Given the consistent pattern in Acts where baptism precedes expressions of joy and salvation (Acts 2:46-47 "gladness," Acts 8:39 "went on his way rejoicing," Acts 16:34 "rejoiced"), and considering the Greek perfect tense in Acts 16:34 explicitly placing baptism before completed belief ("having believed/pepisteukōs") - what specific Greek grammatical evidence should be cited to support salvation before baptism ?
'But James says JUSTIFIED BY WORKS!'
And your mirror says you're IN the bathroom - but it didn't put you there! James is talking about how faith gets SHOWN to be genuine, not how sinners get SAVED from judgment. Different context, different conversation!
Want proof? The same James who supposedly preaches an 'anti-gospel' calls faith a 'gift from above' (James 1:17) and speaks of the 'word of truth' that brings us forth (1:18). Some anti-gospel! That's like calling your GPS 'anti-travel' because it tells you when you're off course!
Here's the million-dollar question: If someone says 'I've got saving faith' but their life screams 'I couldn't care less about what God wants,' who you gonna believe - their lips or their life? James isn't adding works to salvation; he's adding a spotlight to profession!
And your mirror says you're IN the bathroom - but it didn't put you there! James is talking about how faith gets SHOWN to be genuine, not how sinners get SAVED from judgment. Different context, different conversation!
Want proof? The same James who supposedly preaches an 'anti-gospel' calls faith a 'gift from above' (James 1:17) and speaks of the 'word of truth' that brings us forth (1:18). Some anti-gospel! That's like calling your GPS 'anti-travel' because it tells you when you're off course!
Here's the million-dollar question: If someone says 'I've got saving faith' but their life screams 'I couldn't care less about what God wants,' who you gonna believe - their lips or their life? James isn't adding works to salvation; he's adding a spotlight to profession!
I want to understand something important. You believe that denying Joseph Smith's miracles is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit because they came from God's power. Yet Joseph Smith used the very same seer stone he later used for translation for treasure hunting. He admitted in court to using it to defraud people before claiming it was a divine gift. So, we have three possibilities.
1. All the power was from God even when Joseph confessed using such to defraud people.
2. It was always the power of something else, or
3. The same identical practice somehow changed sources from fraudulent to divine
Which of these makes the most sense to you? And how do you determine when the same practice went from being fraudulent to divine?
1. All the power was from God even when Joseph confessed using such to defraud people.
2. It was always the power of something else, or
3. The same identical practice somehow changed sources from fraudulent to divine
Which of these makes the most sense to you? And how do you determine when the same practice went from being fraudulent to divine?
1. Smith, its real author, as ignorant and impudent a knave as ever wrote a book, betrays the cloven foot in basing his whole book upon a false fact, or a pretended fact, which makes God a liar. It is this: - With the Jews, God made a covenant at Mount Sinai, and instituted a priesthood and a high priesthood. The priesthood he gave to the tribe of Levi, and the high priesthood to Aaron and his sons for an everlasting priesthood. He separated Levi, and covenanted to give him this office irrevocably while ever the temple stood, or till the Messiah came. 'Then, says God Moses shall appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office, and the stranger, (the person of another family,) who cometh nigh, shall be put to death.' Numbers iii.10. 'And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near; for them the Lord thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the Lord, and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried.' Deut. xxi.5. Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with 250 men of renown, rebelled against a part of the institution of the priesthood, and the Lord destroyed them in the presence of the whole congregation. This was to be a memorial that no stranger invade any part of the office of the priesthood. Num. xvi.40. Fourteen thousand and seven hundred of the people were destroyed by a plague for murmuring against this memorial.
In the 18th chapter of Numbers the Levites are again given to Aaron and his sons, and the priesthood confirmed to them with this threat - 'The stranger that cometh night shall be put to death.' 'Even Jesus, says Paul, were he on earth, could not be a priest, for he was of a tribe concerning which Moses spake nothing of priesthood.' Heb. vii.13. So irrevocable was the grant of the priesthood to Levi, and of the high priesthood to Aaron, that no stranger dare approach the altar of God which Moses established. Hence, Jesus himself was excluded from officiating as priest on earth according to the law.
This Joseph Smith overlooked in his impious fraud, and makes his hero Lehi spring from Joseph. And just as soon as his sons return with the roll of his lineage, ascertaining that he was of the tribe of Joseph, he and his sons acceptably 'offer sacrifices and burnt offerings to the Lord.' - p.15. Also it is repeated, p. 18 - Nephi became chief artificer, ship-builder and mariner; was scribe, prophet, priest and king unto his own people, and 'consecrated Jacob and Joseph, the sons of his father, priests to God and teachers - almost six hundred years before the fulness of the times of the Jewish economy was completed. p.72. Nephi represents himself withal as 'under the law of Moses,' p. 105. They build a temple in the new world, and in 55 years after they leave Jerusalem, make a new priesthood which God approbates. A high priest is also consecrated, and yet they are all the while 'teaching the law of Moses, and exhorting the people to keep it! - p.146,209. Thus God is represented as instituting, approbating and blessing a new priesthood from the tribe of Joseph, concerning which Moses gave no commandment concerning priesthood. Although God had promised in the law of Moses, that if any man, not of the tribe and family of Levi and Aaron, should approach the office of priest, he would surely die; he is represented by Smith as blessing, approbating, and sustaining another //12// family in this approbated office. The God of Abraham or Joseph Smith must then be a liar!! And who will hesitate to pronounce him an imposter? This lie runs through his records for the first six hundred years of his story.
Alexander Campbell
In the 18th chapter of Numbers the Levites are again given to Aaron and his sons, and the priesthood confirmed to them with this threat - 'The stranger that cometh night shall be put to death.' 'Even Jesus, says Paul, were he on earth, could not be a priest, for he was of a tribe concerning which Moses spake nothing of priesthood.' Heb. vii.13. So irrevocable was the grant of the priesthood to Levi, and of the high priesthood to Aaron, that no stranger dare approach the altar of God which Moses established. Hence, Jesus himself was excluded from officiating as priest on earth according to the law.
This Joseph Smith overlooked in his impious fraud, and makes his hero Lehi spring from Joseph. And just as soon as his sons return with the roll of his lineage, ascertaining that he was of the tribe of Joseph, he and his sons acceptably 'offer sacrifices and burnt offerings to the Lord.' - p.15. Also it is repeated, p. 18 - Nephi became chief artificer, ship-builder and mariner; was scribe, prophet, priest and king unto his own people, and 'consecrated Jacob and Joseph, the sons of his father, priests to God and teachers - almost six hundred years before the fulness of the times of the Jewish economy was completed. p.72. Nephi represents himself withal as 'under the law of Moses,' p. 105. They build a temple in the new world, and in 55 years after they leave Jerusalem, make a new priesthood which God approbates. A high priest is also consecrated, and yet they are all the while 'teaching the law of Moses, and exhorting the people to keep it! - p.146,209. Thus God is represented as instituting, approbating and blessing a new priesthood from the tribe of Joseph, concerning which Moses gave no commandment concerning priesthood. Although God had promised in the law of Moses, that if any man, not of the tribe and family of Levi and Aaron, should approach the office of priest, he would surely die; he is represented by Smith as blessing, approbating, and sustaining another //12// family in this approbated office. The God of Abraham or Joseph Smith must then be a liar!! And who will hesitate to pronounce him an imposter? This lie runs through his records for the first six hundred years of his story.
Alexander Campbell
I am now engaged y’all. I’ll get back to posting next week I have lots of material on some very interesting topics y’all may find insightful.
Should I make a post about head coverings and hair length in 1 Corinthians 11?
Even if we read Paul's words as "might as well," we hit a logical wall, I think. This is in reference to also as used in verse 6.
First, look at how this Greek word katakalupto is used elsewhere in Scripture. In Esther 6:12, Haman "covered his head" in shame. He didn't suddenly grow long hair - he put something on. Same word, clear meaning: adding a covering.
Now consider Paul's parallel command about men. They must "uncover" to pray. If covering just means long hair, how does a man instantly "uncover" his head for prayer? Does he get a quick haircut every time he needs to pray? Obviously not. The covering must be something removable.
If covering just means hair, Paul's logic completely breaks down. He'd essentially be saying:
"If woman does not have long hair. she might as well cut her hair short."
Do you see the problem? You can't use the threat of removing something to show the shame of not having that very thing. That's like saying "If you don't have any money, you might as well empty your wallet." It's nonsense.
In fact, Paul's argument only makes sense if he is referring to two different things: a natural covering of hair, as well as a separate covering that can be put on and taken off.
First, look at how this Greek word katakalupto is used elsewhere in Scripture. In Esther 6:12, Haman "covered his head" in shame. He didn't suddenly grow long hair - he put something on. Same word, clear meaning: adding a covering.
Now consider Paul's parallel command about men. They must "uncover" to pray. If covering just means long hair, how does a man instantly "uncover" his head for prayer? Does he get a quick haircut every time he needs to pray? Obviously not. The covering must be something removable.
If covering just means hair, Paul's logic completely breaks down. He'd essentially be saying:
"If woman does not have long hair. she might as well cut her hair short."
Do you see the problem? You can't use the threat of removing something to show the shame of not having that very thing. That's like saying "If you don't have any money, you might as well empty your wallet." It's nonsense.
In fact, Paul's argument only makes sense if he is referring to two different things: a natural covering of hair, as well as a separate covering that can be put on and taken off.
Scripture interpretation requires archaeological precision - dig deep through language and history before building doctrine.
1. Observing God's pattern in the Word: Noah in the flood, Israel in Egypt, Daniel's friends in the furnace-why God always seems to opt to take His people through tribulation, as opposed to taking them out of tribulation. What could that say about His character and purposes for allowing or sending tribulation?
2. How does this cry of these martyrs, under the altar in Revelation 6:9-11 saying, "How long until You avenge our blood?", referring to when God's actual wrath really begins inside the tribulation period, be possibly influencing thoughts on rapture timing?
3. The trumpet judgments are always limited to "one-third" destruction while the bowl judgments are complete. What theological purpose might this serve, and how does it parallel God's dealings with Egypt during the Exodus?
4. How do we properly distinguish between tribulation, which Jesus promised believers would face, and divine wrath, which Scripture promises believers will be protected from? What scriptural principles help us make this crucial distinction?
5. If you read through the detail of Revelation, you notice believers actively witnessing and serving purposes throughout this period of time. How does this consistent presence of the church align with pretribulation's views that the church must be taken out? What purpose might God have for His people at this time?
2. How does this cry of these martyrs, under the altar in Revelation 6:9-11 saying, "How long until You avenge our blood?", referring to when God's actual wrath really begins inside the tribulation period, be possibly influencing thoughts on rapture timing?
3. The trumpet judgments are always limited to "one-third" destruction while the bowl judgments are complete. What theological purpose might this serve, and how does it parallel God's dealings with Egypt during the Exodus?
4. How do we properly distinguish between tribulation, which Jesus promised believers would face, and divine wrath, which Scripture promises believers will be protected from? What scriptural principles help us make this crucial distinction?
5. If you read through the detail of Revelation, you notice believers actively witnessing and serving purposes throughout this period of time. How does this consistent presence of the church align with pretribulation's views that the church must be taken out? What purpose might God have for His people at this time?
Ketching up with Dr Bob
Photo
Put in perspective, the Falls-Welch debate brings a number of statements on the strength of argumentation presented by Falls. Probably the most striking moments that reveal why he won include, among others:
First Telling Moment: At this point, Falls, through verse 6, showed the logical fallacy in Welch's argument. Falls observed: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." So Falls was able to show just how ridiculous Welch's interpretation was by reading what it would say: "If a woman has short hair, let her also cut her hair short." This simple yet explosive observation fell from Welch unanswered.
Linguistically, the most convincing argument by Falls came when he penned these words: "The covering of 1 Corinthians 11:5, 6, and 13 is from the Greek word kalumma, which is the corresponding noun for the Greek verbs katakalupto. But in 1 Cor. 11:15, 'For her hair is given her for a covering [Greek, peribolaion].' This difference in terms was never satisfyingly dealt with by Welch.".
A telling moment came when Falls pointed out, "These verses deal with men and women. It deals with them when they are praying or prophesying. A man may cover his head when he is not praying or prophesying, and a woman does not have to cover her head when she is not praying or prophesying. The covering is one to be 'put on' sometimes and 'taken off' at others. It is removable!!! This cannot be said of the hair."
This weakness in Welch's position finally emerged when Falls pressed the obvious point that Welch had consistently avoided answering direct questions during the exchange. Thus Falls observed in his last negative: "Now he utterly avoided answering, or even mentioning any of them. If Mr. Welch was interested in the truth on this subject, he would have dealt with each question knowing that if he was wrong it could be pointed out to him so he could accept the truth."
Perhaps most damaging to Welch's position was his inability to explain why Paul would specify timing for the covering if hair was the only covering under consideration. This point Falls pressed: "If the hair is the only covering of 1 Cor. 11, why did Paul command the putting it on or taking it off only when praying or prophesying?" This was a fundamental question that was not answered in this debate.
In that context, Falls systematically laid out eight separate explanations as to why a head covering is needed; this far surpassed Welch, who tried to speak in very modern terms about cultural relevance without a text-driven focus. The structured presentation was a contrast to the generalized observation of Welch and thus presented a different level of rigor both participants of the debate brought with themselves into the discussion.
First Telling Moment: At this point, Falls, through verse 6, showed the logical fallacy in Welch's argument. Falls observed: "For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." So Falls was able to show just how ridiculous Welch's interpretation was by reading what it would say: "If a woman has short hair, let her also cut her hair short." This simple yet explosive observation fell from Welch unanswered.
Linguistically, the most convincing argument by Falls came when he penned these words: "The covering of 1 Corinthians 11:5, 6, and 13 is from the Greek word kalumma, which is the corresponding noun for the Greek verbs katakalupto. But in 1 Cor. 11:15, 'For her hair is given her for a covering [Greek, peribolaion].' This difference in terms was never satisfyingly dealt with by Welch.".
A telling moment came when Falls pointed out, "These verses deal with men and women. It deals with them when they are praying or prophesying. A man may cover his head when he is not praying or prophesying, and a woman does not have to cover her head when she is not praying or prophesying. The covering is one to be 'put on' sometimes and 'taken off' at others. It is removable!!! This cannot be said of the hair."
This weakness in Welch's position finally emerged when Falls pressed the obvious point that Welch had consistently avoided answering direct questions during the exchange. Thus Falls observed in his last negative: "Now he utterly avoided answering, or even mentioning any of them. If Mr. Welch was interested in the truth on this subject, he would have dealt with each question knowing that if he was wrong it could be pointed out to him so he could accept the truth."
Perhaps most damaging to Welch's position was his inability to explain why Paul would specify timing for the covering if hair was the only covering under consideration. This point Falls pressed: "If the hair is the only covering of 1 Cor. 11, why did Paul command the putting it on or taking it off only when praying or prophesying?" This was a fundamental question that was not answered in this debate.
In that context, Falls systematically laid out eight separate explanations as to why a head covering is needed; this far surpassed Welch, who tried to speak in very modern terms about cultural relevance without a text-driven focus. The structured presentation was a contrast to the generalized observation of Welch and thus presented a different level of rigor both participants of the debate brought with themselves into the discussion.
This is my analysis of the first half of the debate I’ll give thoughts in 2nd half tomorrow or Saturday.
Ketching up with Dr Bob
Put in perspective, the Falls-Welch debate brings a number of statements on the strength of argumentation presented by Falls. Probably the most striking moments that reveal why he won include, among others: First Telling Moment: At this point, Falls, through…
In deconstructing the latter half of the debate in which Welch argued in the affirmative and Falls took a negative argument, several onsets occurred that continued to prove the strength of Falls' argumentation.
When Welch took the affirmative position, he conspicuously moved toward the cultural arguments concerning modern hair practices and rebellion and did not keep a close, textual-based argument. A lot of his effort was put forth in trying to discuss how "long hair that the men have in this land today speaks or stands for the sign of rebellion." Even if this would carry some kind of cultural significance, it detracted from the actual exegetical question under examination.
It was particularly the negative responses of Falls that brought out this weakness. He said he did agree with Welch that men wearing long hair was not appropriate, but such an agreement did not answer the real textual questions concerning the coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Falls wrote incisively: "Mr. Welch is supposed to be in the affirmative, but he has spent most of his time telling us about the rebellion of people with long hair."
A critical moment was when Falls confronted Welch's use of the woman who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair. Welch had presented this account as if it proved his argument, but Falls refuted him once and for all by pointing out that this incident happened before the New Testament church and its order of worship had been established, and more to the point, the woman wasn't praying or prophesying at the time.
Falls was even more methodical in his approach as he nailed Welch, in his final negative, to five questions that he had not answered. Welch's inability or unwillingness to answer these questions, especially those dealing with the meaning of "also" in verse 6 and whether the covering requirement was temporal, seriously weakened his affirmative position.
The final exchanges in the debate drove the point home: Welch continued with cultural applications and modern practices, whereas Falls stuck with the Greek text, logical consistency, and systematic theological reasoning. This reality accounted for why, even though having to argue the negative, Falls' position was more convincing.
What made the negative responses from Falls particularly effective in this latter portion of the debate was that he could both defend his position and expose the weaknesses in Welch's arguments, all while sustaining scholarly rigor and respect. The fact that he systematically dismantled Welch's affirmative arguments while further strengthening his own position demonstrated great debating skill.
When Welch took the affirmative position, he conspicuously moved toward the cultural arguments concerning modern hair practices and rebellion and did not keep a close, textual-based argument. A lot of his effort was put forth in trying to discuss how "long hair that the men have in this land today speaks or stands for the sign of rebellion." Even if this would carry some kind of cultural significance, it detracted from the actual exegetical question under examination.
It was particularly the negative responses of Falls that brought out this weakness. He said he did agree with Welch that men wearing long hair was not appropriate, but such an agreement did not answer the real textual questions concerning the coverings in 1 Corinthians 11. Falls wrote incisively: "Mr. Welch is supposed to be in the affirmative, but he has spent most of his time telling us about the rebellion of people with long hair."
A critical moment was when Falls confronted Welch's use of the woman who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair. Welch had presented this account as if it proved his argument, but Falls refuted him once and for all by pointing out that this incident happened before the New Testament church and its order of worship had been established, and more to the point, the woman wasn't praying or prophesying at the time.
Falls was even more methodical in his approach as he nailed Welch, in his final negative, to five questions that he had not answered. Welch's inability or unwillingness to answer these questions, especially those dealing with the meaning of "also" in verse 6 and whether the covering requirement was temporal, seriously weakened his affirmative position.
The final exchanges in the debate drove the point home: Welch continued with cultural applications and modern practices, whereas Falls stuck with the Greek text, logical consistency, and systematic theological reasoning. This reality accounted for why, even though having to argue the negative, Falls' position was more convincing.
What made the negative responses from Falls particularly effective in this latter portion of the debate was that he could both defend his position and expose the weaknesses in Welch's arguments, all while sustaining scholarly rigor and respect. The fact that he systematically dismantled Welch's affirmative arguments while further strengthening his own position demonstrated great debating skill.