• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The early church and baptism

JSM17

New Member
TCGREEK WROTE:
JSM17,

You believe that a person must be baptized in water to be saved. Most of us don't.

You're not the first to gather all these data to win us over.

And you will not be the last.

Simply put, a person is saved by faith in Jesus Christ apart from water baptism.

You're too dependent on human logic.

Scripture is neither modern nor postmodern.

I believe that the new birth is by water and Spirit (John 3:5)

The data was to show that many ideas around the purpose of baptism did not start a few centuries ago.

No one is saved by faith alone when the new birth is by water and Spirit.

Logic is not a human idea, God is logical and sets the ideas of logic through scripture, are we to say that God is not logical. If there is one truth then there must be logical arguements to prove that one truth in the midst of non truth.
 

Darron Steele

New Member
TCGreek said:
JSM17,

You believe that a person must be baptized in water to be saved. Most of us don't.

You're not the first to gather all these data to win us over.

And you will not be the last.

Simply put, a person is saved by faith in Jesus Christ apart from water baptism.

...
Amen.

One would think that the New Testament-era church would have been a sufficient authority to determine correct doctrine about salvation. The opinions of men after them are the subject of this thread.

Acts 10:43 expressly says of Jesus Christ "everyone that believeth on him |receives| remission of sins" (ASV|ESV|ASV).

If anyone subsequent to them said otherwise, it deserves no credence. What the Bible teaches, goes.
 

MorganT

New Member
JSM17 said:
Using this logic (or your logic) I could go to Acts 19 and declare that they (12 rebaptized men) were not saved until after baptism because they did recieve the Holy Spirit until Paul laid his hands on them and then they spoke in tongues. Since you say Cornelius was saved because the Holy Spirit came upon him.

I find it interesting that Peter when he gives his story to those in Jerusalem, Luke makes sure that the reader understands that his account is given in an orderly sequence (11:4), which is imporant if you consider that Peter was to go to the house of Cornelius and speak word in which they could be saved by (11:14), yet as Peter BEGINS to speak the H.S. fell upon them.

Why did the H.S. fall upon them? Why was it just like when He (Spirit) fell upon the Apostles in the beginning? Were the Apostles saved only when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, or were they saved before that time?

Maybe the case of those in Samaria is a better example. The Samaritans had believed and were even baptized, yet they had to wait till John and Peter came down from Jerusalem to lay their hands on them.
So with your logic they were not saved until the Holy Spirit came upon them, which was after they believed (which most of you say they were saved already), which was after they were baptized ( which most say is a sign of already being saved), yet now your saying that they were not saved because the Holy Spirit was not in them until the Apostles came down and laid hands on them.

One thing is for sure, New birth, water and spirit.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why all these account of conversion are different when it comes to the H.S.?

I would really like to here Morgan t response to the question I posed above.


Yes I know you would but since you have disregarded all my questions with new questions of your own, I am not answering your question instead I am asking questions of my own like you have all along. You just dont seem to like it when someone does it back to you. I have the answer but at this time I refuse to acknowledge you with a response because you have done everyone on this board the same way. It seems my old Church of Christ up bringing has shown its ugly face for a minute. OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

MorganT

New Member
MorganT said:
Yes I know you would but since you have disregarded all my questions with new questions of your own, I am not answering your question instead I am asking questions of my own like you have all along. You just dont seem to like it when someone does it back to you. I have the answer but at this time I refuse to acknowledge you with a response because you have done everyone on this board the same way. It seems my old Church of Christ up bringing has shown its ugly face for a minute. OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alright enough fun, now its time to get serious. Im going to let a scholar answer this for me. This is from John MacAurthor and all credit to this goes to him but you will see that he agrees with me, or is it the other way around I agree with him either way, we are on the same page.

Is Baptism Necessary for Salvation?



No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue:

First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?

Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism.

The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation.

In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. We can't discuss here all the textual evidence that has caused many New Testament scholars to reject the passage. But you can find a thorough discussion in Bruce Metzger, et al., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 122-128, and William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Mark, pp. 682-687.

Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and
Romans 6.

In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name.

Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation.


Is Baptism Necessary for salvation
 

TCGreek

New Member
JSM17 said:
TCGREEK WROTE:


I believe that the new birth is by water and Spirit (John 3:5)

The data was to show that many ideas around the purpose of baptism did not start a few centuries ago.

No one is saved by faith alone when the new birth is by water and Spirit.

Logic is not a human idea, God is logical and sets the ideas of logic through scripture, are we to say that God is not logical. If there is one truth then there must be logical arguements to prove that one truth in the midst of non truth.

So what is the water?
 

JSM17

New Member
MORGANT WROTE
Yes I know you would but since you have disregarded all my questions with new questions of your own, I am not answering your question instead I am asking questions of my own like you have all along. You just dont seem to like it when someone does it back to you. I have the answer but at this time I refuse to acknowledge you with a response because you have done everyone on this board the same way. It seems my old Church of Christ up bringing has shown its ugly face for a minute. OH NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am not sure how nay peoples questions I have answered, but I know at times I cannot keep up with everyone just as you cannot at times. I beleive there was one question from you that I did not give a direct response right away, but then I made response and you still said that I had made not response. It was the question on re baptizing.
Now I just pulled up the last time I asked the intital question before this last time and when I asked the question you as well answered with a question so I think its just what we do sometimes. But I will answer your question pasted below, but I just wanted things to be clear. It would also be fair to say that I have NOT disregarded ALL your questions, And as you have said that I have done this all along is also an unfair statement. The statement that I have done everyone else the sme way is also not true. I well however ignore your sarcasm at the end of your last post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSM17
Morgan T said:


Using this logic (or your logic) I could go to Acts 19 and declare that they (12 rebaptized men) were not saved until after baptism because they did recieve the Holy Spirit until Paul laid his hands on them and then they spoke in tongues. Since you say Cornelius was saved because the Holy Spirit came upon him.

I find it interesting that Peter when he gives his story to those in Jerusalem, Luke makes sure that the reader understands that his account is given in an orderly sequence (11:4), which is imporant if you consider that Peter was to go to the house of Cornelius and speak word in which they could be saved by (11:14), yet as Peter BEGINS to speak the H.S. fell upon them.

Why did the H.S. fall upon them? Why was it just like when He (Spirit) fell upon the Apostles in the beginning? Were the Apostles saved only when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, or were they saved before that time?

Maybe the case of those in Samaria is a better example. The Samaritans had believed and were even baptized, yet they had to wait till John and Peter came down from Jerusalem to lay their hands on them.
So with your logic they were not saved until the Holy Spirit came upon them, which was after they believed (which most of you say they were saved already), which was after they were baptized ( which most say is a sign of already being saved), yet now your saying that they were not saved because the Holy Spirit was not in them until the Apostles came down and laid hands on them.

One thing is for sure, New birth, water and spirit.

I would like to hear someone explain to me why all these account of conversion are different when it comes to the H.S.?


Well why did Paul say that he was glad that he had not baptized very many people if that is what it took to save them. Paul says that he was called to preach the gospel


Baptism is obiedence to the word after salvation, its not the way to the cross for salvation.

Act 14:21-23 And preaching the gospel to that city, and having made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and Iconium and Antioch, (22) confirming the souls of the disciples, calling on them to continue in the faith and that through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God. (23) And having hand-picked elders for them in every church, and had prayed with fastings, they commended them to the Lord into whom they believed.

Why do you reckon in verse 23 it says nothing about in whom they were baptized, it only says believed.

Act 15:35 Also Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the gospel, the Word of the Lord, with many others also.

Why do you reckon that verse 35 says nothing about them baptizing on teaching and preaching.


We see that Lydia worshiped God and her heart was opened by the Lord, and THEN she was baptized, because she was obiedent to the word, not in order to receive it.

Now lets look at this next scripture closely now.
Act 16:30-33 And leading them outside, he said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? (31) And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, and your household. (32) And they spoke the Word of the Lord to him, and to all who were in his household. (33) And taking them in that hour of the night, he washed from their stripes. And he was baptized, he and all his, immediately.

The jailer first ask what to do in order to be saved and he was answered Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved then after he was saved they baptized them immediately and I have no problem with people being baptized immediately as long as they know that its an act of obiedence and not an act that will save them.

You see, Im not debating that one should not be baptized, Im debating the reason one should be baptized, JSM17 says that one is not saved until baptism and I say that one is saved thru Faith and is baptized as an act of obiedence.

Your first question:
Well why did Paul say that he was glad that he had not baptized very many people if that is what it took to save them. Paul says that he was called to preach the gospel
My answer:
First Paul says that he is thankful of baptizing none of you, who is the you in this passage, obviously those who were calling themselves after men. Of course Paul does say that he baptized Crispus and Gaiaus. Verse 15 so none of you would say that you were baptized in my name. Then Paul declares that he baptized the household of Stephanas, beyond that Paul says that he does not know whether he baptized any other.

I am not sure but it seems that you think that I think that baptism is the only thing I believe that renders salvation, this is not so.
Indeed Paul was sent to preach Christ, but I am not sure why this elimnated the very things that Paul did and submitted to and the very things that Paul said concerning baptism.

Your second question:
Baptism is obiedence to the word after salvation, its not the way to the cross for salvation.

Act 14:21-23 And preaching the gospel to that city, and having made many disciples, they returned to Lystra and Iconium and Antioch, (22) confirming the souls of the disciples, calling on them to continue in the faith and that through much tribulation we must enter into the kingdom of God. (23) And having hand-picked elders for them in every church, and had prayed with fastings, they commended them to the Lord into whom they believed.

Why do you reckon in verse 23 it says nothing about in whom they were baptized, it only says believed.

Your first statement I find no scripture for.
I guess the same Idea can be said to why it says nothing about repentance, does not infer that they did not repent? It does not however say that they believed only!

Your third question:
Act 15:35 Also Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the gospel, the Word of the Lord, with many others also.

Why do you reckon that verse 35 says nothing about them baptizing on teaching and preaching.

The passage says nothing about believing or repenting or confessing or receiving the Holy Spirit, so what does your question prove?

Your fourth question:
Act 16:14-15 And a certain woman named Lydia heard us, a seller of purple of the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God; whose heart the Lord opened, so that she attended to the things which were spoken by Paul. (15) And when she was baptized, she and her household, she begged us, saying, If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay. And she constrained us.

We see that Lydia worshiped God and her heart was opened by the Lord, and THEN she was baptized, because she was obiedent to the word, not in order to receive it.

The passage actually teaches me that Lydia was obedient (faithful) for without it should would not be right before God's eyes, to not be baptized is disobedience towards God.

Your fifth question: The jailer first ask what to do in order to be saved and he was answered Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved then after he was saved they baptized them immediately and I have no problem with people being baptized immediately as long as they know that its an act of obiedence and not an act that will save them.

I guess this is not really a question but a statement, but I will respond only by saying that the passage does not say "then after he was saved they baptized" that is something that you said, the scripture does not say this!

You see, Im not debating that one should not be baptized, Im debating the reason one should be baptized, JSM17 says that one is not saved until baptism and I say that one is saved thru Faith and is baptized as an act of obiedence.

One is not saved by baptism alone, and I do not believe that anyone is saved by water. It is faith working through obedience to God the things he has commanded us to do in order to receive the forgiveness of our past sins. Jesus said that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.
 

MorganT

New Member
JSM17 said:
MORGANT WROTE


I am not sure how nay peoples questions I have answered, but I know at times I cannot keep up with everyone just as you cannot at times. I beleive there was one question from you that I did not give a direct response right away, but then I made response and you still said that I had made not response. It was the question on re baptizing.
Now I just pulled up the last time I asked the intital question before this last time and when I asked the question you as well answered with a question so I think its just what we do sometimes. But I will answer your question pasted below, but I just wanted things to be clear. It would also be fair to say that I have NOT disregarded ALL your questions, And as you have said that I have done this all along is also an unfair statement. The statement that I have done everyone else the sme way is also not true. I well however ignore your sarcasm at the end of your last post.


Your first question:
My answer:
First Paul says that he is thankful of baptizing none of you, who is the you in this passage, obviously those who were calling themselves after men. Of course Paul does say that he baptized Crispus and Gaiaus. Verse 15 so none of you would say that you were baptized in my name. Then Paul declares that he baptized the household of Stephanas, beyond that Paul says that he does not know whether he baptized any other.

I am not sure but it seems that you think that I think that baptism is the only thing I believe that renders salvation, this is not so.
Indeed Paul was sent to preach Christ, but I am not sure why this elimnated the very things that Paul did and submitted to and the very things that Paul said concerning baptism.

Your second question:

Your first statement I find no scripture for.
I guess the same Idea can be said to why it says nothing about repentance, does not infer that they did not repent? It does not however say that they believed only!

Your third question:

The passage says nothing about believing or repenting or confessing or receiving the Holy Spirit, so what does your question prove?

Your fourth question:

The passage actually teaches me that Lydia was obedient (faithful) for without it should would not be right before God's eyes, to not be baptized is disobedience towards God.

Your fifth question: The jailer first ask what to do in order to be saved and he was answered Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved then after he was saved they baptized them immediately and I have no problem with people being baptized immediately as long as they know that its an act of obiedence and not an act that will save them.

I guess this is not really a question but a statement, but I will respond only by saying that the passage does not say "then after he was saved they baptized" that is something that you said, the scripture does not say this!



One is not saved by baptism alone, and I do not believe that anyone is saved by water. It is faith working through obedience to God the things he has commanded us to do in order to receive the forgiveness of our past sins. Jesus said that he who believes and is baptized shall be saved.


Well maybe there was a bit of sarcasm in there but you have, what 4 threads going on the same thing and I think we have beaten this horse dead a few times. Its certain that we are not going to convince you of what the scripture says and its also certain that you are not going to convice us of your interpretation of those said scripture, so I ask one last question, and that is what is your purpose for coming into a Baptist board that you agree nothing with except to stir up some "trouble" for lack of a better word. I know that there are boards for Church of Christ but yet you spend your time debating Baptist, wouldnt your time be spent better trying to reach the lost, or better yet trying to teach Church of Christ your "false" doctrine. I posted a post with John MacArthurs thoughts, I already know that you disagree with them because they dont line up with the Church of Christ doctrine. I am just curious what your motive in all this is.
 

JSM17

New Member
I am not sure you bother reading my posts, because I have clearly stated why I am here, I know what Johnny Mac says about baptism I listen on the radio, I have his study bible and so on and so forth, but he is a man just like you and just like me, he could be wrong and so could I, I never leave that possibility closed, because without an open mind and heart we cannot learn.

I made reponses to your questions and thats is why I am here to have discussion, it is better than watching t.v. and spend plenty of time in evangelistic efforts and just for you I would hve you know that I do debate with the COC people on issues. Do not think that your so special that I do not debate with other denominations and other belief systems, which include athiests and others.

You seem to be really hard pressed in not wanting me here on this forum, let me just say that the only place I have been on this forum is on the section called Christian debate forums (all Christians), thats what I thought we did here, I would love to see more diversity in this section, and maybe in the past there has been. I have mde it a point to answer your questions, but I am not going to stop everytime you ask me why I am here, I have stated why and now I am moving on with posts and issues to no longer discuss this matter, please do not let your bitterness about my beliefs develop in to a bitterness on my character, because you do not know me, you just barely know what I believe.
 

Zenas

Active Member
MorganT said:
. . . what is your purpose for coming into a Baptist board that you agree nothing with except to stir up some "trouble" for lack of a better word. I know that there are boards for Church of Christ but yet you spend your time debating Baptist, wouldnt your time be spent better trying to reach the lost, or better yet trying to teach Church of Christ your "false" doctrine. I posted a post with John MacArthurs thoughts, I already know that you disagree with them because they dont line up with the Church of Christ doctrine. I am just curious what your motive in all this is.
Maybe I shouldn't be trying to answer a question posited to JSM17 because I don't know his motives. However, this board is titled "Other Christian Denominations" and it ought not to be unusual to hear from people whose POV differs from ours. I don't post as often as some and probably spend more time reading what others are saying, but sometimes it gets really boring when everyone is simply saying, "Amen" or "I agree completely" or "You have said all that needs to be said on this" or words to that effect. Also I don't understand why Church of Christ posters here are met with such hostility. Others who post here, e.g., Matt Black and Agnus Dei, have views even more unbaptistic than the CoC but they are treated with respect. So why does everyone get so thoroughly antagonistic when CoC people post here?
 

MorganT

New Member
JSM17 said:
I am not sure you bother reading my posts, because I have clearly stated why I am here, I know what Johnny Mac says about baptism I listen on the radio, I have his study bible and so on and so forth, but he is a man just like you and just like me, he could be wrong and so could I, I never leave that possibility closed, because without an open mind and heart we cannot learn.

I made reponses to your questions and thats is why I am here to have discussion, it is better than watching t.v. and spend plenty of time in evangelistic efforts and just for you I would hve you know that I do debate with the COC people on issues. Do not think that your so special that I do not debate with other denominations and other belief systems, which include athiests and others.

You seem to be really hard pressed in not wanting me here on this forum, let me just say that the only place I have been on this forum is on the section called Christian debate forums (all Christians), thats what I thought we did here, I would love to see more diversity in this section, and maybe in the past there has been. I have mde it a point to answer your questions, but I am not going to stop everytime you ask me why I am here, I have stated why and now I am moving on with posts and issues to no longer discuss this matter, please do not let your bitterness about my beliefs develop in to a bitterness on my character, because you do not know me, you just barely know what I believe.


Brother, I did not say anything about not wanting you here, its just the fact that you have 4 threads that lead to the same thing "BAPTISM" I just wonder why its that big of an issue with you that you think it takes 4 threads to discuss. I am glad you are here. The thing is I have not seen an open mind with you, when you are showed scripture, you either disregard it or you interprit the scripture a way that doesnt line up with other scriptures. That is what I have tried to point out to you but when its pointed out you get defensive. I for one am glad you are here, I just hope that one day your eyes will be opened and you will except the scripture in context and not from pulling scripture from and here and there to make is say what you want, and yes I know that is what you are doing because if you remember back, I said I had been raised Church of Christ, I was taught everything you have been saying, so its old news to me. Neither of us are arguing that one shouldnt be Baptized, we both say that one should, we are arguing the reason that one should be baptized, and we have walked that mud hole dry serveral times through out the 4 threads, yet here we are still discussing it, do you have another subject that we can get on with.
 

MorganT

New Member
Zenas said:
Maybe I shouldn't be trying to answer a question posited to JSM17 because I don't know his motives. However, this board is titled "Other Christian Denominations" and it ought not to be unusual to hear from people whose POV differs from ours. I don't post as often as some and probably spend more time reading what others are saying, but sometimes it gets really boring when everyone is simply saying, "Amen" or "I agree completely" or "You have said all that needs to be said on this" or words to that effect. Also I don't understand why Church of Christ posters here are met with such hostility. Others who post here, e.g., Matt Black and Agnus Dei, have views even more unbaptistic than the CoC but they are treated with respect. So why does everyone get so thoroughly antagonistic when CoC people post here?

I meant no disrespect to JSM17, I just dont understand why we need to keep on this, no one has said AH HA your right. I welcome him in here and I would like to see him open some other discussions that dont lead to Baptism but he has yet to do that. Lets get one going on music that is always fun.
 

TCGreek

New Member
MorganT said:
I meant no disrespect to JSM17, I just dont understand why we need to keep on this, no one has said AH HA your right. I welcome him in here and I would like to see him open some other discussions that dont lead to Baptism but he has yet to do that. Lets get one going on music that is always fun.

Apparently JSM17 has made it his mission to convert the rest of us to his COC position on water baptism.

faith alone is too simple for him
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Darron Steele

New Member
Zenas said:
...Matt Black and Agnus Dei, have views even more unbaptistic than the CoC but they are treated with respect. So why does everyone get so thoroughly antagonistic when CoC people post here?
It might be in part because of how belligerent Church of Christ promoters tend to get, both on Internet discussion boards and in real life.

Also, in part, it could be because we get tired of dealing with the same stuff from them. We refute one person who teaches that believers on the Lord Jesus Christ will be unsaved if they fail to get properly baptized, and s/he gives up and leaves; then another one comes along with the exact same stuff. It gets annoying.

With Agnus Dei and Matt Black, they are individuals. You get different arguments from them. In contrast, at most Church of Christ congregations, congregants get told what to think Scripture teaches; if you disagree on anything, you become a `second class' member at best. Therefore, they generally have the exact same positions and the exact same arguments. They do not think for themselves, because the group position is `what the Bible teaches' in their minds. This current Church of Christ poster has not done much but present yet again the same `canned' arguments we have dealt with before. I cannot help but be annoyed myself.

Also, Agnus Dei and Matt Black are learning to control how often they bring up their favorite `hobby horses.' On the other hand, as someone noted, this current Church of Christ poster has several threads going about the same subject. When one approach fails to get the desired result, s/he simply starts another thread to advance the same premise. I cannot help but be sympathetic to those who are annoyed.

However, the biggest problem I suspect is that many of us know how Church of Christ promoters normally operate: belligerently. It is often encouraged in Church of Christ circles to lie about other church groups. In debates, `creative misrepresentation' is often encouraged against opponents. Within their walls, `denominationalists' are reviled as desiring to disobey God and live in wanton sin. Incivility toward `denominationalists' is often encouraged. This state is not the case in all Churches of Christ, but it is a disproportionate problem among them. Most congregations that do not participate in this state may not participate in it, but they will condone it, make excuses for it, and otherwise support it. Again, this does not describe them all, but the Churches of Christ have this for a major problem. Because of this, Church of Christ promoters are often distrusted.

I remember being a Church of Christ member. I did not agree with them on every precept, and I did not approve of all that happens among them -- but my congregation did not participate in the activities of radical `Church of Christ' buildings, and so I hung around. On Internet discussion boards, anytime I identified myself as such, people assumed that I was a Church of Christ promoter, and would assume that I was going to approach them with the above attitudes. Neither was true -- but I never blamed anyone for suspecting such, because they had good reason to. I left the Churches of Christ because it became evident that if I wanted to do more than fill a pew, I had to go to another church group.

To be sure, I love the Churches of Christ -- but not every group precept, and not everything that happens among them. I still participate in activities of one of them, but `bite my tongue' a lot. There is slow progress occurring among the Churches of Christ, and I enjoy seeing it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TCGreek

New Member
Darron Steele said:
It might be in part because of how belligerent Church of Christ promoters tend to get, both on Internet discussion boards and in real life.

My only problem with some COC folks is when they try to tell the rest of us that we are lost for not agreeing with their conclusions on issues like baptism, instrumental music, church name, church government, and so on.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Zenas said:
No but I have a hunch Jesus baptized His disciples and this is what John is referring to in John 3:22. In John 4:2 it says Jesus was not baptizing but His disciples were, which means John 3:22 is wrong or . . . Jesus first baptized His disciples and then turned that duty over to them. We can't prove this to be true but I think it is implied in these passages.

A hunch and $4 or $5 will get you a cup of Starbucks. John 4:1, 2 tells us:

1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
 

Zenas

Active Member
OldRegular said:
A hunch and $4 or $5 will get you a cup of Starbucks. John 4:1, 2 tells us:

1. When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
2. (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
In John 3:22 it says Jesus was baptizing. In John 4:2 it says He did not baptize. How do you reconcile these seeming contradictions? Answer: (which I first presented in Post No. 6) Jesus baptized His disciples. Having been baptized, they were suitable administrators of this rite so He stopped baptizing let them do it in His name.
 
Top