What exactly is a change agent?

boringoldguy · Mon Mar 03, 2003 - 13:54:42

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.

marc · Fri Mar 28, 2003 - 22:25:24

[!--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.

Lee Freeman · Fri Apr 04, 2003 - 13:46:34

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.

spurly · Mon Apr 07, 2003 - 18:21:09

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

segell · Tue Apr 08, 2003 - 15:06:41

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

Fri Apr 11, 2003 - 11:03:16

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

spurly · Wed Apr 16, 2003 - 16:02:07

I could be very happy doing the Lord's work at a Baptist church, or a church of Christ, or a Bible Church. However, currently the Lord has led me to a Christian Church. I will serve him gladly. There was one Baptist church in Texas that wanted me to send them a resume about a year and a half ago, but I didn't do it at the time.

Kevin

Lee Freeman · Fri Apr 18, 2003 - 08:37:41

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Children are born into a family, they always have been, but please remember Josh, they were children before their birth, they were children when they were conceived. Also remember that their birth had nothing to do with how much the child knew or understood or could explain. It had everything to do with their parents, their father.[/quote]
Kanham, this was an excellent illustration! Your quote above says what I attempted to say several posts ago when I posted verses from Ephesians and Romans about children of God being in some sense predestined. One passage says that God "foreknew" us, which, as I see it, basically means what you said about your kids-they were your kids before they were born, while still in their mother's womb. And children do nothing to be born-their parents do the actual work; same with bein' saved. We don't do anything-God does it. How anyone could misunderstand such a great post I dunnnow.

Pax vobiscum.

Lee Freeman · Tue Apr 29, 2003 - 09:55:37

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Mosers analogy does not illustrate this situation because carried to its logical conclusion it end in falicy.
A shot will kill malaria without the person's knowledge of the disease in his body of the cure that is being given....
This illustration fails because so many verses say that we must know (at least) something before baptism. We must know of Christ. We must know of our own sin. We must know of the death, burial, and ressurection of Christ, we must know baptism is for the remission of sins.
What the illustration truly expresses is an idea that we should be out dunking people under the water because it doesn't matter if they know anything or not they will be saved by the action, That's false.
God's grace is shown in that he provided a way for us to escape sin: hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized, and walk in the light. That path will lead one into heaven one day because it is the one that Christ first blazed and the one which we can and must follow today.[/quote]
Thor, Moser's analogy IS sound. Belief is key; baptism without a belief in Jesus would be worthless.

A person would have to know he was sick first before he'd get the shot, but the shot's efficacy does not depend in the slightest upon whether the man knows he's getting a malaria shot or not. What Moser is saying is that, in the sanme way as that malaria shot, a person doesn't have to have a knowledge of any one blessing attributed to baptism for it to work; God does the work, not the person being baptized or the person doing the baptizing. I agree with Campbell; if a person has to know about remission of sins, then it logically follows that they also have to know about adoption, sanctification, the gift of the Holy Spirit and all the other blessings connected with immersion. Who of us on this board understood all of this when we were immersed? I didn't. But under your theology, Thor, I'd need to be rebaptized every time I discovered a new blessing attributed to baptism. In that case I'd never come up out of the water.

As Campbell so eloquently put it, to say that any sort of knowledge HAS to accompany baptism before it can be considered valid, takes the focus off of what God does via baptism and puts it onto what we MUST DO, or in this case, KNOW, to be saved, which, in effect, makes baptism a legalistic work. It makes the act save us via how much we know about it. So by saying knowledge of remission of sins must accompany immersion you're just trading one type of legalistic act for another. Campbell repudiated this; Stone repudiated this; Richardson repudiated this; McGarvey repudiated this; Harding repudiated this; Lipscomb repudiated this; Sewell repudiated this; Larimore repudiated this; Brewer and Moser repudiated this; Jimmy Allen repudiates this; Lee Freeman repudiates this. Apparently, Peter and Paul also repudiated this.

Pax vobiscum.

Mon Mar 03, 2003 - 14:07:14

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

charlie · Fri Mar 28, 2003 - 18:46:04

[!--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.

Lee Freeman · Fri Apr 04, 2003 - 13:58:49

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:

janine · Mon Apr 07, 2003 - 18:50:00

[!--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.

Thor · Tue Apr 08, 2003 - 14:36:55

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....

segell · Fri Apr 11, 2003 - 11:16:40

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

brandt · Tue Apr 15, 2003 - 15:44:28

SARCASM WARNING[/i]

To get a list of all Change Agents and their evil deeds, please read the current or any past issue of Seek The Old Path's.

Brandt

kanham · Fri Apr 18, 2003 - 07:52:24

Charlie,

Excellent post. You have giving me much to think about. How do you move someone to see God in the way He intended? I get that reaction all the time and I respond by hitting my head against the wall like the graphic. I can not understand why they want to believe that. Your post helps me to see that you are creating a vacuum in their brain. If God isn't this God I live up to then what am I going to do.

I wonder how you teach in a way that helps open people's eyes to this? Any thoughts?

Thor · Tue Apr 29, 2003 - 09:58:15

To all,
In keeping with Josh's last post I thought I would let you know...
1) I love a good ellipsis, in case you hadn't noticed.
2) I have used and continue to use this forum as a cementing exercise for my beliefs.
3) I love and appreciate each heart bent to a serious study of God's word, whether they agree with me and mine or not.
4) Steve, Lee, Kevin, Duckman, Charlie, James, Janine, BOG, Memmy, Josh, and et al. You have made this discussion: fun, insightful, encouraging, difficult, testing, and so much more and for that I am thankful.
5) May you forgive me when I'm trying or sharp, I'm truly not trying to be.
6) Isa 1:18-2018 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.19 If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land:20 But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

boringoldguy · Mon Mar 03, 2003 - 12:12:53

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.

segell · Sat Mar 29, 2003 - 00:05:40

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

Quote

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

Nevertheless · Wed Apr 02, 2003 - 13:50:26

:amen:

janine · Fri Apr 04, 2003 - 00:05:51

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.

marc · Mon Apr 07, 2003 - 18:52:40

[!--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.

kanham · Tue Apr 08, 2003 - 17:02:12

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.

Thor · Fri Apr 11, 2003 - 09:57:33

[!--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.

kanham · Fri Apr 18, 2003 - 07:46:14

Josh,

I know of people who believed growing up that they had to earn their parents love. I also know the damage that such a relationship causes. We can see the destructiveness of such upbringing in families. It is all over. It is daughters sleeping with whomever, hoping to receive the love that was never extended by grace. It is men with no confidence because they were never good enough or arrogance because they were. We can also see this in the church. People who are told that they have to earn the love of God. That only when they do worship the right way or baptism the right way or do the LS the right way. you then are under grace.

It creates two kinds of Christians. It creates self-righteous Christians who think they have done what the father wanted so they must be pleasing to him or it creates anxiety filled Christians who are never sure they have done enough to merit the grace.

So clearly they are children of the Father but unfortunately they have been presented a very unhealthy, unscriptural view of who that Father is.

Last night I was cleaning up our front yard. Our oldest and youngest were outside with me. As I worked raking up sticks our two-year old came over to help. She pulled the wagon around that I was putting the debris in. It wasn't long before our oldest who is five began to take the rake and make his own piles to be picked up. They did this for no other reason they they were my children. They didn't do this work to seek approval because they are approved. They didn't do this for themselves. They did this because we are family and I am their father.

Children are born into a family, they always have been, but please remember Josh, they were children before their birth, they were children when they were conceived. Also remember that their birth had nothing to do with how much the child knew or understood or could explain. It had everything to do with their parents, their father.

In the end if you can not see a difference in the two ways, the two reasons to obey, then there is nothing I can say that will explain it satisfactorily.

Thor · Sun Apr 27, 2003 - 19:16:24

A man's child is struck with a terrible illness. The sickness is long lasting and eventually drains the family to financial ruin. The child needs a surgery but the family is unable to pay. They have nothing with which they can purchase their childs life. A good friend hears the sad case and goes to the family and presents them with a debit card that hold more than enough money to pay for the operation....See here is my problem. The way I understand many posts, the family could not take the child to the hospital and use the debit card to have the operation performed without somehow adding to the payment for the operation.
The good friend has covered the cost. He has paid the price. That family can not add to the payment that has been made because they have nothing to add.
Yet, the child's able to recieve healing because of the operation performed upon the presentation of the card (which has the purchase price).
Baptism is the act through which one applies the Gift that has been given. We can not add to that purchase. We have been bought with a price. We have been paid for by the blood of Christ. When is that transaction completed, Acts 22:16. The blood of Christ cleanses our sins at baptism, not the water alone. What power baptism has it has because God deemed it so. (Acts 2:38) It saves us not because of what we have just done but because of what has been done for us. The act of being baptized simply activates (accomidative language here) the card.

If baptism is a burial "Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." and one is saved by faith "BEFORE" baptism, who is being buried? Are we symbolically putting Christians to death? Who is that going down into the water? And what will they be rising into? If they were Christians before the water they what, pray tell, are they upon rising from it? What new life are Christians called to after baptism if they were Christians before hand?

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Rom 6:1-8
6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
[/quote]

jarschqua · Tue Apr 29, 2003 - 10:05:12

appreciate having you here very much thor! :thumbs-up: the discussion is what a discussion board is all about!

segell · Fri May 09, 2003 - 12:46:04

Jesus was neither insistent nor dogmatic from my readings. He spoke Truth. He spoke directly. Not sure he had to categorize His manner. I just hear more pride than humility, Thor.

Mon Mar 03, 2003 - 12:39:17

[!--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

Lee Freeman · Fri Mar 28, 2003 - 23:27:42

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.

Thor · Wed Apr 02, 2003 - 13:42:56

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

segell · Fri Apr 04, 2003 - 11:52:55

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

janine · Mon Apr 07, 2003 - 21:59:55

yup!

segell · Tue Apr 08, 2003 - 15:08:35

Josh

Thanks for the response regarding the heart. Appreciate it. Will write more this evening, if I have the chance.

Steve

Christian Forums

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

What exactly is a change agent?

boringoldguy

marc

Lee Freeman

spurly

segell

spurly

Lee Freeman

Lee Freeman

charlie

Lee Freeman

janine

Thor

segell

brandt

kanham

Thor

boringoldguy

segell

Nevertheless

janine

marc

kanham

Thor

kanham

Thor

jarschqua

segell

Lee Freeman

Thor

segell

janine

segell

Recent Topics

Login:
Password:
Login for: