Churches of Christ...Continued

[genesis12]

gen12,

bmerr here. You agree with JJump? Have you read many of his posts? Or are you just disagreeing with me. Either way is okay with me, I was just wondering.

In Christ,

bmerr

I don't debate, bmerr. I just say what I believe to be true. Two things:

1. In Acts 2:38 Peter is addressing Jews. In 2:39 he reminds them of the Kingdom promised to them if they would receive Jesus as Messiah, the one foretold throughout the Hebrew Bible or Old Covenant. Instead, they crucified Christ. The Kingdom promised was put on hold, so to speak. The message went to the non-Jews starting in Acts 9. After the rapture of the church, the 7-year Tribulation begins. Once again God will offer the remaining Jews an opportunity to obtain the Kingdom promised. 144,000 Jewish converts to Christianity will bring the message of hope in Christ (btw, "hope" in context is calm, confident assurance, not "maybe"). Those who receive Jesus Christ during the Tribulation, Jew and non-Jew, will be saved, non-Jews martyered for their faith*. At the end of the Tribulation Jesus returns, wins the battle of Armegeddon, and establishes the Kingdom promised in a 1,000 year reign.

2. In Acts 2:38 the only contextually true and clear translation is this: Repent, and then be baptized, because of the forgiveness of your sins. Jews baptized everything in water, from themselves to eating utensils to a long list. Peter was still holding to Jewish traditions because of James, leader of the church in Jerusalem. His Jewish brethren would respect and understand baptism. Peter, not telling them that they must be dipped in water to be saved, simply accomodates their water rituals.

*A Jewish remnant, accepting Christ during the Trib, will flee to Petra, in what is now Jordan. There they will be protected until God ushers in the 1,000 year Kingdom promised.

p.s. I'm only answering your question. I will not debate the matter.

 

[Eric B]

Well said!:applause:
(and notice how they swell so much on OT examples like Naaman and Jericho to illustrate physical "acts of faith")
The problem with the OT was not that it was the wrong Laws, and now we are saved by keeping better laws. It was that man could not be saved by keeping laws in the first place, because it does not address his sin nature. And nowhere do we see any warnings of people being turned away at the judgment because of baptism. Washing away sins is a spiritual spiritual concept, and it is not enacted by a physical deed, where you have the salvation or damnation of a person in the same state determined only by whether he got wet.

I also liked "One Work Torah":laugh: :thumbs:

bmerr,
from the other discussion,

I understand this [Church as Kingdom], but still, Revelation did prohecy that "the Kingdoms of the World ARE BECOME the Kingdoms of christ", so you can't dismiss a physical world under Christ. Also, the saints are supposed to rule OVER something as well.

Quote:

>2 Pet 3:7, 10 the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

In Christ,bmerr

So the universe shall just be destroyed? Then it will be just us in Heaven (and I guess the lost in Hell) and no more physical realm at all?

 

[bmerr]

The Jews as Pentecost didn't ask how to call on the name of the Lord. That has already been shown to be incorrect in view of context.

JJump,

bmerr here. Actually, it has not been shown (from the Scriptures) that I have an incorrect view of the context of Acts 2. You have merely stated this on several occasions.

In fact you are talking about a people whose history included calling on the name of the Lord when they were in trouble. They didn't need to know how to do that.

Then why did they not do it? Because they were saved already? I think not, for why would Peter tell them that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, if they already were?

You are putting an assumption on the text, instead of dealing with what it says. Isn't that what we are supposed to do? It says believe and you will be saved. Not believe, confess, repent, be baptized, keep the commandments, keep on believing and whatever else you want to throw into the mix. Just believe and it will be so. That's what the text says.

Are you referring to Acts 16:31? If so, then perhaps you can tell me, citing Scriptural evidence, just what the jailer was to believe about Jesus Christ at that point. What had he heard? Did he know of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection? Had he heard the word of the Lord so that he could have faith (Rom 10:17)?

Again just because you see the same words or the same phrases in a sentence doesn't mean they have the same meaning. The context for these two statements are different and therefore can not be compared without destroying Scirptural teachings.

Tell it to DHK. He was trying to compare John's baptism with NT baptism.

This is funny you quote a passage of Scripture that says not to add unto his words, but that's exactly what you do by saying not faith only. Faith is the only thing mentioned so if something else was needed I think it's safe to say he would have mentioned it.

If that is your approach to the Bible, it's no wonder you're so confused. I could use the same attitude and hang everything on 1 Pet 3:21, where only baptism is mentioned. I could eliminate faith, repentance, and confession, as well as faithfulness. I could go around spouting "Salvation by baptism only!"

No it doesn't it means faith alone. There are even some evangelicals that miss the mark on this one by adding repentance and confession. Those two aren't required either. Just faith. Just believe. That's it!

Again, take it up with DHK. He's the one who said it.

That's because you HAVE to deny baptism earns anything because it would totally negate your teaching. But just because you deny something doesn't make it so. And the Bible speaks quite the opposite!

Okay, it's time to put up or shut up. Give book chapter and verse for where the Bible says that baptism earns something.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

Bmerr,

Consider this...

Let's say I work for you. You entrust me with taking the money from today's business and putting it in the bank. Let's say that two men with handguns accost me and steal the money and leave me pistol-whipped in an alley. You told me to put the money in the bank. Technically I did not do what you asked me to do. But yet would you not agree that you would be unreasonable to claim that I disobeyed you? My actions, altough the money did not actually make it to the bank, would be far different from a person who when asked to do the same job took the money and ran off to Mexico. And is not Jesus more just than you or I are?

Charles,

bmerr here. I understand the illustration. I suppose if Jesus wants to make an exception for someone, that's His own business. It's His covenant, not mine.

Bottom line, the Bible does not speak of such a situation, therefore, I cannot speak of it.

The gospel accounts tell of the Savior. Acts demonstrates again and again how to be saved. The pattern of preaching, hearing, faith, repentance, and baptism cannot be denied.

Christianity is a simple religion. It always has been. If baptism is unneccessary, why have it at all? Why clutter up God's authorized system of religion with something extra, if it only adds confusion?

But, if it is neccessary, and it is for a certain purpose, then certainly the Bible would speak plainly concerning it, would it not?

As a matter of fact, the Bible does speak plainly about the neccessity and purpose of baptism. Yet the word is rejected by so many.

You say that baptism is different than the OT works.

I say that baptism for the remission of sins was not commanded under the Mosaic Law.

The NT is different because there is no need for meritorious deeds.

Charles, you seem like an intelligent, reasonable fellow. Seriously. I enjoy your posts, as they are well thought out, and lack the sarcasm, and condecending tone found in those of others, including some of my own.

Would you please show me where either I, or mman, or the Bible describes submission to baptism as a meritorious work? I have stated several times that baptism merits, or earns nothing. mman has done likewise. Yet, I repeatedly hear from "your side" that baptism in some way earns salvation, or makes Jesus' death insufficient to pay for my sins. Can you help me out on this one? Please?

The name of the testament may be new and the name of the work may be new (baptism instead of ritual purification) - but the concept is the same - works being necessary for salvation!

That's like saying Jesus' death was not required, since it was a sacrifice, and the OT had sacrifices.

The purpose of the Law was never to allow man to earn his salvation. It was to make man aware of sin (Rom 3:20). The Jews misused the Law by adding their traditions to it, and boasting of their adherence (at least in the sight of men) to it. Instead of submitting to God's righteousness, they attempted to establish their own (Rom 10:3).

The command of baptism is not of the Law, yet is is something commanded for a purpose under the New Testament. It's actually more along the lines of Abraham being commanded to offer Isaac. It doesn't seem to accomplish much, from a human standpoint, but it's something God commands, and those who believe God will obey. Then the person is justified by his faith, as he obeys the command of God (James 2:23). His faith is perfected, or made complete, by his works (James 2:22).

That's why I assert that you have missed this element of NT theology. The whole idea of works being necessary for salvation is out the window!!

And I respectfully submit to you, sir, that salvation, or righteousness by works of the Law is "out the window". God has, from the creation, in every dispensation, required man's obedience, both before (Patriarchal), under (Mosaic), and after the Law of Moses (Christian).

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

And nowhere do we see any warnings of people being turned away at the judgment because of baptism.

Eric,

bmerr here. Welcome back. A few others have joined in since you were here last, but that's how it goes around here!

The Bible actually does warn of Christ taking vengeance in flaming fire upon those who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thes 1:7-9). As you might guess, I hold that to obey the gospel includes being baptized. Perhaps a thread is in order...

I understand this [Church as Kingdom], but still, Revelation did prohecy that "the Kingdoms of the World ARE BECOME the Kingdoms of christ", so you can't dismiss a physical world under Christ. Also, the saints are supposed to rule OVER something as well.

I won't pretend to be an "end times" expert. I know that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

I also know that Jesus said, when the Pharisees demanded to know when the kingdom of God should come, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; Neither shall they say, Lo here!; or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20-21).

God never intended to set up a literal kingdom with Christ sitting on a throne in Jerusalem. If He had, and His plan was thwarted by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, what will stop them from rejecting Him again, when He tries to set one up in your millenial doctrine?

One other thing I know before I go to bed is that if Jesus were to sit as king on a throne in Jerusalem, then God lied by the mouth of Jeremiah the prophet.

In Jer 22:28-30, we read,

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

29 Oh earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

"Big deal", one might say. Did you know that this guy is in the lineage of Christ? He is. Matt 1:12 records his name as "Jechonias". Check it out. Christ cannot rule on the throne in Jerusalem without making God a liar. It ain't gonna happen, folks.

Last thing concerning 2 Pet 3:7 and 10. All I know is what the Bible says, Eric. If it doesn't mean what it says, the I don't know wht it means.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

And nowhere do we see any warnings of people being turned away at the judgment because of baptism.

Eric,

bmerr here. Welcome back. A few others have joined in since you were here last, but that's how it goes around here!

The Bible actually does warn of Christ taking vengeance in flaming fire upon those who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thes 1:7-9). As you might guess, I hold that to obey the gospel includes being baptized. Perhaps a thread is in order...

I understand this [Church as Kingdom], but still, Revelation did prohecy that "the Kingdoms of the World ARE BECOME the Kingdoms of christ", so you can't dismiss a physical world under Christ. Also, the saints are supposed to rule OVER something as well.

I won't pretend to be an "end times" expert. I know that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

I also know that Jesus said, when the Pharisees demanded to know when the kingdom of God should come, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; Neither shall they say, Lo here!; or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20-21).

God never intended to set up a literal kingdom with Christ sitting on a throne in Jerusalem. If He had, and His plan was thwarted by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, what will stop them from rejecting Him again, when He tries to set one up in your millenial doctrine?

One other thing I know before I go to bed is that if Jesus were to sit as king on a throne in Jerusalem, then God lied by the mouth of Jeremiah the prophet.

In Jer 22:28-30, we read,

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

29 Oh earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

"Big deal", one might say. Did you know that this guy is in the lineage of Christ? He is. Matt 1:12 records his name as "Jechonias". Check it out. Christ cannot rule on the throne in Jerusalem without making God a liar. It ain't gonna happen, folks.

Last thing concerning 2 Pet 3:7 and 10. All I know is what the Bible says, Eric. If it doesn't mean what it says, the I don't know what it means.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Darron Steele]

Hi. I am new here. I am going to jump in and announce that I attend a Church of Christ, but that I was saved at a Baptist church.

I have been over Acts 2:38 and a number of different passages. The problem seems to be due to our English translations. The 1769 KJV is used as a basis for some to teach that completed baptism causes salvation.

The 1611 KJV had a comma between "Christ" and "for the remission." Alexander Campbell's translation had the same comma. The Spanish and Portuguese languages have more nuanced verb tenses than we have in English. In translations into those languages, the imperative is used for "repent" but the subjunctive, which means obligation here, is used for "be baptized." According to a Greek reference work by Zodhiates, (The Complete Word Study New Testament With Greek Parallel page 397) the verbs carry different forces, and these foreign translations reflect that. The Greek conjunction "kai" rendered "and" also has the meaning "and so." Hence, the best understanding from my perspective on the verse is that it means basically `You must repent, and so you are obligated to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, in order that your sins might be taken away.' More details can be found on my baptism paper accessible at www.geocities.com/steeledl/ .

While it indicates that we are obligated to be baptized if we have repented, we are saved by that repentance. I Peter 3:21 is clear when the clarifying part is NOT left off and disregarded: "which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism| (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but |as an appeal to God for a clear conscience|,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (ASV|KJV|RSV 1952|KJV). Peter at 1 Peter 3:21 clearly states that the ritual of baptism, in itself resembling a bath, saves no one. Rather, he explains that one is saved by the repentance baptism represents -- refusal to be baptized = no repentance.

Romans 4:5 says “And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (ESV). We are saved before we do anything. However, Philippians 2:12b has "ocupaos en vuestra salvación con temor y temblor" (RVR 1909/1960/1995, LBLA, RVA) = "you-busy-you in your salvation with fear and tremble." Our faith will go to work. Ephesians 2:8-10 clarifies this also -- we are saved by faith apart from works, and then from that salvation we do works "ordained" (KJV) for Christians by God. Baptism specifically fits that category.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Bmerr,

Would you please show me where either I, or mman, or the Bible describes submission to baptism as a meritorious work? I have stated several times that baptism merits, or earns nothing. mman has done likewise. Yet, I repeatedly hear from "your side" that baptism in some way earns salvation, or makes Jesus' death insufficient to pay for my sins. Can you help me out on this one? Please?

Yes you have said this. But then you have still asserted that the one who makes a sincere profession of faith but dies before he is able to be baptized is not saved. To me these seem contradictory. This seems to localize the importance not in faith in Christ but in performing the physical immersion. This emphasizes the ritual aspect of baptism and as such is very OT-like.

The command of baptism is not of the Law, yet is is something commanded for a purpose under the New Testament.

But the significance of the NT is more than just different commands. It brings a whole new paradigm - it brings the truth that Jesus has already done all that is necessary. The idea that a Christian who has trusted Jesus must still be immersed physically before he/she can be truly saved is reading the OT legalism back into the NT.

It's actually more along the lines of Abraham being commanded to offer Isaac.

Exactly! I agree. And recall that Abraham did not sacrifice Isaac! God stopped him. In one sense Abraham was not obedient to God's initial command to sacrifice Isaac. But God was interested in Abraham's faith and willingness to be obedient - not the actual act itself. I think the NT does suggest baptism is similar. We are commanded to be baptized. But the significance of it is in the fact that we are willing to submit to it. That is to say God is interested in the faith and obedience that underlie baptism rather than the physical act itself.

 

[J. Jump]

bmerr here. Actually, it has not been shown (from the Scriptures) that I have an incorrect view of the context of Acts 2. You have merely stated this on several occasions.

Actually it has been shown to you several times. Let me show you again in case you didn’t read my other posts or ignored them. I actually answered your question in post #5. Here it is again.
Quote:
"Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37)

What are they asking? They have been told they could be saved by calling on the name of the Lord, and now they're asking, "What shall we do?" Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that they are asking how to call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

No, I'd say that's probably what they were asking.

Well if you go back to the text and take a look at what is being discussed just prior to their question is not a qestion of what shall we do to be saved, but rather a question of what shall we do to right the wrong of killing our King.

"Therefore let all the house R100 of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord R101 and Christ--this F58 Jesus whom R102 you crucified."

First part of 37 - Now when they heard this, they were pierced F59 to the heart

When they heard what? That they just crucified their Messiah, the Annointed King of Israel.

So the answer to your question
Quote:
Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine that they are asking how to call on the name of the Lord and be saved?

is a definite yes, it is way too much of a stretch of the imagination, because that just wasn't what they were talking about.

So the rest of your post makes no sense. Plain and simple Scripture just doesn't support your stance unless you force, twist and destory the very Scripture you are reading. It's just not there.

Then why did they not do it? Because they were saved already? I think not, for why would Peter tell them that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, if they already were?

Again eternal salvation is not the context of the message. The message context is the kingdom, so them being saved has nothing to do with this. The simple fact of the matter is they didn’t recognize the Very One that was sent to deliver them. And when they heard that they has just killed the Very One that could deliver them, they wanted to know what they needed to do to get Him back.
If they would call on the name of the Lord, repent and be baptized then the Deliver would return and do what He said He would do while He was on the earth.
It was a call to national repentance, which again disproves what you are trying to make the text say, because the United States doesn’t have to repent in order for us to be saved.
Bottom line is salvation that is being discussed is not eternal salvation like you want it to be.

Are you referring to Acts 16:31?

That’s exactly what I’m referring to. And what is funny is that you all demand that people read Mark 16:16 and let the text say what the text says in that verse alone, but when it comes to Acts 16:31 you can’t accept what the text says and you have to start placing your presumptions on the text, because you know that text destroys your false ideas.
I say let every verse of Scripture say what it is supposed to say instead of picking and choosing like you all do.

Tell it to DHK. He was trying to compare John's baptism with NT baptism.

My conversation is with you, not DHK. And you have taken to the idea that every time salvation is mentioned or every time saved is mentioned it’s referring to eternal salvation and that is just not the case. The words are the same, but the context and concepts are different, and the context will tell you which is which.

If that is your approach to the Bible, it's no wonder you're so confused.

I’m confused because I compare Scripture with Scripture, build precept upon precept and line upon line? That’s odd. That’s exactly what the Bible tells us to do. But you have to compare like Scriptures with like Scriptures not apples and oranges.

Okay, it's time to put up or shut up. Give book chapter and verse for where the Bible says that baptism earns something.

Bmerr you are an intelligent person. You know there does not exist a verse that says baptism is not a meritorious work. But you also know that you can not go find a verse that says word for word that baptism is not a work of man.

We have reasoning ability and we are supposed to use it. Baptism is a physical act of man, which makes it a work. Works deserve a wage. Therefore the eternal saving grace of God is not present in that system, because His eternal saving grace is a gift and that means as a gift I can do nothing but believe in the work that was already done on my behalf.

 

[genesis12]

Acts 2:38 cannot be extracted to serve as THE definitive treatise on baptism. A literal interpretation of scripture calls upon us to observe 1 Corinthians 2:9-16, first and foremost. An understanding of the language "underneath" the English, in whatever version of the Bible, is dramatically helpful, as Steele pointed out in his first post. The spiritual context is everything for the reader. In context, there are no contradictions in the whole of scripture. A word of warning: Tell your family and friends to stay away from gender-neutral translations. I shudder when I think of well-meaning persons going to their local Christian bookstore, selecting a Bible for themselves or someone else, without realizing that it is gender-neutral. If you think these forums are hotbeds of misinterpretation, think what will happen if gender-neutral Bibles become the norm.

 

[Darron Steele]

I know it is sometimes claimed that baptism is God's work. Scripture does not support this. Throughout the New Testament, those who baptize are always shown to be people. We start with John 4:2 where Jesus’ disciples are given credit for baptizing. At Matthew 28:19a Jesus Himself commands "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, |bautizad = baptize| them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, |enseñad = teach| them to observe everything that I have commanded you" (NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV|RVA margin and translated|NBV). These disciples were to make converts who would follow the Lord as disciples, they were to baptize, and they were to teach. Here, those baptizing are the disciples. At Acts 8:38, Philip is given credit for baptizing the Ethiopian official. At 1 Corinthians 1:16 Paul indicates he baptized the household of Stephanus. In Scripture, every time the baptizer is specified, it is always a person and never God. Hence, when a person is baptized, the baptism is considered done by a person and received by another person.

 

[Darron Steele]

Recalling his own conversion, at Acts 22:16 Paul remembers Ananias saying to him “‘And now, why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, calling on the name of the Lord’” (KJV 1611). Some interpreters who do not understand Ephesians 2:8-10 believe the phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points backwards to “be baptized”; they believe this passage means that baptism washes away sins. First, regardless of Paul’s baptismal situation, at Acts 26:18 Paul explains that the Lord told him that his mission was to the Gentiles “para que reciban, por la fe que es en mí, remisión de pecados y suerte entre los santificados” (RVR 1909) = “in-order that they-might-receive, by the faith that is in me, remission of sins and lot among the sanctified.” For Gentiles, salvation was to be by faith. Second, the Greek and probably the KJV translators meant the phrase “calling...Lord” as an appositive to describe “wash...sins”; another appositive: “get some rest, go to sleep.” The phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points forward. Third, the word “and” separates “be baptized” from “Arise.” When “and” is interpreted consistently, we see that the second “and” separates “wash away thy sinnes” from “be baptized.” The phrase “wash away thy sinnes” points forwards, not backwards; this should be even more apparent because the command to "be baptized" expects a passive subject, while the commands "wash" and "calling" expect an active subject. The grammatical structure of translation is important; observe clearer translations in:
1. A modern literal Spanish translation: “Y ahora, ¿por qué te deteines? Levánte y sé bautizado, y lava tus pecados invocando su nombre” (LBLA) = “And now, for what you(self) you-detain? Let-you-rise and you-be baptized, and wash your sins invoking His name.”
2. The old 1560 English Geneva Bible (GenB): "Now therefore why tariest thou? Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sinnes, in calling on the Name of the Lord."
3. Tyndale's early English New Testament: "And nowe, why tariest thou? Aryse and be baptised, and wesshe away thy synnes, in callyng on the name of the lorde" (1526).
Hence, Paul arises, submits to baptism, and gets his sins taken away as he calls on the Lord to save Him.

 

[Darron Steele]

As for "Mark 16:16," there is a reason why most modern translations mark doubts on the authenticity of so-called "Mark 16:9-20." There is more evidence than just Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. There is evidence among other manuscripts and in surviving manuscripts of ancient translations. Also, all post-Resurrection account references to the New Testament Gospels that I found in non-forged non-fabricated Christian literature from the first century and a half were to Matthew, Luke, and John.

Hence, the Gospel of Mark most likely ends authentically at 16:8.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

bmerr here. Welcome back. A few others have joined in since you were here last, but that's how it goes around here!

The Bible actually does warn of Christ taking vengeance in flaming fire upon those who know not God, and who obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Thes 1:7-9). As you might guess, I hold that to obey the gospel includes being baptized. Perhaps a thread is in order...

But this has recently been discussed in detail. "obey the Gospel" does not mean physical deeds; it means believing (heeding, submitting, etc), so you cannot read baptism into that verse where it is not even mentioned.

Christianity is a simple religion. It always has been. If baptism is unneccessary, why have it at all? Why clutter up God's authorized system of religion with something extra, if it only adds confusion?

But, if it is neccessary, and it is for a certain purpose, then certainly the Bible would speak plainly concerning it, would it not?

As a matter of fact, the Bible does speak plainly about the neccessity and purpose of baptism. Yet the word is rejected by so many.

It's an outward testimony. It doesn't have to be salvific for it to be important.

The command of baptism is not of the Law, yet is is something commanded for a purpose under the New Testament. It's actually more along the lines of Abraham being commanded to offer Isaac. It doesn't seem to accomplish much, from a human standpoint, but it's something God commands and those who believe God will obey. Then the person is justified by his faith, as he obeys the command of God (James 2:23). His faith is perfected, or made complete, by his works (James 2:22).

And I respectfully submit to you, sir, that salvation, or righteousness by works of the Law is "out the window". God has, from the creation, in every dispensation, required man's obedience, both before (Patriarchal), under (Mosaic), and after the Law of Moses (Christian).

Yeah, more along the lines of Abraham ("patriarchal"), and what you don't realize is that Abraham himself is more along the lines of "the Law", even though it was before Moses. We often call the entire OT "The Law", as do the Jews. The basic principles are still the same, and that's the problem from always drawing from there to illustrate a NT ordinance. It was all focused on physical acts as "obedience", but that could never make man righteous. So now, it is belief in the work of Christ that is emphasized, and the works we do are to show love for God, not to save us through "faith" -- i.e. notice, that would be "by works are you saved through faith".

Would you please show me where either I, or mman, or the Bible describes submission to baptism as a meritorious work? I have stated several times that baptism merits, or earns nothing. mman has done likewise. Yet, I repeatedly hear from "your side" that baptism in some way earns salvation, or makes Jesus' death insufficient to pay for my sins. Can you help me out on this one? Please?

Okay, it's time to put up or shut up. Give book chapter and verse for where the Bible says that baptism earns something.

Of course, we're not going to show you where the Bible says that, because our whole point is that the Bible does not teach that Baptism earns anything. It's your view that in practice (though not in your theory) that would imply that.

I say that baptism for the remission of sins was not commanded under the Mosaic Law.

But the way you have construed it; it is just like under the Mosaic Law. As I said, we are given different laws now, but the whole principle is apparently the same.

I won't pretend to be an "end times" expert. I know that Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence" (John 18:36).

I also know that Jesus said, when the Pharisees demanded to know when the kingdom of God should come, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; Neither shall they say, Lo here!; or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:20-21).

God never intended to set up a literal kingdom with Christ sitting on a throne in Jerusalem. If He had, and His plan was thwarted by the Jews when they rejected Jesus, what will stop them from rejecting Him again, when He tries to set one up in your millenial doctrine?

Some would, in the final rebellion in ch. 20 right before the judgment. (But there would still be countless others--us who did not reject Him).

One other thing I know before I go to bed is that if Jesus were to sit as king on a throne in Jerusalem, then God lied by the mouth of Jeremiah the prophet.

In Jer 22:28-30, we read,

28 Is this man Coniah a despised broken idol? is he a vessel wherein is no pleasure? wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed, and are cast into a land which they know not?

29 Oh earth, earth, earth, hear the word of the LORD.

30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.

"Big deal", one might say. Did you know that this guy is in the lineage of Christ? He is. Matt 1:12 records his name as "Jechonias". Check it out. Christ cannot rule on the throne in Jerusalem without making God a liar. It ain't gonna happen, folks.

That's a new scripture for this issue. But didn't someone recently debate that somewhere saying that that line (through Joseph) didn't affect Jesus as such because He was not phyically from Joseph? (I believe that was a debate between Jump and HP).

Last thing concerning 2 Pet 3:7 and 10. All I know is what the Bible says, Eric. If it doesn't mean what it says, the I don't know wht it means.

In Christ,

bmerr

So that means yes, the [Bible teaches] there will no more physical universe; only heaven and hell?

Steele;
Great Exposition::applause:
Did you read that, bmerr?

 

[MorganT]

Folks I think you are entangled in a no win debate. Neither side is going to change there minds no matter what you say. I am a former Church of Christ member from birth to age 22. At the age of 22 I started to study to show myself approved and to find out what was right and what was wrong. I was amazed at the wrong teachings I had been taught by the Church of Christ. I now believe at age 37 that the Baptist are the most correct, Im not saying they are 100% in satisfying myself but they are 97% correct. I am a child of God and being a child if I say a cuss word the moment before impact of a car wreck and I die I am saved but thats not what the CoC teaches if you say that cuss word you are lost if you didnt ask for forgiveness is what the CoC teaches. You can see that this is a false teaching as well as Baptism saves. Baptism is something you do because you are saved not something you do to get saved. I have shown time and time again that music in churchs is biblical which the CoC teaches its not which is another false teaching however you will never change there minds not until they can see all the other false teachings they do.:Fish:

 

[J. Jump]

Morgan welcome to the discussion and I completely agree with you for some of our posters, however there are a number of people that read these threads that never post and so I'm just sharing the Light for their benefit so that hopefully that don't fall prey to the false teachings. And who knows when the Light will get turned on.

 

[Darron Steele]

MorganT: may I encourage you to remember that there is much diversity in the Churches of Christ? Yes, the vast majority of them are toxic in doctrine, attitude, and demeanor. However, there is a growing trend of Church of Christ Christians and congregations that is revisiting the Bible with seriousness and making some changes.

I was saved in a Baptist church and have no regrets. I am attending the only Church of Christ in my area that I would attend. It is unique in our area and hopefully a prototype of the future.

The beauty of discussion boards like this is that even if one does not change the mind of the other, others can read the discussions and think for themselves.

 

[MorganT]

MorganT: may I encourage you to remember that there is much diversity in the Churches of Christ? Yes, the vast majority of them are toxic in doctrine, attitude, and demeanor. However, there is a growing trend of Church of Christ Christians and congregations that is revisiting the Bible with seriousness and making some changes.

I was saved in a Baptist church and have no regrets. I am attending the only Church of Christ in my area that I would attend. It is unique in our area and hopefully a prototype of the future.

The beauty of discussion boards like this is that even if one does not change the mind of the other, others can read the discussions and think for themselves.

Thanks for the welcome J Jump. Darron I understand what you are saying my mother is CoC my grand parents were CoC there parents were CoC you get the idea. Here is the thing you say that some CoC are revisiting the Bible I can tell you with certainty around here the CoC's would excommunitcate with those churchs I have seen them do it. There was a couple that was attending my mothers church went forward and asked to join the church, they were refused because the man had been previouly married. They left that church and went to another church 12 miles away and went for a while and asked to join they were accepted however the first church got wind of it and excommunicated with the second church until they would kick them out of church because they were sinners. Im here to tell you we are all sinners and trying to be law makers like the first CoC is WRONG WRONG WRONG. They are placing themselves in the place of GOD its his place to judge us not some congregation or Men. I have heard of some churchs getting music in them and other things however I have heard that they are changing there names.:Fish:

 

[Darron Steele]

Understood MorganT. However, I know my Church of Christ congregation is not acknowledged as legitimate by many in the area. Its leaders do not care. I do not care. Our loyalty is to be to Christ and following His Word -- not what some other church thinks.

Frankly, I care more about having a good testimony among non-Church of Christ Christians than I do most Church of Christ people.

("people" is a replacement-- many of the more active members in many Churches of Christ do not really seem to be Christians because of their demeanor and deeds :tear: ).

 

[MorganT]

Understood MorganT. However, I know my Church of Christ congregation is not acknowledged as legitimate by many in the area. Its leaders do not care. I do not care. Our loyalty is to be to Christ and following His Word -- not what some other church thinks.

Frankly, I care more about having a good testimony among non-Church of Christ Christians than I do most Church of Christ Christians.

I understand Darron and praise God that you are concered about your testimony. I goto a small community church so we have a little of CoC, Baptist, Methodist, Prestyterian's represented. My pastor of one year is Baptist, and I have leaned toward Southern Baptist for 15 yrs. Our pastor prior to him was Prestyterian but we kind of butted heads over predestination and stuff.:Fish: