Grace centered

[wbill]

I heard about GC Magazine from a Joe Beam tape I was listening to and have been reading the articles this morning at my church office. It has opened my eyes to thoughts that are very interesting and enlightening. Yet, some of the things I am reading are a bit troubling to me. In Paul's article on what a grace centered church is there seems to be a reluctance to state that God has commanded baptism for the remission of sins. He says the word "necessary" is not to be found, implying that baptism  is not necessary to become a Christian.
    Is is possible that in an effort to get away from works salvation (which is not biblical) grace centered is going to far the other way? From what the scripture teaches, is a person in Christ before they are baptized?
    I believe Paul has missed the point on the thief on the cross and Cornelius and the man in Mark 2 who were forgiven  by Jesus. The thief and man on the pallet were both under the old law and Cornelius was not saved before water baptism was offered.
 Please let's be careful that in the attempt to be more grace centered we don't lose what the bible says in other areas concerning salvation.
   Thank you for listening
          Bill Visalli
           417 6672462
        Minister, church of Christ Nevada, Mo.

[Arkstfan]

Why is it even needed to look at what law was in effect at the time?

Both examples you cite are examples of forgiveness being given outside the requirements of the old law.

To answer that the Mosaic covenant was still in force is to answer that those people found salvation OUTSIDE of that covenant. Clearly they did not find salvation through the rituals of that covenant.

Most Jewish scholars that I've read (and that is obviously a limited group) boil the old law down to loving God and loving others.

Isn't there a simpler answer? Jesus was who he said he was and was truthful in saying that he is the pathway to God.

[boringoldguy]

If you continue to read the things here, you will find much that troubles you.    My experience here, together with my travels and visits with relatives, leads me to believe that a large faction in our fellowship have decided to abandon ideas I consider absolute truth in the hope of achieving what they think is unity with some larger group of Christians.    They believe they are the wave of the future and that more tradiitonal churches of Christ are doomed for the ash heap;  I'm convinced they are little more than lemmings heading over a cliff.

However, there are some benefits from reading here.  Among other things, In particular, our fellowship's inability to address to the challenges that are being made here and elsewhere have caused me to question our attitude toward tradition and congregational autonomy.

So, if you stick around,  good luck to you.

[winky]

If no one minds the diversion from the original topic, BOG, I'm curious as to what things you consider absolute truths are being abandoned for the sake of unity.

Wendy

[Arkstfan]

I'm sorta curious too.

Though I was also mildly suprised BOG didn't agree with my theory.

[boringoldguy]

Well,

judging from recent discussions with some family members, I'd say their congregation (where one of these people is an elder) are moving away from the notion that:

a.   Baptism by immersion is a prerequisite to salvation; and

b.   Christ adds the individual to the Church at the time of immersion.

I say that because of their insistence that we have to "accept" the unimmersed and because of their insistence, in the context of the Oak Hills web page, that it was perfectly acceptable to call unimmersed people "members" of a congregation.

My understanding was that immersion is an essential step to salvation, and that one can't just "join" a church;  one must be immersed, and the Jesus adds you to the church.

By the way, like always, I was unable to find out what people mean when they talk about "accepting" an unimmersed person.
No one will ever specify what acts constitute "acceptance."

[boringoldguy]

Ark,

As to your theory:

1. You don't need the Mosaic covenant to deal with the thief on the cross and the man on the pallet.   Christ had authority on earth to forgive sins, and He did it.    Anyone who isn't in Christ's physical presence probably ought not to rely on those two situations.  

2.   Cornelius isn't much of an example for anyone who wishes to argue that salvation occurs before baptism.   The text doesn't explicitly say that Cornelius's sins were forgiven prior to the time of his baptism.    Cornelius had been told to send for Peter and then do whatever Peter commanded.  Peter commanded that they be baptized and they were.   If they were already saved, what would the point have been?

In this context, it's important to remember that the Jewish conversion ceremony involved circumsicion and baptism.   We're told that at Cornelius' house, the circumsiced people were astonished.    The outpouring of the miraculous gifts on Cornelius and the other gentiles was a sign to Peter and the other Jews that the gentiles could be baptized w/o circumsicion.   (Remember that the other Jews hadn't seen Peter's vision.)   It's no accident that there is no other record of the Holy Spirit being manifested before baptism, because after this event, there was no longer any need for that happen.

By the way, there's a good argument to be made (I'm not saying I believe it) that the Mosaic covenant had become ineffective when God "divorced" Israel at the time of the exile, long before Christ was born.

[boringoldguy]

To clarify a little bit, here is an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about.   It's from the Oak Hills CofC "position paper" on baptism.   There is a paragraph directed to "those who have been baptised but not by immersion" which contains a sentence saying   (this may not be an exact quote, but it's close)  "If you choose not to be immersed at this time, you are welcome as a member."

I don't see how they can they make that statement without first believing one of two things:

a.   That Jesus adds to the Church those who haven't been immersed (meaning that immersion isn't required for salvation) or

b.   That we can accept as members people who Christ hasn't added.

[winky]

That's interesting (their statement).

It sounds like they do require that you have been baptized, just not by immersion. So, the absolute truth for you is that baptism by immersion (as opposed to sprinkling) is the only kind of baptism that puts you into the church and is a prerequisite for salvation, correct?  

Have you heard of other churches of Christ accepting non-immersed members as well or are you just guessing that many will follow in their footsteps? What leads you to believe Oak Hills is putting that absolute truth aside because of a desire for unity with other churches?

I think it's interesting that the sprinkling form of baptism is a big issue for you since you've indicated on other threads (at least from what I can tell) that you lean more toward Catholicism or Orthodox churches than to any other protestant groups. But I do obviously realize that doesn't mean you agree with all their doctrine (otherwise, you'd be there instead of here in the COC!).

[boringoldguy]

Wendy,

Yes, I think immersion is essential.

I told you, I've been hearing an elder of another congregation talk about the need to "accept" other folks.

And by the way - the Orthodox immerse - they've been doing it for 2000 years or so.

[Lee Freeman]

My church, which, since we rediscovered the original Stone-Campbell ideal is very big on unity, yet we haven't given up any of our traditional beliefs or practices-we still teach the necessity of immersion in the whole salvation process/transformation; we still sing acapella (though occasionally we use a tape of IM, usually only one song); we still have elders; invitation song; weekly communion; etc..

The thing is-we don't refuse to fellowship unimmersed Christians, or write them off as lost forever if they're never baptised. We refuse to judge someone's eternal destiny based upon our human understanding that baptism is a perequisite of eternal salvation. To do so, most of us believe, is spiritually arrogant. We will share with them our baptismal theology, then let them decide. We realise that religious programming, whether it be that the Holy Spirit works only through the written Word, or that salvation isn't connected to baptism, is often difficult to overcome. We're willing to cut people some slack. We admit that we, too, have been wrong on certain doctrines (like our aforementioned theology of the Holy Spirit), so that hardly puts us in the position to judge everyone else for their doctrinal shortcomings.

If we in churches of Christ continue to avoid unimmersed folks as some sort of spiritual pariahs or outcasts, as sort of "sub-Christians," or just as lost people who are destined for hell, they'll continue to listen to us about as much as thery have in the past, which is, hardly at all.

The question Jesus says God will ask at the judgement are not "were you correctly baptised by immersion for the remission of sins, and did you know that it was for remission of sins?" but rather, "did you clothe the naked, feed the hungry, and visit those in jail?"

If we continue to demand unity in particulars rather than unity upon essentials, I fear we'll find ourselves exactly where we are now in fifty years-if we don't just die out altogether before then.

Most of the things we've prided ourselves on being distinctive about I don't think God ever intended to be distinctives. Certainly the all-too fallible Campbells and Stone never did. They never intended to be the "true" church that stuck out and was distinctive from all the rest-they wanted to be "Christians only, not the only Christians."

Change is inevitable if we wish to survive and make a difference, not change merely for change's sake, but change on deep fundamental, spiritual, biblical levels.

Pax vobiscum.

[boringoldguy]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Lee Freeman @ May 17 2004,4:51)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]The thing is-we don't refuse to fellowship unimmersed Christians, or write them off as lost forever if they're never baptised.[/quote]
Lee,

Two questions:

1.   Please define "fellowship"; and

2.   Would you agree that one of the following statements is true and the other is false:

      a.   Baptism by immersion is essential to salvation;   or
      b.   Baptism by immersion is unessential to salvation?


Don't you see that it's not possible to believe both "a" and "b?" at the same time?

And if you believe "a", how can you "fellowship" or "accept" as a Christian a person who hasn't been immersed?

[Lee Freeman]

Personally, I would say that, to borrow Campbell's words, It's the image of Christ one looks for, not complete doctrinal conformity, but rather, complete doctrinal conformity to the measure of one's knowldege of God's revealed will. I don't know any other way to say it.

While I'm convinced that salvation requires putting Christ on in baptism via immersion, its possible, however unlikely, that this belief just might be wrong, and at anty rate, only God can judge as to who's saved. Most denominations teach the necessity of baptism-they just differ with us over the reason, and in a few instances the mode in which it is to be administered. I've discovered that those that don't baptise by immersion often come to a correct understanding if we'll leave them alone (my grandmother did, after my parents quit trying to convince her about it).

As for fellowship, I treat them as Christians-people who believe, like me, in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus the Christ, Messiah and Son of God. If I get a chance to share with them "our" baptismal theology, I do-and have, several times now.

But Christ said by their fruits you shall know them.

In the past, we've staked everything on baptism, when Hebrews 6:2 calls it "a first principle," or elementary doctrine. Maybe my position is illogical, but that's where I am right now. If, later, I decide, or someone shows me that I'm wrong, I'll be the first person to admit it.

Pax.

[TomDart]

Dear Posters,

I join this thread having received the email newsletter from Grace Centered.  Forgive any repetitions of thoughts already presented.  Now that I see the discussion is focused on baptism, please consider perhaps the most basic and simple argument for baptism, requiring no scholarly training or seminary to assertain.  The strength of the argument is debatable yet truth does appear therein.   I use the old argument of "example

[memmy]

I was always under the impression that the word baptism really meant "fully immersed".

Has anyone ever thought that this could have been used in different ways and in meaning that that they were baptised by being "fully immersed" in the belief and acceptance that Jesus was, and still is the Son of the Living God? Yes they did "dunk" people but the Jews even did this before Jesus, right?

I think that the baptism of the Holy Spirit was referred to as being baptised with "fire."  We all know that we are not getting this by jumping any burning hoops or however the imagination conjures up, but "fire" is indeed mentioned there. Why couldn't baptism possibly have meant different things in different places of the bible then?

Just curious as to some other views here. We all have so much to fully understand here, I believe. We may never know all the facts until we start studying greek and hebrew and other languages of the day.

Memmy  :)

[winky]

I guess that from my perspective, the things I hear people wanting to be less dogmatic about for the sake of unity are things like instrumental music, communion only on Sunday, no emotion in worship, etc. (things  I would not consider absolute truths) rather than compromising the importance of immersion.  There are plenty of other church groups that practice immersion that we could at least start trying to have more unity with without giving up on the practice of immersion.  Now, we might have to accept people with whom we don't necessarily agree about whether they were saved before or at their baptism.  But, for instance, a huge obvious group would be Baptists. Don't they insist on baptism in order to be a church member? So, we can be pretty sure most of them are immersed.  Even more obvious than the Baptists - the independent Christian churches/instrumental CoCs. It's just plain ridiculous that we've let an issue like instrumental music divide us for nearly 100 years.

I think that Lee does make a good point, which is that we need to realize at some point that there is at least a small chance that we may be wrong about some things we consider to be absolute truths. If we did that, how would it affect our dealings with those who differ with us?

[memmy]

Winky, I believe that there is more than a "small chance" we all could be wrong about simple issues of man.

But there is not even a slim chance of being wrong when we simply go to Jesus as our Savior only, and stop bickering on what we can do to prove our "worthiness" since none of us can do anything, if we accept Him for who He is, we can't go wrong........He already paid that price for us!

He knows our hearts, we, as human beings, are going by our fleshly doings, He doesn't recognize our perfections, because we have none in the flesh, only in the heart and that is coming from Him directly, not us.

Memmy :)

[boringoldguy]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (winky @ May 18 2004,08:56)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--] Now, we might have to accept people with whom we don't necessarily agree about whether they were saved before or at their baptism.  But, for instance, a huge obvious group would be Baptists. Don't they insist on baptism in order to be a church member? So, we can be pretty sure most of them are immersed.  Even more obvious than the Baptists - the independent Christian churches/instrumental CoCs. It's just plain ridiculous that we've let an issue like instrumental music divide us for nearly 100 years.[/quote]
Wendy,

Would you please tell me what specific acts constitute "acceptance?"    Nobody else will.

For example:

Is an (immersed) Baptist entitled to place membership at a CofC congregation?   Yes.

Is an (immersed) Baptist entitled to take communion in our services?  Yes.

In both of those instances, we have no justification to go beyond the question  "Have you been immersed?"    To try to figure out whether the person had the right attitude at immersion is to invade God's province.

But:

Is an (immersed) Baptist entitled to teach, in our congregations, that salvation occurs prior to immersion, and that immersion is merely an outward sign?   No.   If the person can't subscribe to correct doctrine, then he should remain silent or go elsewhere.  (I would say the same about a person immersed in our own baptistry, as well.)

Is an (immersed) person entitled to suggest introducing musical instruments?   No.    If they require a musical instrument, there are plenty of places that will accomodate them.

Morevoer:

Is a Church of Christ congregation entitled to support, financially or otherwise, an evangelistic effort in which  an incorrect or incomplete doctrine of salvation is taught?   No.

Should a Church of Christ person support, financially or otherwise, a Baptist missionary who teaches an incorrect or incomplete doctrine of salvation?  No.

So what do you mean when you say we need to "accept" people?

[winky]

In my last post, what I meant by accept was accept as a brother or sister in Christ.

If we do that, we have some responsibilities related to unity, some biblical commands to unity (for starters, Jesus' prayer in John 17, Romans 15:1-13,  Eph. 4:1-16, Colossians 3:12-17).

That means we have the same responsbilities to them as we do to the Christians who happen to be in our "denomination" or church group.

So, a few things I would say that entails (note: this is just an opinion, and I'm open to other ideas):
- being willing to put aside disputable matters and worship together (maybe not every week but at least occasionally)
- praying for and with them
- studying with them
- helping them in times of need
- working together to evangelize the community (I can see your response to that one already)
- again, the same things you do with/for members of your own church denomination (I mean, there are certainly ones of them you disagree with about some things too).

To answer your question about whether a Baptist should be able to teach in your church about immersion not being the point of salvation, well, what if both perspectives were presented and studied together in a class? Co-teachers, you and the Baptist down the road. Then you both go do the same at his church. That takes some humility, I realize. It goes along with my earlier point about realizing that we just might be wrong about something.

"If they require a musical instrument, there are plenty of places that will accomodate them."  Well, sure. Unless you have the crazy idea that unity among Christians is a higher priority than people's own preferences and comfort zones. Seems to me that Jesus did and so did most of the NT writers.

[boringoldguy]

Wendy,

If in fact our baptismal doctrine is not essential, and we can compromise it enought to allow other doctrines to be taught in our church, then we oughtn't to be talking about accepting other at all.   We ought to close our congregations down and go ask the others to accept us.

However,  I think our doctrine is the truth and you can't compromise the truth.     You talk about unity and others insist that we can't have unity of doctrine, but it is quite possible for us to be united in error.   That's not the kind of unity I think Jesus prayed for, and I don't want anything to do with it.

[boringoldguy]

And as far as praying for people, studying with them, helping them in times of need, we're supposed to do that for everyone, not just our brothers and sisters.

[winky]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]If in fact our baptismal doctrine is not essential, and we can compromise it enought to allow other doctrines to be taught in our church, then we oughtn't to be talking about accepting other at all.   We ought to close our congregations down and go ask the others to accept us.[/quote]

No.  Allowing another perspective to be discussed along with your perspective does not mean that you or we accept it as true.  If your perspective is true, what does it have to fear from showing the other side of the debate? Is there any reason that we should not study both sides? It is still coming back to the question of humility.


[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]However,  I think our doctrine is the truth and you can't compromise the truth.     You talk about unity and others insist that we can't have unity of doctrine, but it is quite possible for us to be united in error.   That's not the kind of unity I think Jesus prayed for, and I don't want anything to do with it.[/quote]

Do you think anyone at your church is in error in any of their doctrine? If so, then does that make you united in error?  If not, then I am quite impressed but further discussion is probably fruitless.

I think a lot of this comes down to how high of a priority you place unity. Is it more important or less important than being correct about every point of doctrine?  The fact that Jesus prayed for it on our behalf says a lot to me. I don't recall him praying that we would understand every theological issue and agree on every interpretation. So maybe that colors my thinking.

Wendy

[winky]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (boringoldguy @ May 18 2004,11:28)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And as far as praying for people, studying with them, helping them in times of need, we're supposed to do that for everyone, not just our brothers and sisters.[/quote]
You're quite right. And, I will be the first to say I'm not sure that list is the best possible list to start with and it's certainly not exhaustive. Maybe you can help me think of some other responsibilities we have to each other as fellow Christians, even if we disagree? I know I'm not covering them all with that short little list.

[Skip]

Strange how the RM has run full-circle.

Those RM fathers leaving various denominations because of unscriptural doctrines gave birth to a movement that came to preach a unified doctrine of salvation.

But now ever-growing elements of the RM seem to be increasingly unable (incompetent?) to determine whether the "elementary teaching" (Heb. 6:1) of baptism is necessary (the example on the thread). But the stranger thing is that this "uncertainty", for lack of a better term, is then used as the very justification for the broadening of standards!
Strange that "NOT knowing" is leading to new doctrinal stances (and you thought that the "authority of silence" was strange!)

Reminds me of reading recently in Shelly/York's The Jesus Proposal that he (Shelly) is not sure about baptism anymore - Shelly states this in so many words. But crazier still is the leap to use this Postmodern "argument of uncertainty" to open the doors to unity!
Sorry, but "I don't know" does not cut it as the basis upon which to build Christian unity (ignorance is NOT bliss)!

How is it that one is compelled to act upon Christian unity when one isn't competent to find answers on the topic of Christian baptism?
How are we to answer when asked, "What about baptism"? (And the follow-up, "Why the double-standard of 'it is necessary', but there are exceptions"?)
What shall we teach a new convert?
Has the RM become so devoid of truth that it cannot even ascertain the truth about an "elementary teaching" such as baptism?

So in the end, it would seem that we are to be unified with all "Christians", the "Church Universal" if you will, but at the same time we aren't sure who these "Christians" are since we have no real standards!
(With some exceptions, but that's a different inconsistency...)

What a tangled web!!

[winky]

I'm not going to address everything. You're entitled to your opinion. But I did have a couple points/questions.

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Those RM fathers leaving various denominations because of unscriptural doctrines gave birth to a movement that came to preach a unified doctrine of salvation.[/quote]

I thought the RM fathers left "the denominations" b/c they didn't like the idea of binding man-made opinions and doctrines on people and making those man-made creeds tests of fellowship. Was I mistaken?  Also, what do you mean by "unified doctrine of salvation"? I'm truly not familiar with the phrase.



[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]How are we to answer when asked, "What about baptism"? (And the follow-up, "Why the double-standard of 'it is necessary', but there are exceptions"?)[/quote]

What about baptism? It's commanded! It's necessary! Even Max Lucado says that, right? :) God said to do it. It's hard to imagine how you could make an argument for not being baptized. I've never heard anyone make that argument personally. I also don't personally know of any exceptions (non-baptized Christians), outside of Jesus' direct dispensation while he was here on earth. But am I willing to say that b/c it's outside of my experience base, it's not possible for God? Probably not.


[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So in the end, it would seem that we are to be unified with all "Christians", the "Church Universal" if you will, but at the same time we aren't sure who these "Christians" are since we have no real standards![/quote]

I believe we are to be unified with all Christians, not all "Christians."  How do you propose knowing how to identify Christians? I'm certainly open to discussing that. I vote for by their fruit.  And I've seen some fruit-bearing trees that aren't planted in CoC or even RM-related orchards.

Wendy

(edited by me to remove some unnecessary sarcasm)

[Skip]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I thought the RM fathers left "the denominations" b/c they didn't like the idea of binding man-made opinions and doctrines on people and making those man-made creeds tests of fellowship. Was I mistaken?[/quote]
Sounds like we're talking about the same thing - "man-made opinions and doctrines" and "man-made creeds" are by definition, unscriptural.
On the other hand, in the Postmodern USA it is unfashionable to "bind" anything on anyone, even right and truth. Postmodernism is the antithesis of "binding".
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Also, what do you mean by "unified doctrine of salvation"? I'm truly not familiar with the phrase.[/quote]
They preached essentially the same thing when asked, "What must I do to be saved".
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]What about baptism? It's commanded! It's necessary! Even Max Lucado says that, right?[/quote]
Kind of. He / his congregation will accept baptism of any sort according to the "About Baptism" link on the Oak Hills web site. Though the article poses the question as to whether one can be saved apart from baptism, it is not clearly answered IMO.
My infant baptism as a Catholic is, to him / his congregation as valid as my immersion as a believer as a teenager in the coC.
It is that sort of Postmodern ambiguity that I find to be incomprehesible. The only thing in common between the two "baptisms" of my life is that I was the "subject" and water was involved!
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]God said to do it. It's hard to imagine how you could make an argument for not being baptized. I've never heard anyone make that argument personally.[/quote]
I have.
At a Methodist funeral, of all places, among others.
Watch the next Billy Graham Crusade that comes on TV and note how many are baptized.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]I believe we are to be unified with all Christians, not all "Christians."  How do you propose knowing how to identify Christians? I'm certainly open to discussing that. I vote for by their fruit.  And I've seen some fruit-bearing trees that aren't planted in CoC or even RM-related orchards.[/quote]
I have seen some good-fruit-bearing trees that I later found to be Jews or Muslims or any of a variety of other religions, and some who do not even believe in God at all.
Who are the REAL Christians? History at this web site shows that there is no accord on that question!

[Cliftyman]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Who are the REAL Christians![/quote]

Skip it is never, nor has ever been our place to judge who real Christians are.  We are best leaving that up to Christ, and loving everyone the same.

As for the names coming up (Billy Graham, Max Lucado) lets leave the questions of people's intent and character to www.piney.com.... alright?

-------------------------------------------

BoG, you've used the word Baptist quite a bit earlier in this thread.....

The word Baptist, considering there are more than 20 million people whom that word could describe isn't adequate to encompass all their beliefs and doctrines.  Many do not have the view of baptism you alluded to, many do not even use instruments (nor endorse them).  I thought you should be aware of that.  BTW, another word you could use to describe many of those Baptists, is Christian.....

[TomDart]

Whom do we accept? Whom do we not accept?  This relates not only to baptism but to many issues.   The cut and dry of it all is who is accepted by God, as we all know.  That does not contain brand name:  It does contain the basic issue of John 6:29, the issues of love as He loves us, fruit of the Spirit, focus and motivation.

Perhaps a church named the CofC with the old idea of "speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent

[Skip]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Skip it is never, nor has ever been our place to judge who real Christians are.  We are best leaving that up to Christ, and loving everyone the same.

As for the names coming up (Billy Graham, Max Lucado) lets leave the questions of people's intent and character to www.piney.com.... alright?[/quote]
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
- 1 John 4:1

29 "I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
30 and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
- Acts 20:29-30

6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
- Gal. 1:6-9

for Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica; Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia.
- 2 Tim. 4:10

Clifty,

You're entitled to your opinion.
You're even entitled to infer that I'm engaging in the tactics of 'piney.com' by using the label 'piney.com' - which, considering your reaction to the use of the term "charismatic" on another thread, I find to be rather (shall we choose a 'nice' term) duplicitous.
It is obvious that you have judged piney.com! Now what were you saying about names and judging?...

On the other hand, I don't recall saying anything that attacked the "intent and character" of either Max Lucato or Billy Graham.
My comments toward Lucato came in response to an open-access "About Baptism" link on the Oak Hills web site - read it yourself!
My comment regarding Graham was a simple question/observation - watch and observe yourself!
But if they wish to teach others, then let them heed James 3:1 (look it up for yourself!)

The truth of the matter is that the NT is literally filled with admonitions to judge / test and to beware of false teachers and heresy, and to even identify those who have left the faith by name (as shown briefly above).
So I will abide by Word.

[Cliftyman]

Please tell me how any of the verses you gave give you a right to judge?

How about these....

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Matthew 7:1
"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.[/quote]

So Skip, in the same way that you judge folks on the finer points of the New Testament you will be judged.  If you hold them accountable as false teachers and wolves, then you will be held accountable for the same reasons....

Do you fast, do you wash people's feet, do you greet your brothers with a holy kiss?  All of these are commands in the bible using your method of intrepretation.... do you uphold it all with your intrepretation or do you only uphold part?

And one doesn't have to "judge" Piney.com.  Their slander and dirision is right there on the front page for all the world to see.  I'm not saying I know the eternal destiny or end of Piney, what I am saying is that slander and dirision are sin.

[boringoldguy]

[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote (Cliftyman @ May 18 2004,4:44)[/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]BoG, you've used the word Baptist quite a bit earlier in this thread.....

The word Baptist, considering there are more than 20 million people whom that word could describe isn't adequate to encompass all their beliefs and doctrines.  Many do not have the view of baptism you alluded to, many do not even use instruments (nor endorse them).  I thought you should be aware of that.  BTW, another word you could use to describe many of those Baptists, is Christian.....[/quote]
Cliftyman,

I made reference to Baptists because Wendy specifically asked me to consider Baptists.   I don't believe I made any blanket statements about Baptist beliefs or behaviors, but merely posed a few hypothetical statements.   In any event, my grandmother was a Baptist and I have too much experience with Baptists to make any generalizations.  I believe it was Will Rogers who said "I don't believe in organized religion;  I'm a Baptist."

With all of that said Clifty, I must say that although I appreciate the spirit which leads you to want to avoid labels, the use of language requires that we assign abstract identifiers (words, names, what have you) to concrete objects and people.   If you continue to insist on your present course of objecting to any kind of label (Baptist, Charismatic, etc.), you'll soon deprive of any means of discourse.

[Cliftyman]

I understand... however I can hopefully point out the wrongful action itself as my discourse....

Instead of saying (Baptists) believe salvation comes through faith only (and no baptism).... I can say (those who believe salvation comes through only faith and no baptism is needed), should really look at the examples of Jesus....

In other words, if I focus my speech on the specific action that is wrong instead of apply a group term to it, I think I will stay out of trouble (and have a more Christlike spirit when discussing things) more often than not....

;)

[Skip]

Clifty,
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]So Skip, in the same way that you judge folks on the finer points of the New Testament you will be judged.  If you hold them accountable as false teachers and wolves, then you will be held accountable for the same reasons....[/quote]
Exactly!
Apparently on this we agree. (Except possibly on the "finer points" part, which is ambiguous.)
I have long accepted the serious responsibility of teaching.
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Do you fast, do you wash people's feet, do you greet your brothers with a holy kiss?  All of these are commands in the bible using your method of intrepretation.... do you uphold it all with your intrepretation or do you only uphold part?[/quote]
As to your questions:
Yes, many times in the last few years as a matter between God and myself (as opposed to before surgery, which was not quite the same thing!)
Yes, but it has been a long time since I have done so.
Yes, rather commonly, on certain occasions (in the sense similar to Middle-eastern greetings which I am told is equivalent to the 'holy kiss'); but most commonly with a handshake.

But I would guess that you are not interested in following these commands, so with what spirit are you using these Holy Scriptures? It would appear that your intent is to attempt to show (judge) me as deficient or hypocritical in following the commands of God!

I do not agree with your attempting to use Scripture to justify ignoring commands.

Same question back at you:
Do you ignore the direct commands that you just identified?
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]And one doesn't have to "judge" Piney.com.  Their slander and dirision is right there on the front page for all the world to see.  I'm not saying I know the eternal destiny or end of Piney, what I am saying is that slander and dirision are sin.[/quote]
This is a very judgmental statement. You have judged piney.com as guilty of the sins of slander and derision.
Then you slandered me in your previous post by equating the spirit of my previous post with piney.com.

[Cliftyman]

I'm trying to figure out if when Jesus told us not to judge if he was referring to websites (considering websites don't have souls do they?)  :bangingheadagainstwall:


Skip, vehement exchanges aren't going to get us anywhere...

I'm going to leave it at this...

you said
[!--QuoteBegin--][/span][table border=\"0\" align=\"center\" width=\"95%\" cellpadding=\"3\" cellspacing=\"1\"][tr][td]Quote [/td][/tr][tr][td id=\"QUOTE\"][!--QuoteEBegin--]Who are the REAL Christians? History at this web site shows that there is no accord on that question![/quote]

Its not our place to wonder.

[Skip]

Clifty,

You implied that my post (I DO have a soul) belongs on piney.com (last I checked, PEOPLE - with souls - made web sites).

You have posed "hard" questions that you yourself dodge (for a purpose that has the appearance of an effort to effectively label another Christian as hypocritical).

You have engaged in such practices as equating me with a disparaging label (piney.com) in one post and condemning the use of labels in other posts on the same thread.

If you are not prepared for a heated exchange, then you should never have turned up the heat!

But rationalize your judgments as you will. As you've correctly noted from Scripture, each will answer for himself.