ROFLMAO!!! I just bet it did!!!!
2007-10-15 08:27:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by SpiritRoaming 7
·
8⤊
6⤋
If you examine the teaching of churches that emphasize the "sinner's prayer" concept, what you will find is a distortion of the Catholic tradition of Baptism of Desire. Baptism of Desire (though Protestants do not actually use the term) was first formalized in Protestantism in the Lutheran Confessions, where it is described as the Holy Spirit working in a person's heart through the preaching of the Word of God. In summary, the Law of the Old Testament brings a person to despair over his sinfulness and his hopeless condition, and the Gospel offers him hope in the redemptive work of Christ; and by God's grace these things work together to produce the desire for salvation. The Baptists and other radical reformers sought to downplay the role of the Church in our salvation, and so they distorted and downplayed the concept of Baptism of Desire by declaring that this inward baptism is not a true baptism at all until it is completed by the recipient himself through his acceptance. Hence, a willful act was needed to demonstrate such acceptance. Baptists could not use Water Baptism for this purpose, because this would make Water Baptism an actual sacrament, which once again makes the Church an agent in salvation. And so the sinner's prayer, and variations on it such as the "public confession of faith" and so on, were developed for the purpose of acting in response to the Holy Spirit's calling. This is the most strangely ironic twist in all of the Reformation, for what these people have done is introduced a *work* as an intervening factor in salvation. Luther must be spinning in his grave....
2016-05-22 19:36:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
...and a 1-800 number for the Ernest Angsley "dial a donation" line.
Even though I'm Catholic, I am actually quite fond of the KJV. Both it and the Dhouay Rheims have an elegance and poetry of language that is sometimes missing from today's translations.
And we can always admire that - even if Moses never so much as once wrote a single word in Elizabethan English!
2007-10-15 10:26:07
·
answer #3
·
answered by evolver 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Yes it did. It is an uncontested fact of history that the Greek and Hebrew speaking apostle Paul, made great use of an English translation (not the first English translation by any stretch) that was published almost two millenia later.
2007-10-15 08:43:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
CJ, are you serious? The Bible was written and compiled by the Jews? Do you have ANYTHING to back that up with?
I will fully admit that the Jews wrote what we call the Old Testament, but the New Testament was written by followers of Christ - CHRISTIANS, and compiled (set in Canon) by the Catholic Church.
2007-10-15 08:35:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
7⤊
0⤋
LOL! and so that's the story of the compilation of the Bible along with the sinner's prayer! very convenient!
2007-10-15 14:18:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Perceptive 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Highlighters? Hey listen, buddy, if a real quill pen was good enough for King James, then there's no need for man-made fluorescent ink sticks.
:)
.
2007-10-15 08:36:03
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
What?
Ya know, the KJV is probably the least reliable translation of the Bible
2007-10-15 08:32:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by Green is my Favorite Color 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
Who knows!!!
But you can find the outline for the sinners prayer in Psalm 51
2007-10-15 09:58:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by judy_derr38565 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
I dunno how high up the press was, but whatever fell on the floor would have been put in a leather cover and sewn up with the rest of it.
2007-10-15 08:33:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no, it included a couple of gold tablets, a Step to Christ booklet order form, and a package of miracle water.
2007-10-15 08:34:54
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋