Are denominations Biblical?

Joking no. Sarcastic yes. The debate over denominationalism is silly. Those who prescribe to anti-denominationalism fail to consider which denominations should everyone fall under if we all decided to drop denominations. It is an unrealistic and ridiculous venture to propose.

 

I agree, I am Baptist not because of the name, but because of the biblical doctrines that Baptists hold to. The Bible tells me to believe and practice only one doctrine, and to avoid flase doctrines.

This is why I do not believe in ecumenism or a universal church. I do believe in "the body of Christ" but it has nothing to do with denominations, only believers.

As DHK has already explained, the instructions from Jesus, and from Paul addressed the local churches. My goodness, keeping a local church doctrinal is a huge job, and you guys want to assume responsibility for the whole world?

I beleive it is dead wrong to worship with churches or to align ourselves with them if they teach false doctrine. I realize that even Baptists can be wrong on some issues, but we still must align ourselves with like-minded believers.

AJ

 

Thanks Mike.

The Scriptures I referred to seemed rather clear. I do not understand how anyone can claim that the Scriptures do not teach the universal church.

Perhaps it has something to do with how some people abuse that teaching to excuse themselves from their obligation to assemble with a local congregation. DHK has objected to "unassembled assembly." I have seen how the `universal church' teaching gets abused by people who say `I do not have to be part of a local congregation because I am in the universal church.' That is invalid reasoning, and it is abuse of a teaching of Scripture to self-excuse oneself from doing what Scripture teaches us to do. However, how a teaching of Scripture gets misused does not invalidate it.

Matthew 16:15-8 has -- emphases mine

"I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it’” (TNIV|ASV|TNIV).​

Acts 2:47 examples how

“the Lord added to them day by day those |who were being saved” (ASV|NASB)​

Acts 5:14 elaborates with

"believers were added to the Lord" (ESV).​

The Greek word translated "church" is used similarly with regard to the community of followers of Pythagoras.* Per Acts 11:26, "Christians" is a rename of "disciples" (KJV) "followers" (ICB). The Greek translated "disciples" or "followers" is plural for "one who follows one's teachings."**

Hence, when Jesus Christ said "I will build my church" -- singular -- He was saying that He would build His ONE community of followers. The Lord does this by adding "believers" to it. All "believers" = "those who" are "being saved" are added to the Lord's "my church" -- ONE singular church.

Now, the Lord's one church is directed to assemble in local congregations. Local congregations do not `federate' to compose Jesus Christ's "my church." Rather, the Lord adds individual believers to His church, and members thereof assemble together in local congregations. Hebrews 10:24-5 emphases mine

“and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, |not giving up| our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the day drawing near” (NASB|TNIV|NASB).​

The purpose of such assembly is "let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds" and reiterated with "encouraging one another."

The purpose of such assemblies is for us to encourage each other to live out the teachings of Jesus Christ: "love and good deeds." We are to do these in all aspects of our lives.

Again, `at church' is not the only place to be Christian. Christ's teachings as a whole do not depend upon us being physically assembled to be enacted -- some do, but most do not. Christ's teachings have relevance to all of life -- including away from assembly. Those teachings should be enacted in all of life -- including away from times of assembly.

Established `formal' congregations can enact Christ's teachings together as a congregation, individual Christians can do this in their individual lives, individual Christians can get together and do this as an informal `group project,' and `formal' congregations can combine their efforts and resources to do this. All of Christ's followers should be united in committment to enact His teachings.

___________
*Arndt, Gingrich, et al, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, page 240.
**Vine, et al, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary, page 171 NT.

 

Providing a list of Scripture either out of context or with no context at all demonstrates nothing. I can do the same thing.
The Bible says "There is no God." It is in Psalm 14:1
This is the kind of "proof" you are offering--Scripture without context.

The onus is on you. You tell it to God. I have given you Scriptural proof why there can be no universal church. You have given me nothing.

Try studying the Bible. Look and examine Paul's missionary journeys. Apparently his home church was the church at Antioch. Every missionary started from that church and ended at that church. That is the church that he reported to each time. When he left to obey and carry out the great commission he was still a member of that church. But the church still assembled together.

In the Book of Acts, chapter one, the number of names were 120. They kept an exact number to start with. They knew who was there--who the members were, who was added, and who was added daily. This was the local church at Jerusalem

At the church at Corinth, it was the church body itself that assembled and took action agaisnt one that committed immorality (incest) in 1Cor.5. They disciplined him and excommunicated him out of their church. It wasn't one person by the entire assembly that took the action.

By very definition a church (assemby or congregation) must assemble or congregate. That is impossible for a universal church to do so. It violates the very definition of the word. One cannot have an unassembled assembly. It doesn't make logical sense. Why are you fighting against something that is logically impossible. You can't have a square circle. That is what you are saying is possible.

The churches in the Book of Acts were "all of one accord." That is a key phrase in the Book of Acts. There was unity. Doctrine is not a smorgasbord. That is why denominations are not Scriptural. That is why a universal church does not make sense. You don't have a pastor that can make any such decision, or can stand on the Bible and say, "thus saith the Lord." There is no unity. In fact in your "so-called nebulous unniversal church" heresy abounds.

These statements are outright evasive, deceitful, and never answer the question addressed to you. You cannot honestly the questions put forward to you because you have no answer.
The question, again: Where does the universal church assemble?
The honest answer is: IT does not!! It cannot! It is impossible.
It is an unassembled assembly; it will never assemble until we reach heaven.
Is there no honesty left when answering a simple question?

More dishoniesty.
Anyone in a "universal church" can take up an offering. I would expect better of you. Why not just be honest about it, and say it is an impossibility since a so-called universal church, by definition cannot assemble and thus cannot take up a collection. You won't admit to that and instead lie. I would expect better from you.

I am asking you who is given the function of the deacons and you cannot answer. The reason is obvious. Why are you so evasive? Is there a reason you cannot be truthful here?

No, not anyone can preach. Those that are called to preach can preach.
But who are they in a universal church. You still can't tell me, and won't. You don't have the integrity to do so.

It isn't mandated that an "assembly" of believers assembly 24/7; but they do assemble. The church in Jerusalem did assemble daily. The reason for doing so is given:

Acts 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,

But a universal church has no concept of this, and cannot do this. It is impossible for them.

The above goes against any definition of a church. You don't find it in the Bible and have given no Scriptural support for it. What you have given is your testimony. Do we base theology on experience or the Bible. My beliefs are not based on experience, but rather on the Word of God. It seems that your beliefs are based on what you have experienced over time. You cannot support them with Scripture.

 

DHK,

This is, without a doubt, one for the ages. I've been born again for 26 years, and in all this time I thought I'd seen everything....but now this. Mostly you, but others as well, are trying to convince us that the church, Gods army of believers here on earth, only exists when we are...


In buildings. :laugh:


(assembled in church buildings)


We are only Gods church when we are in buildings. When we leave buildings...we arent the church anymore. Gods church..*poof*..just disappears.


But then it appears again! :thumbs:


When we go into buildings again. :tonofbricks:


This is just incredible. You ask for scriptural support, so I give you reams and reams and reams of it. You ignore it, or simply claim it "out of context" (it wasnt), or not interpreted corectly.(it was) You ask me questions, and I give you straitforward and easy to understand answers, and you then...incredibly..say that I am either being dishonest, (I wasnt) or deceitfull. (ludicrous)


Gods wonderful miraculous worldwide army of representatives, soldiers, witnesses, ambassadors, evangelists, caretakers, food distributers, etc etc etc....doesnt exist.


Except when they are in buildings.


When they leave buildings....they disappear.



DHK...let me share this again for you. I shared it once before, and here it is again. I pray that God allows you to *hear* it this time.


For about 3 years I walked this earth, under conviction, from 1979 through 1982. I never entered a christian church building from 1979 through 1982, when I embraced Christ and was born again. And AFTER I was born again I did not enter my 1st church building until about 1 year after I was born again. No church building of any kind during all that time. Yet for 3 solid years GODS CHURCH ministered to me as I was under conviction. Christians of all types and persuasions shared with me, and they where all exceedingly effective.


After I was born again, for several months, GODS CHURCH in the form or personal help from christians, and radio and TV broadcasts, discipled me as a new christian. No church building of any kind during that time. Yet Gods universal church was powerfully evident and effective in my life in many ways.

And NONE of that took place and the "building" that you claim is the only place that Gods "church" exists!!! In due time God had no problem plugging me into a good fellowship, and I have been involved with good fellowships ever since then.


DHK, your stance on this is not only completely unscriptural...as the multitudes of scriptures I have shared with you make plain...but it is just plain ridiculous.


Gods church only exists...in buildings.

C'mon, DHK. Its just not true in the least.


I have acknowledged over and over again in my posts that Gods people should gather together. The scriptures teach that, and I have never once denied that.

Why can you not acknowledge something so utterly scriptural and clear?


That being that the "universal" aspect of Gods wonderful church is also true. The scriptures are so clear that it is.


Your God is too small, DHK. God is HUGE and multifaceted.


God bless,


Mike

 

It's the old ''Denomination'' thing
My father was Plymouth Brethren, wouldn't venture into a Baptist church because he didn't believe in 'one man ministry' he believed in allowing all men to use there God given Gifts so the meeting was left completely to the Holy Spirit. He also didn't believe nor was it scriptural that a man should be paid (as in job like) to preach the Gospel or tend the sheep so Baptists were off limits.
My brother had a little gathering of around twenty people...marvelous little assembling of people together but my dad wouldn't break bread or even tend that little meeting. They believed in exactly the same doctrine :BangHead: BUT it wasn't Plymouth Brethren
I have to say D28guy is correct in his last post
Not that I believe in the so called ''Universal Teaching (doctrine) that there has to be a revival and the church has to work to bring this before Christs return. But the fact that some who are posting in this thread believe the church building is all important and to go farther the ''Baptist'' church is thee church when infact it is not but only the people in it who have gave their lives to Him are the Church.
Let go of the :tonofbricksdenomination) that's what the Bible says:thumbs:

 

Darron Steele,

Yep. The scriptures couldnt be any clearer.

Grace and peace

Mike

 

Thanks D28, and not to sound grateful, but was the mockery and sarcasm toward DHK before that really necessary? This not to say I am not grateful for the support -- I really and truly am.

 

I once did a study of "doctrine" as found in the KJV and ASV. In each case, I found it referred to either
1) how we conduct ourselves in overall life, or
2) proper esteem of Christ Himself and His work.
A lot of the group religious tenets commonly labeled `doctrine' have no relevance to either of these.

Where do you get this from the Bible?

The Bible teaches division of Christians from non-Christians. It nowhere teaches Christians to divide from each other -- in fact, just the opposite. You can see this in such places as 1 Corinthians 1.

I am not talking about home congregation. Make your home congregation whatever you see fit, so long as it fulfills the purpose that Hebrews 10:24-5 specifies.

I am talking about refusal to have anything to do with other Christians based upon where they are on Sunday morning. I do not believe Scripture permits this practice.

 

Darron Steele wrote:

"Where do you get this from the Bible?"


Many places, here are a few:


"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and
offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid
them" (Romans 16:17).

This passage is the most misquoted scripture in the ecumenical arsenal today. It plainly says to avoid those who cause offences contrary to the doctrine you have learned.


"Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what
communion hath light with darkness" (2 Corinthians 6:14).

What is an unbeliever? Anyone that does not believe in the true gospel of salvation by grace, which would include many of todays mainline denominations. I know its not politically correct to judge people, but the Bible is clear that we must judge the doctrine of man against the doctrine of the Bible. If man's doctrine doesnt line up with it, then he doesnt believe the truth of the gospel and is in fact a "unbeliever".

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh
disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us" (2
Thessalonians 3:6)."

Notice the word "brother"? Is it talking about worldly men? Or are brothers not christians? "The tradition that he recieved from us" is the teaching of the Bible concerning the true gospel. It clearly says to withdraw yourselves from brothers.

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness ... from such withdraw thyself. (1 Timothy
6:3-5).

Again, here we have the command to withdraw from those that are contrary to the doctrine of godliness. Would this not include those that add sacraments works, or baptism to salvation?

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from
such turn away" (2 Timothy 3:5).

This is the most frustrating thing to me when it comes to ecumenist. Just because the words "God" and "Jesus" are used and proclaimed and taught doesnt mean that God has anything to do with them. The Charismatics are the first to come to mind, along with JW, LDS, even Promise Keepers. Christians today are afraid to take a stand against false doctrine, and seem to accept any form of belief as valid. If you really believe in your convictions, then how can you accept these false doctrines with open arms?

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common
salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you
that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once
delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

Earnestly contend for the faith? How is condoning false gospels contending for the faith?...seems to me to be just the opposite.

Finally, it is the antichrist that will someday create the "one world" church. If the antichrist wants one church, does it not makes sense that it will be destructive? I beleive that this ecumenical movement of today is paving the way for the antichrist and making his job easier. I, myself, do not choose to help him with that.....do you?

AJ

 

Well, we have been over this passage.

You in-effect reword the text `mark them which cause divisions by holding doctrines contrary to the doctrine you have learned,' or essentially `mark them which hold doctrines contrary to that which ye have learned.'

The text, as written, is "mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned." The "doctrine which ye have learned" taught them not to "cause divisions and offenses."

As written, the text condemns divisiveness. I challenged you to show me a Scripture passage which justifies "refusal to have anything to do with other Christians based upon where they are on Sunday morning." This passage does not do that.

Again, this is about the Christian's relationship with UNBELIEVERS.

"who walketh disorderly."

In another translation, this is "leads an unruly life." I challenged you to show me a passage from Scripture that justifies "refusal to have anything to do with other Christians based upon where they are on Sunday morning."

Right. We are also to get away from "any man" -- Christian or not -- who is not going along with "words of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Most of the excuses Christians presume to divide over have nothing to do with anything Jesus Christ uttered "words about."

Also, the "doctrine which is according to godliness" is about "godliness" -- as in a lifestyle. I challenged you to show me a Scripture passage which justifies "refusal to have anything to do with other Christians based upon where they are on Sunday morning." This passage does not do that.

From the preceding verses, this passage is clearly not referring to Christians, but people of the end times.

By fighting against other Christians? By refusing to have anything to do with other Christians? I do not buy that.

I challenged you to show me from Scripture where it permits "refusal to have anything to do with other Christians based upon where they are on Sunday morning." You have not done so.

I do not get involved in the ecumenical movement. I think it is wasteful haggling. Our denominations do not need to coalesce into one denomination to do the Lord's work. All Christians simply need to work together.

What we can be sure of is that Satan likes a divided church. When the Lord's servants treat other of the Lord's servants like unbelievers, and turn on each other, it helps him hinder the Lord's work. That is why the Bible tells us to avoid divisions, and that is why I oppose divisions.

I realize by this point, however, you are going to continue to do as you choose.

 

Darron Steele wrote:

"I realize by this point, however, you are going to continue to do as you choose."


No, it is you that is going "to do as you choose".

I, on the other hand am going to what the Bible tells me to do, and that is to gaurd against false doctrine and not condone it.

AJ

 

I believe the "end times" began with the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2.

I also believe that the apostasy that is rampant today is nothing more than the "falling away" that preceeds the coming of the antichrist.

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

The acceptance of false gospels and the uniting of once godly congregations with those that oppose the truth of the Word are the result of this "falling away".

So yes Brother Steele, the folks that have a "form of godliness" are indeed the people of the end times, and yes, I agree with you that they are not christians as proven by the evidence of thier denial of the tue gospel......and we are witnessing the fulfillment of scripture.

2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.


But just because it was predicted by scripture, that doesnt mean we, as Bible believing christians are commanded to participate in it. No, in fact, I believe the predictions are given as a warning, not an engcouragement.

AJ

 

AJ:
From what I read, you think that only Baptist Christians and Baptist-like Christians are actually Christians. If you think that, I guess you would naturally remain aloof from other Christians as unbelievers -- because you think that they are!

I think I understand you better. I disagree, because of how the Bible describes who a Christian is, but convincing you otherwise would be outside the scope of this thread.

To me, which seems to be our impasse, there are Christians in numerous denominations. To me, to divide from acknowledged Christians just because of differing denomination would be contrary to Scripture. To you, there are no substantial quantities of Christians outside one denomination.

I did want to put down one last thing about a passage you quote the end of:2 Timothy 3:1-5

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. (KJV) ​

To be honest, I do not see these things very much in Baptist or non-Baptist denominations overall. I therefore have a problem seeing this passage as applying to non-Baptist denominations.

I do see it as applying to the modern upsurge of religious interest that has popped up in the last few years among non-Christian society. A lot of people seem to be `seeking.' However, that new `seeking' and `openness' to `spiritual things' is accompanied with an unwillingness to genuinely come to Christ and/or to adopt biblical values. That is what I see the prophecy referring to.

I just thought I would give that to you for your consideration. I am content to agree to disagree on the prophecy's meaning.

 

Yes, I agree to disagree.

I guess what it comes down to is that I dont believe that anyone is saved that believes that they can be saved by anything other than grace which leads to repentance.

So, the denominations that teach salvation by baptism, works, or sacraments do not lead to the salvation of the followers.

I will also include motivation. If a pentecostal/charismatic church focuses it preaching on health and wealth, wont many be led to come forward merely to get rich and well, and not because they are repentive?

Many that you would include under the heading of "Christian", I would put under "lost"...and most of all mislead.

And I am not saying that one must be a Baptist to be a Christian....all I am saying is that the Baptist doctrine is in line with scripture. That doesnt mean that other denominations cant be, I just dont see many that are.

AJ

 

You haven't read my posts or have deliberately misrepresented them, or are deliberately falsely accusing me. Which one do you claim to be doing? Again why are you being so dishonest in your posts? You have not answered that for me.

If you are going to falsely accuse me of doctrine please quote me where I said that. In fact I said the opposite. Like I have said before, I expected better from you. What happened that I am losing all respect for you when you keep on being dishonest post after post after post. What is wrong? Care to confide.

Use quotes. Where have I said that? In fact I said very plainly that the early church did not even have buildings until 250 years after the death of the disciples. You continue to be dishonest. All sense of integrity is lost with you.

Obviously I was using the word "buildings" as a reference point to where most people meet today, as an example. They didn't meet in buildings in the first century, as a general rule, except if it were in the synagogues for a time. Where I minister on the foreign mission field they have no building at all. Why have you lost any sense of integrity here. Is dishonesty your trademark here"

Another dishonest statement that fails to deal with the issues. Why are you so afraid to deal with the issues. You evade the questions that I ask you, and instead go on an attack to misalign my character. I suppose that is what you do when you have no argument against the Scripture. Sad!

The fact is that you haven't given me any. Where is it? I haven't seen any that I haven't refuted. You tried to give me one in Hebrews 12 that referred to an assembly up in heaven. That had nothing to do with a universal church on earth. It was an example of Scripture taken out of context. You continue to do the same. When shown how that Scripture is out of context you have nothing more to say about it, but just give another Scripture out of context. I refute the same. And the cycle goes on. You have yet to give anything that cannot be refuted.

They certainly do exist, and the great majority of them are sent out of local churches.

Another dishonest statement. Where is your integrity, your sense of honesty? Have you thrown it out the window? If you are goiing to misalign me so many times why don't you quote "my lies."

Another lie. No quote given. Let the reader not this pattern of argumentation.

Do you think you can do it without the inference of false accusations?

My testimony is very similar Mike. I don't know why you go off on such wild tangents. I was saved out of Catholicism. I was led to the Lord on the campus of a University (not in a church building). They were concerned believers. They were part of an interdenominational organization. They neglected teaching about the local church and about baptism. I didn't go to church, neither was baptized for two years following my conversion to Christ. That was unfortunate but it was a due to a lack of teaching. However, I never doubted my salvation during that time. Because of their discipleship program I grew in the Lord.
After two years the Lord led me to a church (not a building). A church is an assembly of baptized believers (not a building). The place where they gather is totally irrelevant. They may meet in an open field, as I have seen many do, or in a house, as they did in Acts 12. It doesn't matter. The word ekklesia means assembly, and of a needs they had to assemble together. You cannot deny that. You have a great problem with that don't you?

However, I was baptized out of obedience to the Lord, and did become a member of a local church out of obedience to the Lord. When I got saved I became a member of the family of God (John 1:12), one of his children, a part of the bride of Christ. Paul addresses the Church at Corinth and in 1Cor.12 calls them a body. They were a body of believers where each member had a gift and that particular body at Corinth could not function if all the members did not function in harmony with each other. If one member suffered then all the members suffered. That would only be true in a local church context. If someone over in India is suffering there is no possible way that you know of it, and you don't suffer because of it. It is only applicable in a local church setting. It is a local church context, when Paul, in the same chapter says: "Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." He was writing to a local church. Every Bible-believing church is "a body of believers." It is not a difficult concept.

Another lie. Undocumented. No quote. No integrity.

You are so right. Lies are never true. Duh!

I have expounding Scriptural truth all along. Your refusal to accept it is your problem.

One cannot have an unassembled assembly. You have yet to explain that. You are completely illogical. Why don't you address the arguments given to you instead of just trying to misalign me?

Whose God is too small? Too small to believe what the Scripture teaches, that he must invent a man-made doctrine??

 

Freedom of thought, expression and association

Earlier I said that those who have the indweliing of the Holy Spirit and are led by the Holy Spirit and the written Word of God, are not to be found in only one denomination - the Lord knows those who belong to Him and there is such a thing as a universal church - but it's invisible to man (even to us Christians), and visible only to God...

I should have added, though, that if it were possible to bring about only one denominaiton without force, I would probably be the first to completely separate myself from the church, get together with like-minded brothers and sisters, and start a new fellowship with them (hence starting a new denomination), were I to find, for example, that people were being "slain in the Spirit" (something I believe is totally unbiblical) - or for that matter, anything else which in my opinion is totally unbiblical and which I wouldn't be able to stomach! This wouldn't mean that I would regard my brothers and sisters in the "getting slain in the Spirit" denomination as "not Christians", but I would love to retain my right to freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of association.

This is why I say, long live the system of separate denominations, until the Head of the Church (the Lord Jesus Christ) comes back!

 

Amen Andrew.

It may not be a perfect system, but it gives us the oppurtunity and the obligation to worship with like-minded believers.

AJ

 

Darron,

I thought my post was appropiately worded, considering the point I was trying to make. That being the utter ridiculousness of denying that Christs "church" here on earth consists...in it primary sense...of all the born again people worldwide.

The Universal Church

To reduce Gods glorious church down to only gathered assemblies betrays a spirit of sectariansim and denominationalism that is a great detrimant to the body of Christ....

The problem you refer to would actually be DHK's repeated insults directed towards me. Impuning my character. Accusing me of being dishonest. Accusing me of deliberate misrepresentation. Saying I have no honor. No integrity.

Others might report him. I turn the other cheek.

God bless,

Mike

 

DHK,

You have consistently said that God church is not a "universal" church in any sense, and that "church" only refers to local gathered assemblies.

Could you please share with us all exactly and specifically which local gathered assembly God is adressing in this passage of scripture?

Thanks,

Mike