Any experience with Jehovah Witnesses?

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by houston

So it's ok for YOU to take scripture out of context, but the OP's do not get a pass?

well, if i am taking that--and all the other supporting verses--out of context, which hasn't been demonstrated, it seems to me that the verse would have been more qualified, in context; yet it is not. I'm struck by how this seems to be the primary argument against quite plain verses of Scripture. If

"but in every nation the person who fears Him and does righteousness is acceptable to Him"

needs some clarification, then the word "every" would be qualified, etc. Also, there would be no other supporting Scripture for the concept, which is simply not the case. How do you see this Scripture being misrepresented?

[shazeep]

To me, it is part and parcel with this one:

"I am against you priests."

[Israelarb]

Originally Posted by shazeep

how many times have i heard that one.
The context might not be perfect, but i would want the argument for why it is "completely out."
And, I might agree with you, were it not for much other supporting Scripture. The Good Samaritan, for instance, would not agree with you, or any of our dogma, i am sure.
This mostly seems to hinge upon definitions of Christ, and others not believing in the same definition we might have. Do i agree with JW's concept of Christ? no.

Because the way you are using the verse is to try to imply that we can make it to heaven as long as we fear God (and the way you talk about the fear of God, it seems like you mean any "version" or idea of God we have...not necessarily the Biblical revelation of God) and we have good works (hence the righteousness part you seem to interpret the verse to mean). This is exactly what Christ was doing away with...False self satisfying human views of God and the belief of salvation by works or self righteousness.

[Israelarb]

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, if i am taking that--and all the other supporting verses--out of context, which hasn't been demonstrated, it seems to me that the verse would have been more qualified, in context; yet it is not. I'm struck by how this seems to be the primary argument against quite plain verses of Scripture. If

"but in every nation the person who fears Him and does righteousness is acceptable to Him"

needs some clarification, then the word "every" would be qualified, etc. Also, there would be no other supporting Scripture for the concept, which is simply not the case. How do you see this Scripture being misrepresented?

Again, it has to do with context. What was Peter speaking about? Was it about nationality and culture or religious views of God? God had established his covenant with only the Hebrews first. Anyone else of any other nation would have to convert and become a Hebrew in not only nationality but in lifestyle and relationship with God. He would be circumcised and had to follow all of the hundreds of laws the Jews had to follow. In the times Peter was speaking, there was a debate whether salvation was only to those who were Jews or Gentiles as well. It was an issue of nationality and elitism, so to speak. But as The book of Romans tells us from chapters 7-10, we are now grafted into the tree as God's people even if we aren't Jews. All other nations are welcome but it comes with the condition of accepting who God has revealed himself to be. If you kept on reading you would run into this verse. It clarifies that the "whosoever" (which is the refers to the same "Every" mentioned in verse 35) are those who believe in Him.
43To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sin

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Israelarb

Because the way you are using the verse is to try to imply that we can make it to heaven as long as we fear God (and the way you talk about the fear of God, it seems like you mean any "version" or idea of God we have...not necessarily the Biblical revelation of God) and we have good works (hence the righteousness part you seem to interpret the verse to mean). This is exactly what Christ was doing away with...False self satisfying human views of God and the belief of salvation by works or self righteousness.

Ok, nice. Now I would like you to distinguish between works--what Job was likely guilty of--and good deeds--what the Good Samaritan did. And since we have more than one concept here, i'll continue in another post. While i will end up agreeing with you that to find God one must find Christ, i would like to at least challenge the notion, Scripturally, that your definitions are the only ones, and that God has been revealed to you already. But first, differentiate works and good deeds for me, if you will.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Israelarb

But as The book of Romans tells us from chapters 7-10, we are now grafted into the tree as God's people even if we aren't Jews.

Who is "we?" Would you include the Good Samaritan, a despised Arab, who surely would not agree with your dogma? How about the First Son, who literally disagrees with it?

[shazeep]

and to be completely fair, we just recently hashed this out, only it was Muslims instead of JWs, so i kind of have an advantage that i would like to give up, by providing a link. I pretty much waited until the lawyers had had their say here, so bringing you in at page 19, with an astute observation by Aquila. This thread continued on for like 60 more pages, with some of the best meat close to the end (although the last couple pages are irrelevant, mostly). And unfortunately, some big stretches that were kind of circular

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...artyrs&page=19

[shazeep]

but i think you'll find that the common argument unravels at who gets to define "we."

[Israelarb]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Ok, nice. Now I would like you to distinguish between works--what Job was likely guilty of--and good deeds--what the Good Samaritan did. And since we have more than one concept here, i'll continue in another post. While i will end up agreeing with you that to find God one must find Christ, i would like to at least challenge the notion, Scripturally, that your definitions are the only ones, and that God has been revealed to you already. But first, differentiate works and good deeds for me, if you will.

To be honest I don't have a clear definition of works and deeds in distinction. My point is that we cannot get to heaven, or have a relationship with him by our own human efforts. It takes faith in Christ and acting upon the commandments he requires for example Acts 2:38. As for Job, he was before the New Covenant under which we live in today. The covenant of grace. God required more back then because of the fall of man and lack of a mediator.

Now about God being revealed to me... Have I beheld Him in all his glory? Do I know everything in His word perfectly and understand him? No, of course not. I'm not blind to the fact that while I walk this earth there are various or countless things I'm not going to understand about Him and that certain biases or ideas I have might not allow me to have a "complete revelation" of Him. Only in heaven when we are transformed will we be able to behold Him in all His glory with unveiled eyes. However, God has revealed a lot about Himself to us in and through His word. This "speck" of revelation (speck in comparison to ALL that He is that we still have yet to know) that we have of God is what He requires us to believe.

Now, who are the "we?" The ones who are grafted in the tree are those who are now under the New Covenant. The repented, baptized in Jesus' Name, Spirit filled believers. So no, it wouldn't include Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. Does this mean they are lost? No. As long as they are alive and they repent and surrender to God, they aren't lost yet.

With the Love of Christ,
Israel

[shazeep]

I think it is very dangerous for one to assume that they have all of the correct definitions for what is after all The Revelation, and there are many examples in Scripture of the Spirit being manifest outside a supposed believer's framework that make your statement false, in that a Muslim or JW might surrender in a spiritual way, and might be "doing likewise" of the Good Samaritan, while not accepting of your pat dogma, even if i pretty much do. "All Muslims are Lost" is a lie, as is "all JWs are lost."