Church Idolatry

[lancelot]

You haven't gone on at length about the "sin" of instrumental music?

The fact remains that you have declared matters sin without clear scriptural backing. 

I've discussed it some, but not as much as you.  :)   It's simply your opinion that I've declared that it's a sin without clear scriptural backing.  The principle involved in the hamburger illustration is quite clear.  Most avoided saying whether the principle was valid or not.

As for baptism, the only Biblical prerequisites I can find are faith in the saving work of Christ, repentance, and, if you want to go there, confession (in essence I consider confession as found in Acts 8 faith, since it is a verbal statement of such).

So, we just go to Rom.10:9,10 if we want to go there?  Paul makes a distinction between belief and confession and places confession before salvation.

I see no requirement that the baptizee believe in the saving work of baptism, only that he/she believe in the saving work of Christ.  Do you have a verse that says otherwise? Do you have a verse saying that the extent of knowledge requried before baptism include a recognition of the exact moment of salvation?

It's interesting that such questions are always directed toward the receiving end and when the delivery end is brought up, talk normally vanishes.  The one who is being taught will have an understanding that baptism is necessary because he must be taught the truth, the gospel, and the terms of salvation are included in that as another thread proves.  And if one changes that message, then it is no longer the gospel of Christ, but a different gospel.

If not, isn't it a bit presuptious to withold fellowship based on your understanding of this? Is it possible that you've missed the point of baptism, that the point is primarily the way that it relates to and reinacts the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6, of course), and that the recognition of the saving work of Christ is more important than the recognition that this is the exact moment were we are saved?

No, I've not missed the point, but some in seeking the justification of false teachers who deny that baptism is necessary have missed the point.  The point is again that the truth saves, not error.  The gospel must be preached and that includes the terms of salvation.  The seed that is the word of God must be sown in order to produce Christians.  And teaching that salvation is before and without baptism is not any of those.
 

Is it perhaps that by insisting on the supreme importance of the latter we have put something else--in particularly, our understanding--on the same level as the cross of Christ, thus, once again, turning our understanding into an idol?

It's interesting what slants are given at times.  Legalism is used as a dirty word to get rid of obedience.  Here, you used understanding the word of God (which comes from being taught the word of God) an idol.
 

Swordsman

[marc]

Even in Romans 10 Paul is saying that what is said with the mouth is a verbal statement of the belief in the heart.  This man-made 5-step system (do you know its history?) makes us want to divide things more clearly than the scriptures divide them.

I don't see a lot of scripture in the rest of your reply, btw.

As far as the hamburger illustration, not only have you been told time and time again that the principle is not valid, you've been told that it's irrelevant.

Frankly, this post seeks to make your way of thinking the norm without providing real support, and in the process doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  You've become so wrapped up in a belief system that you don't see its weaknesses.

The truth that saves is not our understanding of baptism.  The truth that saves is Jesus' sacrifice for our sins.  That is the whole point of our baptism, not the knowledge of the exact point at which we are saved. That's basic. 

Romans 5: 6You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

 9Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him! 10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

 18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

6:1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
 5If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection. 6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

 8Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

 

[lancelot]

Even in Romans 10 Paul is saying that what is said with the mouth is a verbal statement of the belief in the heart.

Sorry, but a verbal statement is not the same as believing.  CONFESSING one's faith is obviously different from the faith itself.  Believe is one word with one definition.  Confession is another word with yet a different definition.  Believing is with the heart (internal in Rom.10).  Confession is with the mouth (external).  Believing comes first and confession is subsequent to that.  Believe AND confess.

They aren't the same.  All of those things I stated show that they are different.  Why do folks here fight against that?  Is it just an effort to deny the accuracy of others?  Is it a way to get free from the "good confession" so that there's one less thing to separate us from the denominational world - so they can be invited in without doing what God says, without teaching what God says, while teaching AGAINST what God says?

This man-made 5-step system (do you know its history?) makes us want to divide things more clearly than the scriptures divide them.

Please tell me which one was invented by man and cannot be found in scripture prior to salvation.  Please.  Or admit your allegation is false and you're just slanting thingss to tear it apart for some reason.

As far as the hamburger illustration, not only have you been told time and time again that the principle is not valid, you've been told that it's irrelevant.

A boss orders a hamburger with pickles, lettuce, and tomatoes.  A hamburger with pickles, lettuce, tomatoes, and onions is brought back.  And you're saying it's a valid thing to add the onions even when the order was specified?  I'd like a direct answer on that. 

You say it's irrelevant.  Quit just saying things and give the reason you think so.  I deal with atheists all the time who make one assertion after another and that's all their lives are based upon.  Surely we can do better in the church of Christ!!!!

The command is to sing.  Some sing AND play.  That's the same type of addition in the illustration above.

Frankly, this post seeks to make your way of thinking the norm without providing real support, and in the process doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  You've become so wrapped up in a belief system that you don't see its weaknesses.

Let's see.  The first part above has you insinuating AND ASSERTING (as you follow up what you said earlier) that belief and confession are the same thing.  But notice what I did in return.  I gave specific after specific that shows they are NOT the same.  Now, who is just saying stuff?

You.

Lancelot

[Bocephus]

Even in Romans 10 Paul is saying that what is said with the mouth is a verbal statement of the belief in the heart.

Sorry, but a verbal statement is not the same as believing.  CONFESSING one's faith is obviously different from the faith itself.  Believe is one word with one definition.  Confession is another word with yet a different definition.  Believing is with the heart (internal in Rom.10).  Confession is with the mouth (external).  Believing comes first and confession is subsequent to that.  Believe AND confess.

They aren't the same.  All of those things I stated show that they are different.  Why do folks here fight against that?  Is it just an effort to deny the accuracy of others?  Is it a way to get free from the "good confession" so that there's one less thing to separate us from the denominational world - so they can be invited in without doing what God says, without teaching what God says, while teaching AGAINST what God says?

This man-made 5-step system (do you know its history?) makes us want to divide things more clearly than the scriptures divide them.

Please tell me which one was invented by man and cannot be found in scripture prior to salvation.  Please.  Or admit your allegation is false and you're just slanting thingss to tear it apart for some reason.

As far as the hamburger illustration, not only have you been told time and time again that the principle is not valid, you've been told that it's irrelevant.

A boss orders a hamburger with pickles, lettuce, and tomatoes.  A hamburger with pickles, lettuce, tomatoes, and onions is brought back.  And you're saying it's a valid thing to add the onions even when the order was specified?  I'd like a direct answer on that. 

You say it's irrelevant.  Quit just saying things and give the reason you think so.  I deal with atheists all the time who make one assertion after another and that's all their lives are based upon.  Surely we can do better in the church of Christ!!!!

The command is to sing.  Some sing AND play.  That's the same type of addition in the illustration above.

Frankly, this post seeks to make your way of thinking the norm without providing real support, and in the process doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  You've become so wrapped up in a belief system that you don't see its weaknesses.

Let's see.  The first part above has you insinuating AND ASSERTING (as you follow up what you said earlier) that belief and confession are the same thing.  But notice what I did in return.  I gave specific after specific that shows they are NOT the same.  Now, who is just saying stuff?

You.

Lancelot

All are encompassed under Faith.  Faith is not mere mental assent.

And what is with you and hamburgers?  If you are that hungry, go take lunch!

[marc]

What is confessed with the mouth?  Come on, you know.....If you don't, re-read the passage.

Perhaps if you didn't look at everything as a debate, you'd understand what was being said.

And I'll ask one more time: do you know the history of the five steps to salvation that we teach?


I'll give you another chance and hope you'll think about what I'm saying instead of just making assumptions this time.

[lancelot]

I don't see a lot of scripture in the rest of your reply, btw.

I alluded to quite a bit, but you ignored all of it.  Here's what I said:

It's interesting that such questions are always directed toward the receiving end and when the delivery end is brought up, talk normally vanishes.  The one who is being taught will have an understanding that baptism is necessary because he must be taught the truth, the gospel, and the terms of salvation are included in that as another thread proves.  And if one changes that message, then it is no longer the gospel of Christ, but a different gospel.

No, I've not missed the point, but some in seeking the justification of false teachers who deny that baptism is necessary have missed the point.  The point is again that the truth saves, not error.  The gospel must be preached and that includes the terms of salvation.  The seed that is the word of God must be sown in order to produce Christians.  And teaching that salvation is before and without baptism is not any of those.

Do I need to add the references?  
truth - John 8:32; I Pet.1:22
gospel - Gal.1:6-9; II Thess.1:7-9
seed, word of God - Matt.13; I Pet.1:22ff

The truth that saves is not our understanding of baptism.  The truth that saves is Jesus' sacrifice for our sins.  That is the whole point of our baptism, not the knowledge of the exact point at which we are saved. That's basic.  

You didn't address a single thing I said about the necessity of preaching the truth (instead of error), in sowing the seed, the word of God (instead of tares, men's teachings), of teaching the gospel (instead of teaching another).  When the truth is taught, the gospel is taught, the seed is sown, the word of God is preached, THEN men do know the truth that they will be forgiven of their sins and saved when they are baptized.

That is not being taught by many in the religious world today.  Therefore, they teach a different gospel (which is really not another), tares, error, and the result is NOT salvation.

Again, there is a thread on the terms of salvation being part of the gospel.

Lancelot

[lancelot]

All are encompassed under Faith.  Faith is not mere mental assent.

If you wish to think of faith as a synecdoche for all those, that's fine.  But one is not saved without hearing the gospel, believing it, repenting of one's sins, confessing Jesus as Lord, and being immersed for the forgiveness of sins.

Lancelot

[Bocephus]

All are encompassed under Faith.  Faith is not mere mental assent.

If you wish to think of faith as a synecdoche for all those, that's fine.  But one is not saved without hearing the gospel, believing it, repenting of one's sins, confessing Jesus as Lord, and being immersed for the forgiveness of sins.

Lancelot

Got step 5 wrong.  Ain't in the Bible.  Read Acts 2:38 again and tell me what it says about Baptism.  You are missing some-thing/one in your statement.

[marc]

Lancelot, you like systemizing things, don't you?

But again, by saying people teach "another gospel" you equate other things with the identity and grace of Christ.  

Your post is a clear example of defining things by yourself, by what you do and believe.  What becomes important is what you think most important.

Scriptures clearly say that some things stand out, and yet you equate man-made systems with these.

[lancelot]

What is confessed with the mouth?  Come on, you know.....If you don't, re-read the passage.

Perhaps if you didn't look at everything as a debate, you'd understand what was being said.

Perhaps if you didn't treat everything as if a baseless assertion means something....  So far, that's all you're doing - just saying stuff.

You didn't address what I said:

Sorry, but a verbal statement is not the same as believing.  CONFESSING one's faith is obviously different from the faith itself.  Believe is one word with one definition.  Confession is another word with yet a different definition.  Believing is with the heart (internal in Rom.10).  Confession is with the mouth (external).  Believing comes first and confession is subsequent to that.  Believe AND confess.

They aren't the same.  All of those things I stated show that they are different.  Why do folks here fight against that?  Is it just an effort to deny the accuracy of others?  Is it a way to get free from the "good confession" so that there's one less thing to separate us from the denominational world - so they can be invited in without doing what God says, without teaching what God says, while teaching AGAINST what God says?

And I'll ask one more time: do you know the history of the five steps to salvation that we teach?

I know history, but I'll ask you again since you dodged:  Which of those is manmade and cannot be found in the Bible preceding salvation?

The answer is none.  None are manmade.  ALL can be found in scripture preceding salvation.  You're shying away from that hoping to detract from that fact.  You can talk of history all you want.   And when you're done, what I just said is a fact.  

I'll give you another chance and hope you'll think about what I'm saying instead of just making assumptions this time.

I realize in debates/discussions such as this that the ones I'm discussing with rarely change their minds.  So, I write for those who merely read, for those who are on the fence.

And folks, it's alleged that I'm making assumptions.  I would ask you to read back and see the very specific details that I pointed out, for instance, to show that belief and confession are NOT the same thing.

And folks, please take note that the other half of this conversation IS the one who is simply making assumptions.  Notice what he gave to defend what he first said about believing and confessing being essentially the same.

Nothing.

Lancelot

[lancelot]

All are encompassed under Faith.  Faith is not mere mental assent.

If you wish to think of faith as a synecdoche for all those, that's fine.  But one is not saved without hearing the gospel, believing it, repenting of one's sins, confessing Jesus as Lord, and being immersed for the forgiveness of sins.

Lancelot

Got step 5 wrong.  Ain't in the Bible.  Read Acts 2:38 again and tell me what it says about Baptism.  You are missing some-thing/one in your statement.

hearing precedes salvation (Rom.10)
believing precedes salvation (ibid)
repentance precedes salvation (Acts 2:38, etc)
confessing Jesus as Lord precedes salvation (Rom.10:9,10)
baptism precedes salvation (Acts 2:38, etc)

Yes, I've seen what you've said about Acts 2:38.  I don't know of anybody who agrees with you.

Lancelot

[marc]

I'm not debating.  Just so you'd know, and maybe change the way you're thinking about this conversation a bit. People who think of conversations as debates end up with migraines.

You do realize that I asked the 5-step question first, I suppose.  Since you say you know the history, and you think it's required, you are requiring a man-made system knowingly, which is a serious thing.

But honestly, I don't believe you do know the history.  If you did, you'd be more forthcoming in your answer.

But your "which one doesn't belong" question tells me you have no idea what I'm really saying.  The whole Bible belongs, but that doesn't mean we systemize it into steps.


So stop being a zither and engage in conversation. Maybe you'll understand what you read better.


Please think before replying this time.  Pretty please?

[Bocephus]

All are encompassed under Faith.  Faith is not mere mental assent.

If you wish to think of faith as a synecdoche for all those, that's fine.  But one is not saved without hearing the gospel, believing it, repenting of one's sins, confessing Jesus as Lord, and being immersed for the forgiveness of sins.

Lancelot

Got step 5 wrong.  Ain't in the Bible.  Read Acts 2:38 again and tell me what it says about Baptism.  You are missing some-thing/one in your statement.

hearing precedes salvation (Rom.10)
believing precedes salvation (ibid)
repentance precedes salvation (Acts 2:38, etc)
confessing Jesus as Lord precedes salvation (Rom.10:9,10)
baptism precedes salvation (Acts 2:38, etc)

Yes, I've seen what you've said about Acts 2:38.  I don't know of anybody who agrees with you.

Lancelot

That's really sad then.  Leave Jesus out of baptism if you want.

[lancelot]

Lancelot, you like systemizing things, don't you?

Marc, you like assertions don't you?

I see nothing wrong with teaching the form or pattern of doctrine Paul spoke of (Rom.6:17,18).

But again, by saying people teach "another gospel" you equate other things with the identity and grace of Christ.  

   I've already shown, in another thread, that the terms of salvation are part of the gospel.  I think you've stayed away from that and are simply making those assertions yet again.

Your post is a clear example of defining things by yourself, by what you do and believe.  What becomes important is what you think most important.

How sad!  I'm reminded of that passage in the OT where some call evil good and good evil.  You are repeatedly saying that I am doing what you in fact are doing.

You came to Rom.10:9,10 with the idea that believing and confessing were essentially the same.  You gave absolutely nothing in support of that, waving your hand at the passage.  On the other hand, folks who read can go back and see that I gave detail after detail showing that they are NOT the same.  I've proven in another thread that the terms of salvation are part of the gospel.  You have stayed away from that thread and discussion so far as I've seen and here, simply making more assertions.

Folks, if you want to rest upon the assertions of men - believe what Marc SAYS.  He's not looking at the verse when he SAYS what he's saying about belief and confession.

If you want to rest upon the Bible, look at it and see what it says.  And if you think I'm not getting the distinction between believing and confessing from the Bible (see my post where I discuss that in detail), point out from the Bible and from what I've said where I'm wrong.

Scriptures clearly say that some things stand out, and yet you equate man-made systems with these.

All you do is make assertions, Marc.  That's not very convincing.  I could type the same sort of sentence and address it to you.  Allegations without specifics (and you're dealing in virtually no specifics) have no weight whatsoever.  Anybody can type such sentences.

Lancelot

[lancelot]

All are encompassed under Faith.  Faith is not mere mental assent.

If you wish to think of faith as a synecdoche for all those, that's fine.  But one is not saved without hearing the gospel, believing it, repenting of one's sins, confessing Jesus as Lord, and being immersed for the forgiveness of sins.

Lancelot

Got step 5 wrong.  Ain't in the Bible.  Read Acts 2:38 again and tell me what it says about Baptism.  You are missing some-thing/one in your statement.

hearing precedes salvation (Rom.10)
believing precedes salvation (ibid)
repentance precedes salvation (Acts 2:38, etc)
confessing Jesus as Lord precedes salvation (Rom.10:9,10)
baptism precedes salvation (Acts 2:38, etc)

Yes, I've seen what you've said about Acts 2:38.  I don't know of anybody who agrees with you.

Lancelot

That's really sad then.  Leave Jesus out of baptism if you want.

Please don't accuse me of something I haven't done.  I don't leave Jesus out of baptism.
I was baptized because Jesus commands it.  In baptism, one's sins are washed away by the blood of Jesus.  In baptism, one is baptized into Christ.  I don't leave Him out of baptism at all.
 
But I don't know of a single person who says what you've said about Acts 2:38. 

Lancelot