The Church of Christ

[DHK]

Originally posted by eschatologist:
DHK
In regards to your post on page 5, "The power of the Holy Spirit comes to those who pray for it." Well then when you get it you should be able to heal all diseases, restore witherd limbs and raise people from the dead, unless you believe you do not have the same POWER as the apostles had!

Not so! I don't believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit as given in 1Cor.12, are for today. Neither did I ever say that one could have power as the Apostles did. I said very plainly that those who pray for power God will answer (if their life is right with God), and give them power to speak boldly of Him in their witness. That is the reason God gives power--for witnessing.

Acts 4:31 And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
DHK

 

[Frank]

Dhk:
[/QUOTE] And everything that follows BELIEF in the Lord's substitionary work on the cross is a work of man including baptism, which can never save, for that very reason--it is man's work and not God's.
[/QUOTE]
This statement is contradictory to scripture. It is made without scriptural support. It ignores the relationship of belief and baptism, as well as repentance, confession and the gospel. Note the following:
1. Jesus connects belief and baptism to salvation ( Mark 16:16). Jesus said in Mark 16:16, He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
2. The saved are those who believe and are baptzed ( Acts 18:8). The Bible says in Acts 18:8, And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
3. Belief is esssential to be saved, but in and of itself will not save ( James 2:19, John 12:42,43). The Bible says in James 2:19, Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Their belief did not cease to make them devils. In John 12:42,43, ¶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 than the praise of God.
The belief of religious people will not save them. Jesus also requires confession ( Mat. 10:32,33, Romans 10:10).
4. Belief provides us with access to the power to be saved ( John 1:12). The Bible says in John 1:12,But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
5. God's power to save is the gospel of Christ ( Romans 1:16, Mark 1:15). The Bible says in Mark 1:15,And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Again, belief without repentance will not save. Repentance being one of the essential elements to be saved by the gospel. The Bible says in Romans 1:16, ¶For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Jesus connected belief, the gospel, repentance, confesssion and baptism to salvation.
Jesus also said in John 12:48,He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
It will read this way on the day of judgment, too.

[ February 06, 2004, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Frank ]

 

[DHK]

Frank,
You didn’t pay much attention to Eric’s post, who explained a lot of this for you.
To put it simply, and using the same terms that he did, believing, along with repenting, confessing, etc. are spiritual works which all fall under the category of belief. Baptism alone is a physical work. It is something that man does physically. He does it after salvation. God does not come down and baptize you. Man baptizes man. It is man’s work, and therefore cannot be an instrument of grace or salvation. Only belief is required for salvation; it was that way in Abraham’s day, and so it is in ours. Abraham was not saved by works. The works were a result of his salvation if you understand the passage correctly. Compare it to Romans 4:1-4.

In Acts 18 they believed (i.e., saved), and then they were baptized.
In James 2, the devils believed (had knowledge of) the existence of God.
In John 12 many of the chief rulers believed on him (i.e. were saved). Not confessing him made no difference in their salvation. They believed and were saved.
In John 1:12 those that believe will be saved. It is those that believe that receive Christ as Saviour.
It is the gospel that saves. Believing the gospel saves. Belief brings repentance with it.
But baptism, no baptism never saves.
DHK

 

[Frank]

Dhk:
You said everything after belief is a human work. This makes repentance, confession a human work according to your doctrine. Of course, as usuall, you provide no scriptural support for the statement. When one is receiving evidence for faith, he is working ( Hebrews 11:6,Romans 10:17; 10:10, John 6:27-29). I have never heard of any brain dead person learn or repsond to anything. The Bible requires one to work internally to accept the evidence that forms the faith which saves ( Romans 10:17;6:17,18;10:10, Hebs. 11:6). This is something we must do.

However, it is a work that does not merit us salvation. It is God who designed the divine, foreordained plan for salvation from sin and eternal life in heaven through the instrument of sacrifice on the cross and the mind of the highest of his creation ( Col. 1:20, Gen. 2:7). It is by God's design men are to believe, repent,confess and be baptized, not man's. The Bible says we are to have faith in the operation of God ( Col. 2:12, Rom, 1:16, James 1:18,21). You can search the scriptures today and for a thousand years and will never find someone being saved without human agency.


Furthermore, Eric and yourself cannot support your position with the totality of the harmonious evidence. So, you violate a cardinal principle of interpretion of pitting scripture against scripture. Once this is exposed as false, you are forced to resort to the old reliable for every false teacher under the sun, " Let me explain it to you." It is one thing to make logical inferences and implications from the totality of evidence, it is quite another to use the "explain it" approach. Why not try a novel approach to interpretation to scripture? Get all of the evidence before making conclusions. Then, make sure your conclusion is in harmony with all the evidence. And, all the people said, " Amen." ( Deut. 27:15).

I say this with all kindness, Dhk, after hearing your explanation of Mark 16:16 and many of the verses in this thread, you should write your own contexual study, lexicon, dictionary and rules of grammar because your explanations do not meet the standards of those under which the texts were written.

Dhk, you said baptism never saves. Peter said it does ( I Pet. 3:21).

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Frank:
Dhk:
You said everything after belief is a human work. This makes repentance, confession a human work according to your doctrine. Of course, as usuall, you provide no scriptural support for the statement. When one is receiving evidence for faith, he is working ( Hebrews 11:6,Romans 10:17; 10:10, John 6:27-29). I have never heard of any brain dead person learn or repsond to anything. The Bible requires one to work internally to accept the evidence that forms the faith which saves ( Romans 10:17;6:17,18;10:10, Hebs. 11:6). This is something we must do.

No these are not things that we must do. Repentance and confession are part of believing. Repentance is that which God does in us. The Holy Spirit works repentance in the heart of the sinner. Salvation is the work of God. It is not a whole bunch of itty bitty little works added up together that a man does in order to get past Peter into Heaven. You have it all wrong. Man does nothing. God does everything. Salvation is of the grace of God--all of the grace of God.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

In virtually every post you have contradicted this Scripture. Salvation is either of grace or works. It cannot be both. If it is of grace, then it is not of works. If it is of works, then it is no more of grace. It cannot be both. If baptism is included in salvation, then salvation is of works and is not of grace. If in your mind repentance and confession are works then your salvation is of works and not of grace and you are yet in your sins, damned still to Hell.
Salvation is all of grace. Jesus paid it all. He shed his blood for us all; once for all. There is nothing that sinful man can do to enter into Heaven. We can not encroach upon the grace of God. It is not I, but Christ that saves; not baptism but Christ that saves; not works but Christ that saves.

However, it is a work that does not merit us salvation. It is God who designed the divine, foreordained plan for salvation from sin and eternal life in heaven through the instrument of sacrifice on the cross and the mind of the highest of his creation ( Col. 1:20, Gen. 2:7). It is by God's design men are to believe, repent,confess and be baptized, not man's. The Bible says we are to have faith in the operation of God ( Col. 2:12, Rom, 1:16, James 1:18,21). You can search the scriptures today and for a thousand years and will never find someone being saved without human agency.

You contradict yourself. You seem to be confused on this issue.
First you say that: "it is a work that does not merit us salvation," which is true.
You also say, "You can search the scriptures today and for a thousand years and will never find someone being saved without human agency."
But these two statements put together do not necessitate works or baptism. Human agency is only needed in the spreading of the gospel--the death, the burial and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that is all.

Furthermore, Eric and yourself cannot support your position with the totality of the harmonious evidence. So, you violate a cardinal principle of interpretion of pitting scripture against scripture. Once this is exposed as false, you are forced to resort to the old reliable for every false teacher under the sun, " Let me explain it to you." It is one thing to make logical inferences and implications from the totality of evidence, it is quite another to use the "explain it" approach. Why not try a novel approach to interpretation to scripture? Get all of the evidence before making conclusions. Then, make sure your conclusion is in harmony with all the evidence. And, all the people said, " Amen." ( Deut. 27:15).

It seems that you have just described yourself. You ignore the totality of Scripture. You pit Scripture against Scripture (so to speak). You cannot harmonize what Scripture you do have to present. You throw out references without the ability to "explain them." Better take that beam out of your eye Frank.

I say this with all kindness, Dhk, after hearing your explanation of Mark 16:16 and many of the verses in this thread, you should write your own contexual study, lexicon, dictionary and rules of grammar because your explanations do not meet the standards of those under which the texts were written.

I wouldn't expect my conclusions to meet the standards of Alexander Cambell or the cult of the Churches of Christ, and I am glad they don't.

Dhk, you said baptism never saves. Peter said it does ( I Pet. 3:21).

You are right. Read the passage carefully. It is an appeal to a clear conscience.
H2O will only get you wet.
DHK

 

[Eric B]

Are we now saying confession is only obedience and not a part of salvation. Then I guess we need to start ripping all those pages out of the bible and throw them into the can with those baptism verses!

They are alike, because many passages teach that a persons can say he believes, but not really have accepted Him in their heart. The James passage you two are using is a great example. So then "confession" is obviously not what saves, because it can be phony. It is the belief in the heart that it is to accompany that saves.

Belief is esssential to be saved, but in and of itself will not save ( James 2:19, John 12:42,43). The Bible says in James 2:19, Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Their belief did not cease to make them devils. In John 12:42,43, ¶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 than the praise of God.
The belief of religious people will not save them. Jesus also requires confession ( Mat. 10:32,33, Romans 10:10).

I meant to also address the James passage more, but was in a big rush (also the cause of all the typos

).
Once again, certain works were to accompany our faith, such as confession, holy living, and initially, baptism was the outward sign as well. If a person refused any of these, then you could question whether they had faith. Why would they not pruduce any of these fruits? As the John passage you cited says, "For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God ". That undermines true "faith". Their "belief" then was like the devils James speaks of. So James could say that if you only had "faith", but produced no works, you appear not to have received justification; --by the faith the works are to be the sign of! "I will show you my faith BY my works" is what he says (v.18). Faith is still the saving agent, and works are the fruits of it, never the CAUSE of it. It is not "faith PLUS works equals salvation", even though "faith minus works" may be "dead". Once again, this prevents the problem in works salvation I mentioned above, of where you would draw the line between saved and not saved when believers do not perfectly produce the fruits (and nobody does).
Apparently while Paul was speaking to gentiles who had been persuaded by Jews to try to be saved by works; James was speaking to Jews who had learned that they were not saved by works, but faith alone, and felt that they didn't have to do works, then. Two opposite extremes. So he actually looks like he is contradicting Paul's statements, but if we are to take scriptures as harmonizing and not contradictory, we must understand, and yes, "explain" the whole context to those who take individual passages to contradict the rest of scriptural teaching.

 

[kcd]

On January 22, 2004 11:03 PM, Frank stated: “It is not true Christians believe our name saves us. Rather, it is the name given to the saved by God (Isaiah 56:5,6;62:1,2, Acts 11:26)...”

Frank, what bible did you read those verses from? By what you state it appears you are telling this board that you preach observance of Sabbaths & circumcision, for are you not a “gospel preacher”?

The reason I ask this is because in my King James Bible God states (in Isa 56:2-8; 62:1-4) that the “everlasting name” promise was directed to Hebrews & proselytes who were keeping God's "Sabbaths" & had taken hold of His "covenant,” which is circumcision (Gen 17:9-14; Ex 4:26; Josh 5:3).

Apparently, your’s doesn’t read this way?

Please, identify your bible & then scripturally explain (“chapter & verse”) how you arrived at you’re theory that the name “Christian” was given by God (sic), since Isa 62:4 clearly states it’s spelt “ Hephzibah ,” & not “Christian.”

Thanks in advance

 

[BobRyan]

Well this is one Christian that does believe in obeying God's commandments - all of them. As Jesus said (pre-cross) "IF you Love Me KEEP My commandments".

So claiming that it is a bad thing for a Christian to chooses to submit to Christ's Word on that point is not flying with this Christian.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Frank]

kcd:
The passages are from the KJV bible. They are prophetic as it relates to the name Christian. The context of Is. 62:1,2 prohesies the new name for all of God's people, including gentiles. Isaiah 62:2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
You can search the old and new testament and the only new name that is found is Christian ( Acts 11:26, I Pet. 4:16, Acts 26:28).
As for the old law it was nailed to the cross.(Col. 2:14). Therefore, being under the law to Christ, not Moses ( I Cor. 9:21) I do not keep the sabbath or circumcision, as these directives were not given to me. ( Deut.5:1-5). This is what my KJV bible says.

 

[BobRyan]

John 14:15 "If you love Me Keep my commandments - for just a few more hours - then I will abolish them".

I guess I had not read that yet -- thanks for pointing it out.

Or not.

In Matt 28 Christ said that the disciples were to "Teach them ALL things as I commanded you" and the result is the 4 gospels written decades later - to the Christian church SHOWING what Christ taught. "IF you Love Me Keep My Commandments".


In Christ,

Bob

 

[kcd]

Frank, thanks for your response.

You state that Isaiah 56:5,6;62:1,2 are “prophetic,” regarding the everlasting name being Christian (sic), yet your interpretation fails the test of “context,” to which you plead, as any unbiased English teacher will affirm, & as
documented by your later statements which I will then identify.

Carefully read Isa 56:2-8; 62:1-4, & forget what you’ve been taught, for such teaching violates “context” since the verses substantiate what I previously stated; that the “everlasting name” promise was directed to those Hebrews & proselytes that were keeping God's "Sabbaths" & had taken hold of His "covenant,” which is circumcision (Gen 17:9-14; Ex 4:26; Josh 5:3)! Please, ask an unbiased English teacher to explain your violation of “context.”
In fact, for your peace of mind, please ask several.

Then ask them to read Eph 2:12: "That at that time ye were with out Christ, being aliens (see a Webster’s dictionary) from the commonwealth of Israel, & strangers (again Webster) from the covenants (Webster) of promise (Webster, for Isa 56:5 & 62:2 are in fact "promises") having no hope, & with out God in this world. Then ask them, in the light of Eph 2:12, if the verses in Isa 56:2-8; 62:1-4 refer to “Gentiles”?

(No logical person can read Romans chapter 11 (written @ 58 AD) & fail to understand that the "but now" in Eph 2:13 (written @ 63 AD) means anything else then “but now,” unless taught otherwise. The "but now" makes it clear that Gentile blessings were “now” [ then ] the result of something that was recently happening, the fall of Israel (Ac 28:25-29 @ 61 AD).

Since there is no where in the New Testament where in fact “the mouth of the Lord shall name,” isn’t your appeal to
Acts 26:28, an admittedly lost king being God’s mouth in saying “Christian,” blasphemous? The fact that Luke (Acts 11:26) mentions that believers were so named by others doesn’t prove God used others as His mouth either ! And, since Peter writes last about the name “Christian” its proof the name was not from God ! Please, think about that, for its obvious your repeating what you’ve been taught.

Consequently your remark: “As for the old law it was nailed to the cross.(Col. 2:14). Therefore, being under the law to Christ, not Moses ( I Cor. 9:21) I do not keep the sabbath or circumcision, as these directives were not given to me.
(Deut.5:1-5)...” you prove my point in your earlier appeal to “context” for you fail to meet the test of such since you cannot scripturally have it both ways. The everlasting name was promised to Hebrews & proselytes who were obviously keeping the Sabbaths & had taken hold of God’s covenant which was circumcision, not the Gentiles that did not observe sabbaths & circumcision because they did not have a covenant with God. Amen ?

If your truely interested in the truth ask God, for He is looking for such folks ( Ps 51:6; 4:23 ). If you still think I’m wrong, please point out my failure, “chapter & verse,” since nobody is right all the time. Have a good one.

 

[Frank]

kcd:
The totality of the evidence teaches that the new name is Christian. There is no other name given in the bible that is new other than Christian.( Acts 11:26, I Pet.4:16, Acts 26:28). If it is not the new name spoken of by the prophetic utterance of Isaiah, please provide the book chapter and verse the states the new name is not Christian.
One of the rules of interpretation is to take all that is written on a subject. This is exactly why you will not be able to scripturally provide another name to prove your point. You will not be able to take the totality of the evidence on this subject and provide another name that is new. It is not because you lack intellect. You cannot do what God has not done.

Moreover, the words of Deut. and the totality of evidence provided in other books teaches us that gentiles were not subject to the old law. Again, remote context also must be used to interpret scripture.The bible says in Romans 2:14,15, 4  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another Paul says the gentiles had not the law. Again, the totality of evidence must be considered.

The prophesy of Isaiah is obviously one of a dual nature. This is evidenced by the new name in Acts 11:26 being applied to disciples. The universal application of I Peter 4:16 also testifies to the new name as applicable to all Christians. The bible says in I Pet. 4:16, Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf. King Agrippa, one who knew the prophets, affirmed the name for those who are saved as Christian. ( Acts 26:27,28).
There are several names mentioned n the immediate context if Isaiah 62. It might be noted that Hephzibah means "my delight is in her" is a likely reference to the church as the bride of Christ. ( Rev. 21:2, Eph.5:25-27). Israel also was to become a part of the spiritual Israel of the new covenant that included the gentiles.( Eph.2:11-22).

 

[kcd]

“The totality of the evidence teaches that the new name is Christian.”

Frank, where is your “totality of evidence”?

Your last post avoids the subject of “context,” to which you pleaded earlier to bolster your
theory that the new name was “Christian,” although thoroughly refuted by God in Isa 56:2-
8; 62:1-4. Those verses clearly prove who (Hebrews & proselytes) & why (they kept Sabbaths & had taken hold of God's covenant, which is circumcision), that the new name was
“Hephzibah,” not “Christian.”

Frank, what part of that don’t you understand ?

“There is no other name given in the bible that is new other than Christian.(Acts 11:26, 1 Pet 4:16, Acts 26:28).” If it is not the new name spoken of by the prophetic utterance of Isaiah, please provide the book chapter and verse the states the new name is not Christian.”

Already have, this will make the 3rd time; Isa 56:2-8; 62:1-4. Please, find an un biased English teacher & follow my previous instructions to you regarding “context.”

“One of the rules of interpretation is to take all that is written on a subject. This is exactly
why you will not be able to scripturally [ Already have, you reject such for it scripturally & logically refutes your religious teaching. ] provide another name [ Frank, God did, its “Hephzibah,” & you’ll find it in Isa 62:4. ] to prove your point. You will not be able to take the totality of the evidence [ Already have, you refuse to accept such because, if you’re honest, it refutes your religious dogma. ]

“The prophesy of Isaiah is obviously one of a dual nature.”

Frank, how can it be “dual nature” when God already gave that everlasting name, its
“Hephzibah” (Isa 62:4) ?

“There are several names mentioned in the immediate context if Isaiah 62. It might be
noted that Hephzibah means "my delight is in her" is a likely reference to the church [ [“Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken ; neither shall thy land any more be termed
Desolate ;” is a reference to the “church” ?!? (Isa 62:4) ] as the bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2, Eph.5:25-27).”

Frank, “Chapter & verse,” that theory & remember the rules (Isa 28:10; 2 Tim 2:15).

“Israel also was to become a part of the spiritual Israel of the new covenant that included
the gentiles.( Eph.2:11-22).”

Frank, you take those scriptures out of context, which Eph 2:12 clearly proves. Even were your
theory right, & context & scriptures has already proven its not , about “Christian” being
that everlasting new name, it is clear Gentiles had no covenant with God when that promise was made ! alone Consequently Eph 2:12 alone destroys your theory !

Since you offer nothing to substantiate the dogma you’ve been taught, which was refuted in my
last post, it would behoove you to seriously consider 2 Pet 3:16, for you’ve proven his point, bywresting Paul’s writings to make such fit your religious training.

Frank, God is looking for those who are truthful (Ps 51:6; Jn 4:23). Keep that in mind. Good day.

 

[kcd]

To Frank or others that affirm the correct name is “Christian.”

You know about the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), so help me out.

1) Upon arriving home had Candace learned what happened from her eunuch, read the same scriptures he did, was convicted of her need to be saved, & told him that she also believed Jesus was the Son of God, would he been empowered to baptize her?

A) If yes, & she was baptized, what name (besides Queen Candace) would she been called for having done such?

C) If he’s not empowered to baptize, but does so because he deems it proper, is she saved & what name is she called for having done such?

D) If he thinks it improper for him to baptize, thus refuses to, & she dies without baptism, is she saved & what name is she called?

E) Since all agree he is saved, what name was he called when he got back to Ethiopia?

Gentlemen, thanks in advance.

 

[BobRyan]

Isaiah 58 points out that the foreigners that choose to keep the 10 commandments - including the Sabbath commandment are blessed by God.

Peter declares that it is an honor to suffer as a Christian.

In Christ,

Bob