One more poll —
[poll id=”4″]
In the last poll, nearly no readers were willing to damn someone because his baptism was because of sins already forgiven, that is, the typical Southern Baptist teaching. No one selected “Ignorance of God’s law is no excuse,” even though that is taught by many Church of Christ preachers.
As before, many readers took that position that the question is answered in scripture and so the answer is unknowable. But the great majority found Baptist baptism effective. Of course, the Baptists immerse.
This new poll deals with pouring rather than immersion. Assume the convert studied the question closely and concluded that pouring works. Indeed, he looked up the definition of “baptism” in several dictionaries, and they said that “baptism” includes pouring. He figured that the scriptures spoke of the “outpouring” of the Spirit in association with water baptism, and so pouring makes sense. And, of course, the use of bodies of water to water baptize also is consistent with the need to have enough water to pour.
Of course, our convert made the mistake of using English dictionaries instead of Greek dictionaries. Is he damned despite his penitence and faith in Jesus?
OOPS, I misread the question before I voted "No for a reason I will discuss in the comments." I did not take into account his "diligent study" followed by a conclusion that pouring is acceptable. Here I must say that I do not know. God will not accept rebellious behavior, nor does he condition salvation on perfect behavior. How He deals with the honestly mistaken, I do not know. Jesus did say that when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch. Is that saying that the person in this scenario is lost? I do not know. God is the judge, for which I am grateful!
I voted yes because I think correctness of faith is much more important than correctness of the rite that joins one to Christ. If one is assured that he is joined to Christ and begins acting that way, then he is joined to Christ. Also if I argued for a rigid correctness of the rite, I would make my participation in the Lord's Supper invalid. There is a stronger case for the Lord's Supper being a sharing of one cup, than there is that baptism is total immersion.
I voted yes because we are saved by faith. The critical part of baptism is what takes place on the inside. I believe Rom 6 teaches we are united with Christ in the likeness of his death and resurrection and then reckon (v 11) ourselves to be dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus (faith).
Jerry,
You are right about at least one thing: God is the only judge that matters. As far as pouring goes, the word for that is cheo. As far as sprinkling goes, the word for that is rhontidzo. Do either of those things, both as specific as they are absent from scriptures that discuss baptism, and you will miss something no reader of the Greek (as ALL, every single one) of the original NT books and letters could have even possibly missed: baptism (baptidzo, baptisma) does NOT ever mean pouring or sprinkling. Baptism (baptidzo – verb, and baptisma – noun) refers specifically and without any ambiguity to immersion – plunging, dipping, submerging completely under (as in burial).
Building upon the mistakes of others from hundreds of years ago does not legitimize the mistakes. Think about that for a minute.
If I go to a medium, as did King Saul of Israel, is it any less wrong today thatn it was for him just because centuries have passed?
What would those who question the issue have done with the Ephesian group Paul immersed into Christ who only knew John's immersion? Consistency of confusion demands that they would not have a clue what to do because both John's baptism and Christ's baptism were by immersion and John came preaching about the one whowas to come after him. In other words, they got the mode and the subject and the need correct, with only a burble of doubt over the timing (before or after Jesus began his ministry, and possibly before or after Pentecost) and whether or not the HS was expected or present at the time of immersion.
Take account of all the hairy details and we can make up lots of reasons to question almost any aspect of immersion into Christ. But that is all we would be doing: making up reasons to doubt. We would not be exploring the truth, which is already there and needs no speculative reflection to become any clearer. So why does it become distasteful to be this plain? Because we have unreasonable and poorly reasoned doubts.
The NT writings/scriptures and the Didache are at odds on these points. That is why I do not heed the Didache. It is instructive, but it is also the earliest source of this move to include cheo and rhontidzo in a discussion that never previously included those things. The Didache carries no more weight than a poorly written commentary. It is uninspired in every sense of the word.
And Norton,
show me how, in the context of the first century life in Israel, there is a stronger case for using a singular cup.
Such specificity due to linguistics would render us incapable of drinking anything so solid as the container into which Jesus poured the wine. Solid linguisitic reasoning has no other choice but to conclude that "the cup" was a reference to the contents and NOT the container. The moment the container becomes the object of Jesus' command we become incapable of drinking it. We drink the contents, NOT the container.
This is where the whole discussion becomes a bit more clear. Why? Because the language is so clear when you read the Greek. Does everyone have to read Greek? No. But if we choose NOT to learn to read the Greek, we must at the very least agree to translate the words and NOT just transliterate them. If there is any meaning to words, especially words used so exclusively of an action being prescribed, then we must learn that meaning and not allow the word meaning to be clouded by centuries of following teachings that were NOT inspired in any sense of the word.
God allows for ignorance. But does He allow for obstinate refusal to follow what we KNOW is the specific and exclusive meaning – even metaphorically taken – of the words His writers penned? We have no basis in scripture for believing He does. This false 'shiboleth' has been allowed to become an excuse for not knowing whether it is God or someone else who inspired the writing. So again, I ask: shall we also go to mediums to consult the dead directly? Or did God mean it when He declared that to be an abomination?
The Lexicons are clear as to the distinction between cheo and rhontidzo and baptidzo/baptisma. And if it were any other subject that was NOT the result of uninspired commentary and transliteration, we would not even be entertaining the idea that there was any ambiguity here.
Grizz
I answered “No." (Although I'm not surprised by so many answering yes, this is the trend I beleive we're headed towards in the Lord's church, sincerity of the heart trumps everything)
Lord says in Matthew 15:14, "And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the ditch."
The blind can certainly lead the blind. But the results of our following the blind is disastrous. People can sincerely believe that which is false and therefore intentionally lead others to do the same. The sincereity of their belief does not excuse their behavior. They are without excuse because the truth is available in God's Word.
The truth is that you CANNOT BE BURIED UNDER A SPRINKLE!
As it's already been pointed point in one of the comments by Grizz bBaptism" comes from the Greek word "baptizo" meaning "to dip" (as a clothe), “immerse", or "submerge.” If God would have wanted to indicate that people could be sprinkled with water, there was a perfectly good Greek word “rantizo” He could have had the New Testament writer’s use.
But God chose the word baptize because apparently He did not want sprinkling or pouring to represent the proper picture of conversion! The method of baptism is important, because the method is tied to the meaning. Therefore, if you change the method, you change the meaning.
Our responsiblity and obligation is to obey the commands of God right? We are to obey the command of God to be immersed. A person cannot be immersed by pouring or sprinkling—one can only be poured or sprinkled by pouring and sprinkling. Likewise, one can only be immersed by being immersed. God says what He means and means what He says!
Even Jimmy Allen says in his Re-Baptism book (in which of course he argues that the penitent believer who is baptized to obey the Lord has been scripturally baptized).
He writes,
“As I do not believe that one can change baptism’s fundamental purpose (i.e., obedience to God), I certainly do not believe one change its mode. Baptism is immersion, not sprinkling. Anyone who has received sprinkling has not obeyed God.” (Rebaptism? What One Must Know to be Born Again”, p.194)
It was the apostle Paul who wrote in Ephesians 4:5 that there is only “ONE” baptism. Clearly, he understood what the “ONE” baptism was. In Romans 6:4 he described it as a burial: “Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father so we too might walk in newness of life.”
Again, it was Paul who described the “ONE” baptism to the Colossians: “Having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead “ (Col. 2:12).
Without question, this is the “ONE” baptism of Ephesians 4:4. Burial in water in obedience to God from a pure heart to be saved is what God requires.
Let’s “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent.”
Humbly,
Robert Prater
He'll be saved if God so chooses. And everything I know about God tells me he will so choose. If Christ's atoning sacrifice covers any kind of sin, surely it covers honest mistakes of biblical interpretation. Jesus died because God *really* wants people saved. It's not a casual preference, but a passion.
Robert,
What makes you so sure the form of your baptism is without error? What in the world will you say to God if on the Day of Judgment you find out that your baptism was less than (legally) correct according to scripture? There is a possibility that you could be wrong, isn't there? What would you say then especially since you deny fellowship and the grace of God at work to anyone whom you believe to be wrong?
I'm all for trying our best to diligently understand scripture as best as we can and practice what we believe is taught in scripture. But honestly brother, you sound like someone who is full of faith in your ability to get it right rather than someone with faith in God.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
If I understand the writings of Alexander Campbell, he would say he did not know. He would not automatically condemn a person he thought was sincere but he would also admit he had no authorization from scripture to assume the person was saved. This was one of the reasons he described faith-based immersion as an assurance of salvation. Being consistent with what scripture actually teaches is much more assuring than the unknown of just how lenient God's grace might be.
I understand this "site is dedicated to members of the Churches of Christ searching for a deeper understanding of God's grace, the Holy Spirit, and more."
I was raised in the CofC and think I know it as well as most and better than many and I still find myself amazed at the degree of focus on IM, mode and understanding of baptism at the time of baptism. Jay tries to get beyond those issues at times but they always seem to come back to the front of so very many discussions here. Will the CofC ever get over majoring in minor issues? Even the number of cups came up again – how sad is that?
And I read the following above:
"God allows for ignorance. But does He allow for obstinate refusal to follow what we KNOW is the specific and exclusive meaning – even metaphorically taken – of the words His writers penned? We have no basis in scripture for believing He does."
We kid ourselves into thinking that if we get the form right we are OK with God. We all sin all the time and we all know that we do it – and that we do it b/c we WANT to do it – not b/c of ignorance. We pretend that we are not rebellious when we know we are – we just aren't as rebellious as some other folks we know – so we compare ourselves to them and think we come out looking pretty good.
When we the last time anyone held a gun to your head and made you lust, be greedy, arrogant, discontent with what God has given you, gossip, be proud – perhaps be proud of your mode and understanding of baptism, love a brother/sister less than you should, love God with less than your entire being, love the flaming homosexual or prostitute less than you should – OK you get the point. We sin b/c we want to – no one makes us do it – and that could be seen as being rebellious to the clear commands of scripture. How obstinate must my refusal to obey all the commands of scripture have to be? We seem to think we can be obstinate to a degree if we get the form right. How dumb is that?
We come from a background that forgives egregious failings of moral law but won't budge an inch on positive law. Jay has made that point before – perhaps we should should be more attentive to some of the points he has made. Or maybe we should just grow up – do righteousness, love mercy and walk humbly with God.
I find the CofC frustrating in its obstinate refusal to focus on the weightier matters.
Thank God for his hesed,
Randall
Me too Randall. Jay's efforts notwithstanding, the man centered doctrine is still the same at the core.
Grizz
It is very hard to misunderstand from Matt, Mark,, and Luke that when Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he told the disciples to all drink the contents from the cup, Whether it is significant that they all drank from the same cup may be disputed, but the indisputable fact remains that that is the way Jesus told them to do it, and that is the way they did it. We have no such detailed instructions or examples from the Bible telling us how to baptize. Using one loaf and one cup is the way most all churches, including the CofC, observed the the Lord's Supper until it was changed some one hundred years ago. Yes, we changed the exact form of the ordinance just as the early church changed the ordinance of baptism from immersion to sprinkling. And we changed the form of the Lord's Supper for the same reasons the early church changed the form of baptism; for practical and health reasons. I think pouring and sprinkling are a more radical change to baptism than multiple cups and loaves are to the Lord's Supper, but am I to justify myself and condemn others?
Thank you, Rex. Thank you, Randall. Right on target.
"God allows for ignorance. But does He allow for obstinate refusal to follow what we KNOW is the specific and exclusive meaning – even metaphorically taken – of the words His writers penned? We have no basis in scripture for believing He does."
It has been my observation how easily discussion about a topic gravitates to focus in the mechanics and details, with the result that any depth of spiritual meaning is almost ignored. This is the C o C tradition. It's so much easier than talking about the spiritual message behind the details. If we KNOW the specific and exclusive meaning as was suggested, why do we have to go round and round about it? Isn't it because one person "knows," and the other person doesn't? Is there really someone who genuinely "KNOWS," or is it the one who can be the most pridefully presumptuous that they know just exactly what God thinks. And the person has definitely convinced … himself. I know about that; I used to do that. Getting rid of that attitude is a life-long process if you "grew up" thinking that way. I am a work in progress.
Does God allow for the obstinate refusal to continue searching for the meaning (whether specific and exclusive or other) of the words His writers penned because we have elevated our own interpretation to be equal to God? I now recognize that having this attitude elevated me and my opinion over God, and that was idolatry. When we gravitate toward legalism, we are gravitating toward idolatry. Not recommended.
If God allows for ignorance, what does God allow for anyone who chooses to remain there? I can get into the details big time, sometimes so much that people's eye roll. (Or maybe close). But if the details don't point to a better understanding of the gospel and taking Jesus to the lost, to fulfilling the anointing of Christ (Luke 4:18-19) that has been given to us, to preparing God's people for works of service, to growing into the fullness of Christ in the nature of God – love, peace, unity – and to keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace …. if the discussion on details doesn't do that – then we have taken our eyes off of Jesus and put them on ourselves. Not recommended.
Ever notice how discussion of mechanics are cyclic – they don't really "get anywhere" in understanding spiritual concepts? When a discussion about mechanics (IM, AC, number cups, whatever) remains in the physical realm and never taps spiritual power, the discussion subjects itself to the law of entropy and it is destined to cyclic movement.
That method of baptism is not what Jesus commanded!! So the person Knows that is for the remission of sins, God wants us to know! Acts 17:30-31 " Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
I want to share what the Bible says about Bible Baptism!!
BAPTISM OF THE BIBLE
“…of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. (Hebrew 6:2).
It is obvious there were various baptism in the Bible. What were they? To whom did they apply? What was their purpose? Consider the following:
1.- The Baptism of Moses (1 Cor. 10:2) The Journey of the Israelites from bondage in nEgypt to Canaan is a type of the Christian’s journey from bondage in sin to heaven. The passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea on this journey, with the water around them and the cloud over them serves as a prototype of the water baptism commanded by Christ and the apostles.
2.- The Baptism of Suffering ( Matthew 20:22,23;Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50).
Jesus anticipated his suffering which would be so overwhelming He Spoke of it as a baptism.
3.- The Baptism of the Holy Spirit ( Mattew 3:11 b; Mark 1:8b; Luke 3:16b; John 1:33b; Acts 1:5; Acts 11:16). This was a promised baptism that was fulfilled in the apostles (Acts 2 ) and to the household of Cornelius (Acts 10) At no time was anyone ever commanded to be baptized in the Holy Spirit nor is it ever said a Holy Spirit baptism would put one into Christ. When the apostles were baptized with the Holy Spirit, things Jesus taugh were brought to their remembrance (John 14:26), and they were guided into all truth (John 16:13). At the household of Cornelius Holy Spirit baptism was to convince the Jews present that God accepted the Gentiles to be fellow heirs in the family of God (Acts 11:14-18). Holy Spirit baptism was not designed to continue through the centuries.
4.- The Baptism of Fire ( Matthew 3:11; Luke 3:16) This baptism refers to the overwhelming punishment awaiting those who do not obey the Gospel,. It has to do with the destiny of the wicked. ( Note. Matthew 3:12).
5.- The Baptism of John ( Matthew 3:6,7,12,13,16; Mt.16:21:25; Mark 1:4,5,8a,9; Mark 11:30; Luke 3:3,21; Luke 7:29,30; Luke 20:4; Acts 1:22; Acts 10:37, Acts 13:24; Acts 18:25; Acts 19:3,4; John 1:23,25,26,28,31, 33a, John 10:40; Acts 1:5a; 11:16.
This was a water baptism administered to jews before the crucifixion of Christ. It was preceded by repentence and confession of sins (Mt. 3:2,6; Mark 1:4). Both John and the disciples of Jesus administrered it (Mt. 3:11; John 4:1,2). It was a means of preparing material for the approaching Kingdom. It is not in force today ( Acts 19:1-6).
6.- The water Batism commanded by Jesus and the Apostles (Mt.28:19,20; Mark 16:16; John 3:5; Acts 2:38,41; Acts 8:12,13,16; Romans 6:3,4; 1 Cor. 1:13-17, 1 Cor.12:13; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:4; Colossians 2:12; 1 peter 3:21).
This is the baptism administered by the disciples on and after the day of Pentecost to penitent belivers for the remission of their sins. It is a vital part of the new birth and is the one baptism of which Paul Speaks in Ephesians 4:5. It stand between the lost alien sinner and pardon. It is the only baptism that applies in the present century.
What about the “doctrine of baptism” of Hebrews 6:2?
These probably refer to the Baptism of John, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism administered by the disciples on and after the day of Pentecost. No new baptism is suggested here.
What about the baptism for the dead of 1 Cor. 15:29?
This probably has reference to the water baptism administed by the disciples on and after the day of Pentecost to penitent believer when they anticipated their approaching deaths ( death to sin). Personal responsibility rules out the possibility of a proxy baptism for people who are already physically dead.
What about a spirit baptism for alien sinner today?
According to Paul there is now only one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). The water baptism administered by the disciples on and after the day of Pentecost to penitent believers is the one. It is the one that saves (Acts 2:38, 1 peter 3:21). The idea of a spirit baptism must surely grow out of a misunderstanding of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, yet even this baptism was never said to save anyone. The alien sinner needs to hear the gospel, believe it, repent of his sins, confess for the remission of his sins. HAVE YOU BEEN BAPTIZED FOR THE REMISSION OF YOUR SINS?
Rex,
My dear brother we’ve been down this false mischaracterization of me before that I’m “someone who is full of faith in your ability to get it right rather than someone with faith in God.”
You apparently never grow tired of singing the same song:)lol! But before you paint my wagon, you need to know what wagon I'm driving.
My certainty and assurance of my salvation is in God and His Son Jesus not in the faith of my ability to get everything right. But having said that, I don’t live with “what if I’m wrong” doctrinal paranoia.
C.S. Lewis made the observation that some people will commit to nothing rather than end up being wrong about anything.
The whole New Testament (including Acts) repeatedly teaches us that baptism is the full mode or method of expressing personal faith in Jesus Christ to become a Christian. This is the position to which I am committed to preaching and teaching to the world, to those who have not been immersed into Christ or those who have been sprinkled.
If God chooses to work outside of His expressed will and command to save a penitent believer who either hasn’t been immersed or immersed properly (mode) that is clearly His Divine prerogative.
One may leave judgment to God while taking God’s imperatives seriously. One may respect and love the pious non-immersed and sprinkled while insisting that God has set forth faith and repentance and baptism as means by which we enter the kingdom of God. (John 3:5; Acts 2:38, 42; 47; 1 Cor. 12:13)
According to the teaching of the New Testament, a penitent has the remission of sins when they are buried with Christ, saved by his blood, having been united with him in his death by baptism (Romans 6:3-4).
Jesus is our true Lord, he is the only one who can tell us what the true baptism is. Again, the will of God is that baptism is a burial, and since it literally means immersion, New Testament examples of baptism were performed by immersion. If you and I are baptized according “this form” of the New Testament church, would there be any doubt as to the validity of our baptism — at least with reference as to how it was accomplished? I think not.
So am I being unkind, arrogant or when I point out that sprinkling and pouring cannot be substituted for immersion? I have no intention of questioning the honesty and sincerity of those who embrace these ideas, but I would not be true to my convictions of what I believe is the Lord’s will or command in regard to baptism if I did not attempt to expound the way of the Lord more accurately. Trying to convert people to the truth is neither arrogant nor intolerant. Those who do not love the truth but believe a lie will be condemned (2 Thess. 2:11-12). Those who do not know God and obey the true gospel “will be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power (2 Thess. 1:8-9).
Paul wrote that God “wants all men to be saved and to come to knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4). Similarly, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31-32).
The truth is something that is critical with regards to our salvation — as these passages indicate.
But how can we determine what is the truth regarding any religious matter? There is only one objective way to “know the truth.” The Lord Jesus affirmed that God’s Word is truth (John 17:17). Since God’s word is truth, genuine faith is derived from God’s Word (Romans 10:17). I might believe or practice something with sincerity, but sincerity does not determine “the truth.”
The Apostle Paul wrote, “Therefore do not be vague and thoughtless and foolish, but understanding and firmly grasping what the will of the Lord is.” (Ephesians 5:17 Amplified Bible)
Rex, in spite of the foolishness being promoted by the postmodernists, Paul believed the Ephesians could and should use their reasoning power to know the will of God. If we do not have the ability to reason or if the result of our reasoning is not dependable, why would Bible writers urge us to reason?
It certainly is true that men cannot know or understand everything – only God can do that – but we can understand enough of God's will to be saved from our sins and to walk in such a way as to be well pleasing to the Lord. If we cannot understand the will of God, how can God hold us accountable for doing it?
So, yes, Rex I strongly reject your false premise that I am denying “the fellowship and the grace of God at work in a person to anyone whom you believe to be wrong.”
I am in fellowship with everyone whom God is in fellowship with and accepts according to His Word. Those who are truly "in Christ" (cf. Gal. 3:26-27) and are walking in the light of Jesus, loving one another and striving to keep His commands. (cf. 1 John 1:7; 2:3-11)
I pray you will only speak the sound words of the New Testament.
Sincerely,
Robert Prater
And most of us with persuasions that do not agree with yours, Robert, do not appreciate being characterized as feeling that "sincerity of the heart trumps everything."
I don't believe you would find any of us saying, preaching, teaching or defending that.
GuestForTruth has given a very nice summary of the meanings and contexts of NT references where the word for baptism is used. Some decades ago, I would have carried a printout of this outline inside my important reference book (in addition to the Bible, of course), “Ready Answers To Religious Error.”
Since that time, God has led me to see some of my inconsistencies in interpreting scriptures, incorrect assumptions that gave me the interpretation even before I read the passages, and places where I had mentally added words into the verses. I had gone to the scripture, read and studied with an “open mind,” and proved myself right every time! I finally realized that if I would be a true advocate for restoration and “speak where the Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent,” I had to stop inconsistently adding, even mentally, words into the text that directed the interpretation to what I already knew the verses meant. One thing I did was to mentally add the word, “water,” everywhere the word “baptize” (or, baptism) was used in an unspecified manner, which is by far most of cases.
In Hebrews 6:1-2, the author gives quite a list of topics that are rudiments of Christ, including some doctrinal topics that usually occupy a lot of our attention. One of the left-behind items was “teaching about baptisms.” “Teaching” is singular; “baptisms” is plural. That is why some versions translate this as “ablutions” or “washings,” indicating some type of ritual procedure. We need to make three categories of the strength of interpretation of baptism — (1) an identifying word for “water” or “spirit” is used in context with “baptism,” (2) either “water or “spirit” is strongly implied, or (3) it is somewhere between “best guess” and speculative. I think Hebrews 6:1 is in category (2) for water baptisms, but I see no indication for limiting the reference only to John’s baptism in water. All water baptisms. The writer didn’t say they were wrong; they just did not lead to maturity.
In addition to mentally assuming words that are not there, presumptions can direct interpretations in the wrong direction. The only way to say that the baptism in the Holy Spirit occurred only at Pentecost and Cornelius is to have that conclusion before you start.
The baptism within the Holy Spirit is part of the Promise of the Father
Jesus will send to His disciples the Promise of the Father associated with power from out of high–
Luke 24:45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Jesus will send the Promise of the Father, which involves the baptism within the Holy Spirit (which is distinguished from John’s baptism within water)–
Acts 1:4 he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for what my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized within water, but in a few days you will be baptized within the Holy Spirit.”
The Promise of the Father is also associated with being clothed with power from out of high–
Acts 1:8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”
The Promise of the Father is the Holy Spirit which was poured out first at Pentecost
Acts 2:33 Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.
Acts 2:17 says God would pour out His Spirit on ALL people, not just on Pentecost or on Cornelius.
Does the scripture say that the Promise of the Father died out with the apostles?
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ into the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Speaking where the Bible speaks — The Promise of the Father was fulfilled by the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on all people, with the baptism within the Holy Spirit, and with being clothed with power from out of high (i.e., presence of God). Doesn’t Acts 2:38-39 say that the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit is part of the Promise of the Father?
The Promise to for all who have been called by God. What part of the Promise of the Father do you want to leave out? What died with the apostles? If you want to say that the baptism within the Holy Spirit, power from on high, and the gift of the Holy Spirit died out with the apostles, then you have to be consistent and say that forgiveness of sins died out also.
The pouring out of God’s Spirit was associated with a new heart, which is consistent with what is referred to as “the indwelling Holy Spirit.” It was not within Luke’s purpose to write about that in Acts. Luke’s purpose was achieved by reporting the signs and wonders, which were observable and documented external manifestations. That is why the doctrinal link between the baptism within the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues is invalid. In Acts 2:4, those in the upper room were “filled with the Holy Spirit.” The particular word used in this verse for “filled” means to control from the outside, consistent with an overtaking of tongues for evangelistic purposes, consistent with the command of Jesus. Note the word in Acts 2:2, “filled the house” is a different word, which means to fill up to volume. Paul uses the 2nd word in Eph 5:17. The tenses of the verbs also fit the context.
To repeat, there is no example of conversion that is more relevant to how God works today than that of Cornelius. Most of the other conversions in Acts that are given in some detail involve Jews or Samaritans. Cornelius was a Gentile, as are we. To make sure we get the details, Luke relates the conversion three times.
Cornelius was baptized within the Holy Spirit, because Peter identified it (Acts 11:16) and it was identified as the gift of the Holy Spirit (dorea, not charismata). It was poured out. Cornelius and household were saved. Peter then had them water baptized, not because they needed to be saved (again?) but because to not do so would have been for him (not Cornelius, but Peter) to oppose God.
GuestForTrust said correctly that the speaking in tongues with Cornelius was a sign to the Jews to accept the Gentiles into fellowship. Why? Because God had saved them and it was the Jew’s job to accept them. No one has to be commanded to be baptized within the Holy Spirit, because God is the one who takes care of that. Cornelius makes that clear. External manifestation of speaking in tongues is again (like the “filled” at Pentecost) associated with an operation of the Holy Spirit from the outside, exerting control. The Holy Spirit “came on” (seized) all who heard the message. Same word used in “he was come upon by robbers.” Same word as in Acts 8, “the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon them.” That’s a clue how to interpret the Samaritan conversion. Confusing otherwise.
External manifestations at Pentecost, at Samaria, at Cornelius, and at Ephesus were all used as a sign to the Jews concerning the necessity of preserving the unity of fellowship based on the authority of the name of Jesus Christ.
Now, reread all the verses that use only the word “baptism” and pray about the meaning without mentally adding the word “water” into the verse when it isn’t there. “….and be silent where the Bible is silent.”
Why do I believe there is hope for those who seek God by faith in Christ but have practiced a baptism that is as far as I understand not according to what is taught in scripture?
Because God was willing to pardon the people who ate the Passover meal "contrary to what is written" and yet God, upon the prayer of Hezekiah, healed them (2 Chronicles 30.18-20).
Oh but wait…that's the Old Testament. The God of the NT is the same God of the OT. The scriptures teach baptism and we ought to do everything we can to understand what the scriptures teach about baptism and practice accordingly…BUT God is not a legalist. God reveals himself as the Father, Son, and Spirit who saves those who seek him with their heart even if they don't get it legalistically correct. And if that were not so, there would not be one of us that could have any hope of salvation because we all error at some point.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Well said. Amen, brother!
May we continue to share our study into the deeper meaning of the scripture so that we can together grow into the mind of Christ and not so that we can target one another.
Dr. T….was the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in I Corinthians 14 the same external control? Of was it more of the indwelling type ?? Thx.
Guestfortruth,
I found the material contained in your post posted on online as a PowerPoint presentation at http://www.westsidecofc-salem.com/…/NT%20Teaching%20on... and http://www.westsidecofc-salem.com/PPT/7%20Baptisms%20of%...
I'm therefore deleting the material to avoid any copyright violations. Readers may read the material at one of the above links. It will require PowerPoint or compatible software.
If this is your work, then please let me know. If not, as I've stated before, you are not allowed, by law, to post other people's material at this blog.
If you persist, I'll be forced to block your participation.
Jay, I cannot imagine the amount of time you must spend monitoring all these postings for content and copyright duplication, plus writing excellent posts of your on, plus speaking, plus eldering, plus everything else. Are you really just one person?
Price, thanks for asking this. Although a study of the operation of the Holy Spirit can get into an incredible amount of detail, more so than could possible to touched on in this format, I think it is enormously important to put forth the effort. There is so much confusion and so many interpretations made by men to justify doctrine that the power of the Spirit is quenched. In our own fellowship, we are over a century behind where we should be because we have defined away the Spirit's power (for ourselves) because we didn't like some else's doctrine about tongues. Okay, soapbox over.
The baptism within the Holy Spirit occurs at the salvation of the believer. That is the Promise. Even if Luke specifically identifies it only twice in Acts, we know it occurred because we believe the Promise of the Father. Therefore, all the Corinthians were baptized within the Holy Spirit by Jesus.
Paul does not use the "action" words in describing the operation of the Holy Spirit in I Cor 12-14 as Luke did in the gospel of Luke and Acts. Luke uses the phrase "filled with the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:4, 4:8, 4:31 & others) and the verb "pletho" in the aorist tense, suggesting control at a point in time for a particular purpose with continued result. "Pleroo" is usually in the present tense, indicating continuous action, filling up to volume from the inside. We use filled in several ways as well. He was filled with wisdom vs.he was filled with anger. Eg., Solomon operated continually out of wisdom (except about himself) but he may have been taken over by anger that temporarily controlled his actions. The apostles filled Jerusalem with teaching (Acts 5:28; pleroo, gradual filling to volume), but the Jews were filled with jealousy (Acts 13:45; pletho) which made them behaviorally lose control of themselves. Ephesians 5:18 is filled with the Spirit (pleroo, filled to volume from the inside, present tense, imperative command). Consistent with the indwelling. The Holy Spirit operation on the Samaritans and Cornelius uses a different word, actually stronger, meaning to seize, but implying all the same things.
So many interesting things. Peter said to Ananias in Acts 5:3, "Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit ….." Which filled? Could Ananias say, "The devil made me do it?" No, the word is pleroo, filled up from the inside. Satan hadn't just taken Ananias over; Satan and filled him up with evil. Ananias was rotten to the core.
Now, all of that verbiage is only to say, Paul doesn't use words like this in 1 Cor 12-14. That means we can't use words in Acts to help interpret 1 Cor 12-14 and that means we can't use the manifestations in 1 Cor to interpret Acts, even when the same word is used, like "tongues." That's when interpretation hits the wall of chaos.
The so-called spiritual gifts (charismata) found in three NT places, including in 1 Cor 12-14 are called manifestations given by the Spirit according to the will of the Spirit to Christians in the body of Christ for the expressed purpose of serving one another in love and building up the body. Everyone in Corinth didn't speak in tongues, and when someone did no one could understand what they said without interpretation. These manifestations were given after salvation to strengthen the church. In the book of Acts, manifestations were used to spread the gospel to unbelievers in accordance with Jesus' command. Manifestations were produced by the seizing of the Spirit to be a sign to unbelieving Jews or to Jews who needed confirmation of God's action. One the Day of Pentecost tongues were used for evangelism and as a sign and wonder and did not need human interpretation. In Corinth tongues were for edification and needed interpretation and were specifically and expressly NOT to be used as a sign. That's what Paul told them in Ch 14 – tongues are a sign for unbelievers not believers. You guys are using tongues as a sign of "one-upsmanship" on each other in the church, so when someone comes in they aren't convicted of their sin, they are convinced you are crazy. And you are acting that way. Spiritual gifts are for edification, not signs in the church. That's different from Acts.
Spiritual gifts operated during the time of Acts, and Luke records some things consistent with gifts (prophecies, healing, etc.) But Luke just describes what happened, he didn't identify them as such because that didn't fit his purpose. His purpose was to record an organized proof to Theophilus which he did by describing confirming signs and wonders that were external and observable.
Price, I'm sorry for the long explanation. But, in a sense, the manifestation of spiritual gifts is in a different category from either external manifestations in Acts or the indwelling Spirit, and at the same time there is overlap. These gifts are manifestations from the Spirit, so in a way they are externally derived. But their internal purpose is to build up the body with one consummate goal — Acts 13:10 — that the church, the body of Christ, may be perfected in love (13:8). And that overlaps with the indwelling Spirit.
What differences does it make? Shouldn't be a salvation issue, but unfortunately some people make it into an issue. Have to have tongues at salvation, negatory, tongues are invalid; baptism within the Holy Spirit means tongues, doesn't mean tongues because they stopped after Cornelius; baptism in the Holy Spirit only occurred twice and that's because I don't like tongues; all these gift things are miraculous and miracles ceased, on and on ad nauseum. This is costing us unity in the body of Christ. We are emaciating ourselves and are power-challenged as a result. We have a 16 cylinder Lamborghini that is hitting on 2 cylinders because we think the other 14 died at the factory.
God help us.
Price, thank you!
K. Rex Butts,
We read in the book of 2 Timothy 3:16 " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," We Churches of Christ been misunderstand by the denominationals like we just belive in the New Testament, but the bible interpred the bible and in Romans 15:4 God said using the apostle Paul to declare "For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. Today what we can learn about cornelius? That the only prayer that God hear from a sinner as Cornelius is seeking Salvation! Today, If there is some one out there that sincerely is looking for the truth, God put the ways through his general providence, sending a preacher or Christian who teach the whole counsel of God Acts.20:27. That is impartial even if there issues to fix in his family and don't compromise the word of God because of that. Someone as is declared in 1 Peter 4:11 "If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God". Put faith in Christ is the beginning of the first steps of the Gospel (Hebrews. 11:6, Romans. 10:17) that is required to be saved by that is not all. We are not safe by "faith Only" as calvin taught, The bible declare that the faith without works is dead! God demand a Faith in Action!! James 2:24 " You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only." This is the whole truth!! We don't teach that you don't need to do anything to be save because you are already save!
.
Sorry Jay !
Was not one of mine! It was from a brother in Christ who wrote it!
I don't know if you knew him? His name was Delton Haun. Great bible Student and teacher !
K. Rex Butt,
Acts 20:27 ” For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God.”
I have several questions K. Rex? Do you have fellowship with members that are in adultery? What discipline the elders do in your congregation? Have your heard the word Dis-fellowship? Taking communion for those that are walking in the flesh or darkness. We can be among the sinners, but don’t participate of their works if we are in the Lord’s Church! The person who baptize somebody needs to know what he is doing. The right way “Method” and the right purpose ” For Remission of sins” and after that continuing teaching them ( Matthew 28:20) How to keep save until death!! because even if we were baptize with the righ method and righ reason but our live does not show the new man in Christ at the end we will be dissapointed about keeping part of the commandments! Revelation 2:10 “Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.” been baptize is the beginning steps of salvation, When we are baptize we receive the Seal of the Holy Spirit ( Ephesians 4:30 ) ” And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” as soon as we are baptize we need to desire the Spiritual Food “1 Peter 2:2 as newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation;”1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 ” Do not quench (grieve) the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.” Our main focus in in verse 21. “Test all things” whith what? with the word of God. 2 Tim. 3:16.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit,(This is not talking about the Holy Spirit, is about the men’s spirit also known as teachings) but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Dr. T. I'm with you 100%.. Just wanted to get a clear understanding of the differences between Luke's description and Paul's. From a "lay" person's point of view it seems it was the same Holy Spirit being described by different people for different purposes…Let's hope more and more of us are empowered by Him to exhort, edify and encourage one another to greatness in Him…!! Surely the Church shouldn't sputter ! Thanks again…
Guestfortruth
Your post brings back memories of the past, because the words remind me of something I once would have said. However, by God’s mercy and grace, He led me to understand (and is continuing to do so) that I was seeing through the glass darkly because I was encased in a box of legalistic thinking. I would go through the scriptures like skipping through a rose garden, plucking passages here and there that fit my preconceived and well-rehearsed purpose. Pulled out of context, superficial meaning based on traditional thinking rather than substance, haughty attitude, whatever – I had it all. Now that I have seen the power of the grace of God, for me, the very idea of returning to that mode of thinking and attitude would be like the dog returning to vomit.
Looking at my present understanding of the scriptures from my previous perspective, I would have thought someone like me would have gone into apostasy. That was because I didn’t have a clue what apostasy was, except an opinion that didn’t match mine. Legalism is apostasy because it is idolatrous because it places my set of interpretations above Jesus Christ. No, my opinions and Jesus Christ were not the same. I was just tricked into thinking they were. “Who, me? Legalistic?”
Guestfortruth, “I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe.” Ephesians 1:18-19
Thank you, Price, I agree with what you said. One benefit of getting into so much detail about the operation of the Holy Spirit is to recognize that there is a common purpose to all of the manifestations that might be described a little differently in different places and by different authors. Everywhere the Holy Spirit operates, signs (Acts), spiritual gifts in the church (I Cor, Rom, 1 Pet), gifts through offices (Eph 4), or the indwelling, it is always to testify (John 16:14) that Jesus is Lord (I Cor 12:3). We are, in unity, to grow up into the One Lord (Eph 4), and in unity testify to the world of God’s love through Christ (Jn 17). So, even though we can tease apart some details, everything points to unity. A second benefit is to understand that while spiritual gifts are given at the Spirit’s will, how effective they are in use for service toward one another can depend on our faith (Rom 12:6) and how yielded we are to the Spirit’s work. It’s hard to have faith for something one is told doesn’t exist anymore. Another benefit is when we discover that there really is no scriptural basis for many of the interpretations of the operation of the Spirit that have been used by Christians for disunity.
I thank God for you, bother.
If only you would truly “declare the whole counsel of God” rather than repeating segments that have been preselected by others.
Comments such as those by Guesstfortruth are a micro representation of the battle in the spiritual realms for the candlestick of the Churches of Christ.
Matt 22:29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.”
He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Sorry for typo. Delete one "s." Should be "Guestfortruth."
Dear: Theophilus Dr,
Thanks for sharing your Spiritual Journey in this world, in matter of fact, New Testament Christians believe that the Holy Spirit dwells in the christian through the medium of the written Word, His Law (Romans 8:2), and by one's obedience to that word ( 1 Peter 1:23). Today the holy spirit dwells in the faithful Christians in a non-miracle way. The Holy Spirit works together with the word as mentioned in Ephesians 6: 17 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" The Spirit and the word acomplished the mission of God saving the sinner and feeding the spiritual poor to become a mature(perfect) in Christ. 2 Tim. 3:16. Hebrews 4:12 " For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."
by the way. "the very idea of returning to that mode of thinking and attitude would be like the dog returning to vomit." (2 Peter 2:21-22) is misapplied, because the bible says: that about those who were in the church and now they are out of communion because of their sinful life. So, are you comparing "Vomit" as legalism? the bible does not say that Vomit is legalism. Be legal is legal here and in the other world. 2 Thessalonians 2:2 " not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. We need to ramain faithful to the Lord as when we were new born in Jesus and remmember what we been taugh by honest servants of the Lord, Romans 6:17 But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. The apostle peter before his death told us :12 For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. 13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, 14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease. ( 2 Peter 1:12-15).
Guestfortruth,
I'm not sure what you are asking. No I don't condone adultery. Nor do I condone any other sinful living. I do however believe there is grace for us, as we all still sin. I also believe there is grace for us, as we all error morally/ethically as well as doctrinally/theologically.
I also know that we can cut and paste (proof-text) the Bible as though it were a buffet in order to make the Bible fit whatever conclusions we want. We all our guilty of that to a certain degree. I'm trying to avoid that. But forgive me if I am wrong but it is hard not to read your comments as just someone who already has their conclusions made up and is just cutting and pasting from the Bible as needed to affirm and reaffirm those conclusions.
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Unity under God's Word
What I see in this comparison of questions with the same answer. Is that both views are incomplete, the Spirit dwell in the Christian and work through the Word. 1 Peter 1:23. Since the Bible declares that Deity indwells- Deity indwells. Deity indwells all who desire and do completely the will of God. We need to make a Distinction between “word only” and “ through the word” . When we use “ Through” we are saying that there is a “medium” that is the way the Godhead works! For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12). The scripture declare in Jeremiah 11:20 “ But, O LORD of hosts, You who Judge righteously,Testing the mind and the heart, Let me see Your vengeance on them, For to You I have revealed my cause. What cause? The word of the Lord. How do I know is God’s word the next passage said Versus 21 “Therefore thus says the LORD” Who is the judge? God is the righteous Judge. (2 Tim. 4:8,Hebrews 10:30,1 Peter 4:5). Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, His work is perfect;For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He. He decide who is right or wrong (1 Peter 3:12-14, Psalm 34:12-16) in Deuteronomy 31:28-30, we find the example of the House of Israel “Gather to me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to witness against them. For I know that after my death you will become utterly corrupt(you will stop caring about what is right and what is wrong), and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you. And evil will befall you in the latter days, because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke Him to anger through the work of your hands.” This passage show that their the people of God since the creation has been leaning to depart from God’s will ignoring the omnipresence of God.) . 2 Corinthians 5:10-12 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. 11 Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are well known to God, and I also trust are well known in your consciences. Psalm 96:13 before the LORD. For He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with His truth.
What truth is this passage talking? John 17:17 “ Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.” (Psalm 33:4; Psalm 40:10; Psalm 25:10; Psalm 25:5) Like the psalmist mentioned “Teach me Your way, O LORD;I will walk in Your truth; Unite my heart to fear Your name.” (Psalm 86:11)
The whole scripture is truth but in the New Testament there is one specific truth that was reveal in the first century “ And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32. This truth make us free from sin and make us righteous “For the eyes of the LORD are on the righteous, And His ears are open to their prayers;But the face of the LORD is against those who do evil.” (1 Peter 3:12; Psalm 34:14-16)
WHY IS THE GOD’S WORD MISUNDERSTOOD
Philippians 3:14-16 “ I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you. 16 Nevertheless, to the degree that we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule (Gr. Kanon), let us be of the same mind. What is that rule? Gal. 6:16 “ And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.” 2 Cor. 10: 13,15,16. (A measure) 2 Tim. 3:16 The apostle Paul explain the effect of following this rule in the next versus 17, the apostle invite us to imitate his example the way he imitate Christ, “ Brethren, join in following my example, and note those who so walk, as you have us for a pattern.”
We need to recognize the ruler (God) as final Authority for determining right or wrong in measurements. How long is this line? _______. Joe may say one quarter inch; Jim may say one inch. But when the ruler reads one-half inch, Joe and Jim both give up their personal opinions. Were it not for the ruler, questions involving measurements could never be settled. All agree that his authority is essential in its field. In our spiritual realm the word of God assist man in determining what is right and wrong spiritually is even more important. In 2 Chronicles 20:6, King Jehoshaphat said: “O LORD God of our fathers, are You not God in heaven, and do You not rule over all the kingdoms of the nations, and in Your hand is there not power and might, so that no one is able to withstand You? He and the nation of Israel was fearful of their enemies and asking God help against his enemies, he declare “You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations” That affirmation is evident when our Lord Jesus have all power today ( Mt.28:18), Jesus commanded to teach every nation “ all things whatsoever I have commanded you” Mt.28:19. These nations, then, would hear the commands of Jesus through His apostles. In order to guarantee that the apostles and other inspired men would teach the truth, Jesus promised them the special guidance and teaching of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). The apostles in turn taught men what the Spirit taught (1 Cor. 2:12,13). The church then accepted the apostles’ Teachings ” not as the word of men. But as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thes. 2:13), Thus, an apostle’s teaching was as authoritative as Jesus’ own words. Jesus spoke through the Spirit. Who spoke through the apostles, who spoke Christ’s will to men. Further, Christ’s apostles taught all the will of Jesus. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would guide them into “all truth” (John 16:13). Paul later announced “I have not shunned to declare to you the whole (ALL) the counsel of God.” (Acts 20:27). See also 2 Peter 1:3. Men – yes, even angels- who rejected the apostles’ teachings as final religious authority, were accursed of God (Gal.1:6-9).
Fortunately, the apostles and other inspired men recorded their teachings in written for for future generations. For example: Peter wrote so that after his death the church might have a permanent record of his teachings (2 Peter 1:12-15). Luke wrote so that his readers might know accurately the teaching they had already received orally (Luke 1:3,4).John wrote his gospel so that men might believe in Christ and have eternal life (John 20:30,31) and he wrote his epistles to keep Christians from sinning ( 1 John 2:1). Paul said he wrote that the church might “understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ” (Eph. 3:3-4). Consequently, what these inspired men wrote was to be regarded as “the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 14:37). Inspired men obviously recorded Christ’s will in the New Testament. Paul writing during that these scriptures were almost completed, said “ ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim. 3:16,17). NOTICE! The Bible contains everything necessary to furnish man “unto all good works” and to make him “perfect” Since the Scriptures furnish man unto EVERY good work, no other source of information is necessary( The bible interpret the Bible). Any work furnished from another source, which can not be found in the Scriptures, is not a GOOD work, for the Scriptures furnish “unto all good Works” Also 2 Timothy 3:16,17, says that the Scriptures contain sufficient knowledge to make man “perfect.” Obviously, one becomes perfect through the word of God “in all the will of God” (Col. 4:12). Since the Bible contains all the of Christ’s will, the church was not to rely on “cathesism,Synods,Councils,opinions, feelings , assumptions, imaginations etc.” or “go” beyond “that which is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Those who added to, or subtracted from the apostle “writings were to suffer eternal punishment (Revelation 22:18,19). In fact such complex system in religion help to create the Babel of voices already in our mist. The only answer is an open heart toward the Word of God! Come back to the bible!. The church was commanded to disfellowship (excommunicate) anyone who failed to obey the written word (2 Tes. 3:14). Consequently, neither man, nor angels, have the right to change what the apostles have bound in their writings (Gal. 1:8,9). The Bible’s completeness, and authority make it the final rule of faith in religion. Until men are willing to put aside denominational allegiance and sectarian strife, we shall see division running rampant, The creed books and catechism which have produced the problem must be left behind as we let Christ, the author of Christianity, rule our lives by the New Testament. There can be no “ Christian Unity” unless we believe, teach and practice what Christ authorizes in the New Testament. Any system short of that would be mockery. It is one thing to agree upon the teachings of the Bible; In Ephesians 4:3 we are commanded to keep “ the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace.” There is only one way to acquire unity in the Lord. Imitating the one body (church) where Jesus is the Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:21-23 “ far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come.
22 And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, 23 which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. ) that church that belong to Christ that we read in the Scriptures from the first century (Ephesians 4:4-6) “till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ;” ( Eph. 4:13) How is possible the unity of the Faith? through knowledge of the Son of God, by the New Testament that is the way we can known Jesus and his teachings and that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— (Under the Authority of Christ). The answer is an open heart toward the Word of God! the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God;(Eph.6:6). For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12, Psalm 119:159-161 ).
Today many people misunderstand the word of God because improper attitudes. Some do not love the truth (II Tes. 2:10-12), and thus willfully resist it. (II Tim. 3:8). Others wrest difficult passages, making them teach things which easier passages show to be untrue (II Peter 3:16).
Others, persons misunderstand the word of God by failing to distinguish between covenants. The word of God teach us that Christian are not under the Old Testament Law but rather under the law of the New Testament (Jer. 31:31,Heb. 8:6-13;Heb.9:15;Col. 2:14-16).
Anothers people do not accumulate all the evidence on a given subject before before formulating a conclusion. One should study the passage in its context and historical setting, and the parallel passages on the subject. For example the Great Commission of JesusChrist to His disciples is found in three different places, Mt.28:18-20,Mark 16:15-16, and Luke 24:46-48. If the account in Luke 24 is taken by itself, one can conclude that FAITH is not necessary to salvation since faith is not mentioned by name in that passage. If Mark 16:15,16 is taken by itself, one can conclude that REPENTENCE is not necessary, since repentance does not appear there.The fact is, that faith, repentance and baptism are all necessary to salvation. To learn this full truth, one must consider all three passages and not just one of the accounts.
At last, some people misunderstand God’s word because they do not study when men are not studying the scriptures as they once did, and consequently do not develop a saving faith that comes by hearing and obeying God’s Word (Rom.10:17). Though the Scriptures commands us to study (2 Tim. 2:15), many become so entangled in the things of the world that they think they do not have time to study the Scriptures (Luke 8:11; 2 Peter 2:20-22). For this reason many are not living so as to please God, since without faith it is impossible to please Him. (Heb.11:6) How sad is the fact that many will meet their maker without having made the proper preparation by obeying His Will (2 Tess. 1:7-9.).
Why Are so few Studying the Scriptures?
There are those who are utterly indifferent to the Scriptures and therefore do not study it. Really, these are those who do not have any interest in the bible and see it like just another book, and could care less whether it is true or not. They utterly reject its teaching. Jesus came in contact with people of this kind during his preaching. He said:
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them. (Mt.13:15)
He will not pardon and save those who are indifferent and refuse to study His Word (2 Thessalonians 2:10 )This people with all people of every nation “Christian and No Christian” shall recognize that Jesus had and has all Authority. For it is written:
“ As I live, says the LORD,
Every knee shall bow to Me,
And every tongue shall confess to God.”
12 So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. (Romans 14:11-12.
Then some do not study the word of God because they do not realize its importance. They are slightly concerned with religious subjects, but they have nrver developed an interest or taste for that kind of food. They do not “hunger and thirs after righteousness” or the commandments of the Lord (Matt. 5:6). They see other things as more important that the principles taught in the Bible. (1).
Others do not study the Bible for the simple reason that it condems their spiritual condition. Instead of attempting to change their condition they simply say, “ I have my own theory about life, and I am satisfied.” They do not wish to look into God’s Mirror for the soul (Jas. 1:21-25), because it reveals their hideous condition in the sight of God. They do not want to see themselves as God sees them. The writer of proverbs states of some’ “How I have hated instruction, And my heart despised correction!” (Prov. 5:12). When a faithful soul tries to teach this one, and show them their true spiritual condition they say, “Well that is just your interpretation.”
But there are also those who do not study the Bible because they have been told that the Bible can not be understood. In one form or another many preachers are proclaiming this error from their pulpits! (2 Cor. 11:14-15) Oh, how happy the Devil must be with his ministers who teach this! Sometimes this lie is told long enough and often enough that the unsuspecting will believe it. We submit without ever so full of deception, nor farther from the truth that this statement!
Christianity is a religion of Biblical Authority, (Col. 3:17, Acts 4:7-10) by the name of Jesus (by His Authority) all Religious division, conflicts and contradictions in our shamefully divided religious world, would cease if all would study the Scriptures as they should. But, what is so important about this fact? Why prove that He has all Authority? He was ( and He is) in position to be heir of all authority from the father. He met with his disciples upon a mountain of Galilee and confidently affirmed “All Authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth” (Mt.28:18,Mt.17:5)When Jesus speaks , His word are to be honored as God’s words (John 3:34, 7:17;14:10) God gave authority to the Son.
1).- How can we understand the Bible Alike? B.J. Clarke 2006 Power Lectures;Southaven church of Christ, southaven,Mississippi.P.15.
Rex, would you please come down here and take this cold weather back to New Jersey where it belongs!
Theophilus Dr,
What I present is the truth and nothing but the truth !!
Truth that has been hand handle by the apostles and given to us. Don't take the passage out of context because that passage was meant to be for the Sadducees that always wants to trick the Lord but the lord knew their intentions.
Guestfortruth:
For me (the person for whom I was speaking) legalism is sin and one who persists in legalism, in defiance of the Spirit, would be living in legalism which would be living in sin. This is rebellion, which is not something communed, shared, or fellowshipped with God. The analogy is valid as it applies to me. You can decide for yourself any further application.
Regarding “ears to hear.” It would seem that the decibel level of the message of grace is too low to meet auditory threshold. The “still small voice” is being drowned out by self-generated high amplitude noise. The bandwidth is so wide that it is difficult to even distinguish a particular frequency for a response.
It would be difficult to say it any better. Thank you for demonstrating a valid application of this passage –Matthew 22:29.
A poster wrote: "The person who baptize somebody needs to know what he is doing. The right way "Method" and the right purpose."
Or what? Is this a requirement for a baptism to be valid now too? What if the person that baptized the person that is now doing the baptizing didn't know what he was doing? Are all down line baptisms null and void?
Norton,
In the context of these discussions it is easy to be misunderstood as being ungracious. Perhaps it is not as much a misunderstanding as I think, so take what you read of mine with a grain of salt, as I see you are already doing.
As to whether or not the saints of God have collectively changed the mode of observance of the Lord's Supper remembrance and proclamation, it seems to my sometimes feeble mind that the mode is the bread and the fruit of the vine (grape juice or wine, interchangeably).
The amount is not specified.
The recipe for the bread is barely referenced as 'unleavened' by inference from the feast leading up to the Passover.
The alcohol content of the grape squeezings is never referenced.
The cup reference is only understood by customary reference to the Passover traditions.
What remains are what is specified. Jesus took the loaf and Jesus took the cup. Each was blessed. One was broken and eaten while the other was something to drink.
Have we changed either the modality (bread and fruit of the vine) or the meaning ascribed by the Lord? I am not aware of any such changes.
So how does baptism fit into this scenario?
The amount of water is signified as enough for burial of the body.
The word is defined as plunge, dip, submerge, immerse – despite the transliteration being re-defined, the Greek word is specific.
The action is something done to a person, rather than self-performed. (Again, the Greek is specific.)
The condition of the water is not specified beyond the references to Jesus being immersed in the Jordan River and the Ethiopian being immersed in an unspecified body of water visible from a chariot on the road descending (going down the mountain in a generally southwestern direction) from Jerusalem to Gaza.
So do we bury the one being immersed? Yes.
Do we follow the translated meaning or the transliterated word that has been changed from the early 2nd century (the Didache) and on until today? The translated meaning.
Do we immerse ourselves or follow the command to BE immersed?
And where do we now immerse the newbeliever into Christ? Everywhere from pools to bathtubs and rivers and lakes and streams and oceans – wherever we find enough water to immerse the person.
Am I too simple in thinking that we have not kept too many details by keeping that which is specifically and demonstrably written?
You decide.
Grizz
Theophilus Dr,
Where does the bible teach that legalism is a sin? if we examine the word " Legal" is a word that is very frecuent use in the court in front of a judge. One time I heard an illustration of a illigal guy, who went to the WWII and he did an Heroic Act that save a lots of lives, the president of the US was ready to give him "a purple heart" a medal that is granted to heroes in the military. But the guy unfortunately was not an american citizen. Did he get the medal? According to this illustration he was not legal and he could not receive it because he was not a citizen. The same way in the kingdom of God if we did not enter through the gate Luke 13:22-24 And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. 23 Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”And He said to them, 24 “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. Jesus advise us: "Strive to enter" he wants us to Strive to enter that mean that we need to do the things the right way as God has commanded in his word! we have been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever. When we follow God's commands that are in his word and we do it the right way God add us to his Church (Acts 2:47) and our names are in the book of life written in heaven Philippians 3:20 "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, We are save by grace of course, when we all heard the gospel of Christ we saw the grace of God "that save a wreach like me" and I accept the salvation that we don't deserve by own merit. What do you understand by grace brother?
Nancy,
If somebody was baptize by the wrong purpuse you will see their fruits!! (Carnal mind, does not strive been faithful to the lord, are members that they going to worship when they want, etc. at the end they go back to the world ). Usually, who was baptize because wants to be aproved by somebody else, Example: A boy wants to impress the daugther of a preacher and he wants to be accepted and after he is baptize he get accepted in the fellowship with the church after some days, months or year they leave the church and go back to the world. This happen also in Gospel meetings when because of the peer pressure somebody get baptized by just because pressure. If sincerely wants to be recognize in heaven needs to be genuine baptize making the commintment to remain faithful to the Lord. They need to be serious to become a Christian and don't play with their salvation.
But you wrote: "The person who baptize somebody needs to know what he is doing. The right way "Method" and the right purpose".
Are you saying that if the baptizer doesn't know what they are doing then the baptized is not genuinely baptized?
Keith,
If what I said doens't apply to you then don't take it personally. If I probably did paint with too broad a brush, but I believe this is the direction we are moving and in fact were many are already at.
Like it or not, we have many in churches of Christ who are infected with postmodern thinking. Please don't insult my intelligence by saying we don't:)!!
I'm now in my thirteen year of full time ministry and I've read too many blogs, journals, bulletins, books, essays, and had discusions with ministers, elders, members and even some of my fellow classmates in my Master's program at OC to believe otherwise.
Keith, you said,
"I don't believe you would find any of us saying, preaching, teaching or defending that."
Why don't we just let the words of my friend and former Harding undergrad classmate Rex, say it clearly in the context of whether or not God will accept sprinkling as subsitution for immersion for Biblical baptism.
Rex told me:
"God reveals himself as the Father, Son, and Spirit who saves those who seek him with their heart even if they don't get it legalistically correct."
He's repeated thes type of sentiments many, many times over.
Sincerity of heart will trump those who don't "get it legalsticallly correct."
By the way, man, if doing things exactly the way God commands us is legalistic, count me in:)lol!
Last time I checked Matthew 28:18-20 Jesus said, “teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.”
John put it best when he wrote, “…but whosoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected.” (1 John 2:5) Being motivated by His intense love for God, Jesus was compelled to “do EXACTLY (emphasis rp) as the Father commanded me.’ (John 14:31 NASB) His motivation was not command-keeping that resulted in love for God. It was His love for God that produced a loving, and exact obedience.
Rex my friend, I'm going to comment when I've got more time in some detail about this favorite proof text of Hezekiah's prayer in 2 Chronicles 30 that many progressives seem to keep coming back to over and over again
Humbly,
Robert Prater
Robert,
That's a nice spin on what I said. But when I did say "God reveals himself as the Father, Son, and Spirit who saves those who seek him with their heart even if they don't get it legalistically correct" I can assure you that I did not mean sincerity of the heart trumps everything. What I mean is that God's grace is bigger than our failures to understand and practice his instruction in scripture perfectly.
But if you want to insist that one must understand and practice the biblical teaching of baptism correctly (which is what I understand your position to be), then don't stop there…get it all correct because you don't get to pick and choose which scriptures must be understood and practiced correctly and which ones there is room for mistakes to be made.
As for 2 Chronicles 30…I didn't know it was a favorite proof-text for progressives. It just happened to be a passage I was preaching from the other Sunday on a short series about worshiping God. But why worry about proof-texts any ways…I'm certainly lagging way behind in the race to see who can throw out the most proof-texts from scripture :-).
Grace and Peace,
Rex
Tens of thousands were saved before one word of the New Testament was written. How in the wide, wide world did they make it without all the proof texts so many of use with the same ease of breathing?
Some of our petty arguments would be shocking to Christians in some parts of our world who face death almost daily for their faith in Christ.
Legalist = One who believes he has a "legal right" to God's benefits because of what he has done, is now doing, or will do. The question that should be discussed is this one. Is Jesus sufficient? Or is it Jesus plus……(you fill in the blank)?
Amen, Royce, well said.
A "legalist" not only believes what he has done is correct according to code, he believes how he has done it is correct, there are not acceptable alternatives, and everyone has to look at it this way. I.e., it is binding on everyone.
Why is legalism idolatry? (1) Because there is more faith placed in a method and in an interpretation than in grace. Grace has a place, to be sure, BUT you have to do …….. in order to be saved or to keep your status with God. (2) Because scripture references will be bent out of context almost to absurdity to support a binding doctrine or to not conflict with it. Inconsistency abounds, because the legalist says that is what other people do, not him. (3) Because the doctrine is raised up "in the high places" and is defended more readily and vehemently than the good name of Jesus Christ. (4) Because the "fruit" of legalism is the work of the flesh, discord, argumentation, division, chaos. Legalism does not lead to peace, love, or unity. (5) Someone in the freedom of grace will thoughtfully and prayerfully consider something; a legalist's first response to to deny and defend. Anything placed before God is idolatry.
I was praying about the division in the church in the US and a thought came to mind. Some might even call that a "word of prophecy."
“If you continue to abuse My grace by using your
circumstances as freedom to divide the body of
Christ, then I will change your circumstances.”
That was in the summer of 2008, before the national election, even before presidential candidate selection, before the turmoil in Egypt and in other middle East countries, before a lot of things.
Since the word "legalist" is starting to kicked away in some of these comments, and mostly in my direction, I feel I need to respond.
By the way we often use the word legalism, you would think that it is wrong to obey God! Indeed, we are reluctant to tell people to obey God. And when we do tell people to obey God's laws, we quickly add on many qualifiers so no one will think that we are legalistic (whatever that means).
Shame on me and shame on us if we ever imply that obedience to God is legalistic and that obedience to God is bad.
I fear that some in the church today and in broader Christian community are trying, at least at times, to justify their lawlessness with the word legalism.
We escape the demands of God's law by crying legalistic. "Oh, let's not be legalistic. Let's not be too picky about obeying God's commands. Let's not talk about rules and laws. After all, we don't want to be legalistic."
By using the word legalism in this fashion, we have created a sophisticated "theological smokescreen", a fancy way of stripping God's laws of their binding power.
Some are using this word legalism as camouflage for antinomianism and sin.
Hear me loud and clear: We do not keep God's commands in order to improve our standing with God. We do not keep God's laws in order to win His love, or to get more of His love.
Let me say this a different way. We keep God's commands because He has already redeemed us and He has already declared us to be righteous before the Father. We do not keep God's commands because our acceptance before God is still undecided, the whole thing is still in the balance, and what I do or don't do influences God's love towards me.
Please hear what I'm saying my progressive friends:
Obeying God's laws is an act of praise, not a bribe. Obeying God's commands is an act of gratitude, not a payment.
A legalistic spirit says, "What action of mine will make me right with God? What behavior of mine will improve my standing with God? What can I do so that God will love me more? What can I do so I can get more of God's grace?"
Legalism is not obeying God's commands. Obedience is good. Legalism is obeying God's commands with the WRONG motive.
This is what the Pharisees were guilty of doing. Their obedience was not the problem. Jesus never scolds the Pharisees for obeying God's laws or obeying God's laws too much. The Pharisees' problem was that they obeyed God from the WRONG MOTIVE. The Pharisees saw obedience (or prayer, or fasting, or other religious duties) as a bribe or payment.
And, at heart, this is why legalism is so damaging. It assaults what God has done in Christ. Legalism says, "I am not satisfied with my standing before God based solely upon Christ's righteousness. It's not good enough. I'm going to add something to it. I MUST add to what Christ has done."
Here's an observation:
Now what I am finding so interesting is that so much of the legalism debates these days centers on baptism. Are we legalists if we maintain the New Testament teaching that baptism is immersion in water for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38)?
Jesus clearly says the act of baptism is essential to one’s salvation. Jesus says that it is: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16).
But some come along and insist that, "Baptism is important, it should be done at some point, but it is not essential to one’s salvation." If a person never gets around to doing it, as long as they have faith alone in Christ, they are saved.
Would we not say that they are in error? They have singled out New Testament teaching on immersion for doctrinal execution! They are practicing selective obedience. They choose faith, but leave off baptism. Baptism, to them, is too restrictive – too "legalistic"!
But, selective obedience is the strongest form of legalism threatening the church today.
Me thinks that sometimes those who decry legalism the loudest, are themselves the strongest example of it!
Just something to think about.
In Christ,
Robert Prater
Robert wrote,
" I fear that some in the church today and in broader Christian community are trying, at least at times, to justify their lawlessness with the word legalism."
Robert,
Really? Seriously? Who among the Churches of Christ is guilty of "lawlessness"? Some of us disagree with you about what the laws of God are, but is anyone truly advocating lawlessness?
Robert said, "But, selective obedience is the strongest form of legalism threatening the church today."
It might be helpful, at least to me, in understanding your post if you could define more precisely what you mean by "selective obedience" used in the context of "strongest form of legalism."
I am a little confused on how to apply what you said. "Selective" with respect to what? Is it a selection from the two greatest commandments upon which all the Law and Prophets hang? (Matt 22:34-40). Is it a selection between a particular doctrinal viewpoint and "keep the unity of the Spirit?" (Eph. 4:3). Is it a "selection" between baptism within the Holy Spirit and baptism within water? (Acts 1:5). These are just some examples and not intended to be exhaustive.
Could you possibly expand on your statement? Thanks.
Jay,
You're right that you and I have a very different understanding
about what God's law are. I will not turn this into a "that's just your interpretation," debate.
My dear progressive friend, I've sat through countless Bible studies where a person makes such statments in light of clear truth and God's word.
Yes, good, sincere Bible believing and even Christian brethren will disagree over truth and God's will. We should not press our personal convictions and opinions upon each other and judge each other. (cf. Rom. 14-15)
But this doesn't apply where God has clearly spoken and commanded in His will.
There is only one faith (Eph. 4:5; Jude 3) or one truth (John 8:32; 17:17) that God has revealed to us. God has promised us that we can know what the truth is (1 Tim. 2:4; Eph. 3:4).
Our convictions must be firmly grounded in clear statements of Scripture. I can feel strongly about something, but if it is not clearly taught in Scripture it is a matter of my personal opinion and should not be forced upon others. I can know what is true when I “abide in the word” and discover God’s clearly stated truths
You and I may fail to fully understand them and practice them,but that doesn't change His commandments and will.
Jay,
I just agree with your assessments and obvious direction you feel so passionate about in taking churches of Christ. No surprise there:)! God will judge both you and I according to His Word. I leave the eternal judging to God. But we are called to be "fruit inspectors" and to oppose clear false teachings contratry to the commandments and words spoke by Christ and His apostles. (cf. Romans 16:17)
What about lawlessness?
Keep in mind that lawlessness in its broadest sense is defined in1 John 3:4 as being,”sin is lawlessness.” That one verse tells us how we can have this kind of lawlessness in the church and certainly the broader “Christian community.”
Now, truth be told, we probably don't think of people's sins as being lawlessness, but they are. Sin is the rejecting of God's law in our life and the acceptance of some other standard of behavior other than God's standard.
What examples you ask of lawlesness?
It is my conviction that those who causing division in the Lord’s church by advocating instrumental music in worship as being acceptable to God and are in fact leading congregations to practice such are guilty of practicing lawlessness (without authority of Christ and contrary to His expressed will to sing and make music in our hearts, cf. Eph. 5:19)
I’m sure you’re smart enough to figure out those individuals and congregations in the brotherhood who are leading such agendas:)!
What about those who are advocating that God will accept sprinkling in substitution for immersion? Or even the unnimmersed as long as their “heart is right and seeking God.”
What about the expanding roles of women leading in the assembling – praying and teaching and preaching. I’ve read from one very well known preacher’s blog where he posted some recent comments from a woman in their congregation who offered “communion mediations” from a Sunday morning table talk. I believe this to be a violation and rejection of what Paul outlines in 1 Timothy 2:8-12ff for the roles of men and women in the worship assembly.
I could go on with such examples which are just more doctrinal in nature and say nothing of the loose living and immoral behaviors and lifestyles that are being so accepted in far too many Christian's lives and congregations. When was the last time you heard of a congregation disciplining the immoral?
I keep coming back to Jesus saying, “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness’” (Matt. 7:23). These are people who acknowledged Jesus as “Lord.” They did many things in His name, but did not act according to His law. They were lawless, that is, they acted outside the bounds of Christ’s law, the New Testament gospel and words of Christ.
According to Jesus, these people do not “do the will of my Father” and are “workers of lawlessness.” In Luke 6:46, Jesus asked, “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and not do what I tell you?”
Again, these people act and sound religious. They may attend worship service and be involved in the church, but when it comes right down to it they refuse to do the will of God. There are many people who claim to be Christians yet there is a huge gap between their profession and their practice.
Why? Because they don't honor God by obeying His law. As the apostle John would later explain: "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, 'I know Him,' and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (1 John 2:3-4).
Earlier in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: "Whoever . . . breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called the least [by those] in the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 5:19).
Notice that Jesus speaks here of those who would disobey God and those who would teach others to disobey Him. So it's not only a matter of practicing lawlessness —but also of teaching it, whether through word or example.
Abraham Lincoln once said,
“The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of liberty.” (cf. Acts 20:28-29)
I can't improve any better on what he said.
Humbly,
Robert Prater
Nancy,
In certain way yes!
That situation is mention in Romans 10:14-15 "14 How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “ How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, Who bring glad tidings of good things!”
In the first century Philip the (Deacon and evangelist) was sent to preach a man of Ethiopia in Acts 8:26-40 the scripture says: "30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. The servant of the Lord should know How to teach the first steps of the Gospel as commanded in Mt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16) and show the prospect the way that the Christian were save in the first century and compare ourselves with the way we are save today the Evangelist "Preacher" or faithful Child of God should know the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16) show how to enter into Christ and grow in the knowledge of the Lord. ( 1 Peter 2:2 ;1 Peter 2:21). Today, when we find somebody teaching and practicing another message, We wisely follow the example found in Acts 18:24- 26 " Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. We like this Christian Couple show apollos the first steps of the Gospel accurately. Immersion (Right way) and for remission of sins ( Right Purpose). Every member of the Church that belong to Christ have the responsability of help those to be baptize into the real body of christ (His church) Mt.16:18,Romans 16:16. teach them all things that the Lord has commanded. Mt. 28:20.
1.- Hear the Gospel- Romans 10:17;Ephesians 3:4
2.- Believe the Gospel- Jonh 8:24,Hebrews 11:1,6,Mark 16:16, Acts 16:31
3.- Repent from your sins -Luke 13:3,5, Acts 2:38,Acts 17:30, Acts 3:19.
4.- Confess Jesus Christ- Matt. 10:32-33,Romans 10:9-10, Acts 8:37, Luke 12:8,
5.- Be baptized (Immersed)- Acts 2:38, Galatian 3:27, Romans 6:3-4.
6.- Be faithful until death – Revelation 2:10. Matthew 10:22, 1 Cor. 15:58,
Galatians 6:9.
Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters in Christ,
I ask you to consider these points:
1. When God said that he would preserve his Word, what did he mean?
Did he mean that he would preserve the original papyrus and parchment upon which his Word was written? If so, then his Word has disappeared as none of the original manuscripts remain.
Did he mean that he would preserve his word in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek only? He would not preserve his Word when it was translated into all the other languages of the world?
Or did God mean that he would preserve his Word…the message/the words…the Gospel: the free gift of salvation, and the true doctrines of the Christian Faith? Would God allow his Word/his message to mankind to be so polluted by translation errors that no translation, into any other language from the three original languages, continues to convey his true words?
2. There IS no translation of the Bible, from the original ancient languages, into any language, anywhere on earth, that translates the Bible as the Baptists/evangelicals believe it should be translated.
No Bible translation on earth translates Acts 2:38 as, “Repent and believe in Jesus Christ every one of you and you will receive the Holy Ghost. Then be baptized as a public profession of your faith.”
There is no translation that translates, into any language, Acts 22:16 as, “ And now why tarriest thou? arise, believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord. Then be baptized.” Not a single translation in the entire world translates that verse in any way remotely resembling the manner in which Baptists believe it should be translated.
Isn’t that a problem?
And this verse, I Peter 3:21 as, “Asking Christ into your heart in a spiritual baptism, which water Baptism symbolizes, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,”
And Mark 16:16 as, “He that believes will be saved, and then baptized, but he that does not believe will be condemned.”
Why would God allow EVERY English translation of the Bible throughout history to be mistranslated or use such confusing language as to suggest that God forgives sins in Baptism? And not only all English translations, ALL translations of the Bible have retained these “mistranslations or confusing wording”.
Do you honestly believe that God would allow his Word to be so polluted with translation errors that EVERY Bible in the world, if read in its simple, plain interpretation, would tell all the people of the world that God forgives sins in water baptism??
3. Why is there not one single piece of evidence from the early Christians that indicates that ANYONE in the 800-1,000 years after Christ believed that: Water baptism is ONLY a public profession of faith/act of obedience; sins are NOT forgiven in water baptism? Yes, you will find statements by these early Christians that salvation is by faith, but do Baptists and evangelicals really understand how a sinner obtains saving faith? THAT IS THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION, MY FRIENDS! Does the sinner produce faith by his own free will or does God provide faith and belief as a gift, and if God does provide faith and belief as a free gift, with no strings attached, when exactly does God give it?
4. Is it possible that: Baptist-like believers, at some point near or after 1,000 AD, were reading the Bible and came across verses that read “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved” and “Call upon the name of the Lord and you will be saved” and established their doctrine of Salvation/Justification first, based on these and similar verses alone, and then, looked at the issue of water baptism, and since the idea that God forgives sins in water baptism doesn’t seem to fit with the verses just mentioned, re-interpreted these verses to fit with their already established doctrine, instead of believing the “baptism verses” literally?
Is it possible that BOTH groups of verses are literally correct?? If we believe God’s Word literally, he says that he saves/forgives sins when sinners believe/call AND when they are baptized? Why not believe that God can give the free gift of salvation in both situations: when a sinner hears the Gospel and believes and when a sinner is baptized?
Should we re-interpret God’s plain, simple words just because they don’t seem to make sense to us?
Dear Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters, your doctrine is very well thought out and very reasonable…but it is wrong. Do you really believe that God would require an education in ancient Greek or a Greek lexicon to understand what he really wants to say to you? And do you really believe that Baptist “Greek” scholars understand Greek better than the Greeks themselves? If the Greek language, correctly translated, states in the Bible that Baptism is only a public profession of faith as Baptists say, then why do the Greek Orthodox believe that the Greek Bible plainly says, in Greek, that God forgives sins in water baptism? Somebody doesn’t know their Greek!
Please investigate this critical doctrine further. Do you really want to appear before our Lord in heaven one day and find out that you have been following a false doctrine invented in the sixteenth century by Swiss Ana-baptists?
God bless you!
Gary
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com/2013/06/the-early-church-fathers-believed-in.html