Churches of Christ

[J. Jump]

No, that is not required.

Just another way that people can tell that your teachings are FALSE.

If baptism is required for salvation and a person is not saved, then the only logical conclusion is that they must be baptized in order to be saved, but out of convenience you say oh now if they were saved then unsaved suddenly they only need to repent and pray.

I can't see how in the world people are so gulable to fall for such errant doctrines.

However in all my dealings with CoCers (and that has been quite a bit) I have to admit that you are the first person that has ever used Scripture to try to prove that point. Most just say no it's not necessary.

Sad. That's about all I can say is terribly sad.

 

[Eric B]

OK, let's go with your plan. When we stand before Jesus, let's present our case. Jesus, I know you said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but you didn't really mean it, did you? Paul later says we are saved by grace through faith, so that can't include baptism can it? Baptism is a work, something physical, so it can't play any part in salvation, can it? You really meant to say, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized, right? Jesus, I just couldn't figure out how you could use something physical to accomplish something spiritual, so I rejected that I had to be baptized to be saved, was I right? I know that seems to be in direct conflict with your statement, but I had it all worked out in my mind. I know that every single example of conversion contained in scriptures has the person being baptized immediatley upon receiving the instructions for water baptism, but it can't be that important can it?

I know all these verses are in the bible, but they can't mean what they say, can they?

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved (Mark 16:16).
Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)
Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins (Acts 22:16)
baptized into Christ (Rom 6:3-4, Gal 3:26-27)
Baptism now saves us (I Pet 3:21)
One baptism (Eph 4:5)

What reaction would you expect from Jesus? You know, my statement "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved " could be rather confusing. Someone might get the order wrong and think I said, "He that believeth and is saved shall be baptized" or they might not can figure out how baptism plays a role in salvation. You know what, I like your way better, come on in.............

Has God ever been ok with any man who refused to obey or with anyone who changed God's instructions because they could not figure out why God said what He did?

Jesus said, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be condemned".

Either you accept this by faith, or you find a "reason" to reject it. It doesn't need to be explained since even a third grader can understand it.

I accept it.

I don't need rationale why not to believe it.

Problem with that scenario is, once again; I have been baptized. And no one here is telling anyone not to get baptized because it is not needed. However, all those esamples of the people being "baptized immediately" still do not equal baptism being what actually saved.
The one who'll have explaining to do is your side, which believes baptism is what itself saves, yet as was finally admitted, you will make someone who receives Christ wait until you are sure they believe all the truth (according to you) before you baptize them.

And like all cultists, and even some control-mongers operating within "orthodox Christianity", you try to trash "understanding" in favor of "just have faith". Yet you keep claiming it is "so easy a third grader could understand it". So "understanding" is good when convenient for you. But we're not to 'just have faith' anytime someone comes to us with some teaching and a pile of proof-texts. A lot of other groups have arguments on other issues that are just as clever as yours, and some even moreso. The problem in this instance is that you have confused the concept of spiritual "washing", and the resultant teaching destroys the coherence of scriptural teaching on redemption. That needs to be challenged, not 'just accepted'. And the issue is not HOW God can accomplish spiritual things through physical means. We have seen it all throughout the OT. But the principle of the NT is the spirit, not the flesh, and any physical means retained are used as symbols of spiritual things; NOT the spiritual realities themselves.

No, we must rightly divide the Word of God. Anyone can throw around a bunch of proof-texts, and then when they are interptreted in a way that contradicts other scriptures, then pitch "don't try to understand it, just believe it". Sorry, but people here aren't that dumb.

 

[bmerr]

FALSE...but you would have to hold to that view in order to make your theology work. Sad. Just sad.



The first part of that is true, not exactly true on the second part.

Paul tells those Christians that they were saved in the past by grace through faith which is not of themselves, but a gift of God lest any man should boast.

That was a reminder for them, but a teacher for anyone in the future. They were saved the same way we are saved. And for that matter anyone past, present or future that is saved eternally that will be how they are saved.

JJump,

bmerr here. It might be news to you, but not everything that can be learned about the Ephesians is in the epistle that bears their name. These people were told by Paul, in one of the most abused texts in the
Bible, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast".

It's helpful to put oneself in the place of the first readers of the books of the Bible. So, if I were part of the church of Christ at Ephesus, and I read the words referred to above, what would have come to my mind? Let's turn to Acts 19...

We find in the first verse, Paul coming to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples. He asks if they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed, and they say they haven't heard of the Holy Ghost. Paul, perhaps a bit confused, asks, "Unto what then were ye baptized? They reply, "Unto John's baptism".

Ah, now Paul understands the situation, and he explains that John wanted people to believe on "him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus."

Right off, let's notice the fact that the church at Ephesus would have recalled their baptism in the name (by the authority) of the Lord Jesus. This came after hearing God's word, of course.

Skipping over to around 19:17, we see that the result of the seven "vagabond jews" being beat down by the demon-possessed man (19:13-16) was that many "that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds", and set fire to around 50,000 silver worth of magic books. I'd say this qualifies as repentance.

So what have we got? Hearing God's word, belief, repentance, confession, and baptism. Man, that sounds familiar!

FALSE again. You don't get to make up your own definitions of what believe means. The direct question was asked what must I do to be saved? And the direct answer was given immediately and I'm sorry for you and others like you, but believe was the only answer. I know that totally destroys your teachings, but let's just let the Bible say what the Bible says and we'll all be in much better shape.

And taking the verse in context destroys your false teaching.

But let's consider the answer directly given to the jailer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house."

What was the jailer to believe about the Lord Jesus Christ? Did he know about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ yet? Had he ever heard of Jesus or His glorious gospel before? What evidence can we find in the text, (you know, the words) that might indicate what the jailer knew at this point?

The first time we find reference to the Phillipian jailer (PJ), is in Acts 16:23, where Paul and Silas have been beaten, and PJ has been given charge of them. Paul and Silas had been taken into custody for casting a spirit of divination out of a woman who had been following them around crying, "These men are servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation" (16:17-19). The text says that PJ "...thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks" (16:24).

The next time we have reference to PJ is in 16:27, where he is being awakened out of sleep by the earthquake which shook the foundations of the prison, and loosed everyone's bonds, after Paul and Silas had been singing and praying. So what had PJ been doing while Paul and Silas were praying and singing, class? SLEEPING.

This brings us to the part where you seem to stop reading. Near as I can tell, Paul had not spoken to PJ yet at this point. But somehow PJ knew that Paul and Silas could tell him how to be saved. Hmm. What was it the demon-possessed woman had been saying earlier? Wasn't it something about the "way of salvation"? Yes, I believe it was.

Gee, do you think this might explain PJ's question? I mean, if he had already heard the gospel, he would have already known what to do to be saved, right? He could have just come to Paul, confessed his faith in Christ as the Son of God, and requested baptism. But he hadn't heard the gospel yet, and so in the very next verse, which you don't seem to think is in the same context, Paul and Silas "spake unto him the word of the Lord. And in the next verse, PJ is baptized, but you don't think that verse is in context, either. But mman and I are stuck in our "hand-me-down" views...

Another key word in your writing is obey. If you have to obey anything other than having faith in Christ's works done on your behalf then you are violating clear teaching of Scripture, but that has been shown to you time and time and time and time again.

Heb 5:9 - And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

If you DO anything and tie it to Scripture that makes it wages not grace. Why does that not register?

Because it's false teaching, that's why. Believing on Christ is tied to Scripture, and it's something man must do, and Jesus called it a work (John 6:28-29). So now it's wages?

Nope because what I say is of no value.

Finally, something we can all agree on!

Just believe the simple teaching of Scripture and you'll be fine. NO WORKS means exactly what it says NO WORKS.

But it doesn't say "no works". It says not of works, lest any man should boast". Works of which one could boast, like works of merit, or keeping the Mosaic Law is what Paul speaks of here. Obedience to the NT falls under neither of these categories. Remember Heb 5:8-9?

If by grace then by grace, but if by wages then it is no longer grace. It really is that plain and that simple. Context is king.

Straight from the "king of context"...

mman why do I have to repeat myself? I have told you several times that it means exactly what it says. It means He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned.

You just assign an improper context saying that the passage is speaking of eternal salvation when it is not speaking of eternal salvation.

It is in the context of the Great Commission. The kingdom is already here. Paul was in it (Col 1:13). What "kingdom" are you waiting for?

Once again it really is that plain and it really is that simple. You just need to quit trying to make a simple message complicated.

It's not like we're making a difference in soul salvation and eternal salvation, or anything, or waiting for a kingdom that has been in existence for nearly 2000 years, or only reading so far in passages of Scripture to maintain them...

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

bmerr and here I actually thought you wanted to take an honest look at Scripture. You were just pulling my leg I guess.

Acts 16 - IF baptism is required for salvation don't you think the Holy Spirit is smart enough that He would have had these men say believe and be baptized when the direct question is asked and then a direct answer is given.

You make a mockery of Scripture with your views. We know he answered the question believe, but that's really not what he meant. What he meant is found a couple of verses later.

Sorry, but he meant what he said and he said what he meant and guess what baptism to your dismay is not a part of the answer. It really is that plain and it really is that simple.

It might be news to you, but not everything that can be learned about the Ephesians is in the epistle that bears their name.

Wow...what a shocker...I didn't know that.

Did you know that this letter probably wasn't even addressed to the Ephesians in the first place. The most reliable manuscripts don't even have it addressed to the Ephesians. It was a circulatory letter, regardless of whether it was addressed to the Ephesians or not, so your diatribe holds no water either way.

And taking the verse in context destroys your false teaching.

Not hardly, but if you want to continue seeing things they way you see them, which you obviously do, then by all means have at it. But you will have to answer one day why you made a mockery of Scripture.

Heb 5:9 - And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.

You, as most of Christendom, make the mistake and associate Hebrews with eternal salvation. Hebrews is not speaking of eternal salvation. How can we know that? Because look at your bolded words "obey him."

It doesn't matter whether or not you think obedience is meritorious or not it is. That's what the Bible says so it's trumps what every bmerr says.

Eternal salvation is based SOLELY on the works of Christ and what He did in our stead. If anything else comes into play then there is room for boasting.

If baptism is required then I can pat myself on the back because I got of my tush and went down into the water and got dunked. Yeah me. I am so special. See that's why baptism is not required, because it gives me room to boast.

Because it's false teaching

Really . . . 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness

Man if you are going to say that is false teaching you are going to have a wipe out a HUGE chunk of the NT because the false teacher Paul penned an awful lot of it. Wonder why verse 5 doesn't say anything about baptism being a part of making one righteous, which means right standing with God.

Believing on Christ is tied to Scripture, and it's something man must do, and Jesus called it a work (John 6:28-29). So now it's wages?

If you would keep things in context you would know this passage of Scripture is not talking about eternal salvation.

Believing in Christ's death and shed blood in our stead is not a work. Therefore we are due nothing, because it it was a work Paul tells us we are getting what we are due and that's not grace.

Remember Heb 5:8-9?

I certainly do and I'll tell you again that you are taking it out of context and therefore destroying the meaning just so that you don't have to say wow I made a mistake and my church really isn't teaching the truth.

I know from personal experience that is a hard thing to do, but we must stand by the Bible regardless if our church is in error or not.

The kingdom is already here.

Sorry but if you think this is what the world is supposed to be like with Christ at the helm you got serious problems. The Bible says that when Christ is in charge He will rule the nations with a rod of iron. That's not happening today. The nations are doing whatever it is that they want to do.

The kingdom is here in the sense that earth is the kingdom, but Christ has not assumed the throne and that is what we are waiting on to be a part of His kingdom when He assumes rule and reign. That will happen in the future.

It's not like we're making a difference in soul salvation and eternal salvation

No you are not and that is one of the biggest mistakes you are making unfortunately.

waiting for a kingdom that has been in existence for nearly 2000 years

Actually the earth has been around for several thousands of years. Some say billions, some say 10,000 some say close to 6,000, but it sure has been around longer than 2,000.

 

[bmerr]

bmerr and here I actually thought you wanted to take an honest look at Scripture. You were just pulling my leg I guess.

Acts 16 - IF baptism is required for salvation don't you think the Holy Spirit is smart enough that He would have had these men say believe and be baptized when the direct question is asked and then a direct answer is given.

You make a mockery of Scripture with your views. We know he answered the question believe, but that's really not what he meant. What he meant is found a couple of verses later.

Sorry, but he meant what he said and he said what he meant and guess what baptism to your dismay is not a part of the answer. It really is that plain and it really is that simple.

JJump,

bmerr here. Why then, was PJ baptized?

Wow...what a shocker...I didn't know that.

Did you know that this letter probably wasn't even addressed to the Ephesians in the first place. The most reliable manuscripts don't even have it addressed to the Ephesians. It was a circulatory letter, regardless of whether it was addressed to the Ephesians or not, so your diatribe holds no water either way.

Eph 1:1 - Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus"

Nah, this probably wasn't written to the church at Ephesus. Of course it was a circulatory letter! Most were. Some even contained specific instructions to pass them on, and to receive letters that had been sent to other churches (Col 4:16, for example).

You, as most of Christendom, make the mistake and associate Hebrews with eternal salvation. Hebrews is not speaking of eternal salvation. How can we know that? Because look at your bolded words "obey him."

Heb 5:8-9 - Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them which obey him.

Yeah, Hebrews couldn't possibly be talking about eternal salvation, 'cause if it was, it would say eternal salvation...

It doesn't matter whether or not you think obedience is meritorious or not it is. That's what the Bible says so it's trumps what every bmerr says.

Rom 1:5 - By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name

Rom 16:26 - But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith

Seems like Paul spoke of obedience, too.

Eternal salvation is based SOLELY on the works of Christ and what He did in our stead. If anything else comes into play then there is room for boasting.

Why then, are all men not saved?

If baptism is required then I can pat myself on the back because I got of my tush and went down into the water and got dunked. Yeah me. I am so special. See that's why baptism is not required, because it gives me room to boast.

In the NT, there is not one example of a believer in Christ who was not baptized. Why do you suppose there is no record of anyone boasting of their having been baptized? Because it's not something one could boast of.

Really . . . 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness

Man if you are going to say that is false teaching you are going to have a wipe out a HUGE chunk of the NT because the false teacher Paul penned an awful lot of it. Wonder why verse 5 doesn't say anything about baptism being a part of making one righteous, which means right standing with God.

It could be for the fact that Paul was speaking of Abraham, who was not commanded to be baptized. In fact, Abraham was not even under the Mosaic law, (by which the Jews were trying to be justified), when he was declared righteous by God. That's the point Paul is making. Abraham was righteous without the Law of Moses.

On the flip side of the argument, James uses Abraham to demonstrate that Abraham was not justified by faith only, but by his works which were the evidence of his faith.

If you would keep things in context you would know this passage of Scripture is not talking about eternal salvation.

And, if you kept things in the context of the bible, you would not be speaking this nonsense about soul/eternal salvation.

Believing in Christ's death and shed blood in our stead is not a work. Therefore we are due nothing, because it it was a work Paul tells us we are getting what we are due and that's not grace.

Jesus said that to believe in the one that God had sent was the work of God that people were to do. You say believeing is not a work. I'm going to believe Jesus.

I certainly do and I'll tell you again that you are taking it out of context and therefore destroying the meaning just so that you don't have to say wow I made a mistake and my church really isn't teaching the truth.

I know from personal experience that is a hard thing to do, but we must stand by the Bible regardless if our church is in error or not.

I also know how hard it is to recognize and speak out against false teaching in one's congregation. Why do you think I left the Baptist church?

Sorry but if you think this is what the world is supposed to be like with Christ at the helm you got serious problems. The Bible says that when Christ is in charge He will rule the nations with a rod of iron. That's not happening today. The nations are doing whatever it is that they want to do.

Jesus said His kingdom was "not of this world" (John 18:36). He also said he would build His church, and then told Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom. Wouldn't make much sense to build one thing, and give the apostles the keys to something else.

The church is the kingdom. In the kingdom of Christ, Christ does, in fact, rule.

The kingdom is here in the sense that earth is the kingdom, but Christ has not assumed the throne and that is what we are waiting on to be a part of His kingdom when He assumes rule and reign. That will happen in the future.

No, it won't. Christ will NEVER reign the earth from a throne in Jerusalem. His kingdom is "not of this world".

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

Why then, was PJ baptized?

Once again you act as though people that don't believe like you think people are not supposed to be baptized. No one, including myself, has ever said that. We are commanded to be baptized and there are consequences if we are not obedient. It's just not tied to eternal salvation like you want it to be.

He was baptized because we are supposed to be baptized.

Eph 1:1 - Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus"

Nah, this probably wasn't written to the church at Ephesus. Of course it was a circulatory letter! Most were. Some even contained specific instructions to pass them on, and to receive letters that had been sent to other churches (Col 4:16, for example).

And if you would have read my response you would know that some of the earliest manuscripts do not have the phrase "the saints which are at Ephesus," contained in it.

But regardless if it was sent to the Ephesians it was sent as a circulatory letter which meant the truth contained in the letter was for everyone, so you analysis of who the Ephesians were and all that other stuff still doesn't hold water. It is plainly just more of your nonsense of trying to make a man-made theology that you have unfortunately learn to try stick together despite CLEAR Biblical teaching to the contrary.

Yeah, Hebrews couldn't possibly be talking about eternal salvation, 'cause if it was, it would say eternal salvation...

And if you would go back to the original language you would understand that the word used is aionios, which is the adjective form of the Greek word aion, which means "age." Unless the word is used in conjunction with Deity is should be translated age-lasting, because it is an adjective of aion.

If the translators would have translated it correctly there would be a lot less confusion today, but unfortunately their unBiblical doctrinal views made it into the translation.

The Greek and Hebrew languages don't have a word for eternal. That's why most of the time if they were trying to relate something that was eternal they would use the plural form of aionios or use the word twice translated the ages of ages.

Paul spoke of obedience

Sure he did just not in the context of eternal salvation, because that's not what is in view, unless you want to talk about obedience to have faith or believe. Outside of that it's not dealing with eternal salvation.

Why then, are all men not saved?

Simply because not all men believe that Christ lived a perfect life in order to become the perfect Sacrifice and that He did in fact shed His blood and die in their place.

If they would believe that they would be saved.

In the NT, there is not one example of a believer in Christ who was not baptized. Why do you suppose there is no record of anyone boasting of their having been baptized? Because it's not something one could boast of.

Wow that must have been an amazing feat for the theif on the cross.

Just because you say that it's not something that one can boast about doesn't make it so. We never have an account of Abraham boasting about his works before God, but Paul said he could have.

Just because there is no account of anyone doing it doesn't mean it is not possible.

It could be for the fact that Paul was speaking of Abraham, who was not commanded to be baptized. In fact, Abraham was not even under the Mosaic law, (by which the Jews were trying to be justified), when he was declared righteous by God. That's the point Paul is making. Abraham was righteous without the Law of Moses.

On the flip side of the argument, James uses Abraham to demonstrate that Abraham was not justified by faith only, but by his works which were the evidence of his faith.

Yeah you just keep twisting Scripture to make your point. By the way James is talking about the salvation of the soul not eternal salvation.

And, if you kept things in the context of the bible, you would not be speaking this nonsense about soul/eternal salvation.

Well that's exactly what the Bible speaks of so I will continue to believe it and teach it.

Jesus said that to believe in the one that God had sent was the work of God that people were to do. You say believeing is not a work. I'm going to believe Jesus.

Well again there is several problems with your use of this passage. One the context is not eternal salvation. In order to be saved we are to believe on Christ's finished works at Calvary not believe in the One Who sent Him as this passage is asking the Jews (who were already saved by the way) to do.

And because this passage is not speaking of eternal salvation you tying it to Ephesians 2:8-9 is incorrectly handling Scripture, but that is not surprise, because that is what you all do.

I do not say believing is not a work, I say believing in the context of which you speak is not a work. Believing unto eternal salvation is not a work. Jesus never said it was.

I also know how hard it is to recognize and speak out against false teaching in one's congregation. Why do you think I left the Baptist church?

Not that the Baptist churches in America have a cornered market on the Truth, but you left a Baptist church for a Church of Christ. Wow...that's even more sad.

The church is the kingdom

Once again just proving that you are mishandling Scripture. Why do you think the Bible talks about Christ assuming the throne of His father David if He is not going to rule a physical kingdom on this earth?

Your going to have to use some scissors quite a bit to cut out all the prophecies that speak directly in opposition to Christ not ruling a kingdom on the earth.

Christ will NEVER reign the earth from a throne in Jerusalem

Do you need the chapter and verse references that show you are incorrect?

 

[Eric B]

Rom 1:5 - By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name

Rom 16:26 - But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith

Seems like Paul spoke of obedience, too.

Both you and the lawkeepers have been tossing around this term "obey the Gospel"/"obedience" lately, to try to prove that "faith" really is in practice works, but on a hunch; I just looked it up, and it is translated from any of three different words, 5218 hupakoe--both examples quoted above, 5219 hupakuo, 3982, peitho, and 544 apeitho--obey not; which basically are closer in meaning to "be convinced", "agree", "hearken", "compliance" and even "believe", and are even translated as such in other places!
We all should have pulled this card of you alls along time ago, but now just realize that you are basing your argument on your understanding of an English translation.

On the flip side of the argument, James uses Abraham to demonstrate that Abraham was not justified by faith only, but by his works which were the evidence of his faith.

I don't know about Jump's doctrine of "eternal salvation" yet, but he has a point on this one, and I have pointed this out even before hearing of his interpretation:

The contexts are completely different! The word "justification", just as we use it today, does not refer exclusively to salvation! Any act we do we can be "justified" in or not justified, and it has nothing to do with our standing before God. Paul is the one dealing with salvation. James is not talking about salvation, for Abraham and Rahab were not saved because of their acts! Their acts "justified" them in that they are now looked upon as faithful saints, depsite their sins. "justification" unto salvation could ONLY have been through Christ; not their works in addition to Christ. Else, if you don't recognize the different contexts, it looks like James is not only contradicting, but also directly answering/opposing Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3! James is writing to Jewish Christians, who generally still have problems trusting in the letter of the Law, yet are lacking in certain works, which they probably thought uneccesary; not realizing that "having respect of persons" due to class (the sole context of the chapter) is just as much sin, that violates the spirit of the Law. Notice, that he speaks of "keeping the whole Law and offending in one point" (v.10,11). These are people trusting in "the works of the Law", but thinking "faith" alone excuses them from areas in which they fail. That actually becomes close to the error of legalists today who use the verses to teach that we are saved by "trying harder", and that "faith" covers us when we fail. But what James is really, ultimately saying here is what Paul told the Galatians: "For as many as are under the works of the Law are under a curse: for it is written 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things wich are written in the book of the Law'"(3:10)"...a debtor to do the whole Law! Christ is of no effect unto you whoseover are justified by the Law, for you are fallen from grace!"(5:3,4).

Jesus said that to believe in the one that God had sent was the work of God that people were to do. You say believeing is not a work. I'm going to believe Jesus.

You're saying the same thing as the Calvinists who use the argument to prove that God must enable the believing for the person.
However, they do have a point that as a "work", it is credied to God. God is the one who enables us to believe (whether it is all, potentially, or only those who do believe). That is nothing like the work of baptism where you have to GET UP, go somewhere, and get into a pool. On one hand, you all try to deny that baptism is a work; it is faith, yet now you are saying that belief is a work. (Make up your minds).

Jesus said His kingdom was "not of this world" (John 18:36). He also said he would build His church, and then told Peter that he would be given the keys to the kingdom. Wouldn't make much sense to build one thing, and give the apostles the keys to something else.

The church is the kingdom. In the kingdom of Christ, Christ does, in fact, rule.

No, it won't. Christ will NEVER reign the earth from a throne in Jerusalem. His kingdom is "not of this world".

In Christ,

bmerr

So you don't believe in a Second Coming? I thought you said you did, and denied preterism (the doctrine that Christ's coming was a spiritual one in the past). I know some Campbellistic Christians are futuristic, and others preteristic, but I thought you denied that.

 

[bmerr]

Both you and the lawkeepers have been tossing around this term "obey the Gospel"/"obedience" lately, to try to prove that "faith" really is in practice works, but on a hunch; I just looked it up, and it is translated from any of three different words, 5218 hupakoe--both examples quoted above, 5219 hupakuo, 3982, peitho, and 544 apeitho--obey not; which basically are closer in meaning to "be convinced", "agree", "hearken", "compliance" and even "believe", and are even translated as such in other places!

Eric B,

bmerr here. Nice to hear from you again. Here's what I got from Strong's for "obedience", as in Rom 1:5; 16:19 and the others:

5218. hupakoe; from 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by impl.) compliance or submission:- obedience, (make) obedient, obey (ing).

5219. hupakouo; from 5259 and 191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority:-hearken, be obedient to, obey.

3982. peitho; a prim. berb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by anal. to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflex. or pass. to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):-agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.

544. apeitheo; from 545; to disbelieve (willfully and perversely):-not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.

Those are verbatim (minus the phonetic pronuciation key) from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, copyright 1990.

We all should have pulled this card of you alls along time ago, but now just realize that you are basing your argument on your understanding of an English translation.

I'm not sure what "card" you're so happy about. If anything, this information hurts your position. What is there about the English translation that you think we've been mislead by?

I don't know about Jump's doctrine of "eternal salvation" yet,

Neither do I. The more I think about it, it seems more and more like a compromise to keep salvation by "faith only", as concerns eternity, but acknowledging the neccessity of appropriate works of obedience to God's commands, relegating this neccessity to one's position in the supposed "millenial reign of Christ".

I wonder, if premillenialism were disproved, would he have a need for imagining a difference or separation of soul and spirit?

The whole thing is so far off form anything I've ever heard (which does not neccessarily mean it's false), that I don't know where to start with it.

but he has a point on this one, and I have pointed this out even before hearing of his interpretation:

The contexts are completely different! The word "justification", just as we use it today, does not refer exclusively to salvation!

The contexts are different, that is true. Paul is battling against Judaizers who attempted to convince the Gentiles to keep the Law of Moses in various ways. He spent alot of time in this.

James is prodding into action those who were attempting to lay claim to Christianity without acting appropriately. They were being respecters of persons, unlike God, and failing to show mercy to those in need, also unlike God. Apparently, the argument was, "But we believe in Jesus!" James tells them that faith apart from works is akin to the faith of the devils.

Then he uses Abraham to show that works must accompany faith for faith to be complete. Using Abraham's offering of Isaac as an example of works perfecting faith, James then goes on to say, "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God" (James 2:23).

I have heard the argument that James' reference to Abraham is speaking of his being justified before men. I don't know if that's what you were getting at, or not.

Anyway, the only two times I could find where men were justifying themselves before men were in Luke 10:29, and Luke 16:15, which read, respectively:

10:29 - But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

16:15 - And he [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abonimation in the sight of God.

Neither one of these puts justification before men in a favorable light. I don't think James was talking about that.

Any act we do we can be "justified" in or not justified, and it has nothing to do with our standing before God. Paul is the one dealing with salvation. James is not talking about salvation, for Abraham and Rahab were not saved because of their acts! Their acts "justified" them in that they are now looked upon as faithful saints, depsite their sins.

Are you suggesting that unfaithful saints will be saved, despite their unfaithfulness? (Rev 2:10)

"justification" unto salvation could ONLY have been through Christ; not their works in addition to Christ. Else, if you don't recognize the different contexts, it looks like James is not only contradicting, but also directly answering/opposing Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3!

One's obedience to the commands of the gospel does not add one whit to Christ's work. Without Christ's work, there would be no gospel to obey. Apart form obeying the gospel, Christ's work avails nothing. Otherwise, all men would be saved, would they not?

I have never suggested a contradiction or conflict between James and Paul, because I do understand the context.

James is writing to Jewish Christians, who generally still have problems trusting in the letter of the Law, yet are lacking in certain works, which they probably thought uneccesary; not realizing that "having respect of persons" due to class (the sole context of the chapter) is just as much sin, that violates the spirit of the Law. Notice, that he speaks of "keeping the whole Law and offending in one point" (v.10,11). These are people trusting in "the works of the Law", but thinking "faith" alone excuses them from areas in which they fail. That actually becomes close to the error of legalists today who use the verses to teach that we are saved by "trying harder", and that "faith" covers us when we fail. But what James is really, ultimately saying here is what Paul told the Galatians: "For as many as are under the works of the Law are under a curse: for it is written 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in all the things wich are written in the book of the Law'"(3:10)"...a debtor to do the whole Law! Christ is of no effect unto you whoseover are justified by the Law, for you are fallen from grace!"(5:3,4).

I'm not sure where you got all that from, but believe it or not, I think I can go along with it.

You're saying the same thing as the Calvinists who use the argument to prove that God must enable the believing for the person.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not intend to imply that God "enables", or "causes" a person to believe in Jesus. My apologies if I did.

What I intended to point out was that the "work of God" was the work that God had commanded them to do. When they did as God had commanded, they would be doing the work of God.

However, they do have a point that as a "work", it is credied to God. God is the one who enables us to believe (whether it is all, potentially, or only those who do believe).

Isn't that what you just accused the Calvinists of teaching?

That is nothing like the work of baptism where you have to GET UP, go somewhere, and get into a pool. On one hand, you all try to deny that baptism is a work; it is faith, yet now you are saying that belief is a work. (Make up your minds).

Ah yes, the drudgery of complying, submitting, or obeying (hupakoe) the command to be baptized! Just as believing in Jesus was a command to be obeyed, so is the command to be baptized. Both are the works of God, not of merit, not of Law.

So you don't believe in a Second Coming? I thought you said you did, and denied preterism (the doctrine that Christ's coming was a spiritual one in the past). I know some Campbellistic Christians are futuristic, and others preteristic, but I thought you denied that.

First off, I do believe in the Second Coming of Christ. I'm not sure about preterism, or futurism, since I can't find any of that in the Bible. That's why I don't believe in premillenialism, as well.

I reject the name "Campbellistic Christian", too. Can't find one of those in the Bible, either. Just Christian, that's what I am.

Does a Campbellite have 1/3 less calories than a regular Campbell?:laugh:

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

Eric B,

bmerr here. Nice to hear from you again. Here's what I got from Strong's for "obedience", as in Rom 1:5; 16:19 and the others:

5218. hupakoe; from 5219; attentive hearkening, i.e. (by impl.) compliance or submission:- obedience, (make) obedient, obey (ing).

5219. hupakouo; from 5259 and 191; to hear under (as a subordinate), i.e. to listen attentively; by impl. to heed or conform to a command or authority:-hearken, be obedient to, obey.

3982. peitho; a prim. berb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by anal. to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflex. or pass. to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):-agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) confident, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield.

544. apeitheo; from 545; to disbelieve (willfully and perversely):-not believe, disobedient, obey not, unbelieving.

Those are verbatim (minus the phonetic pronuciation key) from Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, copyright 1990.

I'm not sure what "card" you're so happy about. If anything, this information hurts your position. What is there about the English translation that you think we've been mislead by?

Yes, all of that is what I saw. But notioce that those definitions do not necessarily convey physical works. To just belive in Christ, which means confessing yourself as a sinner, with no righteousness in yourseld, is in fact "compliance", "submission" and "conforming."

I have heard the argument that James' reference to Abraham is speaking of his being justified before men. I don't know if that's what you were getting at, or not.

Anyway, the only two times I could find where men were justifying themselves before men were in Luke 10:29, and Luke 16:15, which read, respectively:

10:29 - But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

16:15 - And he [Jesus] said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abonimation in the sight of God.

Neither one of these puts justification before men in a favorable light. I don't think James was talking about that.

No, not justification before men in that sense. It's more justified by God, but not in a salvific sense, butb in simply being declared "righteous" in the context of being a faithful servant

Are you suggesting that unfaithful saints will be saved, despite their unfaithfulness? (Rev 2:10)

If they are "saints", they are saved. "Faithfulness" in that case cannot be salvation based upon the amount of works the person does. We all lack in good works, and are not as faithful as we can be.

One's obedience to the commands of the gospel does not add one whit to Christ's work. Without Christ's work, there would be no gospel to obey. Apart form obeying the gospel, Christ's work avails nothing. Otherwise, all men would be saved, would they not?

Yes, when you understand that "obedience" is believing in that case.

I have never suggested a contradiction or conflict between James and Paul, because I do understand the context.

I didn't say you did, but to take James as talking about 'justification' unto salvation does cause a conflict between the two passages.

I think you misunderstood me. I did not intend to imply that God "enables", or "causes" a person to believe in Jesus. My apologies if I did.

I didn't say you did this either; but the "faith is a work" argument is used to support that idea.

What I intended to point out was that the "work of God" was the work that God had commanded them to do. When they did as God had commanded, they would be doing the work of God.

No, it means that their believing is something that God has made possible. Or, by sending Christ, the one they were to believe in it was God's work. Its not about what we do.

Isn't that what you just accused the Calvinists of teaching?

No, because I'm not saying God makes each individual believe, and passes over others preventing them from believing.

Ah yes, the drudgery of complying, submitting, or obeying (hupakoe) the command to be baptized! Just as believing in Jesus was a command to be obeyed, so is the command to be baptized. Both are the works of God, not of merit, not of Law.

That still assumes "obedience" is a physical act. It is allowed in those definitions, but the overall context is that "obedience to the Gospel" in the sense of basic salvation demands the "believing" definition; else you redefine "faith" as works, and make the contrast given between "faith" and "works" meaningless. Any deed you have to do to get salvation is merit, not just the Law.

First off, I do believe in the Second Coming of Christ. I'm not sure about preterism, or futurism, since I can't find any of that in the Bible. That's why I don't believe in premillenialism, as well.

Well, if there is no future kingdom on earth, what does Christ do when He returns?

I reject the name "Campbellistic Christian", too. Can't find one of those in the Bible, either. Just Christian, that's what I am.

Does a Campbellite have 1/3 less calories than a regular Campbell?:laugh:

In Christ,

bmerr

I use that to distinguish you from other "Christians". Sorry, we are not going to give you the monopoly on that name as you wish. :grin:

 

[J. Jump]

Neither do I. The more I think about it, it seems more and more like a compromise to keep salvation by "faith only", as concerns eternity, but acknowledging the neccessity of appropriate works of obedience to God's commands, relegating this neccessity to one's position in the supposed "millenial reign of Christ".

It's not a compromise, it's just plainly what the Bible teaches. You are justified eternally based on the works of Jesus Christ alone. You are then in a position to have your works justified in order that you may rule and reign with Him upon His return and upon Him taking the reigns of this world from Satan.

I wonder, if premillenialism were disproved, would he have a need for imagining a difference or separation of soul and spirit?

People have certainly tried to disprove it, but again it's just plainly what the Bible teaches. You can see it in the OT and NT.

The whole thing is so far off form anything I've ever heard (which does not neccessarily mean it's false), that I don't know where to start with it.

The best place to start is the very beginning. And if you are truly interested in learning more I would be more than happy to point you to resources that would help.

By the way the closer we get to the return of Christ the more and more people will not hear or believe this message, because it has to do with the working of the leaven that was placed in the three measures of meal by the woman in Matthew 13, which is a chapter dedicated to the kingdom and kingdom truths.

If you want more information just PM and I'll send it your way.

 

[mima]

To mman: if the Church of Christ believes that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, and the sins of the same one that Jesus shed his blood to offer remission far; it is very obvious that they believe Jesus's shed blood was not sufficient to accomplish that remission!
This would seem to be a belief of ruination to those who would follow it.

 

[bmerr]

Eric,

bmerr here. First off, let me apologize for the ridiculous lenght of my last few posts. I don't mean to be so wordy, but you know how it gets when you're trying to make a point...

To just belive in Christ, which means confessing yourself as a sinner, with no righteousness in yourseld, is in fact "compliance", "submission" and "conforming."

Here's the problem I see with this statement: How is it that to "just believe in Christ" can include confessing yourself a sinner, (which actually makes it a contradiction), but it cannot include baptism?

Without the word of God, there can be no faith, right (Rom 10:17)? So when the word of God comes, what distinguishes those who believe from those who do not?

How does God know that I believe Him, apart from my obedience to His commands?

Even in the case of Abraham, used by both Paul and James, obedience to God's command was what showed God that Abraham believed Him. Gen 22:12 tells us, "...now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

And James 2:23 tells us that it was after Abraham offered Isaac that "...the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness..."

John 12:42-43 is an example of belief apart from appropriate works.

42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more thanthe praise of God.

Were these men saved by their dead, inactive faith?

Well, if there is no future kingdom on earth, what does Christ do when He returns?

John 5:28-29 - Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

See also 1 Thes 4:15-17; 2 Thes 1:7-10, and other similar verses. You know them as well as I do.

Gotta go.

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[J. Jump]

Here's the problem I see with this statement: How is it that to "just believe in Christ" can include confessing yourself a sinner

I would not agree with the need of one to confess they are a sinner unless they are doing so to God and that would be more of an agreeing with God of what He is showing you.

One must know they are in need of salvation, before they can be saved. If one does not know and acknowledge they are a sinner then they aren't going to accept the free gift in order to be redeemed.

How does God know that I believe Him, apart from my obedience to His commands?

Are you serious? If you truly believe that then you are saying in essence that God is not all-knowing. If God can't know that I believe without seeing then God doesn't know all things, because He doesn't know my heart without physical evidence. The Bible says not only does God know the heart of man, but He is the ONLY one that does.

Use are using the example of Abraham after he had already been saved. Abraham was saved when he believed God.

Again the context of James is not eternal salvation, but rather the salvation of the soul.

John 12:42-43 is an example of belief apart from appropriate works.

42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more thanthe praise of God.

Were these men saved by their dead, inactive faith?

Great example of what James was talking about. And the answer to your question is no these men were not saved. I just dealt with this issue in the OSAS thread.

II Timothy 2 speaks about one denying Christ and Him denying them. It has nothing to do with eternal salvation. You can see this wording in Revelation to one of the churches. I can't remember which one, but that is seen at Christ's judgment seat where only saved individuals will be.

The salvation in question is the salvation of the soul. And one can have all the faith they want to, but without works it will not save them...from what? Eternal damnation? No. It will not save them from losing their soul. The saving or the losing of the soul is in regard to the 1,000-year reign of Christ, not eternity.

 

[Terry_Herrington]

I guess Paul didn't preach the Gospel:

1 Cor 1:17
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
(KJV)

 

[Eric B]

Eric,
Here's the problem I see with this statement: How is it that to "just believe in Christ" can include confessing yourself a sinner, (which actually makes it a contradiction), but it cannot include baptism?

Without the word of God, there can be no faith, right (Rom 10:17)? So when the word of God comes, what distinguishes those who believe from those who do not?

How does God know that I believe Him, apart from my obedience to His commands?

Even in the case of Abraham, used by both Paul and James, obedience to God's command was what showed God that Abraham believed Him. Gen 22:12 tells us, "...now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me."

And James 2:23 tells us that it was after Abraham offered Isaac that "...the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness..."

John 12:42-43 is an example of belief apart from appropriate works.

42 Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue:
43 For they loved the praise of men more thanthe praise of God.

Were these men saved by their dead, inactive faith?

Jump answered well. By "confessing" I meant to God, which includes acknowledging youself as a sinner and resting in His mercy. That is not the same as baptism, which is a physical act one must get up and go somewhere and do (and may possibly nt be able to be done right away, as we have seen).
Of course, we are supposed to confess Him to others as well, for a testimony (which baptism is a form of). Still, while showing that one is saved, it is not what makes one saved; and once again, neither was Abraham said to be saved because of that one act.

John 5:28-29 - Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

See also 1 Thes 4:15-17; 2 Thes 1:7-10, and other similar verses. You know them as well as I do.

Gotta go.

In Christ,

bmerr

OK, so we are resurrected and judged then, but if there is no visible kingdom on earth, what is the resurrection for? Do the resurrected bodies just go to heaven or hell where the souls or spirits had been all the time? And why then?

 

[bmerr]

Jump answered well. By "confessing" I meant to God, which includes acknowledging youself as a sinner and resting in His mercy. That is not the same as baptism, which is a physical act one must get up and go somewhere and do (and may possibly nt be able to be done right away, as we have seen).

Eric,

Confession is to be made with the mouth (Rom 10:9-10), is it not? This is something one must do, physically. An example is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37. I believe Paul also made reference to Timothy making the "good confession".

Of course, we are supposed to confess Him to others as well, for a testimony (which baptism is a form of). Still, while showing that one is saved, it is not what makes one saved;

But, Eric, since faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10-:17), where in the word of God are we told that baptism is merely a form of public "testimony" that we have already been saved? Faith (true, Biblical faith), relies on "God said...", not "I think/feel/etc..."

OK, so we are resurrected and judged then, but if there is no visible kingdom on earth, what is the resurrection for? Do the resurrected bodies just go to heaven or hell where the souls or spirits had been all the time? And why then?

[Please pardon the lack of book, chapter, and verse. I don't have my bible at hand.]

In Luke, Jesus tells of a certain rich man, and a beggar named Lazarus. They both die, angels taking Lazarus to Abraham's bosom, and the rich man is 'buried". The rich man is described (this would be his soul) as being tormented in flames, while Lazarus is comforted.

What is pictured here is the Hadean realm, where the souls of men await the resurrection and Judgment Day. The thief on the cross was told that he would be with Christ in paradise that day. I'd say this refers to Abraham's bosom.

Revelation speaks of a time when death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire, "hell" being elsewhere translated as "hades", or the place Jesus spoke of back in Luke.

At the resurrection, the soul and the body (glorified) will be reunited, and will be separated to either eternal glory, or eternal damnation.

Concerning the supposed 1000 year kingdom on earth, what would be the point with eternity in view? What's 1000 years compared to eternity?

In Christ,

bmerr

 

[Eric B]

Eric,

Confession is to be made with the mouth (Rom 10:9-10), is it not? This is something one must do, physically. An example is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37. I believe Paul also made reference to Timothy making the "good confession".

That's still not seen as a "work", scripturally. You're not getting up and doing some deed. That is the definition of "work".

But, Eric, since faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (Rom 10-:17), where in the word of God are we told that baptism is merely a form of public "testimony" that we have already been saved? Faith (true, Biblical faith), relies on "God said...", not "I think/feel/etc..."

"Answer of a good conscience". Especially given the fact that the true "washing" and "death and burial" is spiritual, not physical. (Who said "I think/feel"?)

[Please pardon the lack of book, chapter, and verse. I don't have my bible at hand.]

In Luke, Jesus tells of a certain rich man, and a beggar named Lazarus. They both die, angels taking Lazarus to Abraham's bosom, and the rich man is 'buried". The rich man is described (this would be his soul) as being tormented in flames, while Lazarus is comforted.

What is pictured here is the Hadean realm, where the souls of men await the resurrection and Judgment Day. The thief on the cross was told that he would be with Christ in paradise that day. I'd say this refers to Abraham's bosom.

Revelation speaks of a time when death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire, "hell" being elsewhere translated as "hades", or the place Jesus spoke of back in Luke.

At the resurrection, the soul and the body (glorified) will be reunited, and will be separated to either eternal glory, or eternal damnation.

Concerning the supposed 1000 year kingdom on earth, what would be the point with eternity in view? What's 1000 years compared to eternity?

In Christ,

bmerr

So you're denying the Millennial Kingdom, but not the eternal kingdom? When you said "No Kingdom on earth", it looked like you were denying ANY kind of visible Kingdom.
The Millennial Kingdom is supposed to be when Christ rules over this present world in its natural state with the saints at His side. Then, the people of the world will see a perfect overnment, and it will be obvious that their way was sin. However, at the end, a bunch will still rebel.
The eternal Kingdom comes after that, when God reorders the entire universe. I have seen the preterist claim that both of these are symbolic, and in the past, and they have a few points, but still some things are a big stretch.
I am still curious about what happens to the earth (and the rest of the universe) in your system after the resurrection/judgment.

 

[J. Jump]

Confession is to be made with the mouth (Rom 10:9-10), is it not? This is something one must do, physically. An example is the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37. I believe Paul also made reference to Timothy making the "good confession".

You are absolutely right. However the confession that is spoken of here is not in relation to eternal salvation, because it is in fact a work, and no human works are related to that of eternal salvation, only the works of Jesus Christ.

Concerning the supposed 1000 year kingdom on earth, what would be the point with eternity in view? What's 1000 years compared to eternity?

The point is that is where the believers inheritance lies. One can either realize that inheritance or they can forfeit that inheritance just like Esau and Reuben did. Easu treated his birthright as of little value (that is the same attitude as you have displayed - what does 1,000 years matter when compared to eternity).

It matters because God said it matters, and if He said it we should believe it.

It matters because that's when Gentile world (governmental) power through the leadership of Satan will come to an end. As Eric said there will be one final rebellion, but this the time that Christ rules the nation with a rod of iron.

We are actually given very little information concerning eternity, because our focus is to be on the coming kingdom not eternity. The whole point of initial salvation (while it does secure the person's eternal destiny) is to put the person in a position to realize their calling, which is a heavenly calling.

They can't even understand this calling until after they are made alive spiritually.

See that's how the whole counsel of God's Scriptures fit together. Satan was initially put in charge over this planet. He rebelled and 1/3 of the angels with him, but he remained in charge, just as Saul remained king even though David was annointed king (Satan is still king of this world, even though Christ is the Anointed King - Christ has not assumed the throne yet).

Man was put on this redeemed earth to take the place of Satan, but fell through satanic temptation before that took place. Jesus was sent to earth to do what the first Adam could not do and to redeem that which the first Adam lost. He faced Satan head on and showed Himself approved in relation to taking rulership over this earth.

And now just as David went away and gathered together faithful men to place in positions of rulership over the kingdom when he took the throne, so Christ has gone away (back to the Father to get a kingdom) and while He is there He is gathering together "faithful" men to place in a position of rulership when He returns to take the reigns from Satan.

That's the big picture of the Bible in a nutshell.

 

[Hope of Glory]

It matters because God said it matters, and if He said it we should believe it.

Amen! If God esteems something, who am I to snub my nose at it?

 

[Charles Meadows]

I'm reposting MIMA's post to mman:

To mman: if the Church of Christ believes that baptism is necessary for the remission of sins, and the sins of the same one that Jesus shed his blood to offer remission far; it is very obvious that they believe Jesus's shed blood was not sufficient to accomplish that remission!
This would seem to be a belief of ruination to those who would follow it.

I'd like to see a COC response to this - because this hits the nail exactly on the head. You cannot make baptism salvific without reintroducing works righteousness.