Churches of Christ

That's what I keep asking myself, but you keep on doing it. You don't change the words, but you certainly change the meanings. That's what confuses people, because you speak the right words, you just define them yourself instead of Biblical definitions.

But that has been shown to you time and time and time again and you still insist on error.

Why do you continue to use a text that is CLEARLY not talking about salvation, but a battle.

This is a type of a Christian's spiritual battles not eternal salvation.

Once again you are in error.

 

They translated into English. They used english words. Just as with most words, the meanings can vary, sometimes slightly and sometimes to a large degree, depending on the context. In the context of the passages I listed previously, that all agree the meaning is "obey". Not one time was there ever the notion given that the word means to believe, but rather obedience is stated.

One can believe and not comply. One can believe and not submit. One can believe and not conform. Those in John 12:42 believed in Jesus but they did not comply with His teachings, submit to Him, and did not conform their lives. The demons in James 2 believe yet they do not comply, submit, or conform.

What had those in Rom 6:17 obeyed? A form of something. What? A teaching or doctrine. What teaching or doctrine? The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as he stated earlier in the chapter.

Obedience means obedience. To obey means to obey.

 

I love it. I quote scripture and you claim that I am changing the meaning of Scripture.

Obviously, the conclusion you reached is at conflict with your beliefs.

Mark 16:16 - "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

I'll tell you exactly what this means. It means "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."

Tell me again how I've changed the definition of the words to my own definitions.

 

No, that is what Nicodemus also thought, but Jesus corrected him.

Acts 2 shows the process.

Peter was speaking by inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. The Spirit gave the instructions to be baptized (water) for the remission of sins (blood). They all agree. I've been over this with you before.

If you will compare the events in Acts 2 with the statement in I Cor 12:13 it is obvious. Those in Acts 2 were baptized in water (at the instruction of the Holy Spirit) for the remission of sins. They were added to the church (vs 41 and 47) at baptism. I Cor 12:13 tells us that by one Spirit we are baptized (water) into one body (blood - Acts 20:28).

The Spirit, the water, and the blood do agree.

Acts 2:38, "And Peter (Holy Spirit - Acts 2:4) said to them, "Repent and be baptized (water) every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (blood), and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

Why? You won't believe it this time will you?

Just on the off chance that you would care to actually look at Scripture with an open mind instead of your tainted CoC glasses, and for the benefit of others reading this thread I will answer your question yet again. I don't know how many times this makes, but here goes.

Whoever believes (what?) and is baptized will be saved (from what?), but whoever does not believe will be condemned (what does that mean?).

Now let me insert mman's definitions . . . Whoever believes (like I do that one must believe, and be baptized, and whatever else it is that I have added to my list) and is baptized will be saved (from eternal hell), but whoever does not believe (like I do) will be condemned (into eternal hell).

That's the full mman meaning of that verse.

Now here's what the Bible actually teaches when you compare Scripture with Scripture.

Context tells us that the audience of this passage was already eternally saved, so we know right off the bat that eternal salvation is not the picture here.

Whoever believes (the message that John the Baptist, Christ, apostles proclaimed - which was the message of the kingdom - there's more that goes into that, but that's the simple answer) and is baptized (because obedience is required for entrance into the kingdom) will be saved (from outer darkness, age-lasting destruction, losing one's soul - there are a number of ways this issue is addressed), but whoever does not believe (becuase without faith it is impossible to please God and works won't come into play if one doesn't believe in the first place) will be condemned (unable to enter the kingdom - will lose one's soul - again a number of ways to describe what is being discussed here when comparing Scripture with Scripture).

There you have again been shown the error of your interpretation. Now are you going to conform to the Bible or are you going to continue believing an error?

By the way I'm still waiting for the answer to my question. Am I a saved individual or am I unsaved?

 

When Jesus says "saved", he clearly doesn't mean "saved" rather He really means "a battle"..... and you accuse me of changing the meaning of words when I say "saved" means "saved".

He is contrasting being saved with being condemned or damned.

Who helped you to misunderstand this simple and clear passage???

 

What are you talking about? That response was your your misuse of the walls of Jericho and not Mark 16:16. You need to follow along.

The walls of Jericho was a type of spiritual battle for Christians today not a type of spiritual salvation. And again you need to quit misusing Scripture to try and "prove" your man-made theology.

I will not answer your Mark 16:16 question again, you can just refer to a post or two above this one.

 

I don't know?

Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God? (Mark 16:16)
Have you repented of your sins? (Acts 2:38, Acts 17:30)
Have you confessed your belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the Living God? (Rom 10:10, Acts 8:37)
Have you been baptized for the remission of your sins? (Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, Mark 16:16)
Are you living faithfully, walking in the light, confessing your sins to God (I John 1:7-9)?
Do you worship God in spirit and in truth? (John 4:24, Matt 15:9)

If you answer yes to all of these questions, then I would say yes, you are saved.

 

Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). What type of faith? Example after example is given. It is the type of faith that caused the walls of Jericho to fall (Heb 11:30).

From Heb 11, ANYONE can see that faith is "believing and trusting God and obeying His instructions". That definition fits every example given in Heb 11. Without that type of faith, you can never be pleasing to God.

 

Well finally an answer, and I have to say I'm surprised and the one given. Definitely not typical of a CoCer. You may have hope yet mman.

 

Once again everything that you say is true if you would say it in the right context. Hebrews 11 is talking about people exercising their faith AFTER they were saved.

Do you think once a person gets saved that faith just goes away?

Grace and faith continue on after the initial point of salvation, but works only enter into the picture AFTER eternal salvation is received. That is shown time and time and time again. Why do you not believe that?

 

Baptism is by faith.


Getting dunked is a physical thing. It is a work.

It is the faith that causes a person to seek baptism which is saving - not the act of being dunked.

You cannot explain away works for salvation. If you assert that getting dunked saves you and that witghout being physically dunked you are not saved then you do not believe that faith in Jesus is enough. In essense you have a one law Torah.

 

Mman let me ask you a question. Do you believe that a saved individual is born again?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
Is this where I say, OK...if you say so?

The Bible tells us the significance of the blood that Jesus shed on the cross.

I must have missed where the Bible told us the significance of the water flowing from his side.

I didn't notice admitting anything, but I did notice you spent a lot of time not answering the question.

I'll play your game.

So you admit there is nothing in the Bible that specifically attaches any significance to the water that flowed from his side?

I will study it just as soon as you tell me where you find it.

 

First off, I want to say that if anyone has done what mman has suggested, then they are saved.

But, if anyone has done what JJump has said, they are also saved.

mman just adds a bunch of works to spiritual salvation that Scriptures do not support.

Now, onto Hebrews 5:9. Yes, they have the word "obey", and they all are referring to "them", but the key word - the word that different translations vary on - is the word "eternal".

In the Greek, it is the word for "age". Actually, it's an adjective, so it's "age-lasting" or "age-abiding".

The KJV translators, instead of going back to the Greek, went to the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate translated the Greek adjective "aionion" to the Latin "aeternus" in which we get the English word eternal and eternity.

This is why the word "eternal" has been misunderstood by the English reader. If the KJV translators would have gone to the Greek they for sure would have translated it as many translators such as Rotherham and Young, namely, age lasting or life for the age.

Most literal translations either translate the word as "age-lasting" (or something similar) or simply transliterate it.

"Eternal" means without beginning or ending, and there's a Greek word for it. ἀϊδίοις

"Everlasting" means without ending, and there's a Greek expression for it. εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων

An age is a limited period of time. There's a Greek word for it. αἰωνίου

αἰωνίου is found in Hebrews 5:9. Different translations translate it differently:

CLV: Heb 5:9 And being perfected, He became the cause of eonian salvation to all who are obeying Him,

REV: Heb 5:9 And, being made perfect, became, to all them that obey him, Author of salvation age-abiding;

YLT: Heb 5:9 and having been made perfect, he did become to all those obeying him a cause of salvation age-during,


The theology of the West was not that of the Greek Church but that of Roman Catholicism. It was Latin theology. And just as it is beyond doubt that the revisers, translators, and lexicographers, were chiefly influenced by the Latin language and Latin translations, either directly or indirectly. It is admitted that the theology of Calvin was derived from Saint Augustine, modernized and extended.

S. S. Craig said, "“It was absolutely essential to Augustinian theology with its blightening emphasis on the doctrine of predestinarianism to mistranslate the Greek adjective aijw>niov, and put on it a meaning which the Greek will not for a moment allow in its respective applications to salvation and judgment.

And that was essential to Augustinian theology was equally essential to Latin Christianity from the days of Augustine to those of Calvin and Luther. And the same exists in the Reformed Theology from then till the present.

To say nothing of other words, the Calvinist simply cannot, dare not, face an honest and truthful interpretation of the two frequently occurring words with which we are now dealing with, namely “eternal life.” "

Because of this erroneous connection, even those who espouse areminianism are affected as well. If arminians were to apply their teachings to what the word actually means, then their viewpoint would be essentially correct, but since they apply it to spiritual salvation, they are in grave error.

 

Right click and save for the importance of his blood: The Blood

The water and the blood are both mentioned separately, and both are separate from his death.

 

And believing IS the "obeying" (complying, conforming, submitting) in this case. They are not mutually exclusive acts. Someone tells you to believe something and you believe it, you have obeyed. The fact that as you showed, what was "believed" was "A teaching or doctrine" is the ultimate proof of this. That is pretty simple. there is no need tto take your assumptionm of what "obey" must mean and then try to turn "belief" into a physical deed.

Nicodemus thought that the SECOND ("New") birth was going back into the womb again and being born of water all over again, So Jesus corrected him in saying the new birth was "of the Spirit". You've already been born of water. Now you must be born of the spirit.

So the Spirit's role is only "instructions"? Just like your "grace" is only "instructions"!

You're trying to force everything into this neat little formula, but you've got it all wrong: by one Spirit we are baptized (SPIRITUALLY!) into one body (blood - Acts 20:28), by which we are "cleansed" "with the 'washing of water' BY the Word" (Eph.5:26). the water used in physical baptism is a SYMBOL, and not the spiritual reality. The Spirit and the Blood in all of your examples are not tangible objects, so why should the "water" be? That water is spiritual, and the water of baptism only represents it.

But if someone has received Christ into his heart, through faith, but dies before baptism (particularly if it is because the church doing the baptizing makes him wait), then at the judgment, he is going to be told "sorry, you weren't baptized, so my blood did not cover you". Then salvation is clearly of a physical work, and all the spiritual stuff in these scriptures we've been discussing is out the window. So we are right back to the physical salvation of the Israelites in the Passover, when they had to have the blood literally applied to the doorpost, or tough luck! It figures since all of your analogies of this are from the OT anyway. Funny how a church that insists on "NT practice" draws its whole philosophy from the OT. Why not keep the sabbath then as well? This is just like being in the discussion with that movement now, but at least they are more consistent. But all of those OT examples are shadows of the spiritual realities, and the physical items in them all translate to spiritual things now. That is the point of the "good news". No one is lost because they couldn't physically get up and do some deed in time.

 

I'm not sure at all that mman agrees with you.

 

You are right about that!

When I say that I believe Jesus' statement "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be condemned" means exactly what it says, then I get accused of twisting, changing definitions, adding works, and all sorts of other things.

If Jesus really meant, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", what other words could he have possibly used to convey this simple idea???????

All this group wants to do is try and show that Jesus didn't really mean what He said. This verse has been shown to be in complete harmony with the rest of scripture. It is exactly what was done on the day of Pentecost. It was done in every conversion recorded in the book of Acts. Unless someone adds something new I'm through listening to the same old rhetoric.

HOG - I am going to re-read your lesson on the blood. When I skimmed through there, I thought you made some very good points. What do you think was the significance of the blood and water?

I will be away for several days, so I am not ignoring anyone or any thing, but it may be awhile before I can respond.

 

So, you are saying that, if one is not baptized into the church of Christ, they are not saved.

Amazing!