Then there is no gain in this covenant over the last one. The instructions have simply changed, then, but man is still largely incapable of consistently "choosing" to be faithful.[/quote
Eric,
bmerr here. I'm still having trouble nailing down your viewpoint regarding man's real problem. Here's what I mean.
You have said you're not a Calvinist, and that's a good thing. As you probably know, one of the "five points" of Calvinism is man's inability to do good, apart from a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, commonly known as "Total hereditary Depravity".
As I've said before, I try to avoid labeling people before I understand where they're coming from. I don't like name-calling, and other childish stuff, and I don't want to do it by implication, either.
But here's my point of confusion: In the portion of your post I quoted above, you said "man is still largely incapable of consistently "choosing" to be faithful".
That sounds very similar to T.H.D. from Calvinism.
Please forgive me if I cast a bad light on you. That's not my intention. I just don't understand your comment.
Agreed on the point that there was no moral fault with God. The main difference between OT and NT is that the OT was a shadow, or pattern of things in the NT. God was the same, and man is the same, but the once for all sacrifice of Christ is far better than those of the OT system. The High Priest is better, as well as the royal priesthood of the believers.
Also, under the NT, men no longer say "Know the Lord" (forgive the lack of Scripture references; I don't have my Bible with me).
Under the OT, people were born into a covenant relationship with God by virtue of their parentage. One was a Jew by birth. As one grew older, he would be educated about the covenant he had been born into.
But, under the NT, those of an accountable age, of ANY nation, can choose to bring themselves into covenant with God, by the authority of Christ. Those who hear and believe the gospel, are willing to repent of their sins and confess the name of Jesus, can undergo the new birth by submitting to baptism in water for the remission of sins. That being done, one is a new creature, a babe in Christ.
He does not need to be told, "Know the Lord", because he has to know about Him and His kingdom before he can enter into it.
The odds of being faithful to a covenant one has chosen for himself are far greater than they are if one is simply in a covenant by birth.
God's true standard for man is faithfulness (1 Cor 4:1; Rev 2:10. God knows our frame, and He remembers that we are dust. Jesus understands our infirmities, having taken on the form of sinful flesh Himself. Provision is made for our stumblings (1 John 1:7-9). Perfection is our "always out of reach" goal.
Agreed, our "not doing good enough" would keep us all out of Heaven. God does expect us to do our best, though.
He is too good of a Father to expect anyone to walk, talk, and behave as a mature Christian as soon as they become one. He understands that we need tome to grow. Phil 3:16 comes to mind, which basically says, "Do what you know to do, and as you learn more later, do that, too."
"The line" in regards to salvation is drawn at baptism in water. As far as the old question, "At what point am I condemned after I am baptized?", I guess it would be the point at which one turns back to the worldly ways of his past, or wanders off into false doctrine or something. I wonder why it is that people ask that question. Why would anyone want to know where "the edge" is? Certainly not so they could walk as close to it as possible!
Parting thought. Have you ever considered the two things that people will be told at the Judgment? It's either, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant", or "Depart from me, I never knew you", or similar words. It appears that faithfulness means alot.
In Christ,
bmerr
-
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!
Baptism prior to the 1520s
- Thread starter Matt Black
- Start date
I kind of figured that would still sound Calvinistic. But the truth is; they do have a good point there, that is taken to an extreme. The difference in my statement is, the key wor is consistently. God's standard is perfection, and while we may be able to chose to come to Him, we still cannot choose to ALWAYS do the right thing! We can try, but it is not possible. So just because we can do some things right some of the time, we are not to think that man has the power to save himself by doing good works or even "remaining faithful".
So it's just "better odds"? That's the only way the New Covenant is better? That and a "better sacrifice"; but then people are still left hanging on a string above Hell until they do certain works until their death?
And actually, people from outside the covenant could come and join provided they were circumcized and followed the Law. But now, it's worse; because rather than being taught while in the Kingdom, you have to perfectly "know the Lord" before you are even in!
OK, this most would agree with; but then this would show that it is grace we are saved by; not the works then.God's true standard for man is faithfulness (1 Cor 4:1; Rev 2:10
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, we do not lose salvation over and over again from not doing good enough. For then, we would never have been saved in any real sense to begin with. Once again, where is the line drawn?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, our "not doing good enough" would keep us all out of Heaven. God does expect us to do our best, though.
He is too good of a Father to expect anyone to walk, talk, and behave as a mature Christian as soon as they become one. He understands that we need tome to grow. Phil 3:16 comes to mind, which basically says, "Do what you know to do, and as you learn more later, do that, too."
But you have tried to prove this with scriptures taken to show that salvation depends on works. If baptism is just one example of a work we are saved by; then the line wouldn't be drawn there, bur rather in everythign else we do afterward.
My point in asking that is to show you how works-salvation is totally unsure and shaky ground. It's people who believe this who are more likely to try to "push it as close to the line as possible"; just look at all your nominal Catholics. "I'm baptized; so I'm saved, no matter what I do". But then wait, we can't have that, so it is "living faithfully". That's even harder than baptism, and we're "imperfect", so it's "living faithfully as best as we can". How do we even define "as best as we can"? We can almost aways do things better than we actually do. So it's "just not falling away into worldliness or false doctrine". Why not just say all along that it is by grace through faith? (and if your doctrine happens to be wrong, you've just condemned yourself!) This is precisely why there can be no "line" drawn amidst our works. The line is Christ!
That still begs the question of the line. If we refuse one homeless person, are we the goats? Or is it giving to one that makes us the sheep? No; the immediate context of that statement (one good thing I have learned from the Preterists) is the different "nations" of people who either receive the apostles (who were without home, and needed food and clothes all that stuff), or reject them. "He who receives you receives me" He elsewhere told them. So even this apparent blatant appeal to "works" ultimately points to one's receiving of Jesus! (unbelievers love to throw this one at us to prove one does not even need Jesus, because "many nonChristians are much more giving". So unfortunate that most Christians do not even know what He really meant, and cannot answer that charge, except for just reciting "faith, not works", which makes it look like a contradiction when this is not explained.
Matt, perhaps the ground has been covered already, but I wanted to point out some resources you might be interested in. I just read them, and they are very informative on the whole issue of baptism as the initiatory act of discipleship (and as a conveyor of the benefits of salvation). These two both deal with the surprisinly sacramental understanding of baptism among the early English Baptists, as well as the revival in the view amongst Baptist scholars in the twentieth century.
Stanley K. Fowler, More Than A Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptist Sacramentalism (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2002).
Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (editors), Baptist Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 5; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003).
The problem with this quote, and this is NEVER pointed out in fairness to opposing views, is that for this passage in Irenaeus we are at the mercy of a Latin translator two centuries after Irenaeus. Since a little later this translator has Irenaeus saying that Jesus was fifty years old when he died, we have to admit the possibility that we do not have an accurate reflection of the original Greek here. We know that young children, who could say the creed, were baptised, but even in the church of Rome, we know from the catacombs that babies were not normally baptised. Hippolytus is unclear, and we cannot have complete confidence in the text as it has come down to us. But we do know from the catacombs that young infants, two year olds etc, were not baptised unless they had a serious illness and were about to die.
Bmerr
To me the problem with the 'Restorationist' position is that it views faith as assent, and baptism as a requirement needed over and above assent. In Restorationism, baptism is not 'faith-baptism', but a legal requirement. I know that the Enlightenment influenced view of Campbell has been modified in many cases, and that many in this movememt would have a view of baptism no different from Baptist Sacramentalists, and from myself. Here are some quotes from the book, More Than a Symbol edited by Stanley K. Fowler on the differences between CoC and Baptist views of baptism:
(1) The Disciples tradition has from the beginning interpreted baptism as the final human condition which must be met before entrance into salvation, as part of the terms of surrender which evoke divine acceptance, but Baptists have placed a greater emphasis on the grace of God which has been at work in the individual evoking the faith-response and is at work in the baptismal event itself. ...
(2) From its beginning the Disciples tradition has been concerned with the formulation of a rational approach to religion which is able to make “faith” easily understandable and readily identifiable. .... Faith has been interpreted as believing revealed facts and obeying revealed commands, so that the conditions of divine acceptance are assent to the facts of the gospel and obedience to the baptismal command. Baptists, on the other hand, have consistently emphasized ... that the faith confessed in baptism is both belief in the facts about Christ and an attitude of trust and commitment.
(3) The early Disciples movement was driven to a large extent by a desire for objectivity in religious experience, as opposed to the search for subjective signs of grace which prevailed on the American frontier.
...(4) As demonstrated above, Baptist sacramentalists do not teach an absolute necessity of baptism for personal salvation. Instead, they argue that the link between baptism and salvation is normal and experiential, but not strictly necessary. ...This is a corollary of the distinction between baptism as final human condition (Disciples) and baptism as a divine-human act (Baptist).
I would add to this that the CoC has no place for the confirming and Spirit-strengthening rite of the laying on of hands following baptism (and this has fallen out of general - but not total - usage among Baptists).
All the best
Dean
To me the problem with the 'Restorationist' position is that it views faith as assent, and baptism as a requirement needed over and above assent. In Restorationism, baptism is not 'faith-baptism', but a legal requirement. I know that the Enlightenment influenced view of Campbell has been modified in many cases, and that many in this movememt would have a view of baptism no different from Baptist Sacramentalists, and from myself. Here are some quotes from the book, More Than a Symbol edited by Stanley K. Fowler on the differences between CoC and Baptist views of baptism:
(1) The Disciples tradition has from the beginning interpreted baptism as the final human condition which must be met before entrance into salvation, as part of the terms of surrender which evoke divine acceptance, but Baptists have placed a greater emphasis on the grace of God which has been at work in the individual evoking the faith-response and is at work in the baptismal event itself. ...
(2) From its beginning the Disciples tradition has been concerned with the formulation of a rational approach to religion which is able to make “faith” easily understandable and readily identifiable. .... Faith has been interpreted as believing revealed facts and obeying revealed commands, so that the conditions of divine acceptance are assent to the facts of the gospel and obedience to the baptismal command. Baptists, on the other hand, have consistently emphasized ... that the faith confessed in baptism is both belief in the facts about Christ and an attitude of trust and commitment.
(3) The early Disciples movement was driven to a large extent by a desire for objectivity in religious experience, as opposed to the search for subjective signs of grace which prevailed on the American frontier.
...(4) As demonstrated above, Baptist sacramentalists do not teach an absolute necessity of baptism for personal salvation. Instead, they argue that the link between baptism and salvation is normal and experiential, but not strictly necessary. ...This is a corollary of the distinction between baptism as final human condition (Disciples) and baptism as a divine-human act (Baptist).
I would add to this that the CoC has no place for the confirming and Spirit-strengthening rite of the laying on of hands following baptism (and this has fallen out of general - but not total - usage among Baptists).
All the best
Dean
Matt, perhaps the ground has been covered already, but I wanted to point out some resources you might be interested in. I just read them, and they are very informative on the whole issue of baptism as the initiatory act of discipleship (and as a conveyor of the benefits of salvation). These two both deal with the surprisinly sacramental understanding of baptism among the early English Baptists, as well as the revival in the view amongst Baptist scholars in the twentieth century.
Stanley K. Fowler, More Than A Symbol: The British Baptist Recovery of Baptist Sacramentalism (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2002).
Anthony R. Cross and Philip E. Thompson (editors), Baptist Sacramentalism (Studies in Baptist History and Thought, 5; Carlisle: Paternoster, 2003). </font>[/QUOTE]Indeed; the early Baptist confessions are surprisingly sacramental with respect to both baptism and communion.
Yours in Christ
Matt
Dean,
bmerr here. I'd have to say that your knowledge of Restoration history and other related topics is far superior to my own. I confess I've not spent much time researching men such as T. and A. Campbell, B. Stone, etc. It would doubtless be beneficial for me to look into the subject.
Thank you, by the way, for taking the time to add your comments. Time is precious for all of us in this hectic world.
In Christ,
bmerr
bmerr here. I'd have to say that your knowledge of Restoration history and other related topics is far superior to my own. I confess I've not spent much time researching men such as T. and A. Campbell, B. Stone, etc. It would doubtless be beneficial for me to look into the subject.
Thank you, by the way, for taking the time to add your comments. Time is precious for all of us in this hectic world.
Do you mean the laying on of hands as done by the apostles (ie Acts 8:17, 18; 19:6) for the conferring of miraculous spiritual gifts? It seems as though there may be other references to the laying on of hands, but I can't recall them at the moment. I'd be glad to try to provide some information, but I'd like to know better what you're referring to.
In Christ,
bmerr
Hi bmerr. I have read a little here and there. One book that was helpful to me was C. Leonard Allen, and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988).
This work is interesting because it is written by members of the CoC (and published by ACU press), yet it is honest about the influence of enlightenment thinking on Alexander Campbell.
But many CoCers have moved on from Campbell, and teach a view of baptism that I would not argue with... ie see Born of Water
http://www.greatcommission.com/BornOfWaterInEnglish.pdf
Ahh, yes indeed. I am guessing from your answer that you believe that the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirit was only something done by the apostles. There are two interesting scriptures that have generally led to confusion throughout Christian history.
Acts 2:38:
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost."
According to this, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given in response to repentance and baptism, and is to continue unitl the end (v. 39).
But the other passage is this:
Acts 8:14-18
Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they
might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money"
Some taking the first scripture, teach the baptism with the Holy Spirit, but nothing of the apostolic laying on of hands (Pentecostals). Others teach the laying on of hands, but do not require an apostle to do it (early Baptists whose 'apostolic messengers' were not the only ones who laid on hands, Faith movement). Others deny that this can be given today (against the first passage), since there are no apostles (Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterian, Restoration Movement). I beleive the ante-nicene Church had it right - they practiced the laying on of hands, but only those who succeeded to the office of the apostles. But that would take us into the question of apostolic succession ...
Dean
Dean:
Quote/
I have read a little here and there. One book that was helpful to me was C. Leonard Allen, and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988).
This work is interesting because it is written by members of the CoC (and published by ACU press), yet it is honest about the influence of enlightenment thinking on Alexander Campbell.
But many CoCers have moved on from Campbell, and teach a view of baptism that I would not argue with... ie see Born of Water
http://www.greatcommission.com/BornOfWaterInEnglish.pdf
I have no comment on the veracity of waht Allen and Hughes have to say.
I suggest reading a book authored by someone who heard Campbell preach and was converted by him. THE PREACHER: ALEXANDER CAMPBELL by Archibald Cox. Here is another suggestion. Try locating the sermons of Campbell. Since there are only five texts preserved in his handwriting, it would be most difficult to understand what he taught about the new testament unless you use other written sources. You might learn more about Campbell from the MILLENIAL HARBRINGER. He co-authored articles with Moses Lard.
I am amazed that so many who are not members of the church know so much about those of us who are members. By the way, your reference to members of the church of Christ as cocer's is offensive and not biblical. We are Christians as per Acts 11:26.
Quote/
I have read a little here and there. One book that was helpful to me was C. Leonard Allen, and Richard T. Hughes, Discovering Our Roots (Abilene, TX: ACU Press, 1988).
This work is interesting because it is written by members of the CoC (and published by ACU press), yet it is honest about the influence of enlightenment thinking on Alexander Campbell.
But many CoCers have moved on from Campbell, and teach a view of baptism that I would not argue with... ie see Born of Water
http://www.greatcommission.com/BornOfWaterInEnglish.pdf
I have no comment on the veracity of waht Allen and Hughes have to say.
I suggest reading a book authored by someone who heard Campbell preach and was converted by him. THE PREACHER: ALEXANDER CAMPBELL by Archibald Cox. Here is another suggestion. Try locating the sermons of Campbell. Since there are only five texts preserved in his handwriting, it would be most difficult to understand what he taught about the new testament unless you use other written sources. You might learn more about Campbell from the MILLENIAL HARBRINGER. He co-authored articles with Moses Lard.
I am amazed that so many who are not members of the church know so much about those of us who are members. By the way, your reference to members of the church of Christ as cocer's is offensive and not biblical. We are Christians as per Acts 11:26.
And yet, far from abolishing separate denominations, you managed to set up not one new sectarian denomination setting itself aside from all others, but two main one, with at least half a dozen smaller ones, some of whom don't even talk to each other!
"We are just the church, not a denomination" ALWAYS means "you aren't really the church, you are just a denomination".
Yours in Christ
Matt
[ May 27, 2005, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
"We are just the church, not a denomination" ALWAYS means "you aren't really the church, you are just a denomination".
Yours in Christ
Matt
[ May 27, 2005, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
bmerr,
what you are saying basically gets into the issue of "falling away". Many of us will admit not knowing eveyrthing on that. 5 point Arminians would agree with you, but Calvinists and four-point Arminians (which is probably most of us here) would say that someone who falls away was probably never saved. But it is a bit speculatory. Only God knows, really.
Otherwise; I'll say what I just told Frank on one of the other threads:
Faithful service is what is rendered by those who believe. Those in Christ are not under the Law, so you cannot place them in the same constant danger of damnation as the unbelievers. So it's still about "faith". People who persistently "practice sin" ("walk in the darkness", etc) are questioned by most of us, also. But that does not give one the license to make one single work the determination of salvation, as that is what this discussion is really about. If you want to be that meticulous, then once again, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is God's standard, and no "flaws" would be tolerated, and no one could be saved. If someone is not baptized, then the question is "why". Perhaps the church doesn't baptize until they go through the classes, and become a member. Perhaps a person accepted Christ and couldn't find a Church to "join" right away (My case. It took me 10 years to find a church I trusted enough to be baptized into. So wouldn't this be at most a case of one of those "flaws" of the Christian otherwise "practicing faithful service"? Do we deny them salvation?
what you are saying basically gets into the issue of "falling away". Many of us will admit not knowing eveyrthing on that. 5 point Arminians would agree with you, but Calvinists and four-point Arminians (which is probably most of us here) would say that someone who falls away was probably never saved. But it is a bit speculatory. Only God knows, really.
Otherwise; I'll say what I just told Frank on one of the other threads:
Faithful service is what is rendered by those who believe. Those in Christ are not under the Law, so you cannot place them in the same constant danger of damnation as the unbelievers. So it's still about "faith". People who persistently "practice sin" ("walk in the darkness", etc) are questioned by most of us, also. But that does not give one the license to make one single work the determination of salvation, as that is what this discussion is really about. If you want to be that meticulous, then once again, ABSOLUTE PERFECTION is God's standard, and no "flaws" would be tolerated, and no one could be saved. If someone is not baptized, then the question is "why". Perhaps the church doesn't baptize until they go through the classes, and become a member. Perhaps a person accepted Christ and couldn't find a Church to "join" right away (My case. It took me 10 years to find a church I trusted enough to be baptized into. So wouldn't this be at most a case of one of those "flaws" of the Christian otherwise "practicing faithful service"? Do we deny them salvation?
Matt:
Quote/
And yet, far from abolishing separate denominations, you managed to set up not one new sectarian denomination setting itself aside from all others, but two main one, with at least half a dozen smaller ones, some of whom don't even talk to each other!
You could not prove this statement if your life depended upon it. I Thes.5:21. I have managed to preach and teach new testament Christianity for more than 10 years. Jesus said men could be one. John 17:21. The new testament makes this possible because Jesus died for it, not religious division. Hebrews 9:15-17, Mat. 15:14,15. I prefer to follow the new testament just as my brethren of the first century did. Acts 2:40-47.
You cannot accept pristine new testament Christianity because you are enslaved by the secterian thought promulgated by the proliferation of man made creeds, articles of faith handed down by the councils, synods, and magesteriums of men.
Quote/
And yet, far from abolishing separate denominations, you managed to set up not one new sectarian denomination setting itself aside from all others, but two main one, with at least half a dozen smaller ones, some of whom don't even talk to each other!
You could not prove this statement if your life depended upon it. I Thes.5:21. I have managed to preach and teach new testament Christianity for more than 10 years. Jesus said men could be one. John 17:21. The new testament makes this possible because Jesus died for it, not religious division. Hebrews 9:15-17, Mat. 15:14,15. I prefer to follow the new testament just as my brethren of the first century did. Acts 2:40-47.
You cannot accept pristine new testament Christianity because you are enslaved by the secterian thought promulgated by the proliferation of man made creeds, articles of faith handed down by the councils, synods, and magesteriums of men.
In fact, Frank, I have read a number of Alexander Campbell's works on different subjects. I simply recommended a resource that is good because it puts Campbell in historical context, and quotes alot of primary material. However I have little intention of studying much further, for there are, in my opinion, far better materials to read from other traditions.
Well, I think that you are overly sensitive. I do not accept your idea that you alone are in the true church. Believe it or not, adherents of the 'Restoration Movement' are not the only ones who have a claim to the name Christian. There are many societies out there who think that they alone have recreated NT Christianity. Just in my experience alone I have come across your own group, the Plymouth Brethren, the Gene Edwards sect, the John Metcalfe sect, and others who all believe that they alone are the NT church. You follow the church and teachings of a few disgruntled Enlightenment-influenced former Presbyterians and Baptists who had the audacity to believe that they could set up their own body and call that 'the Church' to the exclusion of everyone else.
Dean:
Quote/
Well, I think that you are overly sensitive. I do not accept your idea that you alone are in the true church.
I am not alone in the church. Where and when did I say this? I am not overly sensitive. I do object to falsehoods and false names.
Quote/
Believe it or not, adherents of the 'Restoration Movement' are not the only ones who have a claim to the name Christian.
Once again, your biased secular mind rears it's ugly head. Please provide a quote where I made such a statement. There will be those in heaven who are not Christians. The bible says, in Matthew 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. I do believe these gentlemen died before the cross, not after.
Quote/
There are many societies out there who think that they alone have recreated NT Christianity. Just in my experience alone I have come across your own group, the Plymouth Brethren, the Gene Edwards sect, the John Metcalfe sect, and others who all believe that they alone are the NT church.
Where and when did I make the statement, we recreated new testament Christianity? Who is this they? Christ produced Christians by his word. Luke 8:11-14. Seed bears after it's kind. Genesis 1:11. The new testament produces Christian's. The seed principle of God knows nothing of hybrid forms of Christianity.
Quote/
You follow the church and teachings of a few disgruntled Enlightenment-influenced former Presbyterians and Baptists who had the audacity to believe that they could set up their own body and call that 'the Church' to the exclusion of everyone else.
This statement is without foundation. I challenge you to prove it. I Thes. 5:21. Assertions are not proof.
The bible teaches one church. Col. 1:18.
The bible teaches one body. Eph. 5: 23.
The bible teaches one head. Col. 1:18.
The bible teaches one way. John 14: 7.
The bible teaches one blood bought church. Acts 20:28.
It appears the overly sensitive one is you. Why???
Quote/
Well, I think that you are overly sensitive. I do not accept your idea that you alone are in the true church.
I am not alone in the church. Where and when did I say this? I am not overly sensitive. I do object to falsehoods and false names.
Quote/
Believe it or not, adherents of the 'Restoration Movement' are not the only ones who have a claim to the name Christian.
Once again, your biased secular mind rears it's ugly head. Please provide a quote where I made such a statement. There will be those in heaven who are not Christians. The bible says, in Matthew 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. I do believe these gentlemen died before the cross, not after.
Quote/
There are many societies out there who think that they alone have recreated NT Christianity. Just in my experience alone I have come across your own group, the Plymouth Brethren, the Gene Edwards sect, the John Metcalfe sect, and others who all believe that they alone are the NT church.
Where and when did I make the statement, we recreated new testament Christianity? Who is this they? Christ produced Christians by his word. Luke 8:11-14. Seed bears after it's kind. Genesis 1:11. The new testament produces Christian's. The seed principle of God knows nothing of hybrid forms of Christianity.
Quote/
You follow the church and teachings of a few disgruntled Enlightenment-influenced former Presbyterians and Baptists who had the audacity to believe that they could set up their own body and call that 'the Church' to the exclusion of everyone else.
This statement is without foundation. I challenge you to prove it. I Thes. 5:21. Assertions are not proof.
The bible teaches one church. Col. 1:18.
The bible teaches one body. Eph. 5: 23.
The bible teaches one head. Col. 1:18.
The bible teaches one way. John 14: 7.
The bible teaches one blood bought church. Acts 20:28.
It appears the overly sensitive one is you. Why???
Define 'New Testament Christianity'
Yours in Christ
Matt
Dean,
bmerr here. I may have to find a copy of that. It's often profitable to look at things from others' perspectives.
[/url]
Frank has made mention of this, and if I seem "over sensitive" for bringing it up again, forgive me, but I really would appreciate it if we could use something other than "CoCers" when referring to those in the church of Christ.
Here's why. Restore that abbreviation to what it represents, and you get "Church of Christer". Who is "Christer"? That just sounds awful! do you see what I mean?
We call Baptists "Baptists", and Methodists "Methodists", and that's what those in those organizations call each other as well. However, in the church described in the NT, believers were called "Christians" (Acts 11:26).
The restoration movement sought to return to the NT as it's sole authority for doctrine and practice. However successful you may think we have been, you certainly can't argue with the goal. In keeping with this goal, we call ourselves "Christians", and would like to be known as such.
I don't expect wide-spread aquiesence to my request, but if every now and then someone took the time to type out "members of the church of Christ" or something like that instead of "CoCers", I sure would be grateful.
Let me say at the start that I don't have everything figured out in regards to the Holy Spirit. There are a few things I'm pretty sure of, but there have been many men far more learned than I that have seen things differently regarding the Holy Spirit.
So far as I can figure at this time, there may be a difference between the "gift (singular) of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38), and the miraculous "gifts" (plural) of the Spirit which were conferred by the laying on of the apostles' hands.
In this line of thinking, (which may or may not be correct, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if I'm in error), Acts 2:38 still has application today, while the absence of modern-day apostles would relegate miraculous gifts to a bygone era.
There were certain qualifications which only the apostles had, one of which was having seen the risen Christ (Acts 1:22). Not everyone who saw Jesus after the resurrection was an apostle, of course, but everyone who was an apostle had seen Jesus after His resurrection.
Anyway, in 1 Cor 15:8, Paul states that "And last of all he (Christ) was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."
If Paul was the last to see the resurrected Christ, then Paul was the last apostle of Christ. I know that some today claim the office, but I'd have to say they simply are incapable of meeting all the qualifications to hold it.
All of that said, an answer to the original question would be that I don't see where the laying on of hands today would have any purpose.
On the other hand, if there is a NT example of a symbolic laying on of hands, then certainly we should practice it in it's proper context. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all, so long as there is NT authority for it.
In Christ,
bmerr
[ June 02, 2005, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: bmerr ]
Hi again, I certainly understand your point and will refrain from using that abbreviation. I thought that 'Campbellite' would obviously (and rightly) be very offensive, but it seems to me that those who are members of the churches that came out of what is called the Restoration Movement use the name 'Christian' (meaning little anointed ones) as though it only applies to them. Perhaps that is the wrong inference I have drawn. For the same reason I cannot use 'members of the Church of Christ' unless I put the name of the church in inverted commas, because I don't believe that that church = THE church of Christ. So I hope you will not be offended at 'members of the churches that came out of what is called the Restoration Movement’
The goal is a very good one indeed, and one with which I am very much in sympathy. There have been many groups with the same goal, and though I do not believe any have been totally successful, they have all had their strengths and weaknesses. I think the Plymouth Brethren were far more consistent than Campbell was. So also the ‘Two by Twos’ (Cooneyites), who made a serious effort to restore NT Church government. The modern ‘house church’ movement has recovered many aspects of early church life passed over by the Protestant denominations until now. In my opinion (for what it is worth), I think the early ‘Six Principle’ Baptists of the 17th century got closest to the ‘blueprint’ if we can use such an impersonal concept. The Campbell associated movement, in my opinion, was far too rationalistic in their approach. Campbell even taught that the seat of the spirit of man is in his intellect – a belief shared by the Eastern Orthodox churches, and inherited by them straight out of Platonism and Stoicism. Campbell, however, was, I believe, RIGHT to react against the excesses of the ‘Great Awakening’, but it think it must be conceded that he went way too far, throwing out ALL spiritual experience not mediated through the ‘nous’ or rational mind. The whole idea of Christianity is that the Lord has come to make known to us the Father, by the Holy Spirit, and not through the intellect alone (as the Gnostics, and in our day the false JWs teach). In fact, Campbell taught that we do not need the Holy Spirit’s enlightenment to understand the Bible, and rejected the gifts of the Spirit for today. Given a choice between emphasising the right ‘blueprint’, and seeking after the presence and power of God, I would rather the latter. The early Methodists and Pentecostals perhaps saw more of the manifest glory and power of God than any other groups since the days of the primitive Church. We need the new wineskins – yes. But we need the new wine too. But no church has fully restored the ‘blueprint’. Take the three ‘pastoral’ epistles – the two Timothy epistles and Titus. What church follows those today? What church has an external ministry both with the power to ordain elders by the laying on of hands, and to censure and depose them? Or to receive the pledge of widows? (what church even has widows? – the early Baptists and Mennonites did, and the Anglicans have tried reviving this).
Some people do say that, but when the laying on of hands is mentioned in Acts, it always speaks of the ‘gift’ (singular) of the Spirit – though this gift is of course evidenced by the gifts or manifestations of the Spirit.
Yes, true. But there were others also called apostles, who were not of the chief apostles, and whose authority came from the chief apostles. Think of Apollos, Timothy, Epaphrus etc. We see in the epistles of Timothy and Titus Paul handing over his mission to these young apostolic men, in view of his own departure, and this charge he urges Timothy to keep until the coming of the Lord, showing that Paul envisioned the continuation of the Timothy ministry. After all, it was the apostles who ordained elders in every church, and Paul delegated this authority to Timothy and Titus. The congregations and elders consented of course, but they never did the ordaining. But this ministry is continued by the secondary apostles. This is where the Plymouth Brethren at least are consistent, for they say that apostles ceased, and therefore they say that no one today has authority to ordain elders, hence they are all just simple ‘brethren’ meeting as such amidst the ruin of Christendom. Consistent … but wrong!
And as you note, it would require that the delegated ‘Timothy’ ministry is still here today. I believe it is still available – 1 Tim 6:13-14. And the testimony of the primitive church agrees.
In the early church, disciples repented, were baptised for the remission of sins, and then had hands laid upon them for the reception of the Spirit. As you noted, the promise of the Spirit is given to all – Acts 2:38 – all who repent and are baptised. And however we understand 1 Cor. 13, elsewhere there is strong indication (if not outright proof) that the gifts are to be here until the second coming – 1 Cor. 1 :4-8; 1 Thes. 5:16-23.
Regards
Dean
Do we deny them salvation?
Is not the question in as much as "salvation is of the Lord". There is only one "priestly act" which saves a man's soul: Jesus' shed blood at Calvary. He said: "IT IS FINISHED".
That is what the apostle Paul preached: Jesus Christ--and Him crucified.
Another nail in the "salvation by works" coffin: "It is not by acts of righteousness which we have done; but according to HIS mercy HE saved us".
"Without the shedding of blood and washing the body in water, there is no remission of sin" is a perversion of The Word of God.
One could be baptized into every church in the world--and still go to hell.
A depraved man depending on an act of a depraved man to gain heaven seems utterly absurd. Have we considered the doctrines of Grace?
Grace does not allow any sort of work--including what some call baptism.
Selah,
Bro. James
Is not the question in as much as "salvation is of the Lord". There is only one "priestly act" which saves a man's soul: Jesus' shed blood at Calvary. He said: "IT IS FINISHED".
That is what the apostle Paul preached: Jesus Christ--and Him crucified.
Another nail in the "salvation by works" coffin: "It is not by acts of righteousness which we have done; but according to HIS mercy HE saved us".
"Without the shedding of blood and washing the body in water, there is no remission of sin" is a perversion of The Word of God.
One could be baptized into every church in the world--and still go to hell.
A depraved man depending on an act of a depraved man to gain heaven seems utterly absurd. Have we considered the doctrines of Grace?
Grace does not allow any sort of work--including what some call baptism.
Selah,
Bro. James