Churches of Christ

[mman]

mman how can their be one gospel that includes baptism and one gospel that doesn't? Then you say the gospel doesn't even include baptism at all.



So let me ask you this how then were the people in the OT saved? And can you show me Scripture where is says that OT folks will be saved in a different manner and under a different gospel than we are held to today?

You understand the old Testament system don't you?

Lev 16 will tell you about the day of atonement. Blood and water were used.

I've already shown the placement of the laver was between the alter and the holy place. Anyone entering without washing would die. Blood was required.

This did not forgive their sins, only rolled them forward, until the blood of Jesus was shed.

Their washing in the laver, located between the alter and the door of the holy place is typical of our baptism, which is between our sacrifice and our entering into our holy place (Christ and the church).

Their penalty for trying to enter without washing in the laver was death, yet people today are trying to get into Christ without being baptized.

Now again, according to the scriptures, how does one get into Christ?

 

[mman]

Jews were frequently baptized as a symbolic sign of repentence just as we are baptized today as a symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ as well as to follow Christ's example.

I wonder why Christ insisted on being baptized. He had nothing to repent for.

Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15).

According to Acts 2:38, baptism was for the believers who had repented. It was for the forgiveness of sins.

Do you really see "for the forgiveness of sins" as symbolic? The same Greek phase is used in Matt 26:28 that states that Jesus blood was shed for many "for the remission of sins".

For you to be consistent, then Jesus blood that was shed was only symbolic of the "forgiveness of sins".

Is that what you believe?

 

[mman]

Does that mean you believe he died unsaved?

It's a simple question. Long rambling statements were unneeded.

It was written this way for you to make up your own mind on the matter. If your mind is closed, then I can see how the words were wasted on you.

I did answer it directly in a subsequent post.

Let me ask you a question.

Can one be saved outside of Christ?

 

[J. Jump]

You understand the old Testament system don't you?

Lev 16 will tell you about the day of atonement. Blood and water were used.

I've already shown the placement of the laver was between the alter and the holy place. Anyone entering without washing would die. Blood was required.

This did not forgive their sins, only rolled them forward, until the blood of Jesus was shed.

Their washing in the laver, located between the alter and the door of the holy place is typical of our baptism, which is between our sacrifice and our entering into our holy place (Christ and the church).

Their penalty for trying to enter without washing in the laver was death, yet people today are trying to get into Christ without being baptized.

mman this clearly shows your lack of understanding of Scripture. The OT picture of eternal salvation is seen in Exodus 12. If baptism was required for them to be saved then we would see the picture of baptism associated with the death and shed blood. Instead we don't see the picture of baptism until the Red Sea crossing, which gives us the same picture that you keep harping on in Romans 6. Neither of which have to do with eternal salvation, but are after the fact of eternal salvation.

Go back and read the first part of Romans 5 where it talks about us being in right standing with God because of faith. Now why would that say just faith only if one has to be baptized to be saved?

Your tabernacle comparison can also be seen in the footwashing ceremony in the Gospel of John. Peter was told that he was already clean. How could that be? Because he had been washed with the blood (animal sacrifice that pointed to the ultimate Sacrifice), but he needed to be washed from time to time if he wanted to have any part with Christ, not in Christ.

Again it is all so simple if we would allow the Bible to speak for itself instead of trying to be man-made twists onto Scripture.

Here's just another example that baptism is not required for salvation. Adam and Eve were clothed by God and put back into a right standing becuase of what? Death and shed blood. There was no baptism. Abraham was saved because of his faith. Where was the picture of baptism for Abraham?

There are just so many inconsistencies with CoCers. I pray that you will see the Light, but if not at least I think there is enough information given now that folks should not be deceived by your false teachings.

 

[genesis12]

My, my, my. In the OP a question is asked, which is answered right away, then we have over 100 arguments following. How nice.

 

[carpro]

Christ was baptized to fulfill all righteousness (Matt 3:15).

According to Acts 2:38, baptism was for the believers who had repented. It was for the forgiveness of sins.

Do you really see "for the forgiveness of sins" as symbolic? The same Greek phase is used in Matt 26:28 that states that Jesus blood was shed for many "for the remission of sins".

For you to be consistent, then Jesus blood that was shed was only symbolic of the "forgiveness of sins".

Is that what you believe?

Don't be putting words in my mouth.

My position is clear and uncomplicated. Baptism is unnecessary to achieve salvation.

Your entire position is based on one Greek preposition:

The little Greek word "eis" is here translated "for," but is translated in the New Testament in the following ways and number of times: "against" 25, "among" 16, "at" 20, "for" 91, "in" 131, "into" 571, "that" 30, "on" 57, "to" 282, "toward" 32, "unto" 208, and "upon" 25.

Talk about out of context.

BTW

What exactly did Christ mean with his statement in MATT.3:15?

 

[carpro]

It was written this way for you to make up your own mind on the matter. If your mind is closed, then I can see how the words were wasted on you.

I did answer it directly in a subsequent post.

Let me ask you a question.

Can one be saved outside of Christ?

Explain what you mean by "outside of Christ".

 

[mman]

mman this clearly shows your lack of understanding of Scripture. The OT picture of eternal salvation is seen in Exodus 12. If baptism was required for them to be saved then we would see the picture of baptism associated with the death and shed blood. Instead we don't see the picture of baptism until the Red Sea crossing, which gives us the same picture that you keep harping on in Romans 6. Neither of which have to do with eternal salvation, but are after the fact of eternal salvation.

Go back and read the first part of Romans 5 where it talks about us being in right standing with God because of faith. Now why would that say just faith only if one has to be baptized to be saved?

Your tabernacle comparison can also be seen in the footwashing ceremony in the Gospel of John. Peter was told that he was already clean. How could that be? Because he had been washed with the blood (animal sacrifice that pointed to the ultimate Sacrifice), but he needed to be washed from time to time if he wanted to have any part with Christ, not in Christ.

Again it is all so simple if we would allow the Bible to speak for itself instead of trying to be man-made twists onto Scripture.

Here's just another example that baptism is not required for salvation. Adam and Eve were clothed by God and put back into a right standing becuase of what? Death and shed blood. There was no baptism. Abraham was saved because of his faith. Where was the picture of baptism for Abraham?

There are just so many inconsistencies with CoCers. I pray that you will see the Light, but if not at least I think there is enough information given now that folks should not be deceived by your false teachings.

Is that your plan? Ignore everything the New Testament says about baptism because you can't find it under the OLD covenant. I hope your plans works out for you.

A simple study of the tabernacle would show that baptism is typified in the laver. Notice the placement of the laver, between the alter and the holy place.

If Exodus 12 shows when they were saved, why does the bible say it was on the day they were baptized (Ex 14:30).

Notice the wording, "Thus the LORD saved Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians dead on the seashore. What day? The day the crossed the Red Sea. The day the were baptized into Moses (I Cor 10:1-2).

They were in bondage. That what kept them in bondage died in the water (Ex 14), every one of them. They were baptized into the deliverer and lawgiver of their day (I Cor 10:1-2).

We are baptized into the deliverer and lawgiver of our day, Jesus Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27). Sin, which we are in bondage to, dies in the water and is washed away (Rom 6:3-6, Acts 22:16). We then become free from sin (Rom 6:6).

I've already addressed all this previously.

Now why do you continue to refuse to answer my simple question?

How does one get into Christ?

 

[mman]

Don't be putting words in my mouth.

My position is clear and uncomplicated. Baptism is unnecessary to achieve salvation.

Your entire position is based on one Greek preposition:

The little Greek word "eis" is here translated "for," but is translated in the New Testament in the following ways and number of times: "against" 25, "among" 16, "at" 20, "for" 91, "in" 131, "into" 571, "that" 30, "on" 57, "to" 282, "toward" 32, "unto" 208, and "upon" 25.

Talk about out of context.

BTW

What exactly did Christ mean with his statement in MATT.3:15?

Where did I put words in your mouth?

I was not talking about the single word "eis" but the phrase, " eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins. Is this term ever used when not associated with immersion? Yes. From this, we can determine its exact meaning. It happens to occur only once, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. In Matt 26:28, Jesus state, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion.

It is impossible to misunderstand the meaning here is in order to obtain the remission of sins. Here, it shows the object for which something is to be done; in Acts 2:38, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done.

The grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same.

 

[mman]

Explain what you mean by "outside of Christ".

When you read the words, "in Christ", do you understand that phrase? By outside of Christ, I mean everything (including people) that is not "in Christ".

In Christ are all spiritual blessings, therefore, outside of Christ there are no spiritual blessings.

Here is a rephrasing of the question since the other one was confusing.

According to the scriptures, how does one get INTO Christ?

 

[J. Jump]

mman the fact of the matter is that if you can find a doctrine in the NT you will be able to find it in the OT. You can not find baptism being tied to eternal salvation in the OT. Your example is all after the picture of salvation that is because baptism is not tied to eternal salvation. It is that plain and that simple, but you choose to ignore it.

Again there is always hope that you will see the Light as I have a brother in Christ that grew up CoC, but saw the CoC teachings for what they are - false. And he has been basically disowned by a great number of his "family" members.

So there is hope for you!

Again you just show that because a passage has a key word in it it must mean what you want it to mean. Just because saved was used in your OT Scripture you automatically assume it is speaking of eternal salvation, but it's not. That picture was already given in Exodus 12.

Sin still has to be dealt with after one's eternal salvation, because one continues to sin. And dealing with sin after one's eternal salvation is in regard to obedience, which is in regard to the salvation of the soul.

But I've explained this to you over and over and over and over and over and over (you get the picture). You have been led to the water, but if you don't want to drink it up that's up to you. No need to go any further with you, but at least people have enough information to see through the false teachings of the CoC. I hope they will stay away, but I'm sure you all will continue suck some in

 

[Linda64]

CHURCHES OF CHRIST

The Churches of Christ, Disciples of Christ, and Christian Church are groups of churches which grew out of the early 19th century Restoration Movement on the American frontier. Key leaders were Barton Stone, Thomas and Alexander Campbell (hence the term "Campbellites"), and Walter Scott, all from Presbyterian backgrounds. These men claimed the desire to restore the church to its N.T. purity. These movements were first independent of one another, later combined, then divided again in the 20th century.

Alexander Campbell was noted for his abilities in debating. He loved to argue and even boasted that an hour of debating was more profitable than an entire day of preaching. Sadly, this proud, argumentive spirit has often been evident among Church of Christ leaders.

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) was organized nationally in 1968 with headquarters in Dallas, Texas, and has become very ecumenical and modernistic. It is represented in the National and World Council of Churches.

Though there have been differences among Church of Christ congregations concerning things such as the role of elders in the churches, the formation of denominational structures, and whether or not musical instruments should be used in the services, some key distinctives are as follows:

(1) Salvation is by faith plus good works.

(2) Water baptism is an essential means of salvation (baptismal regeneration).

(3) The Churches of Christ are the only true churches today.

(4) Christians should not be called by names other than "Church of Christ," "Disciples," or "Christian."

(5) A Christian can lose his salvation.

These doctrines are contrary to the teaching of the N.T.; therefore, the Churches of Christ must be avoided in obedience to Ro 16:17-18

Way of Life Encyclopedia

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16:18)

 

[carpro]

Where did I put words in your mouth?

I was not talking about the single word "eis" but the phrase, " eis aphesin hamartion, for the remission of sins. Is this term ever used when not associated with immersion? Yes. From this, we can determine its exact meaning. It happens to occur only once, but no number of occurrences could more definitely fix its meaning. In Matt 26:28, Jesus state, "This is my blood of the new covenant, shed for many for the remission of sins," eis aphesin hamartion.

It is impossible to misunderstand the meaning here is in order to obtain the remission of sins. Here, it shows the object for which something is to be done; in Acts 2:38, it expresses the object for which something is commanded to be done.

The grammatical and logical construction is the same in both cases, and, therefore, the meaning is the same.

It is possible to misunderstand. You are proof that it is. Your entire position is based on the word "for".

I repeat:

The little Greek word "eis" is here translated "for," but is translated in the New Testament in the following ways and number of times: "against" 25, "among" 16, "at" 20, "for" 91, "in" 131, "into" 571, "that" 30, "on" 57, "to" 282, "toward" 32, "unto" 208, and "upon" 25.

BTW

The soldier is definitely saved. That fits the character and message of our saviour.

Many of your brothers in the CoC will see perdition because they depended on the saving power of water for their salvation. It's really kinda sad.

 

[Hope of Glory]

When the children of Israel left Egypt, they were already in the promised land (saved) according to Genesis 15:18. Then they were baptized (passed through the Red Sea), on their journey through the wilderness to the Land Flowing with Milk and Honey (a picture of the Kingdom), which was the better part of their inheritance.

 

[bmerr]

That's not the message preached in Acts 2. The message preached in Acts 2 is a kingdom message. They didn't ask the question what shall we do to be saved. They asked what shall we do. The question was in context of them having just killed their King. What shall we do to right this wrong.

J. Jump,

bmerr here. You don't think they were asking what to do to be saved? Look at the context, man! What else would they be asking? "What shall we do for lunch?" "What shall we do about tomorrow's wardrobe?"

They had just been told that they had killed the Messiah, the One Who was to save them. The wrong they needed to right was that they had killed the Son of God. Of course they were asking what to do to be saved!

Peter had already brought up the topic of salvation in his sermon (2:21), "...whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved."

In verse 37, these men, convinced of their sin, and cognizant of their guilt, having killed the Son of God, imply that they do not know how to call upon the name of the Lord so they can be saved. But Peter tells them how, by saying, "...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."

You're making this WAY harder than it has to be.

Now let me ask you a question. Would Paul have been saved if he would have died during one of those three days before he got baptized? Because he didn't get baptized right away.

No, he would not have been saved. Back in Acts 9:6, Paul asks the same question the Pentecostians and the Phillipian jailer asked, "...Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?.." Jesus told him, "...Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do."

As of the arrival of Ananias, Paul had not been told what he must do, had he? No, he hadn't. But Ananias told him, didn't he? Yes, he did. We can read what Paul was told he must do if we turn to Acts 22:16. If we will do that , we will read that Ananias told Paul to, "...Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

That was what Paul was told he must do to be saved, and it is what every other convert in the Scriptures was told they must do to be saved, and it is what every other accountable person under the NT of Jesus Christ must do to be saved.

Just briefly, to fend off any ideas of a contradiction between this and Eph 2:8-9, (which is probably the most widely misused text in the Bible), let's see what the Bible tells us about the grace of God.

In Titus 2:11-12, we read, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world..."

This is the only text that I know of, which describes the grace of God. There may be others, but I'm only aware of this one. Here we find that the work, or purpose of God's grace is (at least in part) to teach us to turn from worldliness, and live righteously. In a word, grace teaches us to repent.

So, we are saved by grace, when we respond to it in faith, not by following our own plan, but by obeying God's plan, not by works of merit or law, lest any man should say he earned his salvation.

That is what is recorded for us in each and every account of conversion in the book of Acts. That is the pattern God has left us. Let us be content to follow His Divine pattern.

Consistency through and through.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[bmerr]

J.Jump,

bmerr here. I may be wrong, but I believe you have caught yourself in a contradiction of your own.

You cite Acts 16:30-31, claiming that "NBEDIENCE" was required, and yet Paul commanded the jailer to "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved..."

If salvation of any kind (since you indicate there are different kinds of salvation) were by faith only, apart from any obedience, would the jailer be saved without obeying the command to believe? Get back to me...

In Christ,

bmerr

J. Jump,

bmerr here. Still wating for an answer for this one.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[mman]

When the children of Israel left Egypt, they were already in the promised land (saved) according to Genesis 15:18. Then they were baptized (passed through the Red Sea), on their journey through the wilderness to the Land Flowing with Milk and Honey (a picture of the Kingdom), which was the better part of their inheritance.

The Lord had given them much land, but they did not obtain it because of their unbelief/disobedience.

The parallels of the Red Sea crossing and baptism are remarkable, as shown in the scriptures.

1) They were baptized into Moses, their deliverer (I Cor 10:1-2)
2) We are baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:27)

1) That to which they were once in bondage died in the water (Ex 14)
2) We were once slaves to sin and the old man of sin dies in baptism (Rom 6)

1) It came after the blood sacrifice (Ex 12)
2) It came after the blood sacrifice (Matt 26:28, Acts 2:38)

1) God saved Israel that day (Ex 14:30)
2) God saves us that day (I Pet 3:21)

Of course some do not understand types and shadows. Of course they were physically in bondage, we are in spiritual bondage.

Their captors physically died in the water.
Our captors spiritually die in the water.

Thiers was from the blood of an animal and ours was an eternal sacrifice with the blood of the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

Theirs was a physical saving ours is a spiritual saving.

In types and shadows there is alway a progression from the lesser to the greater, the physical to the spiritual, the earthly to the heavenly.

Sure, all this helps us understand that baptism has always been part of God's eteranal plan. Even without these examples, we still have the plain words of Jesus.

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned" - Mark 16:16

Even without any Old Testament understanding, this verse is so plain that one would have to have help to misunderstand it.

For anyone wanting help to misunderstand it, there are plenty of people on this board to help you.

We will never be able to see the bible alike, as God has commanded, until we start taking the bible for what it says. IF IT DOESN'T MEAN WHAT IT SAYS, THEN NEITHER YOU NOR I CAN UNDERSTAND IT, AND WE WILL NEVER BE IN AGREEMENT.

Now when Jesus said to go preach the good news to all men and, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved"

Did he mean:
1) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved?
2) He that believeth shall be saved?
3) He that is baptized shall be saved?
4) He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized?

At one time or another, I have seen all these answers. For us to see the bible alike, the one and only correct answer has to be 1) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.

 

[mman]

It is possible to misunderstand. You are proof that it is. Your entire position is based on the word "for".

I repeat:

The little Greek word "eis" is here translated "for," but is translated in the New Testament in the following ways and number of times: "against" 25, "among" 16, "at" 20, "for" 91, "in" 131, "into" 571, "that" 30, "on" 57, "to" 282, "toward" 32, "unto" 208, and "upon" 25.

BTW

The soldier is definitely saved. That fits the character and message of our saviour.

Many of your brothers in the CoC will see perdition because they depended on the saving power of water for their salvation. It's really kinda sad.

Wow, you think someone can not believe and still be saved, based on their character.

What about the plain passages:

"I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." - John 8:24

"but whoever does not believe is condemned already" - John 3:18

II Thess 1:8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

Rom 10:14-17, But how are they to call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!" But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?" So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

Heb 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who seek Him.

That's just a few of the verses. These verses do harm to your position.

And as for "eis" it is never one time translated as "because" or "because of".

What in the context leads you to believe that the phrase has a different meaning in Matt 26:28 than it does in Acts 2:38?

 

[carpro]

Wow, you think someone can not believe and still be saved, based on their character.

I said no such thing.

If your position was based on firmer footing, you wouldn't need to twist the words of others so often.

The bedrock of your false position is based on one translation of the Greek word "eis". Here's another.


Acts 2:38 (American Standard Version)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Copyright © 1901 Public Domain

38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

and another

Acts 2:38 (Wycliffe New Testament)
Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
2001 by Terrence P. Noble,

38 And Peter said to them, Do ye penance [Penance, he said, do ye], and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, into remission of your sins; and ye shall take the gift of the Holy Ghost.

and another

Acts 2:38 (Young's Literal Translation)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Public Domain

38and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,

 

[Eric B]

Once again, the position of grace being instruction for works does not address the fact that under the Old Covenant they had plenty of instructions given by God, yet they were still not justified, because noone could perform or follow the instructions perfectly. What do you think the problem was? Simply the wrong instructions or something (Circumcision instead of baptism)? We are not saved BY denying ungodly lusts and stuff like that, because each of us still fails at it at least sometime, and if you just throw in the Holy Spirit, he still does not perfect anyone instantly.

"Instructions" are NOT 'grace', for they NEVER save, but ONLY condemn. Denying Godly lusts is apart of the Christian life for those already saved by grace; not the grace itself that makes us saved after we come to Christ. You all may have a few scriptures that appear to "clearly" teach your view, but you have to completely wrench the meaning of words like grace to make them fit other scriptures. That is why with all your emphasis on your 'clear' proof texts on baptism, your dosctrine still fails. There must be something else you're missing.

And you all think someone will be lost just because they didn't make it to a baptismal pool, even if they intended to (perhaps even made to wait by the Church). So at the Great White Throne, they are cast into Hell, not for rejecting Christ, but because they weren't covered by the blood because of a physical "washing" ceremony, which you claim doesn't literally "wash" anything, and really has any power in itself, yet a person is lost for not having it? You all really need to think about that. Salvation (covering with the blood) is a spiritual transaction, and you have made it purely physical, fleshy, like the literal sprinkling with blood in the original Passover, which was but a SHADOW.