Featured Church of Christ

Best to just ignore the vitriol when it arises. It is just typical for all of us, as we grow, to get irritated and aggravated. I know I have done my fair share, lol.

God bless.

 

Went on a Missions trip once with the AoG, some really nice people. And the fellowship I visited (I was dating a girl from there, and please, no unequal yoke rebukes, lol, I didn't marry her (lucky girl!)) was very conservative in their preaching. Some of the typical doctrinal distinctives never even came up.

Again, I still have to view this distinctive as similar to other "requirements" placed upon believers in most denominations.

I do agree this particular requirement presents a view which can totally obscure the truth of the Gospel, and on many forums I visit I present the thread "Ten Reasons to Reject Baptismal Regeneration," which led, on a Church of Christ forum, to me leaving due to bias of the Moderation, who would not be completely honest in their discussion, and from my perspective abused the power they had, which should never be the case in a "Christian" environment.

But I can't really blame them, they were getting their tails kicked.




God bless.

 

It was posted here in the thread Baptismal Regeneration.

Feel free to critique, lol. It is a standard issue I like to deal with, and think it is an important issue, though I think we need to be careful in how we approach those that embrace this doctrine.

I did not start this thread, the threads I spoke of being on other forums. Another staple is "Were Men Born Again Before Pentecost" and "Who Populates the Millennial Kingdom" (which is designed primarily for discussion between Rapturists, pre, mid, and post (a-millennials just ruin the discussion, lol).

God bless.

 

Would say that the AOG adds their "distinctive understandings" to the person and work of the Holy Spirit, and are wrong in much of that, but again, they are NOT holding to water baptism required to save a sinner, as that would be making another gospel...

 

Again, I don't take such an extreme view, because we could say the same thing for many believers who felt that walking the aisle and saying a prayer was necessary. They learn later, we hope, that by the time a public profession was decided on...they were already saved.

What we won't do, though, is engage in profitable discussion if we offend our antagonist into a defensive position, which is man's wont, to forget the weightier issues in favor of a good ole argument, lol.

When we approach those with distinctive doctrines we feel are in error, it is best to let them broach the subject. When they do, this evidences one thing that is common among most of us...a desire to test our own doctrine. I think for many of us, myself included, we often have an "This is what I believe but because I am fallible I am not dogmatic" mentality when we begin understanding certain doctrines. As we test those views in discussion with others, we usually see our view either confirmed or opposed. And if we are honest in our study and faithful to the teaching God seeks to do, we will conform our view to the Biblical view.

But, and I guarantee this, if we approach others with an offensive manner we can be sure that we will slam the doors of communication and create an atmosphere of rejection The same is true with anyone engaged in "religious" studies and views. That doesn't mean we mealy-mouth it, nor refrain from a dogmatic position on what we believe, but, there's no reason why we can't seek to fulfill what should be the ultimate goal in all of our lives, which is to see people come to the knowledge of the truth. Which means, like Paul, keeping Christ and Christ crucified the central focus. Doctrinal Distinctives such as those embraced by AoG take a back-seat to the Cross. God can use even those with erroneous doctrines and practice.

As a side note, just watched the movie "Gods and Kings." My wife became disgusted with it because it did not follow Biblical teaching, though there were some parts which did. What I think, though, and you can correct me if you think it silly, is that even with such a Hollywood production, which I feel has a motive of propaganda, because it cast God in aspersion and Moses as a tortured being who didn't have reverence for God, is that God can use this for His purposes. Atheists typically seek to use Scripture itself to vilify God. This movie will present ammunition, in the minds of the atheist, and they will consult Scripture so they can locate their proof-texts.

And while they might not understand fully, when they consult Scripture, that it is Hollywood distorting truth, I believe God will use just such revelation, even if subconsciously, to open a door for a Bible Student to point this out.

The most effective means of witness to atheists, and any doctrinal view, is to examine the basis for those views. And even for the Atheist, the basis is often the Word of God. When we can show them why they are in error by pointing out what Scripture actually teaches, as opposed to what they think it teaches, again, while they may not admit it to us, God can impress that upon their heart as He seeks to convict them.

I can't help but get a kick out of that. Imagine the atheist that looks into Genesis so he can have chapter and verse to blast his next Christian target...and finds it's not there.

Gotta make ya smile, does it not?


God bless.

 

Also think that we do relly need to address with people as you are stating, in a postive/concerned manner, and making sure that our words are not silenced by the attitude that we are bringing to them!

 

When one adds to the Gospel of the Bible then that is a cult. Salvation is by grace through faith. It is not grace through faith and baptism. They preach a works salvation. That makes them a cult. The musical instruments and the caffeine, whether it is allowed or not really does not make any difference. Changing the nature of the Gospel does.

 

The way I determine a cult is by the conclusions they have drawn concerning Christ. One can, if they have faith in the Biblical Christ...be in error on other issues. We generally view groups such as Mormons as cults because the Christ they teach is without question not the Christ of the Bible, but, I can, from personal experience with members of the Church of Christ, say emphatically that many of them are trusting in the Christ of the Bible, not a Christ that arises from, is diminished by, or added to by the doctrines of men.

Many Baptists also require baptism of joining members. Some will refuse membership apart from it. That they do not view it as salvific does not deny the demand to obey the doctrinal view. Many Baptists preach tithing as a New Testament standard. Some require participation in Communion.

Yet are they viewed as cults?

Christianity comes with a responsibility to God to live holy. That is not a suggestion in Scripture. Yet many fall into a mindset that attendance, tithing, and any number of activities serves as evidence that they are saved, as they seek to justify in their hearts the belief that they are Christians and belong to God. We could look to those who embrace free will theology as adding to the Gospel, thus declaring all free will believers members of a cult.

The point is this: if we determine a cult by viewing works as a requirement, we must first negate the fact that no salvation experience is without good works (for we are created in Christ Jesus unto good works) and secondly we would have to suggest that all Christians are cult members, because no matter what denominational affiliation you belong to, there are going to be positions of demand in every one of them. Even for a Baptist.

Question: what is the Gospel? Please give your understanding of what we mean when we speak of the Gospel.

God bless.

 

It is easy, or should be anyway, to maintain control in such a forum. One suggestion I have which helps me to stay away from looking like a fool is to avoid issues I have not studied and do not feel I have a dogmatic position on.

Another suggestion is to go out and debate atheists and those who hold to not only hostile doctrine, but are usually aggressive to begin with. If you do that, when you come to a setting like BaptistBoard, after being cussed out and ridiculed by people like that, the jabs and slurs of my brethren seem humorous in comparison, lol. The debate here is mild in comparison, and if I can withstand vulgar attack by people without losing my desire to see them saved, how much more should that tenet remain true among those already professing Christ?

I will give my response to your question after the other post has been responded to. I would rather not influence any answer that might otherwise be given.

God bless.

 

The gospel, as per paul, would be that Jesus was born of a virgin, was God incarnate, died in the place/stread of those whom God would save by the Cross, and that the Father raised Him back to life, resurrected by the Holy Spirit, and that we receive remission of all sins, and sealed with the Holy Spirit the moment that we received him thru faith...

the ole fashioned salvation of for by grace alone you are saved, through faith alone!

Adding water, speaking in other tongues, right bible version, other sacraments of grace etc are all adding to that, and perverting the true Gospel...

 

I have a much simpler definition of the Gospel: it is the revealed will of God at any given point in redemptive history.

Say...who's can of worms is this...?



Now the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is without question the will of God for every man...in this Age, and it is precisely what you say above.

Every man has always been under obligation to obey God, beginning with Adam right up to this very minute. Today we benefit from the revelation of the New Testament and the ministry of the Comforter, which is specific to glorifying Christ and bringing men to Christ. The specific faith in Christ's death, burial, resurrection, ascension, and Lordship...is the revealed will of God, not in hidden wisdom concealed since the world was formed, but revealed to man with the command to believe.

Let me ask this question to illustrate what I am probably expressing inadequately: what is the gospel spoken of here...


Hebrews 4

King James Version (KJV)

1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.


Will those who sinned in the Wilderness be held accountable to the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Is that what is in view?

No:


Hebrews 10:26-29

King James Version (KJV)

26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


The Writer makes a distinction in the Redemptive Ministries of God between these two Covenants.

So should we.

That distinction not only causes us to rejoice at the magnitude of what Christ has done, but helps us, I think, understand the Old Testament and Covenant better, which is precisely what the Writer, and Author, I believe, had in mind when giving us Hebrews.

God bless.

 

That is why we need to see that the New Covenant superceded and made no longer needed the old One, and that it was not just adding on or amending it, as some seem to hold!

 

Agreed wholeheartedly. There are some that try to make "new" mean a reformation rather than new in the sense that it did not exist before.


God bless.

 

Those holding to it somehow enlarging and expanding the Old One would naturally equate circumcision same as infant baptism, and the church was under old One as isreal!