Christian Forums

Quote from: Johnb on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 21:11:33
In John 13 We see the Son of God, the creator of the universe put on the apron of a slave and bend down and wash the diciples feet.  Peter objected and Jesus said if you don't let me do this you have no part with me.  He even washed the feet of Judas.  After doing this He said

13Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.

15For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

16Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

Hum a command from the Son of God and He calls it an example they they should follow.  Look plain to me yet I know of no CoC that wash feet.   A clear directive and an approved example yet you choose to ignore this command.  I am confussed help me understand.  Later Johnb

The purpose of washing feet in those days was a cultural thing because of the conditions, they wore sandles, they did not drive cars, and they walked on dirt roads, not paved, so there feet were dirty more then today. However, we can still follow the example (an example is not an exact way, but a general way or idea of doing something) the example is to serve our brothers n sisters, just as Jesus served his disciples.

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 07:03:01
What age is the "age of accountability?  I know the song and dance that it is different for each individual.  So if one child understands the concept of right and wrong before God at age ten and dies one day later without being baptized then he is doomed to hell.  Another child is age 11 and has not come to under stand right and wrong before God and dies also without being baptized the he is safe.  Is that about the gest od it?  Later Johnb

Yes, Johnb, that's how I understood it.  Never made sense though when I really started poring through scripture...can't even find a phrase close to "age of accountability"......

Quote from: da525382 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 08:53:08

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 07:03:01
What age is the "age of accountability?  I know the song and dance that it is different for each individual.  So if one child understands the concept of right and wrong before God at age ten and dies one day later without being baptized then he is doomed to hell.  Another child is age 11 and has not come to under stand right and wrong before God and dies also without being baptized the he is safe.  Is that about the gest od it?  Later Johnb

Yes, Johnb, that's how I understood it.  Never made sense though when I really started poring through scripture...can't even find a phrase close to "age of accountability"......

true, just like the word trinity or hell. we have an example of this though, with who God held accountable in the wondering in the desert, it was age 20.

Churchmember,

I'm trying to make a point by asking you about your testimony of when you were saved.  The point I'm trying to make is that many people are religious but do not have an assurance of their salvation.  Salvation is understood as and limited to making it to heaven after one dies -- a future event.  Such doctrine does not include the Present Reality of being accepted by God.  In such doctrine one does not know that they are saved until they actually make it to heaven; there is no assurance of salvation because one's salvation is dependent upon how good he lives, whether or not they've taken the right steps, done the right things, and followed Christ with his whole heart.  Ergo, people that accept such a doctrine have difficulty with saying "I am saved" or "I was saved when...."  

However, when one is saved, one knows he is saved.  Salvation is far more than going to heaven some day.  Salvation is being accepted by God, receiving by faith Jesus into your heart, being restored into right relationship with God.  Why? Not because of any good that I've done or because of any steps that I've taken, but solely because Jesus died for me.  When one puts his trust in God, God is faithful and will not let us down.  Salvation is in no way dependent upon my faithfulness, but is completely dependent upon God's faithfulness.

That's why I am so inspired by the story of Cornelius and his household.  It is such a beautiful testimony of salvation.  I especially am inspired by the conclusions that Peter and the other Apostles reached based on the event.  Acts 11.15-18 says

15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning. 16 Then I remembered what the Lord had said: 'John baptized with[a]water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 So if God gave them the same gift as he gave us, who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could oppose God?"  18 When they heard this, they had no further objections and praised God, saying, "So then, God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life."

So, salvation, receiving the Holy Spirit, being accepted by God, is based upon faith and repentance.  It is a work of God in one's heart that is accomplished by the Spirit.  One is born of the Spirit and receives eternal life.  

So "being saved" is a biblical term and a biblical concept.  Being in a "safe condition" is not a biblical term or really a biblical concept.  One is either "saved" or one is "not saved", one either is sealed by the Spirit of Christ, or one is not sealed by the Spirit.  One has either been born of the Spirit (born again), or one has not been born of the Spirit.  One either has eternal life, or one does not have eternal life.  We one's faith is completely in the Lord, one is confident of his eternal security.

Many times when sharing the Gospel, I'll ask a person, "If you were to die today, where would you go."  If they respond "heaven", I'll ask them "Why?"  Their response to this question often (not always) reveals what they really trust in.  Most of the time, people who have the assurance of salvation will respond something like, "Because Jesus died for me."  However, many people who are not saved will respond with in a questioning tone, "Well, because I'm a good person."  or "Well, because I've been baptized."  or "Well, because ..."  Their answer often reveals that their faith, their trust, their confidence is not in God, but is in their own selves.

So that's why I asked you to share about when you were saved.  Evangelicals typically focus on an event, whereas older denominations focus on more of a progressive realization.  But both groups eventually come to the place to where they have the assurance of salvation because of the grace and forgivenes of God.  Their confidence is in the Lord, and not in themselves.

Blessings,
Sherman

Quote

The purpose of washing feet in those days was a cultural thing because of the conditions, they wore sandals, they did not drive cars, and they walked on dirt roads, not paved, so there feet were dirty more then today. However, we can still follow the example (an example is not an exact way, but a general way or idea of doing something) the example is to serve our brothers n sisters, just as Jesus served his disciples.



I could have written this pat answer myself just as I gave Brian the pat patternist answer.
Jesus did not say he was washing their feet because the were dirty but to show servanthood. He said this is the example to follow not something else to show
servant hood and humility.  A command and example not followed.  " Greet one another with a holy kiss..:  "let men pray everywhere lifting up holy hand.."  "Is any among you let them call for the elders and anoint them with oil.."  
The pattern theologists can find an excuse, cultural or other wise but " let your women be silent.."  is not cultural but a command that must be followed today.  

This type of legalism is what caused Alexander Campbell to say he could make no one command or act a test of fellowship.

Again I ask  Do we have to follow all NT commands, directives and approved examples?  If not why not?  Who gets to make this decision?  What it really boils down to is the patternist wants to decide.  This makes human logic the stick by which we measure and determine who is saved and who is lost.  They always want to pick one act or topic and use proof texts to prove their point and are unwilling to apply the same logic to all NT verses.  Later Johnb

One point I forgot Jesus did not say do something to show servanthood he said  "Ye ought to wash one anothers feet..."  Has no more to do with dirty feet than baptism has to do with taking a bath.  Later Johnb

johnb, compelling questions? I believe we have strayed away from the way we are suppose to do church, because the traditional ways are boring to an addrinalin rush society like the one we live in. however we need to look at the complete picture the bible paints, such as ' let the woman be silent', does this mean, woman are never to speak? No, as the bible shows other places otherwise, however, are woman to preach the word? I am not sure one way or the other, but some woman do seem to have been annointed to preach. I dont think we should get to the 'legalistic' practice of following everything to such a degree that no one would go to church, and some of the things we would be doing, would be very strange and confusing in our times. look at the early church, they sold their property and put the money in a general fund to help one another, try that one today! but I think it is about order, we have lost sight of this in our care free no rules, no holds barred society and way we worship/serve God.

i think this falls on the shepards and elders (these roles need to be taken dead seriously as they play such vital roles to the flock).

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 10:36:21
One point I forgot Jesus did not say do something to show servanthood he said  "Ye ought to wash one anothers feet..."  Has no more to do with dirty feet than baptism has to do with taking a bath.  Later Johnb

i am not sure i agree with you. the fact is they did have to wash there feet in those days. Why did He not wash their hands or arms or faces? The feet is where the rubber meets the road (but in those times is where the unprotected sole met the dirt road).

Kamakaz
I hope you understand that I am simply trying to show the absurdity of trying to make the NT a new rule book to follow and if you don't obey all they rules as I have interp. them.

The NT is the simple story of the life and death of the son of God and the establishment of His kingdom.  If it was intended to be a new rule book as the OT God wouldnot have let it to human logic which if flawed.  He would have spelled out the rules as He did in the OT.

One could make an argument very much like your that folks don't need to be immersed because we don't need to wash the whole body it was just a symbol of the death burrial and resurrection.  As long as we have that in mind we can substitute something else more appropriate today like getting In and out of a casket.

By the way there are groups that wash feet as a religious practice (legalism in a different form.

The point is that for any pattern to work you have to use human logic and end up including some and excluding others based on the pattern.  Later Johnb 

Here we are at 17 pages... Considering the thread title, have we all at least agreed that Jesus claimed He was the "One Entrance into the One Kingdom"?

Quote from: janine on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 11:04:22
Here we are at 17 pages... Considering the thread title, have we all at least agreed that Jesus claimed He was the "One Entrance into the One Kingdom"?

Yes 

john,

yes and i agree with you to an extent. It is not a new rule book, with the exception that Jesus is the way, the truth and hte life and no man goes to the Father but through Him. I would also say some of the examples are good ways to follow, as Jesus showed to us how to do certian things.

the NT is the new covenant between God and man, where Jesus is the way of salvation, and the means to recogncile man to God again. The new law, is to love God with all that you are, and love each other as we love ourselves. Everything else, is just ways of doing that, Jesus showed us that example, so we would follow by loving each other in serving one another. Jesus said to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give water to those who thirst, and visit people in jail, as examples of how to love one another. He also gave examples of how to love God, as He always gave honor to the Father, and the Father always gave honor to the Son, even to the point that Jesus gave up His throne and place (for a time) and let Himself enter into human flesh, with pain and death and humility, and gave His life to the Father, and then the Father gave everything in exsistance to JEsus. amazing examples of love.

Kamakaz

I agree.  It is just when folks try to make their own rule book and bind it on others that I disagree.  I have all that I can handle trying to follow the example of Jesus without a bunch of new rules that I have to figure out if I am doing it right or not.  Later Johnb

wondering what happened to churchmember perhaps he or she tooka day away from the board

Quote from: kamakaz on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 09:32:44

Quote from: da525382 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 08:53:08

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 07:03:01
What age is the "age of accountability?  I know the song and dance that it is different for each individual.  So if one child understands the concept of right and wrong before God at age ten and dies one day later without being baptized then he is doomed to hell.  Another child is age 11 and has not come to under stand right and wrong before God and dies also without being baptized the he is safe.  Is that about the gest od it?  Later Johnb

Yes, Johnb, that's how I understood it.  Never made sense though when I really started poring through scripture...can't even find a phrase close to "age of accountability"......

true, just like the word trinity or hell. we have an example of this though, with who God held accountable in the wondering in the desert, it was age 20.

Sure, in the Torah, I believe military service, tax paying, etc. also all began at 20.  But isn't that adulthood?  Also, accountabiility also occured at age 13...BarMitzvahs, etc. recognize that and if memory serves me correctly, I believe under the Torah, 13 year olds could enter legal contracts, etc.  And, of course, if we use the example of Christ, he was 12 when he instructed the theologians in the temple.  So, sure, by inference an age of accountability could be constructed.  But that's my point.  It is a construct by inference.  And the promise of Joel was to be given to us and our children, no age of the children is given.  So, anyway, it has always been an enigma to me personally, I just don't see it addressed in scripture.  BTW, I believe hell is mentioned by Christ, is it not? (going out to make proselytes and making them into children of hell, etc.?)

Quote from: da525382 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 12:26:03

Quote from: kamakaz on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 09:32:44

Quote from: da525382 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 08:53:08

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 07:03:01
What age is the "age of accountability?  I know the song and dance that it is different for each individual.  So if one child understands the concept of right and wrong before God at age ten and dies one day later without being baptized then he is doomed to hell.  Another child is age 11 and has not come to under stand right and wrong before God and dies also without being baptized the he is safe.  Is that about the gest od it?  Later Johnb

Yes, Johnb, that's how I understood it.  Never made sense though when I really started poring through scripture...can't even find a phrase close to "age of accountability"......

true, just like the word trinity or hell. we have an example of this though, with who God held accountable in the wondering in the desert, it was age 20.

Sure, in the Torah, I believe military service, tax paying, etc. also all began at 20.  But isn't that adulthood?  Also, accountabiility also occured at age 13...BarMitzvahs, etc. recognize that and if memory serves me correctly, I believe under the Torah, 13 year olds could enter legal contracts, etc.  And, of course, if we use the example of Christ, he was 12 when he instructed the theologians in the temple.  So, sure, by inference an age of accountability could be constructed.  But that's my point.  It is a construct by inference.  And the promise of Joel was to be given to us and our children, no age of the children is given.  So, anyway, it has always been an enigma to me personally, I just don't see it addressed in scripture.

Those are mans ceremonies and ideas, I am going by what God said in the BIBLE and that alone. It doesnt matter if man says a child is accountable or able to enter contracts or not, or whether a child can vote for micky mouse to be governor, its about what the BIBLE says (God says).

Quote from: kamakaz on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 12:29:51

Quote from: da525382 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 12:26:03

Quote from: kamakaz on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 09:32:44

Quote from: da525382 on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 08:53:08

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 07:03:01
What age is the "age of accountability?  I know the song and dance that it is different for each individual.  So if one child understands the concept of right and wrong before God at age ten and dies one day later without being baptized then he is doomed to hell.  Another child is age 11 and has not come to under stand right and wrong before God and dies also without being baptized the he is safe.  Is that about the gest od it?  Later Johnb

Yes, Johnb, that's how I understood it.  Never made sense though when I really started poring through scripture...can't even find a phrase close to "age of accountability"......

true, just like the word trinity or hell. we have an example of this though, with who God held accountable in the wondering in the desert, it was age 20.

Sure, in the Torah, I believe military service, tax paying, etc. also all began at 20.  But isn't that adulthood?  Also, accountabiility also occured at age 13...BarMitzvahs, etc. recognize that and if memory serves me correctly, I believe under the Torah, 13 year olds could enter legal contracts, etc.  And, of course, if we use the example of Christ, he was 12 when he instructed the theologians in the temple.  So, sure, by inference an age of accountability could be constructed.  But that's my point.  It is a construct by inference.  And the promise of Joel was to be given to us and our children, no age of the children is given.  So, anyway, it has always been an enigma to me personally, I just don't see it addressed in scripture.

Those are mans ceremonies and ideas, I am going by what God said in the BIBLE and that alone. It doesnt matter if man says a child is accountable or able to enter contracts or not, or whether a child can vote for micky mouse to be governor, its about what the BIBLE says (God says).

I disagree that that is what the Bible says, but you are free to believe as you wish.  The most telling scripture is Acts 2:39:

Quote39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

I personally just don't see the gospel message as being intended only for 20 year-olds and above scripturally, though I can see how you may conclude that.

the gospel is for everyone. But the question is at what age does God hold one accountable (as in judgement)? If a 12 year old died without excepting Christ personally would he/she go to heaven or hell? If a 10 year old? If a 7 year old? If a 4 year old? That is the point. at what age does one have to take personal responsibility for the Gospel, at what age does one except/reject Christ, and have they had a fair amount of time to decide through life experiences and building faith (remember faith comes from hearing and hearing the word of God- how much has a 10 year old heard? and does the parents help to teach the Gospel or offer the child a means to hear the Gospel, concider a aithiest family, parents may Not Allow thier children access to the Gospel) so God being a just and loving God, will He condemn this child because of his/her parents lack of providing and teaching the Gospel?

Quote from: Brian Kelley on Wed Nov 07, 2007 - 21:11:56
I'm not trying to argue, though it may seem this way; I would, however, like to understand your take on Acts 16:30-34.

The jailer asks Paul and Silas what he must do to be saved.  The answer was "believe".  They were baptized afterward, but the answer was simply "believe".  Why wasn't "get baptized" the answer?

Brian,

I don't understand your question as being argumentative at all. It's a valid question.
In response, I believe Paul's answer was a figure of speech, a synecdoche, in which a part stands for the whole. We see this used many times throughout scripture:

- Acts 11:18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. There is no mention of faith in this verse, but we understand that "repentance" has been used as a synecdoche and thus faith & baptism are included. This verse does not teach repentance only.

- 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: Faith and repentance are not mentioned because baptism stands for them all.  We should not interpret this verse to mean baptism only.

- Matt. 10:32 Every one therefore who shall confess me before men, him will I also confess before my Father who is in heaven. Not confession only.

We actually use this figure of speech quite a bit in daily conversation. I grew up in Texas, and it was not uncommon to hear someone say, "I have 50 head of cattle." We understood that he had the entire cow, not just the head. "It's good to see your face." Obviously we are happy to see the entire person.

quote
"It's good to see your face." Obviously we are happy to see the entire person.

Not always they may look like me; may not even be glad to see the face.

How true!

Is Sherman Nobles saying that the Holy Spirit baptism still happens today?

If so, then has it changed?  Where is the proof of its change?  Back then, there were miraculous things happening all around when the Holy Spirit fell.   Poltergeist like things.   Fire and cloven tongues, etc.

And there is no mention anywhere in the bible of the remission of sins being switched from water baptism to Holy Spirit baptism. 

And if Holy Spirit baptism is now what puts one into the church and causes the quickening formerly assigned to water baptism (Col 2:12) then those of us not Holy Spirit baptized are not in the church and are subsequently lost.  Talk about an exclusivist theology. 
I don't suspect the Nobles will own up to the implications of his odd teachings but we shall see. 

Quote from: churchmember on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 15:07:11
Is Sherman Nobles saying that the Holy Spirit baptism still happens today?

If so, then has it changed?  Where is the proof of its change?  Back then, there were miraculous things happening all around when the Holy Spirit fell.   Poltergeist like things.   Fire and cloven tongues, etc.

And there is no mention anywhere in the bible of the remission of sins being switched from water baptism to Holy Spirit baptism. 

And if Holy Spirit baptism is now what puts one into the church and causes the quickening formerly assigned to water baptism (Col 2:12) then those of us not Holy Spirit baptized are not in the church and are subsequently lost.  Talk about an exclusivist theology. 
I don't suspect the Nobles will own up to the implications of his odd teachings but we shall see. 

Churchmember,

I believe that I've been pretty clear that I do believe that the baptism in the Holy Spirit still happens today.  And yes there are still signs and wonders happening today in people's lives all around the world, awesome manifestations of the Spirit like fire, wind, doves, etc.  People are still being raised from the dead, walking on water, surviving terrible storms miraculously, even speaking to storms commanding them what to do.  Christians still prophecy, cast out demons, heal the sick, receive miraculous words of knowledge and wisdom, etc.  But "believing is seeing", so even though these things are happening, those who do not believe will not see them (most often by choice). 

Concerning the baptism in the Holy Spirit and being born of the Spirit, I believe they are two different event/realities in a believer's life.  The testimony of the Samaritans receiving Christ in Acts 8 reveals this most clearly, to me.  Through the ministry of Phillip the evangelist, the Samaritans believed the Gospel and were baptized in water; and I believe that they were saved, born of and sealed by the Spirit.  However, sometime later the apostles John and Peter came, laid hands on them, and they received the baptism in the Spirit.  Thus it is possible for people to be born of the Spirit (saved) and yet not be filled with the Spirit.  Their relaionship with God is secure, but they might not be as effective in building the Kingdom of God using only hand tools driven by personal effort, instead of using the power tools that are available.

Furthermore, being born of the Spirit is a one-time event in a person's life; whereas being baptized with the Spirit is marked by an initial event but also has a repititious (happening again and again) element to it.  The apostles were baptized in the Spirit in Acts 2, but then throughout the remainder of Acts it speaks of them being filled again and again with the Spirit.  Both the initial and ongoing experiences of being baptized with the Spirit are important.  Thus even though speaking to believers that had received the baptism in the Spirit, Paul encourages them to be filled with the Spirit.

Being born again, born of the Spirit (saved by grace through faith) is about a person's relationship with God being established; but being baptized in the Holy Spirit is about empowerment for ministry.  The Kindgom of God is a spiritual kingdom, requiring spiritual tools to build that kingdom. 

Concerning remission of sins, I agree that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not about remission of sins, that's one of the things water baptism is for, to help us experience the cleansing of the Lord, to help us bring a little of the forgiveness we have in Christ in heaven to our lives here on earth.  Of course, prayer, reading the Word, and confession are also helpful in appropriating the forgiveness of sins that we have in Christ by faith, not just water baptism.

I believe this has sufficiently answered your comments/assertions.  And please, if you have questions you're more than welcome to ask me directly instead of just writing about me.

"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire the spiritual gifts, especially to prophecy!" 1 Cor. 14.1.

So if one is following the way of love, they will eagerly desire the spiritual gifts, especially to prophecy.  Interesting!

Churchmember, I pray that you, I, and all reading this post will be filled with the Spirit!

Blessings,
Sherman

Churchmember where you been missed you.
How about it are we to keep all NT directives or commands?  Must we follow all approved NT examples?  If not why not and who gets to make that choice?  If not why do I need to follow the baptism command  and not all the other commands in the NT? 

All that baptism is, is an expression of your faith in Christ.  Outside of that it is nothing.  It is a work, something that you do. We are not saved by our works we are saved by the work of Christ.  I think that anyone that teaches baptism as a means of salvation is under the law and will be judged by the law.

Quote from: Robert Pate on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 18:19:54
All that baptism is, is an expression of your faith in Christ.  Outside of that it is nothing.  It is a work, something that you do. We are not saved by our works we are saved by the work of Christ.  I think that anyone that teaches baptism as a means of salvation is under the law and will be judged by the law.

Agreed.  The minimum for salvation is shown while Jesus was on the cross.  Look at exactly what the thief crucified next to him did, and you'll get an idea of what it takes to be saved from damnation.  The thief wasn't baptized, yet he went to be with Jesus in Paradise.  The thief didn't tithe, yet he went to be with Jesus in Paradise.  The thief didn't do any good works, yet he went to be with Jesus in Paradise.  Unless God makes exceptions, failure to complete these or many other things aren't damning.

Brian
I will give you the pat CoC answer for that one also.  ( I am waiting on the we must obey the commands folks to answer my questions and don't want then to be distracted by having to answer from the pay book)  Here goes  the theif on the crossdied before the kingdom was established.  Jesus was still alive and could pardon or heal who ever He wanted.  The new covenet was not yet in effect because jesus was not dead.  (kind of like when some one writes a will they can change it or give things to whomever they wish while alive but after they are dead we must go by their will)   Churchmember is that about the jest of it?  Later johnb

That's pretty close JohnB. And.........The command to be baptized had not been given yet. If you believe it was ever given at all.

And there's the argument that baptism is no more a work than belief. (physical vs. mental)

If physical exertion is a prerequisite for work, I'm in serious trouble. (My brain hurts)

Quote from: Brian Kelley on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 18:33:27

Quote from: Robert Pate on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 18:19:54
All that baptism is, is an expression of your faith in Christ.  Outside of that it is nothing.  It is a work, something that you do. We are not saved by our works we are saved by the work of Christ.  I think that anyone that teaches baptism as a means of salvation is under the law and will be judged by the law.

Agreed.  The minimum for salvation is shown while Jesus was on the cross.  Look at exactly what the thief crucified next to him did, and you'll get an idea of what it takes to be saved from damnation.  The thief wasn't baptized, yet he went to be with Jesus in Paradise.  The thief didn't tithe, yet he went to be with Jesus in Paradise.  The thief didn't do any good works, yet he went to be with Jesus in Paradise.  Unless God makes exceptions, failure to complete these or many other things aren't damning.

Brian,

I don't think the example of the thief is applicable for sinner today for several reasons: 1) no one can successfully prove that the thief was not baptized, especially considering Mark 1:5 and the apparent familiarity with Christ and His teaching in Luke 23:42  2) the thief did not live and die under the new covenant and 3) Christ, the Son of God, in the very physical presence of the thief, forgave the thief's sins.

Isn't it strange how we can do 19 pages on a specific command but when I ask for a defense of the command example pattern it goes dead?  I have ask these questions of the command example folks in 3 diffent threads.  All is quiet.  I thought they were simple and strait forward.  But no answer.  O well Brian perhaps you have some more questions I can answer for them.  Later Johnb

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 19:19:09
Isn't it strange how we can do 19 pages on a specific command but when I ask for a defense of the command example pattern it goes dead?  I have ask these questions of the command example folks in 3 diffent threads.  All is quiet.  I thought they were simple and strait forward.  But no answer.  O well Brian perhaps you have some more questions I can answer for them.  Later Johnb

I don't know what you are talking about. You just got 2 perfectly good responses from me and Oki.

Quote from: Robert Pate on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 18:19:54
All that baptism is, is an expression of your faith in Christ.  Outside of that it is nothing.  It is a work, something that you do. We are not saved by our works we are saved by the work of Christ.  I think that anyone that teaches baptism as a means of salvation is under the law and will be judged by the law.

Robert,

ISTM that you place too much value on human work or effort. Just because God commands x and man complies with the will of God by doing x, does not mean that we have performed something of value or merited God's favor. We CANNOT merit favor based on our work/effort/activity because we have sinned.

I do agree, however, that we are under law (the law of Christ). IMO, this is evident because there could be no sin if law did not exist - I John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Jaime
Sorry I was typing while you were responding.  And this was not the questions I was talking about.  I was refering to the pattern questions aimed at churchmember and the other guy ( can't recall the name he is using some thing to do with a warrior.  Later Johnb

Quote from: Johnb on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 16:31:21
Churchmember where you been missed you.
How about it are we to keep all NT directives or commands?  Must we follow all approved NT examples?  If not why not and who gets to make that choice?  If not why do I need to follow the baptism command  and not all the other commands in the NT? 

Sorry, I guess you are talking about this. What are you driving at? I would say yes, we need to keep all NT directives or commands and examples? Assuming one doesn't offset another. I don't think scripture contradicts itself. However, not every nuance of a command is repeated with every mention of a related issue. For instance yes we are saved by faith. Yes baptism is required. Does being saved by faith exclude baptism if baptism is not mentioned everytime salvation is mentioned, no not at all.

I assume this a trick question. So, let me have it, Bro!

Quote from: OkiMar on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 19:23:33

Quote from: Robert Pate on Thu Nov 08, 2007 - 18:19:54
All that baptism is, is an expression of your faith in Christ.  Outside of that it is nothing.  It is a work, something that you do. We are not saved by our works we are saved by the work of Christ.  I think that anyone that teaches baptism as a means of salvation is under the law and will be judged by the law.

Robert,

ISTM that you place too much value on human work or effort. Just because God commands x and man complies with the will of God by doing x, does not mean that we have performed something of value or merited God's favor. We CANNOT merit favor based on our work/effort/activity because we have sinned.

I do agree, however, that we are under law (the law of Christ). IMO, this is evident because there could be no sin if law did not exist - I John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Very well stated Oki.