-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Water and Blood
- Thread starter mman
- Start date
No doubt you are very unfamiliar with IFB churches, as your post does indicate. Most of them differ one from another in one way or another. I would like to hear from you what you determine as their "man-made" doctrines, whatever they may be.
Our church was started by an American preacher who came and went house to house preaching the gospel to those who would hear. Those who did hear were saved. They were then baptized. And from them a local church was established. That is the Biblical pattern of a local church. It is also carrying out the command of the Great Commission. We do not belong to any denomination, unlike the COC, and did not have any starting point in history unlike the RM. Most IFB churches are startec by an individual going and starting a church on his own.
The Bible then becomes our only foundation, and source of authority. All that we preach is based on the Bible. All of our doctrine comes from the Bible. We have no man-made doctrine. If we do, I challenge you to name them. We have a Biblical precendent for all that we believe. We are a New Testament Biblical Church.
DHK
Our church was started by an American preacher who came and went house to house preaching the gospel to those who would hear. Those who did hear were saved. They were then baptized. And from them a local church was established. That is the Biblical pattern of a local church. It is also carrying out the command of the Great Commission. We do not belong to any denomination, unlike the COC, and did not have any starting point in history unlike the RM. Most IFB churches are startec by an individual going and starting a church on his own.
The Bible then becomes our only foundation, and source of authority. All that we preach is based on the Bible. All of our doctrine comes from the Bible. We have no man-made doctrine. If we do, I challenge you to name them. We have a Biblical precendent for all that we believe. We are a New Testament Biblical Church.
DHK
I am unfamiliar with the IFB. I admire your quest to be a New Testament Biblical Church. That is the plea of the Church of Christ.I am sincerely asking what you practice, since I have no idea. Since most differ in one way or another, tell me about what you practice.
From your short description, I can tell you something that you do not have a biblical precent for, and that is a biblical name. There may be a reason, but if you are trying to be a New Testament Church, why wasn't a biblical name used?
From your description, you stated having a biblical precedent for all you believe. Please address the following plus any others you would like. Or if you have a website you could point me to, that would be fine also.
Do you use instrumental music in your worship or is there only singing?
Do you partake of the Lord's supper on the first day of every week?
Do you baptize for the remission of sins? (I know the answer to this one, but there is a biblical precedent).
On a side note, I have followed somewhat your discussion of "speaking in tongues" on another thread. I am in agreement with you in all your posts that I've read (I may not have read them all, but I'm certain I've read most of them). I wish you would use that same logic in our discussion on baptism
OK. But there are many churches out there. He has to fellowship somewhere. How does he know "which one" was the one Chrust "founded"?
Or does he just wander without any fellowship, since there is not "joining" anything once he is baptized?
So receiving Christ means nothing, and a whole bunch of people are lost just because they have not been immersed in a pool of water?
No; "the church" meaning visible congregations, is not necessary for salvation. One is in the Body spiritually, and he is to obey by fellowshipping (Heb.10:25), but that is not what saves him. But we're not even talking about people who don't go to church. We're talking about those who do go to church, but haven't been baptized yet. Because even though there is the ideal of being baptized into Christ immediately upon confessing Christ; still, there are a bunch of different church groups out there (and CofC is just another one out of all the others), and a person is not sure which one to join, and nearly all of them don't baptize right away anyway. So we say these people are walking around lost until they decide which to join, and then be baptized? No; it's until they are lucky enough to run into you, and you baptize them without requiring they join anything, right?
No Baptist or Methodist I know of says that being in their denomination is necessary for salvation. That's the whole point. They may have their particular doctrines that they think are right; but they know that it is Christ alone that saves, whether they are in their denomination or not. It is the CofC that says only the CofC is the true church, and baptism into it is necessary for salvation.
Basically. Once again, the ideal is one single body of Christ; but men did form these organizations around lesser doctrinal differences. But at least they know that faith in Christ takes precedence over all of those other issues and the groups formed around them. But we are not discussing how to have doctrine; we are discussing how to be saved.
Great! That is what I believe in. And all "plea" for that, but all still have their doctrines and interpretations, and the Church of Christ is just another one among the rest, and some things you are just as wrong as the others. If the Bible is so silent on instruments; it does not condemn them, yet for you to condemn them is speaking where the Bible has not spoken. The same thing as taking a passing reference in acts 20:7 and saying "the Church had communion the first day of every week". That is NOT what that says! Once again; at least most of the other groups admit they could be wrong, or at least sumbit their peculiar doctrine to the greater cause of the basic Gospel by accepting those from other denominations who have accepted Christ, regardless of what denomination they are.
There is no difference. In the early church, you were baptised into the Church. The Puritan congregational idea of local church membership of a covenanted community hadn't been invented. But joining the RM churches is absolutely no different from joining a Baptist or any other church. The Plymouth Brethren attempted to restore a kind of ancient universalism of the church by practicing letters of recommendation, but as far as I know, the RM churches are just localised fellowships the same as the Baptists.
That is certainly a good way to begin a church. I do think that there is a general deficiency among us evangelicals when it comes to the New Testament Ministry. Our church government is simply not biblical. I think the early seventeenth century Baptists had a clearer grasp of these things. I disagree with the whole concept of a local church. Darby was right when he said that in NT times a believer was part of the whole church, not just a localised expression of it, and each local expression of it acted in the name of the whole. Hence letters of recommendation. Again, as the early Plymouth Brethren pointed out, Indepedency as an idea and system cannot be found in the NT, and is an invention of Puritanism.
As for man-made doctrines, I would cite Independency and Calvinism. Generally speaking, dispensationalism (another child of Darby) and cessationism are other man-made teachings.
The 'we are of Christ' party was just as sectarian as the 'we are of Paul' party at Corinth. The fact is no one descriptive noun is taken in the NT as an absolute title, as though it were a denomination, in the pages of the NT. The NT congregations were the churches of Christ, yes! But they were not 'The Church of Christ' to the exclusion of all other descriptive names. They were also collectively 'the Church of God'. Does that mean we should take that one name and post it on all our (unbiblical) church buildings to the exclusion of everything else? No! To call yourself 'the church of the firstborn' or 'the church of Christ' or 'the church of God', or the 'assemblies of God' as though these were titles to divide by is just as carnal as glorying in the name Methodist or Baptist. These were not tags, these names were who the early christians were.
Do you meet in houses?
Do you have a love feast at your eucharist?
Do you have widows enrolled over sixty years old?
Do you practice the laying on of hands on the newly baptised?
Do you have an external New Testament ministry, as borne witness in the epistles to Titus and Timothy?
Do you have the gifts of the Spirit that are here, according to scripture, until the second coming? 1 Cor. 1: 4-8?
Do you have interactive sermons?
Our services are informal, non-liturgical, center around the preaching of the Word of God. Most of the service is taken up with the preaching (an expository sermon), but there is some singing (with or without instruments), and always some prayer. There are usually some announcements and then an offering taken up.
We do have the Lord's Table but not at every service, and not at the first Sunday of every month. The Bible doesn't specifiy when. It says "as oft as you do this," so in order not to fall into a traditional rut, we vary the times of the Lord's Supper, or how often we have it.
I don't believe the church of Christ is a Biblical name either. First of all, with the influx of denominations and cults, etc., it becomes necessary for one to associate themselves with a name of some kind. You have associated yourselves (in most people's minds) with the Cambellites or the Restoration Movement--hardly a Biblical name.
The body of doctrine a Baptist believes, is for the most part the most Biblical, when compared to all others. Thus we are Baptist. First and foremost a Baptist has the Bible as its only rule of faith and order (sola scriptura). It is the basis of all that we believe.
As for a name, look at the various churches in the New Testament. In Jerusalem, we might call that first church (Acts 2 and 15) The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.
All the churches had a name.
To the church at Ephesus.
To the church at Corinth.
There are seven churches mentioned in the Book of Revelation, all identified by name--the location is the name. The name of our locality is in the name of our church as well. Does that make it Biblical enough?
It is a Baptist Church because of doctrine. Baptist doctrine is Biblical doctrine.
To be frank, historically there were no musical instruments in the New Testament churches until about 300 A.D. I recognize that from history. I also know that great preachers like C.H. Spurgeon thought that musical instruments were a distraction to "true worship." But as I personally study the Bible, (and that is what each one of us are responsible to do), I do not see a prohibition against musical instruments. Right or wrong this is one of the biggest differences between IFB churches and COC's. There may be an occasionl IFB church that agrees with your position. They are at liberty to take that position. That is why we are independent Baptists. We do not belong to any denomination, just like the New Testament churches. But the COC is a denomination in itself. You must adhere to what the denomination of the COC teaches even if you believe it is wrong. That goes for its teaching on baptism, musical instruments, etc. As a Catholic must defend the catechism and has no soul liberty, you must defend the doctrine of the denomination of the COC, and have no soul liberty to believe what you think is right. There may be some Baptist churches that do not use musical instruments (C.H. Spurgeon), and there are those that do. It is a matter of soul liberty, not right and wrong issue; because the Bible does not specifically prohibit them. The decision to use or not to use is up to the leadership of the pastor who is accountable to God. Again, each New Testament church is independent of the other, and accountable only to Christ and the Word of God--not to any denominational headquarters or their creed.
We do use a piano, and sometimes others have musical instruments as well.
That would be every Sunday. No, the Bible isn't specific on that. The early church met every day. We don't do that either. They first met in the temple, and then in the synagogues. We don't meet in the synagogue either. Things change. The Bible specifically says: "as oft as ye do this." So whenever we celebrate the Lord's Supper we remember the Lord's death. And that is as often as we do it--whenever--not tied down to tradition.
The true interpretation of that verse is baptized because of the remission of sins. The Greek gives that sense, or allows for it. If it allows for it, then we must take it for Scripture does not contradict Scripture.
I try. I just think you don't want to see it.On a side note, I have followed somewhat your discussion of "speaking in tongues" on another thread. I am in agreement with you in all your posts that I've read (I may not have read them all, but I'm certain I've read most of them). I wish you would use that same logic in our discussion on baptism
DHK
mman: You speak of different gospels, the gospel of Paul or Paul's own gospel, different dispensations. These concepts are foreign to the New Testament.
I notice you don’t attempt to explain how you got from over there on the Jewish side to over here on the Christian side. It can be done by using the bridge beginning in Acts and watch the scenery and message change by the time you finish Acts having entered into the Grace of God through Jesus Christ as you begin to read the Epistles of Christ’s only heavenly appointed Apostle. Please take a look at this and you will see it is impossible to make that leap of Faith to Faith, without the intervention of God.
But until you do see God is a God of division, I’ll keep plugging away. Somewhere along the line you are going to have to admit Christ did personally speak to Paul, giving Paul his own gospel for the Gentle, saying build on My foundation also, but start a new foundation, and not on the foundation of Peter.tell him not to build his gospel on the same foundation as Peter’s.
If we don’t believe Paul then let’s never again refer to anything he says. What would we then have? Just as so very many say, “Hey, it’s all the same don’t you know”, for nothing really happened when Christ spoke to Paul. It didn’t take. It failed. Forget about Paul and let’s keep trudging toward that earthly kingdom that will be here right after we make it through the tribulation.
No thanks, for I’d probably not be able to make it on my own. I like being “sealed” into His Body. It is a “free guarantee” that lasts forever.
First, there is but one gospel and that gospel is for all. Here are some proof texts.
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.
Amen! The gospel of Christ today is the gospel of Paul for in the blood is forgiveness through which we come, believing on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
What is the difference in "the gospel" and "a gospel". This one gospel, or the gospel, was preached to the Jews first then to the Greeks (Gentiles). Not two gospels but one gospel, for all man kind, or as stated in vs 16, EVERYONE.
Paul went to the Jew first, and then to the Gentile. The gospel of Paul is to EVERYONE, for Paul was given a dispensational gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself, by offering man the free gift of salvation without works. Nowhere in scripture after God slaughtered and animal to cover Adam and his wife, do you ever find God dealing with man, without demanding a work. God required a blood sacrifice from the beginning, until Christianity became known. The Hebrew Pentecostal church sacrificed until the destruction of the Temple.
I don’t know of one Christian church that offers a blood sacrifice. There were two gospels, one coming by and one coming through. Christ Jesus is our sacrifice, and He did it once for all.
This agrees with Jesus commission to his Apostles in Mark 16:15-16, "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."
If you are referring to “water baptism”, I don’t believe as the Catholic, or the church of Christ, or any that believes “water baptism by man” saves. If one today believes and is not “water” baptized then that person is condemned, they believing in the “great commandment”.
Notice this is for "all the world" (every nation) and every creature (all mankind). Yes, it was preached to the Jews first then the Greeks.
Matt 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Notice, they were to go to every nation, teaching the same thing, not differnt messages. They were to teach, baptize and then to teach those disciples to go teach, baptize, then those were taught to go teach and baptize, and so on. This does not end but continues and this message was to be taught to every nation, not just Jews.
We have gone over this before. I believe the scripture you quote, and what you say in your second paragraph, but Israel was cut-off a year after Pentecost. The “great commission” was given to His Apostles, and with the help of the Holy Ghost, they and the house of Israel were to be the one’s to carry that gospel to the whole world. The Apostles never got out of Jerusalem until some time after the death of Stephen. Is the Jew today teaching you the “great commission”, or is it someone else that does not have that authority? The Hebrew church did not make it. That message was taken from the Jew, a new message of Grace, through faith, without a work was given to One Apostle, he being Paul.
It is Paul’s gospel, just as was Moses’ Law and ordinances, and John the Baptist’s preaching the kingdom is at hand. It was at hand, and it came, and Israel refused it. That kingdom came but they thrust that King aside, and then they refused the Holy Ghost. Can’t you now see why we Gentiles so Love our Savior Jesus Christ? He says He didn’t come for us, but He made a place for us. God had kept to himself a gospel never before known. Oh, how we should love Jesus, for He didn’t have to love us but He did, for we left he long before His own did. God knew His people would fall, and become again as the heathen, and by that fall, we are now allowed in the Temple. Not the outer court, but also the inner court, and in the Body of Christ, the only saving sacrifice forever, we are in the Holy of Holies.
Paul makes this plain in Gal 3:26-29, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
It's the same way for Jews, Greeks, males, females, slaves, free, all mankind.
I believe this. I believe it all, but no mortal man from the beginning knew this. Knew what? Through faith in Christ Jesus. This was not known until after Damascus Road.
Heb 9:16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.
His testament was binding after his death. Once a testament is binding, no one can add to it or take away from it (Gal 3).
I always agree with scripture, rightly divided and understood. Jesus Christ spilled His precious blood, which saves to the utmost. But how, and when is that blood applied? Was it applied to Moses; Sampson, David, Prophets, or any of the others while they lived? They didn’t even know His name. Jesus had not shed His blood so it could not be applied to them, but their sins were covered, not forgiven, by the blood of sacrificed animals. As it was impossible for them to come Through faith, they came By faith in God the Father, that they made covenant with.
Those of the generation from John the Baptist through John the Apostle, were either saved by faith or through faith.
Acts 15:7, "And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe"
This is the same Gospel Peter preached everywhere he went. It was not a different Gospel than Paul preached, but it was THE gospel. Your story would be more credible if Paul had preached to Cornelius. But Peter taught him the gospel witch took place after the conversion of Paul.
I believe you will find Peter did not preach the “great commission” to Cornelius. In chapter 9 of Acts, Christ confronts Saul on Damascus Road, and Saul is told he is to bear the name of Jesus to the Gentile, and to the Jew. The wording is not “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins”, but to bear the name of Jesus Christ, namely “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”.
Then some time later Christ sends Peter to Cornelius, with what message? It is a message Peter had never before heard, and a message he did not understand. He was astonished, shocked, amazed; He was stunned beyond belief, as were those Jews with him – ”To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. 44. While Peter Yet Spake These Words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.”
So we can see it is Paul that first knew before Peter of the Gentile way of salvation. This is the only place you will find where Peter preached to a heathen Gentile. He tells us just a few verses upward in Acts chapter 10, they were to have nothing to do with heathens. They knew this even before they met Jesus, and Jesus was a Jew and did not associate, preach to or at them while on earth. Also, Acts and Galatians advises the Hebrew church in Jerusalem would only go to the “circumcised” with their message of the “great commission”, and believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and also be circumcised, keep the Sabbath, the feasts, the blood sacrifices and all the rest. They all shook hands as Barnabas and Paul (who had already told James, Peter, John and all the rest about Damascus Road and His commission from Christ as the Apostle to the Gentiles) would concentrate on the “uncircumcised” with their message of believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Peter was given this honor, one, so that the Gospel of Paul would be accepted by the Hebrew Pentecostal church, as the One appointed by Christ Jesus to go to the Gentile. They were not going to do it. God would not humiliate them in forcing them to go to the Gentile, and after Paul, they no longer had the authority to preach the “Hebrew” message of “repent and be baptized”, as it was not necessary any longer, for that Jewish gospel was going out, and the New gospel of the New dispensation was the reconciling of the whole world unto himself.
The New message is “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”. And in this connection who in their right mind would believe Saul, as he was the one who first scattered the Saints from Jerusalem to other towns. Saul had papers in hand from the Sanhedrin to go to Damascus and persecute, bind, and bring back to Jerusalem to be punished or even killed, those of Pentecostal belief. They were running out of members to be found in Jerusalem. Saul is a mean, determined defender of the powerful dead Jewish religion of the Law and ordinances, and has in mind of wiping them off the face of the earth. This guy was a Holy Terror. Christ knew what He was getting when He chose Saul/Paul. This man was quick learner and would die for Him, and give it his all, until death.
The second reason I believe was for Peter, the leader of the dying Pentecostal church, to allow James to take over that dying church of the kingdom that Israel had refused, for that foundation was just about full, and would not gain any more members after the destruction of the Temple in 70A.D. Peter would lose his ability, with John and the rest of asking a mountain to be moved, and it would, as with the other signs that followed at first. I believe the apostolic church, those with the Power of the Holy Ghost, lost that power around Acts 15 or 16. We know Paul still had the Power of the Holy Spirit until he reached Rome. The Holy Spirit was needed by the Christians, especially Paul, to help the fledgling Christian belief to get started and thrive.
Acts 16:10 Now after he had seen the vision, immediately we sought to go to Macedonia, concluding that the Lord had called us to preach the gospel to them.
Notice, this is THE gospel. Not Paul's gospel.
But it is Paul’s gospel of the kingdom of God, for Paul was commission by Christ Jesus from heaven to preach not only to the Gentile, but also to the Jew, or a proselyte to the Jewish faith, of the Sabbath, and the “great commission”. There were two gospels running simultaneously. You think God didn’t know what He was doing when He chose Paul to be the one to preach the “gospel that had been hidden from the beginning”, but also to accommodate the Jewish religion that had not yet be sat aside?
Why is Paul so hard to understand in his knowledge and wisdom given to him by Christ Jesus? Christ gave Paul the authority to preach both gospels. Jesus Christ never gave his earthly Apostles the authority to preach but One Gospel, and that was the “great commission”. But then the house of Israel was cut-off. They no longer had the authority, unless by divine intervention, to preach to the heathen, as long as the “great commission” gospel was also in force.
God sent Peter to Cornelius that One time for a purpose of showing the Hebrew Pentecostal church, that the Gentile was now in the plan of God, and Gentile salvation was not on the same order as those in covenant with God. And to acknowledge that Paul was the One Apostle to go to the Gentile, and they to the circumcised, at least until the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.
Paul, in Gal 2:7 states, But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter
Was this the same gospel, with Paul primarily preaching to the Gentiles and Peter primarily preaching to the Jews or was this two different messages.
Galatians 2:7 has nothing to do with your reference Acts 16:10. You can’t just pick one verse up and apply it anywhere you wish. This is where contradictions come from.
Paul was informed in Damascus that he had the authority to represent Christ to the Gentile, and to the Jew, as well as kings. Paul was given authority to do it all. The essence of what we are to understand is that Paul was given the dispensational gospel of God reconciling the world unto himself, and Paul was given authority to preach to all, the gospel of Pentecost to the Jew, and the gospel of Grace to the Gentile, and also to the Jew that comes as the Gentile.
In the ‘great commission” gospel the earthly Apostles of Jesus Christ were given authority to carry that message to the whole world. But after Israel was cut-off, this was no longer true. They tell you themselves, they go only to the Hebrew that came through Jacob. Then until the Temple fell no Apostle was allowed to preach to the Gentile, with the exception of the one time event concerning Cornelius. This was done for the purpose of assisting in acceptance of the Christian gospel of salvation by Grace, Through Faith, without works, when the Hebrew Pentecostal church acknowledged as they gave hands to Paul, and Barnabas.
All through Acts, and the Epistles of Paul we see him preaching to both groups, and many times, in mixed audience. You do not see this with the earthly Apostles, or James the half brother of Jesus. They didn’t for they did not have the authority to preach that other gospel of grace through faith, without a work, to the heathen. Paul did have the authority.
Paul answered this question in Chapter 1 of Galatians when he stated starting in verse 6, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed."
I believe the whole Bible, knowing the covenant people have a different gospel than we Gentiles, and today, there is not that Old Covenant, or the gospel of John the Baptist of the kingdom is at hand, or the “great commission” command, but there were two gospel’s during the lives of the earthly Apostle’s, with exception of John for we know John lived for approx. 30 years after the destruction of the Temple, and John wrote his books a good number of years after that destruction. That gospel of the circumcision today is no longer valid, after that generation from John the Baptist to the destruction in A.D. 70.
Your Galatians 1 reference to those teachers that was corrupting the Christians of the Gentile faith by telling them they had to become as the Jew and must be circumcised, keeping all the laws and ordinances. These are the Judaizers, or the “troublers”, which the Apostles and James tells Paul, they did not send. We know the leaders of the Pentecostal church did not want this for they were not to teach the Gentiles to follow their (Jewish) gospel of the circumcision. Paul warns also in other scripture of trying to mix works with grace.
This different gospel of the “great commission” is built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ is not unlike our gospel of grace, but it is not our gospel. The preacher, teacher, or whoever encourages a Christian to believe in works to add to grace is to be detested. The Gentile needs to stand apart from rituals (works) done by the circumcision gospel.
When Paul states, in II Thes 1:7-8 "and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ." which gospel is he talking about?
As Paul preaches to me a Gentile, I accept his message to the Christian of “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved. I accepted the gift of salvation, but Christ did not tell me to “obey” any law, ordinance, or what some men preach, and that is “works” being connected with grace, for this is what the “troubles” were doing.
Tell me mman, what gospel do you think he is talking about, and why do you believe it.
There is only one Gospel. The Gospel is defined in I Cor 15:1-4 as the death burial and resurrection. How do we obey the gospel? Do we die, then we are burried and resurrected. How can you obey that? We can't, but we can obey a form of this as stated in Rom 6:17. But how do we obey a form of that doctrine? He told us in Rom 6:3-4. We die, we are buried, and we are raised. How? In baptism. Our baptism in water is how we obey a form of the death, burial and resurrection, or the gospel. It's that simple.
We died with Christ at the time He died. We came through the water and the saving blood of Christ. He bore my sins that day, so I died with Him. How did this happen? I believed on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I was saved. I cannot find where Paul tells me I must be water baptized to be saved, and I cannot find where John said I must be baptized by hands of man to be saved. There is One Baptism for the Christian and that is done by the Holy Spirit, into the death of Jesus Christ.
You are adhering to the Catholic belief that baptism is necessary for salvation, and if not then a work that is necessary after you believe. Am I understanding you correctly?
The same way they obeyed the gospel in Acts 2 and every other conversion listed.
And that gospel is you must “repent and be water baptized to be saved”. But I do not believe that gospel, for it is not the gospel of Jesus Christ to the heathen Gentile.
Also, you mentioned the kingdom. The Church is the kingdom. Matt 16:18-19, Jesus uses the church and kingdom interchangebly. The kingdom would be seen by those alive who were standing in Jesus' presence in Mark 9:1. The kingdom would come with power. Luke 24:49, the Apostles were told to remain in Jerusalem until they were endued with power. Acts 1:8 state, "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." Notice, their commission was to the end of the earth (everywhere). Acts 2 is the fulfillment of when they received power, or the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:47 says Jesus added those being saved to the church. Here is the first time we know that the church was established. It came with power just as he had said. Acts 2:41 says those being baptized were added? To what? Verse 47, the Church or the kingdom, since they are the same.
The kingdom promised to God’s nation was refused, for they refused their King of the kingdom that was at hand preached by John the Baptist. Things have changed, and now the Gentile and those of Jewish blood today can be raptured before the coming of the King in His power, and He will rule the world for 1000 years. I do not want to be around when the tribulation comes. We didn’t know about being caught up into the air, even some as they live, until Paul. This was hidden in the mysteries of God, until Christ Jesus talked and taught Paul.
As stated before, within the church are two foundations laid on the foundation of Jesus Christ. I am not on that foundation (house) of Peter’s, but on that of Paul’s. Will I a Gentile be in the kingdom of the Apostle’s that was with Jesus from the beginning of His ministry, and stuck with Him through His temptations? These will judge the tribes of Israel. I am not of Israel. I am in the kingdom of Christ.[qb]
This is the same message for Jews and Gentiles, males and females, slaves or free. The Gospel is the power of God to salvation for EVERYONE who believes, to the Jew first and ALSO to the Greek - Rom 1:16. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, for today there is no distinction, as in times past. This is the gospel of Paul of grace through faith, which came only with the gospel of Paul, for before the Jew was saved byfaith. Christian faith, ituttut Galatains 1:11-12
There is but one church according to scriptures. Yes there are local congregations of that one church. Which one? Excellent question.
Here are some things I would look for? Do they have a biblical name? Do they have a creed or other similar instructions or do they only rely on the bible? Do they follow the New Testament pattern of worship? Do they endorse division (denominations) or say that division is wrong? If someone is truly seeking the truth, they will find it.
What does the bible say?
John 3:36"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
Is obedience important?
When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", (Mark 16:16) that is either a true statement or it isn't.
Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Did Peter give them faulty instructions? The Lord added them to the Church (Acts 2:47).
When Philip preached Jesus to the Eunuch in Acts 8:35, the very next thing out of the Eunuch's mouth is ""Look! Water! What prevents me from being baptized?"
Saul, a believer who had been praying for 3 days was told to, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (Acts 22:16)
Peter said, "eight souls, were saved through water. 21There is also an antitype which now saves us--baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (I Pet 3:20-21).
Peter said something saves us. What? Baptism.
Paul said in Rom 6 "1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? 2Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? 3Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? 4Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, 6knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
When does the new life begin? How do we get into Christ? Can one be saved outside of Christ when all spriritual blessings are in Christ (Eph 1:3). What if one has not "been united together in the likeness of His death"? How are we united in the likeness of His death?
Paul also said in Gal 3:26-27, "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."
Can one be saved who is not a child of God? Who were childern? Who had put on or been clothed with Christ? Can one be saved and not clothed with Christ?
Here are the two choices.
1) Baptism is in order to obtain the remission of sins. If this is the case, then all of these verses make perfect sense. There is no need to twist or explain away anything. The natural conclusion one gets from reading each verse is the actual meaning.
2) Baptism is not for the remission of sins. If this is the case, then these verses must somehow be twisted or explained away. The natural conclusion one gets from reading each verse dealing with baptism is NOT the actual meaning and the real meaning is obscure.
I don't read about a visible church (as opposed to an invisible church). I read about The Church which was comprised of various congregations who were to believe the same thing, be of the same mind and judgment, with no divisons (denominations) among them. They were not perfect and were rebuked.
I understand that the relious world typically sees the CofC as just another "denominaiton". I understand why people do this.
There is but one faith, one body, one baptism (Eph 4:4-5). Why do you think there are many faiths (doctrines)?
What are all the verses that deal with being saved, or having the remission of our sins, or having our sins washed away? All of them are important and must be followed.
I beg to differ. Show me from the scriptures where I am wrong, and I'll change. Will you be as honest?
The bible is not silent on music. Singing is authorized. Silence is not permission. We are not governed by what God didn't say, but by what he did say.
For example, the Lord's supper consists of unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. I think we all agree on that. God did not say we couldn't add to it, did he? No, he said what he wanted, but since it isn't prohibited, lets add some things.
If someone says, "I want some grape jelly on the unleavened bread because I like it and it would help me partake of it", by your reasoning, you would have to say fine. The bible nowhere condemns that, so it must be fine. Not only that, but he puts grape jelly on all the unleavened bread so all who are in attendance must have grape jelly on their bread also. But the grape jelly is a little messy so he adds a piece of leavened bread to contain the jelly. Likewise, he takes the fruit of the vine and adds some other fruit juices to it, because he likes the taste of that better. Again, he does this for the entire congregation. You are still eating unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine, it just has some other things added. This is not a meal, just a small portion that is more pleasing to the tongue. God didn't say not to, so it must be alright. I know the early church didn't do this, but they didn't have good grape jelly back then.
If we can't do this with the Lord's supper, what makes anyone think we can do it to our singing?
The silence in the scriptures concerning instrumental music in worship is deafening.
Acts 20:7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.
Why had they come together? When did they come together? How many weeks have a first day?
The primary design of the meeting was to break bread. In the grammar in the Greek Testament, reflects the prime purpose of the Lord’s day meeting was to observe the supper.
When God said to the Israelites, Remember the Sabbath and keep it Holy, He did not say, every Sabbath, yet it was clearly understood.
Question. Is it wrong to take it every first day of the week? The absolute 100% sure answer is no. Why would anyone want to do something that might be wrong?
ituttut - The simple fact is that Jesus told his apostles to, "Go into the all the world and preach the Gospel to every nation. Not just the Jews but to everyone.
It is the gospel, not a gospel. Paul's gospel is the same as Peter's gospel. Yes Paul received teaching directly from Christ, but it was not another gospel, but the same gospel.
Paul said there is one baptism or immersion (Eph 4:5). He called it a washing of water in Eph 5:26. He called it a burial in Col 2:12. In Titus 3:5 he called it a washing of regeneration. In Romans 6 he described it a representing the death burial and resurrection. In no way would any type of "spririt" baptism be representative of that.
If someone tries to claim that Romans 6 isn't dealing with water, that would be to claim that you are immersed in the spirit then raised up out of the spirit, from which you were just immersed. The analogy to the death, burial, and resurrection is completely obscured. The reference in verse 17 about obeying a form of that doctrine would also make no sense, because baptism with the spirit just happens, right?
We obey the Gospel? What does that mean to you? Paul said God would take vengence on those who don't obey the Gospel (II Thes 1:8).
I Cor 15:1-4 says the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How can you obey that? You can't literally, but you can obey a form of that. How? In the waters baptism as Paul describes in Rom 6. You cannot show how one obeys the gospel, unless you talk about water baptism.
The Gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35 and then the Eunuch is asking about water baptism, which is in perfect harmony with Rom 6.
As Paul asked the Galatians, "Who hath bewitched you?"
It is the gospel, not a gospel. Paul's gospel is the same as Peter's gospel. Yes Paul received teaching directly from Christ, but it was not another gospel, but the same gospel.
Paul said there is one baptism or immersion (Eph 4:5). He called it a washing of water in Eph 5:26. He called it a burial in Col 2:12. In Titus 3:5 he called it a washing of regeneration. In Romans 6 he described it a representing the death burial and resurrection. In no way would any type of "spririt" baptism be representative of that.
If someone tries to claim that Romans 6 isn't dealing with water, that would be to claim that you are immersed in the spirit then raised up out of the spirit, from which you were just immersed. The analogy to the death, burial, and resurrection is completely obscured. The reference in verse 17 about obeying a form of that doctrine would also make no sense, because baptism with the spirit just happens, right?
We obey the Gospel? What does that mean to you? Paul said God would take vengence on those who don't obey the Gospel (II Thes 1:8).
I Cor 15:1-4 says the gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. How can you obey that? You can't literally, but you can obey a form of that. How? In the waters baptism as Paul describes in Rom 6. You cannot show how one obeys the gospel, unless you talk about water baptism.
The Gospel is the good news about Jesus. Philip preached Jesus in Acts 8:35 and then the Eunuch is asking about water baptism, which is in perfect harmony with Rom 6.
As Paul asked the Galatians, "Who hath bewitched you?"
First, thank you very much for you description. I am also committed to worshiping according the only the scriptures. I did have some more questions/comments. I am not attacking your positions, I am truly trying to understand your thought process and logic.
It also says when you meet together in I Cor 11:20, but they had so perverted it, they were not partaking of the Lord's Supper, but had changed it to a common meal.
I Cor 16:2 (NAS) tells us when the came together was "On the first day of every week ".
The logic of the "traditional rut" escapes me. I tell my wife and kids I love them every day. I am not afraid that I will get into a tradional rut. I pray to God daily, thanking Him for his blessings.
Could not the same be said for every other act of worship. We will only sing once a month, so that we don't get in a rut. We will only meet occassionally so that it doesn't become a rut. We will only pray occasionally so it doesn't become a tradional rut and we use vain repetitions. We will only take up an offering once in a while so it doesn't become a rut. People are not concerned about getting into a rut with any part of the worship, except with the Lord's supper. I think from history, we can see that the early Church took it on the first day of every week.
Rom 16:16, "...All the churches of Christ greet you."
I nowhere read of any Baptist church.
What's in most people's mind and the truth are not always the same. I have not associated with the Campbellites or Restoration Movement. There were churches of Christ prior to the Restoration Movement. Furthermore, there is a huge difference in Restoring the original Church and establishing a new one.
No creeds? That's great. I've seen some Baptist Creeds. Do you reject them?
Again the logic escapes me. If you claim to be a New Testament Church and admit the New Testament Church didn't use instrumental music, why do you? I'm sorry, but I see this as a very inconsistent position. We are not governed by what God didn't say but by what he did say, "sola scriptura".
As stated in another post, the Lord's supper is unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. We are not at liberty to add to these (grape jelly and other fruit juices) just to please our tongues, because it is not prohibited.
What makes someone think that they can add other form of music to the singing to please our ears?
Anyway, I have never heard an explaination to justify instrumental music that did not center around pleasing man.
So you see nothing wrong with only using vocal music. In fact, you would have to say that is certainly the "safe" position, since that is how the New Testament church worshipped.
The Church of Christ is not a denomination. There is no creed to follow. Only the scriptures. There is not a list of what you must believe and not. We follow the scriptures, we defend the scriptures.
I have a good friend. He used to be a baptist. He started studying his bible. He realized the doctrine of once saved always saved was wrong. He put together a large list of verses that dealt with the subject. He talked to his "pastor" about it, but after reading all the verses, his "pastor" didn't want to discuss it with him. He then began to study more, to see if anything else he believed was wrong. Through his own study he learned the truth. He found that others believed like he did. Through his own study he knew he needed to be baptized into Christ. He is now a member of the Church and we are of the same mind and same judgment.
The bible doesn't forbid a lot of things, but I don't think that gives us liberty. I guess it comes down to our attitude toward the scriptures.
"the pastor"? This is not how the New Testament church was governed. Each church was overseen by a plurality of elders (or as they are sometimes called, bishops, pastors, shepherds, or overseers). The elders had qualifitions that had to be met (I Tim 3, Titus 1). Pastors and evangelist are different (Eph 4:11).
Finally, something I agree 100%. Each congregation is autonomous. The only headquarters is in heaven since Jesus is the head. No creeds are needed since the scriptures thoroughly furnish us and we have all we need that pertains to life and godliness (II Tim 3:16-17, II Pet 1:3).
If it meant because of, he sure had a better word to use than "eis". You cannot find one credible translation that ever translates "eis" in Acts 2:38 as "because of". The bible translaters are/were much better greek scholars than I am (and probably better than you), and not a single translation is "because of". Why, the context wouldn't allow it. As we have previously discussed, if there were any question as to the meaning of "for the remission of sins", the exact same phase is used in Matt 26:28, but you don't have any problem understanding the meaning of "eis" there, do you?
You say it cannot mean "in order to obtain" because that would contradict other scripture. I say that is false. I hold this view and I can not find one contradiction to other scripture. In your mind there is a conflict, yet you are only willing to adjust one side of the equation.
"Biblical name". Some form of "church of God" is used 12 times (a significant number too), while "churches of Christ" is used once.
"creeds vs. Bible alone". All ultimately claim that. Creeds are simply the outlines of doctrines that they believe are taught by the Bible alone. You basically have made a small creed by listing "biblical name", "no instruments", "communion every Sunday"; etc. Every Church of Christ ascribes to this list, and reads it into the Bible, rather than clearly getting it from the Bible
"New Testament worship pattern"? Same thing. Everyone reads their traditions into it. The sabbathkeepers will point to the passages where the church met and heard the apostles preach in the Temple on the Sabbath as proof that they met on the 7th day. Some point to the 12 apostles, 70 evangelists, and the 7 sent to widows, and claim this should continue.
So a 7th Day Church of God (including Armstrongism) has a much stronger case as being the "true NT Church" than does the CofC. (And this is what I was led to believe when I first came to Christ). So once again, how can a person not be saved until he first finds this true group, and then is baptized into it? They are all claiming the same thing, and all have ready proof-texts. Who can be saved, then?
"Denominations and division". You have a bunch of divisions no matter what. They fall into two classes. Those who recognize others who hold to the essentials on Christ. And those who claim to be the only true Church, rejecting all others. Both are still just as much "division" as the others. Only the former recognizes the "divisions" as superficial, with only the one body encompassing them all. As much as you put down "divisions"/"denominations"; you are the one who makes them more than what they really are, as true "divisions" of separate "churches". No, they are not in the ideal of the NT pattern, but that is what man does, and none of us can seem to stop it. We can either join it, or create a new group, which is just yet another division, as much as we may protest divisions.
That's NOT what it says! It says "He who believes not". This is not to argue whether obedience is necessary, but it shows you have to edit the text to get the emphasis you are seeking, else, you obviously do not have a strong enough case.
No, there is 3) baptism into the Body, by which our sins are remitted is SPIRITUAL, and the water ceremony was an "ANSWER of a good conscience", not the CAUSE of the good (i.e. washed clean) conscience. There is nothing twisted about that. You simply get hung up on the physical ceremony, and ignore its spiritual intent. This just recreates the Old Covenant all over again, only replacing one set of rituals for another. Then, you are the one who has to twist the passages on "calling on the name" to equal the act of baptism, and then change the meaning of "work' to exclude baptism.
"visible church" means a VISIBLE body of people you can SEE (either a congregation, or even a bunch of them together, such as the 3000 in Acts before they broke up into congregations. The invisible church is the whole spiritual body, which one is apart of even if he is not yet apart of a ongregation, or when the congregation is not meeting. No; the NT doesn't "mention" it; but it is obvious that both senses exist. You're problem is that you do not make the this distinction. You identify "the Church" as a particular visible body called "the Church of Christ", with its physical rite of baptism as the entry to it.
And this is a perfect illustration. It is not "many" faiths! You identify "faith" in terms of a visible organization. So many organizations are necessarily "many faiths". But they are not.
OK, right below:
I did not say it was silent on music. It is silent on instruments.
You should say it is not necessarily permission. Because even you have this loophole called "expediency", where some things that were not mentioned are allowed, because it "gets the job done".
To make a general all-encompassing rule that "whatever is not mentioned is automatically forbidden" IS precisely being GOVERNED by what it it DID NOT SAY!
Once again, I believe that it's possible that this may have been a gernal meal that was begun with the Passover seder (bread and wine) as its first example, so it could have had other food. Once again, it is very unlikely that people in 1 Cor. could be "gluttonous" with just tiny portions of unleavened crackers and wine vials. But that is a totally different argument, and I am bringing it up to show that that is not the best example to use. If "bread and wine" were meant exclusively, then once again, they are physical items that are by nature exclusive of others. Not the same with "sing" and "play instruments" (which is an accompaniment; not a totally supplementary act in opposition to singing).
Which should deafen us to any "ban" attempted to be extracted from this.
They met and "broke bread" EVERY day! So in this narrative, on this particular day, [what did they do?] they met. Now, WHEN they met [to do what?] to break bread [as they do every other day]... Nothing here about setting aside the first day of the week as some new weekly holy day.
That was a COMMAND. Not a passing reference in a narrative. If we had an instruction "You shall come together on the first day of the week...", then it would be the same. Of course, this is attempted in 1 Cor.16:2, and that ius a stronger argument, except that it does not mention either "breaking bread" or even "a church meeting". It is just telling people to begin storing their gifts that day, to be picked up at some time.
No, it would not be wrong. But then iyou do not have enough scriptural evidence to say it would be wrong not to, either.
That's "washing of water BY THE WORD", and notice, this is speaking of "the church" (prev. verse), meaning the WHOLE BODY, not an individual being immersed in water! (It is good to quote the WHOLE verse!). This clearly shows the spiritual aspect of Baptism!
So likewise, this is describing the same thing.
I've explained this several times now. No one here has ever said anything about being immersed "INTO the Spirit" The spirit immerses us into the BODY, by the Word and at the same time, our "old man" goes into the grave (into Christ's death, which corresponds to us going into the Body. The body puts the old man to death), and a new man rises. (see 1 Pet.3:18) Here is your whole "death, burial and resurrection" analogy, and the water ceremony was just a visible figure of it. No need at all to make the physical immersion and arising out of a pool of water the entire reality in itself. In fact; it is that which obscures or obliterates the true spiritual reality.
To obey the Gospel is to believe in Christ, and trust in Him alone for salvation. In fact, from my debates with preterism, I have learned more about the pressing issues in the NT, and the temptation, with the Old Covenant system still breathing down the Church's back, was to compromise and add works of the Law. THIS was the "disobedience" to the Gospel, that would render Christ's work null, as we see in places. (Gentiles going back to pagnism would count as well). It is all about going BACK to the old life under condemnation; not about not doing enough works, (as if the new life in Christ was nothing more than a rehashing of Judaism or paganism anyway). A one time act of baptism would not help there, and thus there would be no reason to make such a warning based on that alone. Anyone could be dunked. Simon the sorcerer was (Acts).
Before you ridicule me, maybe you better go back and dig a little deeper.
"He who believes [pisteuo] on the Son has eternal life; but he who obeys not [apeitho] the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him Jn. 3:36 - ASV).
The King James translators did not favor us by rendering two different Greek terms by the same English word. An important distinction was obscured.
Again in Heb 3:18 And to whom did He swear that they would not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient[apeitho]?
This same word is used in I Pet 2:7-8, 3:1,20, 4:17.
When Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", (Mark 16:16) that is either a true statement or it isn't. Which is it?
Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38) told those believers to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins". Did Peter give them faulty instructions?
Not true. I'll let the bible speak for itself since these passages clearly teach that we call on the name of the Lord in baptism, the only one working is God, and baptism is an act of faith.
Acts 22:16, "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord."
Col 2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Surely you understand the difference in carrying out instructions and adding to instructions.
If you give your child $10 and send them to the store for milk and bread and they come home with milk and bread and candy, did they carry out your instructions even though you did not expressly forbid them to buy candy?
How did they get to the store? You didn't specify. It is up to their discrection. They could have walked, ridden a bike, driven a car or any other way as long as you had not given other instructions prohibiting a form of transportation. It didn't matter how they got to the store as long as it didn't conflict with prior guidance and that the came home with the milk and bread.
How we carry out a command is left the the discretion of man if it is not expressly covered.
We have no authority to add to or change any command. I guess it boils down to our attitude toward scripture.
Every arguement in favor of instruments centers around man wanting to please HIMSELF, not God.
Are you reading what you are writing? It is EXACTLY the same thing! It is an accompaniment not a supplementary act??? I'm sorry, my mental gymnastics are not that great.
Singing - Music authorized by God
Instrumental Music - Additional music ADDED to the singing.
When you are finished you have 2 types of music, one authorized and one added by man.
If you added leavened bread to the unleavened bread.
Unleavened Bread - Bread authorized by God
Leavened Bread - Additional bread added to the unleavened bread.
When you are finished you have two types of bread, one authorized and one added by man.
No, Simon was NOT dunked, he was baptized. There is a difference. The inspired word plainly says in Acts 8:13, "Simon himself also believed; and when he was baptized he continued with Philip,"
The inspired scriptures say he believed and was baptized, not dunked.
Did he really believe? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes. Was he really baptized? If you believe the scriptures, you have to say yes.
Yet, just a few verses later, Peter told him he was going to perish, his heart was not right in the sight of God, and that he was in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity. How could this believer find himself in this situation?
His attitude and his actions had put him in that situation. Had he suddenly stopped believing in Jesus? No, he thought he could purchase the ability to pass on the Holy Spirit, just like the Apostles.
What was the remedy for this baptized believer? Repent and pray (Acts 8:22). This is proof positive that belief alone cannot save. It also shows that after a person has received forgiveness of sin, they can still perish.
I'm glad you brought that up.
He tells us that in chapter 1. It was the “troublers” from the Jews in Judah. They were telling those saved by the Grace of God, through faith, that they had to be circumcised just as they, for the Gentile must come as the Jew, with their law, ordinances, Holy Days, blood sacrifices, and all the rest. The Galatians are weak in the faith, but it is those that teach Works of the flesh of any sort, that are to be detested. Christian faith, ituttut Galatians 1:11-12