What exactly is a change agent?

[Nevertheless]

:amen:

[janine]

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.

[Thor]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] It's a false metaphor, Thor. [/quote]
Steve,
I see the statement, yet miss the proof.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]A relationship actually exists or doesn't.  God's Spirit confirms that relationship - there is no "think"-ing about it.  There is knowing one is in relationship to God and knowing brings confidence and assuredness.[/quote]
1 John 5:13 Tells us scripture is given so that we MIGHT know we have salvation. Not that we might feel some heart warming emotional response. Facts reveal, emotions can and often do conceal.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am afraid, Thor, that your perception draws conclusions that undermine, and could possibly make meaningless, the purposes of belief, repentance, confession and baptism.  These wonderful things that Christians do are in loving response to God's transformation of our hearts in Christ Jesus. Thor, don't all Christians believe, don't all Christians repent and turn from a life of godlessness to a Christ filled existence, don't all Christians confess that Jesus Christ is Lord and finally, don't all Christians submit to baptism?[/quote]
Yes because a Christian by definition is one who has done ALL of those things.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Yet in contrast, Thor, not all that say they believe nor say they repented nor confessed nor were baptized are saved.  You see, the key is found in the motivation for those things.[/quote]
I agree, but the proper motivation with improper action still ends in a mistake. The road to hell is paved... ya know. Also the proper action without the proper attitude avails nothing. Acts 18:24ff

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Anyway, that's what I believe Scripture reveals, Thor.  I pray for the day that God brings you to the point of relying completely and solely on His grace for your salvation through faith and trust in Christ Jesus.  Sola Gracia, sola fide, sole Christi.  By grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. [/quote]
Steve,
Scripture did not reveal "By grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone.

[marc]

[!--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]

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]

Janine,
So someone does not Believe because of the salvation they already have?
So someone does not Repent because of the salvation they already have?
So someone does not Confess because of the salvation they already have?
So someone is not Baptized because of the salvation they already have?

Is there a difference between having something and taking possesion of it?
We can not take possesion of Salvation until those things are accomplished. Even though we may have them in promise.

[boringoldguy]

Lee,

This is going to set off a bomb.

First of all, an "unbaptized believer" who has no plans to be baptized  is not the same thing as a person in the process of being baptized who dies.

Second,

If they really believe, why don't they get immersed?

I am a person who was raised in a church that practiced the sprinkling of infants.    I knew for several years that this was not the baptism that the Bible described but told myself it didn't matter - if I was one of God's elect, nothing could keep me out of heaven, and if I wasn't, nothing could get me in.

When I finally really believed, I got immersed.    

I think it is monumentally irresponsible for someone who believes that God has commanded baptism to suggest that God won't stick to what He said.   I don't think I'd want that preacher around myself.   If, on the other hand, he really doesn't believe that God has commanded baptism, why does he want to preach in a Church of Christ anyway?

[Thor]

[!--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.

[boringoldguy]

Lee,

I don't think it's a stupid question, and I hope this answer isn't stupid.

Their continued right standing didn't depend solely upon their obedience but it depended partly on it.

You're right that they kept disobeying and God kept gaving them another chance.  But when they rejected Jesus, that was the end of it.   That's part of what the parable of the tenants tells us.   Their place was taken away and the Church became God's people because of continued disobedience.

[Richard]

Maybe the lawyers here can help me out, but if I remember correctly from my contract law class in college---
An agent is someone who is authorized to speak or act for (or on the behalf of) someone (or something) else.

So a change agent would be someone who speaks or acts for (or on the behalf of) change.

Webster's defines change as "to make or become different"

I think the people who throw around the term "change agent" in a derogatory manner are implying that these "change agents" are trying to change our understanding of salvation and Grace from a correct understanding to a false one.  I think these "change agents" are helping us grow from a lesser understanding of the nature of salvation and Grace to a greater one.
Therefore I think they could be better described as "growth agents".

There is my 2.5 cents worth.  ( I rarely am able to stop at 2.0 cents :p )

Richard

[marc]

For what it's worth, the facing page to chapter ten, Minimizing Chaos, in Anderson's Winds of Change says:  "The change agent must maintaina delicate balance between being a strong pioneer leader and an integrated group member."  OOh.  How devilish!  The book was written in 1994, and I have no idea whether that was really where the phrase originated, or whether this was where people looking for a new label of condemnation found the phrase.  

To me, the second seems more likely than the first.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ Mar. 03 2003,12:12)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]3.  No, the Baptist church is not the church (or Church) of Christ.   There is only one church (Church), it was established by Christ, and it consists of all those who have heard, believed, repented and been baptized.  [/quote]
Guy:  I grew up in a Methodist church and am not familiar with the Baptist church.  And, I don't understand your position at all.

You say you can accept a Baptist into fellowship at your church.  Isn't it up to God as to who is accepted?   How can you judge who is part of your church?

I don't understand your saying that the Baptist church is not the church of Christ.  How can you judge this?  Who made you the judge?

I will never understand people judging.  Although you did it in a gentlemanly fashion.  

It seems to be against the Bible to me to judge...how you reconcile judging with the bible saying not to?

Shorty

[Lee Freeman]

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]

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]

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

[kanham]

Thor,

My parents adopted a young lady when she was twelve. She had the decision to accept or reject the relationship. She did not have to fill out any paper work or go thru any red tape, that was my parents responsability. She did nothing to make the relationship happen, my parents did it all.

God bless.

[janine]

yup!

[kanham]

Thor,

Faith or works? Actions done in faith because someone has received. On this thread you have said, "We kill off the old man of sin in baptism

[segell]

Josh

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

Steve

[Lee Freeman]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]1.  The person who dies on the way to the baptistry -
I've always thought this an absurd hypothetical and I've never heard anybody maintain that such a person was lost.  But since you want an answer - I think that God will extend his grace to a person who dies during the act of obeying.    I will say, however, that those who wait to be baptized at some "special" time or place are foolish and that it's a serious matter to put off obeying God in such a way.    [/quote]
BOG, as absurd a hypothetical as this is, I have actually heard this and similar hypothetical questions asked-by elders of the church. When our preacher Joe was fired from Chisholm Hills back in '93, one of the "reasons" the elders gave was that because  Joe refused to judge or condemn unbaptized believers to hell, that he was "soft" on baptism. In the meeting they held (under the false pretence of trying to reconcile with Joe), they asked him if he thought an unbaptized person who died on the way to the baptistry before he could be immersed, would be lost. Know what they said? They said yes, because he had not met God's requirements for salvation. Sad though it was, that person would nevertheless be lost.

So Joe asked them a question. He asked them, who had a better chance of being saved-a devout, believing, yet unimmersed Methodist or an atheist? Guess what they said? Yep. You guessed it. Elder D. W. looked right at Joe and said that since neither man had been immersed both would be in hell! When I heard that I nearly fell out of my chair!

Pax vobiscum.

[Lee Freeman]

I honestly don't know about the African who doesn't know about Christ because no one ever taught him. Jesus did say "no man comes to the Father but through me." But would a just God send a man to hell for not knowing something there's NO WAY the guy could've known? Or, if that African acknowledged a Higher Power, to the best of his ability, whether he knew it to be Yahweh or not, would God have mercy on that man, too? Again, I don't know. I do know that geater minds than mine, like C. S. Lewis, for instance, have wrestled with this question. Ultimately, God will judge, not Lee Freeman.        

My job is to preach the death, burial and resurrection to everyone I can, and then urge folks to make the proper response, baptism.                                                      

I didn't say that anybodoy and everybody could be saved like the thief on the cross. What I said was, God saved him without baptism under extenuating circumstances; God looked at his heart and recognized his BELIEF. If God WANTED TO, he could save OTHER sincere BELIEVERS who genuinely didn't know they were supposed to be baptized. BELIEF is the key word here.                                                                

God is a God of mercy. God can bend His own rules in extenuating circumstances if He chooses to. I, mean, He let King Hezekiah celebrate Passover on the WRONG day, so that they could consecrate all the priests and give travelers a chance to get there. If He could do that way back then...                                                

More later. Pax vobiscum.

[Lee Freeman]

Point taken. Maybe I'm on a different frequency here, and if I am I apologize. But would the Hebrews have remained God's chosen nation if they hadn't obeyed? Read the prophets and you'll quickly see how often Israel abandoned God. But God never abandoned them. Moses himself disobeyed a direct command of God, and, in the short term, did not get to enter the Promised Land. But as for the long term, Moses' ETERNAL destiny, the book of Hebrews lists him as a hero of the faith, one of the great cloud of witnesses. In other words, does our right standing with God depend SOLELY upon our obedience? Forgive me if this is a stupid question.

Pax vobiscum.

Sorry to quote a secondary source, but I don't own a copy of the primary source. According to Glenn Colley, in his book Loose Change, Lynn Anderson first used the term "change agents" in his book Navigating the Winds of Change, page 140.

[Rocketman]

One of my fellow deacons at our congregation calls me a change agent.  He is somewhat joking and when he used to say it, a couple years back I would deny it as I knew that meant bad.    Now, I say Yes I am, thanks for the compliment.  You see our church hasnt been reaching people for the Lord and I am trying to help change that.  Not for me, but for HIM.  So yes I am working to change our church.  

I've studied the concepts of restoration much over the past few years and it seems to me that the concepts are great, but the problem comes when we all of a sudden think we've arrived.  As people, we wont ever arrive until He arrives.

As far as who are the major CA's in Church of Christ: the obvious ones are people like Max Lucado, Rubel Shelly, Jeff Walling, Rich Atchley, Mike Cope.  At least thats who I'd say, and I think they'd probably be ok with the label as I am.

[charlie]

Kevin,

What is your concept of the Baptist Church? Are the Church of Christ and the Baptist Church the same? Would members of those churches agree?

[Thor]

Kevin,
There is only ONE church! it is universal, world wide, local, and personal. God HAS decided what that church is, who He will add to it, and what one must do to maintain the bond of unity. His decisions come to us through his word. Study it, learn it, apply it, You will find that it will teach you how to behave in the church of Christ.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]1 Tim 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.[/quote]

Marc,
I know you are not that obtuse. Just because people compose a church does not mean they made it. God made this world, yet we inhabit it. God made the church, yet man composes it. I am part of that church which Christ established. THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. We worship according to the pattern set forth in the New Testament. You can see that pattern quite easily if you understand Hermeneutics properly...ie. examples, inferrence, command, and the such. As for your list of "unscriptural" elements, think about that again. There is scriptural authority to be found for each of those items. Especially a building of worship.(1st Century Christians met in peoples homes) Anyway, you are only trying to deflect attention away from the main thrust of the topic. Change Agents are those who create man-made religions because they want to CHANGE the New Testament pattern.

[Thor]

If I could find a baptist willing to follow the scriptures I would accept him too. Of course one willing to submit to the scriptures could no longer remain a baptist. That makes sense, and I could agree with Mr. Campbell.

That quote does not nearly affect me however as much as the many times Jesus, and His Apostles tell us to be seperate. To keep the doctrine of Christ pure, and to provide unity in the TRUTH.

I can not bury my head in the sand when looking at the error in the Denominational World. I can't ignore it. Jesus could not be happy with a disciple who allowed error to prosper. I have found a group of people who look to His Word. They seek to let it guide their lives and worship. The distinguishing characteristic is that they have been successfull in establishing New Testament Christianity. Of worshiping according to the will of God. We are not willing to make changes based upon what we want, what we desire, what we find appropriate. We follow the Lord. We worship in Spirit and in Truth. And we do not and can not have fellowship with those who are willing to try to change the truth of God's Word.

Christians have always been a sect.
We must only decide were the lines will be drawn.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with the World.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with Darkness.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who deny Christ.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may earn your way to heaven, whose worship is "works" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may do nothing to enter heaven, whose worship is "faith only" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who wish to change the church of Christ, individual, local, or universal.

[Thor]

Just showing that the lines must be drawn...
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Christians have always been a sect.
We must only decide were the lines will be drawn.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with the World.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with Darkness.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who deny Christ.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may earn your way to heaven, whose worship is "works" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who teach you may do nothing to enter heaven, whose worship is "faith only" based.
We are a sect because we have no fellowship with those who wish to change the church of Christ, individual, local, or universal. [/quote]

[Arkstfan]

Lee here is an excerpt from a sermon I once gave called Seeing Jesus.

The Bibles we hold today contain our record of the inspired Word of God. Jesus, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Savior, the Word of God is reflected in this record. This record is the closest we have to a photograph of Jesus.

If you look you see Jesus over and over throughout the Bible.

Jesus is the ark. Those who live in him, like those in the ark, are saved from death.

We see Jesus in Abraham. When Lot was captured and taken away Abraham conquered his captors and freed Lot. Jesus has conquered sin and death and freed us.

We can look at Lot and see Jesus. Just as Lot was the only righteous man in Sodom and held out against the temptations there, Jesus was the only sinless man in the world and held out against temptations.

We see Jesus in Isaac. Isaac was a son offered as a sacrifice. Jesus was the son offered and accepted as a sacrifice.

We see the grace Jesus offers us in God's treatment of Israel. Israel would stumble and fall away from God, he would restore them after they repented and returned to him. The grace offered through Jesus allows us to return to the Father when we stumble.

We see Jesus in Daniel. He sentenced to death because he followed Heavenly rule instead earthly power. He was intombed with lions and when the chamber was opened he was alive. Jesus was sentenced to death because he is heavenly power and the people thought he was usurping earthly rulers. His chamber like Daniel's was opened but there was no dead man inside.

[segell]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Kinda like the son of the owner of a big corporation being made to work through the ranks to "earn" the right to run the company.  He is the heir, the company's his in a way now, and definitely will be when the time for inheritance comes.  But, to fall in the the father's plans, to demonstrate his willingness and to be in empathy with all the employees, he works his way up from the mail room to the board room.[/quote]

I don't think so, Janine.  Don't think He had to work His way anywhere.  He already was/is King, Lord, God, Savior, Master, etc, etc.  The fact that He became man and was limited by His manhood, did not negate that He was totally God.  He bacame man so that He could die.

He didn't work His way up through His sufferings - He was further perfected through His perfect obedience unto death.  Remember Hebrews 5:7 which precedes Thor's Hebrew reference.  Verse 7 sets up verses 8, 9 and 10, in fact.  In the limited condition of man, through "reverent submission" unto God, Jesus grew in knowledge, obedience, grace.  Note, it is through His sufferings.  

This is a message for us.  We don't work our way to a better place because of our works, our better place comes from a deeper, more reverent submission unto God that brings about greater obedience and the understanding of that obedience.  It also reveals to us our desperate dependence upon God.  Jesus had that dependence.  And what did that obedience bring to Christ?  The joy and peace of God.  

That's really why we're called to that obedience - so that we will know the joy Christ has in the Father and in experiencing that, the desire to join God in the advancement of His Kingdom, to the glory of the Father.

[boringoldguy]

I'm going to jump in on Thor's side (althought he doesn't seem to need any help.)  At least I think this is Thor's side.

When somebody says that baptism is not necessary for salvation but it is necessary for obedience, that's the same as saying it's not necessary at all.

The purpose of Christianity is to be saved (be in a right relationship with God.)    If  that relationship can exist absent baptism, then baptism isn't necessary.    It doesn't change a thing to say that we have to obey, because if we can be in that relationship without obeying, then clearly obedience isn't essential to the relationship.   The relationship exists without it.   So to say that baptism isn't necessary for salvation but is necessary for obedience is just a lot of circular talk.    It's either necessary for salvation or it isn't necessary at all.

Does anybody remember when  Pres. Clinton was leaving office and there was a lot of talk about who would and wouldn't get pardons for their misdeeds?   I don't remember who it was, but there was speculation as to whether some people would accept a pardon or not.    You might ask "Why not accept it?"   The answer is that it would be seen as an admission of guilt.

That's the way I see  confession, repentance, baptism.    The pardon is available, but you have to admit that you are guilty and in need of it.   That makes the figurative language about us sharing Christ's death and burial more meaningful.   By being baptized, we are admitting that we deserve to be put to death. And if I don't deserve to die, why do I need to be saved?   It seems to me that by saying I don't have to be baptized, I'm saying I didn't really do anything wrong.

Finally, how can it be a "work" to say that I am a sinner deserving of death?   The very act that some call a "work" in itself is a statement that I don't deserve a relationship with God.

Is that crazy?

[Thor]

:amen:
Jesus died that we might be made righteous.

A brother was willing to give his brother a kidney. He knew that he might die during the surgery and unfortunatly he did. He gave his life that his brother might live. But you know what? His brother still had to go through the operation to transplant that kidney. With out the operation his brothers sacrifice was good for nothing.

Jesus gave his blood to free us of our sin. With out the operation of Baptism we can not use that Blood to wash our sin away. Acts 22:16

[segell]

Janine - Gotcha. :D

Steve

[boringoldguy]

This discussion is clearly going nowhere.  I'm out.

[segell]

BOG

Sounds like there might be some frustration and sorry if I've added to that.  I think I hear what you're saying.  

But, again, I don't believe the debate should be so much about baptism, per se, but about God's whether God would require that a person do a series of things before being considered saved.  

I think all of us would agree that God commanded that we be baptized.  Don't think anyone would disagree.  However, the purpose of baptism in the plan of salvation has been a lightening rod for discussion.  I wonder why not confession, why not repentance?  

You see, I think some look at responses to being saved or examples of what saved people do and create a theology that those things therefore must be done before salvation is assured.  The bible says that unless we confess Christ as Savior - He won't confess us before the Father.  That is very, very true.  I look at that as a barometer, if you will, concerning the condition of my heart.  And I don't think Christ is talking about a one time event of confession - but a way of life.  

I can't imagine anyone coming to Christ in faith and not turning from sin and toward Christ, can you?  Is that a requirement or a reflection of a changed heart?

I don't have time to finish now.  Perhaps I could ask that you consider this until I return.

Thanks.

Steve