Comments on: The Fork in the Road: The Pattern Et Cetera

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:01:54 +0000

Clark,

PS — call me "Jay." My grandfather was "Brother Guin." I just feel more comfortable with my first name. After all, if my brother in the flesh were to call me "Brother Guin" I'd have to punch him. Brothers are one a first-name basis.

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:00:24 +0000

Clark,

Brownlow, of course, quotes James — but his point is that if we don't follow the pattern, we are damned. And that is not at all what James is saying. You can use James' words to say things he never meant.

It looks like we are on the same page as to the other quotations.

We are sometimes so motivated to defend our views on baptism or whatever that we are willing to stand Paul's writings on their head just to win the argument. And this leads to some very serious problems in our theology.

By: Clark Coleman

Clark Coleman — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:21:43 +0000

Brother Guin: I have now read the first link, to the Moody Church of Christ teaching. They argue that baptism and prayer are both works, in an effort to refute those who claim we are saved by a "sinner's prayer." I would argue that neither baptism nor prayer are works in the Biblical sense. Furthermore, as you cannot perform a Christian work until you are a saved Christian, no act of obedience that one argues precedes salvation (whether it be baptism, a confession, or a prayer for forgiveness) could be called a Christian work. Again, it seems that there is a regrettable need for clear teaching in the brotherhood on the subject of works.

By: Clark Coleman

Clark Coleman — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:15:42 +0000

Brother Guin: I have now had a little time to read the Conyers Church of Christ link you posted (the second link). They start out on the same tack, speaking of baptism as a work of God. However, instead of properly distinguishing meritorious works of men from the works performed by God to which we merely submit, as the early fathers spoke of baptism, they give their own definition of work of God as an action that is required by God. Thus they misunderstand the "of" in "work of God" to mean "required by" and leave belief and baptism as works that we perform. I agree that this is an erroneous teaching concerning baptism as a work of men. I regret seeing this teaching, but appreciate the link.

By: Clark Coleman

Clark Coleman — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 11:18:41 +0000

Brother Guin: Thanks for the references supplied. I will try to read these comments in context to see whether the authors stray from the Biblical teaching or not. This is not so clear just from seeing these quoted words. For example, when Leroy Brownlow says that we are saved by faith and works, is he saying something different than James said? Does he have a proper understanding of the book of James? I don't know. I have a copy of the book, but it is in a box somewhere and I have not read it in many years.

I did click on the last URL you posted, because I was curious about the "belief is a work" quote, which seems bizarre. In context, the author was distinguishing between meritorious works of man, on the on hand, and the works of God that God works through us, on the other hand. He put all of the factors of our salvation, including belief and baptism, into the latter category, denying that they were meritorious works, but were works of God. This is consistent with scripture and with the early church fathers. Do you agree?

By: Jay Guin

Jay Guin — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 22:42:22 +0000

Goebel Music, Behold the Pattern, pp 506 ff —

5. Saving Grace Involves Works. ... b. Works included. ... If baptism is not necessary because it is a command, then neither is faith or repentance ... God will not do for man what man can do. God performed only that which man could not do. 6. Saving Grace And Law Are Inseparable ... c. We need to emphasize that "law" is a means of appropriating God's "grace."

Leroy Brownlow, Why I Am a Member of the Church of Christ p 104 ff "Every person who teaches justification by faith only does violence to the Scriptures and denies the inspired message of James. ... He was saved by faith. But when? When faith obeyed! ... Thus the lost in sin are justified by grace, by Christ, by blood, by the name or authority of Christ, by faith and by works. These are two very prominent works within 20th Century Church of Christ thinking. You might also look at these links: http://moodychurchofchrist.com/bible-study/articl... http://www.conyerschurchofchrist.com/articles/isb... http://junctionhighwaychurch.com/?p=138 ("Logically, if we are not saved by works, then we cannot be saved by faith, for Jesus says that faith (belief) is a work.")

By: nick gill

nick gill — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:43:52 +0000

Nick, could it not be interpreted as, avoid sin to stay healthy, or that health problems are caused by sin.

That is not how the audience interpreted Jesus' words (Mk 2:7). That is not how Jesus Himself interpreted his words (Mk 2:10). Could it be interpreted your way? Sure! I've graded many a math quiz where students interpreted 5×5 to mean any number of different things. But the teacher says it means 25 – so that's the interpretation I'll stick with.

Could that be the great physician’s diagnosis: forgiveness of sins cures all ills.

No. Forgiveness of sins does not cure all ills. It only puts a person back at square one.

It does not reconcile a person to God.
It does not place one in the covenant people of God.
It does not clothe a person with Christ.
It does not grant a person the Spirit of God.
It does not break the power of sin enslaving a person.

Forgiveness of sins is precisely what it says it is and nothing more. It forgives sins.

By: laymond

laymond — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:21:59 +0000

Nick, could it not be interpreted as, avoid sin to stay healthy, or that health problems are caused by sin.
Could that be the great physician's diagnosis forgiveness of sins cures all ills.

By: nick gill

nick gill — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:46:02 +0000

Nick, I only have the human perspective. You see that is all I am. And I can’t read God’s mind.

Yes, but you can read God's book, where he shares his mission and what's important to him and how he's going about accomplishing things. We can live non-selfcentered existences. Part of my rejection of forgiveness-of-sins as the preeminent reason for baptism is that it pushes our message into a "what's in it for me?" shape that doesn't fit the Gospel or the mission of God.

Surely you are not saying Jesus was frivolous in his actions are you?

Frivolous? No. Shockingly extravagant? Yes. Laymond, he forgave a guy's sins because his friends tore the roof off of his house. That sort of action displays an ease and a lack of interest in ritual correctness that should affect how we operate as his ambassadors.

besides I thought we were discussing the reason for baptism, not the ways in which sins have been forgiven.

I think they're related topics, since you and others are asserting that the one blessing of Christian baptism that must be understood beforehand is forgiveness-of-sins. I'm showing that many people received forgiveness of sins from Jesus without their motive being the acquisition of forgiveness.

By: laymond

laymond — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 08:26:07 +0000

Nick said; "From our human perspective, it looks like forgiveness of sins is THE big deal. However, forgiving sins is pretty easy for God to do. Jesus spoke them forgiven right and left"
Surely you are not saying Jesus was frivolous in his actions are you?
besides I thought we were discussing the reason for baptism, not the ways in which sins have been forgiven.