What exactly is a change agent?

[segell]

BOG

Would you mind telling me your take on Exodus 6:6-8?  God already DECLARED Israel His people.  Don't you think we have to look at chapter 19 and get a sense of what God was doing?  

And you know, while you say you've done a study on His sovereignty (and I take your word) how do you respond to Ex. 6:6-8?  That is a sovereign God's declaration while they were still in captivity.  (Kind of like us still caught in the confines and prison of sin).

And lastly Bog, your implication that I or anyone differing from you seek God on our terms and not His, is just plain silly and self-righteous - and, it seems to me, a hackneyed argument by many who espouse a works or legalistic theology.  How often I have heard people saying that church or that denomination holds to a manmade religion.  Shame on any of us casting stones.

I would have to believe that most everyone on here is very sincere in their beliefs and Scriptural perspectives.  Some of us could be sincerely wrong.  That is why we should be exhorting and encouraging each other to approach God in reverential submission, seeking His Truth as we continue to study His Word.  Don't you agree?

Steve

[Lee Freeman]

Thor, Segell, BOG, Kanham, Jarshqua, et al. Here's a couple passages that just sorta popped into my head. I don't know that anyone's posted them yet. They may have some bearing on the discussion at hand. I only have a KJV here so I'll use it. I also realise that these are quoted out of their immediate context as well, but I'll post em' anyway.

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the founadtion of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." (Ephesians 1:4-5 KJV Emphasis added)

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." (Ephesians 1:11 KJV Emphasis added)

More later.

Pax vobiscum.

[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--]i find it kinda amazing that baptism and faith are put at such odds with each when they are closer together than any others on the "5 finger" process...
with faith you simply choose to believe...
with baptism you simply choose to submit...[/quote]
Josh, you're right; faith, repentance, confession and immersion CANNOT be separated. They are interconnected, as K. C. Moser very nicely pointed out in his 1932 book The Way of Salvation.                                                  

Moser was taught however, and so was I as a kid in the 70's, that the "five steps" were abrbitrary commandments with NO real connection other than they were the five things we had to do as commanded by God. Moser said that in his day, many legallistic preachers would say that they didn't know WHY God commanded baptism (He could've commanded anything to save us), only that He DID, and our job was not to question, but just to obey. I've heard the same thing myself, when I was a kid, and as late as five years ago!

From the 1930's to the 1950's and until his death in the 70's Moser fought hard against the prevailing "gospel of baptism," which reigned supreme from the 1920's through the 1970's. He contended that the gospel was a man, not a plan. So I guess he was actually one of the first change agents (at least of the 20th century).

Also, the "five finger exercise" began with Walter Scott (1796-1860) as a quick memory tool used in presenting the gospel to uneducated people on the frontier. His original version was different than ours and had six points, which he shortened to just five; 1. faith; 2. repentance; 3. baptism; 4. gifts of the Holy Spirit; 5. eternal life. At what point it got changed to the five points we have today I don't know. Scott did later worry that the message of the gospel, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and faith in Him, had unintentionally been reduced to a simple five finger exercise.

Pax vobiscum.

[david johnson]

charlie:

i first heard it about a decade ago.  the term was used by some folks i knew with memphis school of preaching/freed-hardeman backgrounds.  at that time, the term was applied by 'conservatives' to 'liberals'.  i trust few who toss it around, but then i trust left-wingers less.  i find them more rigid than right-wingers.  they just deny that, though. :)

dj

[segell]

Kevin

Thanks for the reply.  By the way, I read my post to you and frankly, did not like the tone of it.  I peppered you with questions and I hope you will forgive me if I came off as attacking you.  That was not my intention.  And I ask your forgiveness for any offense.  

With that said, I hope that you will assume as a given that I have respect for you and the sincerity of your opinion and views - even though, as I've said before - that I think some of your views to be in error and a misunderstanding of God's grace.

Kevin, we will have many areas to discuss.  I look forward to our mutually respectful exchanges.  

Allow me to clarify a couple of things:

1.  I see the church of Christ as a church of all who place their faith and confidence in Jesus Christ by God's grace.  I do not see it as a denomination - I belong to it.  But I do see the CoC born out of the RM as a denomination.  

2.  I challenge the intellectual honesty of your comment that your concept of CoC comes from the bible and not of man.  I'm sure that you can and will point to Scripture to defend your position, but, Kevin, you were taught that perspective (discipled, if you will) from someone or some persons with that perspective on God's Word.  Just as I have been influenced by numerous mentors in my Christian life.  I, too, claim that my views are biblical and supported by Scripture.  Yet, we differ.  Let's allow God to work His wisdom into our hearts.

3.  As to doctrine, well, on the essentials we are called to unity.  On non-essentials we are surely free to debate.  You and I do differ on an essential, that is, the grace of God.  I hope that we can explore these issues with open hearts and minds and enjoy God at work as He makes clear His Truth.

4.  As to non-essential issues, I find how we view worship(where, when and how the Lord's Supper is celebrated; instrumental v. non-instrumental singing; five acts of worship) really as areas we may find disagreement, but don't go to the essential Truths of God's plan of salvation.  As a result, I rarely participate in those kinds of discussion, only because I'm not as interested as I am in exploring the essentials of our faith.  

Anyway, take care.  Will talk later.

Steve

[susieface]

:hug: Who are some of the ministers or leaders that we or others consider to be change agents?

I personally do not like this label because it implies that leaders are just trying to stir up trouble instead of changing a particular belief due to deep study and prayer.

But I am curious as to who some believe would be considered a change agent as based on the definitions in this thread.

Susie

[Thor]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I am also assured, then, of your commitment to keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace rather than the bond of doctrinal correctness. [/quote]

I find it telling that your version of gospel unity is 'keep the peace at all costs, allow error to continue, don't compare doctrine to the Word of God, maintain fellowship with the worlds religions and with Christ, and by all means never say that someone is incorrect doctrinally.'

When Paul speaks of keeping gospel unity he says
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Eph 4:3-6 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.[/quote]
If there is only one body those not in that body are on the outside of unity, there is one spirit those without that one spirit are on the outside of unity, there is one hope of our calling those outside that hope are outside unity, there is one Lord those who are outside the Lord are outside unity, there is one faith those outside that one faith are outside unity, there is one baptism those outside baptism are outside unity, there is one God those outside of Him are outside of unity.

[ellisadam]

"But every one is wont to condemn others in that in which he is more intelligent than they; while, on the other hand, he is condemned for his Pharisaism or his immodesty and rash judgment of others, by those that excel in the things in which he is deficient. I cannot, therefore, make any one duty the standard of Christian state or character, not even immersion into the name of the father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit"

--Alexander Campbell

Mark 9:38-41
38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."

39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us.
NIV
--The Bible

[Rocketman]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Titus 1:10-16 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;14 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.16 They profess that they know od; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.
[/quote]
So who are you comparing this text to?  Campbell, Stone, Lipscomb, or posters on GCM that you dont agree with? or yourself?

[Arkstfan]

Below is a link to an article by Cecil Hooks on Campbell and sects.

http://www.freedomsring.org/heritage/chap35.html

[segell]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I find it odd that it was DEMANDED of Christ that He be obedient, NOT after He purchased our salvation, BUT in order to purchase our salvation. Why argue with an example like that? Christ could not purchase our salvation without His obedience. And we can not accept it without ours.[/quote]

Thor - You find that odd?  Christ HAD TO DIE!!  He had to be obedient - even unto death!  Christ crucified!  That's what paid for my sin and yours, if we believe.  It points out to me that our obedience is a must!!  Not for salvation purposes, but because we are God's children, just as Christ is His Son!!  We are obligated to obey because of who we are and what God has given us.  Oh, what a privilege to honor God by obeying Him.  Our obedience, as is Christ's, is because of who we now are!!  Thor, you have the cart way before the horse.  

Your view of obedience meriting salvation places the emphasis on you and DIMINISHES Christ's perfect obedience.  It places your obedience next to His.  Your theology purports that God is more concerned with our obedience than in His perfect plan.  God knows that ANY attempt at an obedience to please Him apart from Christ is meaningless.  God's perfect Law was lived and obeyed by Christ.  He and He alone was spotless.  God's requirement, God's Holiness is only found in the Lamb.  And only by trusting in all who Jesus Christ is, can we enter into the presence of our Holy God.  It is Christ's righteousness that is imputed to us through faith - not by any doing on our part.  It is Christ the Father sees when He looks at His children.  That is why He rejoices over us with singing.

Thor, when you think of it, the only thing we can to is trust God to keep His word.  Do you think that anything you do will obligate Him?  You know what Scripture says about that.  His response to us is out of His love for us and - perhaps more importantly, His love for His Son.

Steve

[segell]

Janine

Well, sorry that I came across as being set off.  Really wasn't.  I guess I have a passion for this subject and hope you can mark that off to being just that.  

I just don't see our Lord in that same light.  I think the text in Hebrews might be misread if we think that Christ needed to be made more perfect.  I think the writer was talking about Jesus' death when he wrote that Jesus, "once made perfect, he became source of eternal salvation for all who obey Him".  

I also think that it speaks volumes about our obligation and privilege - as Christians - to be in an obedient relationship to Jesus Christ, just as He is with the Father.

Have nothing at all against the word works, Janine.  We're all called to perform good works (Eph. 2:10).  Just have problems when some equate those works with our righteousness and as a condition of salvation.  That, in my opinion, negates and makes a mockery of God's grace.

Marc's posting from Romans puts it in much better perspective and I see that we're in agreement there.

Take care.

Steve

[janine]

Segell - I didn't think you were upset.  It's just an expression.  Like, "Who rattled your chain?"  :p

[kanham]

Thor,

It is so clear that we are not connecting. It is also clear that you don't understand what I have said over and over and over again about faith. You act as if Noah or the Israelites would simply say don't need to do that. You don't understand faith. You either have faith or you don't.

When have I ever said you don't need to be baptized? I have said this discussion is not about baptism or obedience.

I only contradict Hebrews in your mind. In fact I am just repeating what the writer plainly says and you have pointed out, By faith Noah built the ark to the saving of his house. The statement says BY FAITH. Because he trusted God, because he believed what God had promised, he did what was said. So the statement I was baptized as a response of faith would be appropriate wouldn't it? Faith is trusting in God for what he promised, gives, not in what my obedience brings.

The only person who contradicts is you when you say faith isn't enough and then you define faith as "what is acted upon.

[janine]

Why does it have to go anywhere?

When everyone already knows everything there's nothing more to find out. :bangingheadagainstwall:

[segell]

Josh

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]... i do enjoy our discourses, even if we do disagree; agape friend
[/quote]

Back at you, my friend.

Steve

[kanham]

Boringoldguy,

I agree, we are not connecting.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]
4.    Therefore, to say that we can be saved before or without baptism, but that baptism is somehow necessary,  is meaningless.  It's empty talk.  [/quote]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] 1.  The person who dies on the way to the baptistry -
I've always thought this an absurd hypothetical and I've never heard anybody maintain that such a person was lost. [/quote]


Lets expand. Why did God reject the sacrifices of the Jews in the OT? Was it because they were the wrong ones? Is that really true? If that is true then why could Hezekiah change the day and time to observe the Passover? If that is true why could David not set up the tabernacle? Why could he keep the ark in a tent that was not prescribed by God? And the list could go on. Because that was not the reason God rejected their sacrifices. He rejected them because they were not done in faith.

In Malachi God rejects the offerings of the Jews. They make the table of God contemptible because they bring crippled and diseased animals. They bring their bad and keep their best because they do not have faith in God. As James so powerfully states, true, living faith brings response, but it is still faith and faith is perfectly defined.

The mindset from my upbringing in the CoC is one that says if they would have only brought the right gifts then everything would have been OK. For whatever reason there is an inability to see that if they had faith they would have brought the right offering.

Why do we take the LS? Why do we worship on Sunday? Do you do these things because they are the right forms done on the right day the right number of times? Do you think that if I could only get my neighbor down the street to take the LS every Sunday or baptize in the exact right way then we would be getting somewhere?

I worship each Sunday because of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus Christ came back to life on the first day, the eighth day. I take the LS every Sunday because it reminds me of who does it all. It reminds me that it is Jesus Christ who saves. I worship, I take the LS, I live a life to glorify God because of what He did. I do these things because of faith.

The OT makes all of this very clear to me. "6 With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

[segell]

Come on, Boring.  I'm not saying that.  I applaud you for it.  But it's your implication that I took to task.  

Finally, when discussing something as important as salvation, I think it is important to find truth in light of all of Scripture.  That is, what God says about our own sin (I think we disagree here); about His sovereignty (not sure what your view is on that); God's grace (again we disagree); purpose of our obedience (again some disagreement).

So yes, I do suggest those studies and also much prayer.  (Funny, you didn't mention that part).

(By the way, do you really think God - sovereign as He is - didn't mean what He said in Chapter 6?  That His declaration and His decision and, finally His promise to Abraham was contingent upon the warning in Chapter 19?  That He did everthing to show His power and might in delivering Israel just to make things dependent on Israel?  By the way, who did God consult before choosing Israel?  Did He ask for their permission to make them His?)  Come on, Boring, let's take a deeper look here.

Steve

[kanham]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The parting of the Red Sea where the people were provided salvation BY WATER[/quote]

Thor,

The passover lamb, the perfect lamb, was sacrificed and the children of Israel were delivered from death before the water. The blood wasn't in the water.

Ex.12:23
When the LORD goes through the land to strike down the Egyptians, he will see the blood on the top and sides of the doorframe and will pass over that doorway, and he will not permit the destroyer to enter your houses and strike you down.  

Let me try to explain why I have scuh a hard time with your treatment of James and faith. I will use an example that hopefully will help. My grandmother is a widow, she has no husband but from your logic it seems I should explain to her that she has a husband, just a dead husband. I think people would struggle with telling her she is still married. So I don't believe that James opint was to make a new catagory of faith.

What "work

[nerdneh]

Just another pejorative term used to stick folks you disagree with into a category where you can dismiss them as contemptible. An ancient method of debate where you hope to win by showing disrespect for those you disagree with on some topic.

[TRL]

This is from a paper I wrote in a Public Relations course:

A change agent is defined as "any individual seeking to reconfigure an organization's roles, responsibilities, structures, outputs, processes, systems, technology, or other resources" (Buchanan & Badham, 1999, p. 609).  Change agents are described in many different ways.  Kahn (1995) describes change agents as "temporary parental figures."  During times of major change, organization members often need change agents to help establish a sense of security and a sense of freedom and exploration.  Like parents, change agents must allow others to become more independent and less dependent on them.  Change agents are also described according to their role orientation.  Markus and Benjamin (1996) identify different models of change agentry: traditional, facilitator, and advocate.  For our discussion, we will focus on the facilitator and advocate models.  The facilitator model portrays a change agent as someone who expects change to occur because he helps facilitate the group and its processes to bring change among itself.  Bennis (1969) explains this model as the "truth, trust, love and collaboration" approach to change (as cited in Buchanan & Badham, 1999).  However, the advocate sees himself/herself in a different capacity.  Markus and Benjamin (1996) say the advocate model is different because he/she seeks change by influencing the group and its members in a specific direction. This direction is the way the change agent himself/herself thinks the organization should go.  He/she expects change to occur when the organization adopts and internalizes his/her perspective.  Buchanan & Badham (1999) acknowledge that the advocate often uses power, politics, and interpersonal influence when applying "power-assisted steering."  Change agents are also portrayed according to their leadership style. Church, Waclawski, and Burke (1996) identify two leadership styles of change agents: transformational and transactional.  Transformational leaders are focused on fundamental change.  Transformational leaders influence change by providing new visions for the organization and inspiring members to become followers and followers to become leaders of those ideals and goals.  Transactional leadership, in contrast, focuses on incremental change.  Transactional leaders influence change by improving teamwork, problem-solving skills, and role clarification.  In reality, most change agents serve in all of the above capacities.
Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) offer several suggestions for how public relations can influence change within an organization.  The primary way for change agents to create change is the change message itself.  The change message should include discrepancy - "where the organization is currently, where it wants to be, and why that end-state is appropriate" (p. 685).  The change message should also include the organization's abilities to make the suggested changes (efficacy).  The first step in addressing discrepancy and efficacy is using internal persuasion tactics.  In person oral persuasive communication is the best because it offers a personal focus and immediate feedback.  Change agents can also provide persuasive messages in written form through the use of annual reports, newsletters, memos, etc.  However, written communication is often impersonal and offers no direct feedback opportunities. The second step is managing positive external persuasive information.  A change agent can use a consulting firm to add credibility and believability to his/her message.  A change agent can try to influence media.  Press releases to the news organizations offer a simple solution.  Also a change agent can influence organizational members by providing "change-relevant" information from selected magazine articles, books, or film clips.  The third step is using active participation and learning techniques.  The focus of active participation is self-discovery.  Examples of active participation techniques include strategic planning, answering customer complaints, vicarious learning, and enactive mastery.  These public relations strategies will help induce organizational change.
An aspect of social change involves helping the minority influence the majority.  Organizations are steeped in social norms, attitudes, traditions, and culture.  Inducing change often involves overcoming a massive (often majority-driven) force (Lindblom, 1997).  As daunting as the challenge seems, "organizations are continually confronted with the need to implement changes in strategy, structure, process, and culture" (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993, p. 681).

This is how the term "change agent" is used in the business world.  The church didn't make up the term.
What it boils down to is that there are a few people who think the church is fine (right, restored, etc.) and it doesn't need to change.  So anyone who tries to say the church isn't right about something gets labeled a "change agent."
If I'm going to get labeled, call me a "change agent."  I think Jesus was a "change agent." :clap:

[segell]

Kevin

For discussion purposes I assume that your definition of CofC are those spawned out of the RM of the early 19th century.  

Then I have a couple of questions:

Is a change agent the equivalent of a false teacher, in your view?

At what point did you come to the conclusion that the CofC was error free?  

At what point did you come to believe that those outside of the CoC are not NT churches?

At what point did you come to believe that Christ died for only those that view Scripture as you see it?  

Or would I be more correct to assume that your definition of CoC would be Christ's body composed of ALL believers who place their trust in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, who by God's grace through faith have come into right fellowship with God through Jesus Christ our Lord?  

Which definition - or another perhaps - do you ascribe to when you reference the Church of Christ?  

You see I'm a member of Christ's body, His Church, my friend and I am curious.

Blessings,

Steve

ps - Was Paul a change agent when he corrected Peter and other Christian Jews?  Did Peter ever become a "non-member" of Christ's Church because, for a time, he was in error?

[Thor]

Marc,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I ask you to either show where I said what you claim I said (not implied-in-your-opinion, but said) or please go back and delete the untrue things you printed in this post. [/quote]
If you look at the post I thought I made it quite clear what you said (notice the quote box) and what I believe that quote logically followed meant (notice the single quotes). If there was any confusion I apologize.
However your idea that one can mean anything except exclusion is unfounded. It seems that your theology is interrupting logic. ONE is and always be exclusionary. If there is ONE God there are NO others. If there is ONE Faith there are NO others. If there is ONE baptism there are NO others. Paul was telling the Christians to be united under the ONE Church, the ONLY ONE which followed the ONE baptism, the ONE Christ, the ONE God, the ONE FAITH. You can't have one and a half, two, or three; ONE means ONE to the exclusion of all others.
I believe that Never's question was a valid one and that your answer shows what you would have the text say, instead of a serious look to it.  
If you are looking for answers to your list of "I'm sure's" simply purchase a copy of Thomas Warren's book on when is an example binding. Or Biblical Authority by Roy Deaver. Volumes have been written on the subject, I do not have the space nor time to present that information appropriately.

Campbell and Stone worked under the knowledge that there was no religious group correctly practicing New Testament religion. They sought a way to restore the principle of Biblical authority under Thomas' motto "Speak where the Bible speaks, be silent were the Bible is silent.

Don't confuse "The Church" with "The institution."

The church is all of those who are saved and those who Jesus himself has added (Acts 2:47).

The church is the people, not an institution.

[Lee Freeman]

Ellisdam and Rocketman, thanks for the great MH and CB references. Thor, Christ said "whoever is not against us is for us." Last time I checked the Baptists and Methodists weren't against us. Also, your quote from Titus does not apply to sincere, but misguided (I'm accepting that they're misguided for the sake of argument) Christians; it applys to certain Judaising Christians; I've never heard of a Baptist spreading "Jewish fables."                                                                          

When do you draw the line of fellowship? And who decides where the line is? Each "line-drawer's" line is different. Karl Ketcherside once wrote: "All error is equally wrong, but not all error is equally important." We in the coC have majored in minors. We've attempted to make everything in the NT a part of the gospel. Robert Richardson warned of the dangers of mistaking the Bible for the Gospel. The Bible CONTAINS the gospel, but the Bible is NOT ITSELF the gospel.                                                  

The New Testament itself tells us what consitutes serious error; any teaching which alters or tampers with the fundamental message of the gospel. The gnostics of II John, who denied that Christ had a physical incarnation are one example. The Judaisers of Titus and Galatians, who said you were saved by Jesus AND the Law and that you had to become a Jew first, are another. Or the people Jude condemns.                                                                  

Did Aquilla and Priscilla refuse to fellowship Apollos because he misunderstood baptism? Did Paul say that the Corinthians with all their problems were not scriptural Christians?                                                                    

More later. Pax vobiscum.

thanks for that response leeF!
far more than i could have hoped for, i appreciate you taking your time on those explanations and for getting back to me so quickly...
i certainly appreciate where you're coming from much better now...
thanks!
:D josh

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

and kinda like joshua and the battle of jericho...
God says "see, i have given you Jericho" (already theirs...)
"now here's what i want you to do to get it... march... seven times... walls tumble... etc..." (paraphrase mine)

they already are given jericho
they then have to march around it 13 times to get it!

if they refuse to march, will the walls fall? if it doesn't matter if they blow the trumpets can't they just talk about how good they feel about the trumpets' sound and never actually pick em up? hmm...

think that'll fly with a just God?

[segell]

Thor

I can only respond by saying that I respectfully disagree with your views on salvation and grace.  

You suggest that baptism saves.  That when Jesus is preached - one is led to baptism for the purpose of salvation.  I don't believe Scripture reveals that at all.  I've stated why and supported those statements with Scripture.  

When Jesus is preached, isn't salvation the issue?  You equate baptism with salvation and I believe Scripture reveals baptism to be a reflection of salvation or a response to being saved.  

The gospel is about Christ and Christ crucified and that anyone who believes, truly believes will be saved.  

Please read carefully the Scripture Marc posted:  Romans 5:12-21.  Dwell in that for awhile.  

You state that you are grace-centered and I truly believe you believe that.  Thor, the problem is that everything that God REQUIRES for salvation is found in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  EVERYTHING (emphasis, not shouting).  To believe that God would require anything in addition to accepting that Truth - makes God's love conditional and therefore not grace at all.  

Finally, your analogy about Christ's obedience before salvation was purchased meaning that we have to do something before our salvation is merited is purely wrong.  It's a misapplication of Hebrews 5.  The analogy is incorrect and misleading and dangerous.  I can't state it more strongly than that.  You may deny that you are asking for meritorious obedience or works, but that's exactly what you say God is seeking in order for one to be saved.  

You miss, I believe, the wonderful, deep meaning of Jesus' obedience.  And I think you miss the wonderful, deep meaning and purpose of our obedience as Christians.  

You point to examples of obedience in Scripture and say things like - "See?  Joshua obeyed exactly or the walls wouldn't come down".  (I'm not saying that you said that exactly, but you have pointed to examples of obedience and equated that to meaning that obedience is a requirement in order to be saved.)  By the way, obedience is a requirement of all Christians because of the privilege of being saved and called children of God and because we are commanded to obey.  And we are able to because we love God.  You have obedience before loving God.  

Thor, I will not bite on the free car analogy.  We discussed that before and it is absolutely without foundation.

Well, we've hashed this around for quite a while.  Let's allow God to do His work now as we seek His wisdom and Truth.  

Remember Hebrews 5:7 and how Jesus beseeched God with cries and tears in reverent submission?  That's where we need to be, Thor.  That's where we need to be.

Blessings.

Steve

[kanham]

Thor,

You can change the definition of faith to works if you like, I will always disagree. Actions don't make something faith.

What is faith? The word is trusting. How is faith shown from front to back? If Noah required action then he would of had to build the ark first, and then God would have called him faithful. The Bible does not say that. It is because of Noah's faith that God tells him to build the ark. It is not the other way around. I have already clearly said that Jericho was given to the Israelites and so they acted in faith. That is the difference between faith and works. If Noah had built the ark to gain something then it would have been a work. But the Bible never shows that. God already called Noah righteous and so Noah responded in faith to the commands given. That is the difference between faith and works.

What you seem to miss is even in the verses you quote "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized

[kanham]

Boringoldguy,

If I come off the wrong way let me know. I really do want to know what you think and believe this can help me grow.

Was Noah a righteous man before or after he built the ark?

Was Naaman a righteous man before or after he was dipped for his leprosy?

Were the children of Israel children of Israel before or after they walked around the walls?

Because we are not talking about people who have not been baptized, who have not "built

[jarschqua]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]By the way, do you think you have the power to transform your heart?[/quote]i think that sensory input can change my heart...
    when a television expose covers the suffering of children in third world countries, my heart can soften as a result
    when too many movies or sitcoms or radio stations curse and swear up a storm, my heart can be desensitized as a result

perhaps your question is more about my conversion?
    when i understood the impact of sin, the weight of sin and how Christ bore all sins, though i ought to have died i was filled with sorrow and with guilt... it was consuming... and it transformed my heart to act... i believed in Christ and felt so dirty, so unbearable even in my own sight... then i repented in my heart... i prayed to God that i was so sorry and felt such unexpressible pain in the knowledge that there was nothing i could do to make up for my sins... i openly wept for a period of about two weeks over and over... during which time i didn't feel good enough to even be around Christians, and wept during most every song and sermon i heard... i studied God's word... in it i found hope... and when i went forward to be baptized one wednesday, the utter purity of joy when i was plunged under water then rose as a brand new creation was... inexplicable... i could breathe so deeply, the weight was gone, my soul just felt so amazingly clean for the first time i ever knew it as such... it was joy and love and singing and i simply radiated, or rather Christ in me...
    the facts of my depravity and Christ's sacrifice softened my heart, and more importantly opened my eyes... and that's a transformation...
   facts and experiences can transform what's in someone's heart...
   i've worked closely with abused children, young men... and the things they've been through have transformed their hearts to the stone of mistrust and cynicism...
   but when i got em on a horse, the sudden, amazing change in their lives was amazing... to loose control of the ground and be forced to rely on another creature for support... wow... the companionship really changed their hearts... from stone cold to asking permission to scoop horse poop from the stalls... excited and actually looking forward to life... and to tuesday and thursday afternoon horse rides on the ranch
love transforms people's hearts...
pain does so...
experiences do so...
   as far as me changing my heart myself... i can change beliefs... the vast differences in beliefs today among Christians are testament that the HS doesn't control our beliefs...
   i can change my patience towards a situation by squealching my anger... or increasing it...
   i can change my habits... i can change how kind i am to my co-workers... i can transform my lifestyle from materialistic to ascetic...
so, i don't know if i've answered your question or not...
maybe it depends on how you define heart... ?
:inlove: josh

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

I think it is monumentally irresponsible for someone who believes that God has commanded baptism to suggest that God won't stick to what He said.   I don't think I'd want that preacher around myself.   If, on the other hand, he really doesn't believe that God has commanded baptism, why does he want to preach in a Church of Christ anyway?[/quote]
BOG, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. I'll try to clarify. This'll be wordy, as usual, for which I apologize. I wasn't referring to someone who knew baptism was commanded of God and wilfully disobeyed, and neither was Joe when he was grilled by our elders. Joe's point, on which I support him 150% is that God judges someone's eternal destiny, not Joe, or you, or me, or anyone else.                

Joe said in that meeting with the elders that he would go into any church in Florence and preach baptism for the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit as a condition of salvation. I sit in his sermons every Sunday and not a Sunday goes by that he doesn't offer an invitation in which he urges those in need of salvation to trust in Christ and "put Him on in baptism, being buried with Him and raised to walk in newness of life," as he puts it (we had several baptisms last year. And two years ago eight teens from North Wood United Methodist Church were immersed by their pastor, Bro. Mark Parrish, in our baptistry. Two weeks ago, two more of their members, one an elderly man, were baptized in our baptistry. How many coC's can claim that?)  And Joe even had the honor of baptizing my then 83 year-old Episcopalian grandmother and her elderly Methodist friend Virginia!                                                             

In fact, Joe says he now believes in baptism more strongly than ever.  However, he WON'T tell people who have not been immersed that they're going to hell-to which I say, "Amen." Someone from the coC said this to my dad's mom, who was Methodist, and she NEVER set foot inside a coC again!                                                                

But this refusal to condemn sincere believers who do not understand immersion as we do is why the elders fired Joe-this and because he DARED to question many of the "sacred cows" of the traditional coC-not abandon, mind you, just questioned and re-examined them. And that he questioned whether the coC was the ONLY true church. (These were the reasons they gave us, anyway. The real reason was that a small group of legalists who did not like Joe's emphasis on grace was attempting to take over the congregation and wanted him out of the picture. The elders promised the church that they were  dedicated to resolving their differences with Joe and keeping him on as preacher, but secretly had no plans of doing so. Unbeknownst to Joe, or us, they had already mailed letters to every member of the church that Saturday morning stating that due to their inability to reconcile with Joe his services were no longer neeed- this was BEFORE they even met with him to TRY and reconcile! If ever a man of God was wrongfully persecuted, Joe was by those elders. Bobby V. was there and can verify what I'm saying.) With regard to his stand on baptism, they accused him of "making the sale but refusing to close the deal."        

But in his refusal to judge sincere unimmersed belivers Joe stands allied with such great evangelists of our faith as Thomas Campbell, Alexander Campbell, Barton Stone, Robert Richardson, T. B. Larimore, Rubel Shelly, Lynn Anderson, Cecil Hook, etc.                                                                      

That's my point. That only God is in a position to judge someone's eternal destiny. Pax vobiscum.

[boringoldguy]

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.

[boringoldguy]

Segell


If you have read verse 5 of Chapter 19 then you know that God said:

"Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people . . . . "

There was a specific "if . . . then . . ." condition.

Yes, God had brought them up out of Egypt.   He had called them to Him, just as Jesus calls all of us.    But they still had to make the choice.    If they had said  "no, we don't like this deal", I believe God would have left them to fend for themselves in the desert.

By the way, I have already studied God's sovereignty and come to the conclusion that because God is sovereign, I'd better respond to Him on His terms, not mine.

[boringoldguy]

Kanham,

I'm getting lost but I'll try to respond.

With regard to God's rejection of the Jews' sacrifices, my reading of the OT prophets is that, in general, it was because their lives were full of immorality and injustice.    I actually taught a class in our church about the Minor Prophets once.   I spent a year studying and then a year teaching (studying more while the teaching was going on.)   Everybody except me was sick of it by the end.  But what I learned from that experience was that God rejects the worship of people who ignore His laws for moral or ethical conduct.   A lot of those people said they had faith.   Some of them expected God to protect their countries from foreign enemies even though they were living unjustly.  It didn't work out that way.

You say that in your upbringing, people didn't understand that the Israelites failed to bring the right offering because they didn't have faith.  I wasn't inolved in your upbringing, so I can't comment, but I do agree that people who don't follow God's instructions don't have faith.   That's why I sometimes wonder, deep in my heart, if there really is such a thing as a sincere believer who won't get baptized.    If they won't do it, it must be because they don't believe.   And I say that as a person who lived in that status for several years.

You ask why we worship on Sunday and why we take the Lord's Supper.   I worship on Sunday and take the Lord's Supper because of Jesus' death.  I do it the way I do because that's how God's word tells me to do it.   How does that make me not have faith?  How does that make me rely on my own works?   If I thought I could get in heaven by myself, I'd sleep in on Sunday.

To be honest, I have never heard a Church of Christ preacher or Bible class teacher ever say that a person could be saved without faith.    That's part of the reason this discussion always frustrates me.   Nobody I know of has ever denied that faith is required, and nobody has ever said that getting dunked without believing had any effect, but I keep hearing that accusation.

So help me out - do you really believe the Church of Christ teaches that the water is magic?    Because I never got that.