritually. One can act from worry and fear all one's life in obeying God's commands and never actually love Him. And in so doing one breaks the First and Great Commandment and misses entirely what being a child of God is about. A fear-driven but obedient person is just as sure to be separated from God at the Final Judgment as those who have rejected God outright. Fear can never take the place of love in a person's relationship with God. As the apostle John pointed out:

1 John 4:18
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.

Then in 44 do you Agree or disagree the Goats were perplexed because they thought their faith, or saying they were of Christ had saved them, but had no works and that's what got them in trouble? If not why do you think they were questioning Christ?

I think the surprised "goats" thought that intellectual faith and saving faith were one and the same thing. Merely agreeing to the tenets of the Gospel does not save. Saving faith always anticipates change. This is why repentance was always part of the preaching of the Gospel in the New Testament. It is not enough to believe. Demons do that and tremble. As James points out, if one's belief touches the heart and anticipates a corresponding change in oneself, then it is truly saving faith. Understand, though, that anticipating change is not the same as enacting change. Salvation occurs before one's repentance begins to take full, concrete shape in one's life. In other words, one's salvation must precede - and is accomplished separately from - one's righteous living.

Selah.

 

[Petermn]

I don't worry. Not because I'm complacent but because I do my best as an imperfect human.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Sure. If you redo your summary to properly reflect what I wrote. Your summary above is what is known in philosophy as a Strawman.

I thought it was known as a reasonable summary covering exactly what you said. Amazing.

Absolutely not. And I have Scripture that explicitly and clearly denies such an interpretation:

Titus 3:5-7
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
7 that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

And:

Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,
9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

And:

Romans 3:27-28
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

So all that is to say, the goats that Jesus said were going to hell because they did not do those works, are not really going to hell? And they really never had to do those works Jesus was pointing out to them?

The "first work" is to love God with all of your being (Matt 22:36-38). Out of that love all other obedience is to flow. It's no good giving a drink to someone, or clothing them, or sheltering them, when you have no love for God in doing so. (see 1 Cor. 13:1-3) Any obedience to God commands, any good work, that emanates from any motive other than love for God (like worry, or fear, or guilt) are, as Paul explains in the passage I just cited, totally unprofitable spiritually. One can act from worry and fear all one's life in obeying God's commands and never actually love Him. And in so doing one breaks the First and Great Commandment and misses entirely what being a child of God is about. A fear-driven but obedient person is just as sure to be separated from God at the Final Judgment as those who have rejected God outright. Fear can never take the place of love in a person's relationship with God. As the apostle John pointed out:

1 John 4:18
18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love.

So what do you mean by obedience when you say "Out of that love all other obedience is to flow."

Of course it all come from loving of God, else we wouldn't bother, but that "obedience" you mention can be nothing more than works. If that is not a fact, what do you mean by obedience? Sure one can act out of worry/fear/guilt and never actually love him, but to show you love him we must act, regardless of the reason and if one does act out of fear of God, it far from means we don't love him? So your comment there means nothing, it only confuses the issue. No one is arguing we don't need to love God, and no one should be assuming we don't love God if we fear God and do as he commands, or that which you say we don't have to do.

There is nothing wrong with fearing God and hell fire. If we do so, we worry when we aren't doing what God says to do, and in order to stop worrying, we do what he says to do. If something else comes up, say I'm committing adultery, I know it's wrong, then I darn well better worry myself sick over it until I choose to alleviate that worry by stopping, if I don't and keep doing it, it presents a serious problem to my salvation. This is not that complicated.

But in the end, if you want to teach we can do those things without worry and no works are necessary so don't worry about that either, just have faith even though our works and keeping of his commandments show we have faith, that is between you and God, but I personally will go all out to teach otherwise.

 

[Galatea]

I do not worry, because that would be doubting Christ's power to save me and keep me saved. It is not presumption, it is relying on Him completely. If it were up to me, I would be lost. I sin every day. It is not cheap, it is not taking salvation lightly. It is knowing that my salvation is not up to me, thank God!

John Newton wrote when he was older and close to eternity: "The older I get, I forget many things. Two things I remember, what a great sinner I am and what a great Saviour He is."

This was the man who wrote Amazing Grace and was a much beloved preacher.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I do not worry, because that would be doubting Christ's power to save me and keep me saved. It is not presumption, it is relying on Him completely. If it were up to me, I would be lost. I sin every day. It is not cheap, it is not taking salvation lightly. It is knowing that my salvation is not up to me, thank God!

John Newton wrote when he was older and close to eternity: "The older I get, I forget many things. Two things I remember, what a great sinner I am and what a great Saviour He is."

This was the man who wrote Amazing Grace and was a much beloved preacher.

Romans 8.38-39 is a very assuring passage for the believer!

 

[333GRACE]

All the time. My salvation doubting/worry is the first thing on my mind as I awake, it remains with me all day, and I fall asleep thinking/crying/wondering/worrying about going to hell. I have asked God to save me hundreds of times in the last 30 years and never once have had peace about it.

I see by the poll results that I am not alone. I hope someday I can change my response to "Never."

 

[wayfaring man]

First of all, none of us are at this point completely and utterly saved...for if we were - there would be no more death in our bodies.

Psalms 82:6-7 1 Corinthians 15:53-55


I would not say I worry...but do have continual concern, and find it spiritually necessary, helpful + healthful to regularly examine myself and my life, taking inventory, and measuring my witness by the rule of Scripture. We are encouraged to do this in Scritpure...

1 Corinthians 11:28 2 Corinthians 13:5

And we are warned that some who express the utmost confidence that they are saved / the chosen are actually deceived...

Matthew 7:21-23 Luke 13:24-27 John 8:30-45 Galatians 6:3-4

Of course having no hope / being extremely unsure is not the solution either.

Ephesians 2:12

Once again the 2 extremes are the danger zones.

Philippians 4:5 Titus 2:11-15

Also we are told those who will be saved (to the uttermost) must endure till the end.

Hebrews 3:6 Matthew 10:22 Colossians 1:21-23

And that many will not endure, and some will fall away....

Matthew 24:12 1 Timothy 4:1

So yeah, I'm not so much worried as I am concerned.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

We're still on a different page here. IOW, you say we can't do those things unless were are confident were are saved, and I'm saying make sure we are saved so we can be confident (one step before where you are), and if we aren't doing as we should in order to be confident, we should worry, that is the subject here. Once that is taken care of, we can do the things you are talking about with the confidence you say we should have, and need to have.

Some are saying we need do nothing but have faith in God to be right with God, and my point is there are stipulations to show our faith. Faith without works is dead, one proves we have the other, and some are saying the works aren't necessary. My only point is, the works are absolutely necessary, and that's why I post the scripture of the sheep and goats, as it makes the works being necessary very very clear, as well as why I keep repeating Faith without works is dead. Those things are biblical, we can deny them if we want, and I'm not saying you do, just that some here absolutely are denying that, so I continue to go on about it.

There are preachers out there that drill, "oh you only need to say you have faith and you are good to go" into the heads of people that want to hear that because it makes things easy, and if "easy" is more important to some, then they have made their bed, they get what they wanted, and what that deserves. But if following Gods word is most important, even if it takes some doing, and we show it, we also get what we deserve.

Oh I see where you're coming from now my bad

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I have said - and sung - both words many times and never burst into a round of tongues. In any case, what you describe here sounds a lot like pagan invocation. You know, say the devil's name and you draw his attention and perhaps even his presence. That sort of thing, except you're invoking the Holy Spirit. I don't know of any biblical basis for what you've described and it concerns me that it so closely parallels pagan practice.



I didn't say it was how you were assessing if someone was saved. I did point out, though, that even non-believers were doing wonders in Jesus's name. Makes me seriously question tongues as a legitimate sign of the Holy Spirit since it is so easy to fake and to distinguish as such. Now, if someone spoke in a foreign tongue, an established human language that they didn't know, or if they spoke in their own language but were heard in a different one, then it would be very easy to tell a fake. But that doesn't happen. All that tongues amounts to these days is senseless babbling. Makes me thing of Paul's words:

1 Corinthians 14:19
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.



I gave you the reason. Did you not read the quotation that I offered? It explains in detail why the section in Mark you cited is spurious. The reason has nothing to do with hating the Bible, or doubting its veracity, or wanting to redact it to suit my preferences but because the textual evidence for the section you cited indicates it is an illegitimate later addition. So, it isn't "for some reason" that I challenged your citing of the section but because the section doesn't appear in many of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark. Read the quotation I gave you. It's all in there.



If you had read the quotation I offered, you'd have seen that the reasons for regarding Mark 16:9-20 as spurious are entirely scriptural. Many of the earliest ancient written manuscripts of Mark don't have the verses you cited. The language of the section is also distinctly out of character with the rest of the Gospel of Mark. It isn't, then, mere opinion or speculation upon which Dr. Metzger and other prominent Bible scholars have challenged the validity of the Mark 16 passage. The ancient texts of Scripture are the very reason they exclude the passage as legitimate!



But I don't want to believe only select portions of the Bible. You chose the one passage of Scripture that I know of that has the textual problems that it does. I'm not aware of any passage in Scripture of a similar length that has the same issue. So, I'm not someone who is trying to redact the Bible to a select few passages that I happen to like. I would have accepted the Mark 16 section if research into the ancient manuscripts hadn't shown it to be spurious.



I know very well what prophecy involves. But what you've written here totally misses (or deflects) my point. It makes no difference to the fact that those before God in Matthew 7:22, 23 had been acting in Jesus's name that they did so falsely. My point was that merely invoking Jesus's name does not establish or prove the source of the supernatural events (wonders) done in his name. Clearly, the wonders and exorcisms done in Jesus's name were not of God since He declares that He never knew those who were doing the wonders and exorcisms.



"Only"? That's not what the Bible says. Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. His death was about atonement for sin and victory over sin and death, and the demonstration of God's grace, mercy and love, not only our justification.



Yes. And? What does this have to do with the ancient manuscript evidence for dismissing Mark 16:9-20 as spurious?



Oh? Where is this written in Scripture? I know of no verse which says, "The Holy Spirit replaces the sin that dwells in people." Do you?



Read the quotation I gave. It lists the evidence from the ancient manuscripts of the New Testament itself for why Mark 16:9-20 is an illegitimate section of verses. And I have not been dismissive at all of Scripture. Being dismissive is when you ignore the hard facts given to you without good cause. Like you have been doing. When it comes to Scripture I take it all very seriously which is why I know about the problems with Mark 16.



But it can be a mask behind which the demonic hides. I have seen dozens and dozens of t.v. evangelists who have used the name of Jesus to teach absolutely wicked and demonic things. All they had to do was throw around Jesus's name a bit and their foolish audiences were eager to believe everything they said. This is why I asked you how you go about discerning what is of God from what is demonic and fleshly. Your "Jesus name" test doesn't hold up to scrutiny, I'm afraid.



I do. It's God's word so I take pains to get it right.



This misses (or ignores) my point which was that you can't reasonably infer from one man the motives of another. What motivated Jefferson is not necessarily what motivates Dr. Metzger (who is a very big name among Bible scholars). This should be obvious, but you argued as though it wasn't.



And how do you know what the "word of truth" is? How did it come into being? How was the content of your Bible decided? Do you know? Your Bible wasn't written in English. It wasn't originally written in the form in which you currently have it. How did it come to be that the books of your Bible are ordered as they are and include some books and exclude others? Do you know? Well, let me inform you that it involves Bible scholars - like Metzger - examining the ancient manuscripts of the text of the Bible, searching for uniformity of text among them and in so doing identifying mistakes in copying, and spelling, and punctuation and illegitimate additions to the text and correcting them. The Bible you study has been through the hands of the very Bible scholars you dismiss as untrustworthy. It is they who have worked to keep it error free, unadulterated by spurious additions, and properly translated. But have you ever studied their work? It doesn't sound like it. How, then, are you so confident in the Bible you study? How do you know it isn't chock full of mistakes? Rightly dividing the word of truth begins with having at least a general understanding of how your copy of the Bible came into being.

In any event, we are straying far from the OPs question so I'm not going to say any more on this matter. It was interesting talking to you.

Selah.

In any event, we are straying far from the OPs question so I'm not going to say any more on this matter. It was interesting talking to you.

My Response: If this was your goal then why call me a demon lol, that's not a good way to end a discussion or call a truce.

I have said - and sung - both words many times and never burst into a round of tongues. In any case, what you describe here sounds a lot like pagan invocation. You know, say the devil's name and you draw his attention and perhaps even his presence. That sort of thing, except you're invoking the Holy Spirit. I don't know of any biblical basis for what you've described and it concerns me that it so closely parallels pagan practice.


My Response: As I mentioned before not everyone who gets the holy ghost speaks in tounques often, and not everyone is as developed. Or in some cases like yours you just never have received the holy ghost. You're walking by truth but not by spirit yet. It's not that you don't know any bible basis for what i'm talking about, it's that you find a scholar or a reason to ignore it.




Makes me seriously question tongues as a legitimate sign of the Holy Spirit since it is so easy to fake and to distinguish as such.

My Response: It's even easier to distinguish fake christians nowadays and hypocrites in the church then ever... yet that doesn't mean a Christian isn't some legitimate concept.


1 Corinthians 14:19
19 yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.


My response:

1 Corinthians 14:2

“For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.”

He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church.

5 I would that ye all spake with tongues, but rather that ye prophesied: for greater is he that prophesieth than he that speaketh with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying.
6 Now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, except I shall speak to you either by revelation, or by knowledge, or by prophesying, or by doctrine?


13 Wherefore him that speaketh in an unknown tongue pray that he may interpret.
14For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.


come on now... this whole area is about the gift of tounques

But it can be a mask behind which the demonic hides. I have seen dozens and dozens of t.v. evangelists

My Response: No you asked me how do I know I have the holy ghost through speaking in tounques. You never asked me how do I discern a good evangelist from a bad one or God from demons.


This misses (or ignores) my point which was that you can't reasonably infer from one man the motives of another. What motivated Jefferson is not necessarily what motivates Dr. Metzger (who is a very big name among Bible scholars). This should be obvious, but you argued as though it wasn't.

My Response: The pope, creflo Dollar, TD Jakes, and Timothy Joshua are popular too. Doesn't mean a thing.



Oh? Where is this written in Scripture? I know of no verse which says, "The Holy Spirit replaces the sin that dwells in people." Do you?

My Response:.... Are you really that like... it seems like you know enough but you lack a critical thinking ability.

Put ye on the lord Jesus christ (spirit of christ) and make not provision for the flesh to fullfill the lust thereof.

2nd/1st peter Idr : If any man has not the spirit of christ (holy ghost) he is none of his.

Romans 6:18 being then made free from sin ye became the servants of righteousness. Once you become free from sin.... then the holy ghost fills you up.

Come out from among them saith the lord, and be ye seperate, and touch not the unclean thing and then i will receive you.

Once you drop sin... be baptized to remove sins you're born with and all that and make room for God then you get the holy ghost. There's a reason the bible keeps telling us to lay aside every weight and sin that so easily besets us, to make room for the holy ghost and then an anointing.


God is a light and in him there is no darkness at all. THe reason sometimes we get punished for sins is becuase God is purging us of darkness so he can fill us with light, many have to go through something fro God to reach them.



If you had read the quotation I offered, you'd have seen that the reasons for regarding Mark 16:9-20 as spurious are entirely scriptural.

My response: who said I didn't read it lol?






And how do you know what the "word of truth" is?

My response: I mean yeah... the mind of God, the bible. And i'm aware some random scholars such as the one you mentioned came together and helped put all the books together and such but that doesn't mean they are automatically saints or something. King James made the KJV version but he didn't do it becuase he was a firm believer or anything.... I mean come on now.




"Only"? That's not what the Bible says. Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. His death was about atonement for sin and victory over sin and death, and the demonstration of God's grace, mercy and love, not only our justification.


My Response: When you are free from sin and death you are justified. God is holy and being holy he couldn't find a reason to utilize us as we were. It would violate his whole being his own word. So he had to justify us so he could adopt us through the holy ghost (if you get the spirit of God inside).





Also you're bluffing when you say you know you're scriptures word by word... unless you only know like 30 or something.