Just another way that people can tell that your teachings are FALSE.
If baptism is required for salvation and a person is not saved, then the only logical conclusion is that they must be baptized in order to be saved, but out of convenience you say oh now if they were saved then unsaved suddenly they only need to repent and pray.
I can't see how in the world people are so gulable to fall for such errant doctrines.
However in all my dealings with CoCers (and that has been quite a bit) I have to admit that you are the first person that has ever used Scripture to try to prove that point. Most just say no it's not necessary.
Sad. That's about all I can say is terribly sad.
Churches of Christ
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Erin, May 2, 2006.
Page 12 of 16
-
The one who'll have explaining to do is your side, which believes baptism is what itself saves, yet as was finally admitted, you will make someone who receives Christ wait until you are sure they believe all the truth (according to you) before you baptize them.
And like all cultists, and even some control-mongers operating within "orthodox Christianity", you try to trash "understanding" in favor of "just have faith". Yet you keep claiming it is "so easy a third grader could understand it". So "understanding" is good when convenient for you. But we're not to 'just have faith' anytime someone comes to us with some teaching and a pile of proof-texts. A lot of other groups have arguments on other issues that are just as clever as yours, and some even moreso. The problem in this instance is that you have confused the concept of spiritual "washing", and the resultant teaching destroys the coherence of scriptural teaching on redemption. That needs to be challenged, not 'just accepted'. And the issue is not HOW God can accomplish spiritual things through physical means. We have seen it all throughout the OT. But the principle of the NT is the spirit, not the flesh, and any physical means retained are used as symbols of spiritual things; NOT the spiritual realities themselves.
No, we must rightly divide the Word of God. Anyone can throw around a bunch of proof-texts, and then when they are interptreted in a way that contradicts other scriptures, then pitch "don't try to understand it, just believe it". Sorry, but people here aren't that dumb. -
bmerr here. It might be news to you, but not everything that can be learned about the Ephesians is in the epistle that bears their name. These people were told by Paul, in one of the most abused texts in the
Bible, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast".
It's helpful to put oneself in the place of the first readers of the books of the Bible. So, if I were part of the church of Christ at Ephesus, and I read the words referred to above, what would have come to my mind? Let's turn to Acts 19...
We find in the first verse, Paul coming to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples. He asks if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed, and they say they haven't heard of the Holy Ghost. Paul, perhaps a bit confused, asks, "Unto what then were ye baptized? They reply, "Unto John's baptism".
Ah, now Paul understands the situation, and he explains that John wanted people to believe on "him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."
Right off, let's notice the fact that the church at Ephesus would have recalled their baptism in the name (by the authority) of the Lord Jesus. This came after hearing God's word, of course.
Skipping over to around 19:17, we see that the result of the seven "vagabond jews" being beat down by the demon-possessed man (19:13-16) was that many "that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds", and set fire to around 50,000 silver worth of magic books. I'd say this qualifies as repentance.
So what have we got? Hearing God's word, belief, repentance, confession, and baptism. Man, that sounds familiar!
But let's consider the answer directly given to the jailer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."
What was the jailer to believe about the Lord Jesus Christ? Did he know about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ yet? Had he ever heard of Jesus or His glorious gospel before? What evidence can we find in the text, (you know, the words) that might indicate what the jailer knew at this point?
The first time we find reference to the Phillipian jailer (PJ), is in Acts 16:23, where Paul and Silas have been beaten, and PJ has been given charge of them. Paul and Silas had been taken into custody for casting a spirit of divination out of a woman who had been following them around crying, "These men are servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation" (16:17-19). The text says that PJ "...thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks" (16:24).
The next time we have reference to PJ is in 16:27, where he is being awakened out of sleep by the earthquake which shook the foundations of the prison, and loosed everyone's bonds, after Paul and Silas had been singing and praying. So what had PJ been doing while Paul and Silas were praying and singing, class? SLEEPING.
This brings us to the part where you seem to stop reading. Near as I can tell, Paul had not spoken to PJ yet at this point. But somehow PJ knew that Paul and Silas could tell him how to be saved. Hmm. What was it the demon-possessed woman had been saying earlier? Wasn't it something about the "way of salvation"? Yes, I believe it was.
Gee, do you think this might explain PJ's question? I mean, if he had already heard the gospel, he would have already known what to do to be saved, right? He could have just come to Paul, confessed his faith in Christ as the Son of God, and requested baptism. But he hadn't heard the gospel yet, and so in the very next verse, which you don't seem to think is in the same context, Paul and Silas "spake unto him the word of the Lord. And in the next verse, PJ is baptized, but you don't think that verse is in context, either. But mman and I are stuck in our "hand-me-down" views...
In Christ,
bmerr -
bmerr and here I actually thought you wanted to take an honest look at Scripture. You were just pulling my leg I guess.
Acts 16 - IF baptism is required for salvation don't you think the Holy Spirit is smart enough that He would have had these men say believe and be baptized when the direct question is asked and then a direct answer is given.
You make a mockery of Scripture with your views. We know he answered the question believe, but that's really not what he meant. What he meant is found a couple of verses later.
Sorry, but he meant what he said and he said what he meant and guess what baptism to your dismay is not a part of the answer. It really is that plain and it really is that simple.
Did you know that this letter probably wasn't even addressed to the Ephesians in the first place. The most reliable manuscripts don't even have it addressed to the Ephesians. It was a circulatory letter, regardless of whether it was addressed to the Ephesians or not, so your diatribe holds no water either way.
It doesn't matter whether or not you think obedience is meritorious or not it is. That's what the Bible says so it's trumps what every bmerr says.
Eternal salvation is based SOLELY on the works of Christ and what He did in our stead. If anything else comes into play then there is room for boasting.
If baptism is required then I can pat myself on the back because I got of my tush and went down into the water and got dunked. Yeah me. I am so special. See that's why baptism is not required, because it gives me room to boast.
Man if you are going to say that is false teaching you are going to have a wipe out a HUGE chunk of the NT because the false teacher Paul penned an awful lot of it. Wonder why verse 5 doesn't say anything about baptism being a part of making one righteous, which means right standing with God.
Believing in Christ's death and shed blood in our stead is not a work. Therefore we are due nothing, because it it was a work Paul tells us we are getting what we are due and that's not grace.
I know from personal experience that is a hard thing to do, but we must stand by the Bible regardless if our church is in error or not.
The kingdom is here in the sense that earth is the kingdom, but Christ has not assumed the throne and that is what we are waiting on to be a part of His kingdom when He assumes rule and reign. That will happen in the future.
-
bmerr here. Why then, was PJ baptized?
Nah, this probably wasn't written to the church at Ephesus. Of course it was a circulatory letter! Most were. Some even contained specific instructions to pass them on, and to receive letters that had been sent to other churches (Col 4:16, for example).
Yeah, Hebrews couldn't possibly be talking about eternal salvation, 'cause if it was, it would say eternal salvation...
Rom 16:26 - But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith
Seems like Paul spoke of obedience, too.
On the flip side of the argument, James uses Abraham to demonstrate that Abraham was not justified by faith only, but by his works which were the evidence of his faith.
The church is the kingdom. In the kingdom of Christ, Christ does, in fact, rule.
In Christ,
bmerr -
He was baptized because we are supposed to be baptized.
But regardless if it was sent to the Ephesians it was sent as a circulatory letter which meant the truth contained in the letter was for everyone, so you analysis of who the Ephesians were and all that other stuff still doesn't hold water. It is plainly just more of your nonsense of trying to make a man-made theology that you have unfortunately learn to try stick together despite CLEAR Biblical teaching to the contrary.
If the translators would have translated it correctly there would be a lot less confusion today, but unfortunately their unBiblical doctrinal views made it into the translation.
The Greek and Hebrew languages don't have a word for eternal. That's why most of the time if they were trying to relate something that was eternal they would use the plural form of aionios or use the word twice translated the ages of ages.
If they would believe that they would be saved.
Just because you say that it's not something that one can boast about doesn't make it so. We never have an account of Abraham boasting about his works before God, but Paul said he could have.
Just because there is no account of anyone doing it doesn't mean it is not possible.
And because this passage is not speaking of eternal salvation you tying it to Ephesians 2:8-9 is incorrectly handling Scripture, but that is not surprise, because that is what you all do.
I do not say believing is not a work, I say believing in the context of which you speak is not a work. Believing unto eternal salvation is not a work. Jesus never said it was.
Your going to have to use some scissors quite a bit to cut out all the prophecies that speak directly in opposition to Christ not ruling a kingdom on the earth.
-
We all should have pulled this card of you alls along time ago, but now just realize that you are basing your argument on your understanding of an English translation.
The contexts are completely different! The word "justification", just as we use it today, does not refer exclusively to salvation! Any act we do we can be "justified" in or not justified, and it has nothing to do with our standing before God. Paul is the one dealing with salvation. James is not talking about salvation, for Abraham and Rahab were not saved because of their acts! Their acts "justified" them in that they are now looked upon as faithful saints, depsite their sins. "justification" unto salvation could ONLY have been through Christ; not their works in addition to Christ. Else, if you don't recognize the different contexts, it looks like James is not only contradicting, but also directly answering/opposing Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3! James is writing to Jewish Christians, who generally still have problems trusting in the letter of the Law, yet are lacking in certain works, which they probably thought uneccesary; not realizing that "having respect of persons" due to class (the sole context of the chapter) is just as much sin, that violates the spirit of the Law. Notice, that he speaks of "keeping the whole Law and offending in one point" (v.10,11). These are people trusting in "the works of the Law", but thinking "faith" alone excuses them from areas in which they fail. That actually becomes close to the error of legalists today who use the verses to teach that we are saved by "trying harder", and that "faith" covers us when we fail. But what James is really, ultimately saying here is what Paul told the Galatians: "For as many as are under the works of the Law are under a curse: for it is written 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things wich are written in the book of the Law'"(3:10)"...a debtor to do the whole Law! Christ is of no effect unto you whoseover are justified by the Law, for you are fallen from grace!"(5:3,4).
However, they do have a point that as a "work", it is credied to God. God is the one who enables us to believe (whether it is all, potentially, or only those who do believe). That is nothing like the work of baptism where you have to GET UP, go somewhere, and get into a pool. On one hand, you all try to deny that baptism is a work; it is faith, yet now you are saying that belief is a work. (Make up your minds).
-
bmerr here. Nice to hear from you again. Here's what I got from Strong's for "obedience", as in Rom 1:5; 16:19 and the others:
5218. hupakoe; from 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by impl.) compliance or submission:- obedience, (make) obedient, obey (ing).
5219. hupakouo; from 5259 and 191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority:-hearken, be obedient to, obey.
3982. peitho; a prim. berb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by anal. to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflex. or pass. to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):-agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.
544. apeitheo; from 545; to disbelieve (willfully and perversely):-not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.
Those are verbatim (minus the phonetic pronuciation key) from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, copyright 1990.
I wonder, if premillenialism were disproved, would he have a need for imagining a difference or separation of soul and spirit?
The whole thing is so far off form anything I've ever heard (which does not neccessarily mean it's false), that I don't know where to start with it.
James is prodding into action those who were attempting to lay claim to Christianity without acting appropriately. They were being respecters of persons, unlike God, and failing to show mercy to those in need, also unlike God. Apparently, the argument was, "But we believe in Jesus!" James tells them that faith apart from works is akin to the faith of the devils.
Then he uses Abraham to show that works must accompany faith for faith to be complete. Using Abraham's offering of Isaac as an example of works perfecting faith, James then goes on to say, "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God" (James 2:23).
I have heard the argument that James' reference to Abraham is speaking of his being justified before men. I don't know if that's what you were getting at, or not.
Anyway, the only two times I could find where men were justifying themselves before men were in Luke 10:29, and Luke 16:15, which read, respectively:
10:29 - But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
16:15 - And he [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abonimation in the sight of God.
Neither one of these puts justification before men in a favorable light. I don't think James was talking about that.
I have never suggested a contradiction or conflict between James and Paul, because I do understand the context.
What I intended to point out was that the "work of God" was the work that God had commanded them to do. When they did as God had commanded, they would be doing the work of God.
I reject the name "Campbellistic Christian", too. Can't find one of those in the Bible, either. Just Christian, that's what I am.
Does a Campbellite have 1/3 less calories than a regular Campbell?:laugh:
In Christ,
bmerr -
-
By the way the closer we get to the return of Christ the more and more people will not hear or believe this message, because it has to do with the working of the leaven that was placed in the three measures of meal by the woman in Matthew 13, which is a chapter dedicated to the kingdom and kingdom truths.
If you want more information just PM and I'll send it your way. -
To mman: if the Church of Christ believes that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, and the sins of the same one that Jesus shed his blood to offer remission far; it is very obvious that they believe Jesus's shed blood was not sufficient to accomplish that remission!
This would seem to be a belief of ruination to those who would follow it. -
Eric,
bmerr here. First off, let me apologize for the ridiculous lenght of my last few posts. I don't mean to be so wordy, but you know how it gets when you're trying to make a point...
Without the word of God, there can be no faith, right (Rom 10:17)? So when the word of God comes, what distinguishes those who believe from those who do not?
How does God know that I believe Him, apart from my obedience to His commands?
Even in the case of Abraham, used by both Paul and James, obedience to God's command was what showed God that Abraham believed Him. Gen 22:12 tells us, "...now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."
And James 2:23 tells us that it was after Abraham offered Isaac that "...the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness..."
John 12:42-43 is an example of belief apart from appropriate works.
42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more thanthe praise of God.
Were these men saved by their dead, inactive faith?
See also 1 Thes 4:15-17; 2 Thes 1:7-10, and other similar verses. You know them as well as I do.
Gotta go.
In Christ,
bmerr -
One must know they are in need of salvation, before they can be saved. If one does not know and acknowledge they are a sinner then they aren't going to accept the free gift in order to be redeemed.
Use are using the example of Abraham after he had already been saved. Abraham was saved when he believed God.
Again the context of James is not eternal salvation, but rather the salvation of the soul.
II Timothy 2 speaks about one denying Christ and Him denying them. It has nothing to do with eternal salvation. You can see this wording in Revelation to one of the churches. I can't remember which one, but that is seen at Christ's judgment seat where only saved individuals will be.
The salvation in question is the salvation of the soul. And one can have all the faith they want to, but without works it will not save them...from what? Eternal damnation? No. It will not save them from losing their soul. The saving or the losing of the soul is in regard to the 1,000-year reign of Christ, not eternity. -
I guess Paul didn't preach the Gospel:
1 Cor 1:17
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
(KJV) -
Of course, we are supposed to confess Him to others as well, for a testimony (which baptism is a form of). Still, while showing that one is saved, it is not what makes one saved; and once again, neither was Abraham said to be saved because of that one act.
-
Confession is to be made with the mouth (Rom 10:9-10), is it not? This is something one must do, physically. An example is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37. I believe Paul also made reference to Timothy making the "good confession".
In Luke, Jesus tells of a certain rich man, and a beggar named Lazarus. They both die, angels taking Lazarus to Abraham's bosom, and the rich man is 'buried". The rich man is described (this would be his soul) as being tormented in flames, while Lazarus is comforted.
What is pictured here is the Hadean realm, where the souls of men await the resurrection and Judgment Day. The thief on the cross was told that he would be with Christ in paradise that day. I'd say this refers to Abraham's bosom.
Revelation speaks of a time when death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire, "hell" being elsewhere translated as "hades", or the place Jesus spoke of back in Luke.
At the resurrection, the soul and the body (glorified) will be reunited, and will be separated to either eternal glory, or eternal damnation.
Concerning the supposed 1000 year kingdom on earth, what would be the point with eternity in view? What's 1000 years compared to eternity?
In Christ,
bmerr -
The Millennial Kingdom is supposed to be when Christ rules over this present world in its natural state with the saints at His side. Then, the people of the world will see a perfect overnment, and it will be obvious that their way was sin. However, at the end, a bunch will still rebel.
The eternal Kingdom comes after that, when God reorders the entire universe. I have seen the preterist claim that both of these are symbolic, and in the past, and they have a few points, but still some things are a big stretch.
I am still curious about what happens to the earth (and the rest of the universe) in your system after the resurrection/judgment. -
It matters because God said it matters, and if He said it we should believe it.
It matters because that's when Gentile world (governmental) power through the leadership of Satan will come to an end. As Eric said there will be one final rebellion, but this the time that Christ rules the nation with a rod of iron.
We are actually given very little information concerning eternity, because our focus is to be on the coming kingdom not eternity. The whole point of initial salvation (while it does secure the person's eternal destiny) is to put the person in a position to realize their calling, which is a heavenly calling.
They can't even understand this calling until after they are made alive spiritually.
See that's how the whole counsel of God's Scriptures fit together. Satan was initially put in charge over this planet. He rebelled and 1/3 of the angels with him, but he remained in charge, just as Saul remained king even though David was annointed king (Satan is still king of this world, even though Christ is the Anointed King - Christ has not assumed the throne yet).
Man was put on this redeemed earth to take the place of Satan, but fell through satanic temptation before that took place. Jesus was sent to earth to do what the first Adam could not do and to redeem that which the first Adam lost. He faced Satan head on and showed Himself approved in relation to taking rulership over this earth.
And now just as David went away and gathered together faithful men to place in positions of rulership over the kingdom when he took the throne, so Christ has gone away (back to the Father to get a kingdom) and while He is there He is gathering together "faithful" men to place in a position of rulership when He returns to take the reigns from Satan.
That's the big picture of the Bible in a nutshell. -
-
I'm reposting MIMA's post to mman:
To mman: if the Church of Christ believes that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, and the sins of the same one that Jesus shed his blood to offer remission far; it is very obvious that they believe Jesus's shed blood was not sufficient to accomplish that remission!
This would seem to be a belief of ruination to those who would follow it.
I'd like to see a COC response to this - because this hits the nail exactly on the head. You cannot make baptism salvific without reintroducing works righteousness.
Page 12 of 16