Hello everyone from a church of Christ guy!

[church mouse guy]

Howdy and thank you! Great question! While I certainly think it is possible that the earth is “young”, I tend to be an old earth guy. I don’t view Genesis as a science or history lesson. A library of books would be inadequate to explain the creation process. Genesis is likely a quick synopsis so that we all know who is on first.

Thanks!

I would say that Genesis is history, not science, but that science confirms that history.

Well, I am lucky in that I live near the Kentucky branch of the Holy Land (just kidding) and I was able to visit briefly the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum a year and a half ago, which are located in Kentucky just south of Cincinnati, Ohio, as you know. And I was able to catch a noon lecture at the Creation Museum by Dr. Terry Mortensen, who is an expert on what the Enlightenment did to the Christian Church worldwide in imposing the notion of deep time upon the culture a little over two hundred years ago. However, a handful of preachers did stand against deep time until about the middle of the nineteenth century when they passed away and left no followers.

There are several scientific problems with deep time, but one of the most interesting is that the floor of the oceans was mapped in the late 1950s for the first time and the new maps provided new information for rejecting deep time and uniformitarianism. We are lucky, also, in that Dr. John Whitcomb, the co-author of The Genesis Flood (1961) with the late Dr. Henry Morris, lives here in Indianapolis. The Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum are world-class.

 

[tyndale1946]

Welcome in!

I probably am the only one here other than you with a Cambellite background, as I came out of the Disciples of Christ decades ago. They have headquarters here in downtown Indianapolis in building of twelve stories more or less. They have gone very liberal, unfortunately. I think that the problem with the Cambellites is that they never developed a doctrinal statement, or a statement of faith and belief as they are called now. They just repeated that where the Bible speaks, they speak, which is confusing if you are trying to sort out what to stand for. By the way, the notorious communist Jim Jones of Peoples Temple had a Peoples Temple in Indianapolis and was an ordained Disciples of Christ minister.

One question, if you don't mind, are you a Young Earth Creationist or do you believe in deep time, millions and millions of years (Old Earth)? I think that most people on the BB are old earthers.

I don't know that much about others viewpoints on the matter... I'm a Scientific Creationist myself... Young Earth... Also there are two Primitive Baptist on here me from California and kyredneck who I refer to as Kentucky, his church is in Kentucky... He may know your friend in Tennessee... I may too if he's older and a preacher, been with the Primitive Baptist over 50 years... Also our style of singing is like the CoC and there is another on here who is Sacred Harp, if you know what that is... Your viewpoint on Revelation a first century event you will find with the Preterist brethren... As you can imagine their are all different thoughts an various camps... You've fired off a lot of information about yourself and we will get to know you over time... Walter said a CoC was on this board at one time, I'll just take his word for it because I don't recall one and I've been here along time... Looks like you making yourself right at home... Welcome to the BB... Brother Glen

 

[ChurchofChristguy]

Thanks Glen! Yes I love exploring new earth/old earth, Revelation, and end times. It is fascinating to me.

Unfortunately I have seen discussion of these cool subjects denigrate into scripture wars. People choosing sides and getting nasty. In reality (and thankfully!) the subjects do not affect have one whit to do with our assurance of salvation.

 

[The Biblicist]

BAPTISM. This is the biggest difference between southern Baptists and Church of Christ.

This is just not an issue between SBC and COC but between evangelicals and sacramentals in general. Indeed, the issue of the gospel is at stake here. The real issue is the difference between symbolism and literalism.

Here is the problem for CoC as I see it with baptism. Peter says that remission of sins was through faith in the gospel preached by "all the prophets" prior to John the Baptist coming on the scene and the introduction of NT baptism - Acts 10:43. Hence, this CoC perspective on baptism ADDS to the gospel preached prior to the cross. Paul tells us that there is not "another gospel" and he claims that the gospel preached after the cross is the same gospel preached prior to the gospel for example preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8). The only difference is the pre-cross gospel was developmental progressive revelation from Genesis to the cross but the very same essential gospel (Heb. 4:2).

Secondly, the old testament speaks of the sacrifices in the same remission of sins language as the NT does of baptism but that language was to be understood figurative not literal (Heb. 10:1-4) as is baptism (1 Pet. 3:21 "like figure" or corresponding figure).

The sin problem did not begin with baptism but with the garden of Eden and so the solution to sin problem cannot begin with baptism but must begin in Genesis as Peter demands it does - Acts 10:43 "all" the prophets (Abel was the first prophet). Moreover, the writer of Hebrews says that Abel did not offer up the sacrifice IN ORDER TO be righteous but as evidence that he was already righteous (Heb. 10:4).

Moreover, the baptism of John demanded "fruits of repentance" (not just repentance) prior to the administration of baptism (Mt. 3:6-8) and it is that baptism Jesus submitted to who obvioulsy did not receive remission of sins by thus submitting, although it is perfectly consistent with SYMBOLIZING what he came to die and resurrect which is what actually obtains "all righteousness". All the apostles submitted to it and it is the only existent baptism when the Great Commission was given and it was a baptism that was administered to those who already manifested "fruits of repentance."

It cannot be successfully denied by CoC that their view of baptism presents a NEW kind of gospel foreign to pre-John the Baptist and yet "remission of sins" and thus justification by faith, which is inclusive of remission of sins was obtained by Abraham through faith in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8) PRIOR to being circumcised (Rom. 4:6-13).

So, the only possible baptism for remission of sins that is consistent with both the pre- and post cross gospel is the post-conversion gospel symbolism baptism.

 

[ChurchofChristguy]

This is just not an issue between SBC and COC but between evangelicals and sacramentals in general. Indeed, the issue of the gospel is at stake here. The real issue is the difference between symbolism and literalism.

Here is the problem for CoC as I see it with baptism. Peter says that remission of sins was through faith in the gospel preached by "all the prophets" prior to John the Baptist coming on the scene and the introduction of NT baptism - Acts 10:43. Hence, this CoC perspective on baptism ADDS to the gospel preached prior to the cross. Paul tells us that there is not "another gospel" and he claims that the gospel preached after the cross is the same gospel preached prior to the gospel for example preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:6-8). The only difference is the pre-cross gospel was developmental progressive revelation from Genesis to the cross but the very same essential gospel (Heb. 4:2).

Secondly, the old testament speaks of the sacrifices in the same remission of sins language as the NT does of baptism but that language was to be understood figurative not literal (Heb. 10:1-4) as is baptism (1 Pet. 3:21 "like figure" or corresponding figure).

The sin problem did not begin with baptism but with the garden of Eden and so the solution to sin problem cannot begin with baptism but must begin in Genesis as Peter demands it does - Acts 10:43 "all" the prophets (Abel was the first prophet). Moreover, the writer of Hebrews says that Abel did not offer up the sacrifice IN ORDER TO be righteous but as evidence that he was already righteous (Heb. 10:4).

Moreover, the baptism of John demanded "fruits of repentance" (not just repentance) prior to the administration of baptism (Mt. 3:6-8) and it is that baptism Jesus submitted to who obvioulsy did not receive remission of sins by thus submitting, although it is perfectly consistent with SYMBOLIZING what he came to die and resurrect which is what actually obtains "all righteousness". All the apostles submitted to it and it is the only existent baptism when the Great Commission was given and it was a baptism that was administered to those who already manifested "fruits of repentance."

It cannot be successfully denied by CoC that their view of baptism presents a NEW kind of gospel foreign to pre-John the Baptist and yet "remission of sins" and thus justification by faith, which is inclusive of remission of sins was obtained by Abraham through faith in the gospel (Gal. 3:6-8) PRIOR to being circumcised (Rom. 4:6-13).

So, the only possible baptism for remission of sins that is consistent with both the pre- and post cross gospel is the post-conversion gospel symbolism baptism.

Good stuff and thank you. Clearly, water baptism is but a symbol - Peter tells us so. Is it merely necessary (Billy Graham) or essential?

Because there is no conversion in the NT without the symbol, and because Jesus himself participated in the symbol to begjn his ministry, and ended his ministry by explicitly telling us to go, tell, and baptize.,.for my purposes, yes it is essential. If you arrive at a slightly different conclusion, I do not begrudge you nor consider you any ess of a brother in Christ. There is room for disagreement on these things without tossing the whole apple cart over.

Since I don’t personally know a Baptist or CoC believer who isn’t baptized, the whole debate for me is an exercise in futility. It matters not. If I am in error of my interpretation of baptism, it doesn’t affect my salvation.

We’ve gone into “overthink” on this issue. Both tribes place an extremely high value on baptism, with Baptists being a 9.5 and CofC being a 10. It’s important. Let’s focus then on the mountain of agreement that we share, rather than the strands of disagreement. The fields are ripe, but are there sufficient workers?

 

[Walter]

I don't know that much about others viewpoints on the matter... I'm a Scientific Creationist myself... Young Earth... Also there are two Primitive Baptist on here me from California and kyredneck who I refer to as Kentucky, his church is in Kentucky... He may know your friend in Tennessee... I may too if he's older and a preacher, been with the Primitive Baptist over 50 years... Also our style of singing is like the CoC and there is another on here who is Sacred Harp, if you know what that is... Your viewpoint on Revelation a first century event you will find with the Preterist brethren... As you can imagine their are all different thoughts an various camps... You've fired off a lot of information about yourself and we will get to know you over time... Walter said a CoC was on this board at one time, I'll just take his word for it because I don't recall one and I've been here along time... Looks like you making yourself right at home... Welcome to the BB... Brother Glen

I was a 'lurker' on this board back In 2002 but not a member. There were many CoC board members as well as Catholics. Both CoC and Catholics were eventually barred from membership on the board, although Catholics who had been Baptist when they joined the board and converted to Catholicism were grandfathered in. That is how I was allowed to join the board. Eventually even cradle Catholics we're allowed to participate to some extent

 

[The Biblicist]

Good stuff and thank you. Clearly, water baptism is but a symbol - Peter tells us so. Is it merely necessary (Billy Graham) or essential?

"merely necessary or essential" FOR WHAT? Not for justification or gospel conversion as the theif on the cross was not baptized and NNE prior to John the Baptist was baptized. But it is essential and necessary for CHURCH MEMBERSHIP and church membership was the NT norm.

Because there is no conversion in the NT without the symbol, and because Jesus himself participated in the symbol to begjn his ministry, and ended his ministry by explicitly telling us to go, tell, and baptize.,.for my purposes, yes it is essential.

Not essential for justification but for church membership.

If you arrive at a slightly different conclusion, I do not begrudge you not consider you sky less of a brother in Christ. There is room for disagreement on these things without Turkish the whole apple cart over.

No, there is no room for disagreement here at all, not even a smidgen of room as it repudiates the very heart of the gospel preached from Genesis 3:15. Here is the problem. What baptism is in the New Testament circumcision was in the OT. Paul makes it clear that remission of sins is LITERALLY obtained PRIOR to circumcision, thus prior to the NT counter part - baptism (Rom. 4:9-13).

Paul says if you ADD or SUBTRACT anything from gospel essentials you no longer have the gospel but either a "vain" gospel or 'another gospel."

Since I don’t personally know a Baptist or CoC believer who isn’t baptized, the whole debate for me is an exercise in futility. It matters not. If I am in error of my interpretation of baptism, it doesn’t affect my salvation.

I am sorry but that is simply not true as it makes the difference between heaven and hell. The issue is WHY did you get baptized? If you did to literally obtain remission of sins you have repudiated the gospel of Christ that has been preached since Genesis 3:15 "for remission of sins' (Acts 10:43) and have embraced "another gospel." Those who get baptized IN ORDER TO LITERALLY obtain remission of sins are still in their sins and still unbelievers in the gospel as they have added WATER to the finished work and Person of Christ

 

[ChurchofChristguy]

"merely necessary or essential" FOR WHAT? Not for justification or gospel conversion as the theif on the cross was not baptized and NNE prior to John the Baptist was baptized. But it is essential and necessary for CHURCH MEMBERSHIP and church membership was the NT norm.


Not essential for justification but for church membership.



No, there is no room for disagreement here at all, not even a smidgen of room as it repudiates the very heart of the gospel preached from Genesis 3:15. Here is the problem. What baptism is in the New Testament circumcision was in the OT. Paul makes it clear that remission of sins is LITERALLY obtained PRIOR to circumcision, thus prior to the NT counter part - baptism (Rom. 4:9-13).

Paul says if you ADD or SUBTRACT anything from gospel essentials you no longer have the gospel but either a "vain" gospel or 'another gospel."



I am sorry but that is simply not true as it makes the difference between heaven and hell. The issue is WHY did you get baptized? If you did to literally obtain remission of sins you have repudiated the gospel of Christ that has been preached since Genesis 3:15 "for remission of sins' (Acts 10:43) and have embraced "another gospel." Those who get baptized IN ORDER TO obtain remission of sins are still in their sins and still unbelievers in the gospel.

I’ll just have to disagree with you on this one.

Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

 

[The Biblicist]

I’ll just have to disagree with you on this one.

Acts 2:38. Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

You have just proved my point! You sought to be baptized because you did not believe that justificaton is obtained by faith in the gospel as preached by "all the prophets" (Acts 10:43) but because you reject that gospel as it has no baptism and because you CHOOSE to read into acts 2:38 "for" to mean "in order to" as the same Greek term "eis" can be justly interpreted in consistency with the gospel as "because of." You are teaching a false gospel.

 

[ChurchofChristguy]

You have just proved my point! You sought to be baptized because you did not believe that justificaton is obtained by faith in the gospel as preached by "all the prophets" (Acts 10:43) but because you reject that gospel as it has no baptism and because you CHOOSE to read into acts 2:38 "for" to mean "in order to" as the same Greek term "eis" can be justly interpreted in consistency with the gospel as "because of." You are teaching a false gospel.

I am truly sorry you feel that way.

 

[Salty]

I am truly sorry you feel that way.

CoC - if a person does repent - but is not baptized (immersed) will he go to Heaven or Hell?

 

[The Biblicist]

I am truly sorry you feel that way.

I am not sorry, but greatly rejoice that I not only feel that way but believe that way as that is the only belief that obtains justification for which I am thankful. I feel sorry for those who are blind to this glorious truth preached since the foundation of the world, just as Christ was slain "from the foundation of the world" in the symbolism of a lamb being sacrificed upon the altar.

 

[ChurchofChristguy]

CoC - if a person does repent - but is not baptized (immersed) will he go to Heaven or Hell?

I don’t think anyone on earth, no matter how sure of their own doctrine, can declare who is going to Heaven or Hell. There are only two people that know my heart: me and God.

God loves us and is not trying to trip us up on technicalities or honest disagreements. We are each fallible, and likely there are no two of us that have precisely the same interpretation of the Holy Scripture.

Baptism is a requirement for me personally. Not because the water saves - it does not in my opinion - but because it is a matter of simple obedience and submission.

 

[church mouse guy]

I am not sorry, but greatly rejoice that I not only feel that way but believe that way as that is the only belief that obtains justification for which I am thankful. I feel sorry for those who are blind to this glorious truth preached since the foundation of the world, just as Christ was slain "from the foundation of the world" in the symbolism of a lamb being sacrificed upon the altar.

Baptism is an ordinance only. Two denominations do not baptize: Quakers and Salvationists. As far as I know only third wave Protestants have classified baptism as an ordinance.

 

[ChurchofChristguy]

I don’t think anyone on earth, no matter how sure of their own doctrine, can declare who is going to Heaven or Hell. There are only two people that know my heart: me and God.

God loves us and is not trying to trip us up on technicalities or honest disagreements. We are each fallible, and likely there are no two of us that have precisely the same interpretation of the Holy Scripture.

Baptism is a requirement for me personally. Not because the water saves - it does not in my opinion - but because it is a matter of simple obedience and submission.

Baptism is an ordinance only. Two denominations do not baptize: Quakers and Salvationists. As far as I know only third wave Protestants have classified baptism as an ordinance.

That’s amazing to me, when you consider there are at least one hundred references to baptism in the NT. I mean sure we can have our differences on the meaning of baptism and so forth, but to purge it completely, my goodness.

 

[church mouse guy]

That’s amazing to me, when you consider there are at least one hundred references to baptism in the NT. I mean sure we can have our differences on the meaning of baptism and so forth, but to purge it completely, my goodness.

Agree. Quakers and Salvationists are in disobedience on that point. A Christian should be baptized by immersion if possible. I myself reject infant baptism.

 

[Jerome]

Two denominations do not baptize: Quakers and Salvationists.

Quakers and Salvationists are in disobedience on that point.

Another denomination in which Baptism has also historically been ignored or downplayed is the Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA).


Check this out by Bill Kynes, Council member alongside Albert Mohler, Mark Dever, etc. in The Gospel Coalition (a Calvinist fraternity made up mostly of SBC, PCA, and EFCA pastors):

EFCA Ministerial Forum (pdf)

Bill Kynes:

"When it comes to baptism, I consider myself fairly typical in the Evangelical Free Church of America. By that I mean that baptism has not played a prominent part in my pastoral ministry."

"Commonly in our churches, one’s baptismal status has no connection to church membership or to participation in the Lord’s Supper."


also, EFCA president Bill Hamel recalls:

"I had the privilege of being raised in the distinctive ethos of the EFCA by godly parents."

"In the three Free Churches I attended as a child and young man, baptism was ignored"

 

[The Biblicist]

Baptism is an ordinance only. Two denominations do not baptize: Quakers and Salvationists. As far as I know only third wave Protestants have classified baptism as an ordinance.

Yep, just an ordinance not a sacrament and there is a huge difference as a sacrament is something that actually imparts something salvational. 4000 years of saints prior to John the Baptist had their sins remitted without sacraments. Paul explicitly denies that circumcision (which was first delivered to Abraham) played any part of receiving remission of sins and he is expounding the NT doctrine of justification wherein remission of sins is received and he restricts it to being received by faith in the gospel (Rom. 4:6-12; 23-25; 5:1-2).

Like any other commandment, baptism should be obeyed but justification is not connected with any good works. We must first be "created in Christ UNTO good works" and in context this created work is being "saved by grace through faith" which "saved" is previously defined as being quickened/born again (vv. 5, 1). Hence, new birth precedes baptism and in fact is public symbolic confession of identity with the gospel of Christ in quickening. Hence, as a symbolic external profession "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins"

 

[37818]

I don’t think anyone on earth, no matter how sure of their own doctrine, can declare who is going to Heaven or Hell. There are only two people that know my heart: me and God.

Without knowing specifically any individuals final outcome, we do know from the word of God who in general is going to the new heaven and earth.

Those who know God and have eternal life. Whose name has not been removed from the book of life.

". . . whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. . . ." -- Revelation 20:15.

Many other references can be given, 1 John 5:9-13. Those who truely know they now possess eternal life. They know they know God, John 17:3.

 

[ChurchofChristguy]

Without knowing specifically any individuals final outcome, we do know from the word of God who in general is going to the new heaven and earth.

Those who know God and have eternal life. Whose name has not been removed from the book of life.

". . . whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. . . ." -- Revelation 20:15.

Many other references can be given, 1 John 5:9-13. Those who truely know they now possess eternal life. They know they know God, John 17:3.

Agreed.