[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Arkstfan @ Feb. 27 2003,2:38)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The dictionary won't help you find the usage of change agent by the branch of the cofC that finds the gc movement unsettling.
In its common usage it means people who come into a cofC and don't like the status quo and start yammering for changes like praise teams, clapping, hand-raising, discussion of baptism outside the standard answer. It is also used for people who believe in embracing Christians outside the Church of Christ SOF congregations, especially those who would dare to work on an outreach or benevolence with non-cofC. It is applied to those who believe that the focus of ministry should be Jesus instead of teaching the five steps to salvation.
In the mind of those opposed to change agents, these are people trying to push the cofC down the slippery slope of denominationalism and ecumenicalism and away from its distinct and exclusive heritage.[/quote]
Thanks, Ark, for that information. You've answered my question well.
Shorty,
After I sent that post, I thought perhaps I could have phrased part of it better, but maybe what I said is really correct.
To beigin with, I said that I thought many or perhaps most Baptists would be in heaven. I hope that isn't the kind of judgment we're note permitted to make.
You'll notice that I talked about "accepting someone into fellowship", and not of accepting them into the Church. Only Jesus can make someone a member of His church. However, I can choose whether to take communion with that person (my definition of complete fellowship.) If I refuse to take communion with a person who Jesus has accepted, then I sin, but I still have the choice. With respect to Baptists (the subject of the earlier post), if one wishes to attend our church and take communion, I don't see any reason to object. So how am I judging such a person? (And by the way, I use extreme caution in this - I have never refused to take communion because someone else in the group wasn't "right").
With respect to a Baptist church, however, I choose not to attend. According to what little I know about them, they have requirements for membership that Christ doesn't have. If I'm correctly informed, they don't accept everybody that Jesus accepts. If I'm right, they exclude part of the church of Christ,
defined as those Christ added to his church. If they exclude part of the church, then they aren't the church. So I say the Baptist church includes many members of the church of Christ, but it isn't the church of Christ. Part of the church of Christ is left out.
In theory, you could say that all Christians are already members of the Church of Christ, although many of them may not know it. In practice, we fall far short of that ideal. Because of ignorance, misunderstanding of the scripture, pride and general humanness, we may not recognize our brothers and sisters. It's happened in the past and will continue to happen until Jesus returns for us. When it happens, it's wrong and we have to trust Christ to forgive us. But I don't think I'm wrong to say that an organization which intentionally excludes people who Jesus has accepted is not the church of Christ.
I hope that doesn't offend you.
I hestitated to say this earlier. I do respect the CofC love of the Bible but we just aren't the only denom that "pretty much knows where we can go to find out how."
For example, I know my Methodist church just as seriously studies the Bible. Just because different conclusions are drawn...that somehow turns into we (CofC) are the only ones reading it correctly. There's just as much error in CofC conclusions as Methodist conclusions. All sinners, IMO. I do think the Methodist live out the love your neighbor commandment better.
I respect Mike staying with the RM...however, I would also respect his leaving.
Well said, Kevin. That was my whole point. Lots of folks who have never even heard of the group which calls itself the "Church of Christ" ARE part of God's universal church. The Campbells and Stone taught this from day one. And as late as 1889 F. D. Srygley was still affirming the same thing.
Thor, I don't respect and admire Stone and the Campbells because they're historical people, or because I think they're inspired on a level with the Bible. I respect and admire them because I think they were right; if we would study, first the Bible, then these guys, we might learn a lot. But Stone himself said a unity based on the Bible alone, doctrine alone, or even immersion alone, would never last. We tried those and it didn't. Stone said that true unity would come only if people possessed "the Spirit of the book." Plus, I was taught to respect my ancestors and those who went before me. I think these venerable men deserve our respect. We may not all agree with every single thing they wrote or taught; I know I don't! But I do respect them and still maintain that without them the coC as we all know it wouldn't exist.
Your'e right, Thor, Stone's Christian Messenger isn't inspired scripture. And Stone isn't the final arbiter of TRUTH, God is. What Stone and the Campbells do is to help me UNDERSTAND the truth contained in scripture; even today, I'd put Alexander's CB articles on the design and meaning of baptism up against anybody else's!
And as I also said, Stone and the Campbell's were NOT primarily interested in restoring the NT church; that is a revisionist interpretation used to justify certain 20th/21st century coC teachings and give them added weight. If we can say that Stone and Campbell did so and so, then, to some people that gives it added historical weight (Its interesting how we praise Campbell as the "Great Restorer" when he says something we agree with, but disparage his influence as negligible when he says something we don't agree with). Of course many people could care less one way or another. But like I said before, Stone and Campbell NEVER taught that the NT church had ceased to exist; they believed it still existed at the time they began their Reformation. Nor did they ever claim to be restoring the ONE TRUE church; that, again, is a revisionist interpretation by their spiritual offspring. Alexander Campbell himself lamented this "liability to extremes," which he witnessed in some of his younger disciples, such as Tolbert Fanning.
Thomas Campbell would probably not be very enthusiastic about Bro. Warren's book. The Declaration and Address makes it clear that inferences are NOT binding on a Christian, nor is a complete knowledge of doctrine.
When Paul says that there is only ONE faith, he means one faith in Jesus Christ. He's not saying "there's only ONE body of correct doctrinal interpretation." "The Bible alone" is a great slogan; but as Campbell and Stone realised, getting two or more sincere believers to agree totally on everything contained in it is next to, if not outright, impossible. That's what they meant when they said: "In matters of faith; unity; in matters of opinion; liberty; in all things charity." The coC I gew up in during the 70's coulda used a little more of that charity!
Pax vobiscum.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I ask you to either show where I said what you claim I said (not implied-in-your-opinion, but said) or please go back and delete the untrue things you printed in this post. [/quote]
If you look at the post I thought I made it quite clear what you said (notice the quote box) and what I believe that quote logically followed meant (notice the single quotes). If there was any confusion I apologize.
However your idea that one can mean anything except exclusion is unfounded. It seems that your theology is interrupting logic. ONE is and always be exclusionary. If there is ONE God there are NO others. If there is ONE Faith there are NO others. If there is ONE baptism there are NO others. Paul was telling the Christians to be united under the ONE Church, the ONLY ONE which followed the ONE baptism, the ONE Christ, the ONE God, the ONE FAITH. You can't have one and a half, two, or three; ONE means ONE to the exclusion of all others.
I believe that Never's question was a valid one and that your answer shows what you would have the text say, instead of a serious look to it.
If you are looking for answers to your list of "I'm sure's" simply purchase a copy of Thomas Warren's book on when is an example binding. Or Biblical Authority by Roy Deaver. Volumes have been written on the subject, I do not have the space nor time to present that information appropriately.
.[/quote]
sing with me. . . honesty, is such a lonely word. . . . :playingguitar: .again, if you care at all for the truth you will go back and edit your post, as you make blatantly false statements concerning what I have said.
btw, perhaps you missed the post where I mentioned how familiar i was with the CENI logic.
Rather than :bangingheadagainstwall: I will simply say I have made my point and explained what the scripture means using the context. My failure to agree with your logic doen't mean I don't understand it. I understand it all too well, have studied and taught it, and ultimately found it to be unbiblical. Unless 1st Deaver is found somewhere between Timothy and Titus, I do not hold their logic on how to interpret scriptures to be equal with scriptures.
btw, I believe Never's response indicated I answered her question to her satisfaction. Could be wrong, but that's the way I read it.
Thor,
I was :thinking: (thinking) about this again this morning and a :idea: (thought) entered my head.
People in the church of Christ say that somewhere a long time ago the true Church was lost. For years and years and years the Church did not exist, until someone in the nineteenth century restored the Church.
According to this line of thought, people for 15 or 16 centuries were all lost because they weren't part of the true Church.
This is where I differ from you. The true church was never "lost". The true church has existed since that first Pentecost when Peter stood up and preached his incredible sermon. So where was this Church all that time? It was "within" the church. It was the wheat among the tares.
Now we get to the nineteenth century and a few men set out to restore the NT Church. Had the Church been lost? No. The Church still existed, it was simply scattered among churches with names like Baptist, Presbyterean, Methodist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc. And that's the same place where you will find the Church today. The true church is the wheat among the tares in the Christian Church, the Baptist Church, the church of Christ, the Methodist Church, the Episcopal church, etc.
Kevin
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] My children are my children for that fact, they were born of me. Their keeping of our house rules has never made them our child. They obey because they are my child. I sub in the schools and I can get kids to obey me. They use two techniques, bribery and punishment. I can give them "school bucks
Arkstfan, the OT is so much richer and meaningful when you recognize and understand all of that Christology-it's everywhere! I just wish I'd known all of this 15 years ago! Thanks for the link. Steve, I couldn't have said it better myself. Sola Christi. Pax vobiscum.
Thor, the concept that we're saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ is not from Luther, its from God, as revealed to Paul.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; that not of yourselves; it is a GIFT FROM GOD. NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast" (Ephesians 5:19 KJV Emphasis added)
Thor obedience to law, any law, CANNOT save. Paul makes this abundantly clear in Galatians. To say that we're saved by Jesus Christ + the law or Jesus Christ + OUR obedience is heresy. The blood of Christ saves us; we come into contact with that saving blood in baptism. Lest we think that the work of baptism itself saves us, Peter, in I Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism, the "answer of a good conscience befor God," saves us, not by the putting off of dirt from the body, but by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. When James says that faith without works is dead, he's not saying, as many incorrectly teach, that works save us, or keep us saved. Rather, he's saying that if we really have faith in our salvation we will, as a matter of course, do good works. We won't be able to stop ourselves!
For far too long, the coC has exalted baptism and just sort of let Jesus' death and resurrection fall by the wayside. This in spite of Hebrews 6:2 which calls baptism an elementary, first principle, a gateway, if you will, into life in Christ, but which the Hebrews were placing an unnatural emphasis on. Baptism is the means to the end, NOT the end itself.
Thor, have you ever read K. C. Moser's Way of Salvation? If not, buy, borrow or steal a copy! Moser recognized the tendency of his brethren to over-emphasize baptism and obedience, with little or no mention of the cross. He called it the "man vs. the plan" theory. But what are we being baptized into without the cross? Moser correctly sets forth the biblical terms of salvation. I ask again, did Jesus die for a plan? Did Jesus die so that baptism could save us? Did Jesus die for a pattern?
Pax vobiscum.
Thor,
We must first be obedient before we can gain salvation? That is an impossibility. All of us fall short of the glory of God. It is only the Holy Spirit who comes to us at the time of salvation that allows us to be obedient.
Kevin
Thor
Josh and I have had this debate - and for that matter, you and I have as well. I refer you both to my earlier posts.
Don't you think we've discussed these issues to a fairthewell?
Steve
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]When the CoC makes the person go back into the water because a part of the body was sticking out, baptism is a work.[/quote]
When Jesus says Mark 16:16 "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Baptism is a prerequisite to salvation.
So someone believes because of the salvation they already have?
So someone repents because of the salvation they already have?
So someone Confesses because of the salvation they already have?
So someone is Baptized because of the salvation they already have?
Jesus says to have salvation one who "believeth and is baptized shall be saved" not one who has already been saved, should then feel the desire to believe and be baptized. I don't apologize that the Lord's Church, the Church of Christ teaches what Jesus says.
Okay Janine - It doesn't have to go anywhere. I'm back.
It seems to me that it is presumptuous (sp?) to say that we can have a relationship with God before doing what He says it takes to enter the relationship. I do not and will never understand anybody saying that.
And that does not make the act of entering the relationship a "work". It does, however, make it a choice. We have to choose to be God's. And we have to make that choice the way He tells us to.
And Kanham, you still haven't answered my questions.
i believe romans 2 discusses the subject of someone who does not know God's Word...
here's a small smackerel from there, though i think the whole chapter helps us better understand... :
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
[/quote]
while this was more about jews and gentiles, i believe that the same God would apply this principle to Christians and non-Christians...
i'd also like to note that there's a huge difference b/t one who has never had the chance to know what the Bible teaches us and the one who refuses to look...
for example, there are very few in the USA who aren't exposed in some way to Christianity... w/ libraries, the internet, the tv, the radio, magazines, and newspaper articles... not to mention the general population or hotels with a gideon Bible in em... if there's anything great about the USA it's the availabilty of the gospel!
anyway, this is an amazingly varied thread, isn't it!
:typing: josh
Lee,
I think you're misunderstanding something I said. I told Segell that God called Israel to Him before they met Him at Sinai. I didn't say He called them because they had obeyed.
But what Exodus 19 says is that they weren't God's people until they chose to obey.
Just trying to clarify.
One article recommended by Kevin opens with these words:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Change agents among us continue to express distinctive views that a few years ago were primarily embryonic, but are now fully grown.
An example comes to mind in the 1992 comments of a change agent concerning Mark 16:16. I observed that "There is a profound difference, more than just the words, between 'he that believeth and is saved shall be baptized' and 'he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.'" The change agent responded:
[/quote]
From the Clippard article, we have:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Generally, these have been drinking
heavily from the newWineskins of change agentry and denominational compromise. [/quote]
Can someone who honestly uses this term "change agent", or truly understands its usage explain it to me? I've heard it used many times in either a negative context or some kind of "badge of honor" worn by people who ridicule those who honestly use it. I myself have used it, but must confess that I don't understand exactly what people mean when they use it.
Please help.
I guess where most of my misunderstanding arises is as follows. In the church that I was brought up in, I don't remember any emphasis on determining who to "fellowship" with. We welcomed believers, sinners, the saved, unsaved, etc. There weren't so many rules as to who to do this or that with!
The word itself (fellowship) seems to be defined in a multitude of ways (as in shunning altogether, or take communion with but only if in your church, or try to expose as false teachers and on and on). I personally think unity is more important than finding people to disfellowship.
I do appreciate your kind response...I don't know if I will ever understand but you are a really nice person to talk to!
Fellowship with you anytime, anywhere!
Shorty
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Shorty,
Please think hard about staying with the Church of Christ.
We're a quarrelsome bunch, and your are right to question how closely we follow the Bible sometimes, but at least we think we're supposed to follow the Bible. That's worth a lot, in my opinion.[/quote]
In his "down" moments sometimes my Mike emits a despairing sigh & wonders if there'll be a place for him in the RM five years, ten years from now.
I'll remind him of that thought. Even if we as congregations or segments of the movement aren't getting it "right", at least we pretty much know where we can go to find out how.
Kevin,
They may have found themselves there unexpectedly but would soon be asked to lead or to leave as they began to teach and admonish the others to accept Christ and Obey Him. For, I know that all but one (the Lord's Church) of those groups have chosen to worship or be organized or find "salvation
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Christians have always been a sect.
We must only decide were the lines will be drawn.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with the World.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with Darkness.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who deny Christ.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may earn your way to heaven, whose worship is "works" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may do nothing to enter heaven, whose worship is "faith only" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who wish to change the church of Christ, individual, local, or universal.[/quote]
Thor,
In Acts 24:5, a lawyer of the Pharisees called us a sect. Paul denounced this claim in verse 14. You still want to go along with the jargon you're using, or are you really in a sect? If you are in a sect, may I suggest you get out of it and join the Way.
And by the way, there is not one single line that Christians are supposed to draw. That is God's job.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If I knew someone who decided to follow Jesus after learning about Him from Segell, I would certainly congratulate them and immediately tell them everything I understand from Scripture about immersion... but that doesn't mean I'd toss Segell or his followers on the dungheap, either[/quote]
Janine,
Thanks for your words. just wanted to let you know that I too would teach a new believer about Christ's command to be baptized - just offered if you or others didn't think I placed great import on our obedience and submission to Christ. It's just that I believe Christ calls His to be baptized because they are in Him through faith.
Have a great day.
Steve
:rolleyes: I love to sing a cappella while I teach Sunday School in my kitchen. Barefoot and (I wish I was) pregnant. :rolleyes:
I almost dislike the heights I've been on, refreshing my memory re: what's on this thread, reading thru it... and now I have to go back to the Real World. Blech.
I wonder how long it will be before we're branded out-and-out "change agents"?
Can y'all tell how I long for the day we move down the bayou? In some ways it will be dreadfully hard work, much harder than living a Christian life & trying to share the Gospel from the safety of a larger church network of support.
And of course I will miss the several contacts each week with my friends in our current congregation... Ah, well, that just means I'll have to make it a point to see them in new & different times and places, not only "church work".
But, there is such a longing for the refreshment of getting down there, and worshipping in a small group again, doing all the work(s) ourselves, in the trenches and on our knees...
Not that one doesn't do the same stuff in a larger congregation. But, in just a few weeks I won't have to bite my tongue quite so much in Bible class.
I won't have to await an eldership's decision re: whether or not I can re-sort and clean out disaster relief/benevolence supplies, when I have known for weeks that the mice and rats are already showing an interest in them. :bangingheadagainstwall:
I serve the Lord (and a stumbling little slave I am, too, but I keep trying) where I am now. I will serve the Lord where I will be then. And in some ways the work will be much harder then than it is now, at least according to the reverse of the proverb "Many hands make light work."
There will only be my hands... Mike will be at work and is already committed to a few nights per week of studies, etc. The older two kids have heavy school and work schedules. It'll be me and Joe. He's almost 11. And even he is in school, unless I decide to homeschool next year.
Hard work or not, I long for it, I yearn for it, I pant for the release of it with a fervor that reminds me of -- and intertwines with -- my intense desire for God.
To demonstrate how silly we can be, here's a true story; I was at the funeral home for my friend Thomas' grandfather. This grandfather had been a member of a mainline coC in Decatur, Alabama and his kids all lived in Florence, which was where the servive was to be. Well, we were all in line waiting to go in. I had noticed a church van from the grandfather's church ouitside. While in the line I noticed two elderly gentlemen in suits and ties (which I immediately took to be elders from the grandfather's Decatur church), talking to Bro. Frederick, an elder in a progressive coC here in Florence.
Well, Bro. Frederick was telling these two elders about an atheist friend of his he was studying with, when one of the gentlemen looked at Bro. Frederick in all seriousness and said "Brother, does he believe in baptism for the remission of sins?" To which Bro. Frederick replied "He doesn't even believe in Jesus yet!" :doh:
Kinda like the son of the owner of a big corporation being made to work through the ranks to "earn" the right to run the company. He is the heir, the company's his in a way now, and definitely will be when the time for inheritance comes. But, to fall in the the father's plans, to demonstrate his willingness and to be in empathy with all the employees, he works his way up from the mail room to the board room.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kinda like the son of the owner of a big corporation being made to work through the ranks to "earn" the right to run the company. He is the heir, the company's his in a way now, and definitely will be when the time for inheritance comes. But, to fall in the the father's plans, to demonstrate his willingness and to be in empathy with all the employees, he works his way up from the mail room to the board room.[/quote]
I don't think so, Janine. Don't think He had to work His way anywhere. He already was/is King, Lord, God, Savior, Master, etc, etc. The fact that He became man and was limited by His manhood, did not negate that He was totally God. He bacame man so that He could die.[/quote]
That's exactly what I said, Seggy. He was of the blood of the owner, it WAS his company. He put himself into the position of, subject to the limitations of, a lowly mail clerk.
He never stopped being the boss' son. On the other hand, would he still have accomplished the training the boss set out for him, if he'd leaned on the relationship, hopped the elevator and zipped into the CEO's chair, with no long road between?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]He didn't work His way up through His sufferings - He was further perfected through His perfect obedience unto death.[/quote]So the son OBEYED[/b] his way up to the penthouse, fine. Whatever you like better. What touched you off, the four-letter word "w*rk"?
If the perfect Son of God needed to be made more perfect... more ripe... more mature... Then He needed to. There was somewhat to be done before the good effect could be had.
Josh I appreciated your post and was also "disappointed" by the lack of debate that followed in response. I thought it a clear point of conversation/ debate. It showed such a glaring inconsistancy. Anyways Thanks for posting it....
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Faith or works? Actions done in faith because someone has received.[/quote]
I do not agree with your basic thought here. Actions done in faith, are done based upon the Knowledge of God's promise. Not because one has attained but that one might attain. Actions done in faith are done because We have God's promise of return. By faith the walls of Jericho fell, by faith Noah was saved from the flood, by faith we have salvation.... That faith is an active faith. It acts upon the promise God has given. If you walk around the walls they will fall, if you build the ark you will be saved, if you "believe and are baptized you shall be saved."
You misread my intentions:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]On this thread you have said, "We kill off the old man of sin in baptism
BOG
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Segell,
You ask what Israel had to do before they became God's chosen people.
Look in Exodus 19.
God gave them a choice - if they would obey his voice and keep his covenant, then they would be his chosen people.
"And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord."
Only after they had chosen did God come to them. They had to do something. They had to choose. Today, we have to choose and God has told us how to express that choice.[/quote]
I thought God had already chosen them. He provided for them, released them, had already been promised to Abraham, spared them, took them out of bondage, and provided the eagle wings, so to speak. I think God is laying out His commands with warning. Note how God says that the whole world is mine and yet I choose you.
I think by Chapter 19, Israel has already been chosen whether they knew it or not. They were already called Israel. Look at what already had been manifested. Sovereign God already was in control. I, think, Bog that in the context God was beginning to reveal more of Himself and what He wanted and expected of His chosen. They wouldn't become His because they were going to obey - they were His and obeying demonstrated and secured that relationship, in effect.
At least, that's how it reads to me. I just look at the previous 18 Chapters and see God at work. Afterall didn't He instruct Moses to tell Pharaoh "Let My people go?" (By the way, for what purpose? So that they may worship me. You see, for God's purpose) Look at Exodus 6:6-8 and note what the Lord declares: "I will take you as my own people and I will be your God" (verse 7).
I've asked Thor and am asking you also to consider prayerfully beseeching God in reverent submission, asking that He clarify these issues in a very personal way. Also would suggest that a study of God's sovereignty and grace would be helpful in putting things in a more balanced and biblical perspective. I don't mean to imply that you don't have that as your heart's desire - just suggesting that we all step back and look at God's Truth in the entire context and light of Scripture.
Sometime we take a look at certain issues and zero in on them pursuing either support or refutation and miss the intention of Scripture. I'm calling on us all to check ourselves and see if we are truly looking at things in light of all of God's Word.
Take care.
Steve
without trying to stir up anybody's pots here; why did Joshua and those with him have to march around Jericho?
how come God didn't just knock down the walls as soon as Joshua and em got there?
segell - i greatly appreciated your last post to me... Amen and Amen that God saves wretches like us (me!)... and i praise Him for that glorious grace He extends to me; so i also say thanks to you for challenging me to learn more about that precious giving-ness... i do enjoy our discourses, even if we do disagree; agape friend
:thumbs-up:
Josh, I'm not putting any interpretation on them really. Just wanted to throw e'm out there for discussion. I did so, mainly because we've been discussing the Israelites and their relationship to God-whether they were God's chosen nation BEFORE they obeyed or were chosen BECAUSE they obeyed.
I just wanted to see how, or if, the rest of you guys thought these passages fit into the discussion at hand and into the larger theme of salvation. These passages seem to be focused on what God has already done for us, rather than what we must do; that He chose us BEFORE we even had a chance to have faith or to act on that faith and be baptized. How does this (or does it at all?) concept fit the Israelites' situation under discussion? Anyway, I'm not putting any spin on these verses. I'll try to get back to this thought later. In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves...Y'know, no big whoop.
Pax vobiscum,.
What words mean goes two ways: dictionary definition, or what the heck the speaker means.
Is not an agent someone or something which accomplishes something? A chemical reaction, a secret government assignment :cool:, the isolation of grease globules in my dishwater?
And is not change... movement? The opposite of static immobility?
That's all it means to me...
How people use the phrase, now, to hear some folks I know, it'd mean "evil sheep murderer" or "devilish deceiver of the innocent Church of Christ member".
Someone mentioned that book as being the origin of the term over in the same thread under Introductions...does anyone else find it both amusing and confusing to have the same thread going on in two places?
Wendy
I'm not Kevin, but I'll reply to Charlie:
1. I think many (most?) individual Baptists are Christians with whom I will be united in heaven, even though they (in my opinion) seriously misunderstand some important teachings of the scripture. They have faith, they have repented, they have confessed, and they have been baptized, even though they misunderstand the reason for their baptism. Remember that baptism is God's work, not mine. It does what He wants it to do, regardless of what I (or they) think it's for.
2. I am more than happy to accept an individual who was baptized at a Baptist church into fellowship at our church. In fact, that's what our leaders do here. I think they have even quit asking "Why did you think you were being baptized?"
3. No, the Baptist church is not the church (or Church) of Christ. There is only one church (Church), it was established by Christ, and it consists of all those who have heard, believed, repented and been baptized. From my limited information, that description doesn't fit the Baptist church. I understand that many of their congregations have other requirements, and that some even vote on admitting people.
4. Although I am glad to accept an individual Baptist into fellowship, I have grave misgivings about having fellowship with "the Baptists". I believe they teach several serious errors, and more importantly, I think every Christian should take the Lord's Supper every week. Until these matters are resolved, they and I will have to remain in what the Catholics call "imperfect
communion."
Just because I expect to see somebody in heaven doesn't mean that I have to approve of what they do or teach here. If I believe they are in error, I can't participate. The things that divide us are regrettable, and we have to remember the duty to love each other despite the division, but we can't just wish these issues away.
I'm not sure, and I speak only for myself, but I bet most of the
"people in the pews" think something like this.
Thor:
It may surprise you, but many people who worship in buildings with other names on them are also members of the church of Christ. There are people who worship in Baptist churches who are members of the church of Christ. There are people who worship in Methodist churches who are members of the church of Christ. There are people who worship in Lutheran churches who are members of the church of Christ. There are people who worship in Pentecostal churches who are members of the church of Christ. There are people who worship in Episcopal churches who are members of the church of Christ. There are people who worship in Christian churches who are members of the church of Christ. There are people who worship in churches of Christ who are members of the church of Christ.
Where we get confused is with our "man made branches of the church of Christ". When Christ sees his church, he doesn't see all of that. He sees his church universal. Our sight is limited because we don't have his big picture perspective.
Just some thoughts.
Kevin
Thor
You really have no idea what you are talking about. You and I have had discussions in the past. You are not defending Christ - you are defending RELIGION.
[/quote]If I could find a baptist willing to follow the scriptures I would accept him too. Of course one willing to submit to the scriptures could no longer remain a baptist
This type of inflammatory remark is so off base - I don't know how to respond or where to begin.
The reason I am speaking so directly is because I find your perspectives to be in great error and (forgive me, Josh) spiritually dangerous. Why do I say dangerous? Your perspectives place enormous burdens on people and point them to acts of religion or religiosity and fail to point them to the need of a personal relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ.
Your hermeneutics are suspect and unfortunately the basis for your strident position.
You stated that you "have found a group of people who look to His Word. They seek to let it guide their lives and worship". Do you really believe you are the only ones who look to God's Word? Who seek to obey Christ? Who wish to follow Him? Interestingly, you didn't mention a group of people who love God.
In an earlier post you stated something along the lines of "You seem to actually believe that the blood bought church is just another run of the mill, man made religious institution..."
That was written to those of us here at GCMagazine. Thor, you have no clue about what you speak. And it is sad.
I hear your sincerity. I fear it is misplaced.
As to the churches in Revelation - what Christ was warning them about was their relationship to Him!! Our relationship and love for Him. You know, Thor, I have never heard you speak of that or share that with any of us here. You seem so caught up in the what- and how-to-do's of being a Christian - you seem to have lost what God is seeking more than anything else - and that's our hearts.
Do me a favor and read Ezekiel 11:19 and 20. See how God works, Thor, in His people. See what actually leads to obedience. You will see that obedience is, in fact, a gift of God through His Spirit.
Thor, I want to ask you to consider sharing with us the meaning of Jesus Christ in your life. What your relationship is like and what He is doing in your life. Right now all I hear is how your faith is centered on your performance. In my opinion - the emphasis is in the wrong place.
Put forth for your consideration.
Take care.
Steve
:amen:
I pray we have what it takes to preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified down the bayou, come what may. The strength to hold Him up as a rallying point, around which we can gather, while we politely and peacefully continue to work things out between ourselves, eyes all on Jesus.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] It's a false metaphor, Thor. [/quote]
Steve,
I see the statement, yet miss the proof.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]A relationship actually exists or doesn't. God's Spirit confirms that relationship - there is no "think"-ing about it. There is knowing one is in relationship to God and knowing brings confidence and assuredness.[/quote]
1 John 5:13 Tells us scripture is given so that we MIGHT know we have salvation. Not that we might feel some heart warming emotional response. Facts reveal, emotions can and often do conceal.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am afraid, Thor, that your perception draws conclusions that undermine, and could possibly make meaningless, the purposes of belief, repentance, confession and baptism. These wonderful things that Christians do are in loving response to God's transformation of our hearts in Christ Jesus. Thor, don't all Christians believe, don't all Christians repent and turn from a life of godlessness to a Christ filled existence, don't all Christians confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and finally, don't all Christians submit to baptism?[/quote]
Yes because a Christian by definition is one who has done ALL of those things.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Yet in contrast, Thor, not all that say they believe nor say they repented nor confessed nor were baptized are saved. You see, the key is found in the motivation for those things.[/quote]
I agree, but the proper motivation with improper action still ends in a mistake. The road to hell is paved... ya know. Also the proper action without the proper attitude avails nothing. Acts 18:24ff
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Anyway, that's what I believe Scripture reveals, Thor. I pray for the day that God brings you to the point of relying completely and solely on His grace for your salvation through faith and trust in Christ Jesus. Sola Gracia, sola fide, sole Christi. By grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. [/quote]
Steve,
Scripture did not reveal "By grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Why was God so demanding that His own Son—and equally God Himself MUST be obedient to Him in order to provide us with Saving Grace?[/quote]
Romans 5:12 Therefore, 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. (NIV)
The question is answered directly in verse 19; the context provides the explanation.
An act of work is something done to receive something. An act of faith is something done because you have been given something. Go back to Joshua. They did not walk around the walls to get something, a work, they walked around the walls because they had been given something, the walls. Their walk was one of faith, trust in God to do just what he said he would.
Until the difference between a work and faith is seen then the discussion will never get anywhere. James makes the point about Abraham. His action with Issac was faith because he had already received. " Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness.
Janine,
So someone does not Believe because of the salvation they already have?
So someone does not Repent because of the salvation they already have?
So someone does not Confess because of the salvation they already have?
So someone is not Baptized because of the salvation they already have?
Is there a difference between having something and taking possesion of it?
We can not take possesion of Salvation until those things are accomplished. Even though we may have them in promise.
Lee,
This is going to set off a bomb.
First of all, an "unbaptized believer" who has no plans to be baptized is not the same thing as a person in the process of being baptized who dies.
Second,
If they really believe, why don't they get immersed?
I am a person who was raised in a church that practiced the sprinkling of infants. I knew for several years that this was not the baptism that the Bible described but told myself it didn't matter - if I was one of God's elect, nothing could keep me out of heaven, and if I wasn't, nothing could get me in.
When I finally really believed, I got immersed.
I think it is monumentally irresponsible for someone who believes that God has commanded baptism to suggest that God won't stick to what He said. I don't think I'd want that preacher around myself. If, on the other hand, he really doesn't believe that God has commanded baptism, why does he want to preach in a Church of Christ anyway?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]God remits our sins through Christ's BLOOD, NOT the water.[/quote]
The water is where we contact the blood.
So what about the African who knows nothing of Christ?
Isn't he worthy of you view of God's Grace abounding over and above where He says it can be found?
To whom does God extend salvation while their sins are still present upon their souls?
How can you acknowledge the fact that God has said forgiveness of sins is found in baptism, Then turn around and say...'He doesn't really mean that. Look to the thief...'
You must know that His salvation came B/F the death, Burial, and Ressurection-which is the pattern for baptism.
God has established a way for something to be done, It must be done that way. Otherwise He is a Liar, Injust, Unfair, Lax.... The wonderful thing is He is none of those things. We can Coulnt on God to be Just. His justice demands that He abides by His rules.
Lee,
I don't think it's a stupid question, and I hope this answer isn't stupid.
Their continued right standing didn't depend solely upon their obedience but it depended partly on it.
You're right that they kept disobeying and God kept gaving them another chance. But when they rejected Jesus, that was the end of it. That's part of what the parable of the tenants tells us. Their place was taken away and the Church became God's people because of continued disobedience.
Maybe the lawyers here can help me out, but if I remember correctly from my contract law class in college---
An agent is someone who is authorized to speak or act for (or on the behalf of) someone (or something) else.
So a change agent would be someone who speaks or acts for (or on the behalf of) change.
Webster's defines change as "to make or become different"
I think the people who throw around the term "change agent" in a derogatory manner are implying that these "change agents" are trying to change our understanding of salvation and Grace from a correct understanding to a false one. I think these "change agents" are helping us grow from a lesser understanding of the nature of salvation and Grace to a greater one.
Therefore I think they could be better described as "growth agents".
There is my 2.5 cents worth. ( I rarely am able to stop at 2.0 cents :p )
Richard
For what it's worth, the facing page to chapter ten, Minimizing Chaos, in Anderson's Winds of Change says: "The change agent must maintaina delicate balance between being a strong pioneer leader and an integrated group member." OOh. How devilish! The book was written in 1994, and I have no idea whether that was really where the phrase originated, or whether this was where people looking for a new label of condemnation found the phrase.
To me, the second seems more likely than the first.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ Mar. 03 2003,12:12)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]3. No, the Baptist church is not the church (or Church) of Christ. There is only one church (Church), it was established by Christ, and it consists of all those who have heard, believed, repented and been baptized. [/quote]
Guy: I grew up in a Methodist church and am not familiar with the Baptist church. And, I don't understand your position at all.
You say you can accept a Baptist into fellowship at your church. Isn't it up to God as to who is accepted? How can you judge who is part of your church?
I don't understand your saying that the Baptist church is not the church of Christ. How can you judge this? Who made you the judge?
I will never understand people judging. Although you did it in a gentlemanly fashion.
It seems to be against the Bible to me to judge...how you reconcile judging with the bible saying not to?
Shorty
Thor, you mention a clearly discernibble pattern in the NT for the work and worship of the church, which the coC, at least the mainline churches, follow correctly. Fair enough. But I have a few questions if I might:
Did the early Christians in the NT assemble in church buildings? Or did they meet in the Temple courts (Acts 2), homes (Acts 2; 13; 18), synagogues (Acts 13; 17;18) and by the river (Acts 13)?
Did they sing 4-part acapella Stamps-Baxter hymns?
Did they pass trays to serve communion, or actually have a meal around a table?
Were the men required to wear ties when standing in front of the congregation to serve the Lord's Supper?
Did they have an opening song, two more songs, scripture reading and a prayer, communion, two songs, a collection, two MORE songs, then the sermon, exactly fifteen minutes long, then an invitation song, then closing announcements, then a closing song followed by a closing prayer? Where exactly is this "pattern" found in scripture? Seems like a better "pattern" would be I Corinthians chapter 14:26.
Were their congregations totally autonomous? How could they be in light of the Jerusalem council of Acts chapter 15 where James made a ruling on a matter affecting the church at Antioch?
Which translation of the NT did the early church use? KJV? NIV? Jerusalem? NAS?
Which hemeneutic did the apostles use?
We use Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3: 16-17 to condemn instrumental music in the worship assembly, but where do these passages even mention a worship assembly? And if we claim to speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where it is silent, how can we condemn instrumental music, which the NT nowhere addresses?
Where in scripture does it say that examples and inferences are binding on Christians? Were these same examples and inferences in the NT binding on the earliest Christians considering they didn't even HAVE a finished NT yet?
Which commands of which apostles are binding on Christians? Who decides? Paul told Timothy to take a little wine for his upset stomach; is this binding on all believers?
Paul instructed both Timothy and Titus to appoint elders and deacons; we teach that this applies to all churches in all centuries. In I Timothy 4:9-ff Paul also instructed Timothy to enroll widowed women over 60 on a widows' list; if appointment of elders and deacons is binding on all churches everywhere why isn't enrollment of widows on a widows' list also binding?
The Jerusalem church in Acts chapter 2 met daily in believers' homes, sold everything and held it in common, giving to each as he had need. Why don't we?
Acts 21: 9 says that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who prophesied. What are we to make of this?
Romans 16: 1 calls Phoebe a "servant of the church" which many versions translate as "deaconess." What are we to make of this?
Can a person be saved without then becoming a member of a congregation of believers? What about the Ethiopian eunuch who presumably had no church to return home to in Ethiopia?
Where in scripture does it state plainly that a person MUST have a perfect understanding of baptism in order for it to be valid?
Is the Bible the gospel or does the Bible merely CONTAIN the gospel?
Which came first; the Bible or the church?
What did Peter mean in II Peter 3: 16, when he wrote of the Apostle Paul: "His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort..."
Are any of the above salvation issues?
Well, this should be enough to illustrate my point (I realise some of the above might seem absurd but I posted it for a reason, and I mean no disrespect to anyone); We in the coC vociferously insist that we do things "by the book" in our faith and worship, that we closely follow the NT "pattern." But based on the preceding items, I honestly don't see us following the NT "pattern" all that precisely. Who decided which items were to be included in that pattern (why not widows' rolls?)? A lot of it seems frankly arbitrary to me. Now, if people want to keep the coC traditional interpretations on the above, that's fine. Follow a "pattern" if your conscience so dictates. But do we dare to insist that the only Christians are those who interpret the same scriptures the same way? Pax vobiscum.
My relationship with Jesus is a simple thing.
Having typed that statement, I now pause because often the simplest things are the most intricate and delicate and valuable. My personal relationship with Christ is just that. So, it is with some pain that I put it on display with a synopsis instead of through my life.
At one time I crucified my dearest friend. The nails in His flesh I drove there. The crown upon His brow, I place there. Shouting "Crucify Him
Thor
I'll echo Lee's comment and pray that God will open your eyes, ears and heart to what is actually being said and not what you perceive.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]In actuality Christians are Gods adopted Children.
For one to adopt a child is not an easy process. That Child must first give up the rule of it's previous parents. Then go through a process of paperwork. Then the state must recognize the adoption. Then and ONLY THEN is the Child able to enter the Family. That is the LAW of the land. A child that is looking forward to being adopted may consider himself part of the family before the adoption is completed, Yet he is NOT. The state may at any point come and take that Child away. [/quote]
I am so sad to see you complicate a relationship with God to this extent. Yes we are adopted - yet co-heirs with Christ Jesus. The remainder of your comments go to legalistic silliness ascribing it to God's plan of salvation. It's a false metaphor, Thor. I'm sad you believe God places more weight on a plan of human accomplishment than the devine accomplishment of Jesus Christ. Yours seems to be a theology of a Providential conditional love. And it seems to me to be so alien to God's plan of salvation by His grace through faith.
My friend, you wrote: "DON'T get comfortable because you think you have a relationship with Christ just because you spend some time with the book!" Well, Thor, I don't know anyone who said that. The relationship we speak about concerns the transformation of the heart.
A relationship actually exists or doesn't. God's Spirit confirms that relationship - there is no "think"-ing about it. There is knowing one is in relationship to God and knowing brings confidence and assuredness.
Your statement makes me wonder about your relationship with God and I state that very solemnly and humbly. You see, Thor, your assuredness is based on something YOU do. The assuredness described by me and others is based on everything Christ did and continues to do.
You further write: "ONLY after those things are complete can one rest confident in the KNOWLEDGE that we are part of the family."
And you followed that up with these verses:
1 John 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
1 John 5:2-3 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments.3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Thor - most everyone here who have contributed to this posting agrees and believes the Truth in these wonderful Scriptures. And yet, the verses are used by you to support your contention that certain things must first be accomplished before being considered saved. Many of us would look at what John wrote and conclude that our keeping God's commands demonstrate His love in us and our love for Him. Those commands are obeyed because we love Him and are in relationship with Him. The commands are NOT obeyed in order to prove anything, or to receive anything. If commands are, indeed, obeyed in order to receive or prove - then that obedience becomes meaningless.
I am afraid, Thor, that your perception draws conclusions that undermine, and could possibly make meaningless, the purposes of belief, repentance, confession and baptism. These wonderful things that Christians do are in loving response to God's transformation of our hearts in Christ Jesus. Thor, don't all Christians believe, don't all Christians repent and turn from a life of godlessness to a Christ filled existence, don't all Christians confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and finally, don't all Christians submit to baptism? (Now, the definition of what constitutes baptism may not be the same for all believers). Yet in contrast, Thor, not all that say they believe nor say they repented nor confessed nor were baptized are saved. You see, the key is found in the motivation for those things.
In the final analysis, God knows the person whose heart has been truly transformed and, to God's glory, the person whose heart has been truly transformed by God knows, without any doubt, His wonderful grace and blessed assurance.
Thor, while I believe, have repented (continue to do so), confess Christ as Lord and been baptized - my assurance lies only in all who Jesus is, not in what I have done in response to Christ's love for me. What He has led me to do is evidence of His work in my life.
Anyway, that's what I believe Scripture reveals, Thor. I pray for the day that God brings you to the point of relying completely and solely on His grace for your salvation through faith and trust in Christ Jesus. Sola Gracia, sola fide, sole Christi. By grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.
I appreciate how that departs from what you've been taught throughout your life - but I share it with you because it places everything (including ourselves) in proper perspective to Almighty God.
Blessings to you.
Steve
Thor,
My parents adopted a young lady when she was twelve. She had the decision to accept or reject the relationship. She did not have to fill out any paper work or go thru any red tape, that was my parents responsability. She did nothing to make the relationship happen, my parents did it all.
God bless.
yup!
Thor,
Faith or works? Actions done in faith because someone has received. On this thread you have said, "We kill off the old man of sin in baptism
Josh
Thanks for the response regarding the heart. Appreciate it. Will write more this evening, if I have the chance.
Steve
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]1. The person who dies on the way to the baptistry -
I've always thought this an absurd hypothetical and I've never heard anybody maintain that such a person was lost. But since you want an answer - I think that God will extend his grace to a person who dies during the act of obeying. I will say, however, that those who wait to be baptized at some "special" time or place are foolish and that it's a serious matter to put off obeying God in such a way. [/quote]
BOG, as absurd a hypothetical as this is, I have actually heard this and similar hypothetical questions asked-by elders of the church. When our preacher Joe was fired from Chisholm Hills back in '93, one of the "reasons" the elders gave was that because Joe refused to judge or condemn unbaptized believers to hell, that he was "soft" on baptism. In the meeting they held (under the false pretence of trying to reconcile with Joe), they asked him if he thought an unbaptized person who died on the way to the baptistry before he could be immersed, would be lost. Know what they said? They said yes, because he had not met God's requirements for salvation. Sad though it was, that person would nevertheless be lost.
So Joe asked them a question. He asked them, who had a better chance of being saved-a devout, believing, yet unimmersed Methodist or an atheist? Guess what they said? Yep. You guessed it. Elder D. W. looked right at Joe and said that since neither man had been immersed both would be in hell! When I heard that I nearly fell out of my chair!
Pax vobiscum.
I honestly don't know about the African who doesn't know about Christ because no one ever taught him. Jesus did say "no man comes to the Father but through me." But would a just God send a man to hell for not knowing something there's NO WAY the guy could've known? Or, if that African acknowledged a Higher Power, to the best of his ability, whether he knew it to be Yahweh or not, would God have mercy on that man, too? Again, I don't know. I do know that geater minds than mine, like C. S. Lewis, for instance, have wrestled with this question. Ultimately, God will judge, not Lee Freeman.
My job is to preach the death, burial and resurrection to everyone I can, and then urge folks to make the proper response, baptism.
I didn't say that anybodoy and everybody could be saved like the thief on the cross. What I said was, God saved him without baptism under extenuating circumstances; God looked at his heart and recognized his BELIEF. If God WANTED TO, he could save OTHER sincere BELIEVERS who genuinely didn't know they were supposed to be baptized. BELIEF is the key word here.
God is a God of mercy. God can bend His own rules in extenuating circumstances if He chooses to. I, mean, He let King Hezekiah celebrate Passover on the WRONG day, so that they could consecrate all the priests and give travelers a chance to get there. If He could do that way back then...
More later. Pax vobiscum.
Point taken. Maybe I'm on a different frequency here, and if I am I apologize. But would the Hebrews have remained God's chosen nation if they hadn't obeyed? Read the prophets and you'll quickly see how often Israel abandoned God. But God never abandoned them. Moses himself disobeyed a direct command of God, and, in the short term, did not get to enter the Promised Land. But as for the long term, Moses' ETERNAL destiny, the book of Hebrews lists him as a hero of the faith, one of the great cloud of witnesses. In other words, does our right standing with God depend SOLELY upon our obedience? Forgive me if this is a stupid question.
Pax vobiscum.
Sorry to quote a secondary source, but I don't own a copy of the primary source. According to Glenn Colley, in his book Loose Change, Lynn Anderson first used the term "change agents" in his book Navigating the Winds of Change, page 140.
One of my fellow deacons at our congregation calls me a change agent. He is somewhat joking and when he used to say it, a couple years back I would deny it as I knew that meant bad. Now, I say Yes I am, thanks for the compliment. You see our church hasnt been reaching people for the Lord and I am trying to help change that. Not for me, but for HIM. So yes I am working to change our church.
I've studied the concepts of restoration much over the past few years and it seems to me that the concepts are great, but the problem comes when we all of a sudden think we've arrived. As people, we wont ever arrive until He arrives.
As far as who are the major CA's in Church of Christ: the obvious ones are people like Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, Rich Atchley, Mike Cope. At least thats who I'd say, and I think they'd probably be ok with the label as I am.
Kevin,
What is your concept of the Baptist Church? Are the Church of Christ and the Baptist Church the same? Would members of those churches agree?
Kevin,
There is only ONE church! it is universal, world wide, local, and personal. God HAS decided what that church is, who He will add to it, and what one must do to maintain the bond of unity. His decisions come to us through his word. Study it, learn it, apply it, You will find that it will teach you how to behave in the church of Christ.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.[/quote]
Marc,
I know you are not that obtuse. Just because people compose a church does not mean they made it. God made this world, yet we inhabit it. God made the church, yet man composes it. I am part of that church which Christ established. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. We worship according to the pattern set forth in the New Testament. You can see that pattern quite easily if you understand Hermeneutics properly...ie. examples, inferrence, command, and the such. As for your list of "unscriptural" elements, think about that again. There is scriptural authority to be found for each of those items. Especially a building of worship.(1st Century Christians met in peoples homes) Anyway, you are only trying to deflect attention away from the main thrust of the topic. Change Agents are those who create man-made religions because they want to CHANGE the New Testament pattern.
If I could find a baptist willing to follow the scriptures I would accept him too. Of course one willing to submit to the scriptures could no longer remain a baptist. That makes sense, and I could agree with Mr. Campbell.
That quote does not nearly affect me however as much as the many times Jesus, and His Apostles tell us to be seperate. To keep the doctrine of Christ pure, and to provide unity in the TRUTH.
I can not bury my head in the sand when looking at the error in the Denominational World. I can't ignore it. Jesus could not be happy with a disciple who allowed error to prosper. I have found a group of people who look to His Word. They seek to let it guide their lives and worship. The distinguishing characteristic is that they have been successfull in establishing New Testament Christianity. Of worshiping according to the will of God. We are not willing to make changes based upon what we want, what we desire, what we find appropriate. We follow the Lord. We worship in Spirit and in Truth. And we do not and can not have fellowship with those who are willing to try to change the truth of God's Word.
Christians have always been a sect.
We must only decide were the lines will be drawn.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with the World.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with Darkness.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who deny Christ.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may earn your way to heaven, whose worship is "works" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may do nothing to enter heaven, whose worship is "faith only" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who wish to change the church of Christ, individual, local, or universal.
Just showing that the lines must be drawn...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Christians have always been a sect.
We must only decide were the lines will be drawn.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with the World.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with Darkness.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who deny Christ.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may earn your way to heaven, whose worship is "works" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may do nothing to enter heaven, whose worship is "faith only" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who wish to change the church of Christ, individual, local, or universal. [/quote]
Lee here is an excerpt from a sermon I once gave called Seeing Jesus.
The Bibles we hold today contain our record of the inspired Word of God. Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, the Word of God is reflected in this record. This record is the closest we have to a photograph of Jesus.
If you look you see Jesus over and over throughout the Bible.
Jesus is the ark. Those who live in him, like those in the ark, are saved from death.
We see Jesus in Abraham. When Lot was captured and taken away Abraham conquered his captors and freed Lot. Jesus has conquered sin and death and freed us.
We can look at Lot and see Jesus. Just as Lot was the only righteous man in Sodom and held out against the temptations there, Jesus was the only sinless man in the world and held out against temptations.
We see Jesus in Isaac. Isaac was a son offered as a sacrifice. Jesus was the son offered and accepted as a sacrifice.
We see the grace Jesus offers us in God's treatment of Israel. Israel would stumble and fall away from God, he would restore them after they repented and returned to him. The grace offered through Jesus allows us to return to the Father when we stumble.
We see Jesus in Daniel. He sentenced to death because he followed Heavenly rule instead earthly power. He was intombed with lions and when the chamber was opened he was alive. Jesus was sentenced to death because he is heavenly power and the people thought he was usurping earthly rulers. His chamber like Daniel's was opened but there was no dead man inside.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kinda like the son of the owner of a big corporation being made to work through the ranks to "earn" the right to run the company. He is the heir, the company's his in a way now, and definitely will be when the time for inheritance comes. But, to fall in the the father's plans, to demonstrate his willingness and to be in empathy with all the employees, he works his way up from the mail room to the board room.[/quote]
I don't think so, Janine. Don't think He had to work His way anywhere. He already was/is King, Lord, God, Savior, Master, etc, etc. The fact that He became man and was limited by His manhood, did not negate that He was totally God. He bacame man so that He could die.
He didn't work His way up through His sufferings - He was further perfected through His perfect obedience unto death. Remember Hebrews 5:7 which precedes Thor's Hebrew reference. Verse 7 sets up verses 8, 9 and 10, in fact. In the limited condition of man, through "reverent submission" unto God, Jesus grew in knowledge, obedience, grace. Note, it is through His sufferings.
This is a message for us. We don't work our way to a better place because of our works, our better place comes from a deeper, more reverent submission unto God that brings about greater obedience and the understanding of that obedience. It also reveals to us our desperate dependence upon God. Jesus had that dependence. And what did that obedience bring to Christ? The joy and peace of God.
That's really why we're called to that obedience - so that we will know the joy Christ has in the Father and in experiencing that, the desire to join God in the advancement of His Kingdom, to the glory of the Father.
I'm going to jump in on Thor's side (althought he doesn't seem to need any help.) At least I think this is Thor's side.
When somebody says that baptism is not necessary for salvation but it is necessary for obedience, that's the same as saying it's not necessary at all.
The purpose of Christianity is to be saved (be in a right relationship with God.) If that relationship can exist absent baptism, then baptism isn't necessary. It doesn't change a thing to say that we have to obey, because if we can be in that relationship without obeying, then clearly obedience isn't essential to the relationship. The relationship exists without it. So to say that baptism isn't necessary for salvation but is necessary for obedience is just a lot of circular talk. It's either necessary for salvation or it isn't necessary at all.
Does anybody remember when Pres. Clinton was leaving office and there was a lot of talk about who would and wouldn't get pardons for their misdeeds? I don't remember who it was, but there was speculation as to whether some people would accept a pardon or not. You might ask "Why not accept it?" The answer is that it would be seen as an admission of guilt.
That's the way I see confession, repentance, baptism. The pardon is available, but you have to admit that you are guilty and in need of it. That makes the figurative language about us sharing Christ's death and burial more meaningful. By being baptized, we are admitting that we deserve to be put to death. And if I don't deserve to die, why do I need to be saved? It seems to me that by saying I don't have to be baptized, I'm saying I didn't really do anything wrong.
Finally, how can it be a "work" to say that I am a sinner deserving of death? The very act that some call a "work" in itself is a statement that I don't deserve a relationship with God.
Is that crazy?
:amen:
Jesus died that we might be made righteous.
A brother was willing to give his brother a kidney. He knew that he might die during the surgery and unfortunatly he did. He gave his life that his brother might live. But you know what? His brother still had to go through the operation to transplant that kidney. With out the operation his brothers sacrifice was good for nothing.
Jesus gave his blood to free us of our sin. With out the operation of Baptism we can not use that Blood to wash our sin away. Acts 22:16
Janine - Gotcha. :D
Steve
This discussion is clearly going nowhere. I'm out.
BOG
Sounds like there might be some frustration and sorry if I've added to that. I think I hear what you're saying.
But, again, I don't believe the debate should be so much about baptism, per se, but about God's whether God would require that a person do a series of things before being considered saved.
I think all of us would agree that God commanded that we be baptized. Don't think anyone would disagree. However, the purpose of baptism in the plan of salvation has been a lightening rod for discussion. I wonder why not confession, why not repentance?
You see, I think some look at responses to being saved or examples of what saved people do and create a theology that those things therefore must be done before salvation is assured. The bible says that unless we confess Christ as Savior - He won't confess us before the Father. That is very, very true. I look at that as a barometer, if you will, concerning the condition of my heart. And I don't think Christ is talking about a one time event of confession - but a way of life.
I can't imagine anyone coming to Christ in faith and not turning from sin and toward Christ, can you? Is that a requirement or a reflection of a changed heart?
I don't have time to finish now. Perhaps I could ask that you consider this until I return.
Thanks.
Steve
BOG
Would you mind telling me your take on Exodus 6:6-8? God already DECLARED Israel His people. Don't you think we have to look at chapter 19 and get a sense of what God was doing?
And you know, while you say you've done a study on His sovereignty (and I take your word) how do you respond to Ex. 6:6-8? That is a sovereign God's declaration while they were still in captivity. (Kind of like us still caught in the confines and prison of sin).
And lastly Bog, your implication that I or anyone differing from you seek God on our terms and not His, is just plain silly and self-righteous - and, it seems to me, a hackneyed argument by many who espouse a works or legalistic theology. How often I have heard people saying that church or that denomination holds to a manmade religion. Shame on any of us casting stones.
I would have to believe that most everyone on here is very sincere in their beliefs and Scriptural perspectives. Some of us could be sincerely wrong. That is why we should be exhorting and encouraging each other to approach God in reverential submission, seeking His Truth as we continue to study His Word. Don't you agree?
Steve
Thor, Segell, BOG, Kanham, Jarshqua, et al. Here's a couple passages that just sorta popped into my head. I don't know that anyone's posted them yet. They may have some bearing on the discussion at hand. I only have a KJV here so I'll use it. I also realise that these are quoted out of their immediate context as well, but I'll post em' anyway.
"According as he hath chosen us in him before the founadtion of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." (Ephesians 1:4-5 KJV Emphasis added)
"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Ephesians 1:11 KJV Emphasis added)
More later.
Pax vobiscum.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]i find it kinda amazing that baptism and faith are put at such odds with each when they are closer together than any others on the "5 finger" process...
with faith you simply choose to believe...
with baptism you simply choose to submit...[/quote]
Josh, you're right; faith, repentance, confession and immersion CANNOT be separated. They are interconnected, as K. C. Moser very nicely pointed out in his 1932 book The Way of Salvation.
Moser was taught however, and so was I as a kid in the 70's, that the "five steps" were abrbitrary commandments with NO real connection other than they were the five things we had to do as commanded by God. Moser said that in his day, many legallistic preachers would say that they didn't know WHY God commanded baptism (He could've commanded anything to save us), only that He DID, and our job was not to question, but just to obey. I've heard the same thing myself, when I was a kid, and as late as five years ago!
From the 1930's to the 1950's and until his death in the 70's Moser fought hard against the prevailing "gospel of baptism," which reigned supreme from the 1920's through the 1970's. He contended that the gospel was a man, not a plan. So I guess he was actually one of the first change agents (at least of the 20th century).
Also, the "five finger exercise" began with Walter Scott (1796-1860) as a quick memory tool used in presenting the gospel to uneducated people on the frontier. His original version was different than ours and had six points, which he shortened to just five; 1. faith; 2. repentance; 3. baptism; 4. gifts of the Holy Spirit; 5. eternal life. At what point it got changed to the five points we have today I don't know. Scott did later worry that the message of the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and faith in Him, had unintentionally been reduced to a simple five finger exercise.
Pax vobiscum.
charlie:
i first heard it about a decade ago. the term was used by some folks i knew with memphis school of preaching/freed-hardeman backgrounds. at that time, the term was applied by 'conservatives' to 'liberals'. i trust few who toss it around, but then i trust left-wingers less. i find them more rigid than right-wingers. they just deny that, though. :)
dj
Kevin
Thanks for the reply. By the way, I read my post to you and frankly, did not like the tone of it. I peppered you with questions and I hope you will forgive me if I came off as attacking you. That was not my intention. And I ask your forgiveness for any offense.
With that said, I hope that you will assume as a given that I have respect for you and the sincerity of your opinion and views - even though, as I've said before - that I think some of your views to be in error and a misunderstanding of God's grace.
Kevin, we will have many areas to discuss. I look forward to our mutually respectful exchanges.
Allow me to clarify a couple of things:
1. I see the church of Christ as a church of all who place their faith and confidence in Jesus Christ by God's grace. I do not see it as a denomination - I belong to it. But I do see the CoC born out of the RM as a denomination.
2. I challenge the intellectual honesty of your comment that your concept of CoC comes from the bible and not of man. I'm sure that you can and will point to Scripture to defend your position, but, Kevin, you were taught that perspective (discipled, if you will) from someone or some persons with that perspective on God's Word. Just as I have been influenced by numerous mentors in my Christian life. I, too, claim that my views are biblical and supported by Scripture. Yet, we differ. Let's allow God to work His wisdom into our hearts.
3. As to doctrine, well, on the essentials we are called to unity. On non-essentials we are surely free to debate. You and I do differ on an essential, that is, the grace of God. I hope that we can explore these issues with open hearts and minds and enjoy God at work as He makes clear His Truth.
4. As to non-essential issues, I find how we view worship(where, when and how the Lord's Supper is celebrated; instrumental v. non-instrumental singing; five acts of worship) really as areas we may find disagreement, but don't go to the essential Truths of God's plan of salvation. As a result, I rarely participate in those kinds of discussion, only because I'm not as interested as I am in exploring the essentials of our faith.
Anyway, take care. Will talk later.
Steve
:hug: Who are some of the ministers or leaders that we or others consider to be change agents?
I personally do not like this label because it implies that leaders are just trying to stir up trouble instead of changing a particular belief due to deep study and prayer.
But I am curious as to who some believe would be considered a change agent as based on the definitions in this thread.
Susie
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am also assured, then, of your commitment to keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace rather than the bond of doctrinal correctness. [/quote]
I find it telling that your version of gospel unity is 'keep the peace at all costs, allow error to continue, don't compare doctrine to the Word of God, maintain fellowship with the worlds religions and with Christ, and by all means never say that someone is incorrect doctrinally.'
When Paul speaks of keeping gospel unity he says
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Eph 4:3-6 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.[/quote]
If there is only one body those not in that body are on the outside of unity, there is one spirit those without that one spirit are on the outside of unity, there is one hope of our calling those outside that hope are outside unity, there is one Lord those who are outside the Lord are outside unity, there is one faith those outside that one faith are outside unity, there is one baptism those outside baptism are outside unity, there is one God those outside of Him are outside of unity.
"But every one is wont to condemn others in that in which he is more intelligent than they; while, on the other hand, he is condemned for his Pharisaism or his immodesty and rash judgment of others, by those that excel in the things in which he is deficient. I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"
--Alexander Campbell
Mark 9:38-41
38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us.
NIV
--The Bible
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Titus 1:10-16 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.16 They profess that they know od; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
[/quote]
So who are you comparing this text to? Campbell, Stone, Lipscomb, or posters on GCM that you dont agree with? or yourself?
Below is a link to an article by Cecil Hooks on Campbell and sects.
http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap35.html (http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap35.html)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I find it odd that it was DEMANDED of Christ that He be obedient, NOT after He purchased our salvation, BUT in order to purchase our salvation. Why argue with an example like that? Christ could not purchase our salvation without His obedience. And we can not accept it without ours.[/quote]
Thor - You find that odd? Christ HAD TO DIE!! He had to be obedient - even unto death! Christ crucified! That's what paid for my sin and yours, if we believe. It points out to me that our obedience is a must!! Not for salvation purposes, but because we are God's children, just as Christ is His Son!! We are obligated to obey because of who we are and what God has given us. Oh, what a privilege to honor God by obeying Him. Our obedience, as is Christ's, is because of who we now are!! Thor, you have the cart way before the horse.
Your view of obedience meriting salvation places the emphasis on you and DIMINISHES Christ's perfect obedience. It places your obedience next to His. Your theology purports that God is more concerned with our obedience than in His perfect plan. God knows that ANY attempt at an obedience to please Him apart from Christ is meaningless. God's perfect Law was lived and obeyed by Christ. He and He alone was spotless. God's requirement, God's Holiness is only found in the Lamb. And only by trusting in all who Jesus Christ is, can we enter into the presence of our Holy God. It is Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us through faith - not by any doing on our part. It is Christ the Father sees when He looks at His children. That is why He rejoices over us with singing.
Thor, when you think of it, the only thing we can to is trust God to keep His word. Do you think that anything you do will obligate Him? You know what Scripture says about that. His response to us is out of His love for us and - perhaps more importantly, His love for His Son.
Steve
Janine
Well, sorry that I came across as being set off. Really wasn't. I guess I have a passion for this subject and hope you can mark that off to being just that.
I just don't see our Lord in that same light. I think the text in Hebrews might be misread if we think that Christ needed to be made more perfect. I think the writer was talking about Jesus' death when he wrote that Jesus, "once made perfect, he became source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him".
I also think that it speaks volumes about our obligation and privilege - as Christians - to be in an obedient relationship to Jesus Christ, just as He is with the Father.
Have nothing at all against the word works, Janine. We're all called to perform good works (Eph. 2:10). Just have problems when some equate those works with our righteousness and as a condition of salvation. That, in my opinion, negates and makes a mockery of God's grace.
Marc's posting from Romans puts it in much better perspective and I see that we're in agreement there.
Take care.
Steve
Segell - I didn't think you were upset. It's just an expression. Like, "Who rattled your chain?" :p
Thor,
It is so clear that we are not connecting. It is also clear that you don't understand what I have said over and over and over again about faith. You act as if Noah or the Israelites would simply say don't need to do that. You don't understand faith. You either have faith or you don't.
When have I ever said you don't need to be baptized? I have said this discussion is not about baptism or obedience.
I only contradict Hebrews in your mind. In fact I am just repeating what the writer plainly says and you have pointed out, By faith Noah built the ark to the saving of his house. The statement says BY FAITH. Because he trusted God, because he believed what God had promised, he did what was said. So the statement I was baptized as a response of faith would be appropriate wouldn't it? Faith is trusting in God for what he promised, gives, not in what my obedience brings.
The only person who contradicts is you when you say faith isn't enough and then you define faith as "what is acted upon.
Why does it have to go anywhere?
When everyone already knows everything there's nothing more to find out. :bangingheadagainstwall:
Josh
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]... i do enjoy our discourses, even if we do disagree; agape friend
[/quote]
Back at you, my friend.
Steve
Boringoldguy,
I agree, we are not connecting.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]
4. Therefore, to say that we can be saved before or without baptism, but that baptism is somehow necessary, is meaningless. It's empty talk. [/quote]
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] 1. The person who dies on the way to the baptistry -
I've always thought this an absurd hypothetical and I've never heard anybody maintain that such a person was lost. [/quote]
Lets expand. Why did God reject the sacrifices of the Jews in the OT? Was it because they were the wrong ones? Is that really true? If that is true then why could Hezekiah change the day and time to observe the Passover? If that is true why could David not set up the tabernacle? Why could he keep the ark in a tent that was not prescribed by God? And the list could go on. Because that was not the reason God rejected their sacrifices. He rejected them because they were not done in faith.
In Malachi God rejects the offerings of the Jews. They make the table of God contemptible because they bring crippled and diseased animals. They bring their bad and keep their best because they do not have faith in God. As James so powerfully states, true, living faith brings response, but it is still faith and faith is perfectly defined.
The mindset from my upbringing in the CoC is one that says if they would have only brought the right gifts then everything would have been OK. For whatever reason there is an inability to see that if they had faith they would have brought the right offering.
Why do we take the LS? Why do we worship on Sunday? Do you do these things because they are the right forms done on the right day the right number of times? Do you think that if I could only get my neighbor down the street to take the LS every Sunday or baptize in the exact right way then we would be getting somewhere?
I worship each Sunday because of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ came back to life on the first day, the eighth day. I take the LS every Sunday because it reminds me of who does it all. It reminds me that it is Jesus Christ who saves. I worship, I take the LS, I live a life to glorify God because of what He did. I do these things because of faith.
The OT makes all of this very clear to me. "6 With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
Come on, Boring. I'm not saying that. I applaud you for it. But it's your implication that I took to task.
Finally, when discussing something as important as salvation, I think it is important to find truth in light of all of Scripture. That is, what God says about our own sin (I think we disagree here); about His sovereignty (not sure what your view is on that); God's grace (again we disagree); purpose of our obedience (again some disagreement).
So yes, I do suggest those studies and also much prayer. (Funny, you didn't mention that part).
(By the way, do you really think God - sovereign as He is - didn't mean what He said in Chapter 6? That His declaration and His decision and, finally His promise to Abraham was contingent upon the warning in Chapter 19? That He did everthing to show His power and might in delivering Israel just to make things dependent on Israel? By the way, who did God consult before choosing Israel? Did He ask for their permission to make them His?) Come on, Boring, let's take a deeper look here.
Steve
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The parting of the Red Sea where the people were provided salvation BY WATER[/quote]
Thor,
The passover lamb, the perfect lamb, was sacrificed and the children of Israel were delivered from death before the water. The blood wasn't in the water.
Ex.12:23
When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.
Let me try to explain why I have scuh a hard time with your treatment of James and faith. I will use an example that hopefully will help. My grandmother is a widow, she has no husband but from your logic it seems I should explain to her that she has a husband, just a dead husband. I think people would struggle with telling her she is still married. So I don't believe that James opint was to make a new catagory of faith.
What "work
Just another pejorative term used to stick folks you disagree with into a category where you can dismiss them as contemptible. An ancient method of debate where you hope to win by showing disrespect for those you disagree with on some topic.
This is from a paper I wrote in a Public Relations course:
A change agent is defined as "any individual seeking to reconfigure an organization's roles, responsibilities, structures, outputs, processes, systems, technology, or other resources" (Buchanan & Badham, 1999, p. 609). Change agents are described in many different ways. Kahn (1995) describes change agents as "temporary parental figures." During times of major change, organization members often need change agents to help establish a sense of security and a sense of freedom and exploration. Like parents, change agents must allow others to become more independent and less dependent on them. Change agents are also described according to their role orientation. Markus and Benjamin (1996) identify different models of change agentry: traditional, facilitator, and advocate. For our discussion, we will focus on the facilitator and advocate models. The facilitator model portrays a change agent as someone who expects change to occur because he helps facilitate the group and its processes to bring change among itself. Bennis (1969) explains this model as the "truth, trust, love and collaboration" approach to change (as cited in Buchanan & Badham, 1999). However, the advocate sees himself/herself in a different capacity. Markus and Benjamin (1996) say the advocate model is different because he/she seeks change by influencing the group and its members in a specific direction. This direction is the way the change agent himself/herself thinks the organization should go. He/she expects change to occur when the organization adopts and internalizes his/her perspective. Buchanan & Badham (1999) acknowledge that the advocate often uses power, politics, and interpersonal influence when applying "power-assisted steering." Change agents are also portrayed according to their leadership style. Church, Waclawski, and Burke (1996) identify two leadership styles of change agents: transformational and transactional. Transformational leaders are focused on fundamental change. Transformational leaders influence change by providing new visions for the organization and inspiring members to become followers and followers to become leaders of those ideals and goals. Transactional leadership, in contrast, focuses on incremental change. Transactional leaders influence change by improving teamwork, problem-solving skills, and role clarification. In reality, most change agents serve in all of the above capacities.
Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) offer several suggestions for how public relations can influence change within an organization. The primary way for change agents to create change is the change message itself. The change message should include discrepancy - "where the organization is currently, where it wants to be, and why that end-state is appropriate" (p. 685). The change message should also include the organization's abilities to make the suggested changes (efficacy). The first step in addressing discrepancy and efficacy is using internal persuasion tactics. In person oral persuasive communication is the best because it offers a personal focus and immediate feedback. Change agents can also provide persuasive messages in written form through the use of annual reports, newsletters, memos, etc. However, written communication is often impersonal and offers no direct feedback opportunities. The second step is managing positive external persuasive information. A change agent can use a consulting firm to add credibility and believability to his/her message. A change agent can try to influence media. Press releases to the news organizations offer a simple solution. Also a change agent can influence organizational members by providing "change-relevant" information from selected magazine articles, books, or film clips. The third step is using active participation and learning techniques. The focus of active participation is self-discovery. Examples of active participation techniques include strategic planning, answering customer complaints, vicarious learning, and enactive mastery. These public relations strategies will help induce organizational change.
An aspect of social change involves helping the minority influence the majority. Organizations are steeped in social norms, attitudes, traditions, and culture. Inducing change often involves overcoming a massive (often majority-driven) force (Lindblom, 1997). As daunting as the challenge seems, "organizations are continually confronted with the need to implement changes in strategy, structure, process, and culture" (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993, p. 681).
This is how the term "change agent" is used in the business world. The church didn't make up the term.
What it boils down to is that there are a few people who think the church is fine (right, restored, etc.) and it doesn't need to change. So anyone who tries to say the church isn't right about something gets labeled a "change agent."
If I'm going to get labeled, call me a "change agent." I think Jesus was a "change agent." :clap:
Kevin
For discussion purposes I assume that your definition of CofC are those spawned out of the RM of the early 19th century.
Then I have a couple of questions:
Is a change agent the equivalent of a false teacher, in your view?
At what point did you come to the conclusion that the CofC was error free?
At what point did you come to believe that those outside of the CoC are not NT churches?
At what point did you come to believe that Christ died for only those that view Scripture as you see it?
Or would I be more correct to assume that your definition of CoC would be Christ's body composed of ALL believers who place their trust in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, who by God's grace through faith have come into right fellowship with God through Jesus Christ our Lord?
Which definition - or another perhaps - do you ascribe to when you reference the Church of Christ?
You see I'm a member of Christ's body, His Church, my friend and I am curious.
Blessings,
Steve
ps - Was Paul a change agent when he corrected Peter and other Christian Jews? Did Peter ever become a "non-member" of Christ's Church because, for a time, he was in error?
Marc,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I ask you to either show where I said what you claim I said (not implied-in-your-opinion, but said) or please go back and delete the untrue things you printed in this post. [/quote]
If you look at the post I thought I made it quite clear what you said (notice the quote box) and what I believe that quote logically followed meant (notice the single quotes). If there was any confusion I apologize.
However your idea that one can mean anything except exclusion is unfounded. It seems that your theology is interrupting logic. ONE is and always be exclusionary. If there is ONE God there are NO others. If there is ONE Faith there are NO others. If there is ONE baptism there are NO others. Paul was telling the Christians to be united under the ONE Church, the ONLY ONE which followed the ONE baptism, the ONE Christ, the ONE God, the ONE FAITH. You can't have one and a half, two, or three; ONE means ONE to the exclusion of all others.
I believe that Never's question was a valid one and that your answer shows what you would have the text say, instead of a serious look to it.
If you are looking for answers to your list of "I'm sure's" simply purchase a copy of Thomas Warren's book on when is an example binding. Or Biblical Authority by Roy Deaver. Volumes have been written on the subject, I do not have the space nor time to present that information appropriately.
Campbell and Stone worked under the knowledge that there was no religious group correctly practicing New Testament religion. They sought a way to restore the principle of Biblical authority under Thomas' motto "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent were the Bible is silent.
Don't confuse "The Church" with "The institution."
The church is all of those who are saved and those who Jesus himself has added (Acts 2:47).
The church is the people, not an institution.
Ellisdam and Rocketman, thanks for the great MH and CB references. Thor, Christ said "whoever is not against us is for us." Last time I checked the Baptists and Methodists weren't against us. Also, your quote from Titus does not apply to sincere, but misguided (I'm accepting that they're misguided for the sake of argument) Christians; it applys to certain Judaising Christians; I've never heard of a Baptist spreading "Jewish fables."
When do you draw the line of fellowship? And who decides where the line is? Each "line-drawer's" line is different. Karl Ketcherside once wrote: "All error is equally wrong, but not all error is equally important." We in the coC have majored in minors. We've attempted to make everything in the NT a part of the gospel. Robert Richardson warned of the dangers of mistaking the Bible for the Gospel. The Bible CONTAINS the gospel, but the Bible is NOT ITSELF the gospel.
The New Testament itself tells us what consitutes serious error; any teaching which alters or tampers with the fundamental message of the gospel. The gnostics of II John, who denied that Christ had a physical incarnation are one example. The Judaisers of Titus and Galatians, who said you were saved by Jesus AND the Law and that you had to become a Jew first, are another. Or the people Jude condemns.
Did Aquilla and Priscilla refuse to fellowship Apollos because he misunderstood baptism? Did Paul say that the Corinthians with all their problems were not scriptural Christians?
More later. Pax vobiscum.
thanks for that response leeF!
far more than i could have hoped for, i appreciate you taking your time on those explanations and for getting back to me so quickly...
i certainly appreciate where you're coming from much better now...
thanks!
:D josh
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kinda like the son of the owner of a big corporation being made to work through the ranks to "earn" the right to run the company. He is the heir, the company's his in a way now, and definitely will be when the time for inheritance comes. But, to fall in the the father's plans, to demonstrate his willingness and to be in empathy with all the employees, he works his way up from the mail room to the board room.[/quote]
and kinda like joshua and the battle of jericho...
God says "see, i have given you Jericho" (already theirs...)
"now here's what i want you to do to get it... march... seven times... walls tumble... etc..." (paraphrase mine)
they already are given jericho
they then have to march around it 13 times to get it!
if they refuse to march, will the walls fall? if it doesn't matter if they blow the trumpets can't they just talk about how good they feel about the trumpets' sound and never actually pick em up? hmm...
think that'll fly with a just God?
Thor
I can only respond by saying that I respectfully disagree with your views on salvation and grace.
You suggest that baptism saves. That when Jesus is preached - one is led to baptism for the purpose of salvation. I don't believe Scripture reveals that at all. I've stated why and supported those statements with Scripture.
When Jesus is preached, isn't salvation the issue? You equate baptism with salvation and I believe Scripture reveals baptism to be a reflection of salvation or a response to being saved.
The gospel is about Christ and Christ crucified and that anyone who believes, truly believes will be saved.
Please read carefully the Scripture Marc posted: Romans 5:12-21. Dwell in that for awhile.
You state that you are grace-centered and I truly believe you believe that. Thor, the problem is that everything that God REQUIRES for salvation is found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. EVERYTHING (emphasis, not shouting). To believe that God would require anything in addition to accepting that Truth - makes God's love conditional and therefore not grace at all.
Finally, your analogy about Christ's obedience before salvation was purchased meaning that we have to do something before our salvation is merited is purely wrong. It's a misapplication of Hebrews 5. The analogy is incorrect and misleading and dangerous. I can't state it more strongly than that. You may deny that you are asking for meritorious obedience or works, but that's exactly what you say God is seeking in order for one to be saved.
You miss, I believe, the wonderful, deep meaning of Jesus' obedience. And I think you miss the wonderful, deep meaning and purpose of our obedience as Christians.
You point to examples of obedience in Scripture and say things like - "See? Joshua obeyed exactly or the walls wouldn't come down". (I'm not saying that you said that exactly, but you have pointed to examples of obedience and equated that to meaning that obedience is a requirement in order to be saved.) By the way, obedience is a requirement of all Christians because of the privilege of being saved and called children of God and because we are commanded to obey. And we are able to because we love God. You have obedience before loving God.
Thor, I will not bite on the free car analogy. We discussed that before and it is absolutely without foundation.
Well, we've hashed this around for quite a while. Let's allow God to do His work now as we seek His wisdom and Truth.
Remember Hebrews 5:7 and how Jesus beseeched God with cries and tears in reverent submission? That's where we need to be, Thor. That's where we need to be.
Blessings.
Steve
Thor,
You can change the definition of faith to works if you like, I will always disagree. Actions don't make something faith.
What is faith? The word is trusting. How is faith shown from front to back? If Noah required action then he would of had to build the ark first, and then God would have called him faithful. The Bible does not say that. It is because of Noah's faith that God tells him to build the ark. It is not the other way around. I have already clearly said that Jericho was given to the Israelites and so they acted in faith. That is the difference between faith and works. If Noah had built the ark to gain something then it would have been a work. But the Bible never shows that. God already called Noah righteous and so Noah responded in faith to the commands given. That is the difference between faith and works.
What you seem to miss is even in the verses you quote "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized
Boringoldguy,
If I come off the wrong way let me know. I really do want to know what you think and believe this can help me grow.
Was Noah a righteous man before or after he built the ark?
Was Naaman a righteous man before or after he was dipped for his leprosy?
Were the children of Israel children of Israel before or after they walked around the walls?
Because we are not talking about people who have not been baptized, who have not "built
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]By the way, do you think you have the power to transform your heart?[/quote]i think that sensory input can change my heart...
when a television expose covers the suffering of children in third world countries, my heart can soften as a result
when too many movies or sitcoms or radio stations curse and swear up a storm, my heart can be desensitized as a result
perhaps your question is more about my conversion?
when i understood the impact of sin, the weight of sin and how Christ bore all sins, though i ought to have died i was filled with sorrow and with guilt... it was consuming... and it transformed my heart to act... i believed in Christ and felt so dirty, so unbearable even in my own sight... then i repented in my heart... i prayed to God that i was so sorry and felt such unexpressible pain in the knowledge that there was nothing i could do to make up for my sins... i openly wept for a period of about two weeks over and over... during which time i didn't feel good enough to even be around Christians, and wept during most every song and sermon i heard... i studied God's word... in it i found hope... and when i went forward to be baptized one wednesday, the utter purity of joy when i was plunged under water then rose as a brand new creation was... inexplicable... i could breathe so deeply, the weight was gone, my soul just felt so amazingly clean for the first time i ever knew it as such... it was joy and love and singing and i simply radiated, or rather Christ in me...
the facts of my depravity and Christ's sacrifice softened my heart, and more importantly opened my eyes... and that's a transformation...
facts and experiences can transform what's in someone's heart...
i've worked closely with abused children, young men... and the things they've been through have transformed their hearts to the stone of mistrust and cynicism...
but when i got em on a horse, the sudden, amazing change in their lives was amazing... to loose control of the ground and be forced to rely on another creature for support... wow... the companionship really changed their hearts... from stone cold to asking permission to scoop horse poop from the stalls... excited and actually looking forward to life... and to tuesday and thursday afternoon horse rides on the ranch
love transforms people's hearts...
pain does so...
experiences do so...
as far as me changing my heart myself... i can change beliefs... the vast differences in beliefs today among Christians are testament that the HS doesn't control our beliefs...
i can change my patience towards a situation by squealching my anger... or increasing it...
i can change my habits... i can change how kind i am to my co-workers... i can transform my lifestyle from materialistic to ascetic...
so, i don't know if i've answered your question or not...
maybe it depends on how you define heart... ?
:inlove: josh
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]First of all, an "unbaptized believer" who has no plans to be baptized is not the same thing as a person in the process of being baptized who dies.
I think it is monumentally irresponsible for someone who believes that God has commanded baptism to suggest that God won't stick to what He said. I don't think I'd want that preacher around myself. If, on the other hand, he really doesn't believe that God has commanded baptism, why does he want to preach in a Church of Christ anyway?[/quote]
BOG, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I'll try to clarify. This'll be wordy, as usual, for which I apologize. I wasn't referring to someone who knew baptism was commanded of God and wilfully disobeyed, and neither was Joe when he was grilled by our elders. Joe's point, on which I support him 150% is that God judges someone's eternal destiny, not Joe, or you, or me, or anyone else.
Joe said in that meeting with the elders that he would go into any church in Florence and preach baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit as a condition of salvation. I sit in his sermons every Sunday and not a Sunday goes by that he doesn't offer an invitation in which he urges those in need of salvation to trust in Christ and "put Him on in baptism, being buried with Him and raised to walk in newness of life," as he puts it (we had several baptisms last year. And two years ago eight teens from North Wood United Methodist Church were immersed by their pastor, Bro. Mark Parrish, in our baptistry. Two weeks ago, two more of their members, one an elderly man, were baptized in our baptistry. How many coC's can claim that?) And Joe even had the honor of baptizing my then 83 year-old Episcopalian grandmother and her elderly Methodist friend Virginia!
In fact, Joe says he now believes in baptism more strongly than ever. However, he WON'T tell people who have not been immersed that they're going to hell-to which I say, "Amen." Someone from the coC said this to my dad's mom, who was Methodist, and she NEVER set foot inside a coC again!
But this refusal to condemn sincere believers who do not understand immersion as we do is why the elders fired Joe-this and because he DARED to question many of the "sacred cows" of the traditional coC-not abandon, mind you, just questioned and re-examined them. And that he questioned whether the coC was the ONLY true church. (These were the reasons they gave us, anyway. The real reason was that a small group of legalists who did not like Joe's emphasis on grace was attempting to take over the congregation and wanted him out of the picture. The elders promised the church that they were dedicated to resolving their differences with Joe and keeping him on as preacher, but secretly had no plans of doing so. Unbeknownst to Joe, or us, they had already mailed letters to every member of the church that Saturday morning stating that due to their inability to reconcile with Joe his services were no longer neeed- this was BEFORE they even met with him to TRY and reconcile! If ever a man of God was wrongfully persecuted, Joe was by those elders. Bobby V. was there and can verify what I'm saying.) With regard to his stand on baptism, they accused him of "making the sale but refusing to close the deal."
But in his refusal to judge sincere unimmersed belivers Joe stands allied with such great evangelists of our faith as Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, Robert Richardson, T. B. Larimore, Rubel Shelly, Lynn Anderson, Cecil Hook, etc.
That's my point. That only God is in a position to judge someone's eternal destiny. Pax vobiscum.
Segell,
You ask what Israel had to do before they became God's chosen people.
Look in Exodus 19.
God gave them a choice - if they would obey his voice and keep his covenant, then they would be his chosen people.
"And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered together and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord."
Only after they had chosen did God come to them. They had to do something. They had to choose. Today, we have to choose and God has told us how to express that choice.
Segell
If you have read verse 5 of Chapter 19 then you know that God said:
"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people . . . . "
There was a specific "if . . . then . . ." condition.
Yes, God had brought them up out of Egypt. He had called them to Him, just as Jesus calls all of us. But they still had to make the choice. If they had said "no, we don't like this deal", I believe God would have left them to fend for themselves in the desert.
By the way, I have already studied God's sovereignty and come to the conclusion that because God is sovereign, I'd better respond to Him on His terms, not mine.
Kanham,
I'm getting lost but I'll try to respond.
With regard to God's rejection of the Jews' sacrifices, my reading of the OT prophets is that, in general, it was because their lives were full of immorality and injustice. I actually taught a class in our church about the Minor Prophets once. I spent a year studying and then a year teaching (studying more while the teaching was going on.) Everybody except me was sick of it by the end. But what I learned from that experience was that God rejects the worship of people who ignore His laws for moral or ethical conduct. A lot of those people said they had faith. Some of them expected God to protect their countries from foreign enemies even though they were living unjustly. It didn't work out that way.
You say that in your upbringing, people didn't understand that the Israelites failed to bring the right offering because they didn't have faith. I wasn't inolved in your upbringing, so I can't comment, but I do agree that people who don't follow God's instructions don't have faith. That's why I sometimes wonder, deep in my heart, if there really is such a thing as a sincere believer who won't get baptized. If they won't do it, it must be because they don't believe. And I say that as a person who lived in that status for several years.
You ask why we worship on Sunday and why we take the Lord's Supper. I worship on Sunday and take the Lord's Supper because of Jesus' death. I do it the way I do because that's how God's word tells me to do it. How does that make me not have faith? How does that make me rely on my own works? If I thought I could get in heaven by myself, I'd sleep in on Sunday.
To be honest, I have never heard a Church of Christ preacher or Bible class teacher ever say that a person could be saved without faith. That's part of the reason this discussion always frustrates me. Nobody I know of has ever denied that faith is required, and nobody has ever said that getting dunked without believing had any effect, but I keep hearing that accusation.
So help me out - do you really believe the Church of Christ teaches that the water is magic? Because I never got that.
The dictionary won't help you find the usage of change agent by the branch of the cofC that finds the gc movement unsettling.
In its common usage it means people who come into a cofC and don't like the status quo and start yammering for changes like praise teams, clapping, hand-raising, discussion of baptism outside the standard answer. It is also used for people who believe in embracing Christians outside the Church of Christ SOF congregations, especially those who would dare to work on an outreach or benevolence with non-cofC. It is applied to those who believe that the focus of ministry should be Jesus instead of teaching the five steps to salvation.
In the mind of those opposed to change agents, these are people trying to push the cofC down the slippery slope of denominationalism and ecumenicalism and away from its distinct and exclusive heritage.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The dictionary won't help you find the usage of change agent by the branch of the cofC that finds the gc movement unsettling.[/quote]
Ark,
Of course you are right. I was trying to be glib and objective at the same time.
I didn't pull it off very well did I? :doh: :doh:
Thanks for giving the more direct and accurate answer.
Richard
Steve,
My concept of the Church of Christ comes from the Bible and not from men.
(1) Anyone who teaches false doctrine is a false teacher. I personally have never characterized someone as a "Change Agent," but if they teach false doctrine, then yes they are false teachers.
(2) I haven't. Since men sin, it will never happen, but we should strive to replicate the divine pattern as closely as possible.
(3) I can't remember. You see the Church of Christ as just another denomination; I see it as the Church we read about in the NT, the Church for which Jesus died.
(4) I don't believe that in matters of doctrine we can "see" scripture in different ways and still be pleasing to God. I think "scripture's view" can be determined positively (II Tim 3:16). The scriptures describe the distinctive nature of Christ's Church.
I believe the Church of Christ is the Church you read about in the NT. I don't believe it to be a man-made institution that was "spawned out of the RM of the early 19th century." The Church universal is comprised of those individuals that come to a faith in Christ, repent of their sins, confess their faith in Christ, and are baptized for the remission of their sins. Upon baptism, the Lord adds them to His Church.
Thor,
"Should I find a Pedobaptist more intelligent in the Christian Scriptures, more spiritually-minded and more devoted to the Lord than a Baptist, or one immersed on a profession of the ancient faith, I could not hesitate a moment in giving the preference of my heart to him that loveth most. Did I act otherwise, I would be a pure sectarian, a Pharisee among Christians. Still I will be asked, How do I know that any one loves my Master but by his obedience to his commandments? I answer, In no other way. But mark, I do not substitute obedience to one commandment, for universal or even for general obedience. And should I see a sectarian Baptist or a Pedobaptist more spiritually-minded, more generally conformed to the requisitions of the Messiah, than one who precisely acquiesces with me in the theory or practice of immersion as I teach, doubtless the former rather than the latter, would have my cordial approbation and love as a Christian. So I judge, and so I feel. It is the image of Christ the Christian looks for and loves; and this does not consist in being exact in a few items, but in general devotion to the whole truth as far as known."
--Alexander Campbell
For the full text,
click here (http://www.bible.acu.edu/stone-campbell/Etexts/lun16.html)
In HIM,
AE
Steve, thank you for what you said in your last post. I'm sure I'm not worthy, but thanks, nonetheless! Arkstfan, Kanham and Rocketman, thanks to you guys also!
Arkstfan, I think you're right. The church of Christ by and large doesn't understand the OT. This is true among "conservatives" and "liberals"; I know there are many people from my own church family (we've been disfellowshipped by most of the mainline coC's in Florence for worshipping with Methodists, Baptist and others) who don't understand the OT. They see it as mainly about the Law of Moses and since it is "pre-Jesus," assume that there is NO grace in the OT. Bobby's study, however, and the writings of Tom Olbricht, have thoroughly convinced me of the fallacy of this view. Now, when I read it, God's grace shines through every page of the OT. And I thoroughly believe that without a proper understanding of the OT you CANNOT understand the NT. Nor do we understand the nature of the Bible itself. As Dr. Robert Richardson warned us in 1847, the Bible CONTAINS the gospel, but the Bible itself is NOT the gospel.
You're also right to say that Stone and Campbell would be disfellowshipped; so would T. B. Larimore (for not drawing lines of fellowship and for preaching in Baptist, Episcopalian and Presbyterian churches); David Lipscomb and James A. Harding (for teaching premillennialism); F. D. Srygley (for calling "denominational" preachers his brothers); probably even N. B. Hardeman (for saying that his brethren in the coC were "Christians only, not the only Christians").
Thor, brother, how can you have read our posts and STILL not understand what we're saying? (Actually I know how you can do it because I used to do it, too.) NO ONE'S saying the Bible's not important; NO ONE'S saying that rules aren't important. What we're saying is that all rules have contexts. For too long, the coC has ignored the contexts of the rules. We've emphasized the rules and keeping the commandments to the exclusion of all else. But without Jesus, the rules are useless!
The coC reminds me of the folks Paul wrote about to Timothy in I Timothy 1:5-7, which says: "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: From which some having swerved have turned aside UNTO VAIN JANGLING; Desiring to be teachers of the law; UNDERSTANDING NEITHER WHAT THEY SAY, NOR WHEREOF THEY AFFIRM." (KJV emphasis added).
If anyone asked me what they must do to become a Christian, I'd tell them exactly what Peter did in Acts 2: 38. BUT, FIRST, I'd try to be sure that they had a FAITH in HIM, not in the "work" or act of baptism itself. Without the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Baptism is just an empty ritual, devoid of any meaning. Without a believing faith what good is baptism anyway? So I'd urge them, if they hadn't already, to be immersed. But I WILL NOT condemn unbatized Christians. I have NO RIGHT to do that! I have heard coC preachers as much as say that "denominational" Christians just don't want to follow God or that they refuse to correctly interpret the Bible-that they'd rather follow the traditions of men, otherwise they'd put away their heresy and join the "true" church. This in spite of what Jesus CLEARLY said: "Whoever is not against us is for us," and that we should NOT FORBID such people. (This seems to be ONE commandment of Jesus we're not too worried about obeying! Again a selective hermeneutic!) And Paul said in Romans 14: "Who are you to judge another's servant?" In the words of Dana Carvey playing George Bush (the elder), "Not gaaaaaaa do it! Wouldn't be prudent!"
Neither will I insist that immersed believers in Baptist or Methodist churches (we had two Methodist folks immersed in our baptistry by their pastor last Sunday, and just two years ago eight teens from that same Methodist church were immersed in our baptistry) be re-immersed or that they leave their churches and "join" ours; as I understand Acts 2, anyone who is immersed is made a member of Christ's church by God, whether the sign on the door says "Church of Christ" or not. The girl I'm tryin' to date is Baptist and I'm certain that she's been immersed. There is no reason for me to ask her to leave her congregation and I won't do that. I'd love her to be a part of my church family, but it hasta be HER choice.
Thor, we're not against the plain teaching of scripture regarding baptism. But we are against trying to argure, force, guilt-trip or condemn people into the water. K. C. Moser once wrote in the Gospel Advocate that any teaching, no matter how unorthodox, would be tolerated in the coC so long as it was seen to uphold baptism. Its the whole plan vs. man theory. I believe, with Paul, that legalism is a false gospel. No one was EVER saved by keeping commandments. God saved them via grace through faith. Again, I'm NOT sayin' rules aren't important! I'm just sayin' that for the last fifty or seventy-five years, our main emphasis has been to focus on keeping commandments with little or no mention of the Man. Did Christ die so that baptism could save us? Did Christ die for the Bible? Did Christ die so that obedience to His commandments could save us? Did Christ die for a "pattern"? We've focused on form over function for too long.
Pax vobiscum.
As I read it, the NT is full of the problems the church was having. They didn't agree on lots of things. Some even doubted the legitimacy of others. Well, I'd say that on those counts that Christendom is an exact restoration of the first century church. Congratulations everybody! We did it!
Maybe, to be true adherents of first-Century Christianity, we need to focus less on what they were, and instead focus on what they were trying to become.
Thor,
If you are ever in OKC, you are welcome to come to our church anytime. We accept everyone who places their faith in Christ. So you too would be welcome here.
I hope to see you. If you want more information on the church you can send me a PM.
Kevin
Antioch Christian Church
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Thor
Well, we will have this debate for sometime, I suppose. I will respond briefly:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Quote
A relationship actually exists or doesn't. God's Spirit confirms that relationship - there is no "think"-ing about it. There is knowing one is in relationship to God and knowing brings confidence and assuredness.
1 John 5:13 Tells us scripture is given so that we MIGHT know we have salvation. Not that we might feel some heart warming emotional response. Facts reveal, emotions can and often do conceal.
[/quote]
Thor, read 1 John 3:24. God's Spirit confirms our relationship with God by His presence in our lives. There is no thinking about it. There is fact. No emotion-only kind of response, but a knowing, deep revelation of God's presence. (Also, please don't underestimate the gifts of emotion and imagination, Thor. They are from God and may be relished and enjoyed more deeply in Christ.)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]It's a false metaphor, Thor.
Steve,
I see the statement, yet miss the proof[/quote]
Well, I guess I can understand that you would miss the proof. Seems to me, my friend, that you are so entangled with the "to-do's" that you miss the simple message that we are adopted children through faith in Jesus Christ. We are not adopted in to God's family because of a series of hoops that have to be jumped through. We are His by His grace through faith. And since when did the adopted child have to go through all of the paperwork and stuff in order to be adopted. Other posters pointed out the inappropriateness of your metaphor - see Kanham and duckman.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Steve,
Scripture did not reveal "By grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.
howdy segell!
i keep up with these posts and i just can't get past the discrepancy in your post...
you say that one must believe that Jesus died to save us as a contingency to being saved
then you say there is no contingency...
the fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you cannot take God's grace to it's fullest possible extent.
you cannot say that Jesus died, therefore by the fullness of grace everyone is saved.
because they're not. i must still believe. and that's still a contingency.
perhaps you contend that the Holy Spirit controls me, therefore i don't actually do the work of believing. i find that to be useless. the Holy Spirit already believes; just because He takes control of my body/mind and coerces it, irregardless of my free will, to believe - then it was just Him believing, not me... just Him playing a video game, steering me around, putting me under hypnosis...
i deny that. because that makes Christ's death purposeless. if the HS can control me like a mario brother to force me into belief, then Jesus' death was just a puppet show. meaningless.
why wouldn't God have the HS coerce my mind to believe that Jesus was green? or that water is tasty? what's the point in murdering His child if the HS is going to bring salvation by forcing our minds to believe in something?
your rationale does just that - puts salvation on the Holy Spirit; you teach that the HS saves us... no verses for that.
God would kill His Son for nothing? no. did He make Him into a puppet just so the Holy Spirit would have something obligatory to hypnotize my mind into believing in?
and if it takes blood to make the sacrifice count to God (instead of having us believe Jesus was a certain color).. why is that? because God set it up that way - Christianity is bloody, right?... so why not have Jesus prick His finger? isn't one drop of blood from the veins of God incarnate more than sufficient for the salvation of all men?
why would God make the Spirit force man into a choice? in so many little things we do everyday, the keys i choose to type, the steps i choose to take, the color of car i buy, the way i style my hair, who i marry, how many dogs i buy, etc... God has created a being with free choice... why? because the greatest glory that God can have from us is that we didn't HAVE to glorify Him; but we CHOSE to!
if the HS grabs our minds and forces us to believe in Christ, taking from us the ability to chose, taking from us the ability to impact our salvation, taking from us the contingency that salvation DOES rest on us at the single most important moment in our existence (when we become Christ's) then God has negated everything He has ever told us to do, negated everything that He created us to do...
here's why - He created us to have the ability to make choices indepently of His control... otherwise it would impossible for us to sin... He isn't taking away from us the most important choice of all... the HS does not master our minds like puppets to force us to believe... believing is our choice, our work - not to merit salvation, but because God knows that the greatest glory He can have from ants like us is that we actually choose to glorify Him without Him forcing us to.
giving glory to God because i'm a puppet is just God giving glory to God with His hand up the back of my shirt...
verse after verse of God's Word encourages us to make certain choices and to refrain from making other choices... the HS isn't jumping in here and there making our choices for us... this is not a video game... or a dream... or a puppet show of God's... this is the fullness of living from the very breath of He who created us; with all the free choice that goes along with it...
so the point of all that is that we do the work of believing. or of accepting. or of receiving. it's a very tiny work because God does all the giving and it is far better to give than recieve...
so, since belief is then an act solely of our own choice; and without belief there can be no salvation... we certainly do play a role in our salvation... not to merit it, but to believe in it...
understanding that, is the first step to understanding why God commands the devine institution of repentance and baptism... so that our belief is not incomplete, that belief must act... God knows this... action is intricately intwined not only with faith but with grace... faith is the motivator and definition of our actions... grace is the substance of God's actions...
a true belief can be had by those who refuse to act. the pharisees prove that. they believed in Christ but did not follow Him. action is the result of faith and is highly rewarded by God... that's because God wants us to choose Him, to His greater glory, not only with our minds but with every part of us...
the parts: the mind gives glory to God in belief
the conscience gives glory to God in repentance
the heart gives glory to God in confessing Christ
the strenth gives glory to God in baptism
love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength... because that is the greatest glory we pitiful humans can give... and God loves us so much for it... because we choose to glorify Him in all those ways...
that's why God instituted (God not man) belief, repentance, confession, and baptism...
unfortunately there are those that lift one over another... be it baptism... be it faith...
but no matter what they're God's idea, they're God's command, and there's nothing about obeying Him that is heavy, and nothing about obeying Him that doesn't affect how much glory we are giving unto Him...
it was God's grace to give us the oppurtunity to glorify Him with our belief-mind, baptism-body, etc... unfortunately there are those that seperate the "man" and the "plan"... but God has put them together, all for His greater glory...
belief is in Christ - that's all about the man, not a five finger plan
repentance is for killing Christ - all about the man, not at all about my ability to clean myself
confession is that Jesus is the Savior - all about Jesus, not magical incatation in the plan
baptism is into Christ and His name and His blood - not a man made plan... not a work... but all about being clothed with Christ and having our old lives killed to rise a new creature
a new creature that glorifies God in every aspect, not to merit His grace, but be in His Son - the perfect sacrifice to bring the perfect glory of which we can only be clothed in belief, repentance, baptism, continuous confession, as His brother and/or sister...
segell, my friend i started this towards you, but it's out there for everybody... it's far too long but know that i had planned on saying how much i appreciate your spirit of discussion down here at the bottom, and hope that we can continue with such mentally invigorating discussion... thanks for your time, hope there's not too many typos! i think that your discrepancies are too hard to reconcile my friend... faith is an act, a work on our part... our salvation is certainly contingent on it... as well as the fullness of glory in God's plan (which man didn't create or fabricate or misapply from scripture)...
i digress!
in Christ
josh
So your contention is that if the Jews had decided that it was not important for them to march around the walls, The walls still would have crumbled.
And your contention is that even if Noah had rejected God's plan for the ark, he would have been saved from the flood.
And your contention is that even if one rejects Jesus "believeth and is baptized", they can still make it to heaven.
You definition of faith is flawed. Faith is a deep and abiding belief. Given to us in the word faith to denote a special type of belief. One MUST DO something even to have faith or belief. Rom 10:17 One MUST hear the word of God even to have faith. Now, how can a definition of faith be made that would deny it's existance? If you say that Faith requires no action you are mistaken. Even to purchase faith one MUST HEAR. That is something. again Rom 10:17.
Heb 11:6 tells us that faith and belief are from the same vein. We must believe in order to come to God. God has given us the MAN so that He could inact His PLAN. We still need to follow that plan.
If you note Heb 11:7 you will notice that you clearly contradict what the Hebrew write wrote.
By faith Noah built the ark to the saving of his house.
Not by faith Noah saved his house, then built the ark.
Faith and faith alone do not save. Faith is only belief that is acted upon. Belief and action are seen in every aspect of Hebrews 11. The roll call of those who believed and acted, so that they could be pleasing to God.
Kanham,
1. The person who dies on the way to the baptistry -
I've always thought this an absurd hypothetical and I've never heard anybody maintain that such a person was lost. But since you want an answer - I think that God will extend his grace to a person who dies during the act of obeying. I will say, however, that those who wait to be baptized at some "special" time or place are foolish and that it's a serious matter to put off obeying God in such a way.
2. The person who desires baptism on his deathbed - Again I've never heard anyone who would say a person who requested baptism and was denied it would be lost. They've said it's up to God. If you have heard it, you've been around some pretty dumb people. Sorry for the bluntness there but that's not Church of Christ teaching that I've heard, and I go to a pretty traditional church. On the other hand, those who deny baptism to someone who wants it will certainly have a lot to answer for.
3. The person whose entire body was not under the water.
If there's really anybody out there teaching that such a person isn't saved, I'd like to hear about it. I've never heard anybody say that and I don't think there's anybody who does. I don't think they're not saved either.
4. The person who can't remember why they were baptized.
I really never heard of this. When I was baptized, at 19, I was questioned as to why I wanted to be baptized. When my kids were baptized, they were questioned. Everybody I ever heard of was questioned. So I don't think this happens. If it does happen, it is because the person doing the baptizing is falling down on the job and I don't think it's reflective of what the Church of Christ teaches. Finally, I don't think it matters why we think we're being baptized. Baptism is God's work and it means what God wants it to mean.
So I think that as long as the decision to be baptized was made voluntarily by the person getting baptized, that person belongs to God. If, on the other hand, the decision wasn't that of person being baptized, then I doubt if it counts.
So now, I've answered what I think are some pretty silly hypotheticals as best I can. I repeat my questions, which are about real events that happened in the Bible.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (segell @ April 10 2003,3:12)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I think all of us would agree that God commanded that we be baptized. Don't think anyone would disagree. However, the purpose of baptism in the plan of salvation has been a lightening rod for discussion. I wonder why not confession, why not repentance?[/quote]
Baptism is the lightning rod because so many insist that isn't necessary. If anybody was claiming that repentance and confession weren't necessary, I'd oppose them just as loudly. I haven't heard anybody say that yet. If you want to say it, we can argue about that.
As to whether God would require that we take some action to come into a right relationship with Him, the answer is yes. Even you think that you have to believe. Well, that's doing something.
I believe the Bible also tells me that I have to take action on that belief by being baptized.
And if you say that God gives you faith to believe, then what you're saying is that those who don't have faith are lost because God didn't want them to be saved. I believed that once, but I will never believe it again, and I'll never sit still and let anybody say it without a response.
Josh
I appreciate what you just wrote. Don't mean to disappoint you, really don't. I just feel like we've discussed this before.
And thanks for the clarification.
By the way, do you think you have the power to transform your heart?
Take care,
Steve
Sorry, Thor, I thought you had misread my quote about remission of sins at baptism. As I posted before, I think that there MAY, in fact, be unbaptized believers that are saved. I agree with A. Campbell that if ONLY those people who correctly understood immersion as essential are saved, then some of the most righteous, saintly Christians through the ages will burn in hell, simply because God held them accountable for a sincere misunderstanding of ONE ordinance.
Like I said before, to say that our obedience to baptism, or any other doctrine of the "law," must be perfect, damns us all, because no one save Christ EVER had a perfect obedience. And to fail in one area of the law is to fail in EVERY AREA OF THE LAW.
I teach baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is the normative way presented in Scripture, though we do have examples of Christ saving individuals WITHOUT their being baptized-the thief, for example. Now, I'm not sayin' anything with this, other than that God can and has saved people without baptism. If He did it in those cases, is it not conceivably possible that He could extend His mercy to people who honestly didn't know any better? I CANNOT believe in a God that would send honest believers to hell because of their ignorance.
Anyway, God remits our sins through Christ's BLOOD, NOT the water. BAPTISM never saved anybody. Pax vobiscum.
As for the the person who never has been exposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, here is my take:
Paul tells us that noone is left with an excuse. Romans 1:18 -20. God has revealed and manifested Himself - His invisible qualities, His divine nature and eternal power - since the creation.
So what does that mean? It means, in my view, that we can rest in God's character, His mercy, justice and power. It means to me that God's pursuit is the individual's heart and that it's the content of the heart that matters.
Will the one who has never heard the Gospel message have opportunity to realize his need for a saving God? I would think so. Will the content of the heart that realizes his need and cries out to the heavens to that God he cannot see be saved? Well, I personally think so, but am comforted in knowing that God is sovereign and that He is just and I can leave that issue to Him.
And the good thing is - matters like this drive me to Almighty God and absolute dependence on Him. I don't have to have the exact answer because my God does, indeed. And whatever is done will be right!!
Steve
to which part of this particular discussion do those verses apply? (i'm not sure i know which direction you're going with them) :blush:
is it to say that God has already decided to force salvation on us, irregardless of what we might have chosen if we have free will?
i don't know which way to postulate; what are you saying these verses mean?
predestined is a difficult word to nail down i think... no one seems to think it means that EVERY action we do is controlled by God... i don't, for sure, because then i wouldn't be able to sin
do you think it means God just controls us for a couple moments to make us suddenly have faith and at that point saves us b/c of the remote control work He did in us?
do you think it means God causes us to have faith (no free will), then to repent (none at that moment either), to confess Jesus (without our choosing to), and to be baptized (not by our own intention) - controlling our minds and bodies just at those 4 moments in time to put us into His plan, without our choosing to, but the rest of our lives is up to us?
- interjection; no offense intended toward above theologies or anyone who may believe in them :christmas: -
(cont) do you think it means God KNOWS we'll make the right choices, so has therefore destined us to be Christ's when we DO make those choices?
is it that God has arranged that certain circumstances around us will be condusive to our choosing faith and repentance, etc...?
or, is predestination more about destination than inclination?
let me expound slightly on that... if it is possible to fall away from Christianity (bear with me, those of you who are balking already) then you truly do not have salvation until the day of judgement... -since no human can know the future of their or another's lives and what might change in those lives-
and if you do not have salvation till you face judgement, then do those verses about our "purpose" (to glorify God eternally on earth and in heaven?) and our "adoption" apply specifically to the "place"/destination of heaven that we going to if we are Christians; vs. them applying to God forcing us to be "inclined" to become Christians through puppet show faith...?
did the above sentences make sense...?
guess i need a working definition of predestination to work with before i'll feel comfortable applying the verses to this particular discussion... thanks for your patience with my slowness!
:doh: josh
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (nerdneh @ Feb. 27 2003,2:28)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]An ancient method of debate where you hope to win by showing disrespect for those you disagree with on some topic.[/quote]
So this debating method is kind of like the "trash talking" about your opponent before a boxing match.
I see this method of debate alot...seems more appropriate for boxing than a Christian discussion!
Shorty,
Without a question, exclusion happens in the Church of Christ, and will continue to happen.
What I was trying to say is that, in theory, we accept everybody Jesus accepts. That's the aspiration. My understanding of the "denoniminations" is that many of them require extra-biblical things before a person is admitted to communion. For example, I was raised as a Presbyterian. When I reached adolescence (sp?) I had to go through a "communicant's class" before I was permitted to take communion; there was a little about Jesus, and a lot about John Calvin and John Knox, and I had to say I agreed with it. Of course, as an ignorant kid from a country town, I agreed with whatever the preacher said to agree with.
My understanding of the church of Christ is that we don't make people accept these kind of things. That's our goal. Sadly, you're right that we often miss the target. But at least I think it's the right target.
Thanks for your friendly comments. I've enjoyed the discussion.
More are than you admit.
The problem comes when we equate those who agree with us with those who belong to Christ. His church is not just another man-made organization, but we imperfect men continue to create imperfect organizations.
None of which, logically or scripturally, can be equated with the whole body of Christ.
Thor, Shorty, Nevertheless, Marc, et. al, greetings! Shorty, thanks for the nice stuff you said. I'm not worthy! But thanks. Say a prayer for me and Alice.
Thor when you say that A. Campbell was a Seceder, a Baptist and then a Christian, are you implying that Campbell was NOT a Christian while he was a Seceder and a Baptist? If so, how can you judge whether Campbell was saved or not?
Secondly, Barton Stone said to follow Stone and Campbell only so far as you see them following Christ. To which I say "Amen." They were not inspired as was Paul. But, I think we owe them a great deal of gratitude; without Stone and the Campbells the coC as we all know it would not exist.
Thirdly, the Campbells and Stone were not attempting to restore a NT church which had ceased to exist; "Restoration Movement" is not even an accurate description of their movement. They referred to their movement as "The Reformation," or "The Current Reformation," as they considered themselves reformers in the spirit of Luther, Calvin and Wesley. What they were trying to do is unite sincere believers from all the denominations around the core doctrines, or central tenets of the apostolic church. When Campbell spoke of a "pattern" he meant, not a complex pattern of doctrinal orthodoxy, but rather, the basics, or essentials, of NT faith. To Stone and the Campbells, this insistance on doctrinal orthodoxy was one of the chief causes of diviision in the first place.
For Campbell the essential tenets of the faith were; the death, burial and resurrection (the central tenet of the faith); adult immersion for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit; the Lord's day assembly; and weekly communion. Anything else, to Campbell, was an OPINION and as such not to be made a test of fellowship. Campbell realised that not every sincere believer understood every scripture just like he did; this is why he could refer to a German Dunkard who differed with him on the frequency of communion, as his brother. And in his 1809 "Declaration and Address," Thomas Campbell stated that inferences were not binding on a Christian further than she perceived the connection.
Both Campbells and Stone believed that the NT church had never ceased to exist and that their group was merely a fragment of a much larger church; they NEVER claimed to be the only Christians. Even as late as his second series of Tabernacle Sermons at the Ryman Auditorium in Nashville, N. B. Hardeman could say that his brethren were "Christians only, not the only Christians." Dr. Robert Richardson adequately expressed the goals of the Reformation in the MH of 1847. In his article "Reformation" he wrote:
"Were we, indeed, asked to define theoretically, in terms the most brief and expressive, the reformation which we urge, we should denominate it-a generalization of Christianity. It is in this character that it presents a basis of Christian union. It is in this point of view that it lays aside the differences; the peculiarities; the distinctions, which disunite and mark out sects; and retains the agreements, the universalities, the identities which secure harmony and peace."
Somewhere along the line the coC lost this emphasis on unity.
In an 1825 CB article Campbell says the only two requirements necessary for salvation and membership in the NT church are belief in Jesus and immersion; a person is a member of the church in the fullest sense of the word, Campbell says, the moment they have met the preceding two conditions, and no one, he says, has a right to ask them whether they hold Baptist, Quaker, Armenian, Calvinist, etc. views. But even while insisting that adult immersion was the only scriptural mode of baptism, Campbell nevertheless refused to condemn unbaptised believers. He fervently wished everyone would be baptized, but realised that if only immersed believers were saved that some of the most righteous and faithful Christians would be in hell, which he could not accept.
If Stone and the Campbells were here, under mainline coC tests of orthodoxy, they would all three be disfellowshipped as "change agents."
Some ask, "Who cares what Stone and the Campbells said?" To which I respond; what makes their teaching any less authoritative than preachers today?
Its all well and good to say that the coC somehow exists "outside" history, that we have not been in any way affected by culture or history, however, even a brief study of our history exposes the fallacy in this line of reasoning. I say again, the coC as we know it would not exist had it not been for Stone and the Campbells. No, Stone and the Campbells were not inspired; but we can still learn much from them if only we will listen. We owe them our very existence. This particular "change agent" hopes to point people back to their vision of one church united, not on some nebulous "pattern" of doctrine, but upon Jesus Christ and Him crucified.
I apologize for the length of this post; I tend to get carried away talking about the Stone-Campbell Movement. Pax vobiscum.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Thor @ Mar. 29 2003,09:18)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]We must take the Lord's Supper- to use cup's or a cup is nothing.[/quote]
Tell that to the one-cupper's side in the CofC.
Who by the way, would not fellowship with you because you are not following the NT pattern by using but one cup.
bob & weave.
Guess that makes you a Change Agent.
howdy lee freeman
may i inquire for clarification on a couple points?[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The church of Christ is inconsistent and selective when choosing what items to include in its "pattern." I made reference to the fact that we insist on elders but not on widows' rolls. Why? [/quote]
why is it that these inconsistencies are used as the rational for why other groups should be able to do anything they want?
i agree with your overall point, but don't understand how this is a valid rationale unless one seeks to simply discredit the claims of the coc.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I even used to believe it-That God was more concerned with my following the rules than having a personal relationship with Him. [/quote]
why is it portrayed that these are contrasting goals? for someone to put firm control on their desires, denying self, to follow Him and His rules (which He has every right to make) is a very spiritual goal... one (or the HS in one) must master themselves and put God's desires first... it's certainly not sinful and certainly not contradictory to building a relationship with Him...
if one's relationship with God is right (loving Him) then one will obey Him... that's how Christ puts it anyway...
having a personal relationship with God does not in any way take away the "rules"... which by the way is a light burden... according to Jesus i mean...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Under a "pattern" theology circumstances don't matter, only blind obedeience[/quote]
how is such obedience to God blind? how is it blind if one searches the scripture to see what God wants? pattern theology is a genuine effort. it is not perfect. but it is not blind.[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]In Leviticus 10: 9 Yahweh tells Aaron: "Do not drink wine or strong drink, thou NOR THY SONS with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, LEST YE DIE..." (KJV emphasis added). That is why the two men were killed[/quote]does that mean the whole "strange fire" bit had nothing to do with it? God wanted all to know that His temple was to be kept holy (see the following verses)... that was the lesson the people were to learn from nadab and abihu's deaths... how was it to be kept holy? by obeying His commands (rules)... how do they know what holy is? by what He has told them... either way (b/c of wine or fire) it was the disobedience that got them blasted... your thoughts?
anyway, just tossing some debate fodder out there; thanks!
:juggling: josh (juggling josh.... tossing... ?)
Josh
All we can do is receive by faith God's grace and gift of salvation. Want to call that a condition in order to support the other steps or conditions? Well, I guess you can. I just don't see it that way at all.
All we can bring is our sin and then trust Christ for our salvation through faith.
As to your other contentions, Josh, I'm not going to get into it with you. I've expressed what I believe the Scriptures tell us about the work and power of the Holy Spirit. I've given Scripture to consider.
You use words like "control", "coerced" in order to ridicule (it seems to me) a perspective I've shared with you and others in much depth. Go back and read those postings. There were plenty addressed to you, if I recall.
If you don't like what I've said - well, then don't. Your perogative. All I would ask, my friend, is that you prayerfully do a study on the sovereignty and sufficiency of God. And also, please do a study on the workings of the Holy Spirit.
Did you get any of those books I suggested? You said you would. What are your views?
Lastly, Josh, I appreciate your spirit too. However we disagree with regard to God's plan and His grace. I'm very familiar with your arguments. I just believe you place those actions as conditions before salvation and I believe Scripture places them as responses to salvation.
Take care.
Steve
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Lee Freeman @ April 09 2003,4:18)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]NO ONE except CHRIST has ever, or COULD EVER obey perfectly.
Our faith is called "Christianity," after Christ, not immersianity."[/quote]
:amen: to all of Lee's post
To me thinking that we could/should be perfect is completely contrary to Christianity. A perfect sinless person doesn't need Christ.
Our salvation can't be all about water immersion...after Christ came then it was His blood that we are baptised into.
Matthew 3:11
I baptise you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; he will baptise you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.
I don't understand how it ever evolved to water saves us (the Holy Spirit is what saves) nor do I understand how it evolved to we don't even need saving because we can be sinless.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Because we are not talking about people who have not been baptized, who have not "built
Steve,
You can call it a cop out or whatever. The plain truth is Your Application Of The Verse IS Incorrect, and Nonsensical.
Isaiah WAS writing to a specific audience. That audience did NOT have freedom from sin because it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats could wash away sin.
Jesus alone can provide the blood that does that and then it is only promised in baptism. The sacrifices they made NEVER freed them of their sin. They had to WAIT until Christ came. Their works of righteousness did not avail because only Christ's blood washes away sin. HOWEVER, without those sacrifices they would have been unpleasing to God and rejected from His people. Then the blood of Christ would never have been applied to their sin. The Jews recieved forgiveness ONLY in promise of Jesus, and that only as they remained true to their works of righteousness! Without both they have no hope.
Just as today we have Christ's blood, THE ONLY thing that can free us of our sin. It is however applied only at baptism.
Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16, 1 Peter 3:21............
btw,
Under the Old Law people were physically born into covenant with God.
In the New people are born into that covenant by water and spirit. (baptism)
btww,
People argue over baptism I suppose, just as they would have over the sin sacrifices of the Old Law. Because they are arbitrary commands of God. We don't understand exactly WHY God ordained baptism as the door of enterance into the kingdom. He just did. Just as we don't know why He chose the blood/ sacrificial Lamb to rid man of sin in the OT. We make some good arguments, we look to what He has given us, but basically it comes down to the fact that we do it because "He said so."
btwww,
Faith without works is dead.
The OT examples are valid.
God is just in His demands.
For just a moment consider IF the New Testament was somehow more clear than 1 Peter 3:21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" Though I don't know how it could be MORE clear. And Peter, and Paul had said- If you are not immersed in water you will die in your sin. But if you submit your will to God and are immersed you shall be saved.
What then?
What would your argument then be?
Would you no longer be seeking after Christ?
Would you reject God for 'placing such a horrible burden on man?'
What then?
If Peter and Paul had not place such an emphesis on baptism if there were not so many verses that showed its necessity, I would gladly recieve admission into the kingdom prior to and without baptism.
The problem is that God says it is necessary. It saves 1 Peter, It washes away sin, Acts; It is the new birth, John....
Thor, I meant that at baptism, a person's sins are washed away. That IS what we all still believe isn't it?
remit: to release one from the guilt or penalty of; pardon: forgive - Webster's Third International Dictionary
Pax vobiscum.
I have very much enjoyed the debate on this thread and have intensely read every post. I would like to offer my limited view on the thread topic and the direction this "Change Agent" thread has taken.
Each side to this topic has adequate scriptural basis for their position. Also, each side puts baptism as an ultra-important part of obeying Christ.
Since no one is really discounting baptism, is this really the definition of a Change Agent?
The Questioning Brandt
I thought a "change agent" was a necessary machine found at laundromats.
Steve,
No offense was taken at all, but thanks anyway. Your posts usually take more time to answer than the others, so I won't be able to get to it until tonight.
Take Care.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]His church is not just another man-made organization, but we imperfect men continue to create imperfect organizations. [/quote] I am not part of nor would I want anyone to be part of a man made organization that called itself a church.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]None of which, logically or scripturally, can be equated with the whole body of Christ.[/quote]
The church to which I belong both logically and scripturally is the body of Christ. It was not founded by men. Christ founded it. Peter preached to it, by inspiration, and used the keys that Jesus had given him to open it. Christians are added to that body and to no other. The bible only makes christians only and it makes them the only christians. Change agents are those who look to the Ancient Pattern found in God's word and seek to change that pattern to fit their desires. Change agents seek change. Christians seek conformity to what God has established. They seek others who have obeyed Christ and gather together to worship God in Spirit and in Truth. There can only be unity in the faith by building it upon God's word. [!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Eph 4:1-6 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.[/quote]
If indeed we must be part of one particular body with one particular name that most resembles the church as presented in the New Testament, then the only thing I can safely say is that "CofC" ain't it!
The notion that "ours is the only one true chruch" seems contradictory to the "restoration" principles that led to the formation of congregations of believers whose buildings bear the moniker: CofC.
If we follow the logic that dictates that there is "only one true church" shouldn't we be Catholics? Abomination, or not? In order not to be hypocritical in our logic, we must.
If we honestly seek to restore NT Christianity, doesn't that process dictate constant change? In other words, we should always be evolving to something that more closely resembles the church of the first century. The word "restore" in and of itself dicates a change from what is to what was.
Resistance to change is actually hindering the church from being what it was intended to be. Only change will get us closer to that which was intended. So I will always actively seek change in myself and my brothers and sisters in order that we might more closely resemble Christ's church.
FACE REALITY--the CofC DOES NOT much resemble the church of the 1st Century. If one desires to be a part of something similar to the church of 33ish A.D., then shouldn't one keep looking for it... or in the very least keep working to make that a reality? I haven't found a congregation of believers under any call sign that remotely resembles the early church, which I know is Marc's contention. And I've been a member of the CofC since... well, birth if we were honest about the reality of growing up CofC.
All the CofC has done is to reach a certain point along the path of restoration that was comfortable for most and then we called it quits. (Maybe that's even a generous statement.) The fallacy that the "CofC" represents God's full intention and the true incarnation of Christ's universal church is a leftover doctrine from Catholicism.
Get real.
Thor, I'm glad you would not insist on such a precise conformity in your "pattern"; unfortunately I can name at least 12 churches off the top of my head in my area that still would. They continue to spread a message to the world at large that it too, must conform exactly as they do or they are not true Christians. Going by what you said in your last post about the nature of the "pattern," many "denominational" churches have created that metaphorical shirt with buttons and two sleeves you spoke about. Their fabric may be different, their buttons may be metal or plastic, the color may be different, some may have short sleeves, but THEY'VE GOT A SHIRT. Here's a thought; is it possible that someone might come up with a perfectly good shirt without without even using a pattern? In other words, is it possible for some churches to be scriptural churches without going by our "pattern?"
My question still stands, though. Since no two individuals or groups of individuals read scripture and understand everything in it exactly alike, who decides which items of the "pattern" are indispensible and which aren't. Who decides which "items" correspond to the sleeves and which merely correspond to the color? For example, you'd say acapella music is indispensible; I'd say it isn't. God wants heartfelt praise; if that happens to include a keyboard is He really going to get all mad and indignant because somebody didn't praise him and worship Him exactly like He told them too?
Would an earthly father insist that his children HAD to express their love for him according to a narrow set of nonnegotiable commandments?: You can give me a fathers' day card but it MUST have writing ONLY on one side, and you are not to use the colors green or red; you must use ONLY the colors yellow and purple. And you must express your love for me three times every week, but when you do it must be in exactly these words: "We love you father." You cannot express your love for me by saying "You're the greatest dad!" That is unacceptable praise which I will not accept. And I will listen to you tell me you love me ONLY when you and all your brothers and sisters are assembled together in the living room and do it together. You cannot tell me you love me in the kitchen. An earthly father wouldn't do this, but this is how some people think God does it.
No, that's the problem; convincing others that our hermeneutic is the only valid one. This will be hard to do seeing as how we're not even consistent with our own intepretive rules. I'll go back to widows' rolls; if elders are an indespensible element of the "pattern" how are widows' rolls any less so? This is just one example of the arbitrary way we use our own rules as it suits us. Which hermeneutic did the apostles use?
Is God more concerned with relationship or blind obedience. I was taught that He was more concerned with blind obedience. Thankfully, I don't believe that anymore.
Pax vobiscum.
Janine
Thor used to be my nickname - no kidding. In fact, my younger brother still finds joy in calling me Thor. My Dad, who is with our Father, used to call me that when I was a teenager. (He considered my room to look like a dungeon and thought Thor would apply nicely. I, on the otherhand, considered myself, well, mythical).
But I love most the way my bride calls me Steve. :inlove:
Um, er I guess I just got :offtopic: !! :D
Steve
Thor
Thank you for responding. I appreciate your sharing.
Steve
must say i'm rather disappointed.
i was excited about further discussion. but whatever. thanks for responding at all. there was no intention to ridicule you or your opinions. the post was not solely for you, i just thought you'd be a likely candidate to respond; my thoughts are my own, i don't claim to be an expert, and were not intended to insult you or your theology. it's just a debate i feel as passionately about as you do, i suppose. no worries.
but hey, i welcome anyone elses input! i thought i had some good ideas; just trying to share em. i'd love to hear your comments! glad i have a place to come and chat this stuff out... thanks all for all your input on here!
josh
:typing:
boringguy,
Good questions. I will answer them when you answer the fate of the following:
The person who dies on the way to the baptistry.
The person who is on his death bed in the hospital and the hospital and family will not allow a baptism.
The person who unknown to them did not have their entire body under the water.
The person who can't remember why he was baptized but did it because his parents said he needed to.
By the way, I already answered the questions you have asked but clearly not with the intent you have in mind.
Thanks for the questions. This has been good for me.
BOG and Thor:
You guys really bailed out on my questions. I'm sorry that you did.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Steve,
Your syllogism is fails on this point.[/quote]
Thor, that really is a cop out. I laid certain biblical truths as predicates and asked questions. Your perspective on the verse in Isaiah demonstrates a kind of spiritual gymnastic used to negate the Truth of our being.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Isaiah spoke the truth in his time. BEFORE Christ. Without the sacrifice of God's Son no act of righteousness would satisfy God's demand for justice.
[/quote]
What?? Isaiah only spoke truth relevant to his time?? What kind of thinking is that? He was speaking of man's condition, Thor. He revealed God's view of our condition. God's view has never changed. I'm afraid you view, while sincere, is intellectually and spiritually dishonest - and if you are sharing that with believers and non-believers, please be careful. THERE IS STILL NO ACT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT WOULD MEET GOD'S STANDARDS APART FROM CHRIST'S. That is why God would not demand an obedience from a non-believer in order to satisfy Him. He knows there is no satisfaction other than in His only begotten Son. God's demand for obedience is for those that are His and those He has chosen.
Do you think that acts of good deeds apart from faith in the Lord Jesus Christ have any merit whatsoever?? Please answer that Thor, because, whether you know it or not - that, in essence is what you espouse and that's why it is dangerous. This debate isn't over baptism, Thor. All who are in Christ agree that ALL Christians should be baptized. This debate is over why God would seek something from a person before that person is a Christian - in order for that person to be saved. In light of Scripture - that is against the very nature of God Almighty, Himself. In light of Scripture, that is against the very purpose of God's inexplicable grace.
You and BOG wish to point to examples of obedience by GOD'S PEOPLE and use that as proof that God calls non-believers to do things in order to be saved.
God's plan of salvation is based solely on His Grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. God's plan of salvation is entirely focussed on Jesus Christ and nothing more. God's plan of salvation is different than God's plan and demands for obedience of those who are in Him. Yet, as in our salvation, God provides a means to obey, a Way - His Holy Spirit.
(Thor - you've never responded to the passages in Ezekiel that beautifully provide a wonderful view of God's work in His people.)
Let me ask both of you another question. What obedient gymnastics did the nation of Israel have to perform BEFORE God chose them to be His messengers on earth? God chooses, we respond - I believe is the message. It's a message of God's complete sovereignty.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Segell,
If "God can do whatever he wants" isn't good enough, then I haven't a response that will satisfy you. However, it seems that
"God can do whatever he wants" has been good enough when you were questioned about the fates of infants who die when they're too young to believe.[/quote]
BOG - I don't believe this is what I said in the matter of infants. I thought I said we would have to rely on God's character, mercy and justice and trust Him with regard to those babies.
My question went to God's purpose. He doesn't ask us to just blindly do things, does He? Of course God can do whatever He wants - but in terms of His purpose, His plan, His will we can have answers beyond the escape of "God can do whatever He wants". That is why I asked that it not be used.
I tried to lay out a series of biblical truths and asked that you support your views in light of those truths. I again would ask that you try and answer in light of Scripture, in light of what God says about us and what God says about Him.
Steve
Lee,
My point is this:
If we believe that baptism is required, then somebody needs to tell people that.
I know it upsets people to hear this. It used to upset me. But now I'm grateful that someone cared enough about me to risk destroying our relationship rather than let me continue as I was.
I agree that we can moderate our language a little, but I don't think we have any right to suggest that it isn't required.
I hope that doesn't offend you, but it's just the truth.
Lee,
Sorry I thought I had understood you to have previously said that unbaptized believers could be saved...
Obviously I was mistaken.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I meant that at baptism, a person's sins are washed away.[/quote]
In reply to Brandt, and back on the original topic:
I've never used the term "change agent". The first time I ever heard it used was in a book by Lynn Anderson, who is I think pretty "progressive." He seemed to be using it in reference to himself and others who wanted to promote certain changes he seemed to think need to be implemented. For that reason, I don't think the term itself is terribly unfair, but I don't use it because it tends to inflame people.
The use of the term raises this issue: The idea behind agency of any kind is delegated authority. An agent acts on behalf of some other person, with that other person's authority. People who resist those they call "change agents" are asking the question - What authority do you have to demand these changes? In a basically unstructured church polity such as ours, that's a good question.
I know that a lot of people will be quick to point out that the Pharisees asked Jesus the same question. I agree that they did. However, Jesus had already demonstrated His authority countless times. People who haven't performed a few miracles should expect to have to prove their point, and shouldn't be too troubled when somebody else questions them.
I think Arksfan almost nailed it:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]In the mind of those opposed to change agents, these are people trying to push the cofC down the slippery slope of denominationalism and ecumenicalism and away from its distinct and exclusive heritage.[/quote]
I would it would be phrased more accurately as:
In the mind of those opposed to change agents, these are people trying to push the CofC down the slope of error of denominationalism and ecumenicalism and away from its distinct NT character. The Church of Christ is not seen as a distinct denomination; it is seen as the Church for which Jesus died.
Shorty,
Of course we can receive Baptists! I just don't think we ought to go to the Baptist church.
Thanks.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am not part of nor would I want anyone to be part of a man made organization that called itself a church.[/quote]
I'm sorry; I thought you were a member of the big-C Church of Christ. ;) So, when you come together I guess each of you brings a song or a word of encouragement and takes turns with it. And when your women speak and lead prayers, I'm sure they keep their heads covered. I also know you haven't added any unscriptural elements such as buildings, signs outside bearing the name "The Church of Christ", song-leaders, communion-servers, songbooks, Bible classes, Gospel Meetings, Vacation Bible Schools, multiple communion cups, song books, passing trays for the offering, pews, brotherhood papers, church bulletins, etc. etc. etc. I am also assured, then, of your commitment to keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace rather than the bond of doctrinal correctness.
I am curious about the book of the Bible that contains the pattern for worship, though. I can't seem to find it.
The Bible says quite a bit about thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought. Perhaps those passages bear re-reading. Any idea that we have completely restored the New Testament church without variation is unsupportable. Without that, what are we left with? The idea that our variations are okay but others' variations are Devilish?
Ok. Thanks!
:D
A few other quotes to think about from the change agents of the 1800s. I'm not saying to believe them, but study for yourself. However, say these things in most Churches of Christ today and you are in big trouble. Its amazing how different we have become
"The name Christian belongs to "every one that believes in his heart that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the Son of God; repents of his sins, and obeys all things according to his measure of knowledge of his will.
Thor
You seem to purposely misstate what I've said. I'm not sure why you insist on doing that.
Thor, God does not require your obedience in order for you to be saved. He calls us to trust in Jesus' perfect obedience and righteousness. God certainly calls His children to obedience - those that have been saved by His grace through faith. And by whose strength are we able to obey? God's strength through His Spirit in our lives.
Ezekiel 36: 26 and 27 says: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decress and be careful to keep my laws." and in verse 28 "...you will be my people and I will be your God".
God transforms us by His Spirit because we place ALL of our trust in the PERFECT OBEDIENCE of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we're able to do that because He gives us hearts of flesh by the power of His Spirit.
Thor - the danger in what you espouse - is that you teach that God calls us to an obedience we are incapable of in our own strength, incapable of without knowing Him first, incapable of without being first saved by His grace by placing our confidence in ALL that Christ accomplished in HIS perfect living, dying and rising. Sure we are capable of performing certain things that you will declare as being essential for salvation, but unless our hearts come into relationship with God by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, all that obedience is for naught. You place the cart before the horse and declare anyone who does not see it that way as being anything from false teachers to non-christians. The obedience that saves is Christ Jesus'!!
You said: "Jesus said that if we loved Him we would keep his commandments Jn 4:15."
Of course, Thor. That is very true. We first come into relationship with Christ. The only way we are able to love is because God FIRST loved us and then we are able to obey with proper purpose and perspective.
Thor, as to Ezekiel 11:18. There is no condition. Those that God will bring back will "remove all its vile images". God didn't say IF they remove, He said they will remove. Verse 21, declares a fact, Thor - that those that are not in Him will have eternal consequences. In verse 20 God says that after he puts a new spirit in them - His Spirit - "THEN they will follow my decrees...."
You said: "Also, I think that your interpretation stretches the context. God would do those things by extending His love, Not through some heart surgery in which His had actually reaches out to transform a heart."
Nothing is stretched, Thor. God's Word is very clear. It is, in fact, spiritual surgery - necessary for us to be healed. Our hearts are sick, Thor. His Spirit allows us to see the truth of our sin and desperate need for a Savior. His Spirit takes us from a place of war and separation from God, into a right relationship with Him through trust and faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Finally, Thor, you asked me to read Malachi 2:17. "Steve, I would like for you to read and consider Malachi 2:17" Let's put those words on the board, Thor.
17 You have wearied the LORD with your words.
"How have we wearied him?" you ask.
By saying, "All who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD , and he is pleased with them" or "Where is the God of justice?"
Now I admit that my postings may be wordy and would weary the strong but who ever said "all who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD"? or "Where is the God of justice?"
I have had many discussions with folks that embrace your views, Thor, and everyone - I am sorry to admit - reduce discussions to accusation and innuendo regarding matters that just do not exist. I find that attempt, Thor, an indication of how far you are from hearing and receiving what I have tried to communicate.
Here, briefly, is where you and I depart on our views:
1. You stress a religiosity. The emphasis is placed on ensuring that an individual does certain things first before being considered saved. What's more you, in my opinion, are in error in teaching that is what the Bible instructs.
2 I embrace the view that God calls us into a relationship. In fact I do not believe that Christianity is a religion. I believe Christianity is an individual relationship and is composed of those that have entered into a personal relationship with God by His grace through placing their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. I believe that Jesus Christ is the center and core of His Church and that unity is found by all that love Him and are called according to His purpose.
4. Honestly, Thor, I am not sure what you base unity on - because it seems to me it's based on the necessity of people buying into your perspectives of what Scripture says, of holding to "pattern" of worship, etc. Again, it seems to boil down to how well one performs.
You entered into this thread with unfounded accusations with regard to the members of this forum and your last writing is another unfounded accusation by using a verse in God's Word as some kind of weapon for an untrue accusation. That is very unfortunate. It is very curious.
Lastly, I take note that you chose not to respond to my request that you share the meaning of Jesus Christ in your life - what that relationship means and what He has done in your life. It just seems to me that the center of your relationship with God is found in what you do and not what God has done/is doing in your life. That might be worth thinking about for awhile, Thor.
Take care,
Steve
There are still people named Thor; maybe that's his name?
Love ya, Seggy... :hug:
Thor has a sense of humor, anyway, so there is hope for him yet. :p
Lee
What a pleasure to read your postings. The pleasure comes from a shared pain. My wife experienced a very similar church life as you - for over 20 years. In fact, she was just as adamant about the pattern, about instrumentation, etc, etc as the most legalistic person. That is, until she came face to face with God's grace, it's meaning and purpose.
She will tell you that she has, in effect, been set free. Liberated to enjoy God's love being lavished upon her. Of course, the discovery of God's grace brought a severe reaction from certain family members and the church where she attended. She has been disfellowshipped by her church. Her sister and her sister's husband have not spoken to her in over two years.
My wife will tell you her relationship with Christ has never been so deep, meaningful and alive. Yet, there are those that have given her over to the devil because she does not share their legalistic views and works theology. In fact, when I shared this story with Thor some time ago, he said that he hoped she would come back to the "faith". That was terribly sad - you see, she is now living by faith by God's grace.
I share your heart as to the seriousness of this topic. I pray that the cofC will move toward the Truth and sufficiency of God's grace. Anyway, thank you for sharing. Yours is a personal testimony reflecting how God works.
GCMagazine has a wonderful advocate here by the name of Lee Freeman.
God's blessings to you Lee and thank you for your postings.
Steve
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I find it odd that it was DEMANDED of Christ that He be obedient, NOT after He purchased our salvation, BUT in order to purchase our salvation. Why argue with an example like that? Christ could not purchase our salvation without His obedience. And we can not accept it without ours.[/quote]
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Thor - You find that odd? Christ HAD TO DIE!! He had to be obedient - even unto death! Christ crucified! That's what paid for my sin and yours, if we believe. [/quote]
Steve,
I was using sarcasm. Trying to focus your attention on the fact that Christ had to be obedient BEFORE our salvation was purchased, just as we can look to that example to see that We must be obedient BEFORE that purchased salvation can be applied to us.
Why was God so demanding that His own Son—and equally God Himself MUST be obedient to Him in order to provide us with Saving Grace? Because He is our example. Therefore, we can see that in order for salvation to come we must FIRST be obedient.
Thor, BOG, Josh and anyone else who would care to respond:
There is so much to respond to and I don't think I will have the time to do so. But, then again, I think I have in this thread as well as the other threads regarding the necessity of baptism. For what I believe to be God's perspective and view as revealed in Scripture, I refer you to those previous postings.
But I do have questions. Allow me to set the predicates:
If God, through Jesus, provided the perfect obedience that is His minimal standard;
If God, through Jesus, provided the payment for sin by our Lord's terrible suffering and death;
If God, through Jesus, imputes His (Christ's) righteousness to His children;
If our hearts are deceiving;
If our best works of righteousness are dirty rags;
Why would God, in addition to what He provides, require certain steps or actions to be taken by imperfect people in order for that imperfect person to be considered saved?
Furthermore, if God, as the Scriptures reveal, is after our hearts and knows our hearts better than we do - for whose benefit are those steps taken? and for whose glory?
Why wouldn't trusting in Christ's perfect obedience, perfect dying and sacrifice be sufficient to meet God's needs since it is Christ's righteousness that is imputed and it is Christ that God sees in those who are His?
The answer "God can do whatever He wants and who are we to question" would not be responsive to this posting.
Thanks for the consideration and answers.
Steve
Segell,
If "God can do whatever he wants" isn't good enough, then I haven't a response that will satisfy you. However, it seems that
"God can do whatever he wants" has been good enough when you were questioned about the fates of infants who die when they're too young to believe.
Kanham,
I haven't seen anybody answer these direct questions:
Would the walls of Jericho have fallen if Joshua had not led the Israelites around the city?
Would Noah have been saved if he hadn't built the ark and then gotten in it?
Would Naaman have been cured if he hadn't dipped in the Jordan?
I'll be happy with a simple yes or no answer to those questions.
Hey Josh
Real briefly, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your sharing your story of God's work in your life. I hear your heart and love for God. We do not share the same thoughts on some things, Josh, but I can see how broken you were and how God redeemed you.
I have a very similar story. I've shared it in earlier posts sometime ago. It is a story of being broken, face to face with my sin and desperate need for a Savior. That morning, September 17, 1994 I fell to my knees and cried out to God in prayer and He answered. It sounds like you cried out to God through immediate baptism.
Josh, here's my point. My prayer didn't save me and your baptism didn't save you. They were our means to respond to being broken and in desperate need of a savior. (By the way, I was immersed sometime later in obedience to God and in response to what I believe Scripture tells us about the wondrous gift of baptism). God saved us by His grace when we responded to Him in faith in Jesus Christ - Josh's and Steve's Lord.
Anyway, that's how I believe Scripture reveals God's plan, Josh and that's what I'm trying to share.
May God continue to bless you in ways more abundant than we could possible imagine.
Steve
This question actually came up in our bible class yesterday. It began when we were studying 2 Chronicles. What authority do the elders have. The question began with the difference between accountability and responcibility. I believe them to be accountable for there actions, too the Lord on judgement day. But not responsible for others. Almost like supervising. Yet, more at stake than there jobs.
As we discussed this. The example of baptism came up. Different areas of the coc that we as individuals may differ from our elders. I believe in the practice of immersion baptism. But in asking the question are we saved because of it? That is not for me to know. Can a mustard seed be saved by faith? Is there life inside? How much water does it take to give life? How much water everyday to continue to grow? Bear fruit? I can not in reverence to my Lord ever wander from His truth. We are not called to judge the salvation of another. I always teach obedience to His Word. I believe this to be many things including immersion baptism. But it is not the law or legalism of the performance that saved me. It is simply Christ. The law does not bind me, it only governs me. In my marriage when I had no faith that it would work. I relied on the law of the land. I was legally bound to my husband. Yet, that is no longer true. Because through Christ, I have learned that it is now my heart that keeps me faithful. The desire to grow with Christ in love is what motivates me.
The older ladies in class were quite adamant about defending the teachings of the church. By even bringing the question up that the authority given me by Christ, may be different than the authority given by my elders. It caused them to bristle. My point was, if I am in disagreement, whose authority governs my life. I did not disagree with what is being taught. Just how. I also must hold myself accountable to truth.
There stand on baptism confusing to me. On the one hand, we are not called too judge the salvation of another. If someone dies without practising our form it is in God's hands. However, we must baptized in order for a person to be saved.
I must say I was very uncomfortable with what was said. That It should be sufficient knowledge for me that they have served the coc for many years and find no problems. That we need to listen too our elders, we can question them, but ultimately these men do what the bible tells them.
The part that really bothered me. I was told that if someone is teaching a class against what the elders have ordained. The elders find out, they can than be removed. Okay, I understand. But if that same person continues to teach or share this belief that goes against the elders, with other members in the body, they can be disfellowshipped. Our instructor actually told us she does not encourage the reading of other religous doctrine. She said maybe like inspirational stuff is okay. But we should not deviate too far or spend too much time on other materials. Even commented on the footnotes of the NIV. Stating that some footnotes explaining maybe the territory was okay, but it goes to far in most cases. That we need too simply depend on only the bible. Other creeds, my example, The Sheperd of Hermas, these things only lead too division in the church. We should not go or look at other denominations. This causes disunity in the church.
If it were found out maybe a woman was a stripper and was teaching. She could than be removed as a teacher. Nothing about what she is teaching. Only how she is acting. If for example, a woman comes to church dressed immodestly the elders have a right to bring this matter too her. That maybe an idea like years ago. When women were required too wear skirts, maybe for the sake of modesty. Asking if they could wear pants when sitting on benches. This would be a good example of questioning our leaders. Ask for a little change. We did however agree that our leaders are open too questions and learning. I believe this and love my elders dearly. But I was extreemly uncomfortable with the direction of the class.
Even the question of politics came up. How the church does not encourage others to get into this. Too remain ethical is hard. So they have discouraged some from doing this. My question. I believe that if we are constantly walking in fear of losing what we have worked for. Do we not need too begin questioning ourselves? When did we come too a point where the church can give advice, tell others how too live their lives? This whole topic just created rebellion in my heart. Like the church has a right too Lord it over my life.
It ended with the elders are accountable but also have a responsibility for others. They are responsible for the people, make sure no one goes beyond what the bible says. We are allowed to question the Lord. Moses did this. But you must walk in obedience. The same with the church. :bowling:
Folks:
I want to direct your attention to eliasdam's posting in the Theology section. He has graciously linked us to a paper by Max Lucado on baptism.
From this point on, I need not speak on my views on baptism. Max's article, I believe, reflects God's Truth, intent and purpose of baptism. (This would also go to any other "to-do" in order to be saved.)
Hope you enjoy and find blessing in the reading.
Steve
Boring,
Regarding the term change agent, when I'm called that at our church I say, "absolutely, I am, thank you." Because in our particular situation we do need to change as we arent reaching the lost or really encouraging growth in our own, so yes I'm all for changing that. You simply cant defend our congregations track record on these things so I view it as an honor that the far right of our congregation sometimes call me this. Its a good thing. I certainly dont want to stand before God having been part of "keeping like we always have done it" when in fact it hasnt been working. So I really think the term is losing its bite so to speak as many more are acknowledging this.
RM
QUESTION:
What exactly is a change agent?
ANSWER:
See Jesus Christ.
Guy:
My son's Bible homework last night was Acts 10. Verse 34,35 caught my attention. Then Peter opened his mouth and said,
"Of a truth, I perceive God is no repector of persons. But in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him."
If Baptists fear God and worketh righteousness, such that God accepts them, can't we?
I've mulled over in my mind many times whether to change back to attending a Methodist church. I started attending a Church of Christ many years ago because of my husband and they seemed to try to purely follow the Bible (although, I'm beginning to question that some). I do feel that I've grown as a Christian from my CofC church and grown from the strife that my church had gone thru.
I just wish somehow the tolerance for others that I know from my Methodist church could be combined with the CofC love of the Bible.
Thanks for talking with me!
Shorty
just a matter of context, or rather of intent. We insert the word "only" to emphasize the idea of separation, or exclusiveness. We have said in the past: there is only one, and that one is exclusively ours. Any that is not of us, that is done any differently, that bears a different name, that disagrees with us in any way is not a part of that exclusive one and is in fact another. We have confused our "one" with God's "one". The word only then becomes not another way to refer to "one" but rather an adjective used to explain the exclusiveness of the one.
Paul, however, prefaces his list of ones by saying "As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace."
The unity, the one-ness that Paul talks about is not something that shows how unique, how "only" we are, but rather is something that occurs when we, by submitting to each other and bearing with each other, keep the Unity the Holy Spirit has already created through the bond of peace. We keep heavenly unity on earth by putting others' wishes before our own and not insisting on having our own way. We do this because we have already seen that we are one through the seven things Paul lays out here.
This is quite a different thing than using this verse as an arguement for separating from anyone who disagrees with us.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Marc,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I ask you to either show where I said what you claim I said (not implied-in-your-opinion, but said) or please go back and delete the untrue things you printed in this post. [/quote]
If you look at the post I thought I made it quite clear what you said (notice the quote box) and what I believe that quote logically followed meant (notice the single quotes). If there was any confusion I apologize.
However your idea that one can mean anything except exclusion is unfounded. It seems that your theology is interrupting logic. ONE is and always be exclusionary. If there is ONE God there are NO others. If there is ONE Faith there are NO others. If there is ONE baptism there are NO others. Paul was telling the Christians to be united under the ONE Church, the ONLY ONE which followed the ONE baptism, the ONE Christ, the ONE God, the ONE FAITH. You can't have one and a half, two, or three; ONE means ONE to the exclusion of all others.
I believe that Never's question was a valid one and that your answer shows what you would have the text say, instead of a serious look to it.
If you are looking for answers to your list of "I'm sure's" simply purchase a copy of Thomas Warren's book on when is an example binding. Or Biblical Authority by Roy Deaver. Volumes have been written on the subject, I do not have the space nor time to present that information appropriately.
.[/quote]
sing with me. . . honesty, is such a lonely word. . . . :playingguitar: .again, if you care at all for the truth you will go back and edit your post, as you make blatantly false statements concerning what I have said.
btw, perhaps you missed the post where I mentioned how familiar i was with the CENI logic.
Rather than :bangingheadagainstwall: I will simply say I have made my point and explained what the scripture means using the context. My failure to agree with your logic doen't mean I don't understand it. I understand it all too well, have studied and taught it, and ultimately found it to be unbiblical. Unless 1st Deaver is found somewhere between Timothy and Titus, I do not hold their logic on how to interpret scriptures to be equal with scriptures.
btw, I believe Never's response indicated I answered her question to her satisfaction. Could be wrong, but that's the way I read it.[/quote]
I want to apologize for the tone of this post. I was very tired, and attempting to use humor to maintain my thin grasp on sanity.
I do have a serious response that I may edit in here as soon as I go back and make sure none of the previous posters have said what I want to say.
Thor: looking back over the last few pages of posts, I am left with a question: Why do you post here? I would really like an honest answer, because I see a troubling pattern in your posts. When asked to specifically respond to a question, you say you don't have time to get into that and then make a broad, sweeping statement without addressing the issue at hand. You make a statement, then when this statement is disproven, you shift and argue something that in and of itself contridicts what you originally said (see the discussion of Stone and Campbell). Also, I find I am not the only person whose comments you have mis-stated to such a degree that I find it hard to believe that you believe we actually are saying what you say we are saying.
Or maybe I don't.
Which brings me to the topic I wanted to bring up: intellectual honesty. This was a huge reason, the biggest reason, really, that I changed my way of looking at the Bible. I was brought up, as I have said time and time again, with the admonition "Follow what the Bible says, whether it agrees with what you've been taught all your life or not." I took this seriously (as did many of the people who taught me in my youth and who have since embarked on their own spiritual journeys).
And what I discovered was that I could no longer follow the Church of Christ version of the CENI hermeunutic and remain intellectually honest. You see, our views were so inconsistent. We could find scriptural support for making popsicle-stick artwork in VBS, but clapping hands while singing could send you to Hell. Pitch-pipes are okay, pianos are of the Devil. Church rummage sales were anathema (um, never mind what the Jerusalem church did), but passing the collection plate on Sunday Mornings was "Biblical" because of a single verse in 1 Corinthians about a collection for a specific cause that was to be sent to a different area.
And, of course, anyone who didn't worship in a Church of Christ was going to Hell.
The technical aspects of how we did church were more important than the way we treated our neighbor. We were the people Jesus condemned in the Gospels. We were the Pharisees, wrapped up in our rules, our pieced-together pattern, our setting spiritual traps for those who disagreed with us, our considering other believers enemies, all the while thanking God that we weren't like that guy falling on his face and saying "God have mercy on me, a sinner." Could it have been any more obvious?
God have mercy on our souls.
When I think of the extremes our logic went to to justify our positions, the scriptures we ignored, the crazy-quilt arguments we used, what I see here seems familar.
But I am still puzzled by the motivation. I suppose we are just another set of Hell-bound sinners you have come here to save.
Thor
Thanks for your response.
Unfortunately we fail to communicate.
There are those on this thread that have stated the same thing as I. That is, you make assumptions on our views and beliefs that have no foundation and that you simply misstate our communications. Don't you think there may be some validity to these points?
For example, you insist that I do not hold to the need for Christians' to obey God. For the life of me, I have no idea where you get that. That is simply not true.
Lastly, Thor, unity is NOT based on how one follows God's word. Look at the divisions in the churches of Christ. One church down the street does such and such and will refuse fellowship with the other church down the street because they do not do such and such. Both churches of Christ. And yet division. You see, it's the Word that SHOULD be doing the uniting and not the dividing. It's the personal relationship with Jesus that all true, born from above believers share that brings unity. What divides, in part, is how one binds another to his/her interpretation of obedience to God's Word. The path of history is strewn with the damaged spiritual lives of those who have been taught to measure or judge another by the way they adhere to another's perceived truth. It is quite sad. And that is why I say it is dangerous.
(By the way, Thor, no one is trying to silence you. That is just another example of an assumption that is just not true.)
Thor, you still haven't shared your personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. What is His purpose in your life? I'm not interested, frankly, in how well you view your obedience or your judgment toward another's obedience. I just haven't heard what the Lord Jesus Christ means to you. Never, in all of your posts. You've shared YOUR perceived obedience. (See how the emphasis gets misdirected)?
And, if I may, what is your name?
Take care.
Steve
Josh, thanks for the questions.
I did not mean to imply in my last post that the inconsistencies in our "pattern" theology should be a rationale for anybody simply doing anything they want. I believe a consistent hermeneutic is VERY important. I just don't think our traditional one has served us well, or perhaps it would have IF we'd been consistent in its application.
Obedience and relationship shouldn't be contrastiong goals, but they were for me as a child; my church was an ultra-conservative mainline coC which taught me that the cross was just one more doctrine among many (baptism, womens' role, elders' authority, frequency of commuinion, etc., with baptism being the most important). The "pattern" was repeatedly stressed, the cross got hardly any treatment at all. My church also taught me that ALL other bodies of professing Christians were false teachers pure and simple. It didn't matter whether they were sincere or not-wrong was wrong and God was angry with their disobedience, ignorant or not.
By "blind obedience" I mean what I said before, that obedience to the "pattern" was stressed, particularly baptism-sermons were constructed to lead people to baptism, not Christ. But I cannot think of ONE sermon which had the cross as its theme (or relationship with Jesus) until I was about 21 years old (there may have been some, but if there were I don't remember them). Joe Van Dyke preached the first actual gospel sermon I ever remember hearing-in 1992. I heard a quote once; a worried coC preacher said: "Give me a church that teaches more about Jesus than about the pattern and I'll show you a liberal church." (!)
As a kid, I was told a lot about Jesus but no one ever introduced me to Him. I can point to the very moment when I first realised that I did not have a personal relationship with Christ; it was in 1996 in Bobby Valentine's VBS class on OT Messianic prophecies, which he did while he and Pam were still in New Orleans at Barton Avenue. Ever since, I've been "working" on my relationship with Christ. Its still hard, because instead of grace (a word I was not familar with until I was about 21), I was taught a lot of facts and commands; I and many in my and my parents' generation were taught an arbitrary, five-step "plan of salvation," what K. C. Moser lamented as "the plan vs. the man." (How I wish I'd known about his books back then!) I've even heard preachers say that it could have been any five steps in the plan, but God chose a particular five steps and we shouldn't question why, just obey. I've also heard preachers say that they didn't know WHY God commanded baptism as the act which saved us, but that our job was to obey and not question. We even had those KJV New Testaments with the verses of the "plan" outlined in red, so that a reader would be led through the NT to the verses about the plan (almost as if the rest of the NT wasn't all that important). And I remember people nervously discussing whether and how far we should teach grace. We were afraid that to preach grace would be in effect giving people a license to sin.
The coC insisted on following a doctrinal "pattern" which, in my mind was, and is, selective. We claimed to speak where the Bible spoke and to be silent where it was silent, then condemned instrumental music, dancing, mixed swimming and all these other things that scripture was silent about (and anyone who practiced them). We had elders and deacons but not widows' rolls. Social drinking was condemned yet gossip was not. Divorced and/or remarried people were treated as spiritual outcasts. One divorced and remarried man was not allowed to drive the joy bus; as Bus Minister and his friend, my dad went to bat for Charles. When he asked the elders why Charles couldn't drive the bus, the elders said it was because they wanted to "keep the church pure." Dad looked at the elders' chairman and said, "Then I guess we'd all better leave now."
This kind of mentality is what bothers me. It is what I sense in Thor. (I hope I'm wrong! Certainly I would never presume to judge his standing with God. He claims to have a relationship with Christ and I believe him.) But I ALSO know first hand what legalism can and has done to sincere people like Thor, myself and my parents (to this day my dad struggles with his coC "programming," though my mom has made the transition to grace very easily. But anytime I espouse a view that is different from my father's he automatically accuses me of being a "change agent" who wants to rewrite the Bible or something-me and Rubel Shelly, Bobby Valentine, Lynn Anderson, etc. I'm actually in pretty good company!)
But in spite of all of this, I'm extremely hopeful for the coC; and though it may not sound like it, I'm proud of the coC and its heritage. (I hope I'm not paranoid, seeing a legalist behind every pew!) I think the goal of Stone and the Campbells (never heard of them 'till I was 18) is a worthy, scriptural goal, which, with the aid of the Spirit can be acheived-maybe not in my lifetime, but it CAN happen. Well, I'm sorry this was so long. I tend to get wordy on topics like this, which I take VERY seriously. I do hope this helps explain where I'm comin' from, though. Pax vobiscum.
Thor,
It's ironic that you are doing just what you say should not be done. You are determining who is part of the church universal. That can not be done by any man. God is the only one who can determine that. If he, in his grace and wisdom, allows people who don't worship like me into it - that's his perogative.
One thing I know is that I am fallible and I don't have everything 100% right. That's why I'm glad that having everything 100% right is not a requirement for being part of the church.
Be careful that you yourself are not doing what you are decrying.
Kevin
Titus 1:10-16 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
-PAUL
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Your view of obedience meriting salvation places the emphasis on you and DIMINISHES Christ's perfect obedience.[/quote]
Who was it that was complaining that I was the one misrepresenting a post? I have never and never will intend to say that our obedience MERITS our salvation. I do however believe that is what many hear when they read these posts. So, let me again clear the air. Christ died on the cross so that we might be free of sin. This does not mean that everyone will receive the Grace that this provides. Who will and who will not? What will cause some to experience the grace of God and others to be left out? I believe that the bible teaches that for one to be able to experience this free gift, they must be obedient. I understand you to say, NO only hear and respond emotionally, or intellectually, then you'll feel like obeying later. That simply is not the case.
Salvation comes upon the heels of immersion. Why?
Not because I am works centered. NO. It is because I AM Grace centered. It was the Grace of God that sent His Son. In baptism we take part in His death, burial, and resurrection. We kill off the old man of sin in baptism, how can we do that if we are already saved? In baptism we bury that old man and rise in NEWNESS of life, if we are Christians, God's children before baptism do we rise from those waters children of Satan? No. It is only in baptism that we contact the Blood of Christ. It is there that the Grace of God is applied to our sin. Just because we get in the water, we have NOT done anything worth of the death of Christ, but it is there and only there that the blood of that sacrifice is applied. If you preach Jesus, the result is baptism. Why? Because it saves...1 Peter 3:21
Again I illustrate...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The very first Gospel Sermon ended with the invitation to believe and you are saved? NO, Peter told the Jews to Repent and be Baptized. The Christian faith is an active faith. We must do our part. We can not earn that gift from God, we can make ourselves available to recieve it. Have you ever gotten an invitation to a FREE CAR GIVEAWAY , where the disclaimer said you must be present to win? Do you sue them for false advertizing? No, because the ad is correct, your attendance in no way earns the car they are going to give you. It is still a free gift. God's disclaimer is that we must show our love for Him and His Son. That Love demands obedience. That's not too much to ask and in no way turns that free gift into a payment for services rendered. [/quote]
But He can. And who are we?
Thor ,
In Hebrews does the writer need to distinguish between dead faith and active faith? Maybe he meant to tell us that Cain had a dead faith but Abel had an active faith. That would certainly have helped. When Jesus calls someone a person of faith does he feel the need to define it as active? I remember him calling the Pharisees white washed tombs with dead bones inside. Do you think He should have said you dead faith Pharisees?
I am not truly extracting but pointing out that the problem isn't baptism it is works vs. faith. If you believe obedience saves, that makes your actions works. That is why the discussion is not about actual actions, everyone believes in the actions, some just see a work and others see an act of faith.
The problem isn't with people reading James, it is people taking one sentence and reshaping the entire bible behind it. It is nothing new. RC's own the copyright on the practice. So change faith but faith stands as the Bible defines it. A response to what has been done for you. The ark was an act of faith, the walls were an act of faith, baptism is an act of faith.
Thanks for the discussion.
Boringoldguy,
I probably enjoy debating to much. I was referring to this...
2K.5:1
Now Naaman was commander of the army of the king of Aram. He was a great man in the sight of his master and highly regarded, because through him the LORD had given victory to Aram.
The fact that God was working through him is what I was looking at. I agree it does not specifically call him righteous. My mistake. Thank you for pointing that out. That does not change the other two does it?
I did answer your question... The people who did not have faith did not get on the ark. It is not a hypothetical question, history has the answer.
I thought the walls came down because they walked around them? The person who dies on the way certainly didn't walk around the wall so clearly nothing could come down. My "absurd
Kanham,
Doing something in order to recieve the consequences IS NOT the same thing as meritorious work.
Biblical Faith is NOT faith until it is cemented by works.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.[/quote]
I believe that's more than ONE Verse...And it's context is included....
If I flip a light switch in my office, I have done something in order to recieve the consequences. BUT if the switch is not wired Nothing Happens. Someone else must do all the work. Running the wire, providing the power, paying the bill, The WORK has been done, HOWEVER I MUST FLIP the switch. If you consider that WORK, you my friend are mistaken.
Its Gods grace that ran the lines of Jesus' blood to baptism, He paid the price for the power found there, It was the perfect sacrifice of His Son that provides the remission of sin, BUT we MUST flip the switch. That DOES NOT earn the salvation that follows.
I think it ironic that you choose to discount all the biblical evidence. Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38, John 3
Baptism saves not because we have done something so wonderful, but because that is where God applies the blood. Because it is where God decided to forgive sin, because we open our souls there to the Grace He has given.
Your arguement falls if you say that those who do not obey are lost. If you are lost by not doing something, then you can be saved by so doing.
Children of Israel were lost by disobeying God, Saved by obeying Him. Not because they deserved it but because that is how God decided to save them.
Lee,
How in the world, does one who is still covered in sin = a saved soul?
You said that in baptism... "2. Their sins are remitted in baptism."
Sin seperates...How is one reconciled to God when their very soul is kept from Him because of their sin.
Segell,
In my Bible, in Exodus 6:6 - 8, God says that He will do certain things, not that He had already done them. I have shown you where God put a precondition on Israel.
I notice that you tell everyone who disagrees with you that they need to do a careful study of God's sovereignty as if you're the only person who ever had. And if you think that saying that I want to respond to God on God's terms makes me silly and self-righteous, go right ahead and think it.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The lvation, The parting of the Red Sea where the people were provided salvation BY WATER, the parting of the Jordan so that the People COULD enter the PROMISED LAND.
Passages through water= Salvation. That's the OT example.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Matthew 20:1-16. I think it speaks to the topic at hand. [/quote]
Parables have ONE point. They were used to teach one thought. The thought of the parable is that No matter When you entered into the vineyard you will go to heaven just like everyone else. Look to the preceding thoughts esp 19:27-30 "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first.
I liked your last post! Hope you have a nice day, too!
:clap: :clap: :clap:
The Church of Christ almost was Baptist. Alexander Campbell's churches were early on referred to as "Reforming Baptists." Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell (and their families) were immersed by Baptist Elder Matthias Luce. Campbell is quoted by Dr. Robert Richardson as saying that he didn't intend to unite with, or favor, the Baptists over any other Christian group, however, in Campbell's mind the Baptists seemed generally more interested in "bible doctrine and conversion." Both Campbell and Stone had a high regard for the Baptist Church. And though Campbell was heavily influenced by Presbyterian Calvinism, he nevertheless also imbibed much of frontier Baptist theology. The Disciples/Christians and Baptists never formally united because the Baptists asked that the Disciples adopt the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which would have been against the principles of the Stone-Campbell Movement. If things had gone a little bit different... Many of my friends are Baptist; they are as sincere in their beliefs as we are in ours. The girl I'm interested in is Baptist. She'll be in Heaven waaay ahead of me! Pax vobiscum.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Lee Freeman @ Mar. 28 2003,11:27)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]then the sermon, exactly fifteen minutes long,[/quote]
Lee,
Where is this congregation and how soon can I join?!?!?!?!?!?
Does not resemble the cofc I know and love. Most :announceit: I've heard believe in a standard 35-40 minutes. For instance, when I started preaching where I now work full time, the guy who set me up said, "Just put together a standard sermon. You know, 35-40 minutes long."
Of course, this defies everything I was taught in my Speech Communication studies. So I just went with my 15-20 minute lessons. Hence--I became a change agent. :D
SoaPMan
Marc-well stated brother!!! Those are my thoughts exactly. For me too, it was about intellectual honesty. Pax vobiscum.
Lee and Steve,
Those were excellent comments. My journey is much like Lee's and Steve's wife's. I have a background in the non-institutional sect of the cofc's so perhaps even further to the right than yalls situations.
Steve wrote
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]She will tell you that she has, in effect, been set free.[/quote]
This how I feel too over the past few years. Yet if I say this to my friends who are "not there" yet, they couldn't even comprehend what I mean. They would view this as "you dont think you have to follow the Bible anymore." When in fact, my spiritual life is much better than the years I spent in legalism. There is a vast difference in obeying God out of fear and legalism verses obedience out of love for what He has done for us. I think that is why you see so much bitterness and harshness in the far right, as after a while you cant help but be that way when you live under such an oppressive system, always wondering if your in or out of God's grace.
In fact just last night a fellow deacon (and far right theologically) said, "man what happened to you that your so fanatical now - and a change agent?" My reply was I read the Bible. He said, "like you had never read it before?" I had, but only to support what I already was told to think, not to truly go to the Word to see whether it was so. Reading the whole thing through a couple times really changed my thinking so much. I told him I am for change because our congregation isnt reaching anyone and if we dont change that, the Lord is going to want to know why. The answer, "Lord we knew you were a hard God, and we were afraid to do anything different, so we buried our talents into the pattern delivered in 1950," won't be a good answer.
God Bless,
RM
Sure, Thor.
The salvation, exists, it stands, and it applies to me.
All those actions are because my salvations stands.
Where I differ from some folks, though, is that even though that salvation is mine -- it was mine from the foundation of the Earth, it was mine since Calvary, mine-mine-mine -- I still do not get the benefit of it until I am given possession of it.
And I must submit to the Giver to receive it. And that submission includes things like finding out He's there in the first place, and realizing that I need what He has done about my sin problem, I need it desperately.
As when Naaman had to submit to the plan outlined for the remission of his leprosy, so I have to submit to the plan outlined for the remission of my sin-infection. The cure is established. My name is on the hypo! I just need to hold still so the Physician can administer it to me. He won't chase after me, tackle me and stick me against my will.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]God provided the power in the water, it is not found in its chemical bond.[/quote]
Thor, do you really mean to say that the power of salvation is in the water, or in Jesus' atoning sacrifice? Did Jesus die so that baptism could save us, or are we saved by Jesus when we come into contact with his blood through baptism?
As for the whole obedience thing, did the ACT ITSELF of the Israelites' marching around the walls cause them to fall, or did God cause them to fall? It seems to me that a focus on obedience shifts the focus off of what God has done (or has promised to do) to what WE have done.
My whole childhood I was taught a theology that basically said that Jesus died so that He could have the authority to command us to save ourselves by being baptized. This wasn't how it was explicitly stated, but that's really what it boiled down to. As I see it, this is idolatry. We've worshipped a "plan," or one plank in that "plan"-baptism. This in spite of Hebrews 6: 2 which places baptism into its proper prespective as an elementary doctrine, a sort of entry or gateway into life in Christ. But we've made baptism the destination instead of the gate to the destination.
I don't have any problem believing that many unimmersed people will and have been saved. God is big enough for that if He chooses. To say that only folks who have perfectly obeyed can be saved is to condemn us all, because NO ONE except CHRIST has ever, or COULD EVER obey perfectly. Legalism holds you responsible for keeping every single one of the commandments flawlessly. Who could do that? No, we are saved because of Christ's perfect obedience. Baptism is the NORMATIVE way people are saved, but I don't think a just God would eternally condemn someone because of their sincere ignorance.
Thor, none of us have advocated a "cheap grace" where you could be a Muslim, Unitarian or agnostic and still be saved. Alexander Campbell taught that one should be obedient to the truth as far as one knows it. Anyone who claims to have a saving faith, but isn't doing good works, probably never really had a saving faith in the first place. However, that's not the same thing as saying that we are saved BECAUSE of our good works.
If anyone asked me what to do to be saved, I'd urge them to be immersed. BUT, I'd be sure they understood that neither their obedience, nor the water was what effected their salvation, that Christ Himself did that. Our faith is called "Christianity," after Christ, not immersianity."
Pax vobiscum.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Second, please show me where the word "only" appears in Ephesians 4. In context this passages are hardly exclusionary, but rather verses 4-5 show what happens when we apply verses 1-3. [/quote]
**entering carefully on tip toe**
Marc, can you explain the difference between "one" and "only one"? They seem the same to me... If I ask you how many vehicles you own and you tell me "one" is that a different number than if you had said "only one"? I'm not trying to be difficult, I just feel like I'm missing something here.
Never
Lee Freeman,
METHINKS you have been DEBATING with Ed so much, it has AFFECTED your posts!
Duckman
P.S. I agree with your posts on this subject, Lee
You still haven't answered the questions I asked.
Going back to the original topic of this thread: How many elders does it take to change a lightbulb? CHANGE?! :D Pax vobiscum.
Lee
Thanks for sharing those verses. I think I have referenced them before when discussing God's sovereignty.
I'm afraid I've about run out of wind on this topic.
BOG said:[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]But what Exodus 19 says is that they weren't God's people until they chose to obey.[/quote]
Well, we'll just have to disagree on another issue. I just believe the prior 18 chapters say something completely different. In Verse 6 - when God calls Israel His people, I don't know how much more clear that is. He wasn't waiting on any obedience (I kinda have the feeling He knew how things were going to go anyway, you know?)
Nonetheless, BOG, it really wasn't about God "calling" in Chapter 6 - it was God declaring,, the way I read it.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I told Segell that God called Israel to Him before they met Him at Sinai. I didn't say He called them because they had obeyed.
[/quote]
Sorry, BOG, I don't have a recollection of that. I remember you saying that Israel was not God's people until they obeyed. I had asked this:
"Let me ask both of you another question. What obedient gymnastics did the nation of Israel have to perform BEFORE God chose them to be His messengers on earth? God chooses, we respond - I believe is the message. It's a message of God's complete sovereignty."
You responded with the reference to Chapter 19 to prove that there was obedience before Israel was chosen - not just called, but chosen. My question went to the fact that God, in His sovereignty, chose Israel.
Anyway, enough from me on this. I hope you will attempt to see the point I believe Scripture is making. It is a constant theme and message - from Genesis to and through Revelation.
Steve
Thor,
I realize we will never agree and that is understandable. I just hope you understand that this statement will keep me from ever really seriously listening to your interpretations of verses.
"But if you submit your will to God and are immersed you shall be saved.
Shorty,
That last statement wasn't exactly correct. I don't think there's anything wrong with visiting a Baptist church now and then - I've done it. What I mean is that I don't think we should become Baptists.
Sorry for the poor wording. Have a nice day.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Lee Freeman @ Mar. 26 2003,3:32)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The Church of Christ almost was Baptist. Alexander Campbell's churches were early on referred to as "Reforming Baptists." Both Thomas and Alexander Campbell (and their families) were immersed by Baptist Elder Matthias Luce. Campbell is quoted by Dr. Robert Richardson as saying that he didn't intend to unite with, or favor, the Baptists over any other Christian group, however, in Campbell's mind the Baptists seemed generally more interested in "bible doctrine and conversion." Both Campbell and Stone had a high regard for the Baptist Church. And though Campbell was heavily influenced by Presbyterian Calvinism, he nevertheless also imbibed much of frontier Baptist theology. The Disciples/Christians and Baptists never formally united because the Baptists asked that the Disciples adopt the Philadelphia Confession of Faith, which would have been against the principles of the Stone-Campbell Movement. If things had gone a little bit different... Many of my friends are Baptist; they are as sincere in their beliefs as we are in ours. The girl I'm interested in is Baptist. She'll be in Heaven waaay ahead of me! Pax vobiscum.[/quote]
Lee: I declare you an honorary angel to take the time to research and post these thoughts. I wonder how/why many of Campbell's original intentions got lost (particularly what appears to be a KEY idea of unity for all Christians). Doesn't matter how/why, I guess, as long as we can refocus as needed.
As far as the girl you are interested in...sounds like a match made in heaven! :inlove:
Lee,
I'm not going to face your questions one by one they are too numerous and can be dealt with simply by bringing forth a simple principle. I would never say that one must do things in the EXACT way that they were done in the early Church. I do however contend that we MUST follow the pattern that has been established. Your father has given you a pattern for a shirt it has two long-sleeves and buttons along the front. He gives you no command as to which material to use. That pattern for a shirt may be cut out of denim, rayon, or cotton; You follow the pattern and still end up with a shirt that has two long-sleeves and buttons along the front. That is much like the New Testament pattern. We must take the Lord's Supper- to use cup's or a cup is nothing. We must gather for worship—to do so in a home, building, or the great out doors is nothing. Many however seek to over run the pattern. We are to sing—what we sing or what we use to remind us of the words is nothing. BUT when we add to that pattern sing AND play an instrument we have violated the pattern. We are not keeping to the pattern but creating a shirt that has three short sleeves. Our father isn't going to be pleased.
PS. Also note that the Word of God is not contradictory, so use verses in local context as well as looking at the larger context.
Steve,
I beg your pardon for my frankness but you are spouting dangerous theology. You are telling a train full of people to ignore the conductors voice when He say that your trip is doomed. You encourage everyone to do nothing. That everything is O.K. just stay in your seats we'll all get there just fine. Even as the train heads for certain destruction. Now is the time to evacuate. You are giving people hope where there is no hope. That is dangerous. You try to comfort and ensure those who are dying, when they could be healed. But you say don't take the medicine because if you do you are denying God's Grace. FALSE. God's grace provided the medicine in the first place. Put it to your lips and drink. Be refreshed. Be Saved.
Do something. Don't just sit there and let your love for God pass you by.
Jesus said that if we loved Him we would keep his commandments Jn 4:15.
I read Ezekiel 11 and noticed that there were a few things that had to be done as a condition for what you reference. Look at vs. 18. There is a condition, because in vs. 21 we see those who do not meet the condition of verse 18. Also, I think that your interpretation stretches the context. God would do those things by extending His love, Not through some heart surgery in which His had actually reaches out to transform a heart. God's operation provided Christ and if viewing that sacrifice does not change one's heart nothing will. Christ and His sacrifice, God and His Word provide that new heart.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
Matt 22:37-38 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.38 This is the first and great commandment.V
Matt 6:19-23 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness![/quote]
Steve, I would like for you to read and consider Malachi 2:17
Anything we believe, anything we teach as congregations of the Lord's saved ones, we can test (a) by the Scriptures, then we can further test our understanding by (b) drawing our positions/statements out to their logical conclusions to see if they hold water.
This morning's sermon taught me that the warning against casting pearls before swine, and against giving that which is sacred to dogs (don't toss the priests' and Levites' sacrificed meat to the dogs), means we cannot do anything not holy using holy things (i.e., church sanction or church property).
Fine. Who will head up the "Is It Holy Enough?" committee?
I was also taught this morning that, if I use unrighteous methods when I'm judging others, and incomplete sets of facts about their situation, then God will judge me unrighteously, :0 He will make :whatisthat: unrighteous judgements about me, come the Judgement.
Hunh?
Some fellas oughta record their sermons & listen to themselves before they preach. Or get their wives to edit.
If I knew someone who decided to follow Jesus after learning about Him from Segell, I would certainly congratulate them and immediately tell them everything I understand from Scripture about immersion... but that doesn't mean I'd toss Segell or his followers on the dungheap, either.
Thor may need to develop a life - at least, some people I know who sound like him need to. I don't know him... and I wouldn't want to make an unrighteous judgement. :crackup:
So the mainline Churches of Christ are the only group willing to put pride, predjudice and personalities behnd us? This HAS NOT been my experience growing up in the church of Christ!
Like I said before, we ALL can understand the GOSPEL alike; we MAY NOT ALL understand frequency of communion, type of music, elders' roles, etc. alike. Where does scripture even say that we have to? The church of Christ is inconsistent and selective when choosing what items to include in its "pattern." I made reference to the fact that we insist on elders but not on widows' rolls. Why? We insist that Ephesians and Colossians teach that music in worship MUST be acapella, but these passages do not even MENTION a worship assembly!
Then we lump Baptists, Methodists and other sincere Christian believers together as "not continuing in the teaching of Christ," and "workers of iniquity." SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT UNDRSTAND EVERYTHING IN THE BIBLE JUST LIKE WE DO? And in spite of Jesus' words that "WHOEVER IS NOT AGAINST US IS FOR US."
Try this exercise at your church Thor; pass out sheets in the assembly and ask all the adult members to write down the 5 MOST IMPORTANT teachings in the NT. I GUARANTEE you, you'll get totally different answers on EVERY page!
I've hard the Uzzah and Nadab and Abihu stories used to insist on a blind obedeience to the "pattern" all my life. I even used to believe it-That God was more concerned with my following the rules than having a personal relationship with Him. But far from advocating a blind obedeince to rules there are other interpretations to these passages; if you read the Nadab/Abihu story carefully, you will see that they were drunk in the tabernacle. In Leviticus 10: 9 Yahweh tells Aaron: "Do not drink wine or strong drink, thou NOR THY SONS with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, LEST YE DIE..." (KJV emphasis added). That is why the two men were killed. And the Uzzah passage might be interpreted as teaching that no one can approach God's unbridled majesty without a mediator-who would be Christ.
If God punishes both willful disobedience and sincere ignorance, then how do you explain Moses, who disobeyed a command of God, yet is mentioned in Hebrews chapter 11 as a hero of faith? Or King Hezekiah, in II Chronicles chapter 30, who celebrated the newly reinstituted Passover ON THE WRONG DAY (because they didn't have enough time to sanctify all the priests and there were still people who had not arrived in time), in clear violation of God's strict commandment. Yet God did NOT punish Him. But legalism says that Hezekiah should have been zapped just like Uzzah! Under a "pattern" theology circumstances don't matter, only blind obedeience. But God tkes into account circumstances and the state of a person's heart. Our legalistic interpretations of these passages is just another example of our inconsistent proof-texting. If God punishes sincere ignorance I think we're ALL in trouble! (I know I am!)
When Paul uses the phrase "doctrine of Christ" what does he mean? Elders' authority, womens' role, frequency of communion, type of music in the assembly, correct millennial views? Or does he use that phrase in the narrow sense of the doctrine regarding the death, burial and resurrection and how Christians are to live in response to it? Your interpretation of "doctrine of Christ" to mean the "pattern" is just that, an INTERPRETATION. The text DOES NOT say "pattern." Well, this is gettin' too long. Thor, I pray that God will enable you to see the inconsistencies and fallacies in our so-called "pattern" theology. Its just repackaged legalism, which, if I read Galatians correctly, never saved anybody.
Pax vobiscum.
jarschqua,
I think I understand your concern. When the Berlin wall fell and communism died everyone celebrated. The problem was in Russia people lost their rigid form, the controlling agent, a pattern of government, and without it anarchy ruled. This is a danger but the danger of it happening didn't make keeping communism acceptable.
When such confusing times come it should force us to place our faith in Jesus Christ. I am not sure how many have their faith in the person of Jesus Christ and instead have their faith in a "law
Kanham,
So someone believes because of the salvation they already have?
So someone repents because of the salvation they already have?
So someone Confesses because of the salvation they already have?
So someone is Baptized because of the salvation they already have?
Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Isaiah spoke the truth in his time. BEFORE Christ. Without the sacrifice of God's Son no act of righteousness would satisfy God's demand for justice.
Now, we have the blood of that sacrifice which can be applied to our sin, WHEN we act righteously...when we are obedient...when we do as God commands.
Steve,
Your syllogism is fails on this point.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am not focused on what we must do, I don't glory in that.
I glory in the opportunity God has given us to Obey. God provided that plan we did not.[/quote]
Thor, you could have said " I am not focused on what we must do, I don't glory in that. I glory in the salvation provided by Christ's atoning sacrifice." But you didn't say that. You said "I glory in the opportunity God gave us to obey." What else is this BUT being focused on what we must do?
If, when we read scripture all we get from it is a "pattern" or a baptismal theology, we have REALLY missed the point!
People tend to talk a lot about what's most important to them. You have talked a lot about the "pattern," obedience and baptism. Very little about the cross, grace and forgiveness. But I know you don't really think that obedience is the focus of scripture. Surely you don't think John wrote his gospel primarily so "that ye might believe that ye are saved by a perfect obedience and by being baptized for the remission of sins?"
No, John says it was so "that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life in his name." (John 20:31 KJV)
Pax vobiscum.
Kanham,
With all respect, I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
I'll try again:
1. The purpose of Christianity it to be in a right relationship with God. The motive for becoming a Christian is to have that relationship.
2. The things that we must do to have that relationship are necessary.
3. If we can have the relationship without doing a thing - whether that thing be believing, repenting, confessing or whatever, then that thing is, by definition, not necessary.
4. Therefore, to say that we can be saved before or without baptism, but that baptism is somehow necessary, is meaningless. It's empty talk.
It's necessary for what? If we can have a right relationship to God without baptism, then it isn't necessary for anything.
I don't know how to make it any plainer, and I don't see how anyone can fail to understand it.
Thanks, BOG. Guys, since we've been discussing salvation, how it is obtained, what our role is in the salvation process, and who will be saved, I'm reminded of the parable of the landowner's sovereignty from Matthew 20:1-16. I think it speaks to the topic at hand. Jesus said:
"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' So they went.
"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?' 'Because no one has hired us, ' they answered.
"He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work in the heat of the day.'
"But he answered one of them, 'friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
"So the last will be first and the first will be last." (Matt. 20:1-16 NIV)
I think this speaks to our topic. But I'll let you guys give your opinions. Time to eat. "Man shall not live by bread alone...." :) Pax vobiscum.
Lee,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]As James so powerfully states, true, living faith brings response, but it is still faith and faith is perfectly defined. [/quote]
That's true. I think your right on James. Faith without a response (WORK) is still faith. IT IS DEAD FAITH.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Just as the LS had an OT "shadow
Thor,
This is just one historic fact about marriage in other cultures during the time of the Bible. "The wedding itself served as a social occasion, not a legal act as with us" (New Illustrated Bible Manners & Customs). I have pointed you in this direction before.
Thank you about my grandma. The person who has dead faith also has no faith, James' point.
No response on the blood not being in the water? The lamb clearly brought delverance before the water. I believe that I have made my point.
God bless.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ Mar. 03 2003,1:54)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] But I don't think I'm wrong to say that an organization which intentionally excludes people who Jesus has accepted is not the church of Christ.[/quote]
From a quasi-outsider's view, this seems to happen with the CofC...excluding those Jesus has accepted. The CofC seems to be the most exclusive of them all. Don't people worry that's wrong?
I think I finally understand more about what I see on these pages (gc-mag) due to the last several posts on this thread. You seem to actually believe that the blood bought church is just another run of the mill, man made religious institution.... However, let me say for all of those who read, follow, and accept God's word for what it says and who try to actually Obey the Lord, for those who will not and can not have fellowship with those who hold to religious error. The Lord's Church is not just some denomination, its not some Alexander Campbell founded group, its not some man made institution, its not some tradition filled group. The Church of Christ is the Lord's Body. It is the Kingdom come. It is the Blood bought institution begun on Pentecost. It is THE Church. It is The ONE Church. (Eph 4) When one follows God's plan to save man the Lord will add him to it. (Acts 2:41) Is the church perfect? Yes. Are congregations of God's people perfect? No. They are just groups of people trying to go to heaven, they make mistakes, they have bad attitudes, they lose their focus. But, they must be brought back under Christ or He will remove their candlestick.
Think about this: There are four gospel accounts—to prove that Jesus was born, lived, died and was raised. There is one history of conversions—Acts—to show how one becomes a Christian. There are 21 Epistles—Romans-Jude to help correct problems in the congregations. There is one book of prophecy—Revelation—To encourage us in the Christian life.
Congregations have always had problems. People will always have problems. 21 letters were penned to deal with the problems in the congregations. Never was a letter written to say "Look you believers, you are not following what God has told us, you bind or loose contrary to his word, but that's O.K. just keep doing what your doing and God's grace will save your souls.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--][!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am also assured, then, of your commitment to keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace rather than the bond of doctrinal correctness. [/quote]
I find it telling that your version of gospel unity is 'keep the peace at all costs, allow error to continue, don't compare doctrine to the Word of God, maintain fellowship with the worlds religions and with Christ, and by all means never say that someone is incorrect doctrinally.'
When Paul speaks of keeping gospel unity he says
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Eph 4:3-6 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.[/quote]
If there is only one body those not in that body are on the outside of unity, there is one spirit those without that one spirit are on the outside of unity, there is one hope of our calling those outside that hope are outside unity, there is one Lord those who are outside the Lord are outside unity, there is one faith those outside that one faith are outside unity, there is one baptism those outside baptism are outside unity, there is one God those outside of Him are outside of unity.[/quote]
Two things here. I will state the first rather forcefully. Never put words in my mouth. This is dishonest. I ask you to either show where I said what you claim I said (not implied-in-your-opinion, but said) or please go back and delete the untrue things you printed in this post. I will give you the benefit of a doubt here and assume that you did not mean to say that these were my words but only what you gathered from my words. This however is not what you said, so I ask you again to please go back and edit your first paragraph accordingly.
Second, please show me where the word "only" appears in Ephesians 4. In context this passages are hardly exclusionary, but rather verses 4-5 show what happens when we apply verses 1-3.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ Mar. 04 2003,1:59)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Shorty,
Please think hard about staying with the Church of Christ.
We're a quarrelsome bunch, and your are right to question how closely we follow the Bible sometimes, but at least we think we're supposed to follow the Bible. That's worth a lot, in my opinion.[/quote]
Guy:
Thanks very much for caring!
Shorty :hug:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] My question still stands, though. Since no two individuals or groups of individuals read scripture and understand everything in it exactly alike, who decides which items of the "pattern" are indispensible and which aren't. Who decides which "items" correspond to the sleeves and which merely correspond to the color? For example, you'd say acapella music is indispensible; I'd say it isn't. God wants heartfelt praise; if that happens to include a keyboard is He really going to get all mad and indignant because somebody didn't praise him and worship Him exactly like He told them too? [/quote]
May I direct your mind to 2 Peter 2:1-5 as Peter says there are damnable heresies? Thus the line must be drawn somewhere. We must follow the line as it is seen in God's Word we do not have need of a new line it is there for us. As for your picture of God as one who will overlook disobedience see 1 Samuel 13 and Leviticus 10...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Thor: looking back over the last few pages of posts, I am left with a question: Why do you post here? I would really like an honest answer, because I see a troubling pattern in your posts. When asked to specifically respond to a question, you say you don't have time to get into that and then make a broad, sweeping statement without addressing the issue at hand. You make a statement, then when this statement is disproven, you shift and argue something that in and of itself contridicts what you originally said (see the discussion of Stone and Campbell). Also, I find I am not the only person whose comments you have mis-stated to such a degree that I find it hard to believe that you believe we actually are saying what you say we are saying.[/quote]
I post here because I enjoy the religious discussion.
Btw, I'm sorry I don't answer EVERY single little question, Have you taken note of how many posts request a response? I try to provide the basic principle that will, if followed, lead one to the truth. Without writing 30 some odd pages of references so as to deal with each specific point in the discussion.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Now I admit that my postings may be wordy and would weary the strong but who ever said "all who do evil are good in the eyes of the LORD"? or "Where is the God of justice?"
I have had many discussions with folks that embrace your views, Thor, and everyone - I am sorry to admit - reduce discussions to accusation and innuendo regarding matters that just do not exist. [/quote]
I'm sorry Steve but I believe that you were just apologizing for being so direct. Yet, now I am grouped with folks who ¡§reduce discussions to accusation and innuendo regarding matters that just do not exist. I'm sorry but I believe that I have been diligent in discussing our differences. I have and will continue to use illustrations that pinpoint what I hear you saying. It clarifies what has been said for me and demonstrates the problems with the thoughts given. You are free to say that you believe my thoughts dangerous (I'll continue the discussion) but please don't seek to silence me with your generalizations and accusations when I set out to expose the danger in yours!
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Here, briefly, is where you and I depart on our views:
1. You stress a religiosity. The emphasis is placed on ensuring that an individual does certain things first before being considered saved. What's more you, in my opinion, are in error in teaching that is what the Bible instructs.
2 I embrace the view that God calls us into a relationship. In fact I do not believe that Christianity is a religion. I believe Christianity is an individual relationship and is composed of those that have entered into a personal relationship with God by His grace through placing their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. I believe that Jesus Christ is the center and core of His Church and that unity is found by all that love Him and are called according to His purpose.
4. Honestly, Thor, I am not sure what you base unity on - because it seems to me it's based on the necessity of people buying into your perspectives of what Scripture says, of holding to "pattern" of worship, etc. Again, it seems to boil down to how well one performs. [/quote]
#1 The emphasis is placed where Peter placed it. We have crucified Christ because of our sin. His Life, Death, and Resurrection is God's gift to us. We accept that gift through our submission to his will.
#2 Acts 2:41 & 47 That is an idea that I also embrace. However, I do not do so to the expense of that upon which God's emphasis is placed on the relationship to which He adds us.
#3 Christ is the Center. If we seek unity in Him we will do so God's way. Eph 4.
#4 Honestly, Steve, I am not sure how you think unity can exist at all if it is not based upon following God's word. Again it seems to boil down to just accepting any and all religious error, and sitting back and waiting for God to continue to do everything.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Thor may need to develop a life - at least, some people I know who sound like him need to. I don't know him... and I wouldn't want to make an unrighteous judgement. [/quote]
Did Janine (who has posted 3459 times) just tell me to get a life? That's got to be a joke! Right? Thought so Janine!! :givingkiss:
Thor:
You didn't quote me entirely in your post. I had hoped the remainder of the paragraph would explain what I meant. Allow me:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Lastly, Thor, unity is NOT based on how one follows God's word. Look at the divisions in the churches of Christ. One church down the street does such and such and will refuse fellowship with the other church down the street because they do not do such and such. Both churches of Christ. And yet division. You see, it's the Word that SHOULD be doing the uniting and not the dividing. It's the personal relationship with Jesus that all true, born from above believers share that brings unity. What divides, in part, is how one binds another to his/her interpretation of obedience to God's Word. The path of history is strewn with the damaged spiritual lives of those who have been taught to measure or judge another by the way they adhere to another's perceived truth. It is quite sad. And that is why I say it is dangerous.
[/quote]
In the first sentence, I should have emphasized the word "one" as I did the word "not". Unity is not based on how persons interpret God's Word, but is based on the Word - Jesus Christ - Himself. Unity is based on our mutual, yet, individual and personal relationships with God through Christ Jesus. Our unity is in Christ.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If God's word had never been given, tell me one thing that you know about Jesus. With out God's Word we know nothing of our Lord. Are we to be united in Christ? Why so? Because Jesus prayed for it. (John 17:21) Are we to OBEY that prayer? [/quote]
Let's examine this for a second. The first sentence is kind of a non-starter. The Word had been given before the first word of New Testament scripture was written by hand. Jesus' Word was delivered to the hearts of His people by His Spirit and I believe that is how it is delivered to this day.
Then you ask and answer the question if we should be united in Christ. Please note the last two words, Thor - "in Christ". It's not united in how we believe we are to obey Christ. And I believe that your answer "Because Jesus prayed for it. (John 17:21)" is not really the answer and I'll tell you why. Keep reading further in the verse and Jesus tells us why. So that the world will know that the Father sent Him. In other words, for the glory of the Father, Thor. It's about showing to the world God's love (verse23). And that unity is accomplished through and by the power and work of the Holy Spirit - there are many verses to that effect but I would ask you to dwell on these two passages in Ezekiel - 11:19 and 20 and 36:25-27 - and consider God's work in the lives of those He chooses.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]We are to read God's Word. To understand what He has told us. There is One Faith, There is one Lord, There is one Body. How are we to learn Jesus and NOT follow or obey Him. [/quote]
I agree. I would add that the Holy Spirit enables us to understand Scripture. Yet, our unity is not in how well we understand or "learn Jesus". The very new believer is united with the most learned and mature believer. Not in what and how much they both know - but by their mutual faith in all that Jesus Christ is. I'm afraid, Thor, that you place exact understanding and exact obedience as conditions of unity. Do you see where the focus is? You place it on us, Thor, and I think that is the error. You place unity on how well WE obey - not on and in Christ Jesus.
You also place forgiveness of sins on how well we obey. I just believe that is not what Scripture teaches at all. John 3:16 and Ephesians 2:8 among many, many more verses (in fact the whole of Scripture) teaches that we are saved by God's grace through faith in all that Christ did in His perfect obedience - in His life, death and resurrection. Christ's righteousness is imputed to us by and through faith - not because we went through a step by step process to merit forgiveness. God's children's hearts are changed by and through the power of the Holy Spirt. He convicts us of our sin, our need for forgiveness and the Truth of Christ. That certainly leads to repentance, confession and baptism. Those things are done because we have been saved - not as conditions for salvation.
Thor, the reason why I asked that you share your relationship with Christ is because it is the fact that unity is about relationship - not obedience. It's about being in Christ and Him in us as the Father was in Him and He in the Father. From the relationship comes obedience and obedience for the right purpose - so that God may be glorified, His Kingdom furthered and that we might experience Christ's joy.
That's what it's all about. Isn't it?
Blessings.
Steve
Lee I think you have stumbled onto something.
You said that your big change came from a study of OT prophecy of Christ.
My changes were cemented by a rapid fire book a week study of the Bible and it was the OT that got me.
I think we have grown up in a church culture that uses the Old Testament merely to find Bible stories to teach kids and to condemn practices we object to. In doing so we miss around 3,000 years of God's pursuit of man and his desire to have his back as his children. Without seeing the failure of reaching God through right actions instead of the right heart, we miss the message of Jesus. We also doom ourself to creation of action based rules.
The cofC today would send Alexander Campbell out on his ear for saying "We will acknowledge all as Christians who acknowledge the gospel facts, and obey Jesus Christ." Either that or we would nod our heads in agreement noting that the gospel facts and obeying Jesus includes being accappella and having the right stance on kitchens and Sunday school.
Thor,
Our youngest son is adopted. He is now 5 years old, and the adoption was finalized when he was 2. My wife found him in an orphanage in Haiti when he was 10 months old. 2 months after returning from the orphanage, after much prayer and discussion and thought, we decided to go for the adoption. It took 14 very long months for it to happen.
Did he become our son at that point? Not legally, not in the eyes of the state. But he sure became our son in our hearts, the moment we made the decision to begin the adoption process. And if he had been old enough to understand what was happening, we would have been his parents in his heart, though not legally yet.
Lee and Steve and others here have been making what I think are very good points about the heart and how that relates to our becomming God's children. The obedience and fulfilling the legal requirements come later.
If we had gone through all the legal stuff to make our son legally ours, but never loved him in our hearts (or he us), would that make him our son? It might in a legal sense, but the relationship would suck, to put it bluntly.
Duckman
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]An act of work is something done to receive something. An act of faith is something done because you have been given something.
Faith responds because of who we are, guilty sinners deserving of death. Faith responds because of what Christ did on the cross.[/quote]
Faith responds, Faith responds...Yes it does. Faith is active. Faith alone is DEAD.
You can not extract this discussion from its application in the overall topic, which existed b/f your post, about baptism.
Change agents try to turn what Jesus, Peter, and Paul had to say about baptism and its essentiality to salvation into a critique on the sacrifice of the cross. Their muddled focus is on ones ability to be saved without, or before obedience. It just isn't so. Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16
Acts 2:40 ...save yourselves...41 Then they that gladly recieved his word were baptized...
Faith without works = No faith
If your salvation came without the "work" of baptism then you were saved by DEAD faith.
Can't anyone read James anymore....?
By the way, Naaman was quite clearly not a righteous man
before he dipped in the Jordan. He was an enemy of God's people who came and stole little children away and kept them as slaves.
Boringoldguy,
I apologize if I have been insulting in any way, it is not my intention. I just don't believe you understand what I am saying. I will try to put this post together in a way that may help.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Would Noah have been saved if he hadn't built the ark and then gotten in it?[/quote]
As I have said several times. We know what happened to all those in the world who did not believe, they died. If Noah would have been a nonbeliever then he to would have perished. I believe this answers them all.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Would the walls of Jericho have fallen if Joshua had not led the Israelites around the city?[/quote]
Once again I can answer that with history. The Isrealites could not enter the promised land and wondered for 40 years. This happened because they did not believe that God would keep his promise and deliver the land, they did not act in faith. So could they have received the wall if they did not act in faith? No because they would not have walked around the wall if they didn't believe. But to say they made the wall fall down because they walked around it is to not understand faith and to miss what God plainly says, He gave them the wall.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] I believe the Bible also tells me that I have to take action on that belief by being baptized. [/quote]
To me this statement has never been at issue as I have said. Everyone believes you need to be baptized. Everyone believes you need to live a life of obedience. The issue is why.
Romans 4:4,5
4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
believe + repent + confess +baptized=salvation is work.
faith=repentance=baptism makes baptism an act of faith. I live by faith.
One last thought faith and works.
Please read Eph 2:8-10. Doesn't that sum it all up quite nicely? The verses tell us (allow my paraphrase) that we are saved by God's grace through faith, we are not saved - even in part - on account of works, so that we dare not boast, we are saved for the purpose of doing good works which God has planned from the beginning.
We can banter and debate all we want, but the core of the message is what God HAS PROVIDED - to be received by faith - in order to do good works - to the glory of the Father.
I think the Scriptures - Old and New Testaments - speak so clearly of what God has provided. Nothing can be added. And more importantly, His requirement is that we receive His gift of eternal life through faith, trusting that He has provided it all - satisfying His demands through Himself. That's the Truth or Jesus died for nothing. Everything is found in Him and anything that would take away that focus is wrong.
Thor - I'm sorry, but I hear from you a gospel message of baptism and I'm afraid that is where I see your focus. The Old Testament points to the Lord Jesus Christ, God's provision of salvation and our desperate need. That salvation is by and through Him, not in baptism. (I refer you to Max Lucado's article on baptism which was provided by eliadam in the Theology section).
Oh, as to parables, they only teach one point? Mmmm. I've never heard that before. You could be correct, but I don't know. Although I do remember that Jesus spoke in parables so that His message could be heard by those with ears to listen. They were not meant to be heard and understood by all. I seem to receive more than one point or thought in all of the parables I've read - so I'm not at all certain about the foundation of your statement:[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Parables have ONE point. [/quote]
Steve
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I have never tried to imply that we could so work as to merit salvation. I believe this has been clear. Salvation is God's gift. He can give it to whom He chooses. Today He has chosen to give that gift to those who follow His plan. It is still a free gift.[/quote]
Thor, I hope this makes sense. I'm kinda rambling here. And if I have misunderstood you I apologize. Don't wanna put words in your mouth. Here are some thoughts on your last post to Kanham.
In your last post to Kanham, you said that salvation is not a work, but a free gift. God can give it to anyone He chooses. BUT, He ONLY chooses to give it to those who "follow his plan," (how do we KNOW for certain that ONLY those who follow this "plan" will be saved? It still seems to make NO room for honest but sincere ignorance of the "plan," holding EVERYONE responsible for obeying the "plan" whether they even know about it or not.) presumably the "plan of salvation" as interpreted and taught by the coC, indicating to me, that those who don't "follow his plan" (as interpreted by the coC) cannot receive this "free gift." So it's NOT free or a gift UNLESS a person follows the "plan,' which still seems to me to put too much emphasis on the human response.
Where is the emphasis on the death, burial and resurrection in the plan? Where is the emphasis on "salvation by grace through faith, this not by works lest any one should boast" in the plan? The plan puts all the emphasis on the human response, doesn't it? I'm not for ONE SECOND saying that a biblical response (immersion) isn't important. IT IS. But baptism into what? A plan, or the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? And again, what about those who are ignorant of immersion? To say that God ONLY saves those who make the proper response, makes immersion more important than belief, doesn't it? It's basically sayin' that God can save any believer He chooses, but He only chooses to save believers who make the proper response. I still hear you struggling with the human response to a "plan." I know how you feel-I used to struugle, too. Well, gotta sign off now. Time for church. Pax vobiscum.
Charlie,
(1) I used to attend the Baptist church. I do not believe it to be the Church we read about in the NT.
(2) No, I don't believe them to be the same.
(3) They would agree about some things, but they would also differ on some things (i.e. salvation, organization)
Shorty,
Please think hard about staying with the Church of Christ.
We're a quarrelsome bunch, and your are right to question how closely we follow the Bible sometimes, but at least we think we're supposed to follow the Bible. That's worth a lot, in my opinion.
Campbell was a seceder, a baptist, then a christian...He worked to bring the church of the first century to light. His association with the baptists did not last because he would not release his teaching "that baptism was for remission of sin." An idea he discovered while studying for his debate with W.L. McCalla a presbyterian preacher. Alexander believed the baptists studious enough to follow his lead in this biblical principle. "My Baptist brethren, as well as the Pesdobaptist brotherhood, I humbly conceive, require to be admonished on this point. [baptism for remission of sin]You have been, some of you, no doubt, too different in asserting this grand improt of baptism." Alexander Cambell, Debate on Christian Baptism (Buffalo: Published by Campbell and Sala. 1824) p 144
Campbell wasn't inspired. He simply studied the Word as well as he could, making great leaps in his understanding about the church. Never the less why does it matter what Campbell, or Stone, or Franklin taught or thought. I live for one preacher, Jesus. And I only follow those who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as they unlocked the keys to the kingdom (Acts 2) I want to follow those who God ordained to lead. Those who wrote the New Testament. I want to be a part of that same Church that was started upon that day in Jerusalem. I can, I am , I wish more were.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]There is scriptural authority to be found for each of those items. Especially a building of worship.(1st Century Christians met in peoples homes) [/quote]
Yes, I am that obtuse. Have been ever since I decided to figure out whether all the stuff I learned growing up in the Church of Christ was true or not. So please, for my enlightenment, provide a list of these scriptural supports. I'm really interested in reading the songbook and Vacation Bible School passages.
Showing the change that has already occured is hardly deflecting attention away from the idea of those you disagree with being labelled "change agents".
Also, while you're at it, please provide the scriptural support for CENI being the "proper" understanding of hermeneutics. This may be obvious to you, but it is not to most Christians. And having grown up with this hermeneutic, I can honestly say it is not obvious at all to me that this is proper.
I have memorized the seven circles of truth. I have used the Open Bible Study and many others. I have attended three Church of Christ Christian colleges and been through the AIM program at Sunset School of Preaching. I have participated in numerous campaigns, sat through "Denominational Doctrines" classes, preached and taught how we were the only ones going to heaven. And now, through what I believe to be a more thorough study of the Bible, through beginning to read in context instead of piecing passages together to support my previously-held beliefs, and through taking seriously the injunction I received when I was growing up that we were to change our beliefs if they did not conform to the Bible, I now believe our basic hermeunutic to be flawed.
In short, in our arrogance we have substituted our own understanding for the grace of God.
And it's time we all fall on our faces and repent before God.
:bowsmiley:
Thor, where did I say God would overlook disobedience? He certainly wants obedience-but does He want a blind obedience to a complex doctrinal "pattern"? Will a just and loving God send a Baptist to hell for using an instrument? Does the Creator and Sustainer of the universe really have nothing better to do than this? Did He really have nothing better to do than to create an arbitrary and complex "pattern" or set of rules we all hafta blindly follow, or else He'd zap us, even if we don't really understand it all or were'nt even aware of everything He'd included in that "pattern" in the first place? Does He condemn sincere ignorance or willful disobedience?
If God condemns sincere ignorance then I'm in BIIIIG trouble!
As we've said so many times before a unity based on God's Word, by which I presume you mean the written word, the Bible, sounds great but is practically impossible because no two people or groups, interpret everything in it exactly alike. We do all (save obvious heresies like Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons-even I'd draw the line there!) interpret the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection, alike. This is our basis of unity; a unity based upon the cross. We all stand equal in God's sight at the foot of the cross. This unity on the cross is the ONLY unity that will work.
The coC has been trying to push a unity based upon the Bible alone for 100 or so years, but it hasn't worked. People aren't flocking in droves from "denominational" churches to ours. Why? Because they don't have the same respect for God and His Word as we do? I can ASSURE YOU, the Baptists, Methodists and Episcopalians I know have as much or even greater regard for the sanctity of God's word than many of us do. When Bro. Mark Parrish, of North Wood United Methodist Church spoke at Magnolia coC do you know what his sermon topic was? Having respect for God's Word and doing things by the Bible! So a disrespect for Scripture can't be it.
I think they haven't rushed over to unite with us because they have a grasp of something we used to understand but forgot; namely, that the Bible CONTAINS the gospel but is NOT ITSELF the gospel, and that a unity based upon identical interpretations of everything in the Bible is next to impossible. Remember, Campbell was after a unity based upon the ESSENTIALS, or first principles of the ancient faith, not some complex doctrinal "pattern." They (and most other traditions) correctly understand that sincere Christians sincerely disagree on how to interpret much of the peripheral material in Scripture. (I realise that many people from other traditions can be as dogmatic as we are, but as a general rule they seem to have grasped this point.) To illustrate this, when we first met with North Wood Methodist, our preacher Joe got an angry letter from a couple complaining that they had been trying to teach the gospel to a Methodist man, and Joe's preaching at North Wood messed that up! Imagine! Trying to explain the gospel to a guy who already understood it! Better than they did! Because these sincere, well-meaning folks, had mistaken the NT or the "pattern" for the gospel.
We, in the coC often cannot separate our interpretations from what the text actually says. Then we boldly (often arrogantly) insist that we aren't even interpreting anything, that we're just obeying the book. We've done this for so long we don't even realise we're still doin' it. I wouldn't be in any hurry to join a church which taught me that, even though I'd followed God and His Word to the best of my ability my whole life, that I was destined for hell because I wasn't a true Christian. I've heard people from the coC tell "denominational" Christians this. Someone once told my Methodist grandmother that. She NEVER set foot in another coC building as long as she lived.
My other, 93 year old Episcopalian grandmother (who HAS been immersed, btw, based on her OWN study, rather than my parents' repeated insistence over the years) attends many charismatic/non-denominational churches (as well as our coC). She also has a phone prayer ministry (through which, God has saved at least two people from suicide and restored countless others back into church). Well, she routinely gets calls from offended coCers, who usually ask her where a denominational false teacher, who's also a woman! gets off counseling and praying for people. One guy even told her that if her callers were living right in the first place that they wouldn't need prayer!!!
Well, this is waaay too long and I'm not really sure where its goin' so I'll sign off for now. Pax vobiscum
Lee,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Thor, where did I say God would overlook disobedience? He certainly wants obedience-but does He want a blind obedience to a complex doctrinal "pattern"? Will a just and loving God send a Baptist to hell for using an instrument? Does the Creator and Sustainer of the universe really have nothing better to do than this? Did He really have nothing better to do than to create an arbitrary and complex "pattern" or set of rules we all hafta blindly follow, or else He'd zap us, even if we don't really understand it all or were'nt even aware of everything He'd included in that "pattern" in the first place? Does He condemn sincere ignorance or willful disobedience?
If God condemns sincere ignorance then I'm in BIIIIG trouble! [/quote]
Have you ever considered the account of Uzzah 2 Samuel 6 & 1 Chronicles 13?
You wanna talk about being zapped¡KUzzah was probably ignorant of God¡¦s law, he had no reason to know it, he was serving his king, he was offering religious service, he was doing the best he could do, he was PROTECTING something sacred. BUT God's law was that sacred ark was to be left untouched by his hand (see Num 4:15). Uzzah saw the ark shift, saw the threat upon God¡¦s sacred artifact, in sincerest hope he put fort his hand to prevent, what he saw as possible disaster¡KZAP. God punishes disobedience.
What about 2 John 8-11 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
Rom 6:17? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 16:17-19 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] The coC has been trying to push a unity based upon the Bible alone for 100 or so years, but it hasn't worked. People aren't flocking in droves from "denominational" churches to ours. Why? [/quote]
People have never flocked in droves to hear good gospel preaching. Even the perfect preacher found that people wanted to hear his sermons because he filled their tummy¡¦s not their souls (John 6:26)
Jesus promised as much in Matthew 7:13-14.
Lee,
Is the reason we don't understand the Word of God alike because He is not a very good communicator, or because he has not given us the mental facility to understand simple direction, or because we lack the true desire to put our pride, prejudice, and personalities behind and truly seek what God has communicated?
Kevin,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]People in the church of Christ say that somewhere a long time ago the true Church was lost. For years and years and years the Church did not exist, until someone in the nineteenth century restored the Church. [/quote]
I have never said as much. I believe the Church has always existed after Acts 2. There are tombstones upon our soil declaring members of the church of Christ even before Alexander came to America. And even before that as long as people carried the Word they carried the church. At least in it¡¦s seed form (Luke 8:11).
Steve,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]There are those on this thread that have stated the same thing as I. That is, you make assumptions on our views and beliefs that have no foundation and that you simply misstate our communications. Don't you think there may be some validity to these points? [/quote]
Communication can be a tricky thing sometimes. I don't believe I have varied from the common, even prevalent, practice of taking what someone has posted and showing what I believe that to mean, or where I believe that belief leads. You have done as much, many times. Not out of a hateful heart, I would hope, but because what you read if filtered by what you already know and expect. That is the nature of our communication. We hear and learn what we are willing to. I am trying to be willing to hear what you are saying. It provides me with may new opportunities in study, to reaffirm my faith and conviction that the bible is God's Word. It is able to communicate His desire. And that If it is able to, and it is, we CAN come to understand it alike. Including the fact that one is forgiven of sin after belief, repentance, confession, AND baptism. :)
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Lastly, Thor, unity is NOT based on how one follows God's word. Look at the divisions in the churches of Christ. One church down the street does such and such and will refuse fellowship with the other church down the street because they do not do such and such. Both churches of Christ. And yet division. You see, it's the Word that SHOULD be doing the uniting and not the dividing. [/quote]
Steve, I really don't understand. Unity is not based upon following God's Word- yet, the Word should be uniting and not dividing. How does it do that if it isn't through following it? Are the pages of my bible to be taken and used to bind us together. Should we use them like book ends in our pews to force us closer? Understanding and following God's word are ABSOLUTELY necessary for unity.
If God's word had never been given, tell me one thing that you know about Jesus. With out God's Word we know nothing of our Lord. Are we to be united in Christ? Why so? Because Jesus prayed for it. (John 17:21) Are we to OBEY that prayer? How are we to unite under God's word and not obey it. Am I to use it as a club to beat others into uniting with me? No. We are to read God's Word. To understand what He has told us. There is One Faith, There is one Lord, There is one Body. How are we to learn Jesus and NOT follow or obey Him. (I know what you're thinking Steve, but We can not even have unity with the Church, much less Christ until baptism. Acts 2: 41
This post is long enough, I will post my relationship with Christ later, while you muse.
Rocketman,
I hope it goes well for you. In my experience they want the passion without the reason for the passion. Years ago in two congregations we worshiped with my passion was great until they discovered it wasn't a passion for the pattern.
Then I became a bit of a show pony. Seen but not heard. In both places in different ways I was removed from teaching. I actually felt used. "Look kids at how on fire he is. Look how much he enjoys being a Christian. Let's look but not ask though. Now lets return to our study on the sins of IM."
They used my fire to try to extend their pattern theology. It made it very hard. I felt called to share the good news of Christ and grace with young people and I was being used for anything but. God moved us on. What I have learned is my attempt to show them grace ended up simply reinforcing old traditions that I did not believe. It was hard for us to leave because of our love for the people. What I now see is our love for the people should have made us leave much earlier. I was being a Gorbachav(sp), unwittingly extending the shelf life of a corrupt system.
God bless you as you walk in Him.
boringoldguy,
Thanks for stepping in. If you have read the entire string then I wish you would understand this is not a discussion on baptism or obedience it is about faith vs. works. This is from my first post on this string.
An act of work is something done to receive something. An act of faith is something done because you have been given something. To me it is not circular talk. It is the heart of the matter. Whether we live by faith or works. To the many in the CoC it is because they believe they earn part of their salvation. I went to a CoC college and remember the definition they gave for grace. Whether we believe we earn our salvation by obedience or we are given our salvation through grace. One is faith and the other is works.
To me it simply shows how "baptismcentric
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ April 10 2003,06:05)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]3. The person whose entire body was not under the water.
If there's really anybody out there teaching that such a person isn't saved, I'd like to hear about it. I've never heard anybody say that and I don't think there's anybody who does. I don't think they're not saved either.[/quote]
The following was posted by Thor, in response to my asking this question, on Feb. 12:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So, what about the protruding knee?
Has that person obeyed? What if Noah only HALF pitched the ark with pitch would it have floated?
I must understand what God has told me about His Commands. What He has not revealed I will not know, in this life. [/quote]
Further responses confirmed that yes, Thor was saying that someone who inadvertently leaves a part of their body unimmersed will not be saved. Here's the link: Baptism Discussion (http://www.gracecentered.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=2;t=180;st=100)
Also, my step-father teaches this. And I know many others who do also.
Lee - Thanks you for correcting my Latin so discretely. Actually I should have added Sola Scriptura, I suppose. Anyway - have a great day.
Thanks again.
Steve
BOG, it's not offensive. I agree. So does Joe.
When someone asks me what they must do to be saved, I'd tell them that if they believe that Jesus is the Messiah they should be buried with him in baptism because:
1. Believers are gifted with the Holy Spirit at baptism.
2. Their sins are remitted in baptism.
3. God commanded it.
4. In baptism the sinful man is put to death.
There are many other scriptural blessings conferred by God at baptism which I won't bother to list here.
But I REFUSE to tell someone who's not been immersed because they didn't know they were supposed to be that they're going to hell. I prefer to let God Himself make that call. I'd try and share with that person all the above reasons for being immersed. But if they still can't see it, I'll leave it alone. Perhaps, they'll be like my Episcopalian grandmother. My folks tried to argue her into the water for two decades, with no good result. When they became grace-centered and stopped arguing with her about it, she began to study it for herself and gradually came to the conclusion that she needed to be immersed. All on her own. Imagine that! :) Pax vobiscum.
works: it seems to me that the Jewish writers of the NT would have been familiar with the works of the OT. and would have seen works in a different light than what is being discussed here.
the pharisees stressed works. for jews of the day, a work was something you did. you grew the herbs, you seperated a tenth from your stocks, you placed it in the temple.
you picked the lamb. you built the altar. you sacrificed it.
you can see where this is going.
i just don't see how baptism is a work that could be defined at all like the NT writers would have expressed it.
it is so all about submission. you have to let some other guy practically drown you. you have to count on another person to heave you back out of the water. and especially God does all the real work of cleaning away all the tar of sin and clothing you with His Son.
baptism is not a work. to the verses segell brought up - how can one boast in the "work" of baptism? they didn't do anything! maybe they bent their knees so they wouldn't kick the baptizer in the head... but i don't think that really counts.
so the verse is true... none of our works save us... but God's work does. what's the term for God's work? grace...
i find it kinda amazing that baptism and faith are put at such odds with each when they are closer together than any others on the "5 finger" process...
with faith you simply choose to believe...
with baptism you simply choose to submit...
with confession you actually manipulate your tongue and cause the words to be said - more a work than baptism!
with repentance you actually say you're sorry.. you actually do the work, not God!
wacky...
as for faith: we are saved by grace through faith
Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.
faith is the choice to believe in the Word. Christ is the Word. and the Word is gospel. if we believe that the gospel is the Word we must obey the gospel. b/c he who does not know God and does not obey the gospel shall be condemned.
it's almost superflous to say you must act if you have faith... because faith is a belief in the need to obey. (not just a belief that Jesus lived, died, and lives for that's merely confession - an act of obedience! just like baptism...) But are you willing to recognize, that faith without works is useless?
you see faith is working with your baptism, and as a result of your baptism, faith is perfected... For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.
especially if there is faith without the works of God He has promised during our baptism!
happy weekend all... i'll chat again on monday i think...
agape and phileo and well come to this fun discussion!
josh :thumbs-up:
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Let me try to explain why I have scuh a hard time with your treatment of James and faith. I will use an example that hopefully will help. My grandmother is a widow, she has no husband but from your logic it seems I should explain to her that she has a husband, just a dead husband. I think people would struggle with telling her she is still married. So I don't believe that James opint was to make a new catagory of faith. [/quote]
The marriage bond is broken in death. Her marriage is no longer valid. So, she truly has no husband.
I believe this illustrates the point.
Let's suppose that a couple gets together, fall in love, vow their faithfulness to each other, begin a physical relationship, and live in the same house. ARE THEY MARRIED? Looking at them many may believe that they are. However they are not married. Until the point that the license is signed, or the state declares so, or they make a pledge before God, They are not married. Is their love lessened, their actions meritorious, or their understanding flawed if they should want to be united the way God said for them to be?
See I look at your position and I see the end result being that you would look to that young man and tell him that if he asks her to marry him they will not be married in LOVE (standing in for faith) but in WORKS. Your view looks at what this man has done and condemns it as an action taken in order for her to love him. Work to merit the marriage. The point however is that no matter how close the relationship between the two it isn't marriage until God says so. He has set a way for that love to be made real in marriage. People living outside that plan are living in a dead relationship (at least as far a God is concerned). The same with faith. Until faith is active it is dead. The two are like conjoined twins that share a heart. One without the other Dies.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]What "work
For a good example of a change agent - look at Jesus. He was a change agent par excellance (sp?). As a matter of fact his picture would probably be in the dictionary next to the term "change agent". Fortunately he is still operating in his capacity as a change agent as he changes lives by his grace!
: kanham Thu Apr 03, 2003 - 09:21:04
Rocketman,
I hope it goes well for you. In my experience they want the passion without the reason for the passion. Years ago in two congregations we worshiped with my passion was great until they discovered it wasn't a passion for the pattern.
Then I became a bit of a show pony. Seen but not heard. In both places in different ways I was removed from teaching. I actually felt used. "Look kids at how on fire he is. Look how much he enjoys being a Christian. Let's look but not ask though. Now lets return to our study on the sins of IM."
They used my fire to try to extend their pattern theology. It made it very hard. I felt called to share the good news of Christ and grace with young people and I was being used for anything but. God moved us on. What I have learned is my attempt to show them grace ended up simply reinforcing old traditions that I did not believe. It was hard for us to leave because of our love for the people. What I now see is our love for the people should have made us leave much earlier. I was being a Gorbachav(sp), unwittingly extending the shelf life of a corrupt system.
God bless you as you walk in Him.
Why does this sound familiar?