The "Five Steps"

[blituri]

1 Pet. 3:19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

1 Pet. 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient,
          when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah,
          while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is,
          eight souls were saved by water.

But, not REALLY: it was the ARK that saved them. But, not REALLY: it was God who saved them. But, but.

Now, Peter said that "eight souls were saved by water." The debate should end there: there is nothing you can do to turn that into a lie.

So, the only question that we who are not God have left is: "How were they saved BY water?"  If God said "raise your right hand and you will be saved" then raising the right hand saves because God transferred the power to an act of obedience.  But, but, He did not say "those who will not raise their right hand sall be lost." Fine: we know what saves and that is good enough for those who are OF TRUTH or OF FAITH.

Noah was a "righteous" man in that he did righteousness. He was SAVED in the physical sense because he OBEYED by FAITH.

Diasozo (g1295) dee-as-odze'-o; from 1223 and 4982; to save thoroughly, i.e. (by impl. or anal.) to cure, preserve, rescue, etc.: - bring safe, escape (safe), heal, make perfectly whole, save.

Heb.11:7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet,
         moved with fear,
         prepared an ark to the saving of his house;
         by the which he condemned the world,
         and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Soteria (g4991) so-tay-ree'-ah; fem. of a der. of 4990 as (prop. abstr.) noun; rescue or safety (phys. or mor.): - deliver, health, salvation, save, saving.

The same Apostle who said "repent and be baptized FOR the remission of sins" AND you shall receive A holy spirit also said:

1 Pet. 3:21 The like figure whereunto
       even baptism doth also now save us

Those OF FAITH or OF TRUTH never attempt to trump the statement that BAPTISM DOTH ALSO NOW SAVE US.

For those with questions about HOW and WHEN Peter explained:

(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:

Christ did not save anyone because He died or was resurrected: those who obey that FORM of teaching are THEN free from sin. But never before OBEDIENCE to what you believe in.

Answer ALWAYS means REQUEST. A person who REQUESTS salvation at baptism DOES NOT demand it as a WAGE for works performed OF WHICH they can boast. Therefore, to accuse CHRIST OBEYERS as legalistic is the MARK of a false teacher who DOES NOT have A holy spirit.

    Eperotema (g1906) ep-er-o'-tay-mah; from 1905; an inquiry: - answer.

    Eperotao (g1905) ep-er-o-tah'-o; from 1909 and 2065; to ask for, i.e. inquire, seek: -
      ask (after, questions), demand, desire, question.

God always uses instrumental means in doing His supernatural work.  Why would someone say BUT and begin to "go beyond that which is written" with the intention of telling Jesus and others that they were REALLY being legalistic.

Those who want to minimize the Bible with a dogma of faith only have NOT historic scholarship to back them up: it comes only from the preacher level of those who got caught in the BAPTISM DEBATE and made a major industry out of denying all known scholarly evidence:

Calvin had LOTS of things to say about baptism and he says one thing when tackling baptismal regeneration and quite another when speaking of what adults MUST do. Institutes Book 4.15.1

I answer, we are said to receive, procure, and obtain, whatever according to the perception of our faith is exhibited to us by the Lord, whether he then attests it for the first time, or gives additional confirmation to what he had previously attested.

All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptised, Paul,
       that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you.
       In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure.

I have no intention however, to detract from the power of baptism.

I would only add to the sign the substance and reality,
inasmuch as God works by external means.
But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith.

If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.

[Imabear]

Ken, Moser was right. Baptism never saved anybody.

Does that mean Peter was wrong (1 Peter 3:21)? 

Stirring the pot again I see.
I actually posted those steps because I thought it was a little odd that a group that is called "The Anabaptsts" who split off from the protestant movement primarily over the issue of baptism, didn't even mention baptism in their top 5. 
Although:

Live. Try to live in line with Jesus' teachings... and
Seek. Seek the guidance of God's Holy Spirit and the community of believers (the church) to understand the Bible and how to live the Christian life.

Probably covers it, even though not listed specifically.

[marc]

bump

[blituri]

No one ever denied putting their faith in the blood of Jesus Christ!

Baptism is CHRIST'S ORDAINED WAY to make that confession.  Peter said that BAPTISM SAVES because it is the way Jesus Christ SET UP as a WAY to request A holy Spirit or A good conscience.

Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans,
        justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers
       rejected the counsel of God against themselves,
        being not baptized of him.

Peter said that the WAY to REQUEST that the shed blood be applied is BAPTISM IN WATER.
The way the Doctors of the Law and merchantile class DENY and teach others to DENY exactly what God in Christ commanded.
Those who OBEY in baptism are THEN FREE OF SIN.
FAITH ONLY is never a way to ask for the REMISSION OF SINS. So the ANTI-baptists and therefore ANTI-Christs build on the FOUNDATION of one single passage in the Bible.

Rejecting has the same meaning as Apistos in he that BELIEVETH NOT shall be damned. TO deny that "he that believeth AND is baptized SHALL BE saved" means to "reject God's will, to revolt, to be treacherous."

To JUSTIFY God is to confess that HE IS RIGHT in demanding that we be baptized.  You have to say that Jesus Christ was a liar in ALL of the baptism related passages to even QUESTION baptism.

John 12:42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers
       also many believed on him;
       but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him,
       lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
John 12:43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God

Do you REALLY think that BELIEVING SAVES when then and now they are in REVOLT against baptism?

I think that people who mumble against baptism also love the praise of men because ANTI-baptism and calling Jesus Christ a liar is the DRIVEN PURPOSE of most denominations.  I challenge the notion that the Church of Christ is hung up on baptism more than the denominations and wannabe frees are hung up on ANTI-baptism.  I find that strange and ignorant because I challenge any of them to find one of their historic scholars who said BAPTISM DOES NOT SAVE who didn't quickly add "WITHOUT FAITH." That was never to promote a one-step PATTERNISM for salvation but to repudiate sprinkling innocent infants.  Even the preacher level baptists don't know the difference between justification and salvation.  They PRACTICE justification by faith but NOT salvation by faith because a SAVED person is so because Jesus Christ has added you to HIS church.  You will not be in fellowship to lead or commune until you have been BAPTIZED.  So, the faith-only that the simple changelings lust to impose where they have no right to exist is based on a fraternal agreement with Baptists so that neither know what they are really doing.

To refuse to CONFESS Jesus Christ is to REJECT baptism which is the DECLARED COUNSEL as the OPERATIVE human end of the gospel.  There is NOT good news if you reject the blood by fuming about other people's motive.

NOT EVEN JESUS TAUGHT THE CORE GOSPEL: HE TAUGHT THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OR THE CHURCH

Not many can be that dumb about baptism: they know that if they want to feed their face off the widows table they will HAVE to be in denial for FEAR of the denomination.  Within the Church of Christ I think they understand that there are more ANTI-baptism book buyers than the despised and rejected WAY.

20:24 But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself,
      so that I might finish my course with joy,
      and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus,
      to testify the gospel of the grace of God.

Acts 20:25 And now, behold, I know that ye all, among whom I have gone
        preaching the kingdom of God, shall see my face no more.
Acts 20:26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
Acts 20:27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

We have shown that the CLERGY whom Jesus identified as hypocrites by pointing to speakers, singers and instrument players REJECTED the COUNSEL of God by REFUSING TO BE BAPTIZED.

The gospel of GRACE or the gospel of THE KINGDOM demands that you preach the WHOLE COUNSEL OF GOD.

Those who tamper with the baptism concept do NOT preache the Gospel of the kingdom because they simply cannot know the meaning of gospel which is not "seven facts ABOUT Jesus" with all the rest up for grabs.

[blituri]

sidwms says the Five Steps are without "The Beginning" from the Bible.

While I cannot translate that, you might look at all of the "saving" facts in Romans 10 and understand that CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD is where you SIGN UP to serve someone.

You don't NEED five steps to make baptism MANDATORY:

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou?
      arise, and be baptized,
      and wash away thy sins,
      Calling on the name of the Lord.

Since ONLY baptism is said to remit sins, you may be SAVED by faith only but then you are STILL IN YOUR SINS and you may have joked away your only chance to be FREE FROM SINS.

[blituri]

Imabear [you may be naked without your wedding garment unless you have been washed by the bridegroom] But, then David loved to make himself vile while PLAYING with the servant girls even dancing meaning "performing the role of a woman." That sounded like an approved PATTERNISM for a preacher I once knew.

Why do certain verses from the Psalms apply to today, while others don't?  I'm confused.    Sorry guys, I guess I should have posted this under an IM topic. :)  Seriously,  I understand... I think.

Only 57 of the BOOK of Psalms are Mizmors: only 50 of those were available for SINGING in the inner court while they slaughtered innocent types of their "gods" and the NOISE was to "make the lambs dumb before the slaughter." 

# 127 is not a PSALM but a Shiyr.  In a true synagogue or Ekklesia the command is to SPEAK one to another.  Because NONE of the Psalms are metrical you could not sing AND play in a tuneful sense if your life depended on it.  If you STRIKE or psallo a guitar string to really HURT it you will hear a TONE.  Now, try pitching your voice to that string. Did you notice the strange extra sounds. Well, that's what they did but never to MAKE MUSIC since "melody as tunefulness belongs to the 19th century."

Nextly, the command was to use ONE MIND and ONE MOUTH to speak "that which is written" meaning Scripture in Romans 15 which defines the synagogue as a WORD ONLY assembly.

The PURPOSE is not to get everyone AROUSED because that is the LADED BURDEN Jesus died to remove. That would violate the direct outlawing of SELF pleasure in romans 15 which points to all of the HYPOCRITIC arts and crafts.

The purpose is to EDIFY or educate and ADMONISH.  Now, when we don't MUSICATE Psalm 127 because Stephen told us in Card class that:

God permitted David a TENT (at a Jebusite worship center) because the nation had been abandoned to worship the STARRY HOST.
BUT, Solomon built God a HOUSE
BUT, God doesn't LIVE in houses built by human hands NOR can he be worshipped by the WORKS of human hands. That would include waving, clapping, pointing or PICKING an instrument.

God didn't BUILD the Temple house: it was built with Israelite slave labor by Hiram the Masonic Architect: that is why the TEMPLE of that dark and erroneous MONARCHY period gave rise to Masonry and Mormonism but NOT the Church of Christ which always existed as the synagogue or Church in the Wilderness.  When the Levites (Old Dionysus priests in Egypt) made loud NOISE God shut down the temple and WOOPS easy access to His symbolic presence, the Word once under the mercy seat AND MERCY or Grace because they were being carried into captivity and death.

Teach about the horrors of the Monarchy when #137 wants to stomp in the heads of infants, but DONT "sang and musicate" it as an APPROVED patternism.  Otherwise, you will have to force the women to be UNSAFE in childbearing so you have some kid to bash as they gave them to be burned to Molech at Jerusalem.

Teach about Psalm 149 where the Psalmist clearly wants a "wedding bed" experience with his god (not Jehovah) but for heaven's sake dont set up beds in the temple so you can make more money.  Know what I mean?

[koscheiman]

I think the "5 steps" are like a lot of things.  They started out with good intentions being a good tool to use in having a relationship with God and then man stepped in and made it more about what man does than what God does and it turned into a list of things to be done for some instead of the original intent.  But of course, hearing, believeing, repenting, confessing and being baptized are all wonderful things to do but when we limit ourselves to that or do it in just some check list fashion we miss the point, imo.

The "five steps" are indeed biblically based. They are man's part in his salvation. Of course we are ultimately saved by God, but not without obedience.

[marc]

So, why didn't anybody put them together until the late 1800s?

[koscheiman]

So, why didn't anybody put them together until the late 1800s?

They were actually put together in the 1st century. They were restored in the 1800 as men decided to leave the denominations and return to the pure teaching of the Bible.

[marc]

So, why didn't anybody put them together until the late 1800s?

They were actually put together in the 1st century. They were restored in the 1800 as men decided to leave the denominations and return to the pure teaching of the Bible.

Have you read the first part of this thread?

[koscheiman]

After warning the Romans about musical idolatry at Mount Sinai as he did in 1 Corinthians 10, Paul who wrote Acts 22 said as he risked his life to preach the TRUE washing to those ready to murder him.

Rom 10:8 But what saith it?
         The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, [not your spirit]
         and in thy heart: that is,
         the word of FAITH, which we PREACH;

Paul MINISTERED the Spirit by preaching: Jesus said MY words are SPIRIT and LIFE.

Rom 10:9 That if thou
         shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
         and shalt BELIEVE in thine heart
         that God hath RAISED him from the DEAD,
         thou shalt be saved.

Rom 10:10 For with the heart
         man believeth unto righteousness; and
         with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

    Eisodos (g1529) ice'-od-os; from 1519 and 3598; an ENTRANCE (lit. or fig.): - COMING, entering) in (to).

K.C.Moser who has received his second incarnation, like most of the scholars among us, confuses righteousness with salvatin.  I have posted some of his quotes and just Bible in conext here.

http://www.piney.com/K.C.Moser.1.html

This will also link you to an online version of The Way of Salvation. He says that baptism just means repentence and does not save.

I have had this book since 1979 in Seattle and have marked it with lots of notes.

Rom 10:12 For there is NO DIFFERENCE between the Jew and the Greek:

Rom 10:13 for the SAME Lord over all is rich unto all THAT CALL UPON HIM.
         For whosoever shall CALL upon the NAME of the Lord shall be saved.

Peter repeated this from Joel and showed how tht was to be done.

CALLING ON THE NAME OF THE LORD IS ONLY BY BAPTISM

    And now why tarriest thou? arise,
         and BE BAPTIZED,
         and WASH away thy SINS,
         CALLING on the NAME of the LORD. Acts 22:16

Peter in Acts 2:38 says that God will give us A holy spirit when we are baptized IN THE NAME of Jesus Christ (not father, son and spirit)

In 1 Peter he says that we APPEAL TO, REQUEST or CALL UPON God for A clear conscience.

    And corresponding to that, BAPTISM now SAVES you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh,
         but an APPEAL to God for a good conscience--
         through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter 3:21

THAT IS THE PLAN OF SALVATION IN ONE CHAPTER. It is simply the logical sequence which Pay repeats in several cycles.

Your link to the article by K.C. Moser brings up some interesting questions concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The article claims that the Holy Spirit is none other than Jesus Christ. Yet in John 14:16 Jesus says: "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever"(emp added). The fact that He says another is proof that this Helper is not Himself.
The article also claims that "Father, Son and Spirit are never separated " yet this is not true.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
(Gen 1:1-2)
Here we find the Spirit and God (the Father) separated and performing separate tasks in the creation. The Christ is not mentioned here yet we know He was thru New Testament passages.
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
(Mat 3:16-17)
In this passage also we find a separation of the Holy Trinity also.
The article in this vain of thought mentions God being one yet comprehension of the word one according to the ancient language of Hebrew is not considered. The Bible says: "Hear, O Israel: Jehovah our God is one Jehovah" (Deuteronomy 6:4). This passage implies both the unity and the plurality charteristic of the divine godhead. The word "God" is Elohim (plural) and many scholars believe that the term, as in Genesis 1:1, reveals, in seed form, the doctrine of the trinity which later bursts into full bloom especially in the New Testament.
The term "one" translates the Hebrew ehad, a word that can denote a compound unity. Ehad "stresses unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness" (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, Vol I, p 30). Compare Genesis 2:24, for example, where the same term is employed to describe the unity that obtains in marriage, e.g., the oneness of Adam and Eve.

[blituri]

Philippians identifies Christ as GOD: He abandoned his majesty and authority and came "into a body prepeared fore me" which was the man Jesus of Nazareth. As the visual and audible manifestation OF God He is called Jesus the Christ of God.  He is the same SPIRIT of Christ who spoke through the Prophets to repudiate king and kingdom.  Any time the invisible Deity is made known or audible in our world He is the Hebrew Dabar or Greek Logos.  Logos is the rational discussion of the one God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
          In John 6:63 Jesus said my WORDS are SPIRIT and LIFE.

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:10 He was in the world,
      and the world was made by HIM, and the world knew him not.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

ALL of the classical "trinitarians" who INVENTED the word trinity define the SON as the WORD of the ONE GOD.
They ALL define the Trias as:

Father is the Thought of the ONE God when He "began" to think
Spirit is the BREATH of the ONE God when He breathed forth invisible and inaudible power
Son is the physical Jesus as the WORD Incarnate who articulates the SOUND

Father, Son and Spirit are not the names of anyone or the names of three gods.
Father, says Jesus, was IN him and did the thinking.
The Spirit had been WITH the apostles and would be IN them: Spirit is not a PEOPLE but the mind or disposition of that person. Thus, we have the Spirit OF Christ and the Spirit OF God and the spirit OF Paul all in the same chapter.

The three separated PERSONS with their own "body" and centers of consciousness and abilities and ranked 1, 2, 3 was part of the early Lipscomb teaching of H. Leo Boles.  It was first articulated at Freed Hardeman College in 1938 and first put into print by the GA in 1942. Boles being president of DLC and editor of the GA that became part of the Sunday School literature and therefore you find the EAST WING believing in Tritheism or three persons meaning people while most of the rest do not believe that the Spirit OF Christ was another "person" any more than my spirit is another person living inside of me.

John 14:16 Jesus says: "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever"(emp added). The fact that He says another is proof that this Helper is not Himself.

And yet, none of the books or sermons can ever quote John 14:18

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am IN my Father, and ye IN  me, and I IN  you.

Now, the same John give us the NAME of the another (different in some respects, fuller) Comforter or paraclete.

1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin,
       we have an advocate with the Father,
       Jesus Christ the righteous:

In the so called baptismal formula the NAME Jesus Christ has all of the authority of Father, Son and Spirit.  Peter who heard that command interpreted that to mean:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent,
          and be baptized every one of you
          in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
          and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The pagans all had triads: the most important Father and Son as part of the Abomination of Desolation was Zeus and Mercury or Hermes the LOGOS.

To refute that Jesus said that the NAME (singular) of Father and Son and the Spirit (as that breath which passes between them) was Jesus the Christ of God.

Rubel Shelly etal say that John was speaking of HERMES as the LOGOS and thus the affliction with the word HERMENEUTICS.  Hermes or Mercury was both spirit and logos as the MESSENGER between Zeus and mankind.

The Elohim or Els were the pagan "gods." There were MANY GODS: Pharaoh called Moses an Elohim.  The Els were supposed to be the creators of all things and Moses would be warning the Israelites doomed to return to Babylon.   The way to ELEMINATE all of them was to say that:

OUR elohim is JEHOVAH: He is the only REAL Being who created all of the THINGS that you worship insteac of the CREATOR Who is named JEHOVAH.

Dt 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD
          our God
          is one LORD: Jehovah.
Dt 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Dt 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Paul agrees:

1Cor. 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
      (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God,
      the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;
      and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom whom are all things, and we by him.

[zoonance]

So, why didn't anybody put them together until the late 1800s?

They were actually put together in the 1st century. They were restored in the 1800 as men decided to leave the denominations and return to the pure teaching of the Bible.

Who were the saved up until then?  Was anybody saved after the end of the first century or so?

[koscheiman]

Philippians identifies Christ as GOD: He abandoned his majesty and authority and came "into a body prepeared fore me" which was the man Jesus of Nazareth. As the visual and audible manifestation OF God He is called Jesus the Christ of God.  He is the same SPIRIT of Christ who spoke through the Prophets to repudiate king and kingdom.  Any time the invisible Deity is made known or audible in our world He is the Hebrew Dabar or Greek Logos.  Logos is the rational discussion of the one God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
John 1:3 All things were made by HIM; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
          In John 6:63 Jesus said my WORDS are SPIRIT and LIFE.

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
John 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
John 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
John 1:10 He was in the world,
      and the world was made by HIM, and the world knew him not.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

ALL of the classical "trinitarians" who INVENTED the word trinity define the SON as the WORD of the ONE GOD.
They ALL define the Trias as:

Father is the Thought of the ONE God when He "began" to think
Spirit is the BREATH of the ONE God when He breathed forth invisible and inaudible power
Son is the physical Jesus as the WORD Incarnate who articulates the SOUND

Father, Son and Spirit are not the names of anyone or the names of three gods.
Father, says Jesus, was IN him and did the thinking.
The Spirit had been WITH the apostles and would be IN them: Spirit is not a PEOPLE but the mind or disposition of that person. Thus, we have the Spirit OF Christ and the Spirit OF God and the spirit OF Paul all in the same chapter.

The three separated PERSONS with their own "body" and centers of consciousness and abilities and ranked 1, 2, 3 was part of the early Lipscomb teaching of H. Leo Boles.  It was first articulated at Freed Hardeman College in 1938 and first put into print by the GA in 1942. Boles being president of DLC and editor of the GA that became part of the Sunday School literature and therefore you find the EAST WING believing in Tritheism or three persons meaning people while most of the rest do not believe that the Spirit OF Christ was another "person" any more than my spirit is another person living inside of me.

John 14:16 Jesus says: "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever"(emp added). The fact that He says another is proof that this Helper is not Himself.

And yet, none of the books or sermons can ever quote John 14:18

John 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
John 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am IN my Father, and ye IN  me, and I IN  you.

Now, the same John give us the NAME of the another (different in some respects, fuller) Comforter or paraclete.

1John 2:1 My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin,
       we have an advocate with the Father,
       Jesus Christ the righteous:

In the so called baptismal formula the NAME Jesus Christ has all of the authority of Father, Son and Spirit.  Peter who heard that command interpreted that to mean:

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent,
          and be baptized every one of you
          in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,
          and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The pagans all had triads: the most important Father and Son as part of the Abomination of Desolation was Zeus and Mercury or Hermes the LOGOS.

To refute that Jesus said that the NAME (singular) of Father and Son and the Spirit (as that breath which passes between them) was Jesus the Christ of God.

Rubel Shelly etal say that John was speaking of HERMES as the LOGOS and thus the affliction with the word HERMENEUTICS.  Hermes or Mercury was both spirit and logos as the MESSENGER between Zeus and mankind.

The Elohim or Els were the pagan "gods." There were MANY GODS: Pharaoh called Moses an Elohim.  The Els were supposed to be the creators of all things and Moses would be warning the Israelites doomed to return to Babylon.   The way to ELEMINATE all of them was to say that:

OUR elohim is JEHOVAH: He is the only REAL Being who created all of the THINGS that you worship insteac of the CREATOR Who is named JEHOVAH.

Dt 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD
          our God
          is one LORD: Jehovah.
Dt 6:5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Dt 6:6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:

Paul agrees:

1Cor. 8:5 For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth,
      (as there be gods many, and lords many,)
1Cor. 8:6 But to us there is but one God,
      the Father, OF whom are all things, and we in him;
      and one Lord Jesus Christ, BY whom whom are all things, and we by him.

The Trinity or Godhead is a fact of the Scriptures. John 1:1 reads "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God (deity)"
This Scripture in no way says the Word is the Father. In the beginning aat creation there were three entities present:
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
(Genesis 1:1-2)
We also know Christ was present from a reading of Colossians.
At the baptism of Jesus there were three separate entities present:
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven (the Father), saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
(Matthew 3:16-17)
In the Great Commission Jesus mentions 3 entities:
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"
(Matthew 28:19)
When Peter in Acts 2 states that baptism is in the name of Jesus Christ he in no way is saying all are one being, but he is using "synecdoche" a figure of speech in which a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part.

[Arkstfan]

I thought Jesus taught two-steps of salvation.
1. Sell everything you own.
2. Follow me.

[koscheiman]

I thought Jesus taught two-steps of salvation.
1. Sell everything you own.
2. Follow me.

Jesus did teach self sacrifice and following Him. He also taught the following:
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.
(Luke 13:3)
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
(Matthew 10:32-33)
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
(Mark 16:16)

[HRoberson]

The 5 steps were originally strung together (in the RM) by a traveling evangelist as a lure to have children bring their parents to a "Gospel Meeting," although his five were different than the five we currently use.

While references can be found to all five steps, the order of the steps is a deduction as is the relative importance of each in the salvation process. Depending on where one cares to enter the discussion concerning salvation, all, none, or some of them are "necessary" in varying ways.

[memmy]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

[Jimbob]

I thought Jesus taught two-steps of salvation.
1. Sell everything you own.
2. Follow me.

That man was already in a covenant relationship with God when Jesus called him to deeper discipleship.

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

[Mere Nick]

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

"Church" buildings are not specifically mentioned, but upper rooms are, mmm hmm.

[HRoberson]

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

"Church" buildings are not specifically mentioned, but upper rooms are, mmm hmm.

Well, right you are.....upper rooms in someone's three-story house, with an open window on the third floor. 

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

[herlovingmother]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6XJkNlAk9c

Paul Washer says it all.

You should look him up, cause he's really, really cool.

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

[zoonance]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

That a guy called a pope exists is a different issue than this guy called a pope setting salvatic policy.

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

That a guy called a pope exists is a different issue than this guy called a pope setting salvatic policy.

I'm not defending whether the Pope is always correct. I am simply arguing that there are a host of things not authorized by Scripture. If a local group of bishops can elect a chairman, why can't a worldwide set of bishops do the same thing?

[koscheiman]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or addititions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

[HRoberson]

Actually He just said "Feed my sheep".

yeah....but He said that to the first Pope, so the rest of us don't need to pay attention.........

The position of pope does not exist in the Bible it is a Catholic addition.

.....yeah......neither does President of the United States.

The President of the United States has nothing to do with the church and its structure. What exactly is your point?

Well, if you don't like that example, let's use songbooks, or church buildings, or long-term located preachers, or .....pick your favorite innovation that isn't mentioned in Scripture. Shall we also outlaw those because they aren't in Scripture?

You are talking about expedients not additions to the Scripture. We are commanded to sing a songbook is an aid to singing it does not add anything to the command. We are commanded to meet a church building aids in this it does not add anything to the command. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand just fine, thank you.

Our elders organize themselves with a chairman, whose "term" lasts three months at a time. This chairman isn't authorized in Scripture any more than the Pope. Since it appears that church organization is for the convenience of the church in question, it seems to me that the existence of the Pope per se, isn't a big deal.

Elders in the plural are authrized by Scripture. Having a chairman for decorums sake is not a bad idea so long as he is not lording over the other elders. A bishop over several churces is not found in Dcripture it is an inovation. The pope is likewise an innovation. The Scriptures say there is one head over the church Jesus the Christ, The creation of the position entiled pope creates two heads over the church this is not the Scriptural plan for the church. I believe the following is quite possibly referring to the pope:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
(2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 NKJV)

....and so, if you agree with the innovation, it's OK. But if you object to it, it isn't?

Cool by me.

I do not agree with any innovations or additions. An expedient is not an innovation or addition.

And, pray tell, who's decided this?

A rose by any other name.........