Matthew Johnson wrote:

> In article <095.46.05.05.634423000@srcbs.org>, Bob Felts says...
> >
[...]

>
> Bob made one good observation about this, I will make another. If you want
> us to stop the "JW-bashing", you MUST stop exhibiting the stereotypical JW
> faults so brazenly! Stop the dishonest methods of debate and exegesis!
>

We have to behave, regardless of what our opponents do.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

bennetms@hotmail.com wrote:


>> That's a works-righteousness question. I flatly reject the idea
>> that my action of accepting Jesus is what saves me. "Accepting
>> Jesus" is nothing else but obedience to the commandment to
>> love God above all things, and if you teach that someone saves
>> himself by obedience, then you are teaching the anti-gospel.
>>
>> The Gospel is about what Jesus does, not about what we do.
>>
> Works for righteousness is as filthy rags before God.
> Accepting the dying, saving, redeeming work of Christ on the cross, is
> accepting the free gift of God. It is God working on behalf of us. Us
> accepting it. No work on our side.

"Accepting" is a work. It's obedience to the First Commandment.

When God asks you why you should be let into Heaven will you
say:

1. "Because Jesus died for me."

OR

2. "Because I accepted grace."

Note that the second action is something _you_ did, and you'd
be asking God to admit you into Heaven on the basis of your
own merit.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

Matthew Johnson wrote:

> >No, since the Textus Receptus is based on manuscripts that were not
> >around in Constatine’s time.
>
> This is true, but the TR really is just a slightly degenerate form of
the
> Byzantine text, which was already around even as early as Chrysostom,
if not as
> early as Constantine. And the copies that Constantine ordered very
likely did
> contribute to the formation of the Byzantine Text.

I was looking for a definition of terms here, such as the one you
provided. We are dealing with the Byzantine textform, of which the TR
is a good-but-not-great representative.

>
> >
> >"there are a great many people who DO
> >blame the Catholic Church for the Textus Receptus."
> >
> >What could the Catholic Church possibly have to do with the Textus
> >R