I get emails —
Is the Church of Christ balkanizing? Is this the start of another great divide? All in the name of the gospel? (Yes, it has been done before as you well know.)
No. The Church of Christ has already balkanized.
The dictionary definition of “balkanize” is —
to break up (as a region or group) into smaller and often hostile units
That’s us. And, yes, it’s getting worse.
The current divide, which I refer to the conservative/progressive divide, is not like any of the other divides because it’s not about whether X is authorized under CENI. Think about it: From 1906 until now, every Church of Christ division of consequence has been over whether a particular practice is authorized — instrumental music, missionary societies, located preachers, fund raisers other than free will offerings, multiple communion cups, support for orphanages and the Herald of Truth from church funds, etc., etc. Every split was driven by the false hermeneutic that we borrowed from the Zwinglians and Puritans, known as the Regulative Principle.
The current divide is not over a single issue, but a bundle of issues. Different churches and individuals take varying positions on these issues, but the central position is that the Regulative Principle (CENI) does not define what are fellowship issues. For the first time, people are arguing that even if we don’t agree on instrumental music, one cup, etc., we are still brothers and should be fully in fellowship.
Rethinking fellowship necessarily leads to a rethinking of baptism, although many whom I’d consider progressive would insist that those not baptized as a believer by immersion for remission of sins are lost. But increasingly, progressives are concluding that baptism to obey is sufficient, and many are concluding that God’s grace would certainly extend to those baptized by sprinkling if they obeyed God’s command to be baptized as they understood the command.
You see, once our minds shift from the anti-scriptural, anti-Christian CENI, we are forced to seek another set of boundaries for who are and aren’t saved, and the scriptures repeatedly, emphatically teach that all with faith in Jesus are saved. You have only to read your New Testaments with a mind freed from CENI to see it.
Now, this is not even close to antinomianism, that is, lawlessness or license. Rather, faith, correctly understood, demands faithfulness to Jesus, and it’s my observation that the progressive Churches of Christ are, on the whole, much more faithful after becoming progressive than before. They don’t drift into lawlessness. Rather, they get involved in missions, evangelism, and helping the poor. The change is often quite dramatic as legalism yields to the Spirit.
So, yes, the push away from legalism is in the name of the gospel, indeed, the name of Jesus. After all, CENI has given us a century of balkanization — dividing the Church of Christ into smaller and often hostile units. Jesus said,
(Luk 7:35 ESV) 35 “Yet wisdom is justified by all her children.”
and
(Mat 7:17-20 ESV) 17 “So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. 18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.”
The fruit of CENI is bad. It should be thrown into the fire. And if that were to happen, we’d enjoy far greater unity and far less balkanization.
Until now, every dispute has produced greater division, but at long last, today I’m seeing one-cup believers in full fellowship with non-institutional believers in full fellowship with progressive believers in full fellowship with “mainstream” believers.
And that’s good fruit. The new disagreement — the current refusal to bow before the altar of CENI — brings unity, even though it necessarily is disagreement. But it’s disagreement with those who divide and divide again by preaching a false gospel — adding adherence to one party’s interpretation of CENI as a test of salvation.
But, in fact, we are saved by the perfect work of Jesus on the cross and not our ability to discern hidden commands buried in the silences! Praise God!
(1Co 5:7 ESV) 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.
Jay….I once pretty much balked at the “faith demands faithfulness” thing…. actions worked into faith as a redeeming value bother me… but it can’t be ignored that my Trust in my Father to catch me will allow me to Jump… The level of Trust that I have will necessarily be reflected in my actions… I believe God knows the level of trust…and if we act imperfectly that’s OK…We moved in faith in full assurance of His ability to catch us….not in our ability to do…. Is that close to being consistent with your “faithfulness” ??
Jay,
Though I no longer attend a CoC, I am thankful that a more progressive mindset is prevailing. Still, the rural and small town church has a way to go.
But a problem I see in the progressive movement, as has been pointed out by others in a few very good CoC theological schools, is the danger of the CoC, rather than actually progressing, simply sliding over into a bland evangelicalism. These progressive teachers do not want to introduce the instrument, or take the baptist position regarding baptism. They believe the traditions that the CoC has accepted through honest study can remain, being a distinctive witness in the community, while allowing God’s mystery, mercy and grace to prevail over our thinking and conclusions, guiding our attitudes and work with others.
Any thoughts?
This speaks to my biggest rub concerning the progressive movement. It continually cites past splinters that involved very small groups. In reality, there usually was a large mainstream that remained in tact. During this same period in time, many non-CENI groups split much more than us.
Now, the progressives are causing the by far biggest split among us in the last 100 years all for the sake of unity. Hmm.
It’s not a surprise that the CoCs are continually balkanizing; it’s pretty much always been that way. What I think is happening now is that (1) some factions are definitely dying off – i.e. the Getwell congregation in Memphis, home of the Spiritual Sword, is fading away attendance-wise – and (2) a significant portion of our fellowship just doesn’t pay attention to the factions, don’t define their sense of identity from whatever side they’re asked to be on.
Where we attend in Columbia, Mo., there are all the indicia of the accustomed collective hive: CoC HE alumni networks, college ministry networks, youth ministry networks, and the like. To the extent that one can plug into one or more of them, folks are finding a place, getting involved, becoming a part of that community, and maintaining/renewed spiritual growth. The congregation seems to be doing well.
On the other hand, when your networks are rooted in opposition to others, adherence to fantastic beliefs of times past, and doctrinal squabbling, I suspect that those factions are not doing as well.
Bob Brandon’s comment addressed the problem target center. Those who have their eyes on Jesus will be blessed; those who have their eyes on one another will not. In case one, people see one another as objects for service in love. In case two, people see one another as objects representing error that must be put down. In case one, God does the defining and we serve. In case two, we do the defining and label and point fingers instead of serving. It would seem to be more important to point out why you are serving in error than for me to look to Christ. Even the names give the motives away. Conservative and progressive; CENI or non-CENI, instrumental or non-, etc. Labels for one another. Speak where the Bible speaks? I find “brother” in the Bible, but not the above terms. The Internet only fosters communication. It is people who use it to either promote unity or division. People with their eyes on someone else’s opinions will reveal their idol and, in righteous indignation, will defend it. It’s always someone else’s fault. Balkanization may be getting worse, or it may be just getting more publicized. We are “balking” at one another’s opinionated interpretations more than we are elevating Jesus. And then someone analyzes the statistics of the CoC’s decline. Duh. We were created to be like God, not anti-images of one another. (Continued on another website.)
My observations are pretty much the same as Bob Brandon’s. In Texas there are some coC congregations that are doing well, some that are dying, and others that are just surviving. The ones doing well are growing by growing the Kingdom. They tend to be theologically Conservative, (Conservative here meaning preach what the bible says not what is tradition) while being progressive in worship and approach to reaching the lost. Kinda, like what Paul teaches do what it takes to that one may be saved. Which leads me to what is probably the main reason for a congregation’s decline: They forget to actually spread the gospel personally. Sure, they give to overseas mission work but they completely forget about the mission in their own back yard.
Unfortunately, in the City where I live there are only coC congregations that are in the “dying” or “just surviving” category so I now attend a Baptist Church that is doing some pretty amazing things. Imagine my surprise when I found the Pastor to preach from the Bible every Sunday, Baptize every one that has professed their faith in Christ, and preach the most moving communion services I have ever been party too. I have actually seen more baptisms in the last 6 months then my 10 years at a coC congregation of roughly the same size.
The only coC group I see making any positive progress in the local mission field where I live is the local Christians in Action (CIA) college ministry group that is headed by Clint Hill. If you don’t know about this ministry started by Lynn Stringfellow and supported by Campus Ministry United and Harding University you should look it up.
CENI or the Regulative Principle are not the problem, Jay. They have their value, explain a lot (but not everything), should be used and handled with care as any other method.
The Problem is that I don’t see a method in the progressive theology. I see a lot of assumptions, half-truths and reliance on partially quoted secondary sources – Leroy’s use of restoration history is VERY telling in this respect.
The result is as follows:
Progressivism is not a united effort to lead a united church onward to a better undestandinmg of God’s will, but basically an abrogation of standards of how to define what the scriptures teach. Therefore each one can express his own dissatisfaction with the status quo and pronounce his view of how it should be done. The progressives therefore are as or even more diverse as the conservatives – probably their main common theme is their dislike of CENI (and their insistance on IM).
But CENI is a direct application of the so often quoted Declaration And Address! A work I highly recommend, a work that helped me a lot in my decision to join the churches of Christ. To be sure: I had never joined a progressive church of Christ, because – as I see it – they stand for the same pluralism and vagueness that I know from the Evangelical world I left.
NO, division is bad. Not CENI. There is a difference between rightfully dividing the scriptures and dividing over different interpretations of scripture, because we give up basic techniques of reading, understanding and applying scripture.
Think about this: There is action and there is reaction. What comes first? Action. I see the struggles of our movement by the actions of modernists that caused reactions from the conservatives. I can imagine that most conservative churches of Christ would be far more relaxed than they are, if they were not in a constant “defense-mode” because of the progressive threaths.
Honestly, I am all but excited when brothers (or even sisters!) from (e.g.) ACU come to Europe to give some lessons for the churches on our side of the ocean. And I see the terrible fruit of division ripening here as well. Progressives are at least as guilty for the “balkanizing” of the churches of Christ.
Think about it, Jay.
Alexander
My question is, why should Progressives practice or preach something that they don’t believe in anymore? Most Progressive congregations and individuals I know do not divide fellowship between themselves and conservative Churches of Christ. It is the other way around. It is not the Progressives who are hostile in my experience.
I have observed the same thing that Jay has regarding the faithfulness of the Progressives.
The Progressive church in my area has a counseling center, recovery program, and has united with other denominations to have a prayer meeting for the community. None of the conservative congregations come close to this kind of involvement and outreach.
“… faith, correctly understood, demands faithfulness to Jesus, and it’s my observation that the progressive Churches of Christ are, on the whole, much more faithful after becoming progressive than before…”
That would be my observation as well (at least in my community). I suspect the increase in faithfullness is related to the strength of committment necessary to practice a Christian faith guided by principles versus rules. Evaluating the validity of your faith based on adherence to a set of rules (CENI) is easy. Practicing a faith guided by principles is hard, really hard, and demands committment.
One Cup man here. The progressive One Cup congregations believe that anyone who has been baptized to obey the Lord has been baptized for the right reason. I ask my brethren who disagree, Who could have a better reason for being baptized than Jesus?? He had no sin but was baptized to obey the Father. Whoever does the same as Jesus did has been baptized for the right reason. We accept “all” our brethren CofC, Christian Church, etc. God Bless!!
Jay writes: “You see, once our minds shift from the anti-scriptural, anti-Christian CENI, we are forced to seek another set of boundaries for who are and aren’t saved, and the scriptures repeatedly, emphatically teach that all with faith in Jesus are saved. You have only to read your New Testaments with a mind freed from CENI to see it.”
Has Jay forgotten that Jesus clearly stated that in order to enter His Kingdom a person MUST be born again of water and spirit? Obviously Jay is ignoring that true fact. And it’s not based on CENI that we read Acts 2:38 and see that the apostle Peter (freshly baptized in the truth-giving Spirit) calls for sinners who seek salvation in Jesus to REPENT and BE BAPTIZED. He could have offered salvation through faith alone, as Jay does. But he didn’t. Nor did any whose words and actions are recorded in the inspired apostolic writings. Baptism is emphasized in every case. It is no less important than faith and repentance. Salvation is NOT based on faith alone!
Surely you jest !! Where is anything except faith mentioned in “we are saved by Grace through Faith not of works lest any man should boast.”. That’s about as plain as it gets !! Cornelius was saved based on his belief then he was baptized. Did the Jews at Pentecost not first call on the name of the lord to be saved or did they just take a bath ?? You don’t save yourself !! That was Jesus and he alone
I raised a bit of a ruckus (It was honestly not my intent to do so) in a Life Group when I told the group that since placing my membership at their CofC, I had not changed my beliefs from those I had while worshipping in the Independent Christian Church . And yet… these CofC people accepted me into their fellowship based upon the fact that I just placed my name on their Church roll. I went on to tell them that their were a multitude of people with beliefs identical to those that I held who wanted to fellowship with them but apparently those people weren’t worthy of fellowshipping with them just because they had not placed their name on the a CofC roster.
Folks… that’s just silly. Now I know that there are a lot of CofC congregations that wouldn’t allow my name on their roster but there are also a lot that would and yet they would not consider fellowship with others who are just like me. When you start off with a bad premise, like CENI, it should not be a surprise when you wind up with situations like this.
The thought is when they were baptized they were ADDED to the church of Christ.
If you were baptized to be added to a denomination it was for the wrong reason and had the wrong result.
Therefore you should be baptized over to do it right and have the result of being added to the right church.
CENI is not all bad. Adding to or subtracting from using CENI is. Ask yourself in Jesus teachings name anything He taught that was not a command, example, or necessary inference.
Man is the problem and misusing CENI is the tool most often used to teach wrong doctrine.
While I had no idea what CENI was, in my late teens, I dropped NI from how to study the Bible. I read the tract “Law of Exclusion” which turns IM into strange fire. Ofcourse,the logic could make driving a car to church into strange fire.
Here comes my moderate side, I still see command and example as teacing for us. The problem becomes this; so much of the Christian world, have become like the Saducees, then accept only the beginning books. For the Saducees the 5 books of Moses, and the modern Christian, the gospels. If Jesus didn”t do it, its not gospel. Women doing anything, no problem, Jesus didn’t say, and those letters, well they are only how they did it not how we should.
This is far from “continue in the apostle’s teaching”. I think examples and commands frow the whole NT should be heard.
Can we disregard a NT example? Most folks can make sense of this, some are just what people did, not what every Christian must do. Paul went to Troas, but I don’t think we all must. You certianly cannot take a command or example to exclude all other commands or examples.
Acts 20:7 does not say that the first day of the week is the only authorized day to take communion. Personally, I’m with Alexamder in listennig to ECF for example of early Christian behaviour. Again, the way they did it might be by apostolic tradition or its just the way they did it. Understanding restoration history is similar.
Bill Humble of ACU, always said splits were the achilles heal of the restoration movement. Honestly, I don’t think it was CENI. Prior to RM, most folks did not put themselves in the position of deciding doctrine. Sure an occassional few, like Luther, bucked the system. Out in the American frontier, the leaders of denominations were far away, and with reading the Bible by the common man becoming more popular, everyone could decide what to beleive themselves.
The Bible is NOT just a record of faith in God from being to end. The first sin was disobedience, and judgement in Revelation is deeds. The Bible is NOT just a record of actions, or a list of commands, or……. Actually THE common thread in the Bible is God. There is God makes, God and faith, God and actions, God commands, God reacts to what folks do, God comes to earth and teaches and gives example, and God ends. The theme of the Bible is God.
Just claiming allegiance to CENI doesn’t mean that a Church is really following the commands and examples of Jesus. For example, Luke 6:27-38, how many of us live these words and live like Jesus lived. How often have you heard a literal sermon based on these words from Jesus. I’d simply state that the Independent Christian Church never bowed to CENI and they haven’t had the splits and splinters that the CofC has experienced. That’s not a matter of conjecture, it’s an observable fact. I don’t think it’s possible to take a teaching like CENI and use it without some preacher, teacher or bible college professor identifying a pet cause to champion and that’s what’s wrong with CENI. Saying there’s nothing wrong with it and ignoring the damage it has wrought is just sticking ones head in the sand.
In the same thinking, look at all the differences from the bible. Over 2000 different religions or divisions all from the same book. Is it the Bible that is all wrong?
Of course not, just like CENI, it is man that is doing the misusing, not CENI or the Bible.
That is the differences among us in the seeing of CENI.
Nothing wrong with commands, examples or necessary inferences as we all use them, but the problem is with man.
Quotes from the bible are posted on here constantly and they are using CENI for right, especially if what they quote agrees with me. CENI is all wrong if it disagrees with me.
Man is the problem, nothing from the bible or word of God is..
I think the problem with CENI is the CofC thought they could come up with a list of things that result from CENI. Unfortunately, they came up with multiple lists and there was no agreement within the lists. Since the lists were used for determining who was and wasn’t in fellowship, the result was division. The Christian Church never came up with such lists and never suffered the divisional consequences.
@Price
I just stepped over this from you, and I don’t want to leave this uncommented:
Hydrogen-Oxygen? Did read what I tried to make Royce understand? Here we go again:
WAter is built up of two elements: Hydrogen and Oxygen. Many view the salvation issue like a Chemist who analyzes Water, but with strange conclusions: One say: All it takes is hydrogen, while the others insist that all is about oxygen. This is SO RIDICULOUS!
Price, seriously: This is horrible theology, what you present! Taking a verse here and there out of context is what one would expect from sectarians, not from Bible-based Christians. Do you really want to say, Eph 2:8-9 rules out Acts 2:38; Mark 16:16; Acts 20:16; 1Pe 3:21; … and the 80+ other occurences of baptism in the NT? Royce claimed that 90+ verses state that we are saved by faith; others speak of 150 verses. But this is nonsense, Price, because the Bible is not collection of verses that stand by themselves! Read a few verses before and after these 90/150 verses and you’ll find obedience, preseveraance, batism, repentance and many more “chemical eleements” that TOGETHER are essential for salvation.
Saying: “Eph 2:8-9 only speaks of faith”, is the same as saying “Acts 2:38 does not require faith (because it is not mentioned there)”.
This kind of theology tears apart what God has put together – and it is no wonder that this results in tearing Christians and churches apart.
Alexander
Ray,
From my viewpoint, your assessment of Acts 2:38 is completely predicated on the CENI hermeneutical theory. I’m curious why you would state otherwise. Based on your statements regarding the cause and effect relationship of baptism to salvation, I’m surprised you didn’t attribute CENI as the central determinant supporting your conclusions. As I think through your argument, I really don’t think you can dismiss it. I’m not an expert, but I think CENI is the only interpretive approach that can support your conclusions. Could it be that you are agreeing with Jay regarding his CENI conclusions and disagreeing with him on his perspectives regarding the relationship of baptism to salvation? If so, I think you still have to fall back to CENI to support your statements.
What is wrong about CENI?
Don’t we have to obey clear scriptural commands?
Don’t we have to follow confirmed examples (approved precedents)?
Don’t we have to (sometimes) make inferences as to the actual application of both?
If you and others throw this out, pray WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE?
As I stated above, I see no consistancy in the progressive approach to scripture, rather everything from arbitrary verse-picking to the abomination of higher criticism. Some, like Jay, try to be intellectually honest, but still their conclusions are based on their own assumptions.
So, you kick out CENI, but what I read from you (plural) is all but convincing. Or did I just miss the system behind your (plural) reasoning?
Alexander
What about the possibility that there is no “right” hermeneutic? What if God intented the New Testament witings to mean different things to different people living in different time periods and different locations. What if the Holy Spirit is responsible for guiding believers or groups of believers to specific scripture meaning (based on specific needs & circumstances) rather religious academia? It would certainly solve the mystery of why God provided us scripture that is narrative literature if He intended for us to obey a pattern of legal requirements. It would also solve one of my biggest questions. How can anyone claim absolute truth on a specific issue, within Orthodox Christian thought, when there are intelligent, well-educated believers, who have unquestionably dedicated their life to following Jesus, and have a passion for study and truth seeking, that have reached a different conclusion on the same specific issue.
I really am throwing this out as a question…it may be full of logical dead-ends. It just seems like a possibility.
Alexander,
Everyone bases their conclusions on their own assumptions, regardless of what hermeneutical theory they take side with.
Cycling Dude, your post hits home.
If one can’t obey the two commandments Jesus told us were the most important right out of His own mouth, there is no need to listen to anything else that person has to say.
Al Maxey has for many years had the challenge out for anyone to write down the whole law (he words it differently) and no one has ever done it.
We, man, make the law difficult and hard.
Conclusions do differ, depending on circumstancesjust as well as knowledge and mental ability and many cannot have that to be so as it doesn’t let them TELL you how it really is.
Alexander…In YOUR opinion. right ? But, then you have to ignore Romans 4…Sorry, I prefer to accept it as divinely inspired… Of course I don’t accept your CENI (Condemn, Excoriate, Nullify, and Indict) approach either so it’s expected that we might not agree…
RAY WRITES: CENI is nonsense. It applies only if the text is law. The New Covenant is not based on law. Rules for right reading apply to any written or spoken material, but CENI only applies to law. The gospels are the story of a living, breathing MAN, the Lord Jesus in the flesh. CENI has nothing to do with understanding the gospel. The history of the early church is in Acts. It’s not law. It’s how living, breathing MEN acted and spoke. The letters to churches are not law. CENI is no help in understanding those letters. Revelation was written to encourage Christians who faced persecution and death every day. It’s not a code of laws. But in the very same way that we understand our daily news, we understand the writings of men in apostolic days.
We use the word “hermeneutics” to describe rules for right reading. It’s important that we seek to understand exactly what inspired writers wrote. We find life through the Son of God who is the subject of the New Testament writers. A serious blunder of some in Church of Christ congregations is in thinking that the NEW covenant is just a revision of the law code of Moses. They create laws based on their own imaginations and call for us all to obey their laws. We serve Jesus because we learn to love HIM. We seek to live as He did and as His Spirit-led apostles did. Neither He nor they made laws that CENI needs to locate so everyone will know exactly what is and what is not permitted.
What’s wrong with CENI? CENI isn’t love, that’s what is wrong with it. Remember the little song? Love, Love, Love, Love, the gospel in a word is Love.
CENI is about having your own way, your own cliche, your own gospel. We can be Jesus followers without CENI so what’s its’ purpose?
Folks, did anyone ever listen to Schuller in the Crystal Cathedral? It was like theology from Dr. Phil. A lesson is a single Bible phrase combined with nice thoughts. No effort to see what Jesus, Paul or anyone else said. Baby food.
Yes RM people are passionate about their understandings from the Bible, but at least like the Pharasees they are trying to understand God’s will. Want some NT on that; Jesus said to go to them for learning for they occupy Moses’ seat, but correct the attitudes. God wants Spirit and Truth, seeking God’s truth is not in vain but not finding the living Spirit is. It’s not either or.
I will not defend CENI simply because NI has been so abused. Anyone can make any bad inference they want. Put like Alex of Vien, what’s wrong with commands and examples? Throw out the baby with the bath water.
How is CE hate? Doug do you think the NT has expired and any study of it iw worthless? Even poorly used NI isn’t hate. People love or hate not CE or NI.
Does these beliefs being expressed on CENI tie in somehow in our beliefs that baptism is required?
Can anyone stand for one and not the other?
AJ. I think that baptism is a command thus not requiring the CENI hermeneutic. Whether or not it is to complete an unfinished work of Jesus in order to be saved OR whether to be admitted into the church is another matter
Price, I agree.
My point is so many are against the use of CENI and I am one more than most on here I bet, that they can shun anything that smacks of it.
This is an old debate where I come from.
Using you as an example, you believe baptism is a command. So do I, and so, we do believe in the first letter of the CENI as it applies to baptism.
IN many of our cases we believe in things that fall under what those letters stand for, just not the way men are using it.
Man is at fault in his use, not what the letters CENI stand for.
Larry, I guess you think that “not love” equals hate. That makes some sense, I suspose but that’s not what I meant and I don’t think that’s the only way to read what I wrote. Let me be more specific. It’s not the things that I read in the bible that make CENI objectionable for me although I don’t need anyone to enumerate those things for me or force me to pledge allegiance to them in order for me to be included in their fellowship. It’s the things that I don’t find in the bible, the silence of scripture on matters where CENI becomes “not Love” in my way of thinking. When a person takes scriptural silence and forces me to accept that silence as prohibition on something in order for me to be included in their fellowship, that’s “not love”. That’s forcing me to accept what they think or say and is in essence making me a slave to their way of thinking. I have been set free through the blood of Christ and I won’t let the use of scriptural silence enslave me.
CENI is not the problem, people are the problem. Personally, I think its an exceptionally flawed framework to use for interpreting New Testament literature, but if another believer wants to use it as a reference point they’re free to do so. And I have no right to judge or condemn them for doing so. Conversely, those that choose to interpret scripture through the lens of CENI are forbidden to judge and condemn those that have taken an alternative interpretative approach. Simply put, we are prohibited from any attempt to limit a believers freedom to chose how they practice their faith. They stand before God only.
Alexander,
Your question about an alternative to CENI (or any method used to construct a rules-based belief) is an important one and it’s a question that quickly surfaced in the first church and continues to reverberate today. It’s a natural response to the disconcerting message of grace; if we throw the rules out, what’s our alternative to objectively measure our standing with God? In your case it’s the more the question…if you throw out the rules, that define how we find the rules, how will we know if we’ve found the right rules? I would submit the question is answered directly by Paul in his letter to the Galatians. The alternative is freedom…freedom from the need to have any contrived set of rules and regulations…freedom from the fear of judgment…freedom gained through Jesus. And nothing should ever be allowed to invade that freedom; because once you substitute your freedom in Christ with an ideology that’s founded on an adherence to rules (law) then you have negated the work of Jesus, and as a result, lost your faith. And that’s the danger of the CENI approach to practicing our faith. If we believe we are right with God because we’ve been obedient to a set of rules or commands, with the exception of the command to love your neighbor as yourself, we have been alienated from Christ. The critically important message of freedom and grace was difficult for people to accept during Paul’s time and it’s no less difficult today. But as you can read in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, it’s an essential component of faith in Christ.
Are you sure you are not misreading Galatians, CD? What was the issue at stake in Galatia? Judaizers who insisted on circumcision and subjection to the whole Law of Moses – pretty similar to the discussion in Acts 15.
Does this freedom rule out the following verses?
Freedom does not clarify what is meant by
– all commands of Christ
– all of the apostolic traditions
– what it means not to sin anymore
– or what exactly to obey in faith
Since these commands and obedience needs to be taught, we must be able to come to a united understanding what these commands are. Throwing out CENI does not help at all, since CENI is an attempt to understand these without adding to nor taking away from the Word of God.
All the talk of “freedom” usually belittles commands and obedience, doesn’t it?
Alexander
That’s a postmodern worldview, you won’t find this kind of reasoning in the scriptures. Yes, it is full of logical dead-ends.
I mean think of this:
In your reading it must sound like:
In fact, where your approach leads to is exactly this: Each one is doing and bleieveing what he thinks is right. There are no absolute truths anymore. Well, as Christians we might hold fast to some absolute truths, but it is an arbitrary choice what from the scripture we deem as true and what as something that only apllied to different times and cultures.
Tell me, please, how such an approach can be more unifying than CENI.
Alexander
@Price
It amazes me every so often how unwilling you are to follow and think through an argument, Price. No reference is made to a single phrase of my post. You know, I just feel being ignored not taken seriously. So what about Romans 4 – of course it is inspired, but I guarantee you – as you indicate – that we won’t even agree on what is written there although we both can read and God is a perfect communicator.
So why is it that we understand the same book differently? It is because we differ in how to understand what is written, how to com from letteer and grammar to the conclusion what was mant by the author. One of us is a “functional analphabet”, Price.
This makes it so hard to have a discussion with you (and I think the same applies to Cycling Dude who seems to be a twin of yours in this respect). It is frustrating to a degree, it seems hopeless, it certainly is no fun.
So – one last try – how do you respond to this:
No, don’t pull out another verse where only faith is mentioned, Price. Try to understand what I said, first. Maybe you could try to repeat it in your own words before you answer (just to see whether you got my point or missed it again). Otherweise we must admit, that we simply don’t speak the same language …
Alexander
This is going to be a bit longer, please bear with me and hear me out (and when you answer, please make refernbce to my reasoning an the line of argumentation)
Alabama John wrote
Doug said
What’s wrong with CENI? CENI isn’t love, that’s what is wrong with it. Remember the little song? Love, Love, Love, Love, the gospel in a word is Love.
CENI is about having your own way, your own cliche, your own gospel. We can be Jesus followers without CENI so what’s its’ purpose?
I take the challenge, and maybe someone will pass it on to Al Maxey who is so desparately looking for an answer to this question (or did he put the question assuming there is no answer at all?).
Of course I cannot make a complete list here, but I can show you where to find the commands you are looking for. And I hope by then you will see that CENI makes perfect sense – although I agree with Larry that the NI has some inherent dangers (as we all know from the past and present) – yet, aren’t the progressives in their positions not also building on inferences (be honest about it)? So while throwing out the CENI, the keep the NI part of it – but their inferences differ a lot from “ours”.
Here we go:
These are among the last words of Christ. All disciples shall learn to observe (= to do) all that Christ has commanded. What does that mean? Is this simply the double-command of love? Watch out, when you say this:
Is this about the OT-Law or the NT? Read carefully! If you ay, all that is necessary for us to keep are these two commands, you are being “legalistic” in the true sense of the word, that is: You refer to the Law of the Old Covenant! This has been taught long before Christ! Therefore – true and important as this is – it does not encompass “all that I (Christ) have commanded you.”
Well, Christ gave us a new command: that is to love as He loved us.
This is different in as much as this means we are to lay down our lives for others, this is a much higher kind of love that required in the Old Covenant. Yes, this is One command of Christ we need to observe. Let’s stick with this one for a moment: What does this mean in daily life? John gives us an example:
You see, John deals with a command of Christ. That’s the C-Part of CENI. Then he continues to explain what this means in real life, by giving an example – this is by making an inference from Christ’s teachings, by taking into consideration all that Christ has said and done concerning love. The command itself does not explain how we shall apply this – I mean, we can only die once, so is obeying this command just a one-time-event (we’re dead and done with obedience)? No, it has a daily challenge for us. So, how Doug, can you say that CENI has nothing to do with love? Only by misunderstanding and misrepresenting CENI one can get this impression.
But is that all that Christ has commanded us? No. What first comes to mind is the Sermon on the Mount, which is given as a rule of life to follow. Now, when I begin to sketch a list, I will also give my impression of how serious we really are about CENI – and here I’ll be also challenging the conservatives among us. OK, first the Sermon on the mount:
The Beatitudes – show the character we should strive for. If the Kingdom belongs to such people we must become such people, don’t we? So in a way these are commands.
Being inwardly detached from riches – read this also in the light of Mat 6 on serving God and Mammon, or the warnings for the rich people in the church (1Ti 6). There is a life-style command for all of us: We are to live simple and humble lives. Is this the way the American churches (even the conservative CoCs) appear to the world? If not, we should reconsider CENI a little deeper.
Or fasting and giving alms, also in Mat 6. Giving alms is not stressed very much in our teachings, is it? And Fasting has been done away with during the Reformation – and it has not been restored by the Restoration Movement. Well, let’s go back to CENI, then!
Loving your enemies and not swearing oaths actually makes it impossible for Christians to join the military. At first the churches of Christ were opposed to military service and war (Alexander Campbell’s Address on War is highly recommended) – but somehow this got kicked out. What happened to CENI here? Was the church suddenly “politically driven”?
But aside the sermon on the mount, where else can we find the commandments of the Lord?
An example is how we are to use church discipline in Mat 18:15, which is an important rule in order to keep the church pure without being too quick to judge. Are we following this rule? Or have we given up on purity?
Or how about this one:
Being in a footwashing CoC house church, I like this one especially 😉 But seriously, why are most churches of Christ ignoring this command? Doesn’t CENI apply here? Footwashing was and is part of Christian church life through the centuries, but it has been dismissed by most Protestants as being “merely external” or just an “example” we should only follow as a “principle”. Not very convincing, if we want to be consistent.
But we don’t find the commands of the Lord only in the Gospels:
It’s the apostles who teach us the commands of the Lord; therefore we find them in the epistles also:
I chose the KJV here because of the plural of commands, which is the reading of the majority text. It underlines the way Paul understood the authority of his writings, and Peter accepted them as scripture (2Pe 3:16). Paul is sometimes very pointed in that what he writes are the commands of God, or that what he has received from the Lord. Another example from 1st Corinthians:
And Paul is equally clear when what he writes is his personal opinion:
So, how was Paul teaching? He knew what the commands of Christ were, didn’t he? And he also knew that if the commands of Christ did not touch a specific issue, that he – as apostle – and any other church leader should come up with a spiritual solution. This is an inference, isn’t it? Paul used CENI as did John. But as he we should always mark an Inference as a human solution/expedience to the commands that could be changed when we see a better way of following Christ’s commands.
Paul summed up the binding authority of his writings (and speeches) as follows:
This should settle the matter: All of the apostolic teachings are binding, whether they can be found in the epistles or were given orally. The only way for us to get an idea of the oral teachings of the apostles is to take the epistles as whole and watch the church life and actions in Acts. We cannot therefore – as some like to do – point to Galatians (or part of it) in order to make “freedom” big. No, we have to take the whole apostolic testimony and have to read Galatians in the light of all other epistles and the book of Acts.
Acts is full of examples of how the Early Church acted out the apostolic teachings:
Their focus on prayer, teaching, fellowship and the breaking of bread
Their sharing their material possessions (see also 1Jo 3:16-17)
Their way of making churchwide decisions (Acts 15)
How they dealt with the different nationalities in the church
How they supported the widows
How they evangelized
All of these are examples we are to follow. Normally the most often quoted “pattern” is Acts 20:7 for the 1st day of the week; but there is much more to learn from acts, and if we really want to be a New-Testament Church that follows all of Christ’s commands, we need to take a closer look at Acts than we normally do.
I stop here, because the rest is obvious. It is not difficult to come up with a list – but the point is not the list, but our willingness to learn. We shall be taught to obey all that Christ has commanded. Christ does not expect that we immediately grasp and do everything, but that we grow and mature in knowledge, love and obedience. The only thing that hinders the Spirit’s Work in us is when we stop being teachable. When we rely on our traditions (conservative trap) or when we deny that there are rules to follow (progressive trap).
Alexander
On a positive note, we just sang two gospel songs. One was “God is big enough to rule the universe and small enough to live within my heart” and the other is “I’ve read the back of the book and we win”.
Good to express our beliefs. So many can’t.
.
Alexander…LOL…condescension and frustration regularly follow when people don’t agree with all that you have to say regarding your interpretation of the scripture… It’s just your way…
You use one verse of the chapter to support your view that baptism is salvific when the enormity of scripture suggests that faith alone in the work of Christ is the ONLY saving means…baptism is admission or obedience but it is not the cleaning up after Jesus because what he did wasn’t sufficient method…That’s why I referenced a whole chapter on Grace versus circumcision or works but merely faith so that nothing in the flow of the message could be hand picked out to be misrepresented…
Peter FIRST quoted the prophet Joel saying that ALL who called upon the name of the Lord WOULD BE SAVED…no mention of baptism… no prophetic announcement of baptism being salvific… It was always done but as far as I can tell it was never salvific.. it was a matter or obedience though I would not try to equate it with service to the poor or love your neighbor…it seems bigger than that…just not bigger than Jesus…
Fill in the blanks with your selection here…
Without (baptism / service / faith) it is (hard / easy / impossible) to please God, for any one that would draw near to God (must / can / maybe) ( Believe in Him / Sing A Capella / Prefer Welches) and that He is the ( Condemner / Enabler / Rewarder) of them that ( Use CENI / prefer the KJV / diligently seek Him)…. Maybe this will address our language barrier…
Alexander,
You said:
Freedom does not clarify what is meant by
– all commands of Christ
– all of the apostolic traditions
– what it means not to sin anymore
– or what exactly to obey in faith
So I presume in an effort to “clarify” that you have a set of “Clarifications” based on the four items above that would do what freedom can’t. The only problem is that I might have my own set of “Clarificaitons” that’s based on the same four items and my set isn’t in agreement with your set. And, CD has his set and Laymond has his set… etc. Still this would work if only you’d use your set and let me and CD and Laymond use ours but you wouldn’t do that because , you see, your set is correct and my set and CD’s set and Laymond’s sets are incorect. Unless you permit the possibility that my set of clarifications is okay for me, we wind up on opposite sides of the fence and that’s not where God wants us to be. And, as I said before the biggest difference in our two sets of “Clarifications” will undoubtly be in not what the bible says about the four items you listed but about what the bible does not say. So, I’m still looking for a CENI replacement.
@Price
Please read wht I wrote and respond to THAT.
@Doug
I see no alternative to CE(ni)
Alexander
Alexander has gone to great length to prove that some commands are given to guide life in Christ. But no one denies that there are commands. What we point out is that the CENI hermeneutic is flawed since it deals with the parables and all apostolic writings as if they ALL are either Commands, Examples (which may or may not be followed) or Necessary Inferences. CENI is looking for laws. The gospel and apostolic doctrine does not consist of laws. No matter how long your lesson is, it is false thinking if it calls for the new covenant to be a law code. CENI calls for the new covenant to be a law code. CENI is totally wrong. It has nothing to do with right reading unless what you’re reading is a law code.
Price, faith ALONE is not a theme of the Bible, its a myth. Jesus said love your neighbor. If you love them by faith alone, you violate Jesus’ example of loving your neighbor, the good Samaritan. If you love God by faith alone, where is heart, soul, miind and strength? If you love God by beleif, you are no better than the demons per James. The child of God does God’s will.
Ray, I’ll work on CE and skip abused NI. Who said CENI is for law? I am totally grateful for the blood of Jesus, and wish to give the rest of my life to do what God wants done. What’s that? Bible examples and commands. Not as a llegal list but as a guide of actions God likes.
The Thessolonians were very impressed with Jesus coming again (probably read some early AD rapture book) and decided they would wait for that. Shows faith to me, and seems a reasonalbe understanding. Paul, who really beleives in faith, told them to get busy doing things! Ofcourse this is an example, maybe a command , but it seems God is better served by allowing the end times to happen when they happen, and take care of things here and now. No new law, only trying to give my life as best as I can to God.
Ray, per definition an inference is a human expedience. The scriptures actually don’t contain any iferences, but we may (and do out of necessity) sometimes draw inferences. Knowing well, that these inferences are not inspired they are – at least on the level of a local congregation – none the less “binding” in order to come to a unified application. THat’s the way the Declaration and Address defines them, and this document is the origin of our CENI (although in fact is goes back to the Reformers, and – as I tried to show, even the Apostles followed this approach).
Parables may contain a “law”, for instance the parable of the unforgiving servant prompts us to forgive one another. Since many Parables are given to illustrate a teaching or command of Christ, it is clear that we learn from them what we are to do.
The term Law you seem to be so opposed to:
What is the opposite of lawlessness – of of as if there were no law? Acting according to the law, isn’t it? And therefore we find that Christians are under a Law, not the Law of Moses, but the Law of Christ:
I know, immediately you will think of verses like:
But of which Law is Paul speaking? ONLY of the Law of Moses! This whole “not under Law talk” in (modern-easy-believism) Protestantism is in fact directed against any kind of Law, they make no distinction, because they gravely misunderstood Paul’s point and even the Gospel. “Faith alone” is the single most misleading statement of the reformation and it leads to … lawlessness!
What did Christ say abot lawlessness?
I agree that treating the New Testament like a Law Code is as grave a misrepresentation of the Gospel as “faith alone”. But could you at least agree that the gospel and apostolic doctrine do contain Laws? You don’t deny that there are commands in the New Testament, but what (just for defining the terms) is the differenmce between commands and laws? Especially when these commands are given by the King of Kings? Are commands of a King something different than laws (esp. when addressed to all of His citizens)? Or are the 10 commandments not part of the Mosaic Law because we call them commands?
The problem I see is that most likely many conservatives misused CENI – I would readily admit that looking at some specific instances. But I also see that those opposing CENI have not understood CENI. CENI is not looking for laws, but admitting that there are laws. Can you admit that, too?
Alexander
Alexander,
Regarding my question and your response about the possibility that there is no “right” hermeneutic…
You need to calm down and switch out of attack mode. I submitted a question for discussion. I believe the last sentence of my post clearly stated that I was asking a question and not making a dogmatic declaration. Your “In your reading it must sound like…” comment was both arrogant and discourteous. Do you really have the self-confidence to imply you know my thoughts as I read scripture? Simply because you didn’t like the question I asked? I would suggest you spend some time contemplating the idea that you may not have all the answers (or even most of the answers, like nearly all of us) and might be in need to submit some of your own questions. Not angry questions in response to a post or comment, but questions that you don’t have an answer for, questions that drive you to search for new knowledge. The scriptures you quoted don’t even begin to support your narrow response, which leads me to conclude that anger or arrogance clouded your thoughts. (I’ll take my turn at reading thoughts).
With that said, my response is not written in anger or offense. I’m a product of at least four generations (that’s as far back as I can count) of very committed, conservative CoC members. I grew up in a CENI based world. Every scripture and argument used to support CENI and conservative CoC ideology has been ingrained in my soul (probably forever). Grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, cousins; CoC affiliated universities are filled with my nephews, nieces, cousins, etc, and all are hard-core, conservative, CENI champions. In short, I’ve been judged, condemned, patronized, shouted it, and ostracized for years because I couldn’t accept the CENI theory. I was long ago hardened to the typical, usually angry responses that come from questioning CENI or any boilerplate CoC belief. The same responses that characterize your responses. My response to you is based on a spirit of challenge, one that I would want if I had responded as you had. So here’s my challenge; first, stop attempting to defend your CENI based ideology and start engaging in a conversation that is unafraid to question traditional views and welcomes new ideas. If we’re afraid to question the beliefs we hold, then we can’t have confidence that they hold truth. And we can’t grow unless we consistently think through new ideas. Second, learn to reason with people rather than argue. You’re not going to win an argument on this site; it’s just not going to happen. But, you might influence others through thoughtful reasoning. I certainly want to read your responses if they’re written within that context. It’s definitely okay to disagree, but throwing out a few lines of scripture, quoting some conservative, CENI based mantra, and sprinkling it all with a little self-righteous anger makes your effort pointless. Finally, don’t be afraid to question the presuppositions you bring to the conversation. You didn’t conclude on your own that a CENI based philosophy was the right way to interpret scripture. Someone either taught you that approach or through experience you picked it up indirectly or maybe a little of both. Question and study all of it and make certain that it’s really what you believe deep down. Maybe you already have, but if not, it’s a fantastic challenge.
[deleted]
Well, now that all the differences are resolved we can move on to…
I believe it is unhealthy to accept a theological position stated by another and refuse to challenge that position. A man with a rigid, closed mind will respond to anything that challenges with contempt and anger. It is best seen in the Contending for the Faith lectures where one after another they slam Christians in an unChristian way in my view.
Our words are to be different as believers. What is missing from much of these discussions is even a hint that we love each other, a sad thing to realize about the very people who claim to be Christ’s own people.
I’m confessing my guilt too. All of us should be able to discuss sticky doctrinal issues with respect, with love, and in ways that honor Jesus and not the reverse. I hope we all can tone it down a notch.
In our coc history there has been a watching world and what they have witnessed is not pretty. Let’s change that as much as is possible.
Christ was building HIs church before any of us or the Restoration Movement got here and He will continue to. Preach the good news about Jesus, make that most important, baptize and teach those who believe as you are able and let God sort them out. If we are not doing the making disciples part of the great commission why fuss about the rest of it?
Love must rule if we are to be God’s men. Love God, love those He created and died for. Build up one another, submit to one another. If what we do can’t be done in those perimeters we should stop doing it.
Larry….Faith alone for salvation is certainly not a myth…It is expressed about as clearly as anyone not wanting to insert their own dogma into the scriptures can read…However, the sanctification process of growing us up into a Christ-like image requires a lot of sacrifice, patience, love, combined with personal frustration, struggle, mistakes and error…but during the “growing” part…as with any child, I am never at a point of loosing my inheritance unless I turn my face forever against my parents. One cannot confuse salvation with growth in our Christian walk…
Alexander…I agree that the scripture DOES speak to “law.” Romans 8 says that those that are “in the flesh” cannot please God because they “can’t” submit to His law… I think the difference between the various covenants and the present is that we are no longer judged by any law… We are under Grace…We undoubtedly are subject to instruction in the right way (Isaiah 31:21) and will be “corrected” by God in order to grow into the likeness of Christ…We’re just are not condemned by the law any longer.. Jesus paid the price for our error and imperfections… However, that doesn’t mean that we won’t be convicted by the Spirit of the right thing to do…both through our mental capacity and through our spirit to Spirit contact… IMHO
Apply CENI to the book “Where the red fern grows” and we will all be hunting with Red Bone Hounds.
In doing so, we would of missed one of the most loved books and its so needed message on love of life.
Dissecting the scriptures, arguing among ourselves, condemning others for not seeing it exactly like us can overlook the big picture.
Hasn’t that been done enough in the COC and that is what the progressives are trying to leave behind and have more love among us and toward one another?
That is what I see as the main difference and to experience that freedom is such a blessing I wish on all my brothers and sisters.
Guestfortruth,
Your comment is taken verbatim from http://www.fallacydetective.com/articles/read/reasons-from-the-bible-to-study-logic/ without attribution, in violation of blog policies, after repeated warnings against plagiarism.
Moreover, I’ve tried to reach you by email and the email is not going through.
Therefore, I am blocking all your comments indefinitely.
@ Cycling Dude
I am not unfriendly towards you (at least not intentionally), but you are pretty strong on some opinions where we disagree (as well as I am). I urged you to present an alternative to CENi – you came up with freedom – I tried to show you that this doesn’t answer anything. Obviously you did not get my point.
If I my sound as if writing in an “attack-mode” this is because I am debating not only you on this. But I am not sure what is better: Attack mode or being defensive. The results are pretty similar, and as i see it, you and others are departing from the Word of God. And this may apply to a good portion of the progressive movement within the churches of Christ. I don#t like this at all. And I have a hard time dealing with people in a discussion who seem ignore and to skip over my counter arguments.
Give me an example, where you or anyone else quoted from one of my posts pointing out: “What you have written here is not right, because of a, b, c, …” This does not happen in our discussions. Therefore I am increasingly getting more preciase, more challenging, more argumentative, because I sincirley do believe that God gave us language and a mind in order to be able to communicate logical thoughts.
I don’t believe you that you just ask open question, Cycling Dude. Maybe I am wrong about that, but I simply don’t believe it. The way you propose your points of view is absolutely ruling out the idea that CENI could possibly have some value.
I did not grow up in e conservative church of Christ home. My spiritual roots are in evangelical churches (once saved always saved); and I know where I come as well as you do. As I said somewhere else (I think to Jay): We are coming from different backlgrounds heading to opposite directions. Believe me, I could challenge the conservative churches of Chriat as much as the progfressive ones. I fall in neither camp; but I know why I joined the church of Christ and I see the vaild reasons for CENI.
Have you read the Declaration and Address? This was my eye-opener; the way CENI is explained there is my conviction. That CENI was and is abused and misrepresented here and there is one side of the story. But throwing it out without having an alternative (which is at least as good and applicable!) is nonsense. Freedom is not enough to explain what we need.
Alexander
All,
It would likely be helpful to the conversation to refer to the “Regulative Principle” rather than CENI. Although CENI is routinely used in internet conversations to describe a certain hermeneutic, sometimes the use of CENI is taken as a complaint against obeying Commands — the C in CENI. In fact, CENI is simply an element of a much larger, flawed hermeneutic.
The Regulative Priniciple is the idea that all “silences” in the scriptures are prohibitions. A silence is anything other than a Command, Example, or Necessary Inference. That is, CENI are the only available means for authority and all without authority are banned.
Few of us would disagree that a command, example, or inference could provide authority. Where we disagree is whether CENI authority is necessary for all church conduct.
The Normative Principle teaches that all silences are permissive if otherwise glorifying to God.
My argument would be that “is there authority?” is simply the wrong question to ask regarding the organization and assembly of a church and therefore not a question the NT seeks to answer. Rather, we should ask the questions we find in 1 Cor 14 and Heb 10:24ff, such as “does it edify?” and “will it encourage one another to love and good works?”
You see, the Bible not only provides the answers, it provides the questions.
II Cor 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom
Gal 2:4 Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in–who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery–
Gal 5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.
Gal 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.
I Ptr 2:16 Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.
Perhaps there is some benefit to freedom that is being overlooked here…It seems a high priority with the Apostles…Perhaps, there is a great deal more freedom in how we move forward in our Christian walk and less ability to define rules to condemn others by…??
Price, you do realize that almost all those verses were written about freedom from the law of Moses. Hallelujah, no more kosher rules! Clothes can be multi-blend, and corners don’t have to have those unfashionalbe tassels. Envjoy your freedowm.
But God still hates murder, covetness, adultry, etc. How do I know? OT law, and even NT teaching.
Jay, thanks for the worst of NI being law of silence. There is no OT or NT theme for silence prohibits, and teaching that overstates human authority. It is THE bad way to understand scripture. Actually, Jesus interred (I tremble to type that) that silence is premission, when he contrasted Himself and John the baptist. John was monastic, living in the wilderness, getting crowds to come to him. Jesus went to weddings, feasts, cities, and events. Apparently, ministers of God can go anywhere! Makes sense to me since its all God’s anyway, not just certain holy places.
Ooops Jesus inferred. (double tremble).
An inference is made by a hearer or reader. A speaker or writer may IMPLY something rather than directly stating it but his words are implications rather than inferences. It’s we readers who INFER from what was IMPLIED the meaning of what was said or written. Alexander assumes wrongly that if hermeneutics isn’t CENI that there can be no hermeneutics. Hermeneutics simply is NOT CENI. But it IS rules for right reading. CENI assumes that everything is a command. But historical facts are NOT commands. Simply reporting something, as Luke does in Acts is not making laws. Its reporting history. CENI attempts to read laws INTO historical facts. But our job as readers is to understand what was written, not to rewrite it. On my web site I have a section on right reading of the Bible in order to understand it. I recommend for one view of right reading for understanding.
I wonder why the link I put into my note does not appear in the note The link is to http://missionoutreach.org/pbiindex.html.
I had enclosed it in brackets. Perhaps that’s why it didn’t show.
Larry Short wants to add to what the Word says. This is not good practice. “Freedom” is freedom from anything. If the intended meaning is freedom from Old Testament law, the writer must clarify his thought by saying “freedom from Old Testament law.” Larry says every New Testament use of freedom is about freedom from O.T. law. But this is not a true analysis.
Jay suggests that “The Regulative Principle is the idea that all “silences” in the scriptures are prohibitions.”
But in fact the regulative principle is much MORE than is suggested. The regulative principle is that everything we do as Christians must be with AUTHORITY. Only if we can point to a verse which can be manipulated to give us AUTHORITY to do what we’re doing can we do it and please God. This is a false and misleading theory. It is not true in any way. When the apostolic writings are understood, we will see that we are FREE to please God in many ways not stated in apostolic writings. The apostles did not set up a law system to tell us what is allowed and what is forbidden. The regulative principle says they did so. They did not do so.
A brother writes, “Larry….Faith alone for salvation is certainly not a myth…It is expressed about as clearly as anyone not wanting to insert their own dogma into the scriptures can read”
But does any writer in the apostolic age speak of salvation by faith ALONE? No, the only place that phrase is used is in James, who comments that faith ALONE is dead. Jesus clearly calls for sinners to enter His kingdom through a new birth of water and spirit. He didn’t say entry was by way of faith alone. He didn’t imply that it was by faith ALONE.
And Acts 2:38 spells out how the new birth is accomplished: believers in Jesus as Lord must repent and be baptized. Too simple, you say? Well, was Peter inspired? Was he led by the Spirit in saying what he said? I say he was, and anyone who disputes is simply not reading the record accurately. James points out well what faith ALONE leads to. Why would anyone claim the Bible teaches salvation by faith ALONE? If anyone does so believe, please cite the passage where salvation is promised to those who only believe.
Then read 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10 and note that only those who OBEY THE GOSPEL will be saved. Peter points out how sinners can obey “the gospel.”
Ray, can you, or someone else, tell me where the Bible says to “obey the gospel” is linked to baptism? I can’t find tha passage. All of the references that mention obey or a form of obedience is either neutral or refers to believing the gospel. By “neutral” I mean it doesn’t say what it means. Everywhere it does it is about belief. And disobedience is about not believing. Maybe I missed the passage, which is certainly possible.
Ray…it appears to me that you just did what you said Larry was doing… When Paul says we are “saved by Grace through Faith, not by works lest any man should boast” and “by grace are you saved through Faith and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is a gift from God” surely he means it… I believe that you just added something which these scriptures do not say which is exactly what you said the Regulative Principal does….
Now for sure I’m not implying that obedience isn’t essential..In fact, IMHO, it’s a clear indicator of a true saving faith.. I believe that is what James is referring to… otherwise we have the first contradiction in the Bible..James says works saves and Paul says they don’t… It can’t be both…Paul’s statement is clear…”not of yourselves”….
Many attack those of us who believe what the Bible says about faith being THE measure of initial salvation by saying that we believe in faith ALONE. No we don’t…there are the obvious obedience issues which are reflective of one’s sincerity of faith…Baptism being the first indicator…but Cornelius was saved before baptism… And finally, before Peter issued his command to the entire Jewish assembly in verse 38 he told them exactly who would be saved as prophesied by the prophet Joel …”all that call upon the name of the Lord.”
Furthermore, let it be noted that those that were baptized on the day of Pentecost first believed….Acts 2:41…They didn’t just go through some 5 step program…they were convicted in their hearts and they believed…THEN they were baptized…
It’s also interesting to note that in verse 40 that Peter by many other exhortations was teaching them to SAVE themselves from a wicked generation… not from eternal damnation…One can only wonder if this is a follow up comment to explain exactly what they were saving themselves from in verse 38…
No, Faith Alone isn’t scriptural…Faith cannot save without the Grace of God… Those two are interconnected… However doing things for oneself is quite another matter…If something is EARNED as Paul explains in Romans 4 it is a wage due…but Grace is a gift… Faith is merely trust and receipt of that free gift… I believe that IS the Good News…Belief is Obeying the Good News…
Thanks Price. Actually I never said faith alone for salvation anything.
To me concentrating on the moment of salvation is ingratitiude to God. Reason? Remember the parable of the forgiven debtor? Had forgiveness (salvation), then goes out and has his follow servant jailed for a minor debt. What will the master do? Cancel his forgiveness.
Do you realize what’s at stake? Eternity vs. a few years of the rest of my life. It is never a fair trade to God. It’s always mercy.
Just like the debtor who was forgiven, we owe our life to our Master. Concentrating on the moment of forgiveness, not what we should do because of it is, very immature love. I love God for what He did for me, and wish to live my life in His light. That’s why so much of the NT is how to live your life, not constant moment of salvation debate.
No part of the apostolic writings can be understood properly using CENI. The contrast between law and grace is complete. Price wants to ignore Bible passages which shed light on the ones he prefers. I am not adding by urging that we consider more than just the ONE passage Price likes.
It’s not just between grace and the law of Moses. That’s not what the text says. It’s a contrast between law and grace. And the Way of Christ is not a matter of finding laws hidden in apostolic writing. It’s simply reading to understand what was written.
Jesus gave a “great commission” to His apostles soon before He returned to Heaven. As is most of apostolic writings, it’s NOT a command. “As you go, (wherever you go in the world) tell others about me and offer them eternal life. I’ll be with you as you go.” Statements of fact.
But it’s not intended that every disciple should be a professional preacher even though Jesus “commands” that we should preach wherever we go. Mark words the commission well, as does Matthew. And early Christians are reported to have “obeyed” the commission by telling about Jesus wherever they went.
We might search apostolic writings for commands and I’m saying you’ll not find even one of the worship laws which have afflicted the Churches of Christ and some other groups. And you’ll not find even one real command issued by apostolic authority. We are called to love and serve rather than to obey particular commands. CENI is totally wrong as relates to the new covenant for there are NO commands to be found.
If you have read my suggestions on how to rightly read anything, you’ll not want to accuse me of ignoring commands which are in fact commands.
Price asserts that salvation in Christ is by faith alone. He ignores several scriptures, apparently believing all apostolic writings agree with his conclusions. Peter told inquiring sinners that in order to be saved they needed to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). Price says Peter was wrong. Paul points out that we are baptized INTO Christ, that is, brought INTO Christ through the new birth which culminates in baptism (Gal.3:27). Price says Paul was wrong. Jesus said entry into His kingdom was through a new birth of water and spirit (John 3:5). Peter explains that this is repentance and being baptized because of faith in Jesus as Lord. Price says Jesus is wrong, that all it takes to enter heavenly gates is to believe something. Price is as wrong as wrong can be.
Ray, reread Allexander’s post listing NT commands. Sure the great commission can be as you go, so the command isn’t to go, it’s only to make disciple’s. Your comment that everyone is not a preacher is a fine Bible interputation technique! You are telling God it’s not my job.
Had a great uncle Oscar, who had a lot to do with starting about a half dozen congregations in central Florida. He was a farmer, so I asked him how he did it. He told me his wife was always meeting people and inviting them for dinner. She did the meeting , cooking, and cleanup, while my uncle just talked to them. He always thought she had the harder job. Well, he made disciples, and didn’t even go!
Thanks Ray for the rest of your post.
I find beleiving and doing to be a closely linked Bible theme. Abraham (father of faith) heard God, beleived, and did as God asked over and over. Even the most published moto for faith is similar, Jn 3: (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. 19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.
Note that last verse “whosoever lives by the truth” . To me you gotta live in the light, and get some truth. Where’s truth? As revealed by God. Many call that commands. Perhaps that’s because a grateful person receiving unmerited salvation would say the old movie line, “your wish is my command”.
Larry, I can think of no greater ingratitude than to deny that Jesus did all that was necessary to reconcile me to God…I am not saying that you believe otherwise but for anyone to insist that the work of the cross was partial in it’s ability to atone for my sins is sacrilege IMHO..
Ray…I did not say Paul was wrong. I just quoted what he wrote.. Do you suggest that he was confused and couldn’t make up his mind ?? It is certainly symbolic that I am buried and raised with Christ…That I am “in Him” is important symbolically if not literally by being a part of the body of Christ which is the Church Eph 5:25-27…but Paul says in Romans 8 that I don’t belong TO Him unless He is IN ME…not the other way around…Is Paul yet confused again ??
I also pointed out that Peter FIRST said that God Himself spoke through the prophet Joel and said that all who called on His name would be saved…I showed you also where the scripture says that they believed and THEN they were baptized…Are you now suggesting that Peter was confused ?? Perhaps Luke wrote it down incorrectly ??
Was Peter also confused about the baptism of the Spirit that Jesus spoke to him about…that he witnessed with the person of Cornelius, and the account of which he made to the leadership in Jerusalem ?? Jesus focused entirely on a baptism of the SPIRIT in CONTRAST to John who was baptizing with water… Are you now saying that Jesus and Peter were both confused ?? That the account of Cornelius’ household was somehow accidentally recorded out of proper sequence ??
And, just to clear up your misunderstanding…I don’t have a preference of one passage over another as if they compete for accuracy…It is not as if one is more correct than another. It is not as if Paul forgot to mention something to the Romans that he hoped that the Corinthians would read later… The message is clear, consistent and without contradiction… By Grace we are saved through Faith and that….,not of yourselves… Either the Holy Spirit meant for Paul to say that or He didn’t… but it can’t be ignored or explained away by cherry picking some verse from another letter to another group about a different subject…
Larry…absolutely !! If you really believe…if you really put your TRUST in God, then when He says something you do it… You believe that He loves you, that you have a purpose, that He’s trying to get you to fulfill a destiny that He designed just for you …sure… Doing is definitely tied to REAL faith and trust… But they aren’t the same… That moment that a person really does put his/her trust in Jesus…that is a sacred moment …it leads to everything else… Doing without faith doesn’t get it…it might get you noticed by God (Cornelius) but it doesn’t save…Trust in Jesus is the only thing that does that… But as you said..Abraham got up and moved…once he placed his faith in God…and according to Paul in Romans 4 it was that faith…that trust…not his obedience that God attributed to him as righteousness… God could have said it was both…but the Holy Spirit directed Paul to say it was only his faith that God attributed as righteousness… if there was any bragging about what he accomplished…God wasn’t paying attention….. Did it matter that he obeyed God ? Of course… But for whatever reason God just holds that faith/trust thing in the highest of regard… Amazing how Grace works…
Price thanks for a well balanced reply. The longer Jn 3 makes your point, faith first. In reality God knows the outcome of your faith, that is if there will be follow through. Jeus showed this when Peter made brave pledges to Jesus but Jesus knew better, “you will deny me”. Conversely, Abraham beleives and God knows his obedience will follow.
The English saying “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” is a little different in Spanish “little by little one arrives”. Either way, you are reminded to get going, with English emphasis on the start, and Spanish the journey. No one completes a faithful life without beginning with faith.
Hey, Ray, context does matter!
Think about it: If we call Jesus our Lord and are “slaves to righteousness” – how do you define freedom in this context?
Yes, we ARE free from the Law of Moses
but we are bound to a better Law, the Law of Christ!
Yes, we ARE free from the slavery of sin and Satan,
but we are citizens of a real Kindom with a real King!
Doesn’t freedom from ANYTHING include freedom from ANY RULE(R)? What’s the difference to anarchy then?
Alexander
Alexander suggests that if we are free we are not free to obey Jesus as Lord. I think he’s wrong. We ARE free to sin or to serve, to believe or to doubt, to love or to hate. The Way of Christ is a way of love and life, good for any and all. Larry Short thinks it doesn’t matter when salvation comes to a sinner. Can we agree that what Jesus says on the subject just doesn’t matter? JESUS says that only those who are reborn of water and spirit can ENTER His kingdom. Should we then say it’s by faith alone? The apostle Peter says quite clearly that sinners must REPENT and BE BAPTIZED in order to receive remission of sins and the gift of God’s Spirit. So the only argument is from those who don’t believe Jesus and Peter. Paul agrees, pointing out that we are baptized INTO Christ, not because we are IN Christ. So some insist that not only is Jesus wrong and Peter wrong, but also the apostle Paul is wrong. And some say it doesn’t matter! Does it matter whether or not we believe what the Word teaches? I say it matters indeed.
Price assumes that Cornelius was saved prior to being baptized into Christ. But Luke does not say that Cornelius and his household were SAVED, then baptized in water. He reports they were baptized by the Spirit as the apostles were on Pentecost. Were the apostles lost prior to being baptized in the Spirit? I hope no one will claim they were. Baptism in the Spirit is not to save. It’s to signify something. It was to gift and empower the apostles, but obviously NOT to gift and empower the Gentile representatives. The baptism in the Spirit was a SIGN to convince Peter that Gentiles could be baptized into Christ and thereby saved.
Price may seem willing to make Jesus a liar when HE said that salvation (being brought into His kingdom) was accomplished in one way only–by a NEW BIRTH of water and spirit..
When asked what sinners must do to be saved (Acts 2:37,38), Peter explained the new birth as being repenting (a spiritual change of masters) and being baptized (in the name of JESUS and to make Him Lord of the one now submitting to burial and being raised into new life (Romans 6) by being baptized in water.
Royce Ogle asks: “Ray, can you, or someone else, tell me where the Bible says to ‘obey the gospel’ is linked to baptism?” What did Peter preach on Pentecost (Acts 2)? Was it the gospel? Yes, it surely was indeed.
Believing hearers asked Peter how to obey the gospel (Acts 2:37)!
Peter said not one word about faith. He knew his questioners asked because they DID believe. He told them in few words what they must do to obey the gospel. I’m amazed that any Bible student would not have noticed the linkage made by the apostle between forgiveness of sin and the necessity to repent and be baptized. Are some just not reading the Bible?
A brother writes to agree that baptism is a command in the New Covenant. But in fact PEOPLE are told to baptize those who believe the gospel brought to them, but there is NO command requiring any sinner to be baptized. In truth, baptism is NOT a command given by Jesus or His apostles. CENI is not a bad way to understand any law code. It’s a tragic and terrible way to try to understand the gospel of Christ and the teaching of the apostles of the Christ. WE ARE NOT UNDER LAW if we are in Christ. Apostles say so repeatedly, and yet here come some who demand that we MUST submit to law in order to please our Lord. Jay does well to realize and teach that the gospel of grace is not a law code.
Author: Larry Short
Comment:
How is CE hate? Doug do you think the NT has expired and any study of it iw worthless? Even poorly used NI isn’t hate. People love or hate not CE or NI.
—
RAY DOWNEN: CENI is a method some use to understand apostolic writings. It’s a foolish attempt to create laws where there are NO laws. Is baptism commanded? It is NOT commanded. It is merely stated as a requirement for salvation. Jesus didn’t command anyone to be baptized. Peter didn’t command anyone to be baptized. Paul didn’t command anyone to be baptized. When Paul (then known as Saul of Tarsus) was told what he needed to do with the rest of his life, he was told the thing to do was to get up and be baptized. But it was not a COMMAND. It was simply what was to be done in order to be saved. When Peter spoke to Cornelius and his household about being baptized, it was because they had long wanted to BE baptized, and now Peter saw that it was good with God that they should be baptized even though they were not Jewish.
Ray, the moment of salvation is like the moment you fall in love. Marriage is continual love, which is a strong comitment to love. Our lives should be more forcused on staying in love with God, and our fellow man than the moment we began. Our initial faith should propel us to do anything pleasing to God. Jesus was baptised as an example for us, and we should want to follow that example. To me its unloving to God to try to strain out what is the minimal requirement to be saved. Try doing that with your girlfriend to get engagged and married. Baptism is an excellent public display of your new commitment and the burial and ressurection of Jesus which empowers it. If I love God, why would I want to skip His example?
Ray you are right, there is no command. God isn’t like us, where idle words fall to the ground. A command of God is instantly done, like “let there be light” If God commanded baptism, I guess the moment we beleived, we would find ourselves getting wet. He made us with free will, and has made suggestions ever since, like a loving parent wanting to see His child be the best they can be. God told Noah that a flood was coming, and suggested he build a boat. The moment Noah beleived God and decided he better get a gopher wood order in at Home Depot, God knew he would be saved from the flood. After all, God can see the future and how it will come out. The moment of being saved from the flood? When Noah beleived God and decided to do as God suggested. The vehicle of salvation? The ark, as Peter reminds us, just like baptism is for us. Why did the ark save? It was a promise of God. Remember God’s words are powerful; nothing is going to sink that boat. Similarly, God empowers our baptism.
One last thought; read first John. Find out that Jesus’ sacrifice is not a one time event in our lives. As we “walk in the light” things will happen. If we sin, we repent of it, and Jesus’ sacrifice cleanses us again. You see, that sacrifice is far more powerful than a singular moment, it is a lifetime of salvation. See our whole life is redeemed but we must access it in continual faith, and repentance. Read first John and see if I have read it correctly. Similarly read in the gospel John of the good shepard. How many times can we stray? There is no number. How often will Jesus go seek us out? Everytime.. How often will your parent cleanup your messes and get you going again? See if I read it right.
It’s not the moment of salvation that saves, but the liftetime of living in the light. Jesus did his work once and for all, but we must access it as sin comes along. God welcomes the “faithful servant” not just the moment dude. We bring “his good seed” to bear, not succumbing to losing our emthusiasm, or letting the cares of this world overwhelm us. Revelation celebrates those “who washed their robes” and “overcame”.
‘
We can’t monitor spiritual truths with our senses like we can physical truths. Spiritual reality is beyond sight, smell, touch, hearing, etc. but no less true.
A child has a beginning. Just so does a child of God. A “new birth”, being “born from above” resulting in a “new creation”, a “new man” is just as sure as physical birth. I agree that we place too much emphasis on our spiritual beginning. I disagree that eternal life is elusive and that God must wait to see if we meet his standards before we can finally be fully safe. The stark reality is that we never did and never will meet his standards which is why Christ lived and died for us.
This is the state of every true Christian: Saved by faith, born from above, to live a life of obedience.
“Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 2 By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. 3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome. 4For everyone who has been born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world— our faith. 5Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:1-5)
John goes on to make clear what, or who, eternal life is and that we can know we are saved.
“If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater, for this is the testimony of God that he has borne concerning his Son. 10Whoever believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. 11And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
13I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know that you have eternal life.” (1 John 5:9-13)
Jesus himself is eternal life. You either have him or you don’t. He does not run in and out of your life depending on your performance that day.
“And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.” (1 John 5:20)
If anyone reading these words is not trusting Christ alone for salvation you should, you must. Salvation is all about Jesus, not the church or self righteousness. You either trust Him or die and face the wrath of God.
Acts 11:16… Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Ray, I know you didn’t just carelessly accuse me of calling Jesus a liar though I doubt you did it by accident
…..so please review the above text of scripture and explain to me why Peter would recall the words of Jesus in the way he did if water were so important to the act of salvation. As you recall he was relating this to the conversion of Cornelius…the gentile…Roman army dude…
Also, please provide for all of us the scripture which supports your claim that the Holy Spirit is only given to people as a sign rather than an empowerment… I trust you believe those words based on some sort of scripture rather than a combination of Regulative Principals randomly applied to the text…
.
Peter, speaking as inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius as it did on them… So, please provide the scriptural text that corrects this passage to show that it was not the same and somehow different..perhaps your supporting text will show us how it was different…
Perhaps, if you feel gracious, you could also provide the scripture passage that says the indwelling of God is NOT an indicator or salvation… Romans 8 suggests that it is but since you seem rather convinced, you could perhaps give us that passage as well…
If you can’t provide scriptural support and your opinion on the matter is inferred by you …then perhaps your accusation of me calling Jesus a liar was out of line…??
Price asks questions. One is– I can think of no greater ingratitude than to deny that Jesus did all that was necessary to reconcile me to God…I am not saying that you believe otherwise but for anyone to insist that the work of the cross was partial in it’s ability to atone for my sins is sacrilege IMHO..
I hear Price saying that sinners have no obligation to OBEY anything. Jesus did it all. Sin is no more. It’s conquered! Yet Paul points out that only those who do OBEY the gospel will be saved (2 Thess. 1:5-10). And when asked by sinners what they should do about their sin, Peter didn’t say, “Jesus did it all. You’re fine.” He just told them what they had to do to enter the kingdom of Christ and receive His Spirit. They had to DO something.
Jesus did NOT do it all for everyone. He did what was necessary so that all could be saved, But each sinner must do something in order to be saved by what Jesus did. Those who read Acts 2:37,38 would not dare say sinners need do nothing except believe in order to be saved.
Price asks–Acts 11:16… Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Ray, I know you didn’t just carelessly accuse me of calling Jesus a liar though I doubt you did it by accident.
…..so please review the above text of scripture and explain to me why Peter would recall the words of Jesus in the way he did if water were so important to the act of salvation. As you recall he was relating this to the conversion of Cornelius…the gentile…Roman army dude.
RAY WRITES: Jesus did indeed baptize with His Spirit. Acts 2 records the first event. It was splendid. Amazing sounds filled the air. Surprising flame-like head coverings came upon the apostles. Unbelievable words came from the mouths of the apostles, words that all could understand in their native languages. It was miraculous.
A similar event took place some ten years later. Peter says it was like the original baptizing in the Spirit. That makes twice in just ten years. And never since then. So Jesus did baptize in the Spirit. And in Hell fire He will “baptize” those who do not obey the gospel, if we can believe the promise made by Paul to Thessalonians.
Note that it was JESUS who baptized with the Spirit. It had nothing to do with sinners being saved. The baptism Jesus commanded that MEN should perform is in water, and it has everything to do with salvation. Jesus said to Nicodemus that only those persons who were reborn of water and spirit could enter His kingdom. Peter explained what steps sinners needed to take in order to be saved (Acts 2:38). This involved a spiritual change of masters (Jesus is Lord vs I am lord) and a burial in and resurrection out of water. Why do some Bible students pretend that Jesus didn’t mean it when he said this new birth was essential? That’s what I’m accusing Alexander of doing. He wants the new birth to NOT be necessary. Jesus said it IS necessary.
Alexander suggests:
please provide for all of us the scripture which supports your claim that the Holy Spirit is only given to people as a sign rather than an empowerment… I trust you believe those words based on some sort of scripture rather than a combination of Regulative Principals randomly applied to the text…
.
Peter, speaking as inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that the Holy Spirit fell on Cornelius as it did on them… So, please provide the scriptural text that corrects this passage to show that it was not the same and somehow different..perhaps your supporting text will show us how it was different.
RAY WRITES: Peter was impetuous. He made mistakes. Peter was inspired and led into all truth by the baptism in the Holy Spirit which is reported in Acts 2. He was no more and no less saved from sin by that baptism. The signs from God were to empower the apostles and to convince others that what those apostles were saying was God’s truth. Are we then agreed that the first baptism in the Spirit was for a sign? I don’t know how better to make clear that those mighty miracles (the sounds and sights) were intended to get the Lord’s church off to a good start. The signs were not to create new Christians out of sinners. The apostles were long-time followers of Jesus and knew Him as Lord.
The second episode was obviously to convince hard-headed Peter that Gentiles COULD be baptized. Not a single Gentile had been baptized in the ten years since Pentecost. The gospel had been taken only to Jews and Samaritans until that day. The several miracles were all aimed at persuading Peter that he could now baptize into Christ folks who were not Jews.
It wasn’t ONLY the baptism in the Spirit which changed Peter’s mind. It was angelic visits and the vision of unclean animals Peter was told to eat. These signs also helped make clear to Peter, as a leader of the disciples of Jesus, that Gentiles were as welcome as Jews in the new kingdom we call the Lord’s church. I promise you that if Peter had thought the baptism in the Spirit had saved Cornelius and his household, he would never have then told them that now they could be baptized in water.
Throughout the apostolic Scriptures, it’s those outside of Christ who are baptized in water. There’s not even one example of a Christian (a saved person) being told to be baptized, or being baptized. Baptism is the point when sinners are raised up into new life.
But note that we never say that baptism alone saves. It’s the NEW BIRTH of water AND spirit which saves. Peter clearly spells out what believing sinners must do to be saved. It’s to repent and be baptized (Acts 2:38). Any verse which seems to contradict this truth needs to be understood in its light rather than as a contradiction. And both remission of sins and the gift of the Spirit FOLLOWS the new birth of water and spirit!
Ray. I asked for scripture. You provided additional opinion. I assume you forgot or had difficulty finding the appropriate passage.
Jay is correct when he says that we should be discussing the Regulative POW vs. the Normative POW instead of CENI (or CENI-S). After discovering the Regulative POW and seeing how it tied into the CofC CENI-S, I went around my fairly large congregation asking members if they had ever heard of the Regulative POW… I found not one person who realized that their beliefs were tied to something which far pre-dated the restoration movement.
The Independent Christian Church uses a Normative POW practice. I would say, based on the evidence of history, that the Independent Christian Church has had a far less volatile history and that their churches have a much better sense of fellowship with each other even though their worship practices may differ greatly. While away from home waiting for tornado damage to be repaired at my house, I’ve been attending a Independent Christian Church. They make use of multi-media in their worship services and have a praise band. There are some times when the praise and worship is wonderful and sometimes when it is not so great and I find myself missing the accapella voices. But through praise bands implementation, speaking in tongues, raising holy hands,vocal solos, cantatas and a myrid of other worship fads, the Independent Christian Church has not fractured into rival groups who hurl insults at each other (sometimes publically…may the Lord have mercy). I see that as a triumph of the Normative POW over the Regulative POW. That may be simple minded but it is what I observe.
1 Corinthians 2:10-16
“these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14 The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15 The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
Trying to discuss spiritual things with a person who is not spiritually alive is like talking to a pig about nuclear physics. Verse 14 just might be a clue why common ground cannot be reached with some people.
The evidence one has been born from above is not what he has done or will do but rather the way he loves and lives in the light union with Christ gives.
Should I believe a person is a Christian who denies Jesus is the Christ?, who teaches “another gospel”? On what basis?, that he has been baptized and is a member of a local church? Hardly so.
Paul wrote the text by inspiration of the Spirit of God. It is true. I didn’t write it, I am only suggesting that it is just as true today as when Paul wrote it.
I think we use “freedom” with different meanings. Coming from Galatians (from where you took the word) it means freedom from the Law of Moses. In other texts it means freedom from the power of sin.
In the first context the Jews were born under the Law and thus bound by the Law. Romans 7 explains that through death (and only through death) we become free of the Law … but in order to be married to another Man: Jesus.
Being bound by sin is likened to slavery. Christ’s blood is the ransom that bought us free from the powers of sin and darkness; but it also bought as FOR God.
In this sense, that we are bought and owned or married and bound to a husband, we are not free in the sense that we may live and do as we please. We are free from the powers that lead to death, we are free because we are empowered to do God’s will (not by compulsion, but by faith) – but we are not free in the sense of being our won Lords. Therefore obedience is never optional, because disobedience will face also consequences.
That#s why I strongly object to what you concluded: “Freedom is freedom from anything.” A wife is not free to look for other men or to live her own life within the marriage; and a slave/servant of God is not free to serve the flesh, sin or Mammon. We are ABLE to do that, but we are not FREE to do that.
Alexander